NY activist judges allow same sex marriage

[MissileMan]

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.

So do you only give credence to those studies that come to the conclusion you want? That doesn't seem like a logical way to come to the truth of any matter.

 

[musicman]

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.

That's fair enough. How would you feel about this statement, though?

Before we create a new set of rights for people who engage in a given behavior - based solely on the fact that they engage in that behavior - legitimizing that behavior out of hand - we, as a society might do well to consider this fact:

Homosexuals go after boys at a rate - relative to their population - that is wildly out of whack with the rate at which heterosexuals go after little girls.

 

[musicman]

So do you only give credence to those studies that come to the conclusion you want? That doesn't seem like a logical way to come to the truth of any matter.

Well, no. I give creedence to studies which manifest themselves as genuine searches for truth - employing logic, facts, and respect for words, numbers, and their meanings. What I will NOT give creedence to is stupidity, or agenda-driven word games.

 

[musicman]

Whoops - I misspelled, "credence". Obviously, I was thinking about the Clearwater Revival....

 

[no1tovote4]

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????

It appears more to me that they marry and create a "normal 'nilla life" in order to hide this particular proclivity for the homosexual rape of the young, not because they are heterosexual with a fetish.

Much like some internal cultures here in the US so demonize homosexuality that they often marry a woman and keep their homosexuality on the "down-low". In other words marrying was a sign that they are "normal" but their real proclivity lies in consensual homosexual sex with adults.

However in Pedophilia they take it a step further and bring it upon children that cannot consent to such action. It is still simply an attempt to hide their true desire, not a sign of "bisexuality".

 

[Yurt]

<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

Ok, as said above, some here, myself included, are not demonizing homosexaulity to to homosexaul men commiting pedophilia with small boys. This type of knee jerk comment is oft found from the left when the right makes a statement of fact. You claim that because we say something true, that what we are "really" trying to do is demonize it. This is a very weak stance and if it is your only rebuttal, then it is no rebuttal at all, rather a continuation of demonizing other peoples remarks.

As to Gem's post on bisexuality, at first blush she has a good point. I would however, ask that one consider what "bisexual" means. In our case, it means one who is "homosexual" and "hetrosexual." I agree that this word has been used to indicate that because the person is both, he really isn't homosexual. And the taint on the word is, "he is really more hetrosexual" rather than homosexual. Sorry, but the definition does not give a count of how many times you go in the back door or fondles another mans penis, before one is considered a homosexual. Therefore, the premise still stands, the person is homosexual.

Here's a thought, did not read a study, but just a thought.

There has been many posts that say, well, the pedophilia is often a married man and just because touches or screws little boys does not a homosexual make. Really? Could it be that the person is truly a homosexual but is afraid for various reasons to admit it, so stays with his wife to avoid suspicion, then corners some little innocent boy, who won't tell, and commits his suppressed homosexual desires in a sick way.

This is not true of All pedo's, however, just a thought.

And as Missile said, technically it is homosexuality. There you have it, techno or not.

 

[musicman]

And, when a bisexual molests children only in the context of his homosexuality, he is then a homosexual when he molests - a homosexual child molester. Homosexual defenders cannot, then, attempt to defend him, statistically, with his incidental heterosexuality. He is homosexual when he molests; he molests homosexually; he is a homosexual child molester. His heterosexual activity is immaterial to the discussion. To say that he is bisexual, and therefore not to blame EXCLUSIVELY as a homosexual offender is, then, ludicrous.

 

[OCA]

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

It is called down the middle, you got caught, don't puss out now.

 

[OCA]

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.


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.


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.


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



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.

Here are my rules in accordance to me with flaming. If you flame me and I decide to not flame you back you are in violation of the rules. If I initiate the flaming feel free to flame me all you want, i've been into it with the heavyweights here and come out on top everytime, you are nothing but a sparring warmup match.

You flamed a member who had not flamed you, and if you think i'm being partial on this check out my history with said member RWA, we have not exactly had a simbiotic relationship here, more like love-hate. So yes I am VERY impartial. Anyway your violating the rules by even discussing this on the open board. Take this elsewhere.

You cannot remember rational argument from me because you are prejudiced, i've posted and you ignored the logical thought in the content, not my problem. This is a black and white issue, if you can't realize that seek help.

 

[OCA]

OCA, that is without any doubt the most bigoted, self righteous, intellectually bankrupt, and imbecillic statement I have ever seen posted on this board.

Lets revisit the statement from which this uninvited diatribe of slop sprang from.

Can you refute any of it? Post will follow

 

[OCA]

Nakey you are twisting things. You are in fact arguing that homosexuality is right because of its rare instances in nature. Regardless this is a mute point because even if it is genetic we all know that its wrong and we have self control and the ability to reason between right and wrong. If you are a homosexual genetic defect you'll just have to accept your lot in life and marriage(unless with an opposite sex member) will not be available to you due to your defect. Its a heavy cross to bear but you can do it.

Missle or anyone else, can you deny that this is not the current state in America in relation to the topic discussed?

 

[Yurt]

Missle or anyone else, can you deny that this is not the current state in America in relation to the topic discussed?

Originally Posted by OCA
Nakey you are twisting things. You are in fact arguing that homosexuality is right because of its rare instances in nature. Regardless this is a mute point because even if it is genetic we all know that its wrong and we have self control and the ability to reason between right and wrong. If you are a homosexual genetic defect you'll just have to accept your lot in life and marriage(unless with an opposite sex member) will not be available to you due to your defect. Its a heavy cross to bear but you can do it.

Not quite sure what you mean, but your statement is overbroad and crude.

Let's start from the Bible, for your post is really only valid under this assumption.

For one, we all have genetic defects, it is called sin and is compounded the further we are from Eden. To point out one particular sin, ie, the act of laying with a man as with a woman, as the most sinful and then label it a genetic defect is narrow.

For example: other things in the bible which are an abomination

10And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which is in the waters, they shall be an abomination unto you:

11They shall be even an abomination unto you; ye shall not eat of their flesh, but ye shall have their carcases in abomination.

12Whatsoever hath no fins nor scales in the waters, that shall be an abomination unto you.

Yes, so eating shellfish is an abomination. Ever eat shrimp? Lobster?

These also are an abomination:

These six things doth the LORD hate: yea, seven are an abomination unto him:

17A proud look, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood,

18An heart that deviseth wicked imaginations, feet that be swift in running to mischief,

19A false witness that speaketh lies, and he that soweth discord among brethren.

What I am trying to understand is, how can one have so much hatred for one abomination and not the others? Maybe you do condemn them all, but do you condemn your friend whom you know has lied like you condemn someone who is homosexual?

Who can cast the first stone? Love the sinner, not the sin.

With no religion as your foundation:

To say it is "right" or "wrong" where is your authority?


I have no problem with you not liking the homosexual lifestyle, I do however have a problem with you blanket assertions of all homosexuals. Especially being labled "genetic freaks." I appreciate that you are the greatest flamer (person who puts others down on this board), but you have no right to put down an entire people when there are homosexuals who do not have anal sex, yes, a part of the defintion was to have feelings toward the same sex. To deny that those feelings are real, is to deny reality.

I have had a few friends who are gay. Some struggled relentlessly to overcome their feelings. They did not want to be gay. The shame, the humialition. Do we condone the behavior? No. Do we still care for the person, YES. Every single one of these people that were in the Church, left. Why? Because when they came out, they were ostracized, severely.

If you can't chill out your tone, you need to get some help. There is no call for such vial hatred from you OCA. If you are a christian, then doubly so. As you said, you are a long standing member with mod rights, don't abuse it.

Yurt

 

[OCA]

Not quite sure what you mean, but your statement is overbroad and crude.

Let's start from the Bible, for your post is really only valid under this assumption.

For one, we all have genetic defects, it is called sin and is compounded the further we are from Eden. To point out one particular sin, ie, the act of laying with a man as with a woman, as the most sinful and then label it a genetic defect is narrow.

For example: other things in the bible which are an abomination



Yes, so eating shellfish is an abomination. Ever eat shrimp? Lobster?

These also are an abomination:



What I am trying to understand is, how can one have so much hatred for one abomination and not the others? Maybe you do condemn them all, but do you condemn your friend whom you know has lied like you condemn someone who is homosexual?

Who can cast the first stone? Love the sinner, not the sin.

With no religion as your foundation:

To say it is "right" or "wrong" where is your authority?


I have no problem with you not liking the homosexual lifestyle, I do however have a problem with you blanket assertions of all homosexuals. Especially being labled "genetic freaks." I appreciate that you are the greatest flamer (person who puts others down on this board), but you have no right to put down an entire people when there are homosexuals who do not have anal sex, yes, a part of the defintion was to have feelings toward the same sex. To deny that those feelings are real, is to deny reality.

I have had a few friends who are gay. Some struggled relentlessly to overcome their feelings. They did not want to be gay. The shame, the humialition. Do we condone the behavior? No. Do we still care for the person, YES. Every single one of these people that were in the Church, left. Why? Because when they came out, they were ostracized, severely.

If you can't chill out your tone, you need to get some help. There is no call for such vial hatred from you OCA. If you are a christian, then doubly so. As you said, you are a long standing member with mod rights, don't abuse it.

Yurt

Again a person who believes that to be opposed to homosexuality can only be done through Christianity, how boorish.

Yes homosexuality could be a genetic defect(my personal belief is its a choice) much the same as being born with one foot, a cleft palate etc. etc., if its a defect why is it that we cannot even contemplate treatment? Why do you want my voice silenced and not the other side?(this is how it is in America). Your friends knew what they were doing was wrong hence the feelings of guilt and shame, there is nothing wrong with that, shows they had a conscience, they still needed help which apparently you were unable to give them. Your friends were ostracized apparently because they would not repent their sins, one cannot pick and choose which parts of the bible they believe and if they cannot admit they are wrong, well ostracization is appropriate(after attempts to help of course).Thanks for quoting stuff from the old testament and trying to use them, i'm not Jewish.

Sin is not a genetic defect either, get real. Your talking about original sin and that is a whole other subject, not even in the ballpark here. I'm talking abnormality, something wrong with the plumbing.

Now if I can't chill out my tone? Did I miss you getting elevated here? If so congratulations, if not well you can guess what i'm thinking right about now.

Greatest flamer? I'm tough and as long as you're not a woman(I have morals, no yelling at women) and don't flame me you will not be flamed from me. This popular and erroneous misconception of me as only a flamer is really laughable, I get a real kick out of feeding the myth, but if you would like to you can peruse my 4,000+ posts from beginning to present in order to educate yourself and to see that I have excelled repeatedly at the intellectual debate and I can be the most downright ruthless asshole here. How you want to proceed is up to you.

I don't think anyone, present or past member, can truthfully say that I ever flamed them just for the hell of it.

 

[OCA]

Nakey you are twisting things. You are in fact arguing that homosexuality is right because of its rare instances in nature. Regardless this is a mute point because even if it is genetic we all know that its wrong and we have self control and the ability to reason between right and wrong. If you are a homosexual genetic defect you'll just have to accept your lot in life and marriage(unless with an opposite sex member) will not be available to you due to your defect. Its a heavy cross to bear but you can do it.

This statement is clear and concise, there are moral absolutes in life, that you should not sleep with a member of the same sex is undoubtedly and unarguably one of them. If you make the choice to do so you do so knowing full well that choices have consequences, we should not here in America make special laws and rights to accomodate someone's poor choices in life.

 

[MissileMan]

You flamed a member who had not flamed you

I think you need to reread RWA's post...mine was a retaliatory flame.

 

[MissileMan]

Missle or anyone else, can you deny that this is not the current state in America in relation to the topic discussed?

You believe homosexuality is a life style choice, I believe that it is something a person is born with. Neither one of us can say for sure, because there hasn't been a sufficient amount of study done to discover the truth.

If it is indeed a defect that someone is born with, then it is their nature to be attracted to members of the same sex. To insist that these people must deny their nature because you find it offensive is highly presumptive at best. You say that they should seek a remedy for their condition, but what if the problem is untreatable? Why should these people be denied the chance to enter into a binding relationship with a person of their choosing if that other person is interested in the same thing?

 

[MissileMan]

Well, no. I give creedence to studies which manifest themselves as genuine searches for truth - employing logic, facts, and respect for words, numbers, and their meanings. What I will NOT give creedence to is stupidity, or agenda-driven word games.

There are a couple of points in this study

http://www.ipce.info/ipceweb/Library/freund_etiological.htm

that are in conflict with some that are being presented.

"our estimate of the ratio of the offenders against female children versus offenders against male children was recalculated to approximately 11:1"

This ratio works out to 8.3% of pedophiles being of the homosexual variety, which makes it only slightly higher than the ratio of heterosexual:homosexual in the adult population.

There's also a possible explanation given for the higher number of victims of homosexual pedophiles:
"The tendency of the offenders against male children to have a greater number of victims suggests that this group may contain a larger proportion of true pedophiles than the group of offenders against female children. This conjecture concurs with the results of two earlier studies. One of these studies, (Freund et al., 1987), compared sex offenders against female minors and sex offenders against male minors ("incest" offenders excluded). Among the offenders against female children there were more individuals who had only one victim rather than two or more victims, whereas among offenders against male children the opposite was true"

Now I can't say for sure if this study is any more accurate than the one's you've been citing, but it does provide information to consider.

 

[MJDuncan1982]

This statement is clear and concise, there are moral absolutes in life, that you should not sleep with a member of the same sex is undoubtedly and unarguably one of them. If you make the choice to do so you do so knowing full well that choices have consequences, we should not here in America make special laws and rights to accomodate someone's poor choices in life.

There are moral absolutes in life...bold statement. Please provide evidence for such a claim, as well as for the stubborn and un-democratic assertion that there can be no discussion about the 'rightness' or 'wrongness' regarding homosexuality.

 

[Yurt]

I don't think anyone, present or past member, can truthfully say that I ever flamed them just for the hell of it.

Now if I can't chill out my tone? Did I miss you getting elevated here? If so congratulations, if not well you can guess what i'm thinking right about now.

No, actually I do not know what you are thinking. But, it does sound like a threat. Is this how you treat members on this board? What the hell did I do to you that deserved this veiled ambiguous threat?

And what is the "elevated" stuff you are talking about? So on this board, he/she who has more posts is better than someone like me? I give respect where respect is due, but your comment clearly infers that my small post number accompanied by my rebuke of your hatred, not you personally, but your hatred, somehow "elevated" me, because posters like me can't say anything to a poster of your magnitude? Tell me I read into that wrong.

Greatest flamer? I'm tough and as long as you're not a woman(I have morals, no yelling at women) and don't flame me you will not be flamed from me. This popular and erroneous misconception of me as only a flamer is really laughable, I get a real kick out of feeding the myth, but if you would like to you can peruse my 4,000+ posts from beginning to present in order to educate yourself and to see that I have excelled repeatedly at the intellectual debate and I can be the most downright ruthless asshole here. How you want to proceed is up to you.

From a post not so long ago:

Here are my rules in accordance to me with flaming. If you flame me and I decide to not flame you back you are in violation of the rules. If I initiate the flaming feel free to flame me all you want, i've been into it with the heavyweights here and come out on top everytime, you are nothing but a sparring warmup match.

You expressly proclaim to being the best. Hence I gave you honors. Also, how can you say that this is a "myth," when you yourself feed it and admit to it? I don't understand.

So, according to your rules, I can flame you because you have flamed me first. Yeah, you said I was boorish. I only asked you to please turn down your hate talk, that is not flaming. If it is, let me see the rule book.

Again a person who believes that to be opposed to homosexuality can only be done through Christianity, how boorish.

Where did I say this? I asked you a question in direct regards to this which you did not answer, rather, you assumed my stance. How utterly unexciting.......

Your friends knew what they were doing was wrong hence the feelings of guilt and shame, there is nothing wrong with that, shows they had a conscience, they still needed help which apparently you were unable to give them.

I only hope that someday you have a more open outlook.

Your friends were ostracized apparently because they would not repent their sins, one cannot pick and choose which parts of the bible they believe and if they cannot admit they are wrong, well ostracization is appropriate(after attempts to help of course).Thanks for quoting stuff from the old testament and trying to use them, i'm not Jewish.

One question before I reply to this. Are you Christian? Ie, do you believe in the Holy Bible?

Sin is not a genetic defect either, get real. Your talking about original sin and that is a whole other subject, not even in the ballpark here. I'm talking abnormality, something wrong with the plumbing.

I did not make myself clear, I meant, that because of sin, we now have genetic defects which over time have only increased. Whether sin is in and of itself a "genetic defect" I don't know. I merely meant, that ALL of us have sinned.

 

[musicman]

There are a couple of points in this study

http://www.ipce.info/ipceweb/Library/freund_etiological.htm

that are in conflict with some that are being presented.

"our estimate of the ratio of the offenders against female children versus offenders against male children was recalculated to approximately 11:1"

This ratio works out to 8.3% of pedophiles being of the homosexual variety, which makes it only slightly higher than the ratio of heterosexual:homosexual in the adult population.

There's also a possible explanation given for the higher number of victims of homosexual pedophiles:
"The tendency of the offenders against male children to have a greater number of victims suggests that this group may contain a larger proportion of true pedophiles than the group of offenders against female children. This conjecture concurs with the results of two earlier studies. One of these studies, (Freund et al., 1987), compared sex offenders against female minors and sex offenders against male minors ("incest" offenders excluded). Among the offenders against female children there were more individuals who had only one victim rather than two or more victims, whereas among offenders against male children the opposite was true"

Now I can't say for sure if this study is any more accurate than the one's you've been citing, but it does provide information to consider.

Whew! No disrespect intended, MM, but that study works a little hard for the rhyme, doesn't it? That is truly a painful read (I invite you to check out my spoof post - #287). But, even if we accept, in whole or part, it's premise, we are then looking at the assertion that the wild disparity in homosexual child molestations - relative to the homosexual population - can be explained this way: The homosexual child molester is many times more prolific than his heterosexual counterpart. He is, if you will, a super-predator.

Doesn't that STILL suggest something profoundly disturbing about homosexuality?