Report - Pedophilia more common among "gays"

Discussion in 'Gay & Lesbian Rights' started by JavisBeason, Apr 21, 2014.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Fugazi

    Fugazi New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2012
    Messages:
    17,057
    Likes Received:
    96
    Trophy Points:
    0
    The facts speak for themselves, early Christian Churches DID perform same sex marriages. A same-sex marriage between the two men Pedro Díaz and Muño Vandilaz in the Galician municipality of Rairiz de Veiga in Spain occurred on 16 April 1061. They were married by a priest at a small chapel. The historic documents about the church wedding were found at Monastery of San Salvador de Celanova.

    Source - http://diariodepontevedra.galiciae....s-sociais-cun-ensaio-sobre-homosexualidade-na - In Galician, English translation - http://translate.google.co.uk/trans...n-ensaio-sobre-homosexualidade-na&prev=search

    Religious zealots have tried to explain away these early SSM's by stating they were not marriages as such, more of a bonding ritual . .which considering the fact that the ceremony was exactly the same, down even to the ceremonial kiss at the end strikes me as an attempt to evade the obvious.
     
  2. dixon76710

    dixon76710 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2010
    Messages:
    58,376
    Likes Received:
    4,438
    Trophy Points:
    113
  3. Fugazi

    Fugazi New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2012
    Messages:
    17,057
    Likes Received:
    96
    Trophy Points:
    0
    It always seems that those most against homosexuality are the ones who concentrate on the sexual act and ignore that homosexuality is not a sexual act but an attraction to the same sex, just as heterosexuality is not a sexual act but an attraction to the opposite sex.

    the fact the religious fundies have little to no understanding of paedophilia and what it means just adds more BS to the huge pile they live under. There is no such thing as gay paedophilia .. paedophilia is the sexual attraction to children REGARDLESS of the gender of the child. The qualifier of gay, that is media led, has nothing to do with what paedophilia is.

    There is no such thing as a 'gay' paedophile just as there is no such thing as a 'straight' paedophile, they are all simply paedophiles.

    An especially pernicious myth is that most adults who sexually abuse children are gay. A number of researchers have looked at this question to determine if homosexuals are more likely to be pedophiles than heterosexuals, and the data indicate that's not the case.

    For example, in a 1989 study led by Kurt Freund of the Clarke Institute of Psychiatry in Canada, scientists showed pictures of children to adult gay and straight males, and measured sexual arousal. Homosexual men reacted no more strongly to pictures of male children than heterosexual men reacted to pictures of female children.

    A 1994 study, led by Carole Jenny of the University of Colorado Health Sciences Center, surveyed 269 cases of children who were sexually molested by adults. In 82 percent of cases, the alleged offender was a heterosexual partner of a close relative of the child, the researchers reported in the journal Pediatrics. In only two out of 269 cases, the offender was identified as being gay or lesbian.

    "The empirical research does not show that gay or bisexual men are any more likely than heterosexual men to molest children," wrote Gregory M. Herek, a professor of psychology at the University of California at Davis, on his website. Herek, who was not involved in the 1989 or 1994 studies, compiled a review of research on the topic.
     
  4. Robert Barney

    Robert Barney New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2015
    Messages:
    60
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    This reminds me of what the man said when his wife caught him in bed with another woman. "Who are you going to believe, me or your lying eyes?"

    A man who admitted to police he molested up to eight boys in the 1980s was sentenced to prison on Friday

    And what is the defense offered by the pro-homosexuals and their surrogates for those homosexuals who prey upon children?

    1. Men who molest boys aren't homosexuals
    2. Homosexuality isn't about what someone does, it's about their feelings, and so a man who molests boys can't be a homosexual.
    3. Child molestation is just as bad among heterosexuals.

    And a man isn't an adulterer if he really loves his wife and not the b!tch he just had sex with.

    What we are witnessing are degenerates chucked full of excuses for the perversions that they themselves engage in. "Oh I'm not as bad as him."

    These are tricks learned by siblings at a young age. "it wasn't me it was Johnny" And then there's the old "Johnny did it too" or "Johnny made me do it".

    Homosexuality is a perversion. Those who yield to it only find more satisfaction in more perversion. But what I find incredibly disgusting are those who try to shove it down the rest of our throats (an apt metaphor) or shove it up our butts (now you know where that metaphor came from) and tell us we're going to have to like it or be punished in one way or another by a society that is now calling bad "good".

    Most mushy headed people, who are inclined to legitimize homosexuality by supporting homosexual marriages, are ignorant about what homosexuals do with each other and the variety of other perversions and disease spreading practices these people engage in. A little like people who support abortion, by not thinking about the baby that is being killed or that the baby really isn't a baby it's something else.

    Of course good luck putting the genie back in the bottle once gay marriage is the law of the land. And then comes all the affirmative action BS. Want a job, say your gay. If you don't get the job the employer gets dragged into court along with the wedding cake bakers who are Christians (Muslims will be exempt, you wouldn't want to p!ss them off).

    But given this nation's leadership under Herr Obama, it's only a matter of time before the Muslim hoards take over, and that will solve the homosexuality problem. As we all know, there are no homosexuals in Muslim countries.
     
  5. Polydectes

    Polydectes Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2010
    Messages:
    53,280
    Likes Received:
    18,037
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    well it's not about biology anymore. as right it shouldn't be. appeals to nature are logical fallacy. thus laws change.

    get a helmet.
     
  6. Polydectes

    Polydectes Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2010
    Messages:
    53,280
    Likes Received:
    18,037
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I think they should be out of the tax collecting business. but unfortionatly I don't get to say.
    It did? when?
    There should be no IRS at all, but there is. should never could.
    so do away with everything and then put it back the way it was and pretend its different? seems a bit pointless to me.

    I don't concern myself with things that will never happen.

    Exactly as conservative as i am. I would say not mucking about with tax codes needlessly is mildly conservative. I would say abolishing income tax completely is the most conservative a person can be.



    I posted nothing that was libreitarian. you are confusing liberal high taxes with conservatism.



    You want to complicate tax code to pay lip service to religion. that's as liberal as it gets. Im for abolishing all complications. if we must have an income tax everybody pays 10% period. You want to add a thousand pages to an 80,000 page tax code for no real purpose but to pay lip service to a social club. I want to reduce 80,000 pages to one sentence.

    Do you not know what conservation is?

    It would be strictly a legal issue. Murdering somebody denies that person the right to life and thus liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

    Allowing gays to marry denies nothing to anybody. Unless you can prove people get needlessly killed by gays getting married i feel confedent in mocking that rediculose crap.

    thanks for a good laugh obama.
     
  7. Polydectes

    Polydectes Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2010
    Messages:
    53,280
    Likes Received:
    18,037
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
  8. Robert Barney

    Robert Barney New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2015
    Messages:
    60
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    And who/what determines if a church is a church: the government.

    So much for freedom of religion.
     
  9. Polydectes

    Polydectes Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2010
    Messages:
    53,280
    Likes Received:
    18,037
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    what stops any business from being a church?

    What God do they worship at the first United hitcin' post?
     
  10. Robert Barney

    Robert Barney New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2015
    Messages:
    60
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I have no idea, but if they claim to be members of a religious faith, and that faith considers homosexuality wrong, and that they don't want to participate in a homosexual marriage, ANY government action to punish them for taking that position, is a violation of their freedom of religion. The government defense in punishing these people, appears to be that they are not an official religion recognized by the government. And that, quite clearly, is a breach of the first amendment meaning and intent.
     
  11. Polydectes

    Polydectes Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2010
    Messages:
    53,280
    Likes Received:
    18,037
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I agree, but no law was created to violate their exercise of their religion. The government can make laws to regulate businesses.

    As far as I know nobody has been forced to leave their religion by the government.

    For business practices.

    They are a for profit business. There may be a religious aspect about it. The government is only regulating the business part of it.

    They can become a 501(c) and be a religion.
     
  12. dixon76710

    dixon76710 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2010
    Messages:
    58,376
    Likes Received:
    4,438
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The right to the free exercise of religion is an individual right, not one limited to the church.
     
  13. Polydectes

    Polydectes Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2010
    Messages:
    53,280
    Likes Received:
    18,037
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    So my religion says I can't serve black people, or handicapped people. Do I get the right to exercise my religion with impunity?
     
  14. Arxael

    Arxael Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2014
    Messages:
    6,102
    Likes Received:
    88
    Trophy Points:
    48
    No, of course not.

    /sarcasm on

    You only get to discriminate against what certain Christians say you can according to the bible they interpreted.

    /sarcasm off
     
  15. dixon76710

    dixon76710 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2010
    Messages:
    58,376
    Likes Received:
    4,438
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The "free exercise" of religion encompasses more than the government refraining from forcing people to leave their religion. And their intent in enacting the law is irrelevant if the effect is to interfere with the free exercise of religion.
     
  16. rahl

    rahl Banned

    Joined:
    May 31, 2010
    Messages:
    62,508
    Likes Received:
    7,651
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Businesses don't have religion. They serve the public. There is no violation of the first amendment here.
     
  17. dixon76710

    dixon76710 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2010
    Messages:
    58,376
    Likes Received:
    4,438
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The owners of the business frequently do. The same owners who are being fined and assessed 10s, 100s of thousands in so called damages
     
  18. rahl

    rahl Banned

    Joined:
    May 31, 2010
    Messages:
    62,508
    Likes Received:
    7,651
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Which is irrelevant.
    because they broke the law. Their business can't discriminate.
     
  19. cd8ed

    cd8ed Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2011
    Messages:
    41,834
    Likes Received:
    32,499
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    And that is due to a broken court system. It fails spectacularly in so many situations.

    That's the issue, no law should exist saying you have to provide goods or services to someone you do not wish to. Discrimination should be allowed but not on a religious basis. If someone doesn't want to serve someone else they should not have to unless the refusal could cause serious harm to come to the individual.

    Should a black baker have to serve a cake to a kkk rally? What about decorating the cake with offensive messages?
    Should an atheist be forced to cater a religious ceremony?
    Should a prostitute (in Nevada) be forced to service a gender they are not attracted to?
    Should a painter be forced to paint a picture of a rite they believe is disgusting?

    All we will get in all of these is a lower quality service and all parties being displeased with the end result.

    Business should be required to post notice of their discrimination so people effected wouldn't even have to interact with the business owner - I also support the public boycotting the business as long as no threats are made.

    Let the market correct itself. They won't been in business long - society as a whole tends to move away from discrimination (slowly sometimes) once it's identified.
     
  20. dixon76710

    dixon76710 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2010
    Messages:
    58,376
    Likes Received:
    4,438
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Not when it is the owner of the business who is being fined and assessed 10s, 100s of thousands in so called damages
     
  21. Polydectes

    Polydectes Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2010
    Messages:
    53,280
    Likes Received:
    18,037
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    seems some Christians want to be Christ.
     
  22. Polydectes

    Polydectes Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2010
    Messages:
    53,280
    Likes Received:
    18,037
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    You don't get a free pass to break all the laws you want because you claim some religious reason for it. If so i could skirt all sorts of laws by saying that following them will violate my religion. What if i said it was against my religion to pay taxes? Why does the government get the right to interfere with my religion?
     
  23. dixon76710

    dixon76710 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2010
    Messages:
    58,376
    Likes Received:
    4,438
    Trophy Points:
    113
    No one claimed you do. But as the Hobby Lobby case demonstrates, the law required employers to provide their employees abortion pills, but they got a pass for religious reasons. AND I would argue refusing to bake a cake for a gay wedding isnt violating any laws. They would equally oppose baking a cake for two heterosexuals of the same sex who wished to be married, because their decision has nothing to do with the sexual orientation of the participants. Its not disscrimination based upon sexual orientation.
     
  24. Arxael

    Arxael Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2014
    Messages:
    6,102
    Likes Received:
    88
    Trophy Points:
    48
    That was an insurance case, not a free for all on all religious activity being legal to do by a business. As Polydectes pointed out, if my religion is against paying taxes, does that mean I don't have too? Of course I would have to.
     
  25. rahl

    rahl Banned

    Joined:
    May 31, 2010
    Messages:
    62,508
    Likes Received:
    7,651
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Because he broke the law.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Lol, it's not discrimination based on sexual orientation. Hahahahahahahahaha
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page