NY activist judges allow same sex marriage

[OCA]

The only thing crystal clear is the view one would get looking into your right ear and out your left. Do you call a man who molests a little girl a heterosexual? I highly doubt it. Go back outside and play!

Missle you've been getting smoked all over this board...your in no position to flame long standing members. Pick up the quality content of your posts.

 

[MJDuncan1982]

Or, indeed, the concept of justice itself. Every great now and then, I see sanity trying to bloom in this country (the Eason Jordan affair, for example), and it allows me to cling to hope. It's a rough go, though. Radicalism has given us a long, hard winter.

I hold the exact opposite view regarding the Eason Jordan fiasco. It was a case of a horrible choice of words. The conservative blogosphere then jumped on him because he works for CNN. For him to get fired for what happened was ridiculous. Intent plays a HUGE role in justice. Mere words only provide evidence of that intent.
"
Edit: Fellow 'real' journalists (not hacks with computers) know this was bunk:

David Gergen, editor at large at U.S. News & World Report, said he "sort of gasped" when Jordan spoke of journalists being "deliberately killed," but that Jordan "realized, as soon as he said it, he'd gone too far" and "walked it back." Jordan then expressed "a very deep concern about whether our soldiers on the ground level are using as much care as they should" when journalists are involved, said Gergen, who moderated the discussion."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A6490-2005Feb7?language=printer

 

[MissileMan]

I am the standard.

As regular members are prohibited from flaming moderators, I'd call it pretty chicken shit to render a personal attack on someone when you know they aren't supposed to attack back.

A rational argument has been laid upon you by me and others 100 ways from Sunday but your liberalism blinds you to the truth. Somewhere inside you is the ability to comprehend hard reality from glittering generalities and words, although good in intention have no usefulness and practicality to real life.

There have been some rational arguments posted by those opposed to gay marriage...unfortunately, I can't remember a single one of yours being among them.

Yes, an adult male raping a juvenile male is homosexual pedophilia and likewise between a heterosexual male and a juvenile female is heterosexual pedophilia. Please quit parsing words to hide the awful truth. And while were at it lets be a man and fess up to the statistics being in favor astronomically of homosexuals committing pedophilia.

I'm not parsing words. I was arguing that there is a distinction between pedophilia and homosexuality just as there is a distinction between pedophilia and heterosexuality.

BTW i've kicked your ass in the arena of ideas and if you want to go to flaming.....I excel in both arenas with a skill known by only a select few.

Only in your altered sense of reality...you are an amateur.

You just need to accept that you are wrong on this subject and move on...you can never prove that its normal for two people of the same sex to be together in the manner that marriage denotes and yes the ball is in your court, you are the prosecution and the burden of proof lies with you. Until that time we(the majority of America) will consider homosexuality a vile lifestyle choice by default.

I'll continue to argue against your demonization of a minority not because I think they are right, but because I think you are wrong. If you don't like it, tough shit.

 

[Bullypulpit]

Thought you were posting something interesting and different, for about half a second there. Nope. Same old tired tripe. Skew the statistics by bastardizing definition. Pretend that sexual preference is irrelevant to child molestation. Don't you get tired of pissing into the wind, Bully?

These loaded, preposterous "studies" will continue as long as there is someone with money, and a vested interest in legitimizing homosexuality. Dr. Cameron's findings on homosexual child molesters are coming up on a quarter of a century old. You KNOW that attempts to find a credible refutation of these statistics has been an ongoing quest every minute of that time - indeed, they're probably going on as we speak. Don't you think they would have found something, other than this pathetic manipulation of the English language, by now - if it existed?

It's true, Bully. I'm sorry.

I must admit that your amateur psychoanalysis of me was a unique touch, though. Irrelevant, pointless, and wrong - but unique.

No, but I do so enjoy pissing in your Cheerios! Have a nice day!

 

[MissileMan]

Missle you've been getting smoked all over this board...your in no position to flame long standing members. Pick up the quality content of your posts.

Please call it down the middle or put away your whistle.

 

[musicman]

No, but I do so enjoy pissing in your Cheerios! Have a nice day!

You are a caution, Bully!

 

[musicman]

An average of 60 home runs a year? The Babe only hit 60 home runs once in his career-- his average was ~44.

I can't tell if you're being serious, because this is the nuttiest baseball statistics argument that's ever been made. Ever. By anyone. Anywhere. You're arguing that the person with the most home runs ever isn't the person with the most home runs ever, because #2 *could* have gotten more under different circumstances.

That said, Babe Ruth is without question the best ball player in the history of the game. But watch out for Albert Pujols...

It was more an object lesson on the silliness of "loading" statistics.

I agree with your assessments of both Ruth and Pujols.

 

[musicman]

I hold the exact opposite view regarding the Eason Jordan fiasco. It was a case of a horrible choice of words. The conservative blogosphere then jumped on him because he works for CNN. For him to get fired for what happened was ridiculous. Intent plays a HUGE role in justice. Mere words only provide evidence of that intent.
"
Edit: Fellow 'real' journalists (not hacks with computers) know this was bunk:

David Gergen, editor at large at U.S. News & World Report, said he "sort of gasped" when Jordan spoke of journalists being "deliberately killed," but that Jordan "realized, as soon as he said it, he'd gone too far" and "walked it back." Jordan then expressed "a very deep concern about whether our soldiers on the ground level are using as much care as they should" when journalists are involved, said Gergen, who moderated the discussion."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A6490-2005Feb7?language =printer

If Jordan had made a clean breast of it and apologized - if the mainstream media had done their jobs instead of circling the wagons - there wouldn't really have been much of a story to report. For, the real story, you see, is the combination of CNN's INSTITUTIONALIZED hatred of America and the LMM's arrogant belief that THEY can decide what is or isn't news.
These folks have got to realize that they're not the only game in town anymore; they've got to start playing cleaner.

 

[007]

No, but I do so enjoy pissing in your Cheerios! Have a nice day!

And with that comment pul'it, you've just made perfectly clear your purpose here to everyone on this board... if they didn't already know.

And speaking of pissing... I wouldn't piss on your filthy liberal ass if you were on fire.

Have a nice day.

 

[Yurt]

Well, so much for moderators being held to a higher standard on this board. You resort to name calling just like some of the others when you can't present a rational argument.

You can't seem to comprehend my argument that sex between adults and children is pedophilia, period. We don't say that a man having sex with a 4-year-old girl is practicing a form of heterosexuality, we say he is practicing pedophilia. You however, in your blind hatred of homosexuals refuse to separate pedophilia from adult-to-adult homosexuality.

Online merriam-webster:

Main Entry: 1ho·mo·sex·u·al
Pronunciation: "hO-m&-'sek-sh(&-)w&l, -'sek-sh&l
Function: adjective
1 : of, relating to, or characterized by a tendency to direct sexual desire toward another of the same sex
2 : of, relating to, or involving sexual intercourse between persons of the same sex- ho·mo·sex·u·al·ly adverb


Main Entry: 1het·ero·sex·u·al
Pronunciation: "he-t&-rO-'sek-sh(&-)w&l, -'sek-sh&l
Function: adjective
Etymology: International Scientific Vocabulary
1 a : of, relating to, or characterized by a tendency to direct sexual desire toward the opposite sex b : of, relating to, or involving sexual intercourse between individuals of opposite sex
2 : of or relating to different sexes


Main Entry: pe·do·phil·ia
Pronunciation: "pE-d&-'fi-lE-&
Function: noun
Etymology: New Latin
: sexual perversion in which children are the preferred sexual object


Question:

Based on the above definitions, is it not true that when a man commits his sexual perversion with a male child (even though the attribute is non sex specific) commits a "homosexual" act, given that a homosexual act is defined as follows: involving sexual intercourse between persons of the same sex?

Open to anyone to answer...

 

[musicman]

I say yes - obviously so, self-evidently so, and by definition, so.

 

[Gem]

The only problem I see with this is the characterization of pedophiles as homosexual or heterosexual only based upon the sex of the children they prey upon.

Many male pedophiles who prey on male children (which I would call homosexual pedophilic sex acts) are married to women, and have an active sexual life with them.

Many male pedophiles who prey on small boys are not involved in adult homosexual relationships...but rather, are involved in heterosexual relationships.

So therefore are they homosexual because of their pedophilic relationships? Or bisexual, because they enjoy sex with male children and adult females????

 

[musicman]

The only problem I see with this is the characterization of pedophiles as homosexual or heterosexual only based upon the sex of the children they prey upon.

Many male pedophiles who prey on male children (which I would call homosexual pedophilic sex acts) are married to women, and have an active sexual life with them.

Many male pedophiles who prey on small boys are not involved in adult homosexual relationships...but rather, are involved in heterosexual relationships.

So therefore are they homosexual because of their pedophilic relationships? Or bisexual, because they enjoy sex with male children and adult females????

Ah, but the perpetrator of homosexual rape (and child molestation is ALWAYS rape) is most assuredly a homosexual, is he not? And the fact that he only rapes in his homosexual context does not make him EXCLUSIVELY a pedophile; put another way, that doesn't render his homosexuality irrelevant. To attempt to somehow, linguistically separate the two offers - it seems to me - a rather convenient excuse for those trying to avoid an awful truth about homosexuality. But society ignores this truth at it's peril.

 

[musicman]

I must apologize, Gem. I somehow missed your last sentence, where you brought up bisexuality. Believe it or not, I have actually seen bisexuality offered as a "wild card" in this very argument (the board has had this discussion many times). The numbers on homosexual child molestation don't hold - I've heard it opined - because they fail to factor in bisexuality. Do you give this argument any weight?

I consider it ridiculous. Bisexuality presupposes homosexuality. It is only agenda-driven verbal gymnastics to try to present bisexuals as "neither". Moreover, given that we are designed for procreation, and that homosexuals have been a tiny minority all throughout history (the statistical anomaly or abberration), it is equally ridiculous and agenda-driven to say, "bisexuality presupposes heterosexuality". Bisexuality presupposes belonging to the statistical anomaly (homosexuals) that society, for it's own protection, must take a hard look at right now. Those who engage in the behavior that makes them this anomaly seek legitimization - a series of rights where no rights now exist - based solely on the fact that they engage in this behavior. Heterosexuals cannot - and need not - make this claim. If society retains any semblance of sanity, it must not ignore the numbers on homosexual child molestation. These figures are real, and we dare not ignore them.

 

[Bullypulpit]

Ah, but the perpetrator of homosexual rape (and child molestation is ALWAYS rape) is most assuredly a homosexual, is he not? And the fact that he only rapes in his homosexual context does not make him EXCLUSIVELY a pedophile; put another way, that doesn't render his homosexuality irrelevant. To attempt to somehow, linguistically separate the two offers - it seems to me - a rather convenient excuse for those trying to avoid an awful truth about homosexuality. But society ignores this truth at it's peril.

<blockquote>The biggest misunderstanding many people have is that pedophilia and homosexuality are one and the same. But to say that all homosexuals are pedophiles, or that all pedophiles are homosexual, is like comparing apples to rat poison. "They certainly are two distinct things," says James Hord, a psychologist in Panama City, Fla., who specializes in treating sexually abused children.
Hord explains that while some pedophiles may prefer boys over girls, or vice versa, it's not so much about gender as it is about age. For homosexuals, Hord says, sexual preference is "simply not linked to the age." If a man, for instance, is attracted to other adult males, he is a homosexual. A man who is sexually attracted to male children is not considered a homosexual: He is a pedophile. (1.)</blockquote>

And this is what confuses so many people...The pedophile has no real desire for relationships with people his/her own age, of either gender. Pedophilia, like any other sex-crime is not about sexual gratification, it is about power.

The diagnostic criteria of pedophilia are as follows:

<blockquote><center>Diagnostic criteria for 302.2 Pedophilia</center>

A. Over a period of at least six months, recurrent, intense sexually arousing fantasies, sexual urges, or behaviors involving sexual activity with a prepubescent child or children (generally age 13 years or younger).

B. The person has acted on these sexual urges, or the sexual urges or fantasies caused marked distress or interpersonal difficulty.

C. The person is at least age 16 years and at least 5 years older than the child or children in Criterion A.(2.)</blockquote>

Attempting to classify homosexuals as pedophiles and vice/versa is simply an attempt to demonize a minority by defining them as a threat to the most vulnerable amongst us. Homosexual acts between consenting adults are a normal expression of human sexuality.

Citations:

(1.)<b><i> Explaining Pedophilia </i></b>, to be found here:

http://www.denisebrown.com/pedophila _homosexuality.htm

(2.)<b><i>From DSM IV - TR (Revised): Sexual and Gender Identity Disorders</i></b>, to be found here:

http://home.tiscali.nl/~ti137156/helping/articles/dsm.htm

 

[musicman]

Get Away From My Damn Cheerios, Bully!

 

[musicman]

<blockquote>The biggest misunderstanding many people have is that pedophilia and homosexuality are one and the same. But to say that all homosexuals are pedophiles, or that all pedophiles are homosexual, is like comparing apples to rat poison. "They certainly are two distinct things," says James Hord, a psychologist in Panama City, Fla., who specializes in treating sexually abused children.
Hord explains that while some pedophiles may prefer boys over girls, or vice versa, it's not so much about gender as it is about age. For homosexuals, Hord says, sexual preference is "simply not linked to the age." If a man, for instance, is attracted to other adult males, he is a homosexual. A man who is sexually attracted to male children is not considered a homosexual: He is a pedophile. (1.)</blockquote>

And this is what confuses so many people...The pedophile has no real desire for relationships with people his/her own age, of either gender.

Wishing doesn't make it so, Bully. I don't see the "adult" designation or the "his/her own age" qualification in any dictionary definition of homosexuality. It is male-on-male sex, period, paragraph. And the male child molester who has sex with a male child has most assuredly commited homosexual rape. He is a homosexual pedophile. The one term does not render the other irrelevant. Sorry.

 

[musicman]

Either your Dr. Hord is too dull to appreciate the social and political implications of what he's saying, or he understands them all too well - and is an ambitious opportunist who considers his agenda more important than the public's well-being.

I'd say his credibility is nil either way.

 

[MissileMan]

Online merriam-webster:

Main Entry: 1ho·mo·sex·u·al
Pronunciation: "hO-m&-'sek-sh(&-)w&l, -'sek-sh&l
Function: adjective
1 : of, relating to, or characterized by a tendency to direct sexual desire toward another of the same sex
2 : of, relating to, or involving sexual intercourse between persons of the same sex- ho·mo·sex·u·al·ly adverb


Main Entry: 1het·ero·sex·u·al
Pronunciation: "he-t&-rO-'sek-sh(&-)w&l, -'sek-sh&l
Function: adjective
Etymology: International Scientific Vocabulary
1 a : of, relating to, or characterized by a tendency to direct sexual desire toward the opposite sex b : of, relating to, or involving sexual intercourse between individuals of opposite sex
2 : of or relating to different sexes


Main Entry: pe·do·phil·ia
Pronunciation: "pE-d&-'fi-lE-&
Function: noun
Etymology: New Latin
: sexual perversion in which children are the preferred sexual object


Question:

Based on the above definitions, is it not true that when a man commits his sexual perversion with a male child (even though the attribute is non sex specific) commits a "homosexual" act, given that a homosexual act is defined as follows: involving sexual intercourse between persons of the same sex?

Open to anyone to answer...

Yes, technically, it is a homosexual act. The point I've been trying to make is that saying that homosexuality is vile because some homosexuals go after boys is not a valid argument because we don't say that heterosexuality is vile because some men go after little girls.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Yes, technically, it is a homosexual act. The point I've been trying to make is that saying that homosexuality is vile because some homosexuals go after boys is not a valid argument because we don't say that heterosexuality is vile because some men go after little girls.

Please allow me to speak for everyone. I think you're getting your cart before the horse on this one. No one is saying that BECAUSE some homosexuals go after boys homosexuality is wrong. Most people who are anti gay are anti gay even when children are not involved. What is ridiculous is to deny there IS a homosexual component to homosexual pedophilia. This is too politically incorrect.