PDA

View Full Version : News agencies gagging 'gay' factor in boy's rape



DDT
03-07-2009, 00:20
By Joe Kovacs
Editor's note: The content of this story is graphic in nature and may be objectionable to some readers.

News coverage of a Duke University official accused of raping his adopted 5-year-old son and offering the child to someone else is apparently lacking what some say is a key piece of information: the fact the alleged perpetrator is a homosexual who lives with another "gay" man.

Frank Lombard, associate director of the Health Inequalities Program at the university's Center for Health Policy, was arrested last Wednesday in Raleigh, N.C., for attempting to induce someone to cross state lines to engage in sex with the child, who is black.

The arrest affidavit goes into graphic detail of Lombard's alleged actions, including alleged performance of oral sex with the child in front of a webcam, and sodomizing the boy with his finger and tongue. It also prominently cites the fact that Lombard is a homosexual living with another "gay" man.

In his online profile, Lombard reportedly describes himself as "perv dad for fun."

But days after the case broke, there have been few, if any, mentions in news stories that Lombard is part of a homosexual couple raising children.

In reports by the Associated Press, CNN and ABC News, for instance, the "gay" factor is never brought up.

Don't believe today's deceptive media. See what God REALLY says about sex and homosexuality in "Shocked by the Bible: The Most Astonishing Facts You've Never Been Told" -- personally autographed!

A Lexis-Nexis news database search by WND using search terms "Frank Lombard" and "homosexual" or "gay" resulted in just four results, none of which were any major media.

Just today, Duke's campus newspaper, the Chronicle, finally mentioned the affidavit where it was stated, "he lived in Durham, North Carolina with his live-in homosexual partner."
An online comment in reaction to the ABC News story mentioned media hypocrisy with the high-profile case of Duke lacrosse players who were wrongly accused of a rape that never happened:

"The Duke lacrosse case was front page news everywhere, professors were signing statements of protest, another professor threatened to resign in protest when the students were readmitted to Duke when found innocent. Could it be the liberal media and professors are as afraid of the gay lobby as Obama is, since this could harm the gay adoption activists?"

Radio host Rush Limbaugh commented today on the apparent double standard, stating, "Did you hear there has been an actual rape at Duke University? An actual rape in Durham, North Carolina. It's not a phony one. Not a false charge. An actual rape. A guy sold his adopted 5-year-old son to a sex practitioner. A 5-year-old kid, yeah. There's a problem with this, too, because the guy is gay, a gay adoption.

"This is why you haven't heard about it. This does not fit the template. A false charge of rape at Duke when you had the poor, black, down-on-her-luck dancer and the rich, white, lacrosse players, oh, that fit the template. They were guilty before any evidence. This you haven't heard about because this doesn't fit the template here of what we're trying to accomplish."

The silence is reminiscent of the 1999 homosexual rape and murder of 13-year-old Jesse Dirkhising of Prairie Grove, Ark. Many news agencies across the nation ignored coverage.

Among those trying to shine the light on the homosexual aspect of the Lombard case is Mike Adams, a professor of criminology at the University of North Carolina-Wilmington.

"I tried to contact Frank Lombard over the weekend to probe his expertise regarding the health benefits of raping small children," wrote Adams. "So far, he's declined to comment."

Lombard faces a maximum of 20 years in prison if convicted.
News agencies gagging 'gay' factor in boy's rape (http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=102740)

Qdos
03-07-2009, 00:33
See what God REALLY says about sex and homosexuality in "Shocked by the Bible: The Most Astonishing Facts You've Never Been Told" -- personally autographed!

Whilst it sounds horrific, it has little to do with religion and far more to do with a homosexual who enjoys sodomising little boys. At least he's in the right country for the gas chamber, oh... actually, hold on... you've got to murder someone to attain the accolade of being executed - it's not enough that you can sodomise them long before the age of consent... :sick:

Carbo
03-07-2009, 00:38
DDT, would it be too much for you to tell me what your point was in posting this article? What's with the homosexual angle?

DDT
03-07-2009, 01:20
It's quite obvious....but perhaps your English skills are not up to par.

The article rather blatantly, to the normal functioning mind, shows the double standard held by mainstream media, who always show crime committed by Homosexuals on heterosexuals nothing more than crime, but when it is heterosexual crime committed against a homosexual the crime is always shown by the mainstream media to be hate crime particularly against Gays.

Well here is a case of Homosexual crime against a child by his own adopted "gay Father", and the press neglects to mention the fact. A fact that has long been implicated by those against gay adoption laws to be paramount to one of the many reasons against allowing gays to adopt children in the first place.

The article show the utter bias the media has towards the gay minority agenda and it's contempt for heterosexuals and people who believe in the traditional meaning of the word "Family'.

But Carbo, being the frolicking fawn of the media himself needed the expertise, the patience, wisdom, understanding and the benevolence of the magnanimous DDT and his beautiful shiny biceps to help him overcome the insurmountable odds against his understanding of this article.
I'll take a check for $15

Scrat335
03-07-2009, 04:23
The article rather blatantly, to the normal functioning mind, shows the double standard held by mainstream media, who always show crime committed by Homosexuals on heterosexuals nothing more than crime, but when it is heterosexual crime committed against a homosexual the crime is always shown by the mainstream media to be hate crime particularly against Gays.

I agree with DDT, the media doesn't dare bring such things to light. Along with facts like most sexual predators ect are homosexual or switchhitters.

Carbo
03-07-2009, 09:34
It's quite obvious....but perhaps your English skills are not up to par.

The article rather blatantly, to the normal functioning mind, shows the double standard held by mainstream media, who always show crime committed by Homosexuals on heterosexuals nothing more than crime, but when it is heterosexual crime committed against a homosexual the crime is always shown by the mainstream media to be hate crime particularly against Gays.

Well here is a case of Homosexual crime against a child by his own adopted "gay Father", and the press neglects to mention the fact. A fact that has long been implicated by those against gay adoption laws to be paramount to one of the many reasons against allowing gays to adopt children in the first place.

The article show the utter bias the media has towards the gay minority agenda and it's contempt for heterosexuals and people who believe in the traditional meaning of the word "Family'.

But Carbo, being the frolicking fawn of the media himself needed the expertise, the patience, wisdom, understanding and the benevolence of the magnanimous DDT and his beautiful shiny biceps to help him overcome the insurmountable odds against his understanding of this article.
I'll take a check for $15
Here's the thing, though, DDT, this is an act of paedophilia, and has nothing to do with homosexuality.

If a heterosexual man had done the same thing, you wouldn't get people like that fat, drugged up oaf Limbaugh saying "he was heterosexual -- heterosexual. Did you hear that?? Another. All these straight men sexually abusing and raping. When will it end??"

That's because when somebody starts abusing children in that way, whether they're homosexual or heterosexual is irrelevant, and that's the way the media always treat it.

Bottom line: homosexual or heterosexual, it doesn't matter, because they're just evil full stop and being one or the other doesn't change that at all.

And as for reporting any act against homosexuals as hate crime, I think you've finally tipped over the edge into pure paranoia. I mean, hate crime against homosexuals exists, just as race hate crime exists. But I don't think every crime against a homosexual is reported that way. I mean, in Britain, the police are very careful about labelling things a hate crime, and, indeed, if a black person is attacked, the police state quite clearly, and the news channels always follow the lead" "There is thought to be no racial motivation behind the attack." Or, if there is, and it's obvious, then they just do it.

That's completely sensible, but in the US it might be different.

DDT
03-07-2009, 22:13
Here's the thing, though, DDT, this is an act of paedophilia, and has nothing to do with homosexuality.



Male Homosexuals Commit A Disproportionate Number of Child Sex Abuse Cases

Homosexual pedophiles sexually molest children at a far greater rate compared to the percentage of homosexuals in the general population. Although heterosexuals outnumber homosexuals by a ratio of at least 20 to 1, homosexual pedophiles commit about one-third of the total number of child sex offenses.

Tragically the homosexual-pedophile connection is the fact that men who sexually molest boys all too often lead their victims into homosexuality and pedophilia. The evidence indicates that a high percentage of homosexuals and pedophiles were themselves sexually abused as children.

While many homosexuals may not seek young sexual partners, the evidence indicates that disproportionate numbers of gay men seek adolescent males or boys as sexual partners.

These facts are only disputed by Gay Activists, who have a lot to lose if the truth gets out about them!

The fact remains that children need male and female parents for proper development. Letting two raging queens have control over a child's life is a criminal act of child endangerment by the State.
The true amount of homosexuallity is only between 1 and 3 percent of the entire population. We don't need homosexuals numbers to help with the adoption of children. They need to be banned from adoption altogether.

Carbo
03-07-2009, 22:27
Male Homosexuals Commit A Disproportionate Number of Child Sex Abuse Cases

Homosexual pedophiles sexually molest children at a far greater rate compared to the percentage of homosexuals in the general population. Although heterosexuals outnumber homosexuals by a ratio of at least 20 to 1, homosexual pedophiles commit about one-third of the total number of child sex offenses.

Tragically the homosexual-pedophile connection is the fact that men who sexually molest boys all too often lead their victims into homosexuality and pedophilia. The evidence indicates that a high percentage of homosexuals and pedophiles were themselves sexually abused as children.

While many homosexuals may not seek young sexual partners, the evidence indicates that disproportionate numbers of gay men seek adolescent males or boys as sexual partners.

These facts are only disputed by Gay Activists, who have a lot to lose if the truth gets out about them!

The fact remains that children need male and female parents for proper development. Letting two raging queens have control over a child's life is a criminal act of child endangerment by the State.
The true amount of homosexuallity is only between 1 and 3 percent of the entire population. We don't need homosexuals numbers to help with the adoption of children. They need to be banned from adoption altogether.
Neither a homosexual, nor a heterosexual, can be a paedophile. You either like men, like women, or like children.

So I'm not quite sure what a homosexual paedophile is.

I suspect it is someone who molests boys. But that doesn't make him a homosexual any more than molesting a girl would make him a heterosexual

kapione
03-07-2009, 22:38
The press is biased , gay bashing gets press, if a gay does a crime it is on the page with the obits, where it dies too......

One fact is these type of criminals dont fare well in jail, even while seperated or "protective custody" the other inmate will seek them out and justice will be a "jalistyle shank"

the press isnt fair.... hasnt been free for a very long time remember yellow journalism? and didnt your MOm tell you dont believe everything you read

I read this story the suspect is part of a gay couple who adopted children... now there are plenty of straight couples who want to adopt children, why would a Homosexual couple be granted custody? I dont think this is right, children are impressionable, life is tough enough for a kid these days to be bullied or insulted by " you have queer Dads" whats worse he braggs saying he is a perv, so let the inmates sort him out as the courts failed again

The press serves and promotes their own agenda the occasion truth is a mere sideshow

DDT
03-07-2009, 23:14
But that doesn't make him a homosexual any more than molesting a girl would make him a heterosexual
That has to be the dumbest reasoning that I ever heard. These acts DEFINE their sexual attractions.

Carbo
03-07-2009, 23:39
These acts DEFINE their sexual attractions.
That's stating the obvious. Any sexual act defines sexual attraction.

And a sexual act with a child defines you as a paedophile.

kapione
04-07-2009, 09:23
you dont like anyone response unless its exactly like yours......

DDT
04-07-2009, 10:20
And a sexual act with a child defines you as a paedophile.
Unless you are attracted to children of your own sex,,,then you are also a homosexual pedophile.

Matt24
04-07-2009, 11:09
That's stating the obvious. Any sexual act defines sexual attraction. paedophile.

Hmmm with all due respect, this is nonsense - (you guys need to watch the shawshank redemption) - Often, I would suggest in the majority of non hetero rape and paedophilic attacks, and quite probably in a very high proportion of our more traditional understanding of the crime (man or men on women), rape has less to do with sexual orientation and attraction and so much more to do with power - it's about dominance, it's about humiliation, it's about really screwing up the lives of your victim or perceived enemy.

cheers

Matt

Scrat335
04-07-2009, 20:40
Neither a homosexual, nor a heterosexual, can be a paedophile. You either like men, like women, or like children.

BS Carbo, some homos don't care just as some heteros don't care when it comes to age. Studies have been done that show the tendencies for child molestation are more common among homos than any other group. Strangely enough amongst lesbians it is almost non existant.

DDT
04-07-2009, 21:16
Hmmm with all due respect, this is nonsense - (you guys need to watch the shawshank redemption) - Often, I would suggest in the majority of non hetero rape and paedophilic attacks, and quite probably in a very high proportion of our more traditional understanding of the crime (man or men on women), rape has less to do with sexual orientation and attraction and so much more to do with power - it's about dominance, it's about humiliation, it's about really screwing up the lives of your victim or perceived enemy.

cheers

Matt
OK , then homosexual rape is about homosexual "power, dominance, humiliation, really screwing up the lives of your victim or perceived enemy."

Russian Lad
05-07-2009, 01:02
Carbo, bonin a boy in the arse is homosexuality+paedophilia. Moreover, this boy's chance of growing up gay increases after such a rape and he can "pass on" the "knowledge" to others in the future.
Anyway, I want to ask you the following - if you were an orphan would you prefer to grow up in an orphanage or in a family of two gays? You would be calling "mom" a man with a dick and two hairy balls all your life, just think about that!

Carbo
05-07-2009, 18:26
Carbo, bonin a boy in the arse is homosexuality+paedophilia. Moreover, this boy's chance of growing up gay increases after such a rape and he can "pass on" the "knowledge" to others in the future.
Anyway, I want to ask you the following - if you were an orphan would you prefer to grow up in an orphanage or in a family of two gays? You would be calling "mom" a man with a dick and two hairy balls all your life, just think about that!
So I guess that every time a man has sex with an underrage girl you and DDT will be screaming about how disgraceful these heterosexuals are?

And sexually abusing a 7 year old girl would make a man a heterosexual paedophile? And that would matter, in the broad scheme of things, right?

Give me a break.

Bottom line: both of you are homophobic d1ck heads who will use any opportunity to have a bash at gays.

DDT
05-07-2009, 21:57
So I guess that every time a man has sex with an underrage girl you and DDT will be screaming about how disgraceful these heterosexuals are?
No, I won't be worried about him being "hetro" because hetro is normal human function without which the human race is not possible.


And sexually abusing a 7 year old girl would make a man a heterosexual paedophile? And that would matter, in the broad scheme of things, right?
Of course it would matter. The man should be executed.......just like your pal Mohamed should have been executed, when he did the same thing to a 7 year old. But for some reason the world has given him a free pass!




Bottom line: both of you are homophobic d1ck heads who will use any opportunity to have a bash at gays.
Homophobe......= defin. Someone who is afraid of queers.

Sorry to inform you, but I am unafraid of homos as a matter of fact I and my trusty Smith & Wesson have no fear of attack from them at all.

The fact is I will use any opportunity to alert the public to and repel any attack from Homosexual Activism. Homosexual Activists put the raped boy into the home of two gay pedophiles in the first place. Adoption is not the business of Homos!

Russian Lad
05-07-2009, 22:05
So I guess that every time a man has sex with an underrage girl you and DDT will be screaming about how disgraceful these heterosexuals are?

And what do you think? No, we will pat the man on the shoulder and worship his deeds. Heterosexual paedophilia is probably as disgusting as homosexual paedophilia (on the other hand, some countries allow sex with girls from as little as nine), and one does not exclude another.
The fact that you do not know such terms indicates gaps in your sexual education, not our gay bashing. There are quite many links in google related to both terms, look them up, our arrogant British arse-bandit-loving head:).
It just happened that neither DDT nor me haven't made these terms up solely to step on your sore spot.
P.S. And you have not answered my question above. What would it be for you personally? The orphanage or the dick-wielding mom?

Carbo
05-07-2009, 22:30
Yay! You're finally getting it.

The fact is, the molesting of a young child is one of the most heinous crimes imaginable, and is so abhorrent that it doesn't really matter what the various gender matchups are. Is it any worse for a man to molest a seven year old boy than a seven year old girl? Of course not, they're both equally sick.

That's why the gay issue is no issue. It pales in comparison to the crime.

So who cares? It's not important, but the crime is.

The other thing that's abhorrent is using the sexual abuse of a boy to make a cheap political point.

Russian Lad
05-07-2009, 22:42
Is it any worse for a man to molest a seven year old boy than a seven year old girl? Of course not, they're both equally sick.

That's why the gay issue is no issue. It pales in comparison to the crime.

Ok, for the sake of this discussion, let's admit they are equally sick. You haven't answered the question, though. Please do.
Isn't it sick to let two gays adopt children? I mean, a child's psychology from such a "family" will be twisted for life. Chances that he grows up a queer himself at least double. After all, it is a normal behavior in his happy family, so why not? Or you are willing to discuss only what suits your mindframe?

Carbo
05-07-2009, 23:05
Ok, for the sake of this discussion, let's admit they are equally sick. You haven't answered the question, though. Please do.
Isn't it sick to let two gays adopt children? I mean, a child's psychology from such a "family" will be twisted for life. Chances that he grows up a queer himself at least double. After all, it is a normal behavior in his happy family, so why not? Or you are willing to discuss only what suits your mindframe?

Well, first I would say that in an ideal world we would place orphans with a married, wealthy, loving, wise, socially adjusted mother and father.

Of course that's true.

But we don't live in an ideal world, and I wonder whether its worse for a kid to stay in an orphanage or to go with a gay couple? Really, I don't know what the state of American orphanages is, and what statistics for for the number of kids who end up being criminals or having phsychological problems or whatever. But if it's bad, why not send a child to live with a gay couple. I know someone whose mother divorced from his father when she decided she was a lesbian and he lived for years with his mother and her partner and he turned out fine.

I just don't see the problem.

Second, I don't see why the child's view of the family would be twisted for life. Some kids grow up without a mom or a dad or for some unfortunates, both. But they still know what a nuclear family is. Just because you've had one type of family, doesn't mean that by the time you're an adult you have no idea of what the alternatives are. Before my parents divorced when I was sixteen, I had only lived with a mom and a dad. But doesn't mean I don't know now that there are other types of family. So what's the difference.

Third, talking of growing up queer, keeping away from whether that's something to worry about or not, you're just guessing at statistics, which offers literally nothing to the discussion. Further, I think Gay is something you either are or you aren't; you can't be made gay or straight.

But I don't see what this has to do with paedophilia or child abuse. It's a completely different matter.

Russian Lad
06-07-2009, 00:15
I just don't see the problem.

Not at all? It is rather amazing. Imagine this boy going to school, for example. He will be an outcast from the very start of his life. Imagine him hearing his parents giving it to each other at night or even seeing it. Imagine him calling one of the perverts "mom". Amazing.

DDT
06-07-2009, 01:20
Not at all? It is rather amazing. Imagine this boy going to school, for example. He will be an outcast from the very start of his life. Imagine him hearing his parents giving it to each other at night or even seeing it. Imagine him calling one of the perverts "mom". Amazing.

Imagine the time in the boy's life when he may have to deal with the terrible fact that the two people who raised him, that he depended on for everything, are in fact twisted, sick, degenerate freaks of nature and considered to be such by the majority of humakind.

And then imagine the following anger that he will develop for the State and society as a whole for forcing this tragedy on him while he was a baby in the custody of the State who had been entrusted to protect him.

DDT
06-07-2009, 01:49
The fact is, the molesting of a young child is one of the most heinous crimes imaginable, and is so abhorrent that it doesn't really matter what the various gender matchups are.It does matter because pedophiles are more often gay.



Is it any worse for a man to molest a seven year old boy than a seven year old girl? Of course not, they're both equally sick.Of course it is. They are not "equally" sick! Are you sick too? Males do not even have the anatomy for it. It's scientifically against nature. The boy has to not only live with the fact that he has been raped as the girl does, but he also has to live with the fact that was HOMOSEXUALLY raped!



The other thing that's abhorrent is using the sexual abuse of a boy to make a cheap political point.
You are the one who is making it political.
The proof being that never before would two gays even be considered fit to adopt kids, until bigmouthed Liberal extremists like you appeared onto the scene, spouting your retarded logic and vile ideology.

YOU are just as much to blame for the rape of that boy as the gay-pedophile who acted it out, as much as YOU enabled him with YOUR new rules for adoption. Go hang your head pompous elitist head in shame.






But we don't live in an ideal world, and I wonder whether its worse for a kid to stay in an orphanage or to go with a gay couple?
As stated earlier, gays only make up 1 to 3 percent of the population. Denying gays, as they should be, will have very little effect if any at all, on whether a kids will spend more time in the orphanage.



Really, I don't know what the state of American orphanages is, and what statistics for for the number of kids who end up being criminals or having phsychological problems or whatever. But if it's bad, why not send a child to live with a gay couple.Because studies also say that the kids are more likely to have "problems" if raised by two guys ranging each others rumps in the next room every night.


I know someone whose mother divorced from his father when she decided she was a lesbian and he lived for years with his mother and her partner and he turned out fine. 'Fine', by your standards.





Third, talking of growing up queer, keeping away from whether that's something to worry about or not, you're just guessing at statistics, which offers literally nothing to the discussion. Further, I think Gay is something you either are or you aren't; you can't be made gay or straight.

But I don't see what this has to do with paedophilia or child abuse. It's a completely different matter.
You are just ignoring the facts. Studies do show that these kids more often become gay themselves. Proving that gays can be made!
And the studies also show that gays have a higher incident of being pedophiles. Let's just agree not to let them adopt at all!

Russian Lad
06-07-2009, 03:39
Studies do show that these kids more often become gay themselves. Proving that gays can be made!

I, in fact, have known a gay (he was my colleague) whose first sex experience was with his own geography teacher who convinced him (he was rather fat, that boy) that girls had nothing to offer to him (he was 15) and then tore his ramp up wide right in the classroom. Well, this boy grew up and became my colleague - a nice man in some respects, but rather dangerous - I remember him trying to get into my pants when we were both drunk. Oh, man, just give those perverts a chance!:) No surprise the asses of their adopted children are constantly in jeopardy.

Carbo
06-07-2009, 09:23
It does matter because pedophiles are more often gay.
Another lie. You lie so often DDT. There are no statistics to prove this. You're just deliberately making things up or relying on what you know is hearsay. That's called lying. And you lie all the time.


Of course it is. They are not "equally" sick! Are you sick too? Males do not even have the anatomy for it. It's scientifically against nature. The boy has to not only live with the fact that he has been raped as the girl does, but he also has to live with the fact that was HOMOSEXUALLY raped!

I want the whole forum to know that DDT thinks it is morally better for a man rape a seven year old girl than to rape a seven year old boy, because the boy does "not even have the anatomy for it", and a girl presumably does, at that age. He also thinks that the seven year old girl will find it less traumatic.


You are the one who is making it political.
The proof being that never before would two gays even be considered fit to adopt kids, until bigmouthed Liberal extremists like you appeared onto the scene, spouting your retarded logic and vile ideology.

YOU are just as much to blame for the rape of that boy as the gay-pedophile who acted it out, as much as YOU enabled him with YOUR new rules for adoption. Go hang your head pompous elitist head in shame.
Look, you nasty, bigoted c@nt, don't dare try to pin this on me. I'll not have it. You can come to Moscow and say that to my face, you nasty little troll, and I'll beat you so bad you'll need a shoehorn to get your cowboy hat back on.

Heterosexual families abuse their natural born and adopted children all the time. I read these disgusting stories on the news all the time. So what's the point? If a heterosexual man or woman does it, it's fine, but if a homosexual man does it, it's somehow proof of something? This isn't a homosexual -- heterosexual point, but a point of being vigilant against people who are sick and evil.

What you're doing here is taking a disgusting crime and a great personal tragedy and scoring non-existent political points off it. You disgust me.


You are just ignoring the facts. Studies do show that these kids more often become gay themselves. Proving that gays can be made!
And the studies also show that gays have a higher incident of being pedophiles. Let's just agree not to let them adopt at all!
Gays do not have a higher incidence of being paedophiles. Which studies show this? Where? You're a liar, aren't you? Telling porkie pies all the time, because if you told the truth, you wouldn't have a point. Your whole life, morals and belief systems are based on lies. The lies are the only thing that props up your paranoid hate for everything that doesn't look and live like you.

DDT
06-07-2009, 10:34
Look, you nasty, bigoted c@nt, don't dare try to pin this on me. I'll not have it. You can come to Moscow and say that to my face, you nasty little troll, and I'll beat you so bad you'll need a shoehorn to get your cowboy hat back on.

Well, you had better get used it being pinned on you because the shoe fits on you perfectly!
You and your type have petitioned endlessly for the laws to be changed so that 2 rump ranging queens can adopt babies. !!!!!!!!!! Insane! !!!!!!!!!!!!

And since not only pedophelia runs higher in the gay community but kids raised by gays are more likely to try gay sex, the risk of physical and mental injury to children is now even higher. You put children at risk for the sake of your own ideology. Go pat yourself on the back!

Carbo
06-07-2009, 10:43
Well, you had better get used it being pinned on you because the shoe fits on you perfectly!
You and your type have petitioned endlessly for the laws to be changed so that 2 rump ranging queens can adopt babies. !!!!!!!!!! Insane! !!!!!!!!!!!!

And since not only pedophelia runs higher in the gay community but kids raised by gays are more likely to try gay sex, the risk of physical and mental injury to children is now even higher. You put children at risk for the sake of your own ideology. Go pat yourself on the back!
Stop lying, you repugnant piece of dog sh1t.

Is it possible for you to go a single post without regurgitating a lie?

Have you been reading Mein Kampf? For someone who is supposedly for freedom, you really hate giving it to people, don't you? Gay's disgusting degenerates; muslims evil? Hitler believed in freedom too. For whites. If you were non-white, or practiced another religion, or held extremist political views (that is, extreme and not his), then you had no freedom. Just like you.

Children get abused by heterosexuals all the time. Homosexuals are no more likely to sexually abuse a child than a heterosexual. To say otherwise is a lie.

So are YOU, Mr traditional family, responsible for all those attacks? No, of course not.

The point is that you just hate gays. This hate means that your head is filled with utter irrationality regarding homosexuals and homosexuality. It also means that you're willing to both lie and to use a tragic story to make a political point. And it is you using it. You posted it, not me.

You're nothing but fetid lump of turd, floating in the sewer water, sucking on the detritus of humanity to write hateful, paranoid, fascist polemics. You are a repugnant human being. I’m all for bashing someone like that, as it’s a public service to all decent minded people in the world, but not if that person is just going to build an argument on lie upon lie upon lie. There’s just no point. So that’s me done with this stupid, hate-filled thread, except to say to DDT that I mean wholeheartedly that if he ever tells me to the face that I am responsible for the rape of a little boy and I'll knock him clean out.

DDT
06-07-2009, 10:54
Something for you to think about:

In 1995 the homosexual magazine "Guide" said, "We can be proud that the gay movement has been home to the few voices who have had the courage to say out loud that children are naturally sexual" and "deserve the right to sexual expression with whoever they choose. …" The article went on to say: "Instead of fearing being labeled pedophiles, we must proudly proclaim that sex is good, including children's sexuality … we must do it for the children's sake."


Larry Kramer, the founder of ACT-UP, a noted homosexual activist group, wrote in his book, "Report from the Holocaust: The Making of an AIDS Activist": "In those instances where children do have sex with their homosexual elders, be they teachers or anyone else, I submit that often, very often, the child desires the activity, and perhaps even solicits it."

You have some sick friends backing you Carbo!




Since you are too lazy to even investigate for yourself and simply repeat what your gay activists mindlessly spout you can surf through this.
Dr. Judith Reisman - Exposing the Kinsey Institute and Alfred Kinsey's use of child sexual abuse and fraudulent sex science to defame The Greatest Generation. (http://drjudithreisman.org/)

And then you can read this:
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&ct=res&cd=12&url=http%3A%2F%2Fntpastor.diinoweb.com%2Ffiles%2F6d%2520Other%2520International%2520news%2F~%2520Homosexuality%2520and%2520Pedophilia.doc&ei=-JtRSs_2Doz0sgO46pGrDQ&rct=j&q=%22Child+Molestation+and+the+Homosexual+Movement%2C%22+soon+to+be+published+by+the+Regent+University+Law+Review&usg=AFQjCNFGjnHAdg6rqSIP6FuMH5aqhnf70A

Report: Pedophilia more common among 'gays'
Research purports to reveal 'dark side' of homosexual culture
Posted: April 29, 2002
By Jon Dougherty
©*2002*WorldNetDaily.com

Child molestation and pedophilia occur far more commonly among homosexuals than among heterosexuals on a per capita basis, according to a new study.

"Overwhelming evidence supports the belief that homosexuality is a sexual deviancy often accompanied by disorders that have dire consequences for our culture," wrote Steve Baldwin in, "Child Molestation and the Homosexual Movement," soon to be published by the Regent University Law Review.

Baldwin is the executive director of the Council for National Policy in Washington, D.C.

"It is difficult to convey the dark side of the homosexual culture without appearing harsh," wrote Baldwin. "However, it is time to acknowledge that homosexual behavior threatens the foundation of Western civilization – the nuclear family."

Though the homosexual community and much of the media scoff at such accusations, Baldwin – who chaired the California Assembly's Education committee, where he fought against support for the homosexual agenda in the state's public schools – says in his report that homosexual activists' "efforts to target children both for their own sexual pleasure and to enlarge the homosexual movement" constitute an "unmistakable" attack on "the family unit."

Baldwin's research is substantiated in a recently completed body of work written by Dr. Judith Reisman, president of the Institute for Media Education and author of numerous authoritative books debunking sexual myths, including "Kinsey, Crimes & Consequences."

In her thesis – also written for the Regent University Law Review – Reisman cited psychologist Eugene Abel, whose research found that homosexuals "sexually molest young boys with an incidence that is occurring from five times greater than the molestation of girls. …"

Abel also found that non-incarcerated "child molesters admitted from 23.4 to 281.7 acts per offender … whose targets were males."

"The rate of homosexual versus heterosexual child sexual abuse is staggering," said Reisman, who was the principal investigator for an $800,000 Justice Department grant studying child pornography and violence. "Abel’s data of 150.2 boys abused per male homosexual offender finds no equal (yet) in heterosexual violations of 19.8 girls."

Jay Heavener, spokesman for PFLAG – Parents, Families and Friends of Lesbians and Gays, counters that federal crime data refute claims that homosexuals molest children at higher rates than heterosexuals.

"According to data from the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), this claim is false," he told WND by e-mail. "The gay and lesbian community calls into question any dubious research which flies in the face of our own experience."

And Gary Schoener, a clinical psychologist who has been diagnosing and treating clergy abuse for 28 years, told Salon.com, "There are far more heterosexual cases than homosexual."

In terms of sheer numbers, that may be true. But in terms of numbers of children abused per offender, homosexuals abuse with far greater frequency; and boys, research shows, are the much-preferred target.

Russian Lad
06-07-2009, 14:59
You're nothing but fetid lump of turd, floating in the sewer water, sucking on the detritus of humanity to write hateful, paranoid, fascist polemics.

Sounds like the phrase of the day. What do you think, DDT? You have wound up our good old sport Carbo real bad this time, it seems:).

Scrat335
06-07-2009, 19:02
BULLSEYE DDT!!! That's not the only study out there either, there's a lot of homos out there trolling around for little boys. Here in Seattle it is quite common but you NEVER hear about it in the press.

Just a few weeks ago me and my good friend Anatoly here had a conversation about it at a BBQ. It came up and I tried to avoid the subject. He persisted and I said that I didn't care about the subject and he spoke up and said that's the problem. People really don't care about it and try to avoid it.

The press will usually never touch the subject, just as they will never touch the causes of high rates of AIDS and other STDs in the homo community. Our AIDS rate is still climbing (not as bad as it was though) and it's not in the normal hetero community. There are straight women showing up that have contracted HIV from switchhitters and even a few cases of AIDS. This is a major strain on my regions healthcare system. It's very costly to treat these people for their stupidity.

This needs to be adressed. I think the people of California made their intentions clear a few months back and that made the news but little else has.

DDT
06-07-2009, 23:13
Sounds like the phrase of the day. What do you think, DDT? You have wound up our good old sport Carbo real bad this time, it seems:).

Oh, yes! I have surely wound up old Carbo this time! I am sure he is usually a placid fellow but after this forum I am sure he will be needing blood pressure pills.

DDT
06-07-2009, 23:29
Just a few weeks ago me and my good friend Anatoly here had a conversation about it at a BBQ. It came up and I tried to avoid the subject. He persisted and I said that I didn't care about the subject and he spoke up and said that's the problem. People really don't care about it and try to avoid it.
Yes I agree, people tends to avoid the subject now. Even I, the caustic and vile DDT, at home avoids the subject. Mrs DDT happens to think more like Carbo, but it is best if I don't get her wound up. Trust me!


There are straight women showing up that have contracted HIV from switchhitters and even a few cases of AIDS.

Yeah...........I have a bigger problem with the switchhitters, than "regular" gays that keep to them selves, for this reason.
It's those gays that pretend to be straight by mixing with the straight world, bringing AIDS to women and then through straight women, to the straight men, that are worrisome.
Adding to this; the GAy Activists then dishonestly use those numbers to add to the figures of AIDS amongst straights to spread fear into the Hetero community and the lie that AIDS is just as much a hetero disease as it is a Homo disease.

Kvartiraokhotnik
06-07-2009, 23:41
Yes I agree, people tends to avoid the subject now. Even I, the caustic and vile DDT, at home avoids the subject. Mrs DDT happens to think more like Carbo, but it is best if I don't get her wound up. Trust me!



And there I was thinking Mrs DDT loved nothing more than a night of romantic whisperings concerning the links between gays, paedophilia and aids with some anti-muslim rants thrown in for good measure :jester:

pjw
06-07-2009, 23:48
And there I was thinking Mrs DDT loved nothing more than a night of romantic whisperings concerning the links between gays, paedophilia and aids with some anti-muslim rants thrown in for good measure :jester::11629: I'm sure she likes it. Really. She just says she doesn't :agree:

AstroNoodle
07-07-2009, 08:42
So I guess that every time a man has sex with an underrage girl you and DDT will be screaming about how disgraceful these heterosexuals are?

And sexually abusing a 7 year old girl would make a man a heterosexual paedophile? And that would matter, in the broad scheme of things, right?

Give me a break.

Bottom line: both of you are homophobic d1ck heads who will use any opportunity to have a bash at gays.

Leave it to you to theorize instead of voice outrage at one of the most indefensible acts which I have ever heard about in my life. You are exemplary in your bias and have made DDT's point about bias for him.

Harming a five-year-old child is so far from any conception in my mind. My darkest thoughts have never approached such a thing -- especially molesting a child. As for me, I am one of they types who's darkest thoughts are reserved for those who would harm children.

Once again the truth hits at the heart of the homosexual propaganda lie that the gay gestapo is actually some sort of civil rights movement. What about the rights of five-year old African-American children just a month or so from when the US Senate formally apologized for slavery?

Maybe you should theorize about that, Carbo, instead of passing off your obvious prejudices and ill-gotten sympathies as disinterested rationale.

Maybe Adamodeus will tell us that the African-American five-year old boy should have just let his homosexual raping just "pass over his head." -- refering to another thread

AstroNoodle
07-07-2009, 08:56
You [Carbo] are the one who is making it political.
The proof being that never before would two gays even be considered fit to adopt kids, until bigmouthed Liberal extremists like you appeared onto the scene, spouting your retarded logic and vile ideology.

YOU are just as much to blame for the rape of that boy as the gay-pedophile who acted it out, as much as YOU enabled him with YOUR new rules for adoption. Go hang your head pompous elitist head in shame.

Yep. And guess who lost it and showed the true colors of his unnatural and untenable political opinions by melting down into filthy diatribes.

Maybe Carbo's fist will be the only part of the gay gestapo which flys over anyone's head, but that will be because he missed. Make no mistake, as Carbo has proven, the gay gestapo attack on healthy families and happiness of children goes for the knock-out punch every time -- all the while trying to project their own guilt for hearts full of hatred onto others who just want to live healthy, happy lives.

Adamodeus
08-07-2009, 02:44
Leave it to you to theorize instead of voice outrage at one of the most indefensible acts which I have ever heard about in my life. You are exemplary in your bias and have made DDT's point about bias for him.

Maybe Adamodeus will tell us that the African-American five-year old boy should have just let his homosexual raping just "pass over his head." -- refering to another thread
You keep indicating that homosexual rape of children is just the worst kind of thing there is. In other words, you think that a man raping a 5-year-old girl is a little more defensible then? Just how exactly? What, a boy is a poor victim and a girl is a little slut and she likes it? Please, explain the difference to me.

Yes, of course. Let's demonize Adamodeus now. Let's compare gays portrayed positively in the media with a vile rape of a child by a pedophile, lump it all together into one "gay onslaught" and then anyone who is against persecution of gays is automatically pro gay pedophilic rape. Thanks.

MickeyTong
08-07-2009, 03:54
Yeah...........I have a bigger problem with the switchhitters, than "regular" gays that keep to them selves, for this reason.
It's those gays that pretend to be straight by mixing with the straight world, bringing AIDS to women and then through straight women, to the straight men, that are worrisome.
Adding to this; the GAy Activists then dishonestly use those numbers to add to the figures of AIDS amongst straights to spread fear into the Hetero community and the lie that AIDS is just as much a hetero disease as it is a Homo disease.

In Africa HIV/AIDS is an overwhelmingly heterosexual phenomenon, not spread through injecting drugs or homosexual practices. The majority of women in Southern Africa with HIV/AIDS have never injected drugs and have had only 1 sexual partner in their lives - their unequivocally heterosexual husbands, who disdain the use of condoms while exercising their "macho right" to be promiscuous.

DDT
08-07-2009, 04:36
You keep indicating that homosexual rape of children is just the worst kind of thing there is. In other words, you think that a man raping a 5-year-old girl is a little more defensible then? Just how exactly? What, a boy is a poor victim and a girl is a little slut and she likes it? Please, explain the difference to me.

Nobody said that "a girl is a little slut and she likes it?"!! Except you just now. Stay on topic! What has been said is in a nutshell is that, the kid given in adoption to 2 HOMOS placed the kid at a much hight risk for getting sodomized and raped! That's what the thread is about....not whether the rape of a boy is worse than that of a girl.



In Africa HIV/AIDS is an overwhelmingly heterosexual phenomenon, not spread through injecting drugs or homosexual practices. The majority of women in Southern Africa with HIV/AIDS have never injected drugs and have had only 1 sexual partner in their lives - their unequivocally heterosexual husbands, who disdain the use of condoms while exercising their "macho right" to be promiscuous.
Yes it would be interesting to see the true breakdown of statistics on the African AIDS problem but I doubt that we will ever see what really goes on in that culture without having Western Gay Activists distort the numbers first. The fact that it is heavily reported that African men with AIDS seek out virgins and rape them in the belief that sex with a virgin cures AIDS obviously would be a large factor in why so many women contract AIDS in Africa.

AstroNoodle
08-07-2009, 07:44
You keep indicating that homosexual rape of children is just the worst kind of thing there is.

What an evasion. Quote me then. You DID SAY that the gay gestapo could be just let to pass over our heads which resulted in my ridicule of that suggestion -- ridicule which you cannot shake, because it shines a spotlight on how completely wrong you are about being able to ignore problems as a solution.

At least you are consistent in letting my comments pass over your head, because you certainly are not speaking specifically to anything I wrote.

The "homosexual rape" to which YOU refer is what cuts at YOUR heart and why you would rather fight for the right to live in denial than confront an atrocity -- denial which is based soley on your personal prejudices for and against certain groups and a political correctness which flatters your sympathies.

Refer to above thread from AstroNoodle -- and ditto it here.

Adamodeus
08-07-2009, 16:39
What an evasion. Quote me then. You DID SAY that the gay gestapo could be just let to pass over our heads which resulted in my ridicule of that suggestion -- ridicule which you cannot shake, because it shines a spotlight on how completely wrong you are about being able to ignore problems as a solution.

At least you are consistent in letting my comments pass over your head, because you certainly are not speaking specifically to anything I wrote.
I think I "shook" it quite well in the other post - which you happily ignored. What you cannot shake is that homosexual rape is as old as heterosexual rape: it's a problem mankind has been dealing with since the beginning of time. It doesn't qualify as any part of a gay onslaught. It's just rape, period.

As for the examples you give, as true and heart-wrenching as they may be, they do nothing to prove your point in general. If you've ever had to formally study logic, you should know that extrapolating characteristics from one individual to an entire group is a common fallacy. For every homosexual rapist you can throw at me I can give you an example of an outstanding individual who also happens to be gay. So where will that leave us? I'm not being argumentative, I really do know many fine gay people, people who had changed my negative bias towards homosexuality without even trying. Just because I refuse to believe they all desire to rape children doesn't make me politically correct.

If you give me examples of the gay life style being directly promoted to children on a huge scale - which would qualify as an onslaught - I think you'll get much further than giving me singular examples of homosexual rape, which prove nothing except that rape exists and has been a problem since time immemorial.

And please stop saying I advocate to "ignore problems". All I said in that other thread was that I didn't see a "gay onslaught", I didn't see it as a problem, and that I and everyone I know managed to live our lives just fine in spite of some imaginary gay onslaught. No amount of advertising will make you or me gay, it's something you're born with. I've heard many accounts of people struggling with those desires. A friend of mine told me once "When I was in school, I would have paid a million dollars if that could make me like everyone else. Really fought against it for a long time." These sort of accounts don't sound like any of them just decided to turn gay because they saw an episode of "Will and Grace". You will probably choose to say that they were all lying just to convince me, but that would be, as you aptly put it, "denial which is based soley on your personal prejudices".

AstroNoodle
08-07-2009, 22:11
Adamodeus, typical avoidance of the topic. I honestly believe that if you could outright excuse this man's behavior and get away with it that you would, because that is essentially what you are doing by avoiding the topic and insisting that we let the gay gestapo pass over our heads as you claimed to have done.

As I said:

"Leave it to you to theorize instead of voice outrage at one of the most indefensible acts which I have ever heard about in my life. You are exemplary in your bias and have made DDT's point about bias for him.

Harming a five-year-old child is so far from any conception in my mind. My darkest thoughts have never approached such a thing -- especially molesting a child. As for me, I am one of they types who's darkest thoughts are reserved for those who would harm children.

Once again the truth hits at the heart of the homosexual propaganda lie that the gay gestapo is actually some sort of civil rights movement. What about the rights of five-year old African-American children just a month or so from when the US Senate formally apologized for slavery?

Maybe you should theorize about that, Carbo, instead of passing off your obvious prejudices and ill-gotten sympathies as disinterested rationale."

I don't think that there is anything much else to say except to insert "Adamodeus" in place of "Carbo."

Anything else I would say would just entertain the gay-dillusion circle of illogic which you mind is apparently under.

We were talking about a five-year old African-American child being sold for rape on the internet by a gay "couple" who are now being defended by the gay thought control gestapo and the likes of yourself.

You are defending this act by saying it happens all the time and that we should not be outraged by it. You just want to deflect criticizm and pronounce sainthood on the gay gestapo. Truly disgusting.

Like DDT said, it is APOLOGISTS like yourself who are responsible for this even happening, so go hang your head in shame.

Adamodeus
09-07-2009, 02:38
We were talking about a five-year old African-American child being sold for rape on the internet by a gay "couple" who are now being defended by the gay thought control gestapo and the likes of yourself.

You are defending this act by saying it happens all the time and that we should not be outraged by it. You just want to deflect criticizm and pronounce sainthood on the gay gestapo. Truly disgusting.
Woah, WOAH! Hit the brakes, there! You're doing it again! Let's look at what you just said and here is what I said in that thread, word for word:

"The "gay gestapo" is merely a backlash against centuries of persecution. And do tell, how are families "surviving the onslaught"? My family and I, for example, seem to have completely missed "the onslaught". It doesn't affect my life in the least. The same way I am not affected at all, ever, by who wins the Superbowl, from a personal standpoint, I couldn't care less. The truth is that it doesn't affect you unless you let it. If I've managed to let the "gay gestapo onslaught" pass over my head, so can you and so can everyone else."

So you read that and what you got out of it is that I support the selling of a black child into sexual slavery by two pedophiles???? And that we should not be outraged by it??? EH?? WHERE did I even hint at THAT???? Pardon my language, but holy $hit, that's a big-ass logical jump there, no?! Stop lumping separate issues together. Talk about avoidance of the topic!!

Where did I ever express any support for sexual slavery, or in fact, even mentioned the African-American child in question? My beef was always and only with the term "gay gestapo". I don't think it exists and I haven't seen any good evidence that it does. Perez Hilton is not evidence, he's an affront to the memory the Gestapo.

You pull out one outrageous case out of your hat and that is supposed to be evidence that all gay people cannot be trusted? Very well. I've heard of an American family that adopted a disabled Russian orphan and tired to sell him for organs. To Russians, that's good solid evidence that all Americans cannot be trusted and are only out for money, even though the majority of Russian children adopted by American families are doing great in their new homes. Following your logic, you must agree with those Russians then?

If the issue is whether pedophiles are more likely to masquerade as a gay couple for some nefarious purpose, then the answer is yes, they are. Logically, twice as likely as a heterosexual couple.

Do I support (gay) slavery? Do I think we should look the other way when we see trafficking in people? Is harming a five-year-old child not very far from any conception in my mind? Have I ever contemplated sexually molesting a child? The answer to all these questions is a resounding "NO!". But how any of it is at the very "heart of the homosexual propaganda" I still fail to see. Just saying that it is doesn't make it so. I repeat, bringing up singular examples of pedophilic or gay criminals just doesn't do the trick.

DDT brought up some interesting studies to support his point that gay couples shouldn't be allowed to adopt. Now that's a good argument. The concept is questionable, but at least that's a solid argument. Amalgamating totally different issues and saying that if I support one I must support the other too and therefore I'm disgusting is a cheap shot to make the person you're arguing with guilty by association.

Carbo
09-07-2009, 02:44
Adamodeus, typical avoidance of the topic. I honestly believe that if you could outright excuse this man's behavior and get away with it that you would, because that is essentially what you are doing by avoiding the topic and insisting that we let the gay gestapo pass over our heads as you claimed to have done.

As I said:

"Leave it to you to theorize instead of voice outrage at one of the most indefensible acts which I have ever heard about in my life. You are exemplary in your bias and have made DDT's point about bias for him.

Harming a five-year-old child is so far from any conception in my mind. My darkest thoughts have never approached such a thing -- especially molesting a child. As for me, I am one of they types who's darkest thoughts are reserved for those who would harm children.

Once again the truth hits at the heart of the homosexual propaganda lie that the gay gestapo is actually some sort of civil rights movement. What about the rights of five-year old African-American children just a month or so from when the US Senate formally apologized for slavery?

Maybe you should theorize about that, Carbo, instead of passing off your obvious prejudices and ill-gotten sympathies as disinterested rationale."

I don't think that there is anything much else to say except to insert "Adamodeus" in place of "Carbo."

Anything else I would say would just entertain the gay-dillusion circle of illogic which you mind is apparently under.

We were talking about a five-year old African-American child being sold for rape on the internet by a gay "couple" who are now being defended by the gay thought control gestapo and the likes of yourself.

You are defending this act by saying it happens all the time and that we should not be outraged by it. You just want to deflect criticizm and pronounce sainthood on the gay gestapo. Truly disgusting.

Like DDT said, it is APOLOGISTS like yourself who are responsible for this even happening, so go hang your head in shame.
I'm sorry, I've tried to stay out of this thread, but I can't let this p**** and once this is done, that's it for me, because I feel a little pathetic and embarrassed that I've been so offended and angered by the words of two anonymous petty-demagogues on a forum -- but I guess that's the type of reaction that being told you're responsible for the rape of a child tends to engender.

What you're doing here, AstroNoodle, is showing that your hatred of homosexuals (whether you think that's reasonable or not is irrelevant, because I do not call it "irrational hatred"; but it is hatred) is hindering -- nay, destroying -- your ability to think straight.

Usually I would expect rational argument from you, AstroNoodle, because I believe you at least have engaged your brain and spent some time contemplating the foundations and logic behind your world view -- unlike that rapacious, fetid, repugnant disgrace to humanity, DDT. However, your use of laugh-out-loud paranoid-Right buzz phrases like "gay-gestapo" and "gay delusion", which are pungently redolent of the totalitarian language of Trotsky and Goebbels, should act as a ear-bursting alarm bell for anyone expecting objectivity or even a little basic logic from you on this matter.

But if that wasn't enough, what finally clinches the deal is your swift retreat from the actual crux of the argument into relying on hysterically presented logical fallacies and outrageous insults in a frantic attempt to carry your absolutely indefensible position. According to you, Adamodeous and I are part of a collective directly responsible for this child's abuse because we believe homosexuals should be allowed to adopt. Worse, we "are defending this act" and saying "that we should not be outraged by it", as well as trying to "deflect criticizm" from the perpetrators.

Well, the former, that we're somehow responsible, is clear logical idiocy, and the second is a bare-faced lie, which, in addition to being a wanton misrepresentation of our words and disgusting insult, also, infact, deflects criticism from the perpetrators by placing the blame, incorrectly, on a larger group.

Let's get this straight. I get the impression that your blind hatred of homosexuals might have hobbled your ability to read, as well as you ability to think, because earlier in the thread I said that the perpetrators are "just evil", and their actions were "the most heinous crimes imaginable, and... abhorrent..."

How much more resounding can you be? It's like trying to argue that my words on this forum have left a degree of ambiguity regarding my opinion of DDT.

Clearly, if found guilty, these people should go to prison for the rest of their lives with no chance of parole. And if allowed for, the death penalty would be more justified than in any case I can immediately recall.

I hope that makes my views on this matter clear enough, and we'll hear no more that I or Adamodeus are apologists for this behaviour.

See, what you're doing here is using exactly -- and I do mean exactly -- the same tactic used by southern seccassionists before and after the American Civil War regarding Blacks, and Hitler used in Mein Kampf -- that every crime committed by a member or members of the "inferior" section of society was used as a weapon to prove the point of that entire section of society's inferiority or undesirabilty.

It's a disgusting premise and one which has been discredited by all serious minded people.

Your problem in this debate, as I've said, is that you are letting your beliefs get in the way of logic: you fervently believe that homosexuals life a dissolute lifestyle, they're going to hell, and that they are (1) in the same boat as paedophiles and (2) that they therefore shouldn't be allowed anywhere near children.

Well, that's fine, you may argue that, but that still doesn't mean you can use one crime to prove your point, any more than a racist like DDT can use CCTV footage of a black man on America's Dumbest Criminals to prove that black people are predisposed toward crime and stupidity.

Do you see my point? What you can argue is your belief that homosexuality is wrong; but you can't use one crime by two individuals as proof that the whole section of society is sick -- especially can't do it when at vast numbers of such crimes are committed by heterosexuals.

And you certainly can't make the logically farcical jump from someone pointing this out to someone who is an apologist for paedophilia.

I might be apologising for homosexuality, and I'm comfortable with that, because that's what I'm doing, but I'm not apologising for paedophilia, and I find the suggestion deeply insulting.

So why don't you stick to the point, and stop trying to squirm out of the argument by using logical farce and grotesque insult?

Now, that's me done, so, in the words of Edward R Murrow, good night and good luck.

AstroNoodle
09-07-2009, 07:58
After reading all posts and considering each side, I agree with myself.

Thank you.

Adamodeus
10-07-2009, 04:58
After reading all posts and considering each side, I agree with myself.

Thank you.
Well, my good man, you should be in "Bruno".

Russian Lad
10-07-2009, 16:02
Do you see my point? What you can argue is your belief that homosexuality is wrong; but you can't use one crime by two individuals as proof that the whole section of society is sick -- especially can't do it when at vast numbers of such crimes are committed by heterosexuals.

Let's follow your suggestion and not do that. But don't you find that letting two gays adopt a child is an extremely repulsive and dangerous policy? Why not let zoophiles and necrophiles adopt children, too?

AstroNoodle
13-07-2009, 20:28
Well, my good man, you should be in "Bruno".


"Subtitled "Delicious Journeys Through America for the Purpose of Making Heterosexual Males Visibly Uncomfortable in the Presence of a Gay Foreigner in a Mesh T-Shirt," the film uses in-your-face comedy to expose homophobia." -- Austrians say outrageous Bruno ist pretty funny | Entertainment | Reuters (http://www.reuters.com/article/entertainmentNews/idUSTRE5695VP20090712?feedType=RSS&feedName=entertainmentNews&rpc=22&sp=true)

Yes, I know from your poor argumentation that you wish to see society sexually-harrassed and for all to be forced to say that they enjoy being made visibly uncomfortable by whatever harrassment means a gay advocate like yourself chooses.

That is why I agree with my statements and not yours. Along with Carbo, you have done a good job of continuing to make my points for me.

If he were alive, Dr. Martin Luther King would agree with me that the content of one's character consists of living life freely in society. If Dr. King had held your views and advocated them, he would have lost his credibility and support and then continued to fail in his historic mission -- or at least to be a part of the success in American civil-rights. One angry group intentionally sexually harrassing "for the purpose of making" others "visibly uncomfortable" does not fit into a tenable vision of civil rights where citizens can choose to live freely according to the content of their character without harrassment.

The reactionary gay harrassment advocate will desperately continue to claim that the African-American child rape was a gay anomaly, but who do you think the customers were? Do you think that the African-Amercan child Borat has humiliated for the rest of his life and made him a "child star" should have had a chance not to be in a movie with nudity, profanity, and debauchery?

If someone had done that to me while I was a child, they would be advised to move far away from me when I became an adult and live under an assumed name. Just watch when this child grows up to condemn Mr. Cohen for humiliating him.

Yet again, you have been betrayed by your own comments. Falsehood has that effect on conversation.

I agree with my own comments, not yours.

Adamodeus
14-07-2009, 05:10
Yet again, you have been betrayed by your own comments. Falsehood has that effect on conversation.

I agree with my own comments, not yours.
Wow, and utterly humorless to boot, eh? Good for you, good for you.

And now, a little piece of freshman year Logic (maybe you'll learn something):
Fallacies (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/) <-- Click that link!

The common fallacy you are using is called Biased Sample (#18): Also Known as: Biased Statistics, Loaded Sample, Prejudiced Statistics, Prejudiced Sample, Loaded Statistics, Biased Induction, Biased Generalization.

This fallacy is committed when a person draws a conclusion about a population based on a sample that is biased or prejudiced in some manner. It has the following form:

1. Sample S, which is biased, is taken from population P.
2. Conclusion C is drawn about Population P based on S.

The person committing the fallacy is misusing the following type of reasoning, which is known variously as Inductive Generalization, Generalization, and Statistical Generalization:

1. X% of all observed A's are B''s.
2. Therefore X% of all A's are Bs.

The fallacy is committed when the sample of A's is likely to be biased in some manner. A sample is biased or loaded when the method used to take the sample is likely to result in a sample that does not adequately represent the population from which it is drawn.

By the way, Appeal to Ridicule (#13) is also a common fallacy.

I had always found your past posts well thought out, well argued and well written, even when you advocated some pretty "far out" ideas. What happened with this issue? You shouldn't let your hate blind you that much. There are much better ways to advocate your point of view. Take a page from your own book. You always gave data and historical references and literature sources to support your arguments. But in this instance, what you lack in substance you try to make up with emotions. It's an OK strategy in a real argument, if you can shout loud enough, but not in a written one. While I appreciate the fact that it might be an emotional issue for you, giving a few examples of evil and extrapolating to an entire group is plain weak and childish and cannot withstand any criticism. Anybody can give you examples of really bad individuals from any group imaginable. They prove nothing at all and you know it, so instead of arguing the merits of the case, you keep talking about Carbo and me. Since you really don't have any proof that homosexuals - as a group - are pedophiles, you have been forced to reduce your entire point to naming singular horrific cases and saying they are typical of the group - and not providing a shred of evidence to support that accusation.

But hey, don't let Logic stand in the way of a good accusation.

AstroNoodle
14-07-2009, 08:03
Wow, and utterly humorless to boot, eh? Good for you, good for you.

......

By the way, [B]Appeal to Ridicule (#13) is also a common fallacy.

Well, my good man, you should be in "Bruno". -- YOUR WORDS not an appeal to ridicule? ... and should I join in your "humor" at my expense? ...along with Borat's new freak-show?

Typical pot calling the kettle black; and I don't like Mr. Cohen nor do I think he is "brilliant" as some describe him. Mr. Cohen, while throwing in a few isolated instances which are truly comical, is arguably the most cynical person on the planet in making a buck at the expense of human dignity.

The accusation of "hate" you threw out is merely the last resort when all wacko argumentation (and shrooms) in support of gay sexual harrassment is exhausted.

There are a couple careers I could have leveled for gay sexual harrassment but didn't as I am not a vindictive man. "Vengance is mine, saith the LORD; I will repay." So after backing Carbo and is inexcusable lacerating rants, you need to watch who are resorting to calling a hateful person.

I have called both you and Carbo out for your arguments. At least you both have the courage to voice your beliefs, but I don't think you have any place to say that my protective instincts for the natural family have anything to do with hatred of anyone. You don't know that to be true and have no evidence to support your accusation that my motivation is hatred.

Don't give me some stretched out explanation of why you think I am hateful -- show me in my own words my own alleged hatred -- OR STAY SILENT on the matter.

I'll let MJ, who was both African-American and emphatically insistent that he was "not gay," speak my thoughts of what really motivates gay advocates in their last, desperate resort to libel label those oriented toward loving, natural families with "hate" just the way in which many libeled him for being different than themselves.

YouTube- Michael Jackson - Is It Scary

"I'm gonna be
Exactly what you gonna see
So did you come to me
To see your fantasies
Performed before your very eyes

A haunting ghostly treat
The foolish trickery
And spirits dancing
In the light

But if you came to see
The truth the purity
It's here inside
A lonely heart"

Am I scary for you?

I don't think that it is hate. I think that the darkness does not comprehend love and is confounded by love. To the darkness, love is hate; hate is love. That type of darkness comes in more forms than gay hatred toward the natural family. It could also come in the form of people wanting MJ to be a child molester so bad that they hate him for it even though it is extremely unlikely that he did any such deed.

"Masquerade the heart
Is the height of haunting souls
Just not what you seek of me
Can the heart reveal the proof
Like a mirror reveals the truth
See the evil one is you

Is that scary for you baby..."

btw, as a musician, I have a lot of respect for MJ. He was truly one-of-a-kind.

DDT
14-07-2009, 22:40
What's going on is that groups with "agenda's" like gay activists groups are constantly trying to shut up any debate on the subject that they don't like. They roam the media and even the internet looking for voices to squash! They effectively want to stop free speech if it doesn't agree with them. A few days ago, in one instance, they complained to Google about a blogger. Google responded by shutting the blog down. It was a day before the Massachusetts Legislature planed to review a controversial gender identity bill, Blogger.com (Google) blocked the blog of MassResistance, an organization that exposes the increasingly open agenda of the homosexual movement in Massachusetts.
http://www.massresistance.org/

Mass Resistance said, "Google seems to have a double standard, "It hosts a large number of gay activist sites that are vile and vicious, particularly against religious people, yet they put up an 'objectionable content' warning on our blog. How do they define what's offensive?"

Adamodeus
15-07-2009, 03:56
Mr. Cohen, while throwing in a few isolated instances which are truly comical, is arguably the most cynical person on the planet in making a buck at the expense of human dignity.That may be, but if we lose the ability to laugh at ourselves, we are a sad species not much different from amoeba. You may not have noticed, but he makes fun of gays as much as everyone else in that movie, so your attempt to judge the gay community as a whole because the Bruno character makes people uncomfortable misses the mark completely. It's a caricature.

The accusation of "hate" you threw out is merely the last resort when all wacko argumentation (and shrooms) in support of gay sexual harrassment is exhausted.It's ironic, coming from someone who was just scientifically proven to use wacko argumentation. As for "shrooms"... I said that I somehow managed to completely miss the "gay gestapo" all together and therefore, it might not be as big as threat as you make it out to be. To that, you said (and yes, I can quote you) that I advocate to overlook innumerable problems, that I'm against sexual harassment laws, that I support gay sexual harassment, that would like nothing more than to save a child rapist from prison, that I wish to see society sexually-harassed, that I am defending an act of sexual slavery... Moi?! All that? Who is using shrooms here? (Notice that I didn't make a single personal accusation of that sort and not because I couldn't think of anything, believe you me.)

[...] but I don't think you have any place to say that my protective instincts for the natural family have anything to do with hatred of anyone. You don't know that to be true and have no evidence to support your accusation that my motivation is hatred. Don't give me some stretched out explanation of why you think I am hateful -- show me in my own words my own alleged hatred -- OR STAY SILENT on the matter.
So, your motivation is not hatred? You've managed to directly accuse me - in many of your posts here - of myriad things that I had made abundantly clear I abhorred, yet I'm not even a gay activist, I don't support the gay lifestyle, I would be truly saddened if my son were gay and I'm not even gay myself. What sort of feelings do you harbor towards real homosexuals? In your own words, you say? Let me oblige! You came up the "gay gestapo", didn't you? You compared the gay community to the most vile murderous inhuman organization that has ever existed! Is it Love that is the driving force behind such shocking accusations? Is it love for your enemies that has enraged you so much that you compare some makeup-wearing queens to Nazi monsters?

I defended the personal right of homosexuals to sleep with each other and it sent you into a spitting frenzy of personal accusations towards me. Let me stress it again, I disapprove of the gay lifestyle. Imagine that. "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." If you're a right-winger and a self-proclaimed admirer of personal freedoms, you should know where I'm coming from. Let me quote Michael Jackson right back at you: "If you want to make the world a better place take a look at yourself and make a change."

I'll let MJ, who was both African-American and emphatically insistent that he was "not gay," speak my thoughts of what really motivates gay advocates in their last, desperate resort to libel label those oriented toward loving, natural families with "hate" just the way in which many libeled him for being different than themselves.
Incidentally, I too think that Michael Jackson was innocent in all those sexual harassment cases. The parents always asked for money from him and that was a dead giveaway. If my kid is sexually harassed by somebody, 100 billion dollars wouldn't get him out of hot water. I wouldn't take a cent of his dirty money. But that's all they needed. I think he's always been too naive to deal with the real-world issues and paid for it dearly. And I also agree with you 100% - he was an amazing and unique artist. I still remember that Oprah interview he gave in the early 90s; when she asked him to sing right then and there, without any music... as a former musician, I can tell you it was the most amazing thing I had ever heard a person do. If you didn't get to see it, you MUST - it's so good, it's shocking. He was certainly different from everyone else, but I would say that in this argument, it plays into my hands more than it plays into yours.

A little Voltaire for you: "Not only is it extremely cruel to persecute in this brief life those who do not think the way we do, but I do not know if it might be too presumptuous to declare their eternal damnation." Recognize anyone?

I don't think that it is hate. I think that the darkness does not comprehend love and is confounded by love. To the darkness, love is hate; hate is love.Forgive me, but this is hogwash.

Love suffers long and is kind; love does not envy; love does not parade itself, is not puffed up; does not behave rudely, does not seek its own, is not provoked, thinks no evil; does not rejoice in iniquity, but rejoices in the truth; bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things. Love never fails.

It's the best description of true love I have ever laid eyes on - and it comes from the Bible. True love can never be confused or mistaken by anything or anyone for anything else but love. If you're any kind of a Christian, you must subscribe to this notion of love. "And now abide faith, hope, love, these three; but the greatest of these is love."

Tell me if you meet this standard. For if you want any kind of chance to enter the Kingdom of Heaven, your love must extend to homosexuals too. Because loving only those who please you or love you will not get you there.

Over and out.

AstroNoodle
15-07-2009, 07:57
You want to characterize my statements as "hate" or a "spitting frenzy" but have no quotes to back it up or without tortured explanatory contortions of my clearly stated views. You and I both know full-well that the only person who's comments clearly fall into either category is the one whom you chose to take up for after he had fallen, and that is Mr. Carbo, not myself.

My only arguable mistake was giving you anymore discussion after I had made my main points. Now you say that I have some alternative view of the Bible that is unChristian -- what a stretch for you. Just proves that when arguements run out for gay advocates (not activist) that anything and everything is fair game, except the issue at had, which is the exploitation of children by gays and gay advocates and a particular style of partisanship's complete lack of appropriate outrage at one of their own. It is called hypocrisy.

Please don't play Billy Bible Verse with me unless you really want to go start a religion thread. I am just going to leave your hermeneutics lesson alone except to quote where my thoughts (scripturally sound thoughts) came from.



<< John 1 >>
King James Bible

"1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 The same was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. 4 In him was life; and the life was the light of men. 5 And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.
6 There was a man sent from God, whose name was John. 7 The same came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all men through him might believe. 8 He was not that Light, but was sent to bear witness of that Light.

9 That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world. 10 He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not. 11 He came unto his own, and his own received him not.[my comment -- Jesus Christ was God's only begotten Son and God is LOVE] 12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: 13 Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.

14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth. 15 John bare witness of him, and cried, saying, This was he of whom I spake, He that cometh after me is preferred before me: for he was before me. 16 And of his fulness have all we received, and grace for grace. 17 For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ. 18 No man hath seen God at any time, the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him."

btw, I did see the Oprah documentary and agree with MJ more than I do Ms. Oprah.

Also, Voltaire was as great a cynic as Mr. Cohen. The Borat movie was called "contemporary Candide."

AstroNoodle
15-07-2009, 08:18
...your love must extend to homosexuals too...

The slickest but tiredest of ad hominems: "When are you going to stop beating your wife?"

You still lack the authority to continue your sermon that I hate anyone. You should be ashamed. Of all people, you were the last I expected to become a preacher.

Adamodeus
16-07-2009, 14:20
[...] except the issue at had, which is the exploitation of children by gays and gay advocates and a particular style of partisanship's complete lack of appropriate outrage at one of their own. It is called hypocrisy.
All right. Let's get back to the very heart of the issue at hand. Let's get rid of all extraneous issues. This has been the essence of your argument all along:

1) Blacks can't be trusted because quite a few of them are criminals.
2) Gay can't be trusted because quite a of them abuse children.
3) Jews can't be trusted because quite a few of them are money-lenders.
4) Georgians can't be trusted because quite a few of them are dishonest traders
5) Russians can't be trusted because quite a few of them are drunks.

This argument is clearly indefensible. This is pure low-brow intellectual trickery. When I (and Carbo) merely pointed this glaringly obvious fallacy out, you responded with "So, you support children abuse (black criminals, dishonest traders, drunks, etc.)!?" If that's not a Pharisaical argument, I don't know what is. You counter our argument by trying to associate us with the disreputable "few of them" instead of addressing the core of the issue. Even you can see that such generalizations are utterly false, so you switch your attention to the person you argue with by calling their reputation into question. Address the contradiction. How is Number 2) above different? Address the contradiction. I can give you plenty of examples of black criminals, Jewish bankers and Russian drunks. IT DOESN'T MEAN I SUPPORT THEM. Address the contradiction. How is Number 2) above different?

Adamodeus
16-07-2009, 14:41
The slickest but tiredest of ad hominems: "When are you going to stop beating your wife?"

You still lack the authority to continue your sermon that I hate anyone. You should be ashamed. Of all people, you were the last I expected to become a preacher.
Haha! But it's not "the tiredest of ad hominems" if you actually have been beating your wife, now is it?!

I can't answer your example with once sentence: "This questions does not apply to me because I've never beaten my wife." See? Your example doesn't not apply because I don't restrict you to a "yes" or "no" answer.

Do this with the question at hand: "The issue of extending my love to everyone including homosexuals doesn't not apply to me, because... " ???

I don't really want to start a religious argument here - it's not what this thread is about - but I'm willing to start a new one just to get a proper answer from you. I think you would have a lot more success arguing your case if you use religious arguments as opposed to famous individual examples of child abuse. Unless you have concrete proof such examples are not a drop in a bucket, in which case I'm all ears (or in this case, all eyes). Is there any proof or indication that child abuse is prevalent in a gay family (with two fathers or two mothers)? Give it to me. Just saying little Timmy O'Toole has been abused by some gay guy does nothing to prove your point. (And no, it doesn't mean I support child abuse, for God's sake!!!)

I'm not being argumentative, I want to know. I am undecided on the adoption issue myself. I myself cannot come up with a good argument against it. Will you have better luck?

Gypsy
16-07-2009, 15:12
BS Carbo, some homos don't care just as some heteros don't care when it comes to age. Studies have been done that show the tendencies for child molestation are more common among homos than any other group. Strangely enough amongst lesbians it is almost non existant.
Your last sentence proves Carbo's point.

GaNozri
16-07-2009, 16:35
Let me offer my 2 kopeks:

First, I must say that I agree with Carbo, that no gay onslaught can make me or you gay.

However, I must add that I am 38 and have fully formed my sexual prefferences and disgusts (I really hope so!). A young child, however is very impressionable, and sucks up everything around him like a sponge. So, placing a young child in a homosexual environment WOULD make him more likely to become gay (I don't buy the crap that ALL homos are "born that way"). "Monkey see - monkey do" - that very much applies to children (if you disagree, you've obviously never been around kids).

Regarding this horrible rape case, I will have to agree with DDT (this has gotta be the first!).

To Adamodeus: Thanx for the logic lesson. It made me think about this case under a different angle. Perhaps, they are ignoring the fact that the parents are fudgepackers, because logicaly, it is not relevant since .......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... they assume that the kid would have become a homosexual anyways.

DDT
16-07-2009, 21:49
All right. Let's get back to the very heart of the issue at hand. Let's get rid of all extraneous issues. This has been the essence of your argument all along:

1) Blacks can't be trusted because quite a few of them are criminals.
2) Gay can't be trusted because quite a of them abuse children.
3) Jews can't be trusted because quite a few of them are money-lenders.
4) Georgians can't be trusted because quite a few of them are dishonest traders
5) Russians can't be trusted because quite a few of them are drunks.

This argument is clearly indefensible. This is pure low-brow intellectual trickery. When I (and Carbo) merely pointed this glaringly obvious fallacy out, you responded with "So, you support children abuse (black criminals, dishonest traders, drunks, etc.)!?" If that's not a Pharisaical argument, I don't know what is. You counter our argument by trying to associate us with the disreputable "few of them" instead of addressing the core of the issue. Even you can see that such generalizations are utterly false, so you switch your attention to the person you argue with by calling their reputation into question. Address the contradiction. How is Number 2) above different? Address the contradiction. I can give you plenty of examples of black criminals, Jewish bankers and Russian drunks. IT DOESN'T MEAN I SUPPORT THEM. Address the contradiction. How is Number 2) above different?

The issue is not about "generalizations" ! It is about putting children in a house full of rump ranging, fudge packing men. Children BELONG in a home with a mother and a father! If they can't have that then they should have the next best thing; an adopted MOTHER AND FATHER! Not Biff and Steve or even Sally and Jane. For you or anyone to argue for anything less for these kids borders on the criminal!

So stop twisting this issue into a politically correct discrimination by generalization issue.

Adamodeus
17-07-2009, 02:44
It is about putting children in a house full of rump ranging, fudge packing men.
DDT, this is just your ridiculous homophobic notion of gayness. This description betrays that you think all gay people ever do is try to be gay and have gay anal sex everywhere all the time in the open and they want to turn everyone into gays. But this is a Louisiana red-neck idea of homosexuality - "rump raging, fudge packing men". Homosexuals are perfectly capable of being private and discreet. And they are perfectly capable of caring. I myself had a roommate in California and I didn't even know he was gay until he told me 8 months later. The idea that all gay people do is promote gay sex to everybody, young and old... well, it's just caricature homophobic view of homosexuality. Most gay people are perfectly regular people who lead perfectly regular lives. And believe it or not, they are not out to corrupt everyone, they just want to live their life without persecution. I don't think it's too much to ask.

Here is an undisputed fact, however: Fathers in a natural heterosexual family sexually abusing their daughters and/or step-daughters is a MUCH bigger (and well-documented) problem than any gays abusing children. And yes, there are studies and criminal records to prove thousands of cases annually.

Children BELONG in a home with a mother and a father! If they can't have that then they should have the next best thing; an adopted MOTHER AND FATHER! Not Biff and Steve or even Sally and Jane. For you or anyone to argue for anything less for these kids borders on the criminal!
I was totally with you until you went for the criminality silliness. I agree with you 100%, a child must have a mother and a father. Or an adopted mother and father. Or at least one parent. What you're trying to say (and I wholeheartedly agree with you!) is that a child needs a family. Absolutely!

But here is where I run into a quagmire. Would a family consisting of Sally and Jane (or Biff and Steve) who love those kids be worse than growing up completely alone in a government institution? You say it is so, and even my personal gut feeling as a straight man is to think it might be so, but just saying it is so doesn't make it so. What we do know for sure at this point is that a huge number of orphans who grow up in institutions end up being abused and unhappy and generally have a very difficult childhood. Just ask anyone who grew up in one. Would a loving family of two men, or better yet, two women, not be a preferable choice for them? Honestly, I don't know. Nobody can reliably argue that homosexuals are incapable of love. So why would a loving homosexual family be worse? I've asked myself that question many times and I can't find a proper answer. A family is better than no family, a loving environment (and don't make sexual jokes here, please) is better than an environment of abuse and loneliness.

So stop twisting this issue into a politically correct discrimination by generalization issue.
Nothing to do with political correctness at all. I merely pointed out a glaring flaw in the argumentation. Astro's main argument against gay adoption is that some gay people sexually abuse kids. Although it is certainly true, it is not an issue of political correctness to point out that any social group at all will have some "black sheep" and some "bad apples". Regardless of the issue at hand, it's just very poor argumentation to judge an entire group (any group) based on the behavior of a few individuals. Neither one of you has come up with anything yet that reliably shows that all (or even most) gay people abuse children. More than anything, I am playing devil's advocate here, because I am undecided on the adoption issue myself. It's not political correctness, it's lack of good argumentation. You both say that gay adoption is bad. I haven't heard why, except for one argument: they are likely to be be sexually abused. But that's what the screening process is for. You can't authoritatively argue that all gay people are likely to abuse their adopted kids. Basically, there's nothing out there that supports your point of view except a gut feeling that it might be so. As useful as a gut feeling might be, it's just not good enough to prove your point beyond reasonable doubt.

Adamodeus
17-07-2009, 03:07
A young child, however is very impressionable, and sucks up everything around him like a sponge. So, placing a young child in a homosexual environment WOULD make him more likely to become gay. "Monkey see - monkey do" - that very much applies to children (if you disagree, you've obviously never been around kids).
Well, GaNozri! Without resorting to slogans you've mentioned the best argument there is against gay adoption. I agree with you, kids, indeed, will learn most of their behavior from their parents and what they have learned will stay with them for the rest of their lives. A lot of our behavior is learned in childhood, or else, we would have to agree that the ancient Greeks had some genetic traits that nobody else did. This is the one thing that stops me from arguing that gay people absolutely must be allowed to adopt kids. What neither Asto nor DDT have noticed is that I didn't argue for adoption, I merely pointed out that their argumentation (individual cases of abuse used to justify labeling the entire group) is indefensible. It was exactly the argumentation the Nazis used against the Jews in Germany.

DDT
17-07-2009, 04:55
Well, GaNozri! Without resorting to slogans you've mentioned the best argument there is against gay adoption. I agree with you, kids, indeed, will learn most of their behavior from their parents and what they have learned will stay with them for the rest of their lives. A lot of our behavior is learned in childhood, or else, we would have to agree that the ancient Greeks had some genetic traits that nobody else did. This is the one thing that stops me from arguing that gay people absolutely must be allowed to adopt kids. What neither Asto nor DDT have noticed is that I didn't argue for adoption, I merely pointed out that their argumentation (individual cases of abuse used to justify labeling the entire group) is indefensible. It was exactly the argumentation the Nazis used against the Jews in Germany.
BS!!!!!!!!

That was merely the icing on the cake! The issue was always that Homos are not fit to raise kids by definition.

The FACT that stats show that Homos have a HIGHER propensity and INCIDENCE for child molestation than normal couples, was only the ICING ......and .....the UNNECESSARY danger to kids.

Unnecessary you ask? Because we don't need the small amount of Homos to help adopt all the kids. Their numbers are irrelevant, except to the unfortunate children that get saddled with two fags for "role models"! Or worse, get molested by the Homo suedo parents, instead of waiting for a REAL couple to adopt them. In general, Kids would be better off in an orphanage than being forced to accept the gay lifestyle as "normal". Giving children over to the hands of deviants sends a REAL BAD message to the kids and society in general.

DDT
17-07-2009, 05:22
DDT, this is just your ridiculous homophobic notion of gayness. This description betrays that you think all gay people ever do is try to be gay and have gay anal sex everywhere all the time in the open and they want to turn everyone into gays.
Oh really! Anal sex is what defines a Homo. Homosexuality is an act! If they don't do the act how can they be queer? You defy logic! gays are world renowned for they promiscuity! You also obviously don't know what a redneck is either....but that's another story!


But this is a Louisiana red-neck idea of homosexuality - "rump raging, fudge packing men". Homosexuals are perfectly capable of being private and discreet. And they are perfectly capable of caring. I myself had a roommate in California and I didn't even know he was gay until he told me 8 months later. The idea that all gay people do is promote gay sex to everybody, young and old... well, it's just caricature homophobic view of homosexuality.
You sound like you have very little experience with the gay culture.


Most gay people are perfectly regular people who lead perfectly regular lives. And believe it or not, they are not out to corrupt everyone, they just want to live their life without persecution. I don't think it's too much to ask.Sure, they are all normal, right? There is nothing normal about people that support the gay Agenda, the redefining of a married couple, which almost all of them do!


Here is an undisputed fact, however: Fathers in a natural heterosexual family sexually abusing their daughters and/or step-daughters is a MUCH bigger (and well-documented) problem than any gays abusing children. And yes, there are studies and criminal records to prove thousands of cases annually.
Sure it's disputed!!!! I disputed it in my first post so i wouldn't have to argue this point again with you. Stats show that homos have a higher incidence of child molestation than normal people!!!!!



I was totally with you until you went for the criminality silliness. I agree with you 100%, a child must have a mother and a father. Or an adopted mother and father. Or at least one parent. What you're trying to say (and I wholeheartedly agree with you!) is that a child needs a family. Absolutely!
Then get with the program and fight back before you are forced by the State to give up one parent at birth and take another of the same sex that's left!...............For you own good of course! To make you tolerant!



But here is where I run into a quagmire. Would a family consisting of Sally and Jane (or Biff and Steve) who love those kids be worse than growing up completely alone in a government institution? You say it is so, and even my personal gut feeling as a straight man is to think it might be so, but just saying it is so doesn't make it so. What we do know for sure at this point is that a huge number of orphans who grow up in institutions end up being abused and unhappy and generally have a very difficult childhood. Just ask anyone who grew up in one. Would a loving family of two men, or better yet, two women, not be a preferable choice for them? Honestly, I don't know. Nobody can reliably argue that homosexuals are incapable of love. So why would a loving homosexual family be worse? I've asked myself that question many times and I can't find a proper answer. A family is better than no family, a loving environment (and don't make sexual jokes here, please) is better than an environment of abuse and loneliness. You don't mess with the mentalhealth of all society for the sake of a few orphans. Besides, it's not the kids choice. They are not old enough to know. We, us normal people, make that choice for them as we have from the beginning. It is criminal to place innocent minds into the hands of deviants and then tell the kids that everything is A OK....."it's cool"!

AstroNoodle
17-07-2009, 08:05
All right. Let's get back to the very heart of the issue at hand. Let's get rid of all extraneous issues. This has been the essence of your argument all along:

1) Blacks can't be trusted because quite a few of them are criminals.
2) Gay can't be trusted because quite a of them abuse children.
3) Jews can't be trusted because quite a few of them are money-lenders.
4) Georgians can't be trusted because quite a few of them are dishonest traders
5) Russians can't be trusted because quite a few of them are drunks.

This argument is clearly indefensible. This is pure low-brow intellectual trickery. When I (and Carbo) merely pointed this glaringly obvious fallacy out, you responded with "So, you support children abuse (black criminals, dishonest traders, drunks, etc.)!?" If that's not a Pharisaical argument, I don't know what is. You counter our argument by trying to associate us with the disreputable "few of them" instead of addressing the core of the issue. Even you can see that such generalizations are utterly false, so you switch your attention to the person you argue with by calling their reputation into question. Address the contradiction. How is Number 2) above different? Address the contradiction. I can give you plenty of examples of black criminals, Jewish bankers and Russian drunks. IT DOESN'T MEAN I SUPPORT THEM. Address the contradiction. How is Number 2) above different?

Yet another unconscionable contortion of my clearly stated views from the same individual.

I will gladly join in your own game and answer your question if you, Adamodeus, first answer my question with the only correct answer.

Pete and Repeat were sitting on a log, Pete fell off and who was left?

rusmeister
17-07-2009, 08:32
My posting here is probably a waste of time, but...

If I could offer a rational defense for at least some of what DDT is saying (I haven't, and don't want to read the whole thread), I would start by saying that he is saying right things using the wrong terminology to express those ideas.

The entire trouble in understanding things like traditional Christian views (even though DDT is an avowed non-Christian, he still, evidently, got a stronger grounding in them than others) is in the recently invented language that did not even exist a little over a hundred years ago. That language was first designed, then used, to create the view on the topic that many of you now accept.

Now, we must agree that it is possible for language to be misused, in the sense that it may not always reflect a correct understanding of the true nature of man or the universe, in which case it is misleading; to take a simple example as speaking of the sun "rising".. Sometimes this relevancy is benign, sometimes not, but it is definitely misleading. Imagine if we based our physics on the idea that it is the sun that actually rises. All of our science would be based to an extent on fallacy.

This is the case with the understanding of the usage of language "to BE homosexual", to "BE gay", etc. It identifies the person with both desire and action. Now we do this with other words, like "to be an alcoholic", but we readily recognize that being an alcoholic is not actually a natural and normal condition of man, but an abnormal one, and one that a person may struggle with lifelong - but only if they recognize that it IS abnormal in the first place. But the implication is that that is what a person is. It is their nature. The trouble with our use of "being gay" is that it is tacitly assumed that the state IS a natural and normal one, and should therefore just be accepted as a normal desire, rather than rejected as an abnormal one.

That's why I don't want to read the thread. For me, ALL of the posting is immediately out of court because the language it uses, invented little over a century ago (and some terms, like "gay", and "homophobia" (which implies that opposition to modern thinking is based on fear rather than on reason) falsely represents reality. That's why I can say DDT is right in at least some of what he is saying, but he's saying it the wrong way.

Online Etymology Dictionary (http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=homosexual&searchmode=none)
Online Etymology Dictionary (http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=gay&searchmode=none)

For a dissenting view that people who think (rather than refuse to think) can seriously consider, try this out:
Touchstone Archives: The Gay Invention (http://www.touchstonemag.com/archives/article.php?id=18-10-036-f)

(It'll save me lots of posting time :) )

The teaser intro:

For thousands of years, until the late 1800s, our ancestors were completely oblivious to the existence of a fundamentally distinct class of human beings. Indeed, during the long period of Greco-Roman antiquity and more than a millennium and a half of Christian civilization, man did not even have a name for this class.

Or so asserts an almost universal assumption fixed in the language almost everyone uses: that “heterosexuals” and “homosexuals” are two permanently and innately different kinds of human being, and that “sexual orientation” constitutes a difference comparable to the difference between male and female. Widespread acceptance of “homosexuality” and associated terms thus biases discussion of the subject before an argument is even formulated.

Terms Lacking

What might be called the philological evidence calls this notion into question. If it were true, someone would long ago have given this class a name. That no one did until very recently suggests that the notion is not true.

If the language wrongly expresses reality, then the defenses of this modern fad of approval of same-sex attraction and sexual acts fall apart. It turns out to merely express a fragment of someone else's philosophy.

Men have always one of two things: either a complete and conscious
philosophy or the unconscious acceptance of the broken bits of
some incomplete and shattered and often discredited philosophy.
GK Chesterton

AstroNoodle
17-07-2009, 09:54
"other cases like this one"
YouTube- Gay Duke University Official Molested Black Adopted Son, Pimped son to Cop

another one--->
YouTube- Gay Activist Ring Leader of Paedophile Ring in Scotland

unbelievable If you only watch one -- this is it --->
YouTube- Nutcase Paedophile

YouTube - Broadcast Yourself.

DDT
17-07-2009, 10:09
unbelievable If you only watch one -- this is it --->
YouTube - Nutcase Paedophile (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jj6l2iwCsl8)

This guy: Poster Boy for the Death Penalty

Russian Lad
17-07-2009, 10:21
So, placing a young child in a homosexual environment WOULD make him more likely to become gay (I don't buy the crap that ALL homos are "born that way"). "Monkey see - monkey do" - that very much applies to children (if you disagree, you've obviously never been around kids).

Indeed, it is very true.



This guy: Poster Boy for the Death Penalty


Adam, he does not seem to be a peaceful individual, does he?:)

Gypsy
17-07-2009, 11:02
The rampant homophobia of DDT is nauseating, and as usual his arguments are entirely unsupported by facts.

Below are the results of research done into any potential link between homosexuality and pedophilia.

The results are crystal clear – there is no such link.

Hetero sexual men are much, much more likely to molest children – of both sexes – than homosexual men.

“For the present discussion, the important point is that many child molesters cannot be meaningfully described as homosexuals, heterosexuals, or bisexuals (in the usual sense of those terms) because they are not really capable of a relationship with an adult man or woman. Instead of gender, their sexual attractions are based primarily on age. These individuals – who are often characterized as fixated – are attracted to children, not to men or women.
Using the fixated-regressed distinction, Groth and Birnbaum (1978) studied 175 adult males who were convicted in Massachusetts of sexual assault against a child. None of the men had an exclusively homosexual adult sexual orientation. 83 (47%) were classified as "fixated;" 70 others (40%) were classified as regressed adult heterosexuals; the remaining 22 (13%) were classified as regressed adult bisexuals. Of the last group, Groth and Birnbaum observed that "in their adult relationships they engaged in sex on occasion with men as well as with women. However, in no case did this attraction to men exceed their preference for women....There were no men who were primarily sexually attracted to other adult males..." (p.180). 

Other researchers have taken different approaches, but have similarly failed to find a connection between homosexuality and child molestation. Dr. Carole Jenny and her colleagues reviewed 352 medical charts, representing all of the sexually abused children seen in the emergency room or child abuse clinic of a Denver children's hospital during a one-year period (from July 1, 1991 to June 30, 1992). The molester was a gay or lesbian adult in fewer than 1% in which an adult molester could be identified – only 2 of the 269 cases (Jenny et al., 1994).

In yet another approach to studying adult sexual attraction to children, some Canadian researchers observed how homosexual and heterosexual adult men responded to slides of males and females of various ages (child, pubescent, and mature adult). All of the research subjects were first screened to ensure that they preferred physically mature sexual partners. In some of the slides shown to subjects, the model was clothed; in others, he or she was nude. The slides were accompanied by audio recordings. The recordings paired with the nude models described an imaginary sexual interaction between the model and the subject. The recordings paired with the pictures of clothed models described the model engaging in neutral activities (e.g., swimming). To measure sexual arousal, changes in the subjects' penis volume were monitored while they watched the slides and listened to the audiotapes. The researchers found that homosexual males responded no more to male children than heterosexual males responded to female children (Freund et al., 1989).
Science cannot prove a negative. Thus, these studies do not prove that homosexual or bisexual males are no more likely than heterosexual males to molest children. However, each of them failed to prove the alternative hypothesis that homosexual males are more likely than heterosexual men to molest children or to be sexually attracted to children or adolescents.

Reflecting the results of these and other studies, the mainstream view among researchers and professionals who work in the area of child sexual abuse is that homosexual and bisexual men do not pose any special threat to children. For example, in one review of the scientific literature, noted authority Dr. A. Nicholas Groth wrote:
Are homosexual adults in general sexually attracted to children and are preadolescent children at greater risk of molestation from homosexual adults than from heterosexual adults? There is no reason to believe so. The research to date all points to there being no significant relationship between a homosexual lifestyle and child molestation. There appears to be practically no reportage of sexual molestation of girls by lesbian adults, and the adult male who sexually molests young boys is not likely to be homosexual (Groth & Gary, 1982, p. 147).
In a more recent literature review, Dr. Nathaniel McConaghy (1998) similarly cautioned against confusing homosexuality with pedophilia. He noted, "The man who offends against prepubertal or immediately postpubertal boys is typically not sexually interested in older men or in women" (p. 259).
This well known lack of a linkage between homosexuality and child molestation accounts for why relatively little research has directly addressed the issue. Proving something we already know simply isn't a priority. Indeed, a commentary that accompanied publication of the 1994 study by Jenny et al. in Pediatrics noted that debates about gay people as molesters "have little to do with everyday child abuse" and lamented that they distract lawmakers and the public from dealing with the real problem of children's sexual mistreatment (Krugman, 1994).” Source U.C. Davis

DDT
17-07-2009, 12:53
Who did your survey? ....................A bunch of poofs?

Once again we have the gay agenda supporting lemming, gypsy, to tell us what the homosexual activists in the gay alliance want us to believe. Once again Normal people are supposed to close their eyes to everything that they and their eyes and their senses have been telling them about Homosexual promiscuity and trust that the nice educated fellows with the "real" numbers from the social engineering gayboys society are trustworthy, and not what we have experienced as observant human beings afterall.

Homos have higher suicide, higher drug use, more STD's, more AIDS, more infidelity, more incidence of depression a shorter life expectancy and even an abundance of violence! And all this along with an open and unusual interest in BOYS. Why do you think the modeling and fashion industry went towards the androgynous look? Because gays are rampant in the fashion biz and gays wanted the female models to look more like boys. Gays like young boys! Yeah, let's let 'em adopt more boys from orphanages! That's a good idea, Ziggy! ....Duhh!!

Don't be stupid Gypsy Queen. I think we all already know what the Homos have a propensity for without some far fetched study to prove the opposite of what Gays generally are.
Good luck with your gay activism, though!

PS: It's interesting the lengths your gay activist friends you quoted have to redefine what "homosexual" is in order to shift the blame off them!

Here's one here!
their sexual attractions are based primarily on age.
ROFL!!!!! Since when has age NOT been a factor in any sexual attraction? or does Gypsy like 87 year old ladies?

Carbo
17-07-2009, 13:10
The rampant homophobia of DDT is nauseating, and as usual his arguments are entirely unsupported by facts.

Below are the results of research done into any potential link between homosexuality and pedophilia.

The results are crystal clear – there is no such link.

Hetero sexual men are much, much more likely to molest children – of both sexes – than homosexual men.

“For the present discussion, the important point is that many child molesters cannot be meaningfully described as homosexuals, heterosexuals, or bisexuals (in the usual sense of those terms) because they are not really capable of a relationship with an adult man or woman. Instead of gender, their sexual attractions are based primarily on age. These individuals – who are often characterized as fixated – are attracted to children, not to men or women.
Using the fixated-regressed distinction, Groth and Birnbaum (1978) studied 175 adult males who were convicted in Massachusetts of sexual assault against a child. None of the men had an exclusively homosexual adult sexual orientation. 83 (47%) were classified as "fixated;" 70 others (40%) were classified as regressed adult heterosexuals; the remaining 22 (13%) were classified as regressed adult bisexuals. Of the last group, Groth and Birnbaum observed that "in their adult relationships they engaged in sex on occasion with men as well as with women. However, in no case did this attraction to men exceed their preference for women....There were no men who were primarily sexually attracted to other adult males..." (p.180). 

Other researchers have taken different approaches, but have similarly failed to find a connection between homosexuality and child molestation. Dr. Carole Jenny and her colleagues reviewed 352 medical charts, representing all of the sexually abused children seen in the emergency room or child abuse clinic of a Denver children's hospital during a one-year period (from July 1, 1991 to June 30, 1992). The molester was a gay or lesbian adult in fewer than 1% in which an adult molester could be identified – only 2 of the 269 cases (Jenny et al., 1994).

In yet another approach to studying adult sexual attraction to children, some Canadian researchers observed how homosexual and heterosexual adult men responded to slides of males and females of various ages (child, pubescent, and mature adult). All of the research subjects were first screened to ensure that they preferred physically mature sexual partners. In some of the slides shown to subjects, the model was clothed; in others, he or she was nude. The slides were accompanied by audio recordings. The recordings paired with the nude models described an imaginary sexual interaction between the model and the subject. The recordings paired with the pictures of clothed models described the model engaging in neutral activities (e.g., swimming). To measure sexual arousal, changes in the subjects' penis volume were monitored while they watched the slides and listened to the audiotapes. The researchers found that homosexual males responded no more to male children than heterosexual males responded to female children (Freund et al., 1989).
Science cannot prove a negative. Thus, these studies do not prove that homosexual or bisexual males are no more likely than heterosexual males to molest children. However, each of them failed to prove the alternative hypothesis that homosexual males are more likely than heterosexual men to molest children or to be sexually attracted to children or adolescents.

Reflecting the results of these and other studies, the mainstream view among researchers and professionals who work in the area of child sexual abuse is that homosexual and bisexual men do not pose any special threat to children. For example, in one review of the scientific literature, noted authority Dr. A. Nicholas Groth wrote:
Are homosexual adults in general sexually attracted to children and are preadolescent children at greater risk of molestation from homosexual adults than from heterosexual adults? There is no reason to believe so. The research to date all points to there being no significant relationship between a homosexual lifestyle and child molestation. There appears to be practically no reportage of sexual molestation of girls by lesbian adults, and the adult male who sexually molests young boys is not likely to be homosexual (Groth & Gary, 1982, p. 147).
In a more recent literature review, Dr. Nathaniel McConaghy (1998) similarly cautioned against confusing homosexuality with pedophilia. He noted, "The man who offends against prepubertal or immediately postpubertal boys is typically not sexually interested in older men or in women" (p. 259).
This well known lack of a linkage between homosexuality and child molestation accounts for why relatively little research has directly addressed the issue. Proving something we already know simply isn't a priority. Indeed, a commentary that accompanied publication of the 1994 study by Jenny et al. in Pediatrics noted that debates about gay people as molesters "have little to do with everyday child abuse" and lamented that they distract lawmakers and the public from dealing with the real problem of children's sexual mistreatment (Krugman, 1994).” Source U.C. Davis



Who did your survey? ....................A bunch of poofs?

Once again we have the gay agenda supporting lemming, gypsy, to tell us what the homosexual activists in the gay alliance want us to believe. Once again Normal people are supposed to close their eyes to everything that they and their eyes and their senses have been telling them about Homosexual promiscuity and trust that the nice educated fellows with the "real" numbers from the social engineering gayboys society are trustworthy, and not what we have experienced as observant human beings afterall.

Homos have higher suicide, higher drug use, more STD's, more AIDS, more infidelity, more incidence of depression a shorter life expectancy and even an abundance of violence! And all this along with an open and unusual interest in BOYS. Why do you think the modeling and fashion industry went towards the androgynous look? Because gays are rampant in the fashion biz and gays wanted the female models to look more like boys. Gays like young boys! Yeah, let's let 'em adopt more boys from orphanages! That's a good idea, Ziggy! ....Duhh!!

Don't be stupid Gypsy Queen. I think we all already know what the Homos have a propensity for without some far fetched study to prove the opposite of what Gays generally are.
Good luck with your gay activism, though!

PS: It's interesting how your gay activist friends you quoted have to redefine what "homosexual" is in order to juggle their figures!
The Defence rests its case.

Gypsy
17-07-2009, 13:11
DDT - you offer nothing but foul-mouthed insult. You are presented with facts that contradict your beliefs - so the facts must be wrong.

If you could read you would see that the research was compiled by U.C. Davis which has an unimpeachable record for health based research in the USA.

You peddle bigotry, unsupported by any evidence whatsoever apart from "common knowledge" of like-minded bigots. Exactly the sort of belief that had women burned as witches - never mind the facts we "know" she's a witch. Never mind the facts we "know" that gays are pedophiles.

I provided the facts. Gays are far far less likely to molest children than heteros. It is a fact: deal with it.

You can insult me all you like, it won't change the fact that you are wrong.

And name calling such as you have done, and accusations that I am gay just make you look even worse.

DDT
17-07-2009, 13:18
And you won't change the fact that 2 men can not be married by definition and should never adopt kids.

rusmeister
17-07-2009, 15:04
I would like to clarify my last post (which, curiously enough, nobody responded to - yet the whole basis of argument lies in establishing whether the assumptions are established and agreed upon or not. Without that, you are just uselessly yelling 'your own truths' at each other and nobody is proving any actual truth) to say that rudeness and insults, like the words "homosexual" and "homophobia" are also out of court. DDT, if you can't speak civilly, I would suspect you to be someone working secretly for the so-called 'gay agenda' to give them an actual case; a leg to stand on. It is important that it be shown that slogans like "stop the H8" are nonsense - that rational opposition to same-sex relations is based neither on fear nor idiocy, but actually has a reasonable basis for working to stop the approval of same-sex relations in society - something that, thanks to the media (owned by a shockingly small number of owners), people who support so-called "gay rights" are completely unaware of, because all they can see is hate which really is expressed unreasonably.

A radical minority that uses crude language, insults and even violence have nothing at all to do with legitimate opposition, yet the media present the radicals as pretty much the whole story, and same-sex supporters imagine that that is all they need to oppose - so the real arguments of legitimate opposition are ignored. I submit that the first issue is one of language. As long as you all use the language and terms you are using, none of your stands are legitimate because they are based on false understandings from the very beginning.

Whatever your stand, it is by no means given that same-sex attraction is a natural and normal thing for humans to experience, and terms like homophobia are patent falsehoods, except perhaps as applied to some of that radical minority.

Re-think which of your terms are proven and agreed upon!

Gypsy
17-07-2009, 15:21
And you won't change the fact that 2 men can not be married by definition and should never adopt kids.
How is it a fact that 2 men cannot be married? Says who?

If a government passes a law, as many have, that says same sex marriage is legal - then by definition, it is. So again the facts prove you wrong.

What is so sad here DDT is that when presented with genuine, unquestionable facts proving your viewpoint wrong, you simply cannot turn round and say - "Yes, I was wrong." And maybe open your eyes and your heart a little.

Really, very sad.

AstroNoodle
17-07-2009, 20:57
How is it a fact that 2 men cannot be married? Says who?

If a government passes a law, as many have, that says same sex marriage is legal - then by definition, it is. So again the facts prove you wrong.

What is so sad here DDT is that when presented with genuine, unquestionable facts proving your viewpoint wrong, you simply cannot turn round and say - "Yes, I was wrong." And maybe open your eyes and your heart a little.

Really, very sad.

Stop hijacking. This thread is about gay advocates covering for child molestation and exploitation of children when it is from one of their own. Just the fact that you are so off course further proves this deflection of criticizm from child molesters.

YouTube- Nutcase Paedophile

Animals like this go free and get their books put in libraries and on Amazon.com because of deflection artists like yourself who massively deflect criticizm from abberant behavior which is harmful to society in the name of "gay rights" and "equality" when neither are at stake.

It is very telling that a thread about child molesters and media bias makes some people get really defensive about "gay marriage."

The TRUTH is that the "gay community" gestapo wants to lower the age of sexual consent to AT LEAST 12, and that includes our Supreme Court Justice, Ruth Bader Ginsberg, and I have the book, Sex Bias in the US Code, of which she was an editor which advocates just this -- these nutballs are the gay gestapo and want to protect people like the man in this video at the expense of innocent children and then go watch the gay version of Borat exploit a child in his new movie.

Some people have no shame. Carbo even came back to this thread. I guess he just couldn't help it, even though he blew out worse than anyone he or the others have criticized.

If Adamodeus had been objective, he would have criticized Carbo for hatred, not me.

Gypsy
17-07-2009, 21:11
Stop hijacking. This thread is about gay advocates covering for child molestation and exploitation of children when it is from one of their own. Just the fact that you are so off course further proves this deflection of criticizm from child molesters.

As you can see from my post I was answering directly a statement from DDT - so the hijack is his not mine.

You accuse me of deflecting criticism of child molesters. I have done no such thing. That is a blatant lie. Either show where I have done or withdraw that lie.

DDT made a number of statements that homosexuals are more likely to be pedophiles, and I proved that he was wrong. The FACTS from one of the most reputable research institutes in the world show that homosexual men are responsible for 1% of pedophile attacks, if that.

AstroNoodle
17-07-2009, 21:47
As you can see from my post I was answering directly a statement from DDT - so the hijack is his not mine.

You accuse me of deflecting criticism of child molesters. I have done no such thing. That is a blatant lie. Either show where I have done or withdraw that lie.

DDT made a number of statements that homosexuals are more likely to be pedophiles, and I proved that he was wrong. The FACTS from one of the most reputable research institutes in the world show that homosexual men are responsible for 1% of pedophile attacks, if that.

And I just showed that the Supreme Court of the United States believes that the age of consent should be lowered to age 12 which is also EXTREMELY popular cause flown under the "gay rights" banner.

Your study does not mean anything. I just posted a video of a homosexual child molestation ring. You are distracting from the main point as direct apologetics won't work.

Stop trying to make this story sound like such an anomaly. The gagging of this story and MANY others directly contributes to the dangers many children face, you are a part of it, and it is like denying the holocaust.

Rethinking the age of sexual consent. - By William Saletan - Slate Magazine (http://www.slate.com/id/2174841/pagenum/all/)

The reason that the age is 18 and will stay that way is to keep mind-warp artists like "Saletan" who wrote this article from coming up with all sorts of contorted arguments for molesting 13-year olds. TRULY DISGUSTING.

DDT is right, your deflection -- the 1% propaganda etc. -- is directly responsible for the exploitation of the innocent. Hang your head in shame.

YouTube- Nutcase Paedophile

And it doesn't bother some of you AT ALL that our Supreme Court Justice Ginsburg is willing to meet this animal half-way and lower the age of consent to 12 years old. Be ashamed.

Gypsy
17-07-2009, 22:11
And I just showed that the Supreme Court of the United States believes that the age of consent should be lowered to age 12 which is also EXTREMELY popular cause flown under the "gay rights" banner.

Your study does not mean anything. I just posted a video of a homosexual child molestation ring. You are distracting from the main point as direct apologetics won't work.

Stop trying to make this story sound like such an anomaly. The gagging of this story and MANY others directly contributes to the dangers many children face, you are a part of it, and it is like denying the holocaust.

Rethinking the age of sexual consent. - By William Saletan - Slate Magazine (http://www.slate.com/id/2174841/pagenum/all/)

The reason that the age is 18 and will stay that way is to keep mind-warp artists like "Saletan" who wrote this article from coming up with all sorts of contorted arguments for molesting 13-year olds. TRULY DISGUSTING.

DDT is right, your deflection -- the 1% propaganda etc. -- is directly responsible for the exploitation of the innocent. Hang your head in shame.

YouTube - Nutcase Paedophile (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jj6l2iwCsl8)

And it doesn't bother some of you AT ALL that our Supreme Court Justice Ginsburg is willing to meet this animal half-way and lower the age of consent to 12 years old. Be ashamed.
Why? I have made no comment about the reduction of the age of consent so you do not know whether I agree with it or not. By introducing this it is you who is hijacking the thread.

U.C. Davis does not provide propoganda to anyone - it carries out scientific research. It has proved DDT's central thesis to be wrong. That is a fact - it is not propoganda.

The vast majority of pedophiles are heterosexual men. It is inconvenient for you and other homophobes but remains true.

Demonising a small minority does not help victims of pedophilia. Even if you could remove all homosexuals and ensure none ever came into contact with young children 99% of attacks on children would continue.

So who is really the apologist for pedophiles?

DDT
17-07-2009, 22:19
The FACTS from one of the most reputable research institutes in the world show that homosexual men are responsible for 1% of pedophile attacks, if that.
Your "facts" dont show that at all!
As I stated earlier your "reputable research institutes" had to change the definition of "homosexual" in order to come up with their figures. ......Some study! It's a gay activists dream study and you even quoted support from some of the most far Left, like one of Obama's agenda boys, Paul R Krueger. It's more misinformation from the gay agenda intended to bamboozle the cardboard drones driving their kids to the soccer match.

But even if we DID use your faulty and misleading figures, it STILL shows that Homosexuals are more likely to be child molesters. Since realistic numbers of homosexuals in society are between 1 and 3 percent of the population, YOUR FIGURES ACTUALLY SHOW THAT BETWEEN ONE THIRD AND 100 PERCENT OF HOMOSEXUALS ARE PEDOPHILES!


reputable research institutes in the world show that homosexual men are responsible for 1% of pedophile attacks

Gypsy
17-07-2009, 22:22
Your "facts" dont show that at all!
As I stated earlier your "reputable research institutes" had to change the definition of "homosexual" in order to come up with their figures. ......Some study! It's a gay activists dream study and you even quoted support from some of the most far Left, like one of Obama's agenda boys, Paul R Krueger. It's more misinformation from the gay agenda intended to bamboozle the cardboard drones driving their kids to the soccer match.

But even if we DID use your faulty and misleading figures, it STILL shows that Homosexuals are more likely to be child molesters. Since realistic numbers of homosexuals in society are between 1 and 3 percent of the population, YOUR FIGURES ACTUALLY SHOW THAT BETWEEN ONE THIRD AND 100 PERCENT OF HOMOSEXUALS ARE PEDOPHILES!
Absolutely pathetic.

Grow up.

AstroNoodle
17-07-2009, 22:28
Why? I have made no comment about the reduction of the age of consent so you do not know whether I agree with it or not. By introducing this it is you who is hijacking the thread.

That is what this thread is about. By deflecting from the issue, you are just parroting the normal whitewash response to child molestation and contributing to the problem. It is people like you, and it takes numbers, who are responsible for child molestor books being available in libraries and on Amazon.com

You will back-peddal and deflect -- but the reality remains -- child molestation is advocated by Slate Magazine, Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg, and people who deflect criticizm from them (you just completely ignored them and went off into space) and the child molesters (well-documented in this thread) themselves.

The rest of your comments are so far off track, I am not even going to bother. TRULY DISGUSTING.

DDT
17-07-2009, 22:34
I would like to clarify my last post (which, curiously enough, nobody responded to - yet the whole basis of argument lies in establishing whether the assumptions are established and agreed upon or not. Without that, you are just uselessly yelling 'your own truths' at each other and nobody is proving any actual truth) to say that rudeness and insults, like the words "homosexual"
There is nothing insulting about this word...........so don't make it so!


DDT, if you can't speak civilly, I would suspect you to be someone working secretly for the so-called 'gay agenda' to give them an actual case; a leg to stand on.
Yeah, I suppose we should keep doing it your way. That's working out well so far isn't it?
You go ahead and continue with your fascinating but gentle plan and sit down civilly over a nice cup of tea and politely discuss your issues with these harmless fellows....WHILE THEY STEAL YOUR CHILDREN, YOUR FAMILY, YOUR CULTURE AND YOUR FREEDOM!!!.............you pathetic weakling. Have some righteous indignation, man! It's OK to get mad, even Jesus did it!

AstroNoodle
18-07-2009, 00:30
Rusmeister is not a pathetic weakling.

DDT
18-07-2009, 03:42
Rusmeister is not a pathetic weakling.

It's "weak" to think you can negotiate with your enemy, and gay activists are our enemy. They can not have what they want without destroying what we, already have! These people are not going to go back into the closet where they belong without a fight. The gloves are off! And the only reason that are able to fight at all is because people, like Russmeister, out of the goodness of their hearts allowed them out of the closet in the first place. It's case of, giving them an inch and now they want a whole mile.
Our ancestors never would have given them an inch in the first place. Perhaps they knew better than us!

AstroNoodle
18-07-2009, 05:12
They can not have what they want without destroying what we, already have!

I definitely agree with that statement. There is nothing but destruction on the gay advocate agenda, but once they get what they want, they still won't have what they want. There is no hope or fulfillment for themselves or anyone else once they have successfully legalized the destruction of innocence and individual happiness.

rusmeister
18-07-2009, 06:56
I'm a little surprised to see that DDT doesn't get that I actually agree with him that the modern view that same-sex relations are harmless and even beneficial to society are false. But I see no reason to respond to taunts, although I would admit that I am doubtless weak - for example, I find that I frequently do not fulfill the Christian ideal - it truly is difficult.

"The Christian ideal has not been tried and found wanting; it has been found difficult and left untried."GKC

DDT is right in that it IS a war, albeit a spiritual war, rather than a material one. However, the people are not our enemies. From the Christian standpoint, it is the powers and principalities referred to by St Paul in Eph 6:12 that are the enemy of us all, even if many here do not perceive that. The people we sometimes also call "enemies" are to be loved, not fought. So we have to distinguish between understandings of "enemy". If you see people as being deceived by a common enemy, rather than actually BEING the enemy, it is easier to have charity (agape) for them. They cannot see that issues like this ARE destructive. The only hope of any success is to enable them to understand that there can be legitimate opposition and what exactly that opposition is. As it stands, all they have hitherto seen is 'hate talk'.

Because people are NOT our enemies in the sense I am talking about, it is essential to 'win them to the right side', iow, to persuade them to at least question the stands and assumptions that they have held as long as they can remember without questioning them. (And so that brings us back to the language question.)

I have yet to see one intelligent response to my comments on language. It will prove my case if the only response to evidence of rationality on the part of opposition to same-sex relations is to ignore it. You cannot claim to be right if you do not engage the arguments of your opponents, and so I am doing so - on the most fundamental level - the very words used in the war. One (if not the only) reason things have come to this pass is because the wrong language is being used.

AstroNoodle
18-07-2009, 08:13
I have yet to see one intelligent response to my comments on language.

That is because gay advocate propaganda and the unreality agenda depends on distorting language and truth while evading naturally sound thinking.

DDT
18-07-2009, 08:59
I'm a little surprised to see that DDT doesn't get that I actually agree with him that the modern view that same-sex relations are harmless and even beneficial to society are false.
Yes i do in fact see this. I just felt like living up to my reputation.:)

Mirka
18-07-2009, 10:52
Your "facts" dont show that at all!
As I stated earlier your "reputable research institutes" had to change the definition of "homosexual" in order to come up with their figures. ......Some study! It's a gay activists dream study and you even quoted support from some of the most far Left, like one of Obama's agenda boys, Paul R Krueger. It's more misinformation from the gay agenda intended to bamboozle the cardboard drones driving their kids to the soccer match.

But even if we DID use your faulty and misleading figures, it STILL shows that Homosexuals are more likely to be child molesters. Since realistic numbers of homosexuals in society are between 1 and 3 percent of the population, YOUR FIGURES ACTUALLY SHOW THAT BETWEEN ONE THIRD AND 100 PERCENT OF HOMOSEXUALS ARE PEDOPHILES!

Hmmmm......interesting.......should I become a lesbian now cos statistics shows that men are more likely to be murderers, molesters, rapists and are far more aggressive than we are?

Adamodeus
19-07-2009, 05:08
If they don't do the act how can they be queer? You defy logic!
I never said they didn't have sex. I said they are perfectly capable of doing it discretely, just as any heterosexual couple. Men and women have tried to shield their kids from their own sex life since the beginning of time. Saying gay people are incapable of it is... just that - hearsay.

You sound like you have very little experience with the gay culture.
Yeah, sure. And you sound like you hang out with gay people all the time.


There is nothing normal about people that support the gay Agenda, the redefining of a married couple, which almost all of them do!They are called human rights advocates.

Sure it's disputed!!!! Stats show that homos have a higher incidence of child molestation than normal people!!!!!
Gypsy gave you several studies from a very reputable source. You want to dispute it - show us all those stats. And not from Fox, but from a medical journal. I would be very interested to look at them if you can produce them. All you have done so far is said what people "can't do". Back it up - you are normally very good at providing some sources for your opinions, in fact, one of the best on the forum in this regard. So where are all those stats?

We, us normal people, make that choice for them as we have from the beginning. It is criminal to place innocent minds into the hands of deviants and then tell the kids that everything is A OK!
Completely agree with you, it's very wrong. But where is the proof that they are all (or even most of them are) deviants? Your viewpoint has no strength in numbers.

Adamodeus
19-07-2009, 05:18
I will gladly join in your own game and answer your question if you, Adamodeus, first answer my question with the only correct answer.

Pete and Repeat were sitting on a log, Pete fell off and who was left?
Why, yes, of course, AstroNoodle! How could I pass up such an opportunity for a discussion with you? Here is the answer to your question:

Since Pete fell off the log, Repeat was the only one left on the log.

Yes, Repeat, which is what you keep doing like a lemming by posting some disgusting videos or people who nobody would argue are out of this world - and not in a good way. You just resort to more of the same. It's you who is contorting the issue. You say that this thread is merely about this one unfortunate child who was abused in this one unfortunate case. Nobody, not one person here, is arguing that child abuse is a good thing in spite of your numerous and utterly baseless statements to the contrary. Quote my statement where I show support for child abuse in general and that one particular child in particular.

Adamodeus
19-07-2009, 05:27
Adam, he does not seem to be a peaceful individual, does he?:)
No, Russian Lad, he doesn't. I would help you, AstroNoodle and DDT hang him by the balls myself, but what does that prove? If I show you 10 videos of drunk Russian assholes, does it prove that most Russians are drunk assholes? If I show you 30 videos of Russians beating some poor construction worker from Central Asia, does it mean most Russians are Neo-Nazi pigs? Such videos stir up a lot of emotions, but don't reliably demonstrate anything except that there are some pretty f**ked up people in this world.

Adamodeus
19-07-2009, 05:40
You accuse me of deflecting criticism of child molesters. I have done no such thing. That is a blatant lie. Either show where I have done or withdraw that lie.
Gypsy, it's a tactic AstroNoodle seems very fond of. I found myself the target of such convoluted logic in every other post of his. We say "Not all gay people are criminals" and he answers with "You are defend child abuse!" You give him scientific studies, he gives you videos of child molesters. And remarkably, we are the ones muddling the issue!

Adamodeus
19-07-2009, 06:03
And I just showed that the Supreme Court of the United States believes that the age of consent should be lowered to age 12 which is also EXTREMELY popular cause flown under the "gay rights" banner.
The Supreme Court believe no such thing. One judge might believe so. It will get nowhere. And I challenge you to prove that it's an "EXTREMELY popular case" in the gay community.

Your study does not mean anything. I just posted a video of a homosexual child molestation ring.
Studies may mean nothing to you, but they do mean something to most people. The studies were performed on hundreds of people. Your video shows a child molestation ring, not a gay ring.

The reason that the age is 18 and will stay that way is to keep mind-warp artists like "Saletan" who wrote this article from coming up with all sorts of contorted arguments for molesting 13-year olds.
Thank you for bringing that up. Actually, the age of consent is not 18. Only 13 US states have it that high. And here is the fun part: it's 18 in gay and deviant California, but most of the Bible Belt seems to like 'em younger... Hang your head in shame.[/QUOTE]

And it doesn't bother some of you AT ALL that our Supreme Court Justice Ginsburg is willing to meet this animal half-way and lower the age of consent to 12 years old. Be ashamed.
Once again, you didn't even bother to make this a question. You just stated in no uncertain terms that your opponent is a supporter of the lowering of the age of consent and even told him to be ashamed of his terrible beliefs. Don't you think that you should be ashamed in his stead?

AstroNoodle
19-07-2009, 07:23
Bruno molesting as many children as possible:

from comments:

Sacha Baron Cohen: It's so sad, but I have to kill off Bruno | Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1200145/Sacha-Baron-Cohen-Its-sad-I-kill-Bruno.html;jsessionid=0E55CFD73A822EF87512C485B29584B9)

"i went into a local cinema -- there was a lifesize cut out poster of bruno exposing his buttocks -- little kids were getting it right in the face --- on complaining to cinema staff -- the reply was the posters come from universal studios and we have no choice we have to put them up !!!!
Keep it clean in front of all public and allow people to choose what they want to expose themselves to"

Adamodeus
19-07-2009, 08:04
DDT is right in that it IS a war, albeit a spiritual war, rather than a material one. However, the people are not our enemies. From the Christian standpoint, it is the powers and principalities referred to by St Paul in Eph 6:12 that are ALL of our enemies, even if many here do not perceive that. The people we sometimes also call "enemies" are to be loved, not fought. So we have to distinguish between understandings of "enemy". If you see people as being deceived by a common enemy, rather than actually BEING the enemy, it is easier to have charity (agape) for them. They cannot see that issues like this ARE destructive. The only hope of any success is to enable them to understand that there can be legitimate opposition and what exactly that opposition is. As it stands, all they have hitherto seen is 'hate talk'. Because people are NOT our enemies...
Awesome, rusmeister! Precisely what I said to AstroNoodle (who must be sitting on coals right now). But according to him, one of the most basic principle on which Christianity is built is simply "the slickest but tiredest of ad hominems". The silly notion that we can and should still love the people we disagree with is just a slick way of furthering the gay agenda, you see.

I have yet to see one intelligent response to my comments on language. [...] One (if not the only) reason things have come to this pass is because the wrong language is being used.
I will gladly engage with you in an argument on linguistic terms. I happen to agree with you. I think this whole issue has to do with language and it's the muddying of definitions that has resulted in this argument.

Defining who we are fighting against is at the very heart of the of problem. AstroNoodle and DDT have tired to legitimize their attacks on homosexuals by showing some pedophiles. That is clearly an attempt to attack something by associating it with an unquestionable negative. But they have failed miserably to provide this link.

"Homosexual" is defined as someone who is attracted to a person of the same sex (from the Greek "homo" -"same, equal" and "sex"). The case I am making is that just as heterosexuals are attracted to persons of the opposite sex (by definition "hetero" - different, another), homosexuals, a term clearly created as a "counterweight" to "heterosexual", are really defined as persons who are "the opposite" of "heterosexual". That is "homosexual" as opposed to "heterosexual". They are both sexual, but the stress, the key component here is "homo" and "hetero" - they are set in opposition to each other.

Now, a pedophile (from the Greek "pedo" - "child" and "philo" - "like, love") is not the opposite of "heterosexual" or "homosexual", because the key element here is "pedo" - child. Somebody who is attracted to children is "the opposite" of someone, who is attracted to adults - a "teleiophile" from the Greek "teleios" - "adult". Pedophilia usually refers to an adult psychological disorder characterized by a preference for prepubescent children as sexual partners.

Both heterosexuals and homosexuals are first and foremost attracted to primary and secondary sex characteristics. Pornographic magazines for heterosexuals and homosexuals are a case in point. An overwhelming majority of the models in those magazines - clearly catering to the most basic instinct of their readership - are very well-defined human specimens. For the hetero mags, even the so-called "barely legal" women usually have defined curves, large and/or clearly visible breasts, curvaceous sizable behinds and well developed and clearly defined female sexual organs (the vulva). In homo mags, the overwhelming number of men are around 25 years old, they are in spectacular physical shape (quite muscular) and have very well developed and extrusive male sexual organs (the penis). Although you can certainly find a publication specializing in just about anything, the overwhelming majority of such "literature" - even when they emphasize the word "young" - in fact, peddles and emphasizes the primary and secondary sex characteristics. A homosexual man is attracted to "fine male specimens" just as a heterosexual man is attracted to "fine female specimens".

By contrast, what pedophiles are attracted to is a distinct lack of primary and secondary sex characteristics! What attracts them in children is the very thing that would turn off an adult: young girls have no breast, no curvy buttocks and their vulva is completely invisible, while young boys don't have broad shoulders, don't have strong visible extremities and their penis is completely underdeveloped. Young children look very similar to each other, almost androgynous, because they haven't developed their sex characteristics. That is the main thing that distinguishes children from adults. What is sexually attractive to a pedophile isn't the child's poor ability to speak or reason (although it helps, because it makes them easy prey), but above all else what they look like - the look of a child.

Quote: In a recent study of pedophilia, Bogaert, Bezeau, Kuban, and Blanchard (1997) reviewed the charts of 388 pedophiles, covering the period 1980 to 1994 (thus, the later cases may have met the DSM-III-R requirements). This study was part of research conducted at the Department of Behavioral Sexology at the Clarke Institute of Psychiatry in Toronto, Canada. The majority of those studied had been accused of or charged with sexual offenses against children; a few came voluntarily for psychiatric assessment. Some of the pedophiles were heterosexual, some were homosexual, and some were bisexual. Pedophilic sexual offenses against girls were twice as frequent as offenses against boys; some of the researchers who participated in this Canadian study (Bogaert et al.) think the ratio is actually higher than 2:1. Their findings suggested discontinuity between pedophilia and adult-age sexual orientation.

Research also shows that the older the age preference of the pedophile, the more exclusive the gender preference. Pedophiles attracted to toddlers are more likely to molest boys and girls indiscriminately. A pedophile attracted to teenagers is more likely to prefer either boys or girls exclusively.

AstroNoodle
19-07-2009, 13:10
Awesome, rusmeister! Precisely what I said to AstroNoodle (who must be sitting on coals right now).

I'm just not dignifying your now voluminous contortions of my clearly stated views. If you want a reply, just go back and read my previous posts (and Carbo's). I haven't even attacked you personally. You used severely disjointed and disturbed language to attack everything you do not know about me as a person (this is always the response for unreality advocates).

All I have said is that about you specifically is that you should be ashamed with many others for your deflectionist apologetics which cause children to come to harm, and I am not the only one who sees this or has voiced this opinion -- an opinion which is inherrent in the very title of the thread. Everytime a gay advocate disagrees with someone it ultimately becomes a personal attack, because with unreality there is no real argument.

YouTube- Perez Hilton Assaulted by Will.i.am?

YouTube- Perez Hilton Says, 'I Do Expect Miss USA To Be Politically Correct.'

Gay fascists expect everyone to be "politically correct" from their own unreality point of view but can trash anyone else, like the Black Eyed Peas or Carrie Prejean, whenever they want.

"YES! I do expect Miss USA to be politically correct." -- gay gestapo advocate

btw, Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg, as I previously claimed, did indeed advocate lowering sexual consent, and I gave the citation, "Sex Bias in the US Code" and have the book in my home. No amount of unreality will ever refute this fact.

Just because you lose control and feel your only option is to write a series of disjointed rants juxtaposing contortions of my posts does not mean that I am "sitting on coals." You gave yourself way too much credit with that one.

rusmeister
19-07-2009, 19:44
Awesome, rusmeister! Precisely what I said to AstroNoodle (who must be sitting on coals right now). But according to him, one of the most basic principle on which Christianity is built is simply "the slickest but tiredest of ad hominems". The silly notion that we can and should still love the people we disagree with is just a slick way of furthering the gay agenda, you see.

I will gladly engage with you in an argument on linguistic terms. I happen to agree with you. I think this whole issue has to do with language and it's the muddying of definitions that has resulted in this argument.

Defining who we are fighting against is at the very heart of the of problem. AstroNoodle and DDT have tired to legitimize their attacks on homosexuals by showing some pedophiles. That is clearly an attempt to attack something by associating it with an unquestionable negative. But they have failed miserably to provide this link.

"Homosexual" is defined as someone who is attracted to a person of the same sex (from the Greek "homo" -"same, equal" and "sex"). The case I am making is that just as heterosexuals are attracted to persons of the opposite sex (by definition "hetero" - different, another), homosexuals, a term clearly created as a "counterweight" to "heterosexual", are really defined as persons who are "the opposite" of "heterosexual". That is "homosexual" as opposed to "heterosexual". They are both sexual, but the stress, the key component here is "homo" and "hetero" - they are set in opposition to each other.

Now, a pedophile (from the Greek "pedo" - "child" and "philo" - "like, love") is not the opposite of "heterosexual" or "homosexual", because the key element here is "pedo" - child. Somebody who is attracted to children is "the opposite" of someone, who is attracted to adults - a "teleiophile" from the Greek "teleios" - "adult". Pedophilia usually refers to an adult psychological disorder characterized by a preference for prepubescent children as sexual partners.

Both heterosexuals and homosexuals are first and foremost attracted to primary and secondary sex characteristics. Pornographic magazines for heterosexuals and homosexuals are a case in point. An overwhelming majority of the models in those magazines - clearly catering to the most basic instinct of their readership - are very well-defined human specimens. For the hetero mags, even the so-called "barely legal" women usually have defined curves, large and/or clearly visible breasts, curvaceous sizable behinds and well developed and clearly defined female sexual organs (the vulva). In homo mags, the overwhelming number of men are around 25 years old, they are in spectacular physical shape (quite muscular) and have very well developed and extrusive male sexual organs (the penis). Although you can certainly find a publication specializing in just about anything, the overwhelming majority of such "literature" - even when they emphasize the word "young" - in fact, peddles and emphasizes the primary and secondary sex characteristics. A homosexual man is attracted to "fine male specimens" just as a heterosexual man is attracted to "fine female specimens".

By contrast, what pedophiles are attracted to is a distinct lack of primary and secondary sex characteristics! What attracts them in children is the very thing that would turn off an adult: young girls have no breast, no curvy buttocks and their vulva is completely invisible, while young boys don't have broad shoulders, don't have strong visible extremities and their penis is completely underdeveloped. Young children look very similar to each other, almost androgynous, because they haven't developed their sex characteristics. That is the main thing that distinguishes children from adults. What is sexually attractive to a pedophile is the child's poor to speak or reason (although it helps, because it makes them easy prey), but above all else what they look like - the look of a child.

Quote: In a recent study of pedophilia, Bogaert, Bezeau, Kuban, and Blanchard (1997) reviewed the charts of 388 pedophiles, covering the period 1980 to 1994 (thus, the later cases may have met the DSM-III-R requirements). This study was part of research conducted at the Department of Behavioral Sexology at the Clarke Institute of Psychiatry in Toronto, Canada. The majority of those studied had been accused of or charged with sexual offenses against children; a few came voluntarily for psychiatric assessment. Some of the pedophiles were heterosexual, some were homosexual, and some were bisexual. Pedophilic sexual offenses against girls were twice as frequent as offenses against boys; some of the researchers who participated in this Canadian study (Bogaert et al.) think the ratio is actually higher than 2:1. Their findings suggested discontinuity between pedophilia and adult-age sexual orientation.

Research also shows that the older the age preference of the pedophile, the more exclusive the gender preference. Pedophiles attracted to toddlers are more likely to molest boys and girls indiscriminately. A pedophile attracted to teenagers is more likely to prefer either boys or girls exclusively.
Hi, AD!
Thanks for the courteous response!

The trouble with responding to your comments is that they don't really engage mine. As soon as you start using the terms, we are already speaking different languages, and using different presuppositions.

The only way we can make any kind of progress in any direction is if we use terminology that all can agree on. "Same-sex attraction" is a phenomenon that we can agree on, even if we don't agree on whether it is a normal and natural part of human nature, or a perverted (I like Lewis's sci-fi term 'bent') - damaging and destructive abnormality which ought to be treated as something wrong, the way we treat any disorder. If you were to insist on starting from the assumption that it is 'who you are' in the same way that sex or race are part of our identification, you cannot hope to understand the people you disagree with - at least, the intelligent people; the Pope, for instance.

The other thing that must be addressed is the historical aspect. That's why, to understand where I'm coming from, it would be efficient to read the linked article I provided above. The necessity of explaining why no term describing a class of people existed until 1892 is powerful evidence that the modern terms are inventions, rather than truthful expressions of human nature. If the language had followed genuine research and discovery and been widely accepted, that might be another matter, but as it stands, it turns out to be mere euphemism that changed views (albeit gradually) merely by changing language.

One key point in your argument as written (which I can allow if you accept the above) is that while you point out different Greek terms - again, not used in Greek until quite recently - the assumption that you seem to procede from is that 'homo' and 'hetero' sexual are a kind of natural opposition, 'pedo' and 'teleio' sexual are an unnatural opposition; ie, abnormal. The traditional Christian position (all of Christianity until the late 20th century - in short, 2,000 years) is that the first, regarding 'homo' is as unnatural as 'pedo'.

I don't wish to be appear to be talking 'past' you (the 'Chekhovian conversation'), but it really is necessary to deal with the thoughts I have already posted, including the article, if we are to have intelligent discussion on the rational Christian opposition. (If you don't understand your 'foe', then you have to admit the possibility that he may really be right - that your lack of understanding represents a lack of knowledge.)

Cheers! :)

AstroNoodle
19-07-2009, 20:52
Hi, AD!
The trouble with responding to your comments is that they don't really engage mine.

*chuckles*

DDT
19-07-2009, 22:28
It appears to I, the fabulously courageous DDT, that Adamonious along with the pro-homo studies provided for our "enlightenment", that the Russ Meister is correct in stating, though in a 'round the Horn of Africa style, that the definition of a Homo or whatever you want to call it, is at the essence of their own defence against accusations of child molestation and peadophilia.

By the studies presented by the homo agenda the definition of what a homo is: a homo is only a homo if he likes sex with other men of legal age exclusively.

This is a serious distortion of reality! The true numbers of incidence of gay child molestation is shown when the definition of "Gay" it's self is left unmolested!

To the gay advocate, and those who clutch their "studies" the definition of a Homo is only those who like to "receive". While the "givers" are left apparently with their reputation intact.
All real men know instinctively that either of those mentioned above are equally across the line of no return, and are "homos."

Likewise men who hunt the night clubs for other men to have a quickie with in the toilet stalls before going home to their wives and kids are somehow cast into a third category as bi-sexual, thus avoiding the homosexual label.
All real men know instinctively that this type of behaviour is "homosexual".

And again, those men who frequent the metros and such in hunt for young boys for sex are somehow mislabeled in the gay advocate "study" and instead of being known as the Homosexual men that they are and that their act defines, they are called "pedophiles"

In all these examples a line has been crossed and those who cross it place themselves outside the norm and squarely into the realm of homoism , all having the same sexual disorder, an attraction to the same sex.

DDT
19-07-2009, 22:35
YouTube - Perez Hilton Assaulted by Will.i.am? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gYYjNN3Ugco)


It's hard to believe that he was only "punched 2 or 3 times" in the face.!

Carbo
19-07-2009, 23:33
Awesome, rusmeister! Precisely what I said to AstroNoodle (who must be sitting on coals right now). But according to him, one of the most basic principle on which Christianity is built is simply "the slickest but tiredest of ad hominems". The silly notion that we can and should still love the people we disagree with is just a slick way of furthering the gay agenda, you see.

I will gladly engage with you in an argument on linguistic terms. I happen to agree with you. I think this whole issue has to do with language and it's the muddying of definitions that has resulted in this argument.

Defining who we are fighting against is at the very heart of the of problem. AstroNoodle and DDT have tired to legitimize their attacks on homosexuals by showing some pedophiles. That is clearly an attempt to attack something by associating it with an unquestionable negative. But they have failed miserably to provide this link.

"Homosexual" is defined as someone who is attracted to a person of the same sex (from the Greek "homo" -"same, equal" and "sex"). The case I am making is that just as heterosexuals are attracted to persons of the opposite sex (by definition "hetero" - different, another), homosexuals, a term clearly created as a "counterweight" to "heterosexual", are really defined as persons who are "the opposite" of "heterosexual". That is "homosexual" as opposed to "heterosexual". They are both sexual, but the stress, the key component here is "homo" and "hetero" - they are set in opposition to each other.

Now, a pedophile (from the Greek "pedo" - "child" and "philo" - "like, love") is not the opposite of "heterosexual" or "homosexual", because the key element here is "pedo" - child. Somebody who is attracted to children is "the opposite" of someone, who is attracted to adults - a "teleiophile" from the Greek "teleios" - "adult". Pedophilia usually refers to an adult psychological disorder characterized by a preference for prepubescent children as sexual partners.

Both heterosexuals and homosexuals are first and foremost attracted to primary and secondary sex characteristics. Pornographic magazines for heterosexuals and homosexuals are a case in point. An overwhelming majority of the models in those magazines - clearly catering to the most basic instinct of their readership - are very well-defined human specimens. For the hetero mags, even the so-called "barely legal" women usually have defined curves, large and/or clearly visible breasts, curvaceous sizable behinds and well developed and clearly defined female sexual organs (the vulva). In homo mags, the overwhelming number of men are around 25 years old, they are in spectacular physical shape (quite muscular) and have very well developed and extrusive male sexual organs (the penis). Although you can certainly find a publication specializing in just about anything, the overwhelming majority of such "literature" - even when they emphasize the word "young" - in fact, peddles and emphasizes the primary and secondary sex characteristics. A homosexual man is attracted to "fine male specimens" just as a heterosexual man is attracted to "fine female specimens".

By contrast, what pedophiles are attracted to is a distinct lack of primary and secondary sex characteristics! What attracts them in children is the very thing that would turn off an adult: young girls have no breast, no curvy buttocks and their vulva is completely invisible, while young boys don't have broad shoulders, don't have strong visible extremities and their penis is completely underdeveloped. Young children look very similar to each other, almost androgynous, because they haven't developed their sex characteristics. That is the main thing that distinguishes children from adults. What is sexually attractive to a pedophile is the child's poor to speak or reason (although it helps, because it makes them easy prey), but above all else what they look like - the look of a child.

Quote: In a recent study of pedophilia, Bogaert, Bezeau, Kuban, and Blanchard (1997) reviewed the charts of 388 pedophiles, covering the period 1980 to 1994 (thus, the later cases may have met the DSM-III-R requirements). This study was part of research conducted at the Department of Behavioral Sexology at the Clarke Institute of Psychiatry in Toronto, Canada. The majority of those studied had been accused of or charged with sexual offenses against children; a few came voluntarily for psychiatric assessment. Some of the pedophiles were heterosexual, some were homosexual, and some were bisexual. Pedophilic sexual offenses against girls were twice as frequent as offenses against boys; some of the researchers who participated in this Canadian study (Bogaert et al.) think the ratio is actually higher than 2:1. Their findings suggested discontinuity between pedophilia and adult-age sexual orientation.

Research also shows that the older the age preference of the pedophile, the more exclusive the gender preference. Pedophiles attracted to toddlers are more likely to molest boys and girls indiscriminately. A pedophile attracted to teenagers is more likely to prefer either boys or girls exclusively.
Well, Adam, that's a fantastic post, but sadly wasted, like a beautiful tulip bulb dropped on radioactive glass.

A word of advice: You won this argument a week ago, and when you did, you were accused of being complicit to child rape.

The point is this: these guys see homosexuals as literally no better than paedophiles, and see them as evil and hell bound. If one believed that, I can completely understand that allowing gays to adopt would be anathema, and that any crime committed by a homosexual would be proof of one's belief.

I totally get that.

So when you, Adam, try to argue the point, you're winning, but you're wasting your time, because without changing the belief, you can't convince that they're wrong on a view derived from that.

Russian Lad
19-07-2009, 23:57
The point is this: these guys see homosexuals as literally no better than paedophiles, and see them as evil and hell bound. If one believed that, I can completely understand that allowing gays to adopt would be anathema, and that any crime committed by a homosexual would be proof of one's belief.

Actually, Adam's point is well-taken, he is not wasting his time at all. On the other hand, Adam himself has expressed many doubts as to whether two queers can adopt a child and make it a happy family. Children imitate adults, Carbo, it is stupid to dismiss this fact. Chances that such a child will grow up a queer increase dramatically. The society does not need more fudge packers, there are too many of them already. It is a psychological disorder that either needs to be treated or isolated, not encouraged. Just look at the clip of this Perez gay that Astro posted. I personally am disgusted even by the way he talks or moves his hands. You see he is a deranged person right away, and he is supposed to be their spokesman of sorts, a star.

Carbo
20-07-2009, 00:00
Actually, Adam's point is well-taken, he is not wasting his time at all. On the other hand, Adam himself has expressed many doubts as to whether two queers can adopt a child and make it a happy family. Children imitate adults, Carbo, it is stupid to dismiss this fact. Chances that such a child will grow up a queer increase dramatically.
But if you don't see anything wrong with homosexuality, then there's no problem.

You do, as evidence by your inability to remain civilized on the matter or refrain from using pejorative forms of the noun "homosexual".

Anyway, i'm out of this thread.

It is a monumental waste of my time.

Russian Lad
20-07-2009, 00:06
It's hard to believe that he was only "punched 2 or 3 times" in the face.!

Next time let me handle this job. With one punch, too - I can make sure he has half of his face swallen:).



But if you don't see anything wrong with homosexuality, then there's no problem.

Well, we need to know the limits. Why don't we legalize selling heroin, then? If there are two consenting adults shooting it to the veins of each other there should not be a problem. They are only hurting themselves, after all, right? Your logic in this matter is inherently deficient, Carbo:).

DDT
20-07-2009, 01:01
Yes, in theory even adoptive mother and father who are heroin addicts are less dangerous to a child's well being and psyche than 2 rump-rangers!

Adamodeus
20-07-2009, 04:19
I haven't even attacked you personally. You used severely disjointed and disturbed language to attack everything you do not know about me as a person (this is always the response for unreality advocates).

Everytime a gay advocate disagrees with someone it ultimately becomes a personal attack, because with unreality there is no real argument.
After reading this, it just occurred to me that you are the poster boy for the very media you seem to abhor. With the facts in plain view, you now unequivocally state that you haven't attacked me personally! But I, instead, attacked you as a person! I'm really quite in awe of the aplomb with which you bend reality! And fascinatingly, I am the supposed "unreality advocate"!

How's this for reality - a few quotes from you about me:

"I know from your poor argumentation that you wish to see society sexually-harassed"

"You just want to deflect criticism and pronounce sainthood on the gay gestapo. Truly disgusting."

And my personal "favorite": "I honestly believe that if you could outright excuse this man's behavior and get away with it that you would"

THAT was not a wild personal accusation?! You honestly believe I desperately wish to outright excuse a child abuser... You know what? YOU are truly disgusting.

Gay fascists expect everyone to be "politically correct" from their own unreality point of view but can trash anyone else, like the Black Eyed Peas or Carrie Prejean, whenever they want.

"YES! I do expect Miss USA to be politically correct." -- gay gestapo advocate
You know, your tactic of bringing up things I've never argued against and making it look like I oppose them has always been dishonest, but it's getting really old and tired now. People can actually read, you know...

A quote from me: "You'll be shocked to know that I am against a Sado-masochistic parade in SF or anywhere else for that matter. And I was outraged that Carrie Prejean was robbed of her first place and later her crown by that bag of puss 'Perez Hilton'." and "Perez Hilton is not evidence, he's an affront to the memory the Gestapo."

Adamodeus
20-07-2009, 04:25
Yes, in theory even adoptive mother and father who are heroin addicts are less dangerous to a child's well being and psyche than 2 rump-rangers!
You clearly have very little experience with heroin addicts. If you actually asked the children you seem to speak for, they would undoubtedly disagree with you. You're talking out of your ass now: you have no idea what sort of hell living with a heroin addict is.

DDT
20-07-2009, 05:14
No, you are talking out of your arse! A heroin addict can maintain a normal lifestyle, hold down a good job and an appearance that no one would suspect. Just look at the list of some of the famous people who have done so. i.e. James Taylor, Eric Clapton, and even Benjamin Franklin ,Florence Nightengale and Charles Dickens ( who was users of opium) By the way it is far easier to kick heroin than it is to kick alcohol!

Two fags and an "adopted" child can not do this by the very nature of their same sex relationship which can not be hidden from the child.

Adamodeus
20-07-2009, 06:02
[...]As soon as you start using the terms, we are already speaking different languages, and using different presuppositions.

The only way we can make any kind of progress in any direction is if we use terminology that all can agree on. "Same-sex attraction" is a phenomenon that we can agree on, even if we don't agree on whether it is a normal and natural part of human nature, or a perverted (I like Lewis's sci-fi term 'bent') - damaging and destructive abnormality [...]

The other thing that must be addressed is the historical aspect. That's why, to understand where I'm coming from, it would be efficient to read the linked article I provided above. [...]

One key point in your argument as written (which I can allow if you accept the above) is that while you point out different Greek terms - again, not used in Greek until quite recently - the assumption that you seem to procede from is that 'homo' and 'hetero' sexual are a kind of natural opposition, 'pedo' and 'teleio' sexual are an unnatural opposition; ie, abnormal. The traditional Christian position (all of Christianity until the late 20th century - in short, 2,000 years) is that the first, regarding 'homo' is as unnatural as 'pedo'.
Thanks, rusmeister. I've read the links provided and to be honest with you I disagree with the premise: that the only proof of existence lies in how old the terminology is. This argument is a little silly, especially since it is contradicted in the article itself. Here are the quotes:

"What might be called the philological evidence calls this notion into question. If it were true, someone would long ago have given this class a name. That no one did until very recently suggests that the notion is not true."

"Of course our ancestors were quite aware of what are now called “homosexual” acts or behavior. [...] Almost all of them are obscene as well as pejorative, and their usage is almost always in a context of coarse humor or insult."

When I only read the premise of the article, that was my first thought. Even though the scientific classification of homosexuality did not exist, the derogatory terms for it are many and nearly as old as writing itself (in many languages). This should be seen as normal, since it has been seen in a negative light throughout history. The author covers ancient sources that talk about "gay" behavior quite extensively, but laments the lack of a scientific terms.

The author of the article constantly slips into arguing the moral side of homosexuality, instead of staying purely on the linguistic side of the argument. If you reread my earlier answer to you, as we had agreed to discuss language, I completely refrained from placing any moral judgment on the descriptions of any of the described terms. That's why you are mistaken to see my argument as you describe: " you seem to proceed from [the assumption] that 'homo' and 'hetero' sexual are a kind of natural opposition, 'pedo' and 'teleio' sexual are an unnatural opposition;" I never made any such judgment, even regarding the pedophiles. My descriptions were intentionally graphical but utterly emotionless. My entire analysis was merely a study in classification.

Irrespective of when it was done, when you give something a name, you automatically classify it. The existence of a phenomenon is not dependent on human observation. For instance, in 1798 hyperactivity was called "mental restlessness", then ""minimal brain damage", in 1968, it changed into "Hyperkinetic Reaction of Childhood". It was later renamed to "Attention-Deficit Disorder" and finally to ADHD (Attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder) in 1987. The idea that attention deficit disorder is a myth because nobody tried to come up with a scientific name for it before 1798 - not before the 19th century - is indefensible. Just because people called it "misbehaving" before 1798 and used the belt or the birch-rod to "cure" it and didn't recognize it as anything more than "bad behavior" or "poor manners" doesn't mean ADHD is an imaginary social construct. Whether ADHD is a disease, a psychopathological condition or a genetic aberration is irrelevant for the purpose of our terminological discussion. It afflicted children long before somebody officially classified it.

Some arguments is pure sophistry: "our ancestors were completely oblivious to the existence of a fundamentally distinct class of human beings" it says. When you classify human beings in any way, you create new "classes of human beings by definition". Moreover, this is a very odd way to approach his case. Isn't the whole point of the "gay propaganda" to prove that gay people are not different from you and me? The whole "gay agenda is" trying to prove that they are not abnormal in any way, they are not a separate human species - they are just like everyone else but simply happen to like lovemaking with the same sex? So the author is trying to prove the gay point? He goes on to say "A claim for specific “homosexual rights” is, therefore, frivolous, and the word is merely an ideological construct aimed at undermining the sexual norms inscribed in human nature." But what specific homosexual rights are gay people asking for? The only right they ask for is non-discrimination. Homosexuals only ask for equal, not special treatment.

It's beyond the scope of this forum for me to write a full critique of the article - which I could do - but it does give me a good idea where you're coming from. Let's talk about our issue and settle an language first. Before we do, let's refrain from any moral judgment and simply decide on the language. I agree with "same-sex attraction" with a slippery caveat - same-sex attraction between adults. I realize that it is nearly impossible to set a universal mark for adulthood since the age of consent varies from 9 to 20 depending of where you look (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/ef/Age_of_Consent.png), let's settle on 18 as the draft theoretical mark and go from there.

:o

Adamodeus
20-07-2009, 06:09
Two fags and an "adopted" child can not do this by the very nature of their same sex relationship which can not be hidden from the child.
A child has no concept of sex. S/he doesn't understand that the two men have a sexual relationship because the child doesn't know what sex is. At all. So if a man and a woman can hide their sexual relationship from their kid, why would two men be incapable of doing the same thing?

Your problem, DDT, is that your entire argument revolves around abuse. If you are forced to admit that not all gay couples would abuse a child, then your whole line of argument collapses like a house of cards.

DDT
20-07-2009, 07:00
A child has no concept of sex. S/he doesn't understand that the two men have a sexual relationship because the child doesn't know what sex is. At all. So if a man and a woman can hide their sexual relationship from their kid, why would two men be incapable of doing the same thing?

Your problem, DDT, is that your entire argument revolves around abuse. If you are forced to admit that not all gay couples would abuse a child, then your whole line of argument collapses like a house of cards.

Your trouble is that you have never read my entire argument! It is only you and others who have not thoroughly read my posts who thinks that my argument is based on abuse. This incredulously, and obviously PROVED to you as recently as in my PREVIOUS post, the post before yours, where it is "the relationship of the homos" that is in question. This has been the position of those who have supported the laws forbidding homos from adopting since time immemorial.

My position; had these laws still been in effect these children never would have been molested, has never changed!

As I said waaaaaay back in this thread, the physical abuse of children in the custody of homos is only "the icing on the cake" of in the argument for not changing adoption laws and allowing Homos to adopt children.

Furthermore, Gay adoption deprives children of a mother or father!

Once 2 gayboys adopt a child, there are no more chances for that child to have a mother and a father!

The AAP's endorsement of homosexual parenting is NOT supported by the research. Drs. Robert Lerner and Althea Nagai, professionals in the field of quantitative analysis, examined 49 empirical studies on same-sex parenting. They found no basis for the conclusion that children raised by homosexual parents fare just as well as those raised by heterosexual parents. They found serious methodological flaws in each of the studies examined, including inadequate sample size, biased sample selection, lack of proper control groups and the failure to account for confounding variables indeed, the AAP's own report began with this statement, "Accurate statistics regarding the number of parents who are gay or lesbian are impossible to obtain."

The AAP's committee's recommendations have ignited a firestorm of protest among America's rank and file pediatricians. Many physicians have condemned the report, challenging its assumptions and criticizing the research cited by the committee as "seriously flawed." Some pediatricians have pulled out of the organization and many others are threatening to as well. The AAP hosts an online bulletin board on their "members only" website and the majority of pediatricians registering their opinion overwhelmingly disagreed with the committee's report.

Children raised by homosexual parents are more likely to experience gender and sexual confusion, more likely to become promiscuous and more likely to experiment with homosexual behavior. They are also at greater risk of losing a parent to AIDS, substance abuse or suicide.
Focus on the Family Gives the Facts on Gay Adoption (http://www.charitywire.com/charity63/03221.html)

AstroNoodle
20-07-2009, 07:51
After reading this, it just occurred to me that you are the poster boy for the very media you seem to abhor. With the facts in plain view, you now unequivocally state that you haven't attacked me personally! But I, instead, attacked you as a person! I'm really quite in awe of the aplomb with which you bend reality! And fascinatingly, I am the supposed "unreality advocate"!

How's this for reality - a few quotes from you about me:

"I know from your poor argumentation that you wish to see society sexually-harassed"

"You just want to deflect criticism and pronounce sainthood on the gay gestapo. Truly disgusting."

And my personal "favorite": "I honestly believe that if you could outright excuse this man's behavior and get away with it that you would"

THAT was not a wild personal accusation?! You honestly believe I desperately wish to outright excuse a child abuser... You know what? YOU are truly disgusting.

You know, your tactic of bringing up things I've never argued against and making it look like I oppose them has always been dishonest, but it's getting really old and tired now. People can actually read, you know...

A quote from me: "You'll be shocked to know that I am against a Sado-masochistic parade in SF or anywhere else for that matter. And I was outraged that Carrie Prejean was robbed of her first place and later her crown by that bag of puss 'Perez Hilton'." and "Perez Hilton is not evidence, he's an affront to the memory the Gestapo."

As previously stated, all the quotes you pulled from my posts make the same point -- I have successfully characterized you, by your own words, as a deflectionist/apologist. You try to act like DDT, Russian Lad, and I should not be outraged with the majority of society because in your deflectionist misdescription our outrage is based on what you call hate, rather than the truth that our reaction comes from natural, justified indignation.

Your attacks on me are deranged rants on things you do not even know to be the case.

People like you want to make people feel awkward when their natural instinct is to be outraged and indignant at EVERY instance of child abuse, including this instance which is a gay man (the other gays as well).

You are also a denialist who claims that there is no such agenda to lower the age of sexual consent to around 12 when I provided a link to an article from Slate magazine as well as a primary source, Sex Bias in the US Code, in which Clinton SC Justice Ginsberg advocates lowering the age of sexual consent to 12. You have denied this, and that is truly disgusting and shows where you are coming from:

You are a deflectionist, apologist, and denialist, and therefore you are responsible along with the rest of your horde for the crimes against innocence -- all while the US Congress is about to pass thought control legislation to provide an extra layer of attack and cover for gay child molesters and gay harrassers in the workplace.

So, I stand by my statements, all of which say the exact same thing (REPEAT). DDT was right when he said to go hang your heads in shame. By the standard of natural human dignity, you should feel embarrassed not emboldened.

AstroNoodle
20-07-2009, 08:02
You know, your tactic of bringing up things I've never argued against and making it look like I oppose them has always been dishonest, but it's getting really old and tired now. People can actually read, you know...

You may have backpeddaled, but not long ago you did not argue for these things -- you said that we could simply let it all pass over our heads, implicitly suggesting that there was something wrong with someone like myself showing concern.

As the evidence mounts in our thread, yes, it does get hard for you to continue to suggest that these multitudinous attacks by the gay gestapo against society are not real or relevant.

People can change their minds, and if you have gradually changed yours over the last few days to begin to admit the danger the gay gestapo poses to innocent children then I am willing to accept that progress.

But you DID start out in major denial -- BIG TIME.

AstroNoodle
20-07-2009, 08:19
It appears to I, the fabulously courageous DDT, that Adamonious along with the pro-homo studies provided for our "enlightenment", that the Russ Meister is correct in stating, though in a 'round the Horn of Africa style, that the definition of a Homo or whatever you want to call it, is at the essence of their own defence against accusations of child molestation and peadophilia.

By the studies presented by the homo agenda the definition of what a homo is: a homo is only a homo if he likes sex with other men of legal age exclusively.

This is a serious distortion of reality! The true numbers of incidence of gay child molestation is shown when the definition of "Gay" it's self is left unmolested!

To the gay advocate, and those who clutch their "studies" the definition of a Homo is only those who like to "receive". While the "givers" are left apparently with their reputation intact.
All real men know instinctively that either of those mentioned above are equally across the line of no return, and are "homos."

Likewise men who hunt the night clubs for other men to have a quickie with in the toilet stalls before going home to their wives and kids are somehow cast into a third category as bi-sexual, thus avoiding the homosexual label.
All real men know instinctively that this type of behaviour is "homosexual".

And again, those men who frequent the metros and such in hunt for young boys for sex are somehow mislabeled in the gay advocate "study" and instead of being known as the Homosexual men that they are and that their act defines, they are called "pedophiles"

In all these examples a line has been crossed and those who cross it place themselves outside the norm and squarely into the realm of homoism , all having the same sexual disorder, an attraction to the same sex.

Pretty much. Gay gestapo thought-control propaganda and the social attack tactics they use against families strictly depends on a myriad of perverted word-games which no healthy mind would even try to argue beyond your point, DDT.

Ted Haggard pretty much said it a few months ago on Larry King Live when he appeared with his wife (who DID NOT leave him) -- he said that he learned to dismiss his homosexual thoughts. "I just dismiss them." as I recall him saying.

His wife said that the first thing she asked him when she found out was, "Who are you?"

I used to think that you could ignore the gay gestapo -- how could men like men? But there are enough out there who want everyone to be as miserable as they are and misery loves company, so the attack on our families, schools, and personal dignity continues relentlessly.

Back to the point -- ALL of the gay gestapo thought-control propaganda depends on telling HUGE lies about what constitutes gay behavior. And YES, pedophiles LOVE TO USE THE "STUDIES" PROPAGANDA, ETC. TO HIDE BEHIND.

...truly disgusting.

GaNozri
20-07-2009, 13:01
I suggest that all the homos on this site start a new forum - "Gay gestapo".

Gypsy Queen, Willy, Jack17 and quite a few others will be the regulars.:Loco:

Russian Lad
20-07-2009, 13:08
I suggest that all the homos on this site start a new forum - "Gay gestapo".

A good idea!

rusmeister
20-07-2009, 18:45
Thanks, rusmeister. I've read the links provided and to be honest with you I disagree with the premise: that the only proof of existence lies in how old the terminology is. This argument is a little silly, especially since it is contradicted in the article itself. Here are the quotes:

"What might be called the philological evidence calls this notion into question. If it were true, someone would long ago have given this class a name. That no one did until very recently suggests that the notion is not true."

"Of course our ancestors were quite aware of what are now called “homosexual” acts or behavior. [...] Almost all of them are obscene as well as pejorative, and their usage is almost always in a context of coarse humor or insult."

When I only read the premise of the article, that was my first thought. Even though the scientific classification of homosexuality did not exist, the derogatory terms for it are many and nearly as old as writing itself (in many languages). This should be seen as normal, since it has been seen in a negative light throughout history. The author covers ancient sources that talk about "gay" behavior quite extensively, but laments the lack of a scientific terms.

The author of the article constantly slips into arguing the moral side of homosexuality, instead of staying purely on the linguistic side of the argument. If you reread my earlier answer to you, as we had agreed to discuss language, I completely refrained from placing any moral judgment on the descriptions of any of the described terms. That's why you are mistaken to see my argument as you describe: " you seem to proceed from [the assumption] that 'homo' and 'hetero' sexual are a kind of natural opposition, 'pedo' and 'teleio' sexual are an unnatural opposition;" I never made any such judgment, even regarding the pedophiles. My descriptions were intentionally graphical but utterly emotionless. My entire analysis was merely a study in classification.

Irrespective of when it was done, when you give something a name, you automatically classify it. The existence of a phenomenon is not dependent on human observation. For instance, in 1798 hyperactivity was called "mental restlessness", then ""minimal brain damage", in 1968, it changed into "Hyperkinetic Reaction of Childhood". It was later renamed to "Attention-Deficit Disorder" and finally to ADHD (Attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder) in 1987. The idea that attention deficit disorder is a myth because nobody tried to come up with a scientific name for it before 1798 - not before the 19th century - is indefensible. Just because people called it "misbehaving" before 1798 and used the belt or the birch-rod to "cure" it and didn't recognize it as anything more than "bad behavior" or "poor manners" doesn't mean ADHD is an imaginary social construct. Whether ADHD is a disease, a psychopathological condition or a genetic aberration is irrelevant for the purpose of our terminological discussion. It afflicted children long before somebody officially classified it.

Some arguments is pure sophistry: "our ancestors were completely oblivious to the existence of a fundamentally distinct class of human beings" it says. When you classify human beings in any way, you create new "classes of human beings by definition". Moreover, this is a very odd way to approach his case. Isn't the whole point of the "gay propaganda" to prove that gay people are not different from you and me? The whole "gay agenda is" trying to prove that they are not abnormal in any way, they are not a separate human species - they are just like everyone else but simply happen to like lovemaking with the same sex? So the author is trying to prove the gay point? He goes on to say "A claim for specific “homosexual rights” is, therefore, frivolous, and the word is merely an ideological construct aimed at undermining the sexual norms inscribed in human nature." But what specific homosexual rights are gay people asking for? The only right they ask for is non-discrimination. Homosexuals only ask for equal, not special treatment.

It's beyond the scope of this forum for me to write a full critique of the article - which I could do - but it does give me a good idea where you're coming from. Let's talk about our issue and settle an language first. Before we do, let's refrain from any moral judgment and simply decide on the language. I agree with "same-sex attraction" with a slippery caveat - same-sex attraction between adults. I realize that it is nearly impossible to set a universal mark for adulthood since the age of consent varies from 9 to 20 depending of where you look (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/ef/Age_of_Consent.png), let's settle on 18 as the draft theoretical mark and go from there.

:o

Hi, AD!
Someone of your level of thinking ought to be able to see clearly that the premise is NOT "the only proof", but it is a significant piece of evidence that almost no one gives any thought to whatsoever.

Moreover, it is actually based on a bigger fact - the fact that no civilization has ever adopted 'same-sex' behavior as a norm and gone on to be successful, as well as the fact that essentially nothing has ever descended to us in the form of primary sources (as opposed to references to modern historians working mostly on speculation and wishful thinking), stories, myths, legends, etc, which treats this desire as a natural or normal one, or by and large as anything other than something which is shameful to mention.
This really goes even for the one civilization that did leave us writings about it - ancient Greece.

The quotes you cite are not contradictory at all, and I'm surprised you don't see it. There is a clear distinction between action and state-of-being.
In addition, the author doesn't 'lament' the lack of a term - he points it out.

All language springs from perception of the universe. It is impossible, therefore, to completely divorce 'linguistic' from 'moral', for the linguistic is the reflection of the moral perception. The fact that the language was largely derogatory tghroughout recorded history says something - it says that the various cultures, which practically universally condemned it, all perceived it as a wrong. Some acts are inherently perceived as moral. Perhaps one can discuss them clinically, as if there were no moral issue, but then one ceases to be a human being who can SEE the moral issue. Thus, I can't completely refrain from moral judgement because a big part of the argument comes from human history, which decidedly judged.

Here is the next reading that will clarify what I am talking about (how the euphemism came to replace the derogatory terms):
ON EVIL EUPHEMISMS (http://www.cse.dmu.ac.uk/~mward/gkc/books/on_evil_euphemisms.html)
It is short and humorous, as well as serious, so like much of Chesterton's writings, you'll probably enjoy it. (It's noteworthy that he made no enemies, despite his reasoned dogmatic stands. (I'd like to take a moment here to challenge your signature quote as being nearly completely wrong, although it IS possible to combine ignorance and dogmatism, and this happens often, but no less often than intelligence, right or wrong, combining itself with dogmatism.) But anyway, read the brief article, have a laugh or two, and see if you see how the terms could decidedly be seen as euphemistic (even if you disagree with that position). That doesn't mean that I am speaking from emotion. Like all intelligent people, I strive to prevent my emotions from dominating my reason.

I agree with your comment on classification. However, I already pointed out that the term did NOT follow extensive broad-based research with acceptance of the concept, followed by a coining of a term. The coining of the term came long BEFORE any such research or acceptance, making it entirely different from ADHD. (I have a few opinions on ADHD, one of which is that it is massively over-diagnosed and treated, but they're irrelevant.)

On 'the gay agenda' (re: your reference), again I must refer to the very real distinction between action vs state of being (those of us who teach ESL/EFL know this well, esp as regards verb tenses). What these people are asking is not only that they be treated like human beings with rights (which I heartily support), they are asking that the specific and objectionable acts that they engage in be validated. But they don't put it that way. They themselves present themselves as a different yet normal class of human being, precisely because of the desires which admittedly distinguish them from most. They furthermore demand that we accept these desires as normal.

We do not. They are always an exception throughout human history. Even if you say "ancient Greece" or "ancient Japan", you are grasping at the straw of the exception and asking that it be accepted as the norm. Because the only other prominent examples you have are Biblical (Sodom and Gomorrah). Unfortunately, both their names and their history make them less than desirable as an example to refer to for those that would justify this modern (moda, temporary) fashion. BTW, if you read the account in Genesis, and think on it carefully, you will see a society that had fallen far indeed.

The other arguments, such as 'equal treatment', are based on a world view. The Orthodox Church, for instance, agrees completely on equal treatment of all who come to the Church - but it refuses to justify the actions that are taught to be destructive for us, regardless of how pleasant they may be or how nice or kind or otherwise good the people are. Thus, the alcoholic, and the person who suffers from same-sex attraction are on the same footing. They both experience desires, the fulfillment of which is sweet - but those desires lead to destruction, and ultimately, death, most particularly spiritual death; thus, those desires must be denied, even while the desirer is received and exhorted to turn away from the destructive desire.

I doubt I could do more than achieve understanding of a considerably more sophisticated view than that previously presented, but hopefully you can at least see that a lot of the basis of opposition actually IS rational. Any conclusion is dependent on one's world-view, and the primary question is 'Which world-view most accurately reflects the true nature of man and the universe?'

Adamodeus
20-07-2009, 22:29
People like you want to make people feel awkward when their natural instinct is to be outraged and indignant at EVERY instance of child abuse, including this instance which is a gay man (the other gays as well).
I feel extreme outrage at EVERY instance of child abuse. Including this instance. Why shouldn't you? Quote me. Where did I ever say you shouldn't?

You are also a denialist who claims that there is no such agenda to lower the age of sexual consent to around 12 when I provided a link to an article from Slate magazine as well as a primary source, Sex Bias in the US Code, in which Clinton SC Justice Ginsberg advocates lowering the age of sexual consent to 12. You have denied this, and that is truly disgusting and shows where you are coming from:
Bald-faced lie!!! Quote me!!!

Russian Lad
20-07-2009, 23:44
I just wonder how many of this thread participants have at least once had a homosexual experience and whether they are ready to admit it.

DDT
21-07-2009, 00:15
I just wonder how many of this thread participants have at least once had a homosexual experience and whether they are ready to admit it.

I don't think as many people have had a "homosexual experience" as the gay agenda crowd would lead us to believe, there R L!
This is simply a tool with which they like to boost their numbers with in order for them to appear more "mainstream".

The real figures of homosexuals in the general population is quite low.....1 to 3 percent.

Willy
21-07-2009, 00:46
I just wonder how many of this thread participants have at least once had a homosexual experience and whether they are ready to admit it.

I did.

Won't say how old I was but a kid I knew wanted to see what a BJ felt like so since it was his idea I said you go first. Somehow after I got mine I didn't feel like it anymore.

I was 12 when a teacher (female) came to my house and picked me up a week after school let out for summer. I think she liked virgins but she was late by a few months, My friend's 15 year old sister saw to that back in April and the last day of school Sherri S (12 years old)asked me if I'd like to come over to her house for a dip in her pool. I still remember her mom said to us as she left to do some shopping, " I be back in two or three hours, you two be good and don't do anything I would do" we did and mom was pulling out of the drive way as this girl was taking her bottom off and asking me if I would like to "play" with her. At 14 the woman 5 houses down that used to cut my hair commented how nice my crotch felt as she brush the hair that fell on it off. Then she kept rubbing till something popped up and held me as a sex slave for the next three hours. At 16 I was raped by my friends wife (that one I didn't like, felt bad for Billy the whole time she yelled at me when I came too quickly and told me she would leave me in the woods miles from home at midnight. I never should have got in the van.

How's that R. Lad?

Now it your turn.

Adamodeus
21-07-2009, 03:49
Hi, AD!
Someone of your level of thinking ought to be able to see clearly that the premise is NOT "the only proof", but it is a significant piece of evidence that almost no one gives any thought to whatsoever.

[...]

I doubt I could do more than achieve understanding of a considerably more sophisticated view than that previously presented, but hopefully you can at least see that a lot of the basis of opposition actually IS rational. Any conclusion is dependent on one's world-view, and the primary question is 'Which world-view most accurately reflects the true nature of man and the universe?'
Hello again, rusmeister!

The historical argument is an intriguing concept, yet, at closer examination, I don't feel that homosexuality would be unique in that respect. But even if it were, the mere lack of a noun describing a state of being is not enough to deny the state's existence. Moreover, you could argue that most descriptions of a "homosexual/gay" person are actually based on the actions that a person performs. Warrior, mason, judge, traitor, liar, prophet, etc. The author admits that there are very few written sources that address the issue at all. The fact that this hypothetical word was never mentioned in any of the surviving writings does not negate the fact of its existence. Furthermore, as I mentioned previously, most of such terms would have been crude and derogatory, so we shouldn't be surprised there aren't any ancient written accounts as writing was considered sacred, very few people in those days knew how to read or write, and therefore all written accounts we have would have come from a religious, judicial, economic or annalistic source. Swearwords virtually never found their way onto a clay tablet or a papyrus for that reason. We can also conclude that the nature of the word itself is immaterial for our discussion, its existence would already be enough. For obvious reasons, I cannot prove the existence of such a word in the oral tradition of the Ancient World, but I find it extremely hard to believe that they didn't have numerous descriptive terms for it, especially since "same-sex attraction" was looked down on.

If people with same-sex desires really do constitute between 1 and 10 percent of society, there has never been any chance for it to become the norm. Human history is a history of violence. If there ever was an enduring rule in human history it's that "might makes right" and majority naturally had the might. We, as human beings, have persecuted those who were weaker than us and feared those who were stronger than us since the beginning of time. Much like any persecuted minority, the same-sex minority was never given much consideration, least of all rights or a chance to practice their lifestyle. Whether the lifestyle is "moral" or "immoral" is something I can address at a later post once we establish the terms and the premise, but in addressing your "lack of gay civilizations and primary sources" argument it is irrelevant. What we can agree on is that "same-sex desires" can indeed be called "deviations from the 'norm'" in as much as they are in the minority and the majority establishes the norm. Any behavior that deviates from the majority is a deviation by definition. The Merriam-Webster describes "homosexuality" as "1: atypical sexuality characterized by manifestation of sexual desire toward a member of one's own sex; 2: erotic activity with a member of one's own sex."

There may be a clear distinction between action and a state-of-being in some instances, but such line is very unclear when it comes to attraction. You could argue both points. Although I am attracted to women and it seems to be a permanent characteristic of mine - a state of being that never changes, I seek sexual contacts with females. My classification therefore would ultimately depend on my actions, not simply my desires. If I desired women but slept with men, what would that make me?

The article on euphemisms is indeed very entertaining - thanks for that! - and betrays a brilliant writer in spite of its brevity. I also agree with its main idea, and I quote: "When somebody wishes to wage a social war against what all normal people have regarded as a social decency, the very first thing he does is to find some artificial term that shall sound relatively decent." But it misses the mark for this discussion, because I don't have a problem with derogatory terms. I'm perfectly comfortable using the term "shirtlifter" for this discussion, if we both understand what we mean.

Do I understand the gist of your argument correctly (and please forgive the crudeness of the oversimplification): contemporary society defends homosexuality because a little more than a century ago somebody switched from "buggery" and "shirtlifter" to "homosexuality" and "gay"?

Thanks for the argument! Very intellectually stimulating!

rusmeister
21-07-2009, 07:40
Hello again, rusmeister!

The historical argument is an intriguing concept, yet, at closer examination, I don't feel that homosexuality would be unique in that respect. But even if it were, the mere lack of a noun describing a state of being is not enough to deny the state's existence. Moreover, you could argue that most descriptions of a "homosexual/gay" person are actually based on the actions that a person performs. Warrior, mason, judge, traitor, liar, prophet, etc. The author admits that there are very few written sources that address the issue at all. The fact that this hypothetical word was never mentioned in any of the surviving writings does not negate the fact of its existence. Furthermore, as I mentioned previously, most of such terms would have been crude and derogatory, so we shouldn't be surprised there aren't any ancient written accounts as writing was considered sacred, very few people in those days knew how to read or write, and therefore all written accounts we have would have come from a religious, judicial, economic or annalistic source. Swearwords virtually never found their way onto a clay tablet or a papyrus for that reason. We can also conclude that the nature of the word itself is immaterial for our discussion, its existence would already be enough. For obvious reasons, I cannot prove the existence of such a word in the oral tradition of the Ancient World, but I find it extremely hard to believe that they didn't have numerous descriptive terms for it, especially since "same-sex attraction" was looked down on.

Probably the first thing I would say is that there is no attempt to 'negate the existence' of homosexual behavior. Furthermore, the behavior is referenced historically, and not only from Greek writings. (It's less well-known, but the Church fathers also addressed or mentioned the issue.) And the author DOES affirm the existence of descriptive words in the article:
Of course our ancestors were quite aware of what are now called “homosexual” acts or behavior. Latin and Greek are both rich in words that designate the penetrating member and the penetrated orifices, as well as the active and passive participants. Again, no argument. So it really doesn't matter whether the phenomenon was recorded in formal language in a legal or religious document, or in a literary form using the vernacular. The point of the article in general, is that it was always seen as an act, something one engaged in, not a natural state of being. (That ought to be the obvious, as it's the over-arching premise of the article.)



If people with same-sex desires really do constitute between 1 and 10 percent of society, there has never been any chance for it to become the norm. Human history is a history of violence. If there ever was an enduring rule in human history it's that "might makes right" and majority naturally had the might. We, as human beings, have persecuted those who were weaker than us and feared those who were stronger than us since the beginning of time. Much like any persecuted minority, the same-sex minority was never given much consideration, least of all rights or a chance to practice their lifestyle. Whether the lifestyle is "moral" or "immoral" is something I can address at a later post once we establish the terms and the premise, but in addressing your "lack of gay civilizations and primary sources" argument it is irrelevant. What we can agree on is that "same-sex desires" can indeed be called "deviations from the 'norm'" in as much as they are in the minority and the majority establishes the norm. Any behavior that deviates from the majority is a deviation by definition. The Merriam-Webster describes "homosexuality" as "1: atypical sexuality characterized by manifestation of sexual desire toward a member of one's own sex; 2: erotic activity with a member of one's own sex."

I actually don't respect this argument very much because it springs from the assumption that the phenomenon is normal and ignores the huge fact of the family - the concept of man and woman producing children as being the basic social unit.
I'd say 10% is a gross exaggeration - 1% is debatable but much closer to the real numbers. The noise that this minority makes in the media (which, desperate for controversy is always happy to magnify it) is out of proportion to their actual numbers.

I think an understanding of what 'moral' means might shift the paradigm. It does not merely mean 'opinion'. It means 'what is good and right, for both the individual and society' From that standpoint, the question of morality is of paramount importance - is the act good and right, or is it harmful and destructive, just as from a biological standpoint the biologist would ask - is it useful or is it useless in biological terms? In short, it means talking about what is good. Ultimately, even the most clinical scientist cannot avoid that issue, as Oppenheimer or Sakharov, for example, found out to their cost.

The objection is that the deviation actually is harmful and destructive. Again, the alcoholic enjoys the act of drinking, even passionately. It is pleasant to down another shot or six-pack. But it is none the less harmful, whether he perceives it or not. Science tells us that excess drinking is harmful, as does all of human tradition, which always knew that, if not the specifics of why. That same tradition tells us that this phenomenon is wrong, even if the specifics of why cannot be perceived. Religion, most specifically Christianity (as being the one that concerns us most), tells us that it is via revelation, and the most traditional Churches (Orthodox and Catholic) even explain why. Of course, you can reject that out-of-hand, although the real issue is whether what those Churches claim is true or not.




There may be a clear distinction between action and a state-of-being in some instances, but such line is very unclear when it comes to attraction. You could argue both points. Although I am attracted to women and it seems to be a permanent characteristic of mine - a state of being that never changes, I seek sexual contacts with females. My classification therefore would ultimately depend on my actions, not simply my desires. If I desired women but slept with men, what would that make me?

This just comes back to the question of is the action good and right, or not? It's the question of what is the nature of man and what is his purpose in life. It would seem you're suggesting that the answer is ultimately that one acts on one's desires. All I can say to that is that many of our dreams, when enacted, turn out to be nightmares. The reality is a harsh wake-up call from our dream. Thus, identifying the correct ideal that actually does correctly respond to our true nature and answer those questions is the most important thing in life; the search for truth. Everything proceeds from it.



The article on euphemisms is indeed very entertaining - thanks for that! - and betrays a brilliant writer in spite of its brevity. I also agree with its main idea, and I quote: "When somebody wishes to wage a social war against what all normal people have regarded as a social decency, the very first thing he does is to find some artificial term that shall sound relatively decent." But it misses the mark for this discussion, because I don't have a problem with derogatory terms. I'm perfectly comfortable using the term "shirtlifter" for this discussion, if we both understand what we mean.

I don't think it misses the mark at all. I think it's a bullseye. It doesn't matter how one personally feels about derogatory terms. It is the fact that they are, as long as they are derogatory, seen as negative in the society in which they are used. And if you compare GKC's premise with mine, and Young's, you'll see that it is a lynchpin.



Do I understand the gist of your argument correctly (and please forgive the crudeness of the oversimplification): contemporary society defends homosexuality because a little more than a century ago somebody switched from "buggery" and "shirtlifter" to "homosexuality" and "gay"?

Thanks for the argument! Very intellectually stimulating!


I'll give an equally oversimplified answer of 'yes'. :) But it's just one of the factors in that development. It was used by intellectuals, and given its apparent clinical nature, rather than the terms that automatically condemned it (imagine terms today that are euphemisms for murder and killing - Chesterton foresaw 'euthanasia', for instance), it became possible to use the term in academia, leading eventually to its use in education and, most importantly, schools (which is how 'political correctness' became grass-roots. Indoctrinate the kids, and the next generation is yours to command. We are living with the results of the ideological wars of a hundred years ago (just as they were living with the results of the previous wars). The ideas of GB Shaw and DH Lawrence, for instance, are the realities of today. We are living in the world that they wanted to form. And what a mess it is! Chesterton predicted much of that mess, which is what makes it so fascinating to read him today. He's a regular Nostradamus as far as that goes. But I digress...

AstroNoodle
21-07-2009, 07:45
REFER TO ADAMODEUS QUOTE IN MY POST IMMEDIATELY BELOW THIS POST:

COMMON VIEW OF THE RADICAL LEFT: LOWER AGE OF SEXUAL CONSENT TO 12 TO MAKE CHILD-MOLESTATION LEGAL

http://www.slate.com/id/2174841/pagenum/all/

YouTube- Geoff Wars

AstroNoodle
21-07-2009, 07:49
You are also a denialist who claims that there is no such agenda to lower the age of sexual consent to around 12 when I provided a link to an article from Slate magazine as well as a primary source, Sex Bias in the US Code, in which Clinton SC Justice Ginsberg advocates lowering the age of sexual consent to 12. You have denied this, and that is truly disgusting and shows where you are coming from:


Bald-faced lie!!! Quote me!!!

RESPONSE:
-----------------------------------------

The Supreme Court believe no such thing. One judge might believe so. It will get nowhere. And I challenge you to prove that it's an "EXTREMELY popular case" in the gay community.



Once again, you didn't even bother to make this a question. You just stated in no uncertain terms that your opponent is a supporter of the lowering of the age of consent and even told him to be ashamed of his terrible beliefs. Don't you think that you should be ashamed in his stead?


YouTube- Nutcase Paedophile

A SUPREME COURT JUSTICE IS CAUGHT RED HANDED -- ADVOCATING THE LOWING OF SEXUAL CONSENT TO 12 SEX BIAS IN THE US CODE -- AND BILL CLINTON NOMINATED HER WHILE THE LEFT SUPPORTED HER

AND I posted a link to the Slate magazine advocating the SAME EXACT THING -- Slate is HARDLY reaching on my part -- Slate is considered a mainstream leftist news organ with which the vast majority of gays and gay advocates agree.

I told you to be ashamed for being a deflectionist/apologist for the gay gestapo and the child molestors in their ranks, including Supreme Court Justice Ginsberg.

"it will get nowhere," is DEFLECTIONIST/APOLOGIST -- SHAME SHAME A THOUSAND TIMES SHAME.

Adamodeus
22-07-2009, 17:17
Originally Posted by AstroNoodle

And I just showed that the Supreme Court of the United States believes that the age of consent should be lowered to age 12 which is also EXTREMELY popular cause flown under the "gay rights" banner.
As answered by Adamodeus
The Supreme Court believes no such thing. One judge might believe so. It will get nowhere.

It's a direct quote from you that I answered. As seen from your quote above, you claimed that the "Supreme Court of the United States" has such an agenda, which I unequivocally denied. Claiming that the Supreme Court has that agenda the way you did (read your own quote!) is a lie. I said "One judge might". But one judge does not constitute the entire Supreme Court. NOWHERE did I ever deny that one judge holds such beliefs! If you have trouble understanding the English language, ask any teacher of English (why don't you ask rusmeister?) whether the word "might" constitutes a categorical denial. It constitutes doubt, but certainly provides for such possibility. The link and the video you provided prove you right. But I never denied it in the first place.

"it will get nowhere," is DEFLECTIONIST/APOLOGIST -- SHAME SHAME A THOUSAND TIMES SHAME.
If one Associate Judge wants to lower the age of consent but the rest of the Judges disagree the case is a dead duck - it will get nowhere. No deflections, no apologies, no ifs, ands or buts. It has no chance of even being introduced, least of all, approved.

AstroNoodle
22-07-2009, 23:04
Originally Posted by AstroNoodle

As answered by Adamodeus
The Supreme Court believes no such thing. One judge might believe so. It will get nowhere.

It's a direct quote from you that I answered. As seen from your quote above, you claimed that the "Supreme Court of the United States" has such an agenda, which I unequivocally denied. Claiming that the Supreme Court has that agenda the way you did (read your own quote!) is a lie. I said "One judge might". But one judge does not constitute the entire Supreme Court. NOWHERE did I ever deny that one judge holds such beliefs! If you have trouble understanding the English language, ask any teacher of English (why don't you ask rusmeister?) whether the word "might" constitutes a categorical denial. It constitutes doubt, but certainly provides for such possibility. The link and the video you provided prove you right. But I never denied it in the first place.

If one Associate Judge wants to lower the age of consent but the rest of the Judges disagree the case is a dead duck - it will get nowhere. No deflections, no apologies, no ifs, ands or buts. It has no chance of even being introduced, least of all, approved.

Unreality advocates have already passed sweeping thought-control legislation to outlaw Christian thinking. You are saying that in a Supreme Court replete with 5-4 rulings that one "judge" (they are SUPRME COURT JUSTICES not just judges) WON'T MAKE A DIFFERENCE? Please show me the passport from the planet you are from so that we can redirect your orientation to the reality here on planet earth.

I did find someone else on Youtube who agrees with your sympaties and deflectionist/apologist attitude:

YouTube- Leave Geoffrey Alone

BOTTOM LINE: You are splitting hairs trying to defend your ridiculous statements regarding the Supreme Court -- AND YOU COULDN'T EVEN TOUCH THE SLATE ARTICLE -- WHICH YOU UNREALITY VIEWPOINT REQUIRES THAT YOU IGNORE.

NOBODY except you in the entire world thinks that one Supreme Court Justice's opinion doesn't matter -- ESPECIALLY ON A SHARPLY DIVIDED COURT REPLETE WITH 5-4 DECISIONS.

More than that -- it isn't up to the SC Justices. Congress could pass new molestation legalization laws and the SC would just rule on them -- so your characterization of the authority of "judges" is completely off as it is.

Splitting hairs is not going to save you. Like you said, anyone can go back and read the thread -- I did and pulled YOUR OWN QUOTES which you cannot even backpeddal from. You asked for direct quotes, and I provided them. Sometimes instead of trying to save face it is better just to shutup.

I guess you thought that I could just let all your past posts fly over my head, but like you said ANYONE can go back through the thread and see what a load of garbage you wrote INGNORING AND DEFLECTING ATTENTION FROM A A VERY REAL AND PRESENT THREATENING REALITY. Have fun in the unreality zone.

I won't dare you to touch the "Mind-Booty" article from Slate, because I already presented it to you TWICE -- AND YOU COULDN'T TOUCH IT -- BECAUSE IT FLYS IN THE FACE OF THE LIE THAT YOU ARE TELLING WHICH SAYS SUCH THINKING IS MINIMAL AND BARELY EXISTS.

Deflectionist propaganda like your own creates the condition where young children are directly threatened by paedophiles masquerading as civil rights activists for the "gay community." PERIOD.

Shame Shame.

Carbo
22-07-2009, 23:43
Unreality advocates have already passed sweeping thought-control legislation to outlaw Christian thinking.

Deflectionist propaganda like your own creates the condition where young children are directly threatened by paedophiles masquerading as civil rights activists for the "gay community." PERIOD.
These two sentences show just how paranoid and out of touch with reality you are.

Thought-control legislation to outlaw Christian thinking????

Give me a break.

Nobody anywhere in the western world has outlawed Christian thinking.

They may have passed laws to curtail the influence of Christianity on the affairs of the state, and infact that was one of the first laws passed in your great nation. There might also be laws prohibiting certain Christian ideals being pushed onto non-Christians (although it is true that many Christian ideals (well, ideals found in many religions, anyway) form the basis of cour societies). But noone nowhere has ever in the west, since the times of Constantine, outlawed Christian thought.

Meantime, I don't know how many times I can say this, but nobody here is trying to defend or 'deflect' criticism of these sick people. What we're defending against is the preposterous accusation that all homosexuals are paedophiles, or that defending homosexuals somehow makes you complicit with paedophilia.

We've made this point time and time again, you have no defence other than a risible "I'm right" and yet you keep repeating it.

I think you need to lie down, have a think about logic and reason, try to apply it to this, and take some time to get some perspective on the matter.

As I've said elsewhere, I can completely accept the idea that you don't like homosexuals because of your religious beliefs, and don't believe they should be able to adopt kids. Fine. Most Christian moral beliefs, in my view, are the foundation for living the good life, and even if I don't believe that Jesus was the son of God, and that he was our Saviour and that he was resurrected after three days, I can still believe in the wisdom of many Christian ideals.

But right now, you sound like you're on the verge of the loony bin. It sounds like you're completely paranoid and delusional with all your "mind control" legislation and pro-paedophile judges who have been swayed by the gay agenda.

Just makes you sound a bit silly. And I'm genuinely sorry to write that.

rusmeister
23-07-2009, 06:47
As for me, I just ignore fruits, nuts and flakes if they demonstratively do not engage with my own thoughts and merely keep shouting their own.

On the other hand, it's a pleasure to chat with polite and reasonable posters...

AstroNoodle
23-07-2009, 07:48
Carbo, anyone can go back and read this thread and see that your last post is the most evasive yet. You couldn't touch any of the points I raised. You flatter yourself when you should be ashamed.

AstroNoodle
23-07-2009, 07:59
As for me, I just ignore fruits, nuts and flakes if they demonstratively do not engage with my own thoughts and merely keep shouting their own.

On the other hand, it's a pleasure to chat with polite and reasonable posters...

You mean people who find discussing the etymology of the word "homosexual" ad nauseum so long as they do so "politely"?

You are like Baby Huey playing hide and seek with the fox, thinking that everybody is supposed to love him -- and deflectionist Adamodeus and apologist Carbo are like the fox trying to kill you while you think you are playing hide and seek.

starts at 3:55

YouTube- Baby Huey - Quack-A-Doodle-Doo (Public Domain)

And Carbo, you last post was pure whitewash trash. You are just desperate to put me down because you are still, as you said, embarrassed and want unreality to be true so bad that you can't stop even when you have already admitted you are a mile deep.

Carbo
23-07-2009, 11:03
Carbo, anyone can go back and read this thread and see that your last post is the most evasive yet. You couldn't touch any of the points I raised. You flatter yourself when you should be ashamed.
Well, I've read your posts, and, to be kind, they're nebulous.

Realistically, though, what you're doing is going over ground we covered ages ago.

I don't see what I have to be ashamed of.

I have stated on numerous occasions that I believe these people have committed one of the worst crimes a human can commit, and that if there was any argument for the death penalty, this would be it.

Meantime, you’ve used it to castigate all homosexuals.

And when I argue that this is not a sound or logical or morally acceptable arguement, you, ignoring the facts, ignoring my written statements, have said I'm somehow apologizing for these disgusting humans -- managing to cast a hugely offensive insult and write a barefaced lie all at the same time.

I’m not going to cut and paste individual lines, because that will simply take up huge amounts of time when I’ve done it already. Therefore, I’ll just repeat my original post when you made exactly the same argument, and then I’ll quote your detailed, well argued response.


I'm sorry, I've tried to stay out of this thread, but I can't let this p**** and once this is done, that's it for me, because I feel a little pathetic and embarrassed that I've been so offended and angered by the words of two anonymous petty-demagogues on a forum -- but I guess that's the type of reaction that being told you're responsible for the rape of a child tends to engender.

What you're doing here, AstroNoodle, is showing that your hatred of homosexuals (whether you think that's reasonable or not is irrelevant, because I do not call it "irrational hatred"; but it is hatred) is hindering -- nay, destroying -- your ability to think straight.

Usually I would expect rational argument from you, AstroNoodle, because I believe you at least have engaged your brain and spent some time contemplating the foundations and logic behind your world view -- unlike that rapacious, fetid, repugnant disgrace to humanity, DDT. However, your use of laugh-out-loud paranoid-Right buzz phrases like "gay-gestapo" and "gay delusion", which are pungently redolent of the totalitarian language of Trotsky and Goebbels, should act as a ear-bursting alarm bell for anyone expecting objectivity or even a little basic logic from you on this matter.

But if that wasn't enough, what finally clinches the deal is your swift retreat from the actual crux of the argument into relying on hysterically presented logical fallacies and outrageous insults in a frantic attempt to carry your absolutely indefensible position. According to you, Adamodeous and I are part of a collective directly responsible for this child's abuse because we believe homosexuals should be allowed to adopt. Worse, we "are defending this act" and saying "that we should not be outraged by it", as well as trying to "deflect criticizm" from the perpetrators.

Well, the former, that we're somehow responsible, is clear logical idiocy, and the second is a bare-faced lie, which, in addition to being a wanton misrepresentation of our words and disgusting insult, also, infact, deflects criticism from the perpetrators by placing the blame, incorrectly, on a larger group.

Let's get this straight. I get the impression that your blind hatred of homosexuals might have hobbled your ability to read, as well as you ability to think, because earlier in the thread I said that the perpetrators are "just evil", and their actions were "the most heinous crimes imaginable, and... abhorrent..."

How much more resounding can you be? It's like trying to argue that my words on this forum have left a degree of ambiguity regarding my opinion of DDT.

Clearly, if found guilty, these people should go to prison for the rest of their lives with no chance of parole. And if allowed for, the death penalty would be more justified than in any case I can immediately recall.

I hope that makes my views on this matter clear enough, and we'll hear no more that I or Adamodeus are apologists for this behaviour.

See, what you're doing here is using exactly -- and I do mean exactly -- the same tactic used by southern seccassionists before and after the American Civil War regarding Blacks, and Hitler used in Mein Kampf -- that every crime committed by a member or members of the "inferior" section of society was used as a weapon to prove the point of that entire section of society's inferiority or undesirabilty.

It's a disgusting premise and one which has been discredited by all serious minded people.

Your problem in this debate, as I've said, is that you are letting your beliefs get in the way of logic: you fervently believe that homosexuals life a dissolute lifestyle, they're going to hell, and that they are (1) in the same boat as paedophiles and (2) that they therefore shouldn't be allowed anywhere near children.

Well, that's fine, you may argue that, but that still doesn't mean you can use one crime to prove your point, any more than a racist like DDT can use CCTV footage of a black man on America's Dumbest Criminals to prove that black people are predisposed toward crime and stupidity.

Do you see my point? What you can argue is your belief that homosexuality is wrong; but you can't use one crime by two individuals as proof that the whole section of society is sick -- especially can't do it when at vast numbers of such crimes are committed by heterosexuals.

And you certainly can't make the logically farcical jump from someone pointing this out to someone who is an apologist for paedophilia.

I might be apologising for homosexuality, and I'm comfortable with that, because that's what I'm doing, but I'm not apologising for paedophilia, and I find the suggestion deeply insulting.

So why don't you stick to the point, and stop trying to squirm out of the argument by using logical farce and grotesque insult?

Now, that's me done, so, in the words of Edward R Murrow, good night and good luck.


After reading all posts and considering each side, I agree with myself.

Thank you.

When you can respond to my above post with something more than sticking your fingers in your ears and shouting “Nah-nah-nah I’m not listening, nah-nah-nah I’m right,” then perhaps we can have a debate.

Until then, I’m afraid you’ve lost the argument on this forum, as well as in every civilized society in the world. We beat those who make your arguments with guns in 1865 in America and 1945 in Europe, with sound law 1954 in America, 1965 in America, and then with moral pressure to being the end of apartheid in South Africa.

Your argument relies on the same, untenable logic racists use, leaving you clearly, as we can see above, unable to make a sound argument here. And because you’re unable to make a proper argument you have to fall back on the illogical and disgusting statement that those who argue that this matter should not reflect on all homosexuals are infact apologists for pedophiles – which is amazing considering the number of times Adam and I have said that this was an appalling act.

vladimir_seroff
23-07-2009, 11:29
The media doesn't not want to infuriate the sensitive homosexual community by harping on this fact. It is easier for them not to notice it, not to be accused of "putting too much emphasis on the fact".

From the original post:

"This is why you haven't heard about it. This does not fit the template. ..."


I think the tread is mostly about the existence of the templates, based on which news are reported, filtered, etc. - sanitized, in other words.

This pertains to a whole range of subjects, not just this one. This has been covered numerous times in other threads. Media doesn't want the public to draw "incorrect" conclusions on many subjects. Sometimes they misinform out of fear, sometimes out of habit, and sometimes for profit. Rarely, they simply just inform - I think weather reports still fall into that category.

Russian Lad
23-07-2009, 20:44
Some more important info, just to bolster this courageous debate a wee bit:

YouTube- 'Gays Too Precious To Risk In Combat'

AstroNoodle
28-07-2009, 08:31
Your argument relies on the same, untenable logic racists use, leaving you clearly, as we can see above, unable to make a sound argument here.

Your logic makes it possible for people to ignore child molestation and passively allow it to happen and also to have books like "Men and Boylovers" available on Amazon.com and in major libraries. That IS my point, which I have now said many different ways.

RE. your statement to what you call my "untenable logic" "sound argument" or "debate." There is no debate, just a child molestor and you want us to ignore the agenda to lower consent laws and ignore the child molesters who exploit innocent children under the "gay rights" banner.

Your pathetic attempt to demonize me and lump me with history's unlikables is tangental even in your own words -- an utter failure to discredit your adversery through ad hominem -- ad hominem which in your own words is unsupportable by anything which I have said.

It is you, not me, who are the deflectionist and you who has failed to address the matter at hand, the articles and videos posted in support of the facts.

You cannot out and call me a racist, but you really wish you could. But I can call you a supporter of child molestation by apologetics. Either live in the disgrace of your wicked sympathies or get with reality.

Carbo
28-07-2009, 09:10
Your logic makes it possible for people to ignore child molestation and passively allow it to happen and also to have books like "Men and Boylovers" available on Amazon.com and in major libraries. That IS my point, which I have now said many different ways.

RE. your statement to what you call my "untenable logic" "sound argument" or "debate." There is no debate, just a child molestor and you want us to ignore the agenda to lower consent laws and ignore the child molesters who exploit innocent children under the "gay rights" banner.

Your pathetic attempt to demonize me and lump me with history's unlikables is tangental even in your own words -- an utter failure to discredit your adversery through ad hominem -- ad hominem which in your own words is unsupportable by anything which I have said.

It is you, not me, who are the deflectionist and you who has failed to address the matter at hand, the articles and videos posted in support of the facts.

You cannot out and call me a racist, but you really wish you could. But I can call you a supporter of child molestation by apologetics. Either live in the disgrace of your wicked sympathies or get with reality.
aaaaaaaaaarrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrghggggggggggghhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh
Not content with sending me PMs saying I'm supporting child molestation, you're now doing it on the forum too.

You call me a supporter of child molestation by apologetics??? Tell me, on here, for which child molesters have I apologised?

None.

The simple fact is that I believe in innocent until proven guilty, and while these scumbags have been proven guilty and therefore deserve to rot in hell/prison/go to the chair for their acts, other homosexuals have the right -- morally, lawfully, and constitutionally -- to not be judged guilty by association.

That is all I'm saying. You can't call every black man a criminal because one commits a rape in Birmingham, Alabama. You can't call every Jew a thieving, scheming banker because one is. You can't call every Christian intolerant because one is. You can't call ever homosexual a child molester because one is.

That's all I'm saying.

It's a simple enough argument.

If you don't understand it, you are either incredibly stupid or you simply believe that all homosexuals are also child molesters. Is that what you believe? So, what you're saying, I suppose, is that because I don't demonize every homosexual -- not quite gathering the villagers with their lanterns and pitchforks, but leaving homosexuals in no doubt that they're repugnant humans who will burn in hell and shall be treated as the pariahs of society who daren't show their faces -- that I'm somehow creating an atmosphere which makes child molestation possible? Is that what you're saying???

If so, it's horse manure.

Now go away and stop insulting me in this way. Argue with me, but don't just come out and say "you're an apologist for child abuse." It will not stand.

Qdos
28-07-2009, 09:58
Not content with sending me PMs saying I'm supporting child molestation, you're now doing it on the forum too...

Please let one of the mods see any such PM's by forwarding it :)

AstroNoodle
29-07-2009, 09:57
It isn't anything I haven't said here. I was just being polite to the forum by not letting Carbo blab ad nauseum to BURY IN ATTEMPT TO HIDE the EXTREMELY CLEAR posts which I have ALREADY PRODUCED to show HOW DEFLECTIONIST OPINION BLABBERING COVERS FOR CHILD MOLESTORS SO THAT THEY CAN HAVE THEIR BOOKS IN MAJOR LIBRARIES, ETC. ETC., and to allow paedophiles to hide under the "gay rights" banner. That is what I have MASSIVELY said in different ways numerous times -- and yes, I am saying and have said that it is the fault of people like Carbo -- in which case I was agreeing with DDT who said it first. DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND, CARBO, THAT I AM AGREEING WITH YOU THAT I AM SAYING THAT YOU ARE AT FAULT IN MATTERS LIKE THIS AS LONG AS YOU SPOUT YOUR POINTLESS ARGUMENTS WHICH HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH REALITY -- JOIN THE HORDE.

the only issue here is that Carbo pretends not to have seen what I wrote CLEARLY NUMEROUS TIMES. Gay child molester cover-up artistry -- just like a Catholic who might not want to talk about priest paedophiles, except in this case the religion is secular amorality -- Carbo's religion.

I don't have anything to hide and will gladly forward my PMs to anyone who requests them, as they were not meant to be "secret" but just polite to the forum.

The alternative was just to show Carbo to the door...

YouTube- The Tea Party - Let me Show you the Door

...because his Tea Party is over.

Qdos
29-07-2009, 10:34
I was merely jesting Astro... :rofl:

Carbo
29-07-2009, 11:21
It isn't anything I haven't said here. I was just being polite to the forum by not letting Carbo blab ad nauseum to BURY IN ATTEMPT TO HIDE the EXTREMELY CLEAR posts which I have ALREADY PRODUCED to show HOW DEFLECTIONIST OPINION BLABBERING COVERS FOR CHILD MOLESTORS SO THAT THEY CAN HAVE THEIR BOOKS IN MAJOR LIBRARIES, ETC. ETC., and to allow paedophiles to hide under the "gay rights" banner. That is what I have MASSIVELY said in different ways numerous times -- and yes, I am saying and have said that it is the fault of people like Carbo -- in which case I was agreeing with DDT who said it first. DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND, CARBO, THAT I AM AGREEING WITH YOU THAT I AM SAYING THAT YOU ARE AT FAULT IN MATTERS LIKE THIS AS LONG AS YOU SPOUT YOUR POINTLESS ARGUMENTS WHICH HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH REALITY -- JOIN THE HORDE.

the only issue here is that Carbo pretends not to have seen what I wrote CLEARLY NUMEROUS TIMES. Gay child molester cover-up artistry -- just like a Catholic who might not want to talk about priest paedophiles, except in this case the religion is secular amorality -- Carbo's religion.

I don't have anything to hide and will gladly forward my PMs to anyone who requests them, as they were not meant to be "secret" but just polite to the forum.

The alternative was just to show Carbo to the door...

YouTube - The Tea Party - Let me Show you the Door (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A8xhcHmvQPQ)

...because his Tea Party is over.
See what I have to put up with, mods??

I have read your posts, Astro, but I don’t think you’ve read mine. Answer me one question and I’ll be satisfied: how many times do I have to say that this was a terrible crime, that perpetrators of it deserve the most severe punishment available, and that paedophiles in are disgusting creatures for you to accept that I’m not an apologist for paedophilia? How many times? At no stage have I said that I “don’t want to talk about homosexual paedophiles”. If there are cover-ups here, they should be exposed. If there are homosexuals who are paedophiles (I’m sure there are) they should be sent to the dungeon/hangman. I’m onboard with this, and, if you could see beyond your hysterical redmist, you would have noticed this.

What I am not onboard with is saying that all homosexuals are paedophiles, or that they’re more likely than heterosexuals to be paedophiles. If you can give me scientific data to rubbish the latter, I might change my mind on that, but the only genuinely scientific study posted here was Adam's, which supported my view.

But what you're saying, I assume, is that unless I and society at large ostracise homosexuals, we’re encouraging paedophilia, Ergo, I personally encourage paedophilia and was at least partially culpable for that poor child’s rape? Am I wrong?

Tell me if I’m wrong. Please

If I’m right then I'm appalled read this from someone who considers himself a Christian.

I do not believe that there is a God, or that Jesus Christ was the son of God, or that Jesus was crucified on the cross and then resurrected three days later. What I do believe is that Christian morality can provide a foundation for a person who hopes to lead a decent, good life. I also believe that a dose of Christian morality could solve a lot of Britain’s ills in and of itself. I also think that I lead a life based largely on Christian morality. I sometimes stray, but I strive.

But because I believe in ideas like innocent until proven guilty, and that one person cannot be found guilty for the crimes of another, and that a huge group shouldn’t be judged by the actions of a minority of its members, I’m an apologist for paedophiles to you.

And, not only that, but because I don’t believe in the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, and because I don’t believe that Jesus was resurrected, and because I don’t believe that the only way to eternal salvation is through Jesus Christ, I somehow have another religion -- secularism -- which has led me to amorality. Well you’re wrong. I don’t have a religion. And I’m not amoral.

You arguments hold only if you believe that all homosexuals are paedophiles. But civilised people know different.

Either say outright that you think all homosexuals are paedophiles are admit that they are not and cease and desist these grotesque insults. Either say outright that you believe that anyone on here who is not a Christian is evil and is going to hell, or stop the insults. Because that’s what they are, and my patience is wearing thin. If anyone can think of worse insults than calling my lifestyle an ‘amoral religion’, that I lead an evil life, I’m an apologist for paedophilia, that I’m a “Gay child molester cover-up artist” and I’m complicit in the rape of a child, then please feel free to post them. But I suspect that you won’t, because they’ll be unpublishable.

As these should have been.

Astro, just stop.

Or someone stop it, because I’m approaching my limit.

Qdos
29-07-2009, 11:34
Pssst guys... there's an excellent forum feature called the 'ignore list' which can save a little grief when someone riles you up a little... just add whoever is annoying you to it for a few days (and feel the frustration of not knowing what they're saying about you in the meanwhile... )

:neiner:

PS; It also block their PM's too

Carbo
29-07-2009, 11:50
The problem I have is that I quite like(d) Astro. He has lots of interesting views on issues like free trade, history, politics etc. He's also someone who has run for political office, I believe, which is something I admire.

I don't want to engage in some hysterical b1tch fight with him, but I did enjoy engaging in reasonable debate.

Also, I'm quite aware that I'm prone of agreesive language, polemics and the odd insult myself, which is why I don't complain so often about former posters who dare not speak their names.

However, being called a “Gay child molester cover-up artist” is beyond the pale.

Frankly, I'm embarrassed to get so caught up in this. Embarrassed to be so offended by what some faceless forum poster says.

F*ck it, I'm off. It's just becoming a silly waste of time.

One more post on the expat cafe.

Qdos
29-07-2009, 11:58
However, being called a “Gay child molester cover-up artist” is beyond the pale.

OK, give me a link... or have I got to search... ;)


F*ck it, I'm off. It's just becoming a silly waste of time.

Well I'm surprised at that, doesn't sound like the Carbo I thought I knew...


One more post on the expat cafe.

It's not gonna be about Astro I hope?!?! :10168:

Anyway... I think it best if this DDT monolith is now :locked: