Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


* * * * * 1 votes

Gay Marriage


  • Please log in to reply
1006 replies to this topic

#976    Kazoo

Kazoo

    Apparition

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 310 posts
  • Joined:26 Jul 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Where the old one sleeps.

  • “What a treacherous thing to believe that a person is more than a person.”

Posted 08 September 2012 - 09:11 PM

Quote

You need to explain your posture to the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force and the Lambda Legal Defense and Educational Fund who were carrying the signs in front of Capitol Hill calling for “Change Now.”  The gay organization Act Up has also called for an immediate change for the legal recognition of “gay rights.”  Maybe you have the insight to recognize that this is not possible but it is not shared by many who share your cause.

Expect and demand are two very different things. They don't expect that to happen. They WANT it too happen. And of course they want it faster. Can you blame them to want to accomplish a goal faster?


Quote

You insist that my reference to black liberation is “silly” and if you believe it, it must come from a lack of knowledge about history.  You call marriage a contract and that it has no relationship to the black freedom movement or the civil rights protests of the 60s.  But when did blacks gain the right to marry a white person?  Was that not a contract?  Were they denied to participate in it?  So what’s so silly?

It is still silly.  Thats only a small portion of the entire movement that issimilar to this. Honestly the right to marry a white person would be the last thing on my mind if I was just freed from slavery. Which is why it was one of the last right to be given. So yes that small part of the movement was similar to this. But to call the entire struggle of slavery similar to this?  That is STILL silly.



Quote

So if it takes a hundred years, it’s okay, right?  Good.  And when that happens the LAW will give gays the RIGHT to marry and have their relationship recognized.  No semantics, just plain logic.

It probably won't take 100 years.  I never said it will be okay. I just said in that scenario it would still not even compare in the struggle from freedom of slavery.

Once again you make the assumption people are logical. Huge mistake. You think history can fall under your textbook definition of "THIS HAPPEN BEFORE. SO THIS WILL HAPPEN NOW". Even thought the thing you are comparing it too is barely alike. You seem  to thing everything falls into some sort of complete logical over arching pattern of history.

Edited by Kazoo, 08 September 2012 - 09:16 PM.

"The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of one's time defending scoundrels. For it is against scoundrels that oppressive laws are first aimed, and oppression must be stopped at the beginning if it is to be stopped at all." - H.L. Mencken

#977    TheBanana

TheBanana

    Apparition

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 372 posts
  • Joined:05 Sep 2011
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:rochdale, uk

  • please dont eat me!

Posted 08 September 2012 - 09:18 PM

View PostDr. D, on 08 September 2012 - 08:13 PM, said:

Only if you choose to believe that a right becomes a reality simply because you want it; that you possess this mystical right that everyone is keeping from you.  Do you think heterosexuals have the “right” to marry?  They do not.  They have legal permission to marry once they comply with the laws and standards governing that institution.  There are prohibitions concerning kinship and age.  Some Mormons still believe they have the “right” to more than one wife but they are denied that privilege by mandates of law. There are blood tests and licenses and a full set of legal obligations agreed to by accepting the ceremony.

Silly and far fetched?  How long will it take for gays to have the right to marry?  They can go to some states to do it, but they have to return there to divorce and their marriage will not be recognized in the vast majority of states.  With a strong conservative presence in Congress, do you really think a vote is soon on the political horizon?  If it happened, how long would the collection of state appeals take?  A hundred years?  Just like black emancipation?   And it’s all far fetched and silly?

what laws and standards are there that gay people would have to comply with if they want to be legally married? if marriage changes so it is not just between a man and a woman, there will still be prohibitions on kinship and age.

people cant marry their sister/cousin/dad because of the genetic aspect of it, that if incest was seen as acceptable, babies would be born with genetic problems, especially if the descendants of the incestuous couple also married a relative. if gay marriage was legal, there would still be rules about incest (even if it isnt such a big problem because not being able to concieve naturally prevents genetic abnormalities that come from incest. maybe it would be seen as unfair for a man to be able to marry his brother but not his sister, and they wouldnt want people thinking hetrosexual incest should be allowed too?)

if gay marriage is legal, obviously there would still be age limits. just like it is with straight people getting married, and just like the age of consent is still the same for both straight and gay couples. this would stay in place because there is a reason why teenagers cant get married-because theyre not yet responsible to handle that choice, and theres a reason why a relationship between a 30 year old and a 14 year old is wrong, because of the inbalance of power in that relationship with one being so much older and taking advantage of the younger one, who is not yet an adult and able to make adult decisions. marriage would still be limited to adults, whether they are men or women or both, and would still not make pedophilia ok.

being able to marry more than one person...not something i really have a problem with (i have a friend who is in a relationship involving two women and a man who all love eachother), within reason of course. all people involved must have to be consenting, someone cant just go off and get married without telling their existing partner(s?). and obviously it still woudnt be ok for someone to marry 3 13 year olds, or marry two of their cousins (but what about the guy who is with two sisters and their cousin and none of them are doing anything sexual with eachother)...i think the reason why it was banned was because of men who were having loads of wives and treating them unfairly.


View PostDr. D, on 08 September 2012 - 08:57 PM, said:

You need to explain your posture to the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force and the Lambda Legal Defense and Educational Fund who were carrying the signs in front of Capitol Hill calling for “Change Now.”  The gay organization Act Up has also called for an immediate change for the legal recognition of “gay rights.”  Maybe you have the insight to recognize that this is not possible but it is not shared by many who share your cause.

You insist that my reference to black liberation is “silly” and if you believe it, it must come from a lack of knowledge about history.  You call marriage a contract and that it has no relationship to the black freedom movement or the civil rights protests of the 60s.  But when did blacks gain the right to marry a white person?  Was that not a contract?  Were they denied to participate in it?  So what’s so silly?

So if it takes a hundred years, it’s okay, right?  Good.  And when that happens the LAW will give gays the RIGHT to marry and have their relationship recognized.  No semantics, just plain logic.

yeah, but no reason why not to allow gay people to marry now. there was loads of opposition to slavery being banned, loads of opposition to women being allowed to vote....but once laws are passed to allow it, society will change to be more accepting.

it may take 100 years for being gay to be seen as completely acceptable and not an issue, judging by how there are still racists and sexists out there, but theres no reason not to start that progress yet, as the first step in changing society seems to be changing the laws.

*~Kay, Banana Queen and admin of TheMostHauntedForum.com~*

#978    Dr. D

Dr. D

    Alien Abducter

  • Member
  • 5,275 posts
  • Joined:15 Mar 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Mexico

  • I love being me even though sometimes I'm still a stranger.

Posted 08 September 2012 - 09:49 PM

View PostTheBanana, on 08 September 2012 - 09:18 PM, said:

what laws and standards are there that gay people would have to comply with if they want to be legally married? if marriage changes so it is not just between a man and a woman, there will still be prohibitions on kinship and age.

people cant marry their sister/cousin/dad because of the genetic aspect of it, that if incest was seen as acceptable, babies would be born with genetic problems, especially if the descendants of the incestuous couple also married a relative. if gay marriage was legal, there would still be rules about incest (even if it isnt such a big problem because not being able to concieve naturally prevents genetic abnormalities that come from incest. maybe it would be seen as unfair for a man to be able to marry his brother but not his sister, and they wouldnt want people thinking hetrosexual incest should be allowed too?)

if gay marriage is legal, obviously there would still be age limits. just like it is with straight people getting married, and just like the age of consent is still the same for both straight and gay couples. this would stay in place because there is a reason why teenagers cant get married-because theyre not yet responsible to handle that choice, and theres a reason why a relationship between a 30 year old and a 14 year old is wrong, because of the inbalance of power in that relationship with one being so much older and taking advantage of the younger one, who is not yet an adult and able to make adult decisions. marriage would still be limited to adults, whether they are men or women or both, and would still not make pedophilia ok.

being able to marry more than one person...not something i really have a problem with (i have a friend who is in a relationship involving two women and a man who all love eachother), within reason of course. all people involved must have to be consenting, someone cant just go off and get married without telling their existing partner(s?). and obviously it still woudnt be ok for someone to marry 3 13 year olds, or marry two of their cousins (but what about the guy who is with two sisters and their cousin and none of them are doing anything sexual with eachother)...i think the reason why it was banned was because of men who were having loads of wives and treating them unfairly.




yeah, but no reason why not to allow gay people to marry now. there was loads of opposition to slavery being banned, loads of opposition to women being allowed to vote....but once laws are passed to allow it, society will change to be more accepting.

it may take 100 years for being gay to be seen as completely acceptable and not an issue, judging by how there are still racists and sexists out there, but theres no reason not to start that progress yet, as the first step in changing society seems to be changing the laws.

View PostTheBanana, on 08 September 2012 - 09:18 PM, said:

what laws and standards are there that gay people would have to comply with if they want to be legally married? if marriage changes so it is not just between a man and a woman, there will still be prohibitions on kinship and age.

people cant marry their sister/cousin/dad because of the genetic aspect of it, that if incest was seen as acceptable, babies would be born with genetic problems, especially if the descendants of the incestuous couple also married a relative. if gay marriage was legal, there would still be rules about incest (even if it isnt such a big problem because not being able to concieve naturally prevents genetic abnormalities that come from incest. maybe it would be seen as unfair for a man to be able to marry his brother but not his sister, and they wouldnt want people thinking hetrosexual incest should be allowed too?)

if gay marriage is legal, obviously there would still be age limits. just like it is with straight people getting married, and just like the age of consent is still the same for both straight and gay couples. this would stay in place because there is a reason why teenagers cant get married-because theyre not yet responsible to handle that choice, and theres a reason why a relationship between a 30 year old and a 14 year old is wrong, because of the inbalance of power in that relationship with one being so much older and taking advantage of the younger one, who is not yet an adult and able to make adult decisions. marriage would still be limited to adults, whether they are men or women or both, and would still not make pedophilia ok.

being able to marry more than one person...not something i really have a problem with (i have a friend who is in a relationship involving two women and a man who all love eachother), within reason of course. all people involved must have to be consenting, someone cant just go off and get married without telling their existing partner(s?). and obviously it still woudnt be ok for someone to marry 3 13 year olds, or marry two of their cousins (but what about the guy who is with two sisters and their cousin and none of them are doing anything sexual with eachother)...i think the reason why it was banned was because of men who were having loads of wives and treating them unfairly.




yeah, but no reason why not to allow gay people to marry now. there was loads of opposition to slavery being banned, loads of opposition to women being allowed to vote....but once laws are passed to allow it, society will change to be more accepting.

it may take 100 years for being gay to be seen as completely acceptable and not an issue, judging by how there are still racists and sexists out there, but theres no reason not to start that progress yet, as the first step in changing society seems to be changing the laws.

Basically, we are in agreement.


#979    Dr. D

Dr. D

    Alien Abducter

  • Member
  • 5,275 posts
  • Joined:15 Mar 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Mexico

  • I love being me even though sometimes I'm still a stranger.

Posted 08 September 2012 - 10:40 PM

View Postshadowhive, on 08 September 2012 - 09:05 PM, said:

The thing I find surprising about your argument is that you seem so surprised that people want change now. Of course they want change now! They want change to happen in their lifetimes so what are they doing? They're trying to make it happen. If they sat at home and waited for change, no change would occur.

Change requires people behind it and those calling for change are calling because they want it to benefit them. Is that so silly? Not really. Other rights movements were filled with people that wanted change in their lifetimes. Is it a high expectation? Sure, but I honestly don't get why you act so surprised that it's one people would have.

Who said I was surprised?  I only said that when compared to other rights movements, it will take a very long time.  One poster stated that no one expected it to happen quickly and I reminded them of the gay activist organizations calling for change now, that’s all.


#980    Dr. D

Dr. D

    Alien Abducter

  • Member
  • 5,275 posts
  • Joined:15 Mar 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Mexico

  • I love being me even though sometimes I'm still a stranger.

Posted 08 September 2012 - 10:51 PM

View PostKazoo, on 08 September 2012 - 09:11 PM, said:

Expect and demand are two very different things. They don't expect that to happen. They WANT it too happen. And of course they want it faster. Can you blame them to want to accomplish a goal faster?

It is still silly.  Thats only a small portion of the entire movement that issimilar to this. Honestly the right to marry a white person would be the last thing on my mind if I was just freed from slavery. Which is why it was one of the last right to be given. So yes that small part of the movement was similar to this. But to call the entire struggle of slavery similar to this?  That is STILL silly.

It probably won't take 100 years.  I never said it will be okay. I just said in that scenario it would still not even compare in the struggle from freedom of slavery.

Once again you make the assumption people are logical. Huge mistake. You think history can fall under your textbook definition of "THIS HAPPEN BEFORE. SO THIS WILL HAPPEN NOW". Even thought the thing you are comparing it too is barely alike. You seem  to thing everything falls into some sort of complete logical over arching pattern of history.

I think what’s silly is your insistence.  How easy it is to minimize the desire of others while defending your own.  How irresponsible to ignore the grievances of others while promoting your own.  It took 45 years of legal action to permit interracial marriage.  One hundred and seventy one couples were sent to jails and prisons.  They faced the same . . . . exactly the same . . . . problem as gays face today.  They could marry in some states and be arrested in others.

What would be on your mind if you were a freed slave doesn’t mean a hot damn.  History speaks for itself and if you think the similarities are incidental or unassociated, you need to read more.  And don’t misquote me.  The only reference I made about slavery was that the process to obtain complete freedom (including interracial marriage) took a hundred years.


#981    Kazoo

Kazoo

    Apparition

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 310 posts
  • Joined:26 Jul 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Where the old one sleeps.

  • “What a treacherous thing to believe that a person is more than a person.”

Posted 08 September 2012 - 11:11 PM

View PostDr. D, on 08 September 2012 - 10:51 PM, said:

I think what’s silly is your insistence.  How easy it is to minimize the desire of others while defending your own.  How irresponsible to ignore the grievances of others while promoting your own.  It took 45 years of legal action to permit interracial marriage.  One hundred and seventy one couples were sent to jails and prisons.  They faced the same . . . . exactly the same . . . . problem as gays face today.  They could marry in some states and be arrested in others.

What would be on your mind if you were a freed slave doesn’t mean a hot damn.  History speaks for itself and if you think the similarities are incidental or unassociated, you need to read more.  And don’t misquote me.  The only reference I made about slavery was that the process to obtain complete freedom (including interracial marriage) took a hundred years.

You completely missed the point and is now taking the emotion "You are a monster!" route.

I can't respond to this with a logical response because its not really a logical reason. Its an emotional one.

I'm saying you comparing the the entire overalls struggle of slavery to some peoples right to a contract is silly.  I said it around 3 times. And it is. It took a hundred years for slaves to get a lots of rights. Gay people just want 1 simple one. And you for some reason think that will take a hundred years. Which is illogical to compare the struggle of an entire race to gain equality to some people who want a right for a contract and say it will take the same amount of time.

I can't explain it any clearer. You seem to find them similar just because 1 part of the entire struggle is similar. Sure the interracial marriage thing is similar. But you don't not just say inter-racial marriage. Sure maybe it will take 45 years to legalize gay marriage everywhere in america. Thats much more reasonable. But I like to think we come further then that in tolerance. Plus we don't hang gay people. We don't arrest them. We just sometimes deny them a right to contract. So to compare them is still not the most accurate.

I don't know what else to say to you to tell you that that was an overall inaccurate comparison and I can assure you it will probably not take 100 years just for some people to have the right or law or whatever the hell you want to call it to get the right to marriage.


You are allowed to say that inter-racial marriage is similar. Thats true. But be more specific in your examples next time.

"The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of one's time defending scoundrels. For it is against scoundrels that oppressive laws are first aimed, and oppression must be stopped at the beginning if it is to be stopped at all." - H.L. Mencken

#982    Beckys_Mom

Beckys_Mom

    Sarcastic Muppet..!

  • Member
  • 51,193 posts
  • Joined:01 Nov 2005
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Ireland

  • "I hate pretentious people. I mean, what is the point in applying exorbitantly extensive vocabulary, it is just straightforwardly unnecessary".

Posted 08 September 2012 - 11:17 PM

View PostDr. D, on 06 September 2012 - 11:08 PM, said:

  The difference is that these cases of pedophilia occur five times more with homosexuals and it is ludicrous to put on rose colored glasses, pretend it's not true and then say you're not defending them by doing it.

Right...so basically the little girls who were found raped and abused  ( usually left in a ditch ) were done by the"odd" heterosexual male  ( because the victims were females so we cant run with gays on that one can we? ) .. I guess if you read about little boys  ( in a catholic church..were no girls are )  who are sexually abused over time.. that must mean..gays...and this means all of the priests who did these acts...were just ..........gay?   I am trying to narrow this down in my head in order to connect with this  line of thinking  ( bare with me ) ..So, If a paedophile sexually abuses both boys and girls  ( they will take any young child they find )  are.... bi-sexual offenders ?..

I found this.. ( and a few like it )

According to the American Psychological Association, "homosexual men are not more likely to sexually abuse children than heterosexual men are." Gregory Herek, a professor at the University of California, Davis, who is one of the nation's leading researchers on prejudice against sexual minorities, reviewed a series of studies and found no evidence that gay men molest children at higher rates than heterosexual men.
Anti-gay activists who make that claim allege that all men who molest male children should be seen as homosexual. But research by A. Nicholas Groth, a pioneer in the field of sexual abuse of children, shows that is not so. Groth found that there are two types of child molesters: fixated and regressive. The fixated child molester — the stereotypical pedophile — cannot be considered homosexual or heterosexual because "he often finds adults of either sex repulsive" and often molests children of both sexes. Regressive child molesters are generally attracted to other adults, but may "regress" to focusing on children when confronted with stressful situations. Groth found that the majority of regressed offenders were heterosexual in their adult relationships.
The Child Molestation Research and Prevention Institute notes that 90% of child molesters target children in their network of family and friends. Most child molesters, therefore, are not gay people lingering outside schools waiting to snatch children from the playground, as much religious-right rhetoric suggests.   http://www.splcenter...winter/10-myths  

Anyhoo..I have no idea why  this thread  ( lasting over 66 odd pages )  has went on to discussing paedophilia and who does it more than who?   When the thread is about  - Gay Marriage.....  This thread sure takes leaps and bounds eh Doc ?

Edited by Beckys_Mom, 09 September 2012 - 12:02 AM.

Posted ImageRAW Berris... Dare you enter?

If there's a heaven...I hope to hell I get there !

#983    Dr. D

Dr. D

    Alien Abducter

  • Member
  • 5,275 posts
  • Joined:15 Mar 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Mexico

  • I love being me even though sometimes I'm still a stranger.

Posted 08 September 2012 - 11:51 PM

I'm saying you comparing the the entire overalls struggle of slavery to some peoples right to a contract is silly. I said it around 3 times. And it is. It took a hundred years for slaves to get a lots of rights. Gay people just want 1 simple one. And you for some reason think that will take a hundred years. Which is illogical to compare the struggle of an entire race to gain equality to some people who want a right for a contract and say it will take the same amount of time.

It is not one right and hardly simple.  The legalization of gay marriage includes the right for adoption which is a totally different and complex issue; hardly one right and hardly simple.

Conservatives use the health record of gays to question insurance coverage to spouses and it becomes yet another issue.  You can over-simplify it all you want but a Congress hawking America as a Christian nation will be assaulted by churches claiming that homosexual marriage is an attempt to redefine the institution as it has existed from the very beginning of human history.  They will claim that permitting gay marriage is legalizing immorality.  Sociologists will maintain that gay marriage is a social experiment with no guarantee of the consequences.  States with conservative constituencies will appeal any passage of a gay marriage bill.  Violation of state’s rights will be claimed if any federal effort is made to pass a gay marriage law.

And this process will take less than three generations?  In your dreams.  But you can believe it will be quicker if you choose.  The first suffrage movement for a woman’s right to vote was in 1756 and women got that right in 1920.  A simple thing.  164 years.

You are allowed to say that inter-racial marriage is similar. Thats true. But be more specific in your examples next time.

I am allowed to say anything I damned well please and I will remind you that you are not a mod and I will present my examples to my pleasure, not yours.


#984    TrueBeliever

TrueBeliever

    Remote Viewer

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 578 posts
  • Joined:10 Jun 2004
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:too cold here!

Posted 09 September 2012 - 12:02 AM

View Postand then, on 03 August 2012 - 09:57 PM, said:

TB don't you find it the least bit confusing that a gay couple actually WANT the blessing of a religious entity?  Many States have civil unions with most if not all the legal rights of a married couple but it's not enough for many in this debate.  Many of the most vocal pro gay marriage want exactly the same right including that a religious marriage ceremony be available in a church where the members disagree.  This is the only thing concerning gay marriage that offends me.

oh I do find it very weird. But I find much of religious belief contradictory and weird, why can't gays have the same opportunity as the rest of the flock? I find it strange any woman would be involved in christianity seeing as how long they were oppressed by bible quoting men. Holding a gay person to a separate standard or set of expectations seems unfair to me.


#985    TrueBeliever

TrueBeliever

    Remote Viewer

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 578 posts
  • Joined:10 Jun 2004
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:too cold here!

Posted 09 September 2012 - 12:17 AM

View PostDr. D, on 08 September 2012 - 11:51 PM, said:

I'm saying you comparing the the entire overalls struggle of slavery to some peoples right to a contract is silly. I said it around 3 times. And it is. It took a hundred years for slaves to get a lots of rights. Gay people just want 1 simple one. And you for some reason think that will take a hundred years. Which is illogical to compare the struggle of an entire race to gain equality to some people who want a right for a contract and say it will take the same amount of time.

It is not one right and hardly simple.  The legalization of gay marriage includes the right for adoption which is a totally different and complex issue; hardly one right and hardly simple.

Conservatives use the health record of gays to question insurance coverage to spouses and it becomes yet another issue.  You can over-simplify it all you want but a Congress hawking America as a Christian nation will be assaulted by churches claiming that homosexual marriage is an attempt to redefine the institution as it has existed from the very beginning of human history.  They will claim that permitting gay marriage is legalizing immorality.  Sociologists will maintain that gay marriage is a social experiment with no guarantee of the consequences.  States with conservative constituencies will appeal any passage of a gay marriage bill.  Violation of state’s rights will be claimed if any federal effort is made to pass a gay marriage law.

And this process will take less than three generations?  In your dreams.  But you can believe it will be quicker if you choose.  The first suffrage movement for a woman’s right to vote was in 1756 and women got that right in 1920.  A simple thing.  164 years.

You are allowed to say that inter-racial marriage is similar. Thats true. But be more specific in your examples next time.

I am allowed to say anything I damned well please and I will remind you that you are not a mod and I will present my examples to my pleasure, not yours.

I think if we had social network sites and more world travel and the communication devices we now have back then....things might have sped up a bit. Ideas don't move around as slow they use to......times they are a-changing! It may be quicker, but obviously it won't be overnight, that i sonly common sense.


#986    TrueBeliever

TrueBeliever

    Remote Viewer

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 578 posts
  • Joined:10 Jun 2004
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:too cold here!

Posted 09 September 2012 - 12:19 AM

View PostBeckys_Mom, on 08 September 2012 - 11:17 PM, said:

Right...so basically the little girls who were found raped and abused  ( usually left in a ditch ) were done by the"odd" heterosexual male  ( because the victims were females so we cant run with gays on that one can we? ) .. I guess if you read about little boys  ( in a catholic church..were no girls are )  who are sexually abused over time.. that must mean..gays...and this means all of the priests who did these acts...were just ..........gay?   I am trying to narrow this down in my head in order to connect with this  line of thinking  ( bare with me ) ..So, If a paedophile sexually abuses both boys and girls  ( they will take any young child they find )  are.... bi-sexual offenders ?..

I found this.. ( and a few like it )

According to the American Psychological Association, "homosexual men are not more likely to sexually abuse children than heterosexual men are." Gregory Herek, a professor at the University of California, Davis, who is one of the nation's leading researchers on prejudice against sexual minorities, reviewed a series of studies and found no evidence that gay men molest children at higher rates than heterosexual men.
Anti-gay activists who make that claim allege that all men who molest male children should be seen as homosexual. But research by A. Nicholas Groth, a pioneer in the field of sexual abuse of children, shows that is not so. Groth found that there are two types of child molesters: fixated and regressive. The fixated child molester — the stereotypical pedophile — cannot be considered homosexual or heterosexual because "he often finds adults of either sex repulsive" and often molests children of both sexes. Regressive child molesters are generally attracted to other adults, but may "regress" to focusing on children when confronted with stressful situations. Groth found that the majority of regressed offenders were heterosexual in their adult relationships.
The Child Molestation Research and Prevention Institute notes that 90% of child molesters target children in their network of family and friends. Most child molesters, therefore, are not gay people lingering outside schools waiting to snatch children from the playground, as much religious-right rhetoric suggests.   http://www.splcenter...winter/10-myths  

Anyhoo..I have no idea why  this thread  ( lasting over 66 odd pages )  has went on to discussing paedophilia and who does it more than who?   When the thread is about  - Gay Marriage.....  This thread sure takes leaps and bounds eh Doc ?

of course some have to resort to talk of pedophilia and such. It is an ad hominen attack for lack of anything substantial to say against the matter of gay marriage, so they attack 'being' gay itself and try to put being so  in a negative light.


#987    Dr. D

Dr. D

    Alien Abducter

  • Member
  • 5,275 posts
  • Joined:15 Mar 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Mexico

  • I love being me even though sometimes I'm still a stranger.

Posted 09 September 2012 - 12:27 AM

View PostBeckys_Mom, on 08 September 2012 - 11:17 PM, said:

Right...so basically the little girls who were found raped and abused  ( usually left in a ditch ) were done by the"odd" heterosexual male  ( because the victims were females so we cant run with gays on that one can we? ) .. I guess if you read about little boys  ( in a catholic church..were no girls are )  who are sexually abused over time.. that must mean..gays...and this means all of the priests who did these acts...were just ..........gay?   I am trying to narrow this down in my head in order to connect with this  line of thinking  ( bare with me ) ..So, If a paedophile sexually abuses both boys and girls  ( they will take any young child they find )  are.... bi-sexual offenders ?..

I found this.. ( and a few like it )

According to the American Psychological Association, "homosexual men are not more likely to sexually abuse children than heterosexual men are." Gregory Herek, a professor at the University of California, Davis, who is one of the nation's leading researchers on prejudice against sexual minorities, reviewed a series of studies and found no evidence that gay men molest children at higher rates than heterosexual men.
Anti-gay activists who make that claim allege that all men who molest male children should be seen as homosexual. But research by A. Nicholas Groth, a pioneer in the field of sexual abuse of children, shows that is not so. Groth found that there are two types of child molesters: fixated and regressive. The fixated child molester — the stereotypical pedophile — cannot be considered homosexual or heterosexual because "he often finds adults of either sex repulsive" and often molests children of both sexes. Regressive child molesters are generally attracted to other adults, but may "regress" to focusing on children when confronted with stressful situations. Groth found that the majority of regressed offenders were heterosexual in their adult relationships.
The Child Molestation Research and Prevention Institute notes that 90% of child molesters target children in their network of family and friends. Most child molesters, therefore, are not gay people lingering outside schools waiting to snatch children from the playground, as much religious-right rhetoric suggests.   http://www.splcenter...winter/10-myths  

Anyhoo..I have no idea why  this thread  ( lasting over 66 odd pages )  has went on to discussing paedophilia and who does it more than who?   When the thread is about  - Gay Marriage.....  This thread sure takes leaps and bounds eh Doc ?

Hi BM, good to talk with you again.

First of all, the American Psychological Association has been criticized by its own members for its generalizations in identifying the problem of pedophilia and having two consecutive gay presidents has not helped the situation.

But let’s talk about the Catholic Church scandals.  First of all, 81% of all the victims were boys which should provide a leading clue.  4,392 priests were accused of molesting or raping about 7,000 children who reported the incidents.  There is no doubt the number is much higher.

Are girls molested and raped by heterosexual nut cases?  Yes.  We can go as far back in history as we want and we will find cases.  But the greater questions is if society is doing anything to prevent those things from happening.  Are there programs for the victim and assailant?  Nothing can justify what was done but we must also examine corrective measures.

Donald Cozzen tells us that up to 58% of all priests are gay.  When 1,854 priests were surveyed, 44% reported that the community of priests had a “homosexual subculture.”  The gay activist, Elizabeth Stuart, states that at least a third of all priests are gay.  A 1980s report showed that priests were dying of AIDS four times more than in the general population.   Is it surprising that 81% of the victims were boys?

Father Bernard Lynch wrote in his book, ‘If it Wasn’t Love, Sex and God,’ “It is my belief that we were and are seriously arrested in our own psychosexual emotional development. As you know, unfortunately [with] a lot of priests who are guilty of the abuse of children, it's ephebophilia [sexual attraction to adolescents, usually aged 15 to 19], not pedophilia [attraction to prepubescent children]. In other words, they start off where they're left off. They start abusing kids who were their age when they entered seminary.”

A member of the clergy quoted by the magazine Panorama (July 12, 2010) put the proportion of gay priests in the Italian capital at 98%.  The Boston Globe reported as early as 2004, “Evidence suggests there are a significant number of gay men in the priesthood, and many homosexuals among the laity. The question of how the church should respond to gays within its ranks.”

What effort was made to prevent this monumental tragedy?  Priests were shuttled to other churches and their crimes concealed.  Cardinal Lay and the bishop convicted yesterday have paid the price for their complicity but the homosexual priests are still out there to prey on more.

I will say it again.  It is not that SOME gays commit crimes and that SOME heterosexuals commit crimes, it is the disproportionate numbers that cause concern.

While this forum has strayed into various topics, it serves only as evidence that the question is not one dimensional and must be considered in its widest form of benefit, consequence and feasibility.

Edited by Dr. D, 09 September 2012 - 12:30 AM.


#988    Dr. D

Dr. D

    Alien Abducter

  • Member
  • 5,275 posts
  • Joined:15 Mar 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Mexico

  • I love being me even though sometimes I'm still a stranger.

Posted 09 September 2012 - 12:28 AM

View PostTrueBeliever, on 09 September 2012 - 12:17 AM, said:

I think if we had social network sites and more world travel and the communication devices we now have back then....things might have sped up a bit. Ideas don't move around as slow they use to......times they are a-changing! It may be quicker, but obviously it won't be overnight, that i sonly common sense.

You may be right, but I doubt it.


#989    Kazoo

Kazoo

    Apparition

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 310 posts
  • Joined:26 Jul 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Where the old one sleeps.

  • “What a treacherous thing to believe that a person is more than a person.”

Posted 09 September 2012 - 12:34 AM

Quote

It is not one right and hardly simple.  The legalization of gay marriage includes the right for adoption which is a totally different and complex issue; hardly one right and hardly simple.

As far as I am aware the right to marriage does not include anything about adoption. At least in the countries I'm familiar with.

Quote

Conservatives use the health record of gays to question insurance coverage to spouses and it becomes yet another issue.  You can over-simplify it all you want but a Congress hawking America as a Christian nation will be assaulted by churches claiming that homosexual marriage is an attempt to redefine the institution as it has existed from the very beginning of human history.  They will claim that permitting gay marriage is legalizing immorality.  Sociologists will maintain that gay marriage is a social experiment with no guarantee of the consequences.  States with conservative constituencies will appeal any passage of a gay marriage bill.  Violation of state’s rights will be claimed if any federal effort is made to pass a gay marriage law.

I never said it was simple. I said it was simple compared to the slavery thing. I'm aware of your facts. Most people are.


Quote

And this process will take less than three generations?  In your dreams.  But you can believe it will be quicker if you choose.  The first suffrage movement for a woman’s right to vote was in 1756 and women got that right in 1920.  A simple thing.  164 years.

Another silly comparison.  Thats an entire half of the human population who have been second class citizens almost throughout all of history.



Quote

I am allowed to say anything I damned well please and I will remind you that you are not a mod and I will present my examples to my pleasure, not yours.

First off you are not allowed to say anything you "damn well" please.  Rules exist. And I do my best to get you to understand things threw your point of view. I like for you to understand my opinion. If not this entire discussion is pointless. The minimum I could ask you to do is try to get people to understand you.

Your not even bothering to get anyone to understand anything your saying. Your repeating. Your not clarifying.  If your not even going to bother to get people to understand you then I don't understand why you bother to discuss anything with anyone.

The more we discuss the more personal you seem to get.

Edited by Kazoo, 09 September 2012 - 12:42 AM.

"The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of one's time defending scoundrels. For it is against scoundrels that oppressive laws are first aimed, and oppression must be stopped at the beginning if it is to be stopped at all." - H.L. Mencken

#990    TrueBeliever

TrueBeliever

    Remote Viewer

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 578 posts
  • Joined:10 Jun 2004
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:too cold here!

Posted 09 September 2012 - 12:37 AM

View PostDr. D, on 09 September 2012 - 12:28 AM, said:

You may be right, but I doubt it.

lol... :)





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users