Report - Pedophilia more common among "gays"

Another one that doesn't understand the concept of over representation.

 

Well, first, biological parents are preferred because they are the only two people morally and legally obligated to care for the child. Without one or both of them there is only the hope that someone will voluntarily step forward and assume those obligations. The abundance of single women on their own with absent or unknown fathers shows that doesn't always happen. Secondly the obligations to child and spouse continue after divorce so its not a failure. Third, the majority of pregnancies occur to heterosexual couples who had no intention of procreating. There is a strong, natural tendency of heterosexual sex to lead to procreation while their is zero tendency for homosexual sex to do so. Fourth, while it is very easy to detect the presence of a man and a woman, it is impossible to determine with any accuracy, which couples have the potential of procreation. We only know that all couples who do, will be heterosexual couples. And fifth, no one is discriminating against children that are not lucky enough to have their biological parents. Nothing can be done to bring back biological parents that are not available to provide and care for their children. Certainly not encouraging homosexuals to marry. And sixth, while one could argue that government should assist the myriad of alternatives to the nuclear family that children can find themselves in, Ive seen no justification that only one alternative, a gay couple, deserves this assistance. Especially with so many more children currently being raised by two closely related adults, than have ever been raised by homosexual couples.

 

That's notmehat they call it. That's what it is. Giving one couple the same rights as another is equal.

It doesn't. If I have 2 green apples and I get 2 more red apples, I have MORE apples, not less.

false analogy.

- - - Updated - - -

The interest must be served by the DENIAL of the right. No such interest exists for excluding same sex couples. That's why you keep losing

- - - Updated - - -

This was refuted the first time you made the claim.

 

There as so many more children being raised by closely related adults than homosexuals because bigots try to keep children away from the "vicious" gays. That is why I am arguing for child credits to be applied equally to EVERYONE raising or helping to raise a child why you are arguing that only gays be excluded.

As for all the other hundreds of benefits that come with marriage, anyone should be able to sign a legal (non religious) document that is able to consent.

- - - Updated - - -

I certainly do, do you understand biased unsubstantiated research; that seems to be the only kind you can cite.

 

No, its because a single mother on her own with an absent or unknown father is more likely to join with a closely related adult to help raise her children than she is likely to join with a lesbian lover to do so.

No, I am the one excluding all couples other than heterosexual couples. Couples of the same sex, regardless of their sexual orientation, because of the impossibility of procreation, and closely related couples because of the possibility of procreation and the increased chance of genetic defects. And marriage is not intended for platonic couples because of the absence of procreation between themselves and the potential of procreation with a third person. You are the one advocating marriage be extended to gay couples, while continuing to exclude closely related couples.

 

You have no clue what I am arguing, you just repeat the same rhetoric ad nauseam. I am for allowing any two consenting adults signing a legal document that allows a transfer of property, medical, or financial rights to another party. The only credits that should be given would follow the child.

Heterosexuals do not get to benefit simply because they are heterosexuals which is what you are arguing. Reguardless of whether they intend to procreate, if they are not fertile, if they are not engage in relations; the only thing they have to do is belong to this group. You say you are for the government having interest in the child yet are willing to give a couple that has never produced a child tax benefits while denying them to the homosexual couple with four kids.

Your argument is moronic on so many levels I cannot comprehend them all.
Illogical fallacies, repetition of the same points, ignoring posts, and circular arguments...

No wonder your side is being ripped apart in the courts

 

You cheer on this current push for legalizing gay marriage. Every state that has done so continues to exclude closely related couples. Whereas my advocating excluding two people of the same sex has nothing to do with sexual orientation.

Noooo, it is because only heterosexual couples have the potential of procreation. I don't exclude two people of the same sex because they are homosexual. I would exclude them if they are both heterosexuals of the same sex and would include them if they were two homosexuals of the opposite sex. Sexual orientation is irrelevant.

Nope, I would exclude two heterosexuals of the same sex and would include two homosexuals of the opposite sex.

The four kids with the homosexual couple have already been removed from one or both of their biological parents. Encouraging the homosexual couple to marry wont bring back their biological parents. And every state with gay marriage continues to exclude the many more closely related couples with children. Because gay marriage isn't about equality and is instead about winning more respect and dignity for gays.

 

In response to me pointing out that gays and bisexuals are over represented among child molesters, you reply

As if this somehow contradicts my assertion. I don't think you understand at all. And there was nothing biased or unsubstantiated about the research I cited. The study states the men self identified as gay or bisexual and the only complaint the UC Davis article could come up with was that they didn't state how their sexual orientation was determined. "Self identified" would seem to be self explanatory.

 

Self identified is not a significant variable in their experiment, thus destroying their entire theory. All the more recent peer reviewed studies with sound methodology have found:
1) bisexuality is much more present than the individuals acknowledge and
2) homosexuals and bisexuals are no more likely to abuse children (as a percentage of their estimated population) than their heterosexuals peers. The only alarming point I have seen any of these study's expose is the propensity of self identified homosexuals reoffending.

And the fact that you advocate for a lesbian and a gay man to be able to receive marriage benefits simply because they marry each other (no chance of children) while denying them to actual families shows how totally ridiculous your argument is.

 

Actually they DIDNT acknowledge ANY level of presence soooooo bisexuality could not be "more present" than what they acknowledged. Your just making this (*)(*)(*)(*) up as you go along.

Only by adding to the definition of homosexuality and bisexuality, a requirement that they have formed healthy sexual relationships with adults of the same sex. Even though the individual identifies themselves as homosexual or bisexual.

???? Actually, they are just as capable of procreation as two heterosexuals of the opposite sex. Sexual orientation is irrelevant and only the gender of the selected partner effects the ability to procreate.

 

the studies go into the detail about the variance between self identification an actual arousal. Not making anything up - I leave the emotional manipulation to your side.

No one is introducing that requirement besides yourself. The requirement that it added is that they are sexually arroused by adult members of the same sex, this can be tested with physical accredited tests instead of self sampling. What they say is that homosexuals make up a slightly smaller amount of the population than self identified while bisexuals make up a significantly larger amounted than the numbers self reported.

Feel free to read any of the 8 or so studies I have posted.

A homosexual man and a lesbian have zero chance of procreation naturally. ZERO. Yet you want to reward them as they make a "normal" relationship while a gay couple across the street gets zero benefits for them and their 4 children. Its really an interesting perception actually, totally off base but interesting. How to you spin this in your head? Does it actually make sense to you!?

 

We are not talking about "studies" and are instead speaking of THE study I cited. There was no
variance between self identification an actual arousal.

It is there entire basis for them concluding that men who self identify as homosexual or bisexual, are in fact not so.

 

The institution of marriage most certainly did not begin as a church institution, the church did not become involved in marriage until the 5th Century when the Roman Empire collapsed, prior to that marriage was governed by Imperial law. Marriage was not declared one of the church's seven sacraments until 1215. The first recorded evidence of marriage contracts and ceremonies dates to 4,000 years ago, in Mesopotamia and served primarily as a means of preserving power, with kings and other members of the ruling class marrying off daughters to forge alliances, acquire land, and produce legitimate heirs. Even in the lower classes, women had little say over whom they married. The purpose of marriage was the production of heirs, as implied by the Latin word matrimonium, which is derived from mater (mother).

Same-sex unions aren't a recent invention. Until the 13th century, male-bonding ceremonies were common in churches across the Mediterranean. Apart from the couples' gender, these events were almost indistinguishable from other marriages of the era. Twelfth-century liturgies for same-sex unions — also known as "spiritual brotherhoods" — included the recital of marriage prayers, the joining of hands at the altar, and a ceremonial kiss. Some historians believe these unions were merely a way to seal alliances and business deals. But Eric Berkowitz, author of Sex and Punishment, says it is "difficult to believe that these rituals did not contemplate erotic contact. In fact, it was the sex between the men involved that later caused same-sex unions to be banned." That happened in 1306, when the Byzantine Emperor Andronicus II declared such ceremonies, along with sorcery and incest, to be unchristian.

 

Oh joy, another history revisionist slinging a load of horse shiite without links or sources.

Yeah, the church had nothing to do with marriage until 1215. Right.

I'm always amazed by the volume of words people use to tell and spread lies.

 

I'm always amazed by the sheer ignorance of bigots.
Ten key moments of marriage: http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-17351133

 

In THIS country - marriages have always been available through Justice of the Peace, ships captains, and little pink drive-throughs in Vegas. It's the American way, damn-it. And if you don't believe in the American Way of being able to be married by anyone with a state approved license, then you can just move to Iran where only church marriages are legal.

Only half-joking here.

On a more serious note - there have been over 10,000 gay weddings and no one has forced a church to marry someone they didn't want to marry, so your fears of churches being "forced" to marry gay people is absurd. We don't "force" Catholic Churches to perform Jewish weddings, do we. Pure fear mongering to suggest otherwise.

If a gay person wants a church wedding there are several denominations that are happy to perform the service.

 

The thing that is remarkable, are the assurances given, and the lies told:

City threatens to arrest ministers who refuse to perform same-sex weddings

 

It doesn't matter what you are for. A majority of Americans support same-sex marriage and it will soon be legal in all 50 states. It's legal in 37 states currently.

 

Actually, LGBT are not overrepresented in the ranks of pedophiles and the only "proof" you can offer is from a women (Reisman) with a degree in communications, not mental health or behavioral science. No credible mental health professionals believe this junk science.

 

Speaking of lies.........from your link.

It's not a church. It's a public, for profit business.

 

Perhaps instead of trying to avoid a response from me you should quote who you are responding to, not to do so is cowardice,
NOWHERE did I say the church had nothing to do with marriage until 1215, please do try to read and comprehend what is written.

You have no clue as to the history of marriage do you.

here read and learn - http://www.thecounciloftrent.com/ch23.htm

Before the 11th century, there were no uniform church regulations for marriage in the Latin (Roman) Church. For the first few centuries of Christianity, the community simply adopted familial customs of marriage in the home. Church leaders relied primarily on the civil government of Rome to regulate marriage and divorce between Christians and non-Christians alike. With the fall of the Roman Empire, the Church gradually began to take legal control over marriage and make it an official church function. In the Middle Ages, Augustine's teaching led the Church to an explicit consciousness of the sacramentality of marriage among the baptized. In the twelfth century, the idea of marriage as a "sacrament‟, i.e., as something fundamentally regulated by the Church, was established. The Council of Trent in the 16th c. capped a long development by declaring marriage as one of the seven sacraments of the Church - Sources - Martos, J. Doors to the Sacred. Liguori, 2001; Commentary on the Code of Canon Law, p.1236. Paulist Press, 2000; Catechism of Catholic Church, #1603; People of Faith Generations, v.4, issue 4, Marriage, p.

For much of the history of the Catholic Church, no specific ritual was therefore prescribed for celebrating a marriage - at least not until the late medieval period: "Marriage vows did not have to be exchanged in a church, nor was a priest's presence required. A couple could exchange consent anywhere, anytime." - http://books.google.co.nz/books?id=dJX_Nr2fdzAC&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false page 21

 

That was not a Church it was a for profit business which a Church cannot be.

 

No doubt because the IRS would not recognize/accept it as a charity or consider it a church. A problem that is shared by numerous Christian churches who don't fall under "authorized" IRS rules.

No problem paying a minister to marry you, and call it "not for profit" as long as the minister's denomination is IRS approved.

This is what this has degenerated into. You are only a church operation if the IRS or government say you are. Hence the need for the "for profit status" and defense of pro-gay government action that is indefensible. And your attempts to deny what it is are shameful. A person with a conscience would be embarrassed, but those who push the gay agenda have long ago torched that.

And yet another example of the government happily violating religious convictions found here:

With health-care lawsuit, the Little Sisters of the Poor step into the spotlight

I trust what the pro-gay political lobby says about as much as I trust what the Obama White House says, meaning "not at all".

The entire lot are deceitful ba$*****.

 

Be sure you reach out to this guy, and straighten him out:

The early Christian Church performed gay marriages

So here we witness one pro-gay promoter coming up with one deceitful fairy tale, and another pro-gay promoter that has an even more deceitful fairy tale which directly contradicts that.

 

Notice all the happy distractions from the point of the thread, which is the unusually high percentage of pedophilia that is engaged in by male homosexuals. Consider this case:

http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/...ach-molesting-25-students-20150415-story.html

And when these male homosexuals go after boys, it's amazing the sheer volume of them.

No doubt we'll be assured, once again, that men who sexual abuse juveniles who have a penis are not homosexuals.