Gay Marriage Amendment

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
81

[quote]endgamer711 wrote:
…
But such intervention would be an unnatural manipulation of nature, because homosexuality occurs in very many animal species. I’m sure that means the religous element should come down against this, yes? Gee, it is all so confusing.
[/quote]

Many diseases are natural and found in many species. Perhaps we should just not treat them and celebrate nature.

The complications of knowing the cause and developing a “cure” will be massive.

Perhaps parents could have their children tested and treated at a young age.

How many parents do you think would chose homosexuality for their child?

82

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
endgamer711 wrote:
…
But such intervention would be an unnatural manipulation of nature, because homosexuality occurs in very many animal species. I’m sure that means the religous element should come down against this, yes? Gee, it is all so confusing.

Many diseases are natural and found in many species. Perhaps we should just not treat them and celebrate nature.

And to Zap, who said “Maybe it would be better not to know the causes.”

Hey dude, the truth shall make you free.

The complications of knowing the cause and developing a “cure” will be massive.

Perhaps parents could have their children tested and treated at a young age.

How many parents do you think would chose homosexuality for their child?[/quote]

You don’t quite assert that homosexuality is a disease, I notice. You just broadly hint it in your parallel. Speak up like a man, if you can find your voice.

As to the ultimate fate of homosexuality among humans, you have me confused with someone who cares. The idea of parents making such choices does not disturb me at all. I’m sure many might, just to be surer of having grandchildren to spoil rotten, even if the world wasn’t full of bigots to torture their homo-offspring.

But suppose a different future yet. Would parents select against homosexuality if orientation wasn’t a permanent condition, but something the child could decide on at any time, or even re-decide as many times as desired? Maybe they wouldn’t even bother. Suppose you could change your orientation on a whim. Why would the momentary state of things be important then? It would be less of a problem than current “body modification”, less cause for remark than a tasteless tattoo.

In the end, I am for ways of being happy that do not increase the unhappiness of others. People should choose heterosexuality - or choose it for their children - because it makes them happy or enables happiness (like having birth children). They should not have to make the choice out of fear of bigotry, non-conformity, or the wrath of somebody else’s God.

People who think of homosexuality as a disease to be cured, even in advance of any instrumentality for doing so, much less an understanding of causes or whether in fact it is a disease at all, are themselves a hurtful influence, a social ill to be cured, a problem worse than homosexuality itself.

That is why the helping professionals declared homosexuality was not a disease. Without this understanding or that instrumentality, the disease theory is itself toxic. Instead we must teach people to be as happy as possible with each other given their condition, to live their lives as fully as possible, and not shut some human beings out of living to their full potential and say “Today we put you in storage (closet) but on some distant day we will cure you.”

I actually expect we do not find homosexuality to be a disease at all per se, but like the vermiform appendix just another artifact of the limitations of natural selection, buried deep in what it means to be a vertebrate, another proof that Evolution shapes us, and not some great Designer.

83

[quote]endgamer711 wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
endgamer711 wrote:
…
But such intervention would be an unnatural manipulation of nature, because homosexuality occurs in very many animal species. I’m sure that means the religous element should come down against this, yes? Gee, it is all so confusing.

Many diseases are natural and found in many species. Perhaps we should just not treat them and celebrate nature.

And to Zap, who said “Maybe it would be better not to know the causes.”

Hey dude, the truth shall make you free.

The complications of knowing the cause and developing a “cure” will be massive.

Perhaps parents could have their children tested and treated at a young age.

How many parents do you think would chose homosexuality for their child?

You don’t quite assert that homosexuality is a disease, I notice. You just broadly hint it in your parallel. Speak up like a man, if you can find your voice.

As to the ultimate fate of homosexuality among humans, you have me confused with someone who cares. The idea of parents making such choices does not disturb me at all. I’m sure many might, just to be surer of having grandchildren to spoil rotten, even if the world wasn’t full of bigots to torture their homo-offspring.

But suppose a different future yet. Would parents select against homosexuality if orientation wasn’t a permanent condition, but something the child could decide on at any time, or even re-decide as many times as desired? Maybe they wouldn’t even bother. Suppose you could change your orientation on a whim. Why would the momentary state of things be important then? It would be less of a problem than current “body modification”, less cause for remark than a tasteless tattoo.

In the end, I am for ways of being happy that do not increase the unhappiness of others. People should choose heterosexuality - or choose it for their children - because it makes them happy or enables happiness (like having birth children). They should not have to make the choice out of fear of bigotry, non-conformity, or the wrath of somebody else’s God.

People who think of homosexuality as a disease to be cured, even in advance of any instrumentality for doing so, much less an understanding of causes or whether in fact it is a disease at all, are themselves a hurtful influence, a social ill to be cured, a problem worse than homosexuality itself.

That is why the helping professionals declared homosexuality was not a disease. Without this understanding or that instrumentality, the disease theory is itself toxic. Instead we must teach people to be as happy as possible with each other given their condition, to live their lives as fully as possible, and not shut some human beings out of living to their full potential and say “Today we put you in storage (closet) but on some distant day we will cure you.”

I actually expect we do not find homosexuality to be a disease at all per se, but like the vermiform appendix just another artifact of the limitations of natural selection, buried deep in what it means to be a vertebrate, another proof that Evolution shapes us, and not some great Designer.[/quote]

Disease is too strong a word. I do not consider it a disease.

It was classified as a mental disorder until it was changed under pressure.

All I know is it is not an easy life style and very few would choose it.

I have gay friends. I accept their lifestyle. I do nt have a problem with it. They suspect that their parents would have given them a pill to change them straight if such a thing were possible.

I believe this is a subject where ignorance may be bliss.

Determining exactly what causes homosexuality may be opening Pandora’s box.

84

[quote]endgamer711 wrote:
…

You don’t quite assert that homosexuality is a disease, I notice. You just broadly hint it in your parallel. Speak up like a man, if you can find your voice.

…[/quote]

My feelings have been made perfectly clear on the subject. Even though I believe the whole concept of gay marriage is silly I also am an advocate for gay rights.

Your stance that homosexuality is similar to body modifications is foolish and shows you have little insight as to the complexity of the issues involved.

I think you should man up and talk to some gay folk.

You will see that they do not have a united front on the issue of finding the cause for homosexuality and the inevitable search for a “cure”.

85

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
endgamer711 wrote:
…

You don’t quite assert that homosexuality is a disease, I notice. You just broadly hint it in your parallel. Speak up like a man, if you can find your voice.

…

My feelings have been made perfectly clear on the subject. Even though I believe the whole concept of gay marriage is silly I also am an advocate for gay rights.

Your stance that homosexuality is similar to body modifications is foolish and shows you have little insight as to the complexity of the issues involved.

I think you should man up and talk to some gay folk.

You will see that they do not have a united front on the issue of finding the cause for homosexuality and the inevitable search for a “cure”.
[/quote]

You didn’t catch my hypothetical? I said if it could be easily and repeatedly changed it could become boring, even to the bigots (other than the very orthodox religious), unimportant even to parents, not a basis for any social distinction whatever. I expect we would treat homosexuality very differently than we do now as we have no control over it and there is an identifiable population that is “stuck” with it. This despite that present day rhetoric for gay bashing relies heavily on characterizing homosexuality as a choice. If it ever actually becomes a choice, it will change everything, even the bigots.

As for the attitudes of gay people, and the differences of opinion, I am quite aware (you cannot imagine my amusement at your suggestion that I should talk to gay people - I am surrounded). But those attitudes hardly matter in any practical sense to what will follow when the holes in the developmental models of orientation are filled in. Current attitudes reflect current understanding and capabilities w.r.t. orientation. The actionable decisions will ultimately be made by the people who will have access to a future understanding and technology, whatever and whenever that turns out to be.

But in the current context, if you are gay you’re stuck with it for life. So if gay people today find gay marriage important or even indispensible, why do you think it silly? Do you think they are deceiving you about their needs? If it is only silly and not threatening, what’s the problem? After all, anybody who can vote in one of our national elections can certainly tolerate a good bit of silliness.

86

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
It was classified as a mental disorder until it was changed under pressure. [/quote]

Yes, the actual pressure in this case coming from the Hippocratic oath, which enjoins the practitioner from harming the patient. At the current level of understanding and technology, attempts to apply a disease model often cause grave harm, and the model itself has proved to be a source of unhelpful public policies and attitudes.

A hypothetical HMO that put any current orientation therapy on its mental health formulary (if any, most don’t provide for mental illness beyond what a GP can do) would go bankrupt PDQ, due to malpractice claims with significant real damages.

87

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
I believe this is a subject where ignorance may be bliss.

Determining exactly what causes homosexuality may be opening Pandora’s box.[/quote]

Ignorance might extend the status quo, but whether that is blissful or not may depend on your point of view. Myself, I’ve seldom found it folly to be wise.

Not that we have much choice when it comes to the knowledge itself. Science for Mankind, and all that. Though I doubt we’ll recognize ourselves after a while, now that we’re truly started on our little project of understanding ourselves. But that’s kind of the whole human gig in a nutshell, isn’t it? Continual, ever-accelerating change.

As for Pandora, her box was full of evil. But evil flows not from knowledge, nor malign spirits, but from the acts of men. Do you really fear us having knowledge of why people develop as they do? Or are you more queasy on the prospect of technology for influencing that development? Or what someone might do with that technology? What kind of scenario troubles you?

88

[quote]endgamer711 wrote:
… Or are you more queasy on the prospect of technology for influencing that development? Or what someone might do with that technology? What kind of scenario troubles you?

[/quote]

Bingo.

I am afraid people will select children based on sexual orientation.

Imagine testing a child for orientation in the womb and aborting it if it if it is not what you want.

Some are doing this now based on the childs gender.

This is only one of man issues.

The drawbacks outwiegh any possible benefits.

89

Back on topic…

It seems to me that this issue is already being decided at the state level, one state at a time. And perhaps as some have suggested that is the correct place to have it decided.

As I have posted on another thread, Alabama is the most recent state to give a big NO to gay marriage. The voters of Alabama overwhelmingly said no to gay marriage by a whopping 81% In addition to that big no, they have also decided not to acknowledged any gay couple who may have been “married” or gained a civil union in any other state.

"MONTGOMERY, Ala. (BP)–Perhaps demonstrating that the protection of the definition of marriage should not be a partisan issue, 81 percent of Alabama voters June 6 approved a state constitutional marriage amendment – an amendment that was placed on the ballot by the legislature and sponsored by two Democrats.

The amendment won handily in every county, making Alabama the 20th state to adopt a constitutional marriage amendment. Those 20 amendments have been adopted with an average of 71 percent of the vote.

It seems pretty clear that when push comes to shove voters seem to want to keep gay marriage out of their own state.

6 more states will decide how they want to handle the issue of gay marriage this year.

“…Alabama isn’t alone. Idaho, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Virginia and Wisconsin also are scheduled to vote on similar amendments this year.”

http://www.bpnews.net/bpnews.asp?ID=23414

All are expected to say NO to gay marriage and gay civil unions. If that is the case that would make a total of 26 states that have banned gay marriage and civil unions using state law.

And this is not merely a red state repudiation of gay marriage. There are blue states which will have it on the ballot in the near future such as Wisconsin. Wisconsin is predicted to follow other blue states such as Michigan and Oregon into the anti gay marriage category.

In fact, in the state of Massachusetts where liberal judges overstepped their bounds and allowed gay unions the people have risen “have shattered a 20-year-old record for the most certified signatures ever gathered in support of a proposed ballot question.”

Their goal, to over turn gay marriage rights in the state of Massachusetts. That initiative will be on the ballot in November of 2008. And I would not be surprised to see Massachusetts join the many other sates in banning gay marriage and civil unions. My prediction is that 65% of all Massachusetts residents will vote to ban gay marriage!

With an average 71% of all voting residents in all 20 states (so far) saying no to gay marriage, it looks like this is one issue that transcends political, and religious lines.

I suspect that with in a 3 year period the only states which will have any sort of gay marriage or civil union rights will be Vermont and perhaps one or two other liberal states where there is not enough push by the people to actually have a “straight” up vote on a gay marriage ban.

90

[quote]nephorm wrote:
Lorisco wrote:
Since you don’t want to talk about sexual orientation (for fear of the PC police), then you need to think a little further about the outcome of your theories. If pheromones are responsible for attraction than pedophilia is biological in nature. And if that is the case, then our laws preventing this biological expression are futile and in fact contrary to nature.

That’s nuts. Laws are there to prevent human beings from doing things they “naturally” would’ve done otherwise, or to protect society from those who would “naturally” do it harm. Laws against murder aren’t futile just because some people are naturally (biologically) prone to extreme anger problems.

Further, just because someone is sexually aroused (regardless of the mechanism) doesn’t mean that he cannot control himself to any extent. Pedophiles don’t rape children in the middle of the street in broad daylight, completely incapable of stopping themselves.[/quote]

Thanks bro, that was exactly my point. Regardless of what our urges are, we can and should control them.

91

[quote]harris447 wrote:
Lorisco wrote:
So you are saying that it is pheromones that cause a guy to want to get busy with children?

Since you don’t want to talk about sexual orientation (for fear of the PC police), then you need to think a little further about the outcome of your theories. If pheromones are responsible for attraction than pedophilia is biological in nature. And if that is the case, then our laws preventing this biological expression are futile and in fact contrary to nature.

It’s amazing to me the combination of stupidity, ignorance, and bigotry required to constantly–CONSTANTLY–conflate homosexuality with pedophilia.
[/quote]

What is amazing about it? They both are deviant (not the norm) practices that go against normal biological function or psychological development.

And Hey, don’t call people stupid Just because you can’t figure out that your butt-hole was not designed (or evolved) to function as a sex organ. Here is a hint; that brown stuff that comes out of it is not lubricant!

92

[quote]harris447 wrote:
Lorisco wrote:
jvkohl wrote:
Goal=Colossus wrote:
Homosexuality is a genetic anomaly.
Who you have sex with or who you prefer sexually is not the root of homosexuality but a result of it.

Homosexual men, for instance, exhibit a brain response to male pheromones virtually identical to the response a heterosexual female exhibits to male pheromones.

Although it hasn’t been proven, i believe this response is manafested from genetics, not from one gene, but from the interactions of several genes that contribute to hormonal and pheramonal response.

I believe also that these genes are so closely tied that they can activate each other interchangeably in certain circumstances, which is why no one specific activation is necessary to start the chain, leading to exponentiation or non linear progression of the possible activation paths leading to homosexual pheromone response as the population grows.

This is why it has never been proven that any one specific factor, whether it be heredity or environment, definitevely results in homosexuality.

The great overwhelming difference that homosexuality has versus other genetic anomalies is the huge psycological impact it has without exhibiting any real anatomical effect.

I’m not a proffesional, but that’s my theory none-the-less.

I am a professional, and your theory loosely incorporates many biological facts. As occurs in other mammals, pheromones activate genes in cells of tissue in a very specific area of the brain (the hypothalamus). A small area of this small part of the brain is responsible for controlling the pulsatile secretion of a hormone called gonadotropin releasing hormone (GnRH), which basically controls concurrent maturation of the neuroendocrine system, reproductive system and central nervous system.

As some people here may know, it is GnRH that primarily impacts testosterone secretion. The effect of pheromones on GnRH allows pheromones to elicit behavioral affects, including those that are manifest in sexual preferences. But by the time the behavioral affects are manifest, we have been repeatedly exposed to pheromones from the opposite or from the same sex. The genetically predisposed effect on hormones (via hypothalamic GnRH pulses) is associated with the circumstances of exposure from the day we are born. The associations between pheromone exposure, hormonal effects, and very subtle behavioral affects are as thoroughly ingrained in our biologically-based psyche as are associations with food preferences (which are also chemically, or odor-based preferences.)

All this is detailed in book publication as in peer-reviewed journals. Rather than add more details here, anyone who is interested can google “human pheromones” and “James Kohl” for up-to-date information. Later this year, a lengthy review of the topic will be published in the Journal of Psychology and Human Sexuality.

The same group of researchers who reported on the pheromonal activation of the brain, which varied with sexual orientation in males, has now reported similar findings in females (lesbians vs. heterosexual women, though I prefer not to “label” sexual preferences.

Of more interest to this discussion may be the typical effect of pheromones on testosterone levels. For example, my colleague Astid Jutte reported a 150% increase in testosterone in men who were exposed to a synthetic blend of naturally occuring chemicals found in the vaginal secretions of ovulatory phase women (called copulins). Her experiment has yet to be replicated, but anecdotal information that correlates well with her report is abundant. For those who are taking a “natural” approach to increasing their testosterone level, this adds means to a potentially desireable end.

So you are saying that it is pheromones that cause a guy to want to get busy with children?

Since you don’t want to talk about sexual orientation (for fear of the PC police), then you need to think a little further about the outcome of your theories. If pheromones are responsible for attraction than pedophilia is biological in nature. And if that is the case, then our laws preventing this biological expression are futile and in fact contrary to nature.

It’s amazing to me the combination of stupidity, ignorance, and bigotry required to constantly–CONSTANTLY–conflate homosexuality with pedophilia.
[/quote]

Maybe he was thinking of information like this…just a guess:

"In 1987, Dr. Stephen Rubin of Whitman College conducted a ten-state study of sex abuse cases involving school teachers. He studied 199 cases. Of those, 122 male teachers had molested girls, while 14 female teachers had molested boys. He also discovered that 59 homosexual male teachers had molested boys and four female homosexual teachers had molested girls. In other words, 32 percent of those child molestation cases involved homosexuals. Nearly a third of these cases come from only 1-2% of the population.

Dr. Judith Reisman, in her book, Kinsey, Crimes & Consequences, describes the research done by Dr. Gene Abel. This researcher compared the molestation rates of self-confessed homosexual and heterosexual child molesters. In a sample of 153 homosexual molesters, they confessed to a total of 22,981 molestations. This is equivalent to 150 children per molester. Self-admitted heterosexual molesters admitted to 4,435 molestations. This comes to 19.8 victims per molester. Dr. Abel concluded that homosexuals ?sexually molest young boys at an incidence that is occurring from five times greater than the molestation of girls.?

This high rate of molestations by homosexuals is consistent with other studies conducted during the past several decades. Here are just a few studies that show homosexuals molesting children at epidemic rates:

The Los Angeles Times conducted a survey in 1985 of 2,628 adults across the U.S. Of those, 27% of the women and 16% of the men had been sexually molested. Seven percent of the girls and 93% of the men had been molested by adults of the same sex. This means that 40% of child molestations were by homosexuals. (Los Angeles Times, August 25-6, 1985)

In 1984, a Vermont survey of 161 adolescents who were sex offenders found that 35 of them were homosexuals (22%). (Wasserman, J., ?Adolescent Sex Offenders?Vermont, 1984? Journal American Medical Association, 1986; 255:181-2)

In 1991, of the 100 child molesters at the Massachusetts Treatment Center for Sexually Dangerous Persons, a third were heterosexual, a third were bisexual, and a third were homosexual. (Dr. Raymond Knight, ?Differential Prevalence of Personality Disorders in Rapists and Child Molesters,? Eastern Psychological Association Conference, New York, April 12, 1991)

Drs. Freund and Heasman of the Clark Institute of Psychiatry in Toronto reviewed two studies on child molesters and calculated that 34% and 32% of the sex offenders were homosexual. In cases these doctors had handled, 36% of the molesters were homosexuals. (Freund, K. ?Pedophilia and Heterosexuality vs. Homosexuality,? Journal of Sex & Marital Therapy, 1984; 10:193-200)

From these studies and many more, it is evident that homosexuals molest children at a far greater rate than do their heterosexual counterparts. While they comprise only 1-2% of the population, they are responsible for upwards of a third or more of all sexual molestations of children."

Yikes!

93

[quote]ZEB wrote:
harris447 wrote:
Lorisco wrote:
jvkohl wrote:
Goal=Colossus wrote:
Homosexuality is a genetic anomaly.
Who you have sex with or who you prefer sexually is not the root of homosexuality but a result of it.

Homosexual men, for instance, exhibit a brain response to male pheromones virtually identical to the response a heterosexual female exhibits to male pheromones.

Although it hasn’t been proven, i believe this response is manafested from genetics, not from one gene, but from the interactions of several genes that contribute to hormonal and pheramonal response.

I believe also that these genes are so closely tied that they can activate each other interchangeably in certain circumstances, which is why no one specific activation is necessary to start the chain, leading to exponentiation or non linear progression of the possible activation paths leading to homosexual pheromone response as the population grows.

This is why it has never been proven that any one specific factor, whether it be heredity or environment, definitevely results in homosexuality.

The great overwhelming difference that homosexuality has versus other genetic anomalies is the huge psycological impact it has without exhibiting any real anatomical effect.

I’m not a proffesional, but that’s my theory none-the-less.

I am a professional, and your theory loosely incorporates many biological facts. As occurs in other mammals, pheromones activate genes in cells of tissue in a very specific area of the brain (the hypothalamus). A small area of this small part of the brain is responsible for controlling the pulsatile secretion of a hormone called gonadotropin releasing hormone (GnRH), which basically controls concurrent maturation of the neuroendocrine system, reproductive system and central nervous system.

As some people here may know, it is GnRH that primarily impacts testosterone secretion. The effect of pheromones on GnRH allows pheromones to elicit behavioral affects, including those that are manifest in sexual preferences. But by the time the behavioral affects are manifest, we have been repeatedly exposed to pheromones from the opposite or from the same sex. The genetically predisposed effect on hormones (via hypothalamic GnRH pulses) is associated with the circumstances of exposure from the day we are born. The associations between pheromone exposure, hormonal effects, and very subtle behavioral affects are as thoroughly ingrained in our biologically-based psyche as are associations with food preferences (which are also chemically, or odor-based preferences.)

All this is detailed in book publication as in peer-reviewed journals. Rather than add more details here, anyone who is interested can google “human pheromones” and “James Kohl” for up-to-date information. Later this year, a lengthy review of the topic will be published in the Journal of Psychology and Human Sexuality.

The same group of researchers who reported on the pheromonal activation of the brain, which varied with sexual orientation in males, has now reported similar findings in females (lesbians vs. heterosexual women, though I prefer not to “label” sexual preferences.

Of more interest to this discussion may be the typical effect of pheromones on testosterone levels. For example, my colleague Astid Jutte reported a 150% increase in testosterone in men who were exposed to a synthetic blend of naturally occuring chemicals found in the vaginal secretions of ovulatory phase women (called copulins). Her experiment has yet to be replicated, but anecdotal information that correlates well with her report is abundant. For those who are taking a “natural” approach to increasing their testosterone level, this adds means to a potentially desireable end.

So you are saying that it is pheromones that cause a guy to want to get busy with children?

Since you don’t want to talk about sexual orientation (for fear of the PC police), then you need to think a little further about the outcome of your theories. If pheromones are responsible for attraction than pedophilia is biological in nature. And if that is the case, then our laws preventing this biological expression are futile and in fact contrary to nature.

It’s amazing to me the combination of stupidity, ignorance, and bigotry required to constantly–CONSTANTLY–conflate homosexuality with pedophilia.

Maybe he was thinking of information like this…just a guess:

"In 1987, Dr. Stephen Rubin of Whitman College conducted a ten-state study of sex abuse cases involving school teachers. He studied 199 cases. Of those, 122 male teachers had molested girls, while 14 female teachers had molested boys. He also discovered that 59 homosexual male teachers had molested boys and four female homosexual teachers had molested girls. In other words, 32 percent of those child molestation cases involved homosexuals. Nearly a third of these cases come from only 1-2% of the population.

Dr. Judith Reisman, in her book, Kinsey, Crimes & Consequences, describes the research done by Dr. Gene Abel. This researcher compared the molestation rates of self-confessed homosexual and heterosexual child molesters. In a sample of 153 homosexual molesters, they confessed to a total of 22,981 molestations. This is equivalent to 150 children per molester. Self-admitted heterosexual molesters admitted to 4,435 molestations. This comes to 19.8 victims per molester. Dr. Abel concluded that homosexuals ?sexually molest young boys at an incidence that is occurring from five times greater than the molestation of girls.?

This high rate of molestations by homosexuals is consistent with other studies conducted during the past several decades. Here are just a few studies that show homosexuals molesting children at epidemic rates:

The Los Angeles Times conducted a survey in 1985 of 2,628 adults across the U.S. Of those, 27% of the women and 16% of the men had been sexually molested. Seven percent of the girls and 93% of the men had been molested by adults of the same sex. This means that 40% of child molestations were by homosexuals. (Los Angeles Times, August 25-6, 1985)

In 1984, a Vermont survey of 161 adolescents who were sex offenders found that 35 of them were homosexuals (22%). (Wasserman, J., ?Adolescent Sex Offenders?Vermont, 1984? Journal American Medical Association, 1986; 255:181-2)

In 1991, of the 100 child molesters at the Massachusetts Treatment Center for Sexually Dangerous Persons, a third were heterosexual, a third were bisexual, and a third were homosexual. (Dr. Raymond Knight, ?Differential Prevalence of Personality Disorders in Rapists and Child Molesters,? Eastern Psychological Association Conference, New York, April 12, 1991)

Drs. Freund and Heasman of the Clark Institute of Psychiatry in Toronto reviewed two studies on child molesters and calculated that 34% and 32% of the sex offenders were homosexual. In cases these doctors had handled, 36% of the molesters were homosexuals. (Freund, K. ?Pedophilia and Heterosexuality vs. Homosexuality,? Journal of Sex & Marital Therapy, 1984; 10:193-200)

From these studies and many more, it is evident that homosexuals molest children at a far greater rate than do their heterosexual counterparts. While they comprise only 1-2% of the population, they are responsible for upwards of a third or more of all sexual molestations of children."

Yikes!

[/quote]

Molesting male children does not make you a homosexual: it makes you a FUCKING PEDOPHILE.

Get it, shithead?

94

[quote]harris447 wrote:

Molesting male children does not make you a homosexual: it makes you a FUCKING PEDOPHILE.

Get it, shithead?[/quote]

So you are saying that all these professed homosexuals magically change to be pedophiles once they molest a kid? So they never really were homosexuals in the first place and all that butt banging was just misplaced sexual energy they really wanted to direct at kids?

So does this also mean that any homosexual that has hetero sex magically changes into a heterosexual?

Dude, you have real “gift” for logic and reason. If I were you I wouldn’t join the debate team just yet!

95

[quote]harris447 wrote:
Molesting male children does not make you a homosexual: it makes you a FUCKING PEDOPHILE.

Get it, shithead?[/quote]

Ha ha…Your logic sucks!

You have no brain power harris and I find that very funny! Seriously, you need to read more and post less…But then you would be denying the rest of us of a good belly laugh. :slight_smile:

Of course molesting male children does not make you a homosexual. That’s not what the article says you freaking idiot! LOL (I’m laughing so hard I can’t type).

They are saying that admitted homosexuals molest a higher number of children.

Read this again moron:

"Dr. Judith Reisman, in her book, Kinsey, Crimes & Consequences, describes the research done by Dr. Gene Abel. This researcher compared the molestation rates of self-confessed homosexual and heterosexual child molesters.

…And While they (homosexuals) comprise only 1-2% of the population, they are responsible for upwards of a third or more of all sexual molestations of children!"

Reading comprehension harris…it’s a heck of a thing…when you can actually read something and walk away with its meaning…yep.

harris the next time you have such a juicy brain fart just wipe between your ears and try to keep it to yourself.

Ha ha ha…

:slight_smile:

96

[quote]harris447 wrote:

Molesting male children does not make you a homosexual: it makes you a FUCKING PEDOPHILE.

Get it, shithead?[/quote]

I can’t believe it - the harris stupidity has jumped over to this thread.

Why does anyone even answer this guy? He’s a complete idiot. And a loud-mouthed one at that.

97

I don’t think I am having reading comprehension issues, and I think this line is ambiguous: [quote]This researcher compared the molestation rates of self-confessed homosexual and heterosexual child molesters. [/quote]

What are they “self-confessed” as? Homosexuals? Molesters? The use of “homosexual” and “heterosexual” as an adjective to modify the noun “molester” might indicate molesters who molest the same sex and the opposite sex, respectively.

The question is what the perceived sexual identity of the molester is… if he sees himself as heterosexual but molests boys, do they list him as a homosexual molester or a heterosexual one?

If the researcher gets to make that determination (or definition), then we are still missing data. To say that people who identify themselves as heterosexuals rape X number of children of the same sex is different from saying that people who identify themselves as homosexuals rape X number of children of the same sex.

In fact, re-reading the article, it says: [quote]Seven percent of the girls and 93% of the men had been molested by adults of the same sex. This means that 40% of child molestations were by homosexuals.[/quote]

So they define the homo/heterosexuality of the molester based on the sex of the victim, rather than the personal identification of the molester. So a man who has sex with women, who has never had sex with a man (or boy over the age of 14), who has children, etc, but molested a single boy, would be identified as a “homosexual molester.”

This is misleading, because the argument has long been that openly homosexual men are much less likely to commit acts of pedophilia against boys than are men who identify themselves as heterosexual.

98

[quote]nephorm wrote:
the argument has long been that openly homosexual men are much less likely to commit acts of pedophilia against boys than are men who identify themselves as heterosexual. [/quote]

Please show me the data which demonstrates this assertion.

99

nephorm,

How is this study not clear to you?

“In 1987, Dr. Stephen Rubin of Whitman College conducted a ten-state study of sex abuse cases involving school teachers. He studied 199 cases. Of those, 122 male teachers had molested girls, while 14 female teachers had molested boys. He also discovered that 59 homosexual male teachers had molested boys and four female homosexual teachers had molested girls. In other words, 32 percent of those child molestation cases involved homosexuals. Nearly a third of these cases come from only 1-2% of the population.”

100

[quote]ZEB wrote:
harris447 wrote:
Molesting male children does not make you a homosexual: it makes you a FUCKING PEDOPHILE.

Get it, shithead?

Ha ha…Your logic sucks!

You have no brain power harris and I find that very funny! Seriously, you need to read more and post less…But then you would be denying the rest of us of a good belly laugh. :slight_smile:

Of course molesting male children does not make you a homosexual. That’s not what the article says you freaking idiot! LOL (I’m laughing so hard I can’t type).

They are saying that admitted homosexuals molest a higher number of children.

Read this again moron:

"Dr. Judith Reisman, in her book, Kinsey, Crimes & Consequences, describes the research done by Dr. Gene Abel. This researcher compared the molestation rates of self-confessed homosexual and heterosexual child molesters.

…And While they (homosexuals) comprise only 1-2% of the population, they are responsible for upwards of a third or more of all sexual molestations of children!"

Reading comprehension harris…it’s a heck of a thing…when you can actually read something and walk away with its meaning…yep.

harris the next time you have such a juicy brain fart just wipe between your ears and try to keep it to yourself.

Ha ha ha…

:slight_smile:

[/quote]

Now, who’s laughing:

Your information comes from a website called “Jesus is savior”.

The “point” it tries to make s that homosexuals are monsters and kiddy-fuckers.

here’s the link, just so everyone knows what kind of “proof” your hate-filled ass depends on to make his point:

Your only defenders are terribleivan, who no one even respnds to, and stevie, who is a lunatic.

And…you do realize that the universe’s sense of humor can only respond to your homophobia by making members of your family flamingly gay, right?