News ABC TV’s Four Corners reveals abuse of Cairns boy

Would you feel that way if we went out and found stories of men who called themselves christian who committed a crime like rape, and reporting it as "Another Christian Rapes Boston Woman", or "Person of faith beats and molests 13 year old girl".

This is a very fine line. On the one hand, sometimes the inclusion of such details is just an interesting side-note and should not be taken to be offensive. On the other hand, it can be deeply offensive if the purpose of presenting it is to somehow implicate or suggest that there is a link, suggesting that when someone identified as a Christian beats, molests and rapes someone, it has to do with the fact that they are Christian and we should thus show concerns with Christians. Of course, that would be nonsense because such crimes are committed by people of all different shapes and sizes.

So which are you doing?

 

There is no conservative section, but yes a story about a Christian pedophile would likely be in the religious section... if the perps entire identity was centered around his relgious beliefs.

First Russian orphanages, then abortions, now thread location. Are we trying to avoid commenting on the story?

 

Who is "we" ?

With 18 pages of commentary I don't see any poster avoiding commenting...


So you believe since SOME Catholic priests rape children all Catholic priests are pedophiles?

 

It appears you are. That is quite a merry go round you push.

 

My comments weren't directed at you.

 

And if they were heterosexuals..........and the child was a little girl.......you wouldn't have ever posted.

What you have posted is entirely accurate.

Just as accurate as if every thread you started was about black men raping white women.

 

I made a comment... you ran with it.

Wonder if this is the case that caused the Russians to stop adoptions to Americans?

Makes sense if it is.

 

It goes beyond that of course.

Consider the headline "Homosexual pedophile rapes boy"

That headline is redundant. It would be entirely as accurate to title it "Pedophile rapes boy".

How redundant is it?

We never see "Heterosexual pedophile rapes girl"

It would be redundant.

Here is another example- "Baptist Christian guilty of robbing church". Pointing out that the Baptist is a Christian is redundent- and it would appear that it would be used to imply it is a Christian issue.

I can only hope someday here at PF that the posters who start threads about child molestation, show some concern about the issue when it is about a girl who is sexually assaulted by a man.

And when that day comes I hope to see all of those threads say "child molester found guilty of assaulting girl' or 'child molester found guilty of assualting boy'- because then it would seem that the crime against the child is more important than whether or not the men were homosexuals.

- - - Updated - - -

LOL.....just keep pushing that merry go round.

 

So? Anyone can post in here....(I think you just can't address my post...easy way out )

 

You're right, it wouldn't be so sad if it were not for the fact that these people are apparently showing more concern for smearing their disfavored group by continually emphasizing that, rather than for the actual victims.

And it gets even more sad than that, hurting the victims themselves. If every man who prefers relationships with other adult men were to suddenly vanish, the vast majority of cases of boys being abused (let alone girls) would still exist, because the profile of a pedophile most often is NOT men in relationships with other adult men. Rather, such men most often have no preference for adults or who are in heterosexual relationships. So they are totally focusing on the wrong attributes, pointing blame and stigma at men who are in relationships with other adult men while distracting from actual risk factors. Worse yet, this stigmatizing of homosexuals is especially damaging to male victims who become afraid to speak up about the abuse they face for fear that they will be identified as homosexual. (sources for this on my old thread, if anybody cares: http://www.politicalforum.com/polit...tigmatizing-homosexuals-helps-pedophiles.html)

Bless the hearts of these people for doing what they think is best for children, but I don't think they realize the harm that they are causing, both to the victims and the gay men.

 

Ah, but nobody ever said that the "entire identity" of the men in the op centered around being homosexual, nor would someone who called themselves Christian mean that anything he did has anything to do with other Christians, even if he centered his identity around it. In fact, the vast majority of threads like this don't even involve someone who identifies as gay at all, they are usually in heterosexual relationships. So apparently this has nothing to do with anybody "centering" their identity around anything, as you suggest.

 

Quite honestly, what I find disturbing the most is the OP's obvious obsession with pedophiles and gay men. This should raise a huge red flag with anyone concerned with child welfare. The ones who scream the loudest are usually the most guilty.

 

Okay, STOP IT.

Your view is unnecessarily antipathetic toward homosexuality. Gay does not mean 'pedophile' (far from it, actually).

If you don't know why, then please find out.

But it's most direct to say that I disagree with what you're saying there.

 

The act of declaring ones self gay means that person's identity is centered around their sex life since that's what differentiates gays from straights.

Same with Christians. When someone declares, "I am a Christian" their identity is centered around their religious beliefs since that's what sets them apart.

Can't have it both ways. If one doesnt want their gayness to be an issue, one should keep their sexual preferences to their self.

The two child abusers in this story are gay. Period.

 

Well gee, Johnny, disagree all you want, but did you read my whole post? I also acknowledged that sexual abuse of children happens among the straights also.......

Yes, I know 'gay' does not mean 'pedophile' and I also know 'straight' does not mean 'pedophile', but I choose to use the terminology 'gay pedo' or 'straight pedo' to differinciate b/t the 2 acts.......

I had posted that I'm hesitant about gay adoptions, I didn't say adamantly opposed, but 'hesitant' b/c children need the physical and psychological balance of having parents of genuine femininity and masculinity in their young lives..... and that I will never change my mind about b/c of my own experience as an adopted 10 yr old kid. I needed to learn that not all men are mean and abusive and my wonderful new dad and brother taught me that there's some really decent, caring and loving men out there.....

And yes, I know that some men who adopt are abusive and many are molesters......

Bio parents, foster care, adoption.... so many kids are suffering b/c they were placed in the wrong hands.

 

if
if
if

kindly address the topic

2 homosexuals-fact
purchased a 20 month old boy- fact
had gay sex with the little boy-fact
rented the little boy out to other men for gay sex-fact

- - - Updated - - -

if
if
if

feel free to address this topic and the facts

2 homosexuals-fact
purchased a 20 month old boy- fact
had gay sex with the little boy-fact
rented the little boy out to other men for gay sex-fact

 

Yes. And what I said still stands, IMO. It's YOUR problem, not a problem with gay people.

 

If someone offers a perspective on some controversial (social) topic, it helps at times to express what may influence their perspective(s) on the matter. For example, it is helpful to know your audience... if it's a group of SINGLE people vs. married, depending upon the topic... knowing that can be critical to communicating one's information most effectively

No, not 'necessarily'. People's views and perspectives are informed by their religion, but no, it does NOT absolutely mean that is primarily or all that they actually identify with. You are reallt oversimplifying things here.

Actually, people (human beings) have many different "ways"; that's what makes people interesting, different or even difficult.

And that, is just a stupid thing to say. (Maybe stupidity should keep 'silent'.)

Pedophiles are not equal to homosexuals. And to imply that means you (very likely) have some bias or agenda that would take multiple threads to get to the bottom of.

 

Nonsense. If a man who declared himself to be a Christian was caught molesting young children, his professed Christianity would be the primary thing people talked about.

Gay supporters would be better off ignoring stories like this instead of insisting gayness had nothing to do with their behavior... when obviously it had everything to do with it.

Not all gays are pedophiles, but these two gay men were definitely pedophiles.

 

No, not really.

Eventually, people will stop with their closed-mindedness and abject antipathy toward homosexuals in this society.

I'm happy that is in-progress.

And the idea that pedophilia = homosexuality, is based upon little but fear and prejudice.

 

Unfortunately, prejudice is fed by true stories like this one. It's not just the two guys who led the abuse of this child... it's the others who joined in on the child's torture. It's absurd to pretend its not a problem in the gay community. Like denying the existence of AIDS. Nobody buys it.

 

to the above point:

you are spot on. They are homosexuals and naturally when choosing a child to molest, they chose a little boy.

 

countless times we've posted links to studies which reveal a proclivity of molestation among homosexuals.

What we get is the pushback that the majority of pedophiles are hetero, and that is true.

But, it's the ratio within the homosexuals, compared to heteros, when the number is downright frightening. It's an issue which needs to be addressed within the homosexual community but instead, they do everything to avoid discussing it.

 

And what I said still stands.... but unfortunately, it's not my problem or a problem for the GAY and STRAIGHT PERVERTS, but a dead serious problem FOR THE CHILDREN who are given to them.......

I'm surprised you can't see that......

 

We have addressed the topic over and over. What I had posted was relevant to the topic. I really don't care if you don't like it.

And if they were heterosexuals..........and the child was a little girl.......you wouldn't have ever posted.

What you have posted is entirely accurate.

Just as accurate as if every thread you started was about black men raping white women.