Gay pedophilia accepted by Gay Activist Groups

Well THEY don't EXIT.

The REALITY- once again IS THAT AROUND 95-99% of all CHILD SEX ABUSE is done by men to children.

Somewhere around 75% of that child abuse is done by MEN AGAINST GIRLS.

And somewhere around ZERO % is THE CONCERN that the homophobes have for THE SEX ABUSE OF GIRLS on this board.

I cannot for the life of me find any reason other than bigotry towards homosexuals, or just plain dislike of little girls that leads to thread after thread, and post after post trying to equate homosexuals to sex abuse of boys....and totally ignores the sex abuse of girls.

SO HOMOPHOBES- IS IT JUST YOUR HATRED OF HOMOSEXUALS- OR IS IT YOUR DISLIKE OF LITTLE GIRLS?

 

There is a difference between heterosexual and homosexual pedophiles with heterosexual and homosexual teleiophiles (=people attracted by adults). You cannot take a study that compares the number of homosexual and heterosexual pedophiles and make conclusions about gays and lesbiens from it.

 

Lying about people commiting a crime is wrong

- - - Updated - - -

Lying about someone committing a crime is wrong

 

Prove he had sex with him in those states

- - - Updated - - -

The study you kept citing proved you wrong grok. You need to let it go and stop embarassing yourself

 

Keep trying to spin it.

One in four girls is raped before they turn 19. Those are just the reported assaults.

 

Well, one can - but they would be uttertly mistaken conclusions and very likely the product of bigotry, not an honest examination and understanding of the data.

 

This is exactly why there will eventually be a "P" slapped onto the end of that LGBT. Just wait. [/Nostradamus]

 

Not gona happen. Keep wishing though. I'm sick of people like you accusing us of molesting children. Your abject lies are sickening.

 

I'm not wishing, Lee. I'm just predicting based on evidence suggesting a likely probability. I hope I'm wrong. I hope the LGBT camp doesn't pick up pedophiles. Because it would be bad for their cause. But I see a trend in liberal politics that suggests a future alliance that will be marketed as yet another "tolerance" issue.

And I didn't accuse you of molesting anybody. You're misinterpreting what I'm saying. While homosexuality and pedophilia do cross over from time to time (as do heterosexuality and pedophilia), the two are not the same orientation. As I'm sure you agree. But like I said, I simply see a future political alliance brewing.

I've already addressed this many times on here. And I think it's unfortunate that it's never actually considered but only rejected by empty emotionalism. I think people are too emotional in general to discuss this entire spectrum objectively. Which prevents honest and open dialogue. People can't hear the other side because they are too clouded by their feelings. It would be nice if more people were rational and level-headed enough to actually listen.

 

I've never seen any serious source claiming that. I've heard something like that about child sexual abuse, but those are mostly non-violent acts, not rape. And those are numbers reported in anonymous surveys, not reported to police, just to make it clear. Also I've seen a lot of different numbers, somewhere one in four, somewhere one in five, somewhere one in six... I've heard the claim of one sexologist that some surveys has extremely wide range of what they consider a sexual abuse. I've found global estimate is about 20 %, in North America it's estimated as 15 - 25 %, but those number can differ by what is considered to be a sexual abuse. I've seen a study about child sexual abuse in Czech Republic that found the number to be about 10 % for girls. 80 % of cases were not reported.

 

Sexual abuse is sexual abuse.

Parsing it any other way is just about saying "some abuse is more okay than other."

My point still stands, these arguments aren't actually about child sexual abuse. They are about demonizing gays.

 

Well, you says it that way to make me sound like I am trying that sexual abuse is ok, but I don't say that. It remains basically the same if you say some abuse is worse than other - but it sounds completely different. And I think it's obvious that some sexual abuse is worse than other.

You made a false claim about prevalence of rape and I refuted that. Using a false claim about how someone else is worse is not a valid point against demonizing gays.

PS I am against demonizing gays as well. But using claims like that isn't helpful at all.

 

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/pedophile
An adult who is sexually attracted to a child or children.
child (chld)
n. pl. chil·dren (chldrn)
1.
a. A person between birth and puberty.

http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedophile
A pedophile is a person 16 years of age or older who is primarily or exclusively sexually attracted to children who have not begun puberty (girls 10 years old or less, and boys 11 year old or less, on average).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedophilia
As a medical diagnosis, pedophilia or paedophilia is a psychiatric disorder in persons 16 years of age or older typically characterized by a primary or exclusive sexual interest toward prepubescent children (generally age 11 years or younger, though specific diagnosis criteria for the disorder extends the cut-off point for prepubescence to age 13).

Before throwing around claims like "X was a pedophile", it'd be good for you to know what a pedophile is. It is not "a person who has sex with a minor". It is not "a adult who has sex with a 16-year-old". It is "an adult who is attracted to a prepubescent child".

Prepubescent.

Liberace, like Milk, like Elvis, like me last summer, like countless other adults who have (*)(*)(*)(*)ed 16-year-olds, was not a pedophile. Hell, depending on how "adult" Scott Thorson looked, you couldn't even call him an ****phile (the definition for people attracted primarily to those who are not done with puberty but have started on it). What you're complaining about wouldn't even bat an eye in most parts of western Europe, or indeed over half of the states in the USA, because it's not even a crime there. Oh, and apparently Thorson was 17 when he met Liberace, making it legal in all but 12 states. And don't give me that bull(*)(*)(*)(*) excuse of "they traveled to those states", because that's no evidence that they actually had sex there, especially if they were just on tour.

Okay. Pedophilia is defined in the DSM as an attractive fixation on children who have not yet started puberty; Scott Thorson was 17.

Oh the horror! Taking a young boy from an abusive household! Giving him a job, lavishing him with gifts, showing him the life of a star! The horror! The horror!

Well, okay, let's be fair, there are perhaps legitimate complaints about how Liberace treated Thorson - essentially just throwing this life of fame and fortune at someone is liable to cause problems down the line. But that's not illegal. Hell, most people wouldn't see it as immoral. It certainly has nothing to do with pedophilia.

There's really nothing shown here that I can object to. What he did was not pedophilia, was legal in most of the world (and almost all of the western world), and fails the most basic test of statuatory rape: was one of the parties for whatever reason incapable of giving informed, free consent? The answer to this is a big fat no. You're grasping at straws, ignoring information that throws your conclusions in the garbage right off the bat, and you're unwilling to honestly address complaints. I welcome you to prove me wrong on that point.

17, and if this is a child predator, then Texmaster would love to hear about my last girlfriend...

Icwutudidthar.

Hardly any mention of a gay pedophile either! Hell, I think the only time a gay pedophile (that is, a man who had sex with prepubescent boys) was mentioned in the thread was when someone name-dropped Sandusky.

This just in: a 17-year-old is a "young boy" who needs "defending" from consensual sex with an older partner who removed him from an abusive household. Man, people like you would be funny if you weren't actively involved in making life worse for homosexuals. You're utterly ignorant of what you're talking about and apparently seem to be trying very hard to stay that way. I will gladly condemn actual homosexual pedophiles - Jeffry Dahmer, Fritz Haarmann, Jerry Sandusky are all disgusting people who I would personally like to see tortured quite brutally for their crimes. But Liberace was not a pedophile. He wasn't even a ****phile. This was a relationship that was one year off from being a relationship between two legally adult men, and every indication is that Thorson was, effectively, an adult.

I guess I'll sign off with my opinion of a relationship between a 17-year-old and someone considerably older...



This is the girl I was dating back when I was 17. At the time, she was 48 - about two weeks younger than my mother. Personally, I don't feel like I was "preyed upon".

 

Do yourself a favor. Don't quote an open source of any definition.

ped·o·phile (pd-fl, pd-)
n.
An adult who is sexually attracted to a child or children.

Children are defined by law as anyone under 18 years of age.

There is no age definition in pedophilia. Quoting an open source definition isn't helping you.

You really need to read the definition of a child according to the law and an actual defintion of pedophilia from the dictionary and stop relying on wikipedia.

Of course he was. 47 years difference and many states as I proved age of consent was above 16 so pretending he isn't defies common sense and basic definitions.

Yeah... probably not a good idea to use them as an example:

THE HAGUE — THE HAGUE: A Dutch court refused Monday to ban a political party whose main goal is to lower the age of sexual consent from 16 to 12. The judge said it was up to voters to determine the appeal of political parties.

The party has only three known members, one of whom was convicted of molesting an 11-year-old boy in 1987. Widely described as the "pedophile" party, it is unlikely to ever win a seat in Parliament.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/17/world/europe/17iht-dutch.2222178.html?_r=0

Which once again goes against his own testimony. Please stop relying on an open source for your information. Its not only false it doesn't make you look good.

Wrong again. He was 16. Please read the OP.

Clue #1 this would not end well.

Taking advantage of a child is not something to celebrate. Especially when he came from an abusive relationship. This is classic for pedophiles.

Once again you have to ignore the legal definition of a child and ignore the dictionary definition of pedophile to even believe what you are claiming.

Its sad your moral compass can't see he clearly took advantage of this child and used his abusive relationship at home to prey upon him.

Not sure I do.

If you ignore the definition, and age difference sure.

Not 17, 16.

As defined by state law.

47 years older when many states age of consent would be under 16 and whose legal defintion is a child.

Where did I ever say I have a problem with homosexual adults having sex? That's right, never. I do however have a problem with a man 47 years older taking advantage of a child from a broken home. Its really sad you can't see that.

I love how you throw in "effectively" and leave out the obvious that he was a child by state and federal law.

Sounds far more like you are trying to justify that relationship to yourself than to me. I truly feel sorry for you if that relationship took place regardless of it being homo or hetero and that is what you will never understand.

I can see why you are taking this so personally now.

 

By law. There's your problem. Children are defined differently in medicine:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/medical/child

Or how 'bout Web MD:
http://www.webmd.com/mental-health/features/explaining-pedophilia

How 'bout the ICD-10:
http://apps.who.int/classifications/icd10/browse/2010/en#/F65.4

And the definition that matters in this discussion is not the legal definition, because the legal definition of child has nothing to do with the definition of child declared in any medical discussion of pedophilia. The words mean different things, and attempting to call someone who (*)(*)(*)(*)ed a 17-year-old a "pedophile" is simply false.

Well how 'bout you quote one legitimate medical source. One. That defines pedophilia as what you are implying it is: an attraction with a person who is not a legal adult. There isn't one, because that's not what pedophilia means, and if that is what pedophilia means, then you cannot apply a blanket label of immoral to it, because "children" of age 17, 16, hell sometimes even 15 are sexually active of their own volition and often mature enough to understand and cope with the consequences thereof. And hell, don't take my word for it, ask the various countries worldwide where the age of consent is lower than 18 - like, say, the 38 states of the USA where that is the case.

But that's the problem - you're reading a medical definition which implies the medical term of "child", then applying the legal term of "child", and what a surprise: you end up completely cocking up the definition, disagreeing with every medical organization that defines pedophilia in the first place, and creating a new definition of the word which is utter crap. And until you understand this, there is no point in continuing the discussion with you, because you're calling someone a pedophile without understanding what it means to be a pedophile.

 

That's a legal definition, but we also have biological definition. Legal definition is irrelevant here since pedophile is not a legal term.

There are different definitions in different dictionaries. Some has similar definition to the one on Wikipedia. It's also close to the original meaning of this term, the term that was used the in psychiatry for the first time.

 

So we can dismiss the entire European political and judicial system on the basis that one pathetic extremist party in one country hasn't actually been banned from existing even if, when they undertake what they are advocating for, they will be tried as criminals.

Can I take it you'd be OK if we took a similar view of the US system just because you haven't actually banned NAMBLA and the Westboro Baptist Church?

Of course you would be fine because in Simpleland not actually banning something must mean that it's universally condoned!

(give the talk radio a break, on here people can answer back)...

 

Yeah, I pretty much stopped at the definition of pedophile (because until he understands that his definition is (*)(*)(*)(*)ed, there can be no reasonable discussion), but this is also absolutely hilarious.

 

At the end of the day, I'm just interested in treating like-as-like. I think this thread is specifically designed to single out and demonize gay people as pedophiles when the evidence suggests that they are no more likely to be so then heterosexuals.

Much has been said about what Liberace allegedly did but the most compelling argument might be that they had sex in states outside of Nevada with a higher age of consent (even though nobody's actually produced any evidence to support this).

Given that my overriding concern is that gays and straights are treated equally, I feel it necessary to point out that if these two men had been able to get married legally in Nevada the two could have traveled to states with a higher age of consent without fear of prosecution because, 14 and up, most states offer "marital immunity" even if their own AoC laws are being broken.

 

You have several times quoted the paper by Dr.'s Hall and Hall- and that paper clearly defines pedophilia.

Pedophilia is a clinical diagnosis usually made by a psychiatrist
or psychologist.

It is not a criminal or legal term, such as forcible sexual offense, which is a legal term often used in criminal statistics.1,2

The Federal Bureau of Investigation’s National Incident-Based Reporting System’s (NIBRS) definition of forcible sexual offenses includes
any sexual act directed against another person forcibly
and/or against that person’s will or not forcibly or
against the person’s will in which the injured party is
incapable of giving consent.2

By diagnostic criteria of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition, a pedophile is an individual who fantasizes
about, is sexually aroused by, or experiences sexual urges
toward prepubescent children (generally <13 years) for a
period of at least 6 months

I can never figure out the mind set of cherry picking sources- you quote Dr. Hall when you think he is attacking homosexuals, but ignore him when he actually provides the definition you keep refering to.

Here is the thing- every time you quote him- referring to 'homosexual pedophile'- you are quoting Dr. Hall talking who is using this definition.

 

Whilst if the age of consent is 16 then it is not paedophilia ,when it is gay clergy of the catholic church Raping young boys then its rape of a child a criminal act ,and I am yet to see any recognition by what is termed the 'gay and lesbian community ' taking ownership of these crimes against small children,young Hetrosexual boys have the right not to be raped by gay preists ,now the heinous crime of child rape is carried out by hetrosexual preists as well as bisexual priests ,but as everyone knows homosexual [sorry ]GAY priests and lesbian nuns dominate the Catholic clergy ,according to the former Pope Benedict anyway. who knows one day the GBLTI .will make a public statement on their 'community' in the Catholic Priesthood ,don't hold your breath for the non-existant community to say anything .P.S my homosexual friends are just as if not more appalled then I at these crimes against children .LGBTIQ is a load of codswallop,crap in other words.they are now saying openly that sexuality can not be defined as male and female LUNATICS of the first order .

 

Indeed pedophilia is a mental disorder ,whereas child rape is a criminal offence ,the Catholic church for instance shelters homosexual child rapists from the law .sorry, gay rapists from the law ,I am trying to be hip to the new 'definitions ' of anti-science called the gay and lesbian community wouldn't want to be called a homophobe [whatever it means?]And within the ranks of the catholic church ,hetrosexual and bisexual rapists are sheltered but the GAY Clergy are far more numerous as well as most Nuns being lesbians ,sorry homosexual women !

 

what a boatload of crap that is. There have been countless threads with numerous links to studies which address the sad reality. But what do we get tossed at us.................are you saying that all gays are pedophiles........................that is the only defense used. Nobody claims that and the facts don't state it either.

But, the facts do show the ratio to be out of whack. It's a 2 to 1 ratio where 2 pedophiles are hetero and 1 is gay. But, you then look at the adult population and 96.8% are heterosexual. Now go back and look at the 2 to 1 ratio again; why not address that issue instead of your bigotry and hatred toward the messengers.