Gay Marriage Discussion

[SexMachine]

[quote] maverick88 wrote:

How is being attracted to youth in the gay community any different from Hebephilia, and Ephebophilia among straight men? It is seen everywhere and pretty much accepted even on this site jail bait/borderline pictures have been posted.

[/quote]

That’s a fair point. I’d say the difference is that in gay culture it’s an accepted norm whereas in “straight” culture it’s not the norm and not focused on.

[Ironskape]

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote] maverick88 wrote:

How is being attracted to youth in the gay community any different from Hebephilia, and Ephebophilia among straight men? It is seen everywhere and pretty much accepted even on this site jail bait/borderline pictures have been posted.

[/quote]

That’s a fair point. I’d say the difference is that in gay culture it’s an accepted norm whereas in “straight” culture it’s not the norm and not focused on.[/quote]

It’s not the norm in gay culture, and praying on minors is most certainly not accepted. If anything, we’re more critical of such behavior, because we’re still working to combat this unjust stereotype bigots like you are trying to perpetuate.

[Ironskape]

[quote]countingbeans wrote:
Disclaimer: I have no issue with same sex marriage, or same sex couples having/raising children.

That said:

[quote]Ironskape wrote:

What does a mother do for a child beyond breastfeeding, exactly? Provide emotional support? Love and nurture? Honey, if you can’t do those things yourself, you’re a shitty father.

[/quote]

You don’t get it, and because of your biases, never will.

Being raised by two men is different than being raised by two women, and both are different than being raised by a mixed gender couple.

Different does NOT mean better or worse, just different.

In short, stop talking out of your ass about something and except the fact it is different. There is nothing wrong with different, stop running away from it.
[/quote]

I’m not running away from anything, and I’m not talking out of my ass. I don’t understand what point you’re trying to make.

I never claimed that being raised by two men would be exactly like being raised by a mixed gender couple, only that it wasn’t inferior. No two couples, straight or otherwise, will raise their kids the same; I don’t think anyone would say otherwise.

[Ironskape]

[quote]NickViar wrote:

[quote]Ironskape wrote:

[quote]NickViar wrote:

[quote]Ironskape wrote:
The same reason a straight couple who, for whatever reason, can’t have children would want to pursue adoption. [/quote]
-I don’t know…it seems a stretch to compare a man and woman, one or both of whom have a condition that precludes procreation, to a man and man or woman woman, relationships which could never produce a child, no matter the reproductive health of those involved. Or are you saying that homosexuality is a reproductive disorder?

I’ve always wanted children, since I was a kid, but my circumstances dictate that I won’t be having one the traditional way.

-It still seems unlikely to me that such a desire would accompany a natural attraction to those with whom you can’t possibly produce a child.

Also…people don’t decide they’re gay.

-Perhaps not, but, like I’ve said, it seems unlikely that one whose genetic code tells him that he should mate with the same sex would also give him a desire to have children.[/quote]

I don’t know what to tell you, then. I like dudes. I want to be a father. Apparently, the two can coexist. [/quote]

That’s fine, but it leads me to believe that one does choose to be gay. I don’t know that it’s a conscious choice(I’m fairly certain that there are contributing factors-perhaps a mother who plays the role of a father, a family that rejects traditional culture, etc.), but I do believe that it’s a choice. I do believe that I could choose to be gay tomorrow. I do believe that you could choose to like chicks tomorrow.

Are children raised by homosexuals more likely to be gay than others? I highly(HIGHLY) doubt it-they grow up seeing some of the difficulties that come with being gay(for the same reason that a child who grows up without a father seems more likely to become a criminal, I would think a child raised by gays may also be more likely to become a criminal, however), I would think .

Are homosexuals more likely to be pedophiles than others? I think that’s probable; however, that’s almost certainly correlation(one who rejects morality that discourages homosexuality is probably more likely to reject morality that discourages other relationships), not causation.[/quote]

I don’t know what I could have said to lead you to that belief. And if you truly think that you can change your sexuality at will, I have no right to tell you otherwise.

I can only tell you my experience.

I was raised in rural eastern Kentucky, by a coal miner father and a housewife. My dad drank beer and taught me how to throw a baseball, and my mom made bad roasts every Tuesday. Mom didn’t “play the role of father”, and dad was present and involved in my life like a good father should be. I had fantastic parents.

However, they were not supportive of my being gay.

And I never made the choice. I just never thought girls were pretty. When I was 12 or 13 and starting looking at porn on the internet at 2am (something I assume all men my age went through), I started with straight porn. Nothing. Then, I saw a clip of gay porn. I was going to watch it, “to make fun of it”, and boom: boner. Then I went through few years of repression, a four year relationship with a girl that never went beyond holding hands or a peck on the cheek, and even jumping in when my buddies would make fun of queers, but it never “fixed”. I tried for six years to be straight.

It didn’t work.

Now I’m in a healthy relationship with my boyfriend, and have been for over two years. It was never an issue of “rejecting morality”, as you put it. Quite the opposite. Trying to lie to myself, trying to date girls, making fun of queers to hide how scared I was…that felt like rejecting my morality.

[SexMachine]

[quote]Ironskape wrote:

It would be far more accurate to say that your opinion on the subject of gay marriage doesn’t matter. The issue doesn’t affect you, and yet here you are, spouting your garbage like the world needs to hear it. It does, however, directly affect my entire goddamn future, so I’d say that’s a pretty good reason to bring it up.

[/quote]

My entire life is affected by the culture of the society I live in.

By your logic, never, EVER, bring up the fact you have a wife. We don’t need to hear about your sex life.

Spurious comparison. Mentioning your girlfriend or wife is incidental. People don’t mention their wife in order to demonstrate that they’re heterosexual. If you’d said incidentally, my boyfriend this or that then I wouldn’t have said anything. You came here and the first thing you said was “I’m gay”. There’s no reason to announce that. You can argue whatever point you’re making without announcing your sexual preference. The problem is gay people often consider their sexual preference a fundamental aspect of their identity. If gay people didn’t attach so much significance to their sexual preference they would have a more measured outlook. There’s no need to invest so much of one’s self in sexual preference. When “gay” becomes a fundamental aspect of identity it leads to antagonistic relations with the rest of society. Hence, the bothering Christian florists, bakers and other small business people. It’s actually this radical political aspect of homosexuality that I’m against. I don’t have any problem with gay people who keep it to themselves and don’t agitate.

Please do. Otherwise “I can, but I won’t” sounds like you’re full of shit.

What do you mean, “appealing to authority”? Whose authority am I appealing to?

You were appealing to scientific authorities that purport to show gay parents are no different from regular parents.

Yours? I’m using evidence to support my opinion on the matter. You’re using ignorance and hate to support yours.

Already, the conversation has degenerated into pejoratives. I’m not a “hater”. In fact, I consider myself to be pretty liberal on the subject. I’m certainly not advocating anything radical. I’m appealing to the status quo. You are the one demanding radical change.

What does a mother do for a child beyond breastfeeding, exactly?

Come off it man. If you can’t even admit the difference between a mother and a father then we’re not going to be able to discuss this sensibly.

Provide emotional support? Love and nurture? Honey, if you can’t do those things yourself, you’re a shitty father.

How about a role model and an example of femininity that a mother provides to a daughter?

In The First World War a lot of my ancestors were killed and my grandfathers, grand uncles etc were raised without fathers. All of them suffered major problems in their own lives as a result. They had no understanding of how to be a father themselves.

Here’s a young man who was also raised by two lesbians, saying the exact opposite:

Son of Iowa Lesbians Fights Gay Marriage Ban - ABC News

As I said, there are studies showing the opposite. And I’m not appealing to scientific authority.

He was raised by fantastic mothers, who gave him everything a straight couple could have given him. It turns out that gay people aren’t shitty parents, shitty parents are shitty parents.

Having good intentions is not enough. An actual mother and father provide a superior environment than same sex couples. You disagree. Okay fine.

Because kids are stupid, right? They can’t tell the difference between “love” and “not fighting all the time”.

That’s not what I said. My point was, kids are harmed by an environment in which parents fight. If parents get along and enjoy being together then their sex lives are irrelevant.

That’s the dumbest fucking thing I’ve ever read in my life. You seriously believe that gay marriage will halt procreation?

That’s not what I said. Normalisation of homosexuality is not a cause; it’s a symptom.

What, will having a gay couple move in down the street magically make a straight couple infertile?

Giving gays legal status to marry doesn’t affect the actual number of gay people. We’ve been here the whole time, buddy. I don’t feel like that’s something I should have to point out.

See above. Not a cause; but rather a symptom.

You have no animosity towards gay people. You’ve just spent the last five pages proving otherwise.

Do you know where the “statistic” that gay men are more likely to molest children than straight men comes from?

40% of sex offenders self identify as either gay or bi. And yet gays are supposed to be around 2-3% of the population.

All man-to-boy sexual assault cases are categorized as “homosexual”. They don’t self-identify as gay, and they don’t have sex with men.

See above.

Men who have sex with little girls aren’t “straight”, they’re pedophiles. There’s a big fucking difference.

The vast majority of child molesters self-identify as heterosexual. Show me the proof that says otherwise.

“In the study by Erickson, et al. (1988), 86% of the male sex offenders who assaulted boys (approximately 35% of the 229 convicted child molesters in the study) self-identified as homosexual…”

…the percentage of convicted male child molesters in this study who self-identified as homosexual in this study is 20 times as high (30% divided by 1.5%) as the percentage of males in the general population who self-identify as homosexual…

Links Between Homosexuality and Pedophilia

What about the historical culture of men marrying brides a third of their age?

What about it? How does highlighting the prevalence of such a thing relate to this discussion?

What about the ridiculously low age of consent for girls in Japan? What about the extremely prevalent fetish that straight men have for high school girls? What about the entire fucking movement to stop men from MARRYING underage girls?

http://www.girlsnotbrides.org/about-child-marriage/

Again, absolutely unrelated to the discussion.

This is not a gay issue, it’s a piece-of-shit issue.

There is a far higher prevalence amongst those who self identify as gay.

[SexMachine]

[quote]Ironskape wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote] maverick88 wrote:

How is being attracted to youth in the gay community any different from Hebephilia, and Ephebophilia among straight men? It is seen everywhere and pretty much accepted even on this site jail bait/borderline pictures have been posted.

[/quote]

That’s a fair point. I’d say the difference is that in gay culture it’s an accepted norm whereas in “straight” culture it’s not the norm and not focused on.[/quote]

It’s not the norm in gay culture, and praying on minors is most certainly not accepted. If anything, we’re more critical of such behavior, because we’re still working to combat this unjust stereotype bigots like you are trying to perpetuate. [/quote]

Bigot, hater etc. give e a break. Try just addressing my argument. I’m not throwing pejoratives at you.

[Ironskape]

My entire life is affected by the culture of the society I live in.

Really? Please elaborate on how my acquisition of a marriage certificate would influence your life.

Spurious comparison. Mentioning your girlfriend or wife is incidental. People don’t mention their wife in order to demonstrate that they’re heterosexual. If you’d said incidentally, my boyfriend this or that then I wouldn’t have said anything. You came here and the first thing you said was “I’m gay”. There’s no reason to announce that. You can argue whatever point you’re making without announcing your sexual preference. The problem is gay people often consider their sexual preference a fundamental aspect of their identity. If gay people didn’t attach so much significance to their sexual preference they would have a more measured outlook. There’s no need to invest so much of one’s self in sexual preference. When “gay” becomes a fundamental aspect of identity it leads to antagonistic relations with the rest of society. Hence, the bothering Christian florists, bakers and other small business people. It’s actually this radical political aspect of homosexuality that I’m against. I don’t have any problem with gay people who keep it to themselves and don’t agitate.

Gay marriage affects gay people, and that’s about it. I’m letting it be known that I am a part of the only group truly affected by the issue of gay marriage, and that fact is relevant to this conversation on gay marriage. I didn’t hijack a discussion on accommodating resistance or multy-ply vs. raw; it’s astounding that you think your experience with gay people matters, but my being gay doesn’t.

Gay is a part of my identity like straight is a part of yours. How important would you say your wife is -or would be, if that’s the case- to you? Probably one of the most important people in your life, right? Now imagine that people who have no vested interest in your affairs have decided that your relationship isn’t valid and will not be sanctioned by the state. Would you be pissed? I would hope so.

You would absolutely have been bothered if I had “passingly” mentioned my boyfriend, because, in your exact words, that wouldn’t have been “keeping it to myself”.

Already, the conversation has degenerated into pejoratives. I’m not a “hater”. In fact, I consider myself to be pretty liberal on the subject. I’m certainly not advocating anything radical. I’m appealing to the status quo. You are the one demanding radical change

Consider yourself wrong. You’ve been extraordinary offensive and homophobic during this entire discussion. Maybe you’re “pretty liberal” for the crowd you associate with, but you fit every definition of “hater” to anyone with a shred of decency.

[quote]
Come off it man. If you can’t even admit the difference between a mother and a father then we’re not going to be able to discuss this sensibly.

[quote]

Genitals. Now on to discussing this sensibly.

How about a role model and an example of femininity that a mother provides to a daughter?

In The First World War a lot of my ancestors were killed and my grandfathers, grand uncles etc were raised without fathers. All of them suffered major problems in their own lives as a result. They had no understanding of how to be a father themselves.

What examples of femininity did you have in mind? I would be a role model to my daughter by teaching her to work hard and treat others with respect. What’s missing? Teaching her to sew?

If there really is something I can’t help her with, I can sit her down with one of my trusted female friends. Or is that cheating? There’s a joke in American Dad! that goes something like this:

“You can’t be a normal boy being raised by two moms! Who’s going to teach you how to throw a football?”

“My football coach.”

And maybe your ancestors had a hard time growing up because holy shit, their fathers were killed in a World Fucking War.

Having good intentions is not enough. An actual mother and father provide a superior environment than same sex couples. You disagree. Okay fine.

It was good enough, if the outcome was a healthy, well-adjusted young man.

Now, here’s one I love:

As I said, there are studies showing the opposite. And I’m not appealing to scientific authority.

You will soon enough, as we will see.

That’s not what I said. Normalisation of homosexuality is not a cause; it’s a symptom.

What, will having a gay couple move in down the street magically make a straight couple infertile?

Giving gays legal status to marry doesn’t affect the actual number of gay people. We’ve been here the whole time, buddy. I don’t feel like that’s something I should have to point out.

See above. Not a cause; but rather a symptom.

You’re still not refuting your claim that our population of 7 billion humans is at risk of going extinct.

40% of sex offenders self identify as either gay or bi. And yet gays are supposed to be around 2-3% of the population.

Making up a percentage doesn’t turn a lie into a fact. Ah, but using studies to back your opinion would be “appealing to scientific authority”, which you don’t do.

Oh, wait, a study?

“In the study by Erickson, et al. (1988), 86% of the male sex offenders who assaulted boys (approximately 35% of the 229 convicted child molesters in the study) self-identified as homosexual…”

…the percentage of convicted male child molesters in this study who self-identified as homosexual in this study is 20 times as high (30% divided by 1.5%) as the percentage of males in the general population who self-identify as homosexual…

http://www.rethinkingtheology…

Well then, finally. Thank you for using an essay written by a self-described “born again Christian” who supports conversion therapy and rejects the notion that homosexuality isn’t a choice as your objective reasoning.

Here’s mine:

http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/faculty_sites/rainbow/html/facts_molestation.html

Of special note is the section that mentions your study, specifically:

“Erickson et al. (1988). Behavior patterns of child molesters. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 17, 77-86.
This study was based on a retrospective review of the medical records of male sex offenders admitted to the Minnesota Security Hospital between 1975 and 1984. Apparently, 70% of the men abused girls, 26% abused boys, and 4% abused children of both sexes. (The paper is unclear in that it doesn’t explain how perpetrators with multiple victims were counted.) The paper asserts in passing that “Eighty-six percent of offenders against males described themselves as homosexual or bisexual” (p. 83). However, no details are provided about how this information was ascertained, making it difficult to interpret or evaluate. Nor did the authors report the number of homosexual versus bisexual offenders, a distinction that the Groth and Birnbaum study (described above) indicates is relevant.”

Even taking your fundamentally flawed study -the one you presented to prove me wrong- at face value, you’ve undone your own argument. 80% of the men in that study (which could fairly be described as “the vast majority”) did not self-identify as gay or bisexual. You might also, if you’re capable of basic math, notice that 100-80 = 20%, which is half of the 40% statistic you pulled out of your ass.

And that, in all likelihood, was the best study you could find to support the notion that a disproportionate number of gay men are child molesters.

The Family Research Council is on your side, though. They’ve made the same claims, and they’ve looked at the same studies. Here’s what that article says about that:

“In summary, the scientific sources cited by the FRC report do not support their argument. Most of the studies they referenced did not even assess the sexual orientation of abusers. Two studies explicitly concluded that sexual orientation and child molestation are unrelated. Notably, the FRC failed to cite the 1978 study by Groth and Birnbaum, which also contradicted their argument. Only one study (Erickson et al., 1988) might be interpreted as supporting the FRC argument, and it failed to detail its measurement procedures and did not differentiate bisexual from homosexual offenders.”

What about the historical culture of men marrying brides a third of their age?

What about it? How does highlighting the prevalence of such a thing relate to this discussion?

What about the ridiculously low age of consent for girls in Japan? What about the extremely prevalent fetish that straight men have for high school girls? What about the entire fucking movement to stop men from MARRYING underage girls?

http://www.girlsnotbrides.org/...child-marriage/

Again, absolutely unrelated to the discussion.

You were asserting that pedophilia is the norm in gay cultures, but not in straight cultures. I was giving examples of this not being the case.

If you’ll forgive me for my double-negative, things aren’t “not relevant” just because they prove you wrong.

Bigot, hater etc. give e a break. Try just addressing my argument. I’m not throwing pejoratives at you

I did address your arguments. And you’re insinuating that I am unfit to raise a family because of my sexual orientation.

I’d rather you just call me a faggot.

EDIT: UNRELATED

Stupid quote things…what am I doing wrong?

[hmm87]

[quote]NickViar wrote:

[quote]hmm87 wrote:

[quote]NickViar wrote:

[quote]hmm87 wrote:
But you said you have your doubts about certain parts. so you can’t for sure know what god really ordered.
[/quote]

See my above response, and it’s called faith for a reason.[/quote]

You said you had less faith in parts that you felt contradicted the first commandment. so right here you’re admitting to picking and choosing. if you have faith in god and the bible why not have faith in all of it? you said it yourself that god can do no wrong so these contradictions should be perfectly fine if you have faith. but yet you still have doubts.[/quote]

Did you read the response to which I referred you? I clarified my position and said that the Bible itself is not contradictory-human interpretation is. [/quote]

Yes I did read your response. But you’re really not making any sense. You claim that the Bible is not contradictory yet you claim parts are. It shouldn’t matter to you if human interpretation is flawed since you already ‘know’ that the Bible is not. So there shouldn’t be any doubts about any parts unless of course you’re picking and choosing what you like. I find it amazing that God would create these rules for us to follow, rules that are so crucial that he makes us in such a way that we can’t even understand them because our interpretation is flawed.

[NickViar]

[quote]hmm87 wrote:
Yes I did read your response. But you’re really not making any sense. You claim that the Bible is not contradictory yet you claim parts are. It shouldn’t matter to you if human interpretation is flawed since you already ‘know’ that the Bible is not. So there shouldn’t be any doubts about any parts unless of course you’re picking and choosing what you like. I find it amazing that God would create these rules for us to follow, rules that are so crucial that he makes us in such a way that we can’t even understand them because our interpretation is flawed. [/quote]

Again, the Bible itself is not contradictory-human interpretation can be. It doesn’t matter to me that human interpretation is, and that’s the only way it can be-humans are humans. I wrote a quick post or two and they came out wrong. I corrected myself. I, like almost everyone who talks about any religion, allowed myself to conflate the teachings of the deity with the teachings of the followers and others. I find it amazing that we exist.

[SexMachine]

[quote]Ironskape wrote:

Really? Please elaborate on how my acquisition of a marriage certificate would influence your life.

[/quote]

The normalisation of homosexuality and the redefining of the institution of marriage constitutes a radical cultural shift that affects the whole of society. Example: legalising heroin wouldn’t directly and measurably affect me, however it would radically affect the society I live in for the worse.

Gay marriage affects gay people, and that’s about it. I’m letting it be known that I am a part of the only group truly affected by the issue of gay marriage, and that fact is relevant to this conversation on gay marriage. I didn’t hijack a discussion on accommodating resistance or multy-ply vs. raw; it’s astounding that you think your experience with gay people matters, but my being gay doesn’t.

Gay is a part of my identity like straight is a part of yours.

“Straight” is not a part of my identity. It has nothing to do with the relevant merits or lackthereof of what we’re discussing here. It doesn’t enter my thought processes when making decisions about anything other than my private life.

How important would you say your wife is -or would be, if that’s the case- to you?

Important to my personal, private life. Irrelevant to my opinions about traditional marriage as an institution.

Probably one of the most important people in your life, right? Now imagine that people who have no vested interest in your affairs have decided that your relationship isn’t valid and will not be sanctioned by the state. Would you be pissed? I would hope so.

If I were gay, I would accept that the rest of society doesn’t want to change to accommodate my unusual relationship.

You would absolutely have been bothered if I had “passingly” mentioned my boyfriend, because, in your exact words, that wouldn’t have been “keeping it to myself”.

If you had some personal story relevant to the discussion then okay. So maybe you tell your doctor if it’s relevant or whatever. But you have yet to explain what relevance it has to the discussion. But anyway, I don’t see any point in going on about it. As I said, my point was it shouldn’t be a fundamental aspect of your identity.

Consider yourself wrong. You’ve been extraordinary offensive and homophobic during this entire discussion.

You’re the one throwing around pejoratives. I haven’t called you any names and I’ve been respectful to you in this discussion. You have not returned that respect.

Maybe you’re “pretty liberal” for the crowd you associate with, but you fit every definition of “hater” to anyone with a shred of decency.

Maybe you should look at the rest of the world and reconsider. Not wanting to sanction a radical redefinition of the institution of marriage does not constitute “hate”. As I said, what you do in your private life is of no concern to me. I don’t wish to interfere in your private relationships. By the same token, you should respect the beliefs of other people and the social norms and mores of our society.

What examples of femininity did you have in mind? I would be a role model to my daughter by teaching her to work hard and treat others with respect. What’s missing? Teaching her to sew?

How to be a woman. How to be a mother?

If there really is something I can’t help her with, I can sit her down with one of my trusted female friends. Or is that cheating? There’s a joke in American Dad! that goes something like this:

“You can’t be a normal boy being raised by two moms! Who’s going to teach you how to throw a football?”

“My football coach.”

And maybe your ancestors had a hard time growing up because holy shit, their fathers were killed in a World Fucking War.

My father’s father had no understanding of how to be a father. He was emotionally distant from his children. He was like a stranger to my father. Indeed, this flowed on to me. My father likewise, was affected. It’s something that affects more than just one or even two generations.

What, will having a gay couple move in down the street magically make a straight couple infertile?

You’ve just ignored what I said and continued with your strawman. I said:

It’s not a cause it’s a symptom.

You’re still not refuting your claim that our population of 7 billion humans is at risk of going extinct.

Much of humanity, particularly the third world, is not in decline. Western civilisation is in decline. You cannot argue against this; the stats are overwhelming. Japan is the most extreme example. The replacement level fertility rate is 2.0. Japan is 1.27 if I remember correctly.

Making up a percentage doesn’t turn a lie into a fact. Ah, but using studies to back your opinion would be “appealing to scientific authority”, which you don’t do.

You specifically asked for “evidence”.

Well then, finally. Thank you for using an essay written by a self-described “born again Christian” who supports conversion therapy and rejects the notion that homosexuality isn’t a choice as your objective reasoning.

I’m not appealing to the author of the article. I’m merely referencing the studies cited. As far as I know the authors of the studies are not Christians.

Here’s mine:

http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/faculty_sites/rainbow/html/facts_molestation.html

I didn’t ask for yours. Again, I’m not interested in a statistics war. I merely provided what you asked for.

Of special note is the section that mentions your study, specifically:

"Erickson et al. (1988). Behavior patterns of child molesters. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 17, 77-86.
This study was based on a retrospective review of the medical records of male sex offenders admitted to the Minnesota Security Hospital between 1975 and 1984. Apparently, 70% of the men abused girls, 26% abused boys, and 4% abused children of both sexes. (The paper is unclear in that it doesn’t explain how perpetrators with multiple victims were counted.)

And what does that fact alone tell you? 2-3% of the population is gay(at most), yet 26% of the sex offenders here abused boys.

The paper asserts in passing that “Eighty-six percent of offenders against males described themselves as homosexual or bisexual” (p. 83). However, no details are provided about how this information was ascertained, making it difficult to interpret or evaluate. Nor did the authors report the number of homosexual versus bisexual offenders, a distinction that the Groth and Birnbaum study (described above) indicates is relevant."

I don’t see how such distinctions would change the fundamental facts of the inordinate number of self identifying gays and bisexuals amongst child molesters.

Even taking your fundamentally flawed study -the one you presented to prove me wrong- at face value, you’ve undone your own argument. 80% of the men in that study (which could fairly be described as “the vast majority”) did not self-identify as gay or bisexual.

It should be around 98% if we accept your premise.

You might also, if you’re capable of basic math, notice that 100-80 = 20%, which is half of the 40% statistic you pulled out of your ass.

The 40% stat is from another source; happy to try to dig it up if you want.

And that, in all likelihood, was the best study you could find to support the notion that a disproportionate number of gay men are child molesters.

The Family Research Council is on your side, though. They’ve made the same claims, and they’ve looked at the same studies. Here’s what that article says about that:

"In summary, the scientific sources cited by the FRC report do not support their argument. Most of the studies they referenced did not even assess the sexual orientation of abusers.

If a man abuses a boy it’s safe to say he’s sexually attracted to males no?

Two studies explicitly concluded that sexual orientation and child molestation are unrelated. Notably, the FRC failed to cite the 1978 study by Groth and Birnbaum, which also contradicted their argument. Only one study (Erickson et al., 1988) might be interpreted as supporting the FRC argument, and it failed to detail its measurement procedures and did not differentiate bisexual from homosexual offenders."

What about it? How does highlighting the prevalence of such a thing relate to this discussion?

Another poster brought up the prevalence of gay/bi people amongst sex offenders.

You were asserting that pedophilia is the norm in gay cultures, but not in straight cultures.

That’s not actually what I said. I said in gay culture, sexual attraction to boys is mainstream. That’s not to say molesting children is the norm.

I did address your arguments. And you’re insinuating that I am unfit to raise a family because of my sexual orientation.

Not at all. I even suggested you get married to a woman if you want to raise a family. My point was a family with a mother and a father is a far better environment for children.

I’d rather you just call me a faggot.

Throwing around pejoratives is your tactic not mine.

[NorCal916]

[quote]hmm87 wrote:

[quote]NorCal916 wrote:

[quote]hmm87 wrote:

[quote]NickViar wrote:

[quote]hmm87 wrote:
where in your religion is being gay immoral?

My morality is subjective. I choose not to do things to others as i would not like done to myself.[/quote]

I assume that NorCal916 is a Christian. One man having sex with another is a sin in Christianity. Following the Golden Rule is certainly a good practice, but I’m not sure how much it has to do with this topic…I doubt that it’s the sole source of your morality, and if it is, that sort of lends credence to SexMachine’s talk about homosexuality and pedophilia(nothing wrong with having sex with a child if you would have no problem with a child having sex with you, right?).[/quote]

I in no away agree with pedophilia but can you please point me to the part in the bible where it states the age one becomes an adult.
[/quote]

Society and times were much different over 2000 years ago. That applies to both the religious and non-religious. It would not have mad since to give out an arbitrary number, hence that’s why none was given. If you read the verses, and understand the Bible, your sense of right and wrong will be clearly defined.

I could give you plenty of verses, but you would be dismissive. Start with Gen 1:1 and begin there.
[/quote]

we could save time if you would just provide the verses[/quote]

Ephesians, chapter 6 and verse four.
Colossians 2
Mark 9
Matthew as said
Etc.

[NorCal916]

[quote]angry chicken wrote:
It should be noted that this discussion has been underway for the better part of an hour and there are NO CHRISTIANS jumping in to answer any of these challenges.

What’s wrong, cat got your tongue?

Or could it be that you feel safer burying your head in the sand because you can’t defend the actions of YOUR “god”?

“I’m not going to have a debate with a BIGOT like you who OBVIOUSLY hates Christians”…

That one is getting kinda old. TRANSLATION:

“I don’t want to confront the dark side of christianity because it challenges my belief system and I’m too much of a coward to do that - that’s why I’m a member of a flock, because I’m a fucking SHEEP. I do what I’m told and I believe EVERYTHING I was taught, cuz I’m a GOOOOOOD CHRISTIAN!”

And you WONDER why King James translated the bible! You couldn’t ASK for a more perfect devise to control a population![/quote]

I will try to touch on some things that you have addressed in several posts. First, my religion is grounded in faith. Faith is belief in the absence of proof. God made this intentional, and also all the “rebuttals” of Christianity and the Bible. Without this, why have faith? Faith must persevere through arguments, strong arguments, made against it. So I have faith that the Bible I read God has provided for me.

And remember, stories are told through a variety of ways. Literal accounts, figurative speech, parables, metaphors, allegory, you name it. The Bible is meant to be taken both literally and figuratively. Just like we talk today.

“Man, I was late today! I was flying down the interstate!” Was I really flying?

We should not conclude that everyone will agree on the exact meaning of every single statement the Bible makes. But people don’t agree on the meaning of every single statement of Shakespeare, the President of the United States, or even the meaning of federal and state laws (and laws are virtually always made to be crystal clear and understood literally!). Nor will they ever all agree on the meaning of every single scripture. Furthermore, even if they did agree on the meaning of every scripture, they would not agree on every single doctrine, because scriptures must often be combined to understand a single doctrine.

So, I take the literal statements literally, and the figurative statements figuratively. I use my common sense, my experience, and my knowledge of language and grammar to know the difference and to determine what the figures of speech mean. Along with historical context of course.

But this is not about the defense of the Bible. I simple say this is what I base my morality on. I believe what I believe. I feel religion creates the most time-tested foundation our world has when it come to laws and moral conduct.

Now I ask you, what do YOU base your morality on? You don’t have to belittle religion to state and defend yours.

[NorCal916]

[quote]hmm87 wrote:

[quote]NickViar wrote:

[quote]hmm87 wrote:

[quote]NickViar wrote:

[quote]hmm87 wrote:
But you said you have your doubts about certain parts. so you can’t for sure know what god really ordered.
[/quote]

See my above response, and it’s called faith for a reason.[/quote]

You said you had less faith in parts that you felt contradicted the first commandment. so right here you’re admitting to picking and choosing. if you have faith in god and the bible why not have faith in all of it? you said it yourself that god can do no wrong so these contradictions should be perfectly fine if you have faith. but yet you still have doubts.[/quote]

Did you read the response to which I referred you? I clarified my position and said that the Bible itself is not contradictory-human interpretation is. [/quote]

Yes I did read your response. But you’re really not making any sense. You claim that the Bible is not contradictory yet you claim parts are. It shouldn’t matter to you if human interpretation is flawed since you already ‘know’ that the Bible is not. So there shouldn’t be any doubts about any parts unless of course you’re picking and choosing what you like. I find it amazing that God would create these rules for us to follow, rules that are so crucial that he makes us in such a way that we can’t even understand them because our interpretation is flawed. [/quote]

Again, the Bible is not a Twilight novel. You have to use a great deal of prayer (or meditation for some) and critical thought. It’s an instruction manual for life. If it seems contradictory, dig deeper. I admit, it can be confusing and it’s not easy. It requires a great deal of study.

It’s a unique text unlike any other.

[hmm87]

[quote]NickViar wrote:

[quote]hmm87 wrote:
Yes I did read your response. But you’re really not making any sense. You claim that the Bible is not contradictory yet you claim parts are. It shouldn’t matter to you if human interpretation is flawed since you already ‘know’ that the Bible is not. So there shouldn’t be any doubts about any parts unless of course you’re picking and choosing what you like. I find it amazing that God would create these rules for us to follow, rules that are so crucial that he makes us in such a way that we can’t even understand them because our interpretation is flawed. [/quote]

Again, the Bible itself is not contradictory-human interpretation can be. It doesn’t matter to me that human interpretation is, and that’s the only way it can be-humans are humans. I wrote a quick post or two and they came out wrong. I corrected myself. I, like almost everyone who talks about any religion, allowed myself to conflate the teachings of the deity with the teachings of the followers and others. I find it amazing that we exist.[/quote]

So you’re now saying you have no doubts?

[hmm87]

[quote]NorCal916 wrote:

[quote]hmm87 wrote:

[quote]NickViar wrote:

[quote]hmm87 wrote:

[quote]NickViar wrote:

[quote]hmm87 wrote:
But you said you have your doubts about certain parts. so you can’t for sure know what god really ordered.
[/quote]

See my above response, and it’s called faith for a reason.[/quote]

You said you had less faith in parts that you felt contradicted the first commandment. so right here you’re admitting to picking and choosing. if you have faith in god and the bible why not have faith in all of it? you said it yourself that god can do no wrong so these contradictions should be perfectly fine if you have faith. but yet you still have doubts.[/quote]

Did you read the response to which I referred you? I clarified my position and said that the Bible itself is not contradictory-human interpretation is. [/quote]

Yes I did read your response. But you’re really not making any sense. You claim that the Bible is not contradictory yet you claim parts are. It shouldn’t matter to you if human interpretation is flawed since you already ‘know’ that the Bible is not. So there shouldn’t be any doubts about any parts unless of course you’re picking and choosing what you like. I find it amazing that God would create these rules for us to follow, rules that are so crucial that he makes us in such a way that we can’t even understand them because our interpretation is flawed. [/quote]

Again, the Bible is not a Twilight novel. You have to use a great deal of prayer (or meditation for some) and critical thought. It’s an instruction manual for life. If it seems contradictory, dig deeper. I admit, it can be confusing and it’s not easy. It requires a great deal of study.

It’s a unique text unlike any other.
[/quote]

I didn’t say it was contradictory. NickViar said it was, but now it seems he has changed his mind.

[hmm87]

[quote]NorCal916 wrote:

[quote]angry chicken wrote:
It should be noted that this discussion has been underway for the better part of an hour and there are NO CHRISTIANS jumping in to answer any of these challenges.

What’s wrong, cat got your tongue?

Or could it be that you feel safer burying your head in the sand because you can’t defend the actions of YOUR “god”?

“I’m not going to have a debate with a BIGOT like you who OBVIOUSLY hates Christians”…

That one is getting kinda old. TRANSLATION:

“I don’t want to confront the dark side of christianity because it challenges my belief system and I’m too much of a coward to do that - that’s why I’m a member of a flock, because I’m a fucking SHEEP. I do what I’m told and I believe EVERYTHING I was taught, cuz I’m a GOOOOOOD CHRISTIAN!”

And you WONDER why King James translated the bible! You couldn’t ASK for a more perfect devise to control a population![/quote]

I will try to touch on some things that you have addressed in several posts. First, my religion is grounded in faith. Faith is belief in the absence of proof. God made this intentional, and also all the “rebuttals” of Christianity and the Bible. Without this, why have faith? Faith must persevere through arguments, strong arguments, made against it. So I have faith that the Bible I read God has provided for me.

And remember, stories are told through a variety of ways. Literal accounts, figurative speech, parables, metaphors, allegory, you name it. The Bible is meant to be taken both literally and figuratively. Just like we talk today.

“Man, I was late today! I was flying down the interstate!” Was I really flying?

We should not conclude that everyone will agree on the exact meaning of every single statement the Bible makes. But people don’t agree on the meaning of every single statement of Shakespeare, the President of the United States, or even the meaning of federal and state laws (and laws are virtually always made to be crystal clear and understood literally!). Nor will they ever all agree on the meaning of every single scripture. Furthermore, even if they did agree on the meaning of every scripture, they would not agree on every single doctrine, because scriptures must often be combined to understand a single doctrine.

So, I take the literal statements literally, and the figurative statements figuratively. I use my common sense, my experience, and my knowledge of language and grammar to know the difference and to determine what the figures of speech mean. Along with historical context of course.

But this is not about the defense of the Bible. I simple say this is what I base my morality on. I believe what I believe. I feel religion creates the most time-tested foundation our world has when it come to laws and moral conduct.

Now I ask you, what do YOU base your morality on? You don’t have to belittle religion to state and defend yours.

[/quote]

Why would god make such important messages so cryptic? In the end you have no idea if your interpretation is correct.

[hmm87]

[quote]NorCal916 wrote:

[quote]hmm87 wrote:

[quote]NickViar wrote:

[quote]hmm87 wrote:

[quote]NickViar wrote:

[quote]hmm87 wrote:
But you said you have your doubts about certain parts. so you can’t for sure know what god really ordered.
[/quote]

See my above response, and it’s called faith for a reason.[/quote]

You said you had less faith in parts that you felt contradicted the first commandment. so right here you’re admitting to picking and choosing. if you have faith in god and the bible why not have faith in all of it? you said it yourself that god can do no wrong so these contradictions should be perfectly fine if you have faith. but yet you still have doubts.[/quote]

Did you read the response to which I referred you? I clarified my position and said that the Bible itself is not contradictory-human interpretation is. [/quote]

Yes I did read your response. But you’re really not making any sense. You claim that the Bible is not contradictory yet you claim parts are. It shouldn’t matter to you if human interpretation is flawed since you already ‘know’ that the Bible is not. So there shouldn’t be any doubts about any parts unless of course you’re picking and choosing what you like. I find it amazing that God would create these rules for us to follow, rules that are so crucial that he makes us in such a way that we can’t even understand them because our interpretation is flawed. [/quote]

Again, the Bible is not a Twilight novel. You have to use a great deal of prayer (or meditation for some) and critical thought. It’s an instruction manual for life. If it seems contradictory, dig deeper. I admit, it can be confusing and it’s not easy. It requires a great deal of study.

It’s a unique text unlike any other.
[/quote]

It can be interpreted in many different ways. It’s subjective.

[hmm87]

[quote]NorCal916 wrote:

[quote]hmm87 wrote:

[quote]NorCal916 wrote:

[quote]hmm87 wrote:

[quote]NickViar wrote:

[quote]hmm87 wrote:
where in your religion is being gay immoral?

My morality is subjective. I choose not to do things to others as i would not like done to myself.[/quote]

I assume that NorCal916 is a Christian. One man having sex with another is a sin in Christianity. Following the Golden Rule is certainly a good practice, but I’m not sure how much it has to do with this topic…I doubt that it’s the sole source of your morality, and if it is, that sort of lends credence to SexMachine’s talk about homosexuality and pedophilia(nothing wrong with having sex with a child if you would have no problem with a child having sex with you, right?).[/quote]

I in no away agree with pedophilia but can you please point me to the part in the bible where it states the age one becomes an adult.
[/quote]

Society and times were much different over 2000 years ago. That applies to both the religious and non-religious. It would not have mad since to give out an arbitrary number, hence that’s why none was given. If you read the verses, and understand the Bible, your sense of right and wrong will be clearly defined.

I could give you plenty of verses, but you would be dismissive. Start with Gen 1:1 and begin there.
[/quote]

we could save time if you would just provide the verses[/quote]

Ephesians, chapter 6 and verse four.
Colossians 2
Mark 9
Matthew as said
Etc.
[/quote]
I don’t see where it states the age a person becomes an adult. NickaViar says once a girl can become pregnant then it’s OK despite age.

[Ironskape]

The normalisation of homosexuality and the redefining of the institution of marriage constitutes a radical cultural shift that affects the whole of society. Example: legalising heroin wouldn’t directly and measurably affect me, however it would radically affect the society I live in for the worse.

So, it affects because it affects?

You’re not answering my question. “Affects society” doesn’t mean anything. Tell me how gay people getting married would negatively affect you beyond you not liking gay people are getting married.

If I were gay, I would accept that the rest of society doesn’t want to change to accommodate my unusual relationship.

Because you’ve accepted society’s shift towards accepting homosexuality with such grace.

If you had some personal story relevant to the discussion then okay. So maybe you tell your doctor if it’s relevant or whatever. But you have yet to explain what relevance it has to the discussion. But anyway, I don’t see any point in going on about it. As I said, my point was it shouldn’t be a fundamental aspect of your identity.

I won’t explain again why my being a member of the section of society being discussed in this topic is relevant. I’ll just say that I get to decide the components of my identity, not you.

You’re the one throwing around pejoratives. I haven’t called you any names and I’ve been respectful to you in this discussion. You have not returned that respect.

pe�·jo�·ra�·tive
p�?�?j�´r�?div/
adjective
1.
expressing contempt or disapproval.

You’ve expressed contempt and disapproval of the gay community, have you not?

Maybe you should look at the rest of the world and reconsider. Not wanting to sanction a radical redefinition of the institution of marriage does not constitute “hate”. As I said, what you do in your private life is of no concern to me. I don’t wish to interfere in your private relationships. By the same token, you should respect the beliefs of other people and the social norms and mores of our society

I do respect the beliefs of other people. If your religion says that homosexuality is wrong, I will fully support your right to not to engage in homosexual acts. By proxy, should gay marriage be legalized, I wouldn’t want to force anyone into a gay marriage in which they don’t want to be involved.

But that’s not what’s happening. You’re telling me that, because of your beliefs, I shouldn’t be able to do something. You’ve yet to provide any reason why gay marriage would harm society beyond “I don’t like it”.

I don’t like a lot of things that people do. But as long as no one is harmed, I don’t see how it’s my business to tell them they can’t do whatever it is they’re doing.

How to be a woman. How to be a mother?

Another circular argument. I ask what aspects of being a mother aren’t being met, and you respond with “how to be a mother”.

You’ve just ignored what I said and continued with your strawman. I said:

It’s not a cause it’s a symptom.

You’re responding to a quote within a quote, something I had previously said. My fault, really, for some reason I can’t figure out this damn quote format…

Much of humanity, particularly the third world, is not in decline. Western civilisation is in decline. You cannot argue against this; the stats are overwhelming. Japan is the most extreme example. The replacement level fertility rate is 2.0. Japan is 1.27 if I remember correctly.

Can’t argue? Here’s the result of a five second google search for “US population by year”

https://www.google.com/fusiontables/DataSource?dsrcid=225439#rows:id=1

The US has thirty goddam million more people than we did ten years ago.

Maybe Japan is just responding in a straightforward and logical way to rampant overpopulation?

I didn’t ask for yours. Again, I’m not interested in a statistics war. I merely provided what you asked for.

Because why would you possibly want to see evidence for an opposing opinion. Also:

And what does that fact alone tell you? 2-3% of the population is gay(at most), yet 26% of the sex offenders here abused boys.

You say you’re not interested in a statistics war, and then in the very next sentence start spouting statistics.

I’ve already explained why I think a study from 1988 with a tiny sample size lifted from a single hospital that failed to disclose its measurement procedures isn’t valid proof for your argument.

The 40% stat is from another source; happy to try to dig it up if you want.

Please do.

If a man abuses a boy it’s safe to say he’s sexually attracted to males no?

If a man rapes another man in prison, it’s safe to say he’s sexually attracted to men, no?

Rape is about power, not attraction.

That’s not actually what I said. I said in gay culture, sexual attraction to boys is mainstream. That’s not to say molesting children is the norm.

Sexual attraction to boys is not mainstream in gay culture. I want to know where you get this from. Because since I’m actually part of…oh, wait, that’s apparently not relevant.

Not at all. I even suggested you get married to a woman if you want to raise a family. My point was a family with a mother and a father is a far better environment for children.

A family that doesn’t include the man I love is the only one you deem acceptable. That’s why I think you’re a bigot. A bigot is a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices.

I’m not trying to change who you are or what you do. I don’t want you to be forced to marry a man. I don’t want to take your kids from you to raise them to be part of my gay agenda. I don’t want to take away a straight couple’s right to marry, something implied by my “attacking traditional marriage”. But your decision to vehemently oppose granting me access to an institution that would enrich my life, my husband’s life, and the lives of any children we have together, without any justification or evidence of potential for harm beyond your own personal opposition to the concept is insulting.

[SexMachine]

[quote]angry chicken wrote:

If I can destroy the argument of the moral superiority of christianity, then I can take the foundation of their argument away from the discussion at hand.[/quote]

Up to your usual tricks I see. Only, no one here is saying I’m against gay marriage because the sky boss said it’s wrong. So can you “destroy the argument of the moral superiority of Christianity” somewhere else and not derail the thread please?