Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 7
TrueBeliever

Gay Marriage

1,007 posts in this topic

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?

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.

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

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.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

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.

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.

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You may be right, but I doubt it.

lol... :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Hey Doc...

I'll cut to the chase .......... I do not ( and will not ) view sick paedophiles as gay or straight...I view them as evil people who chose any child because they are defenceless and cannot fight back, not to mention cannot understand what is happening to them...I could narrow it all down to - Mental illness, but not a sexuality...Considering the fact I have seen a few documentaries where they claim they were victims of the same abuse and it was history repeating itself... and others claim it was due to the fact they didn't hold interest in adult sex...Summing it all up, these paedophiles had few reasons as to why they did what they did and why many killed their victims as murder was usually the end resort for many victims ..but none of it pointed to a sexuality of any kind ..it pointed more into the direction of a mental illness... Kind of like when a man is caught mounting a farm animal..you just cannot get your head around it.. not a sexuality.. just mental !!

Watching Sky News one night couple years ago Two paedophiles ( two brothers ) turned themselves over to the authorities begging and pleading to get help, fearing they will abduct children soon and they felt scared they will do it causing harm... They begged for help... From what I heard, these two men were once victims of a history of sex abuse growing up...Again this all leans to a mental illness in my opinion..... I fail to link any of it to a sexuality as they do not have a gender preference...

Anyway Doc...talking about paedophiles makes my skin crawl.. so I kept this short and care not to continue it.. I will however gladly speak with you about Gay marriage ( the topic itself ) IF you are interested lol.. If not.. okie dokie then.. :D

Edited by Beckys_Mom

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey Doc...

I'll cut to the chase .......... I do not ( and will not ) view sick paedophiles as gay or straight...I view them as evil people who chose any child because they are defenceless and cannot fight back, not to mention cannot understand what is happening to them...I could narrow it all down to - Mental illness, but not a sexuality...Considering the fact I have seen a few documentaries where they claim they were victims of the same abuse and it was history repeating itself... and others claim it was due to the fact they didn't hold interest in adult sex...Summing it all up, these paedophiles had few reasons as to why they did what they did and why many killed their victims as murder was usually the end resort for many victims ..but none of it pointed to a sexuality of any kind ..it pointed more into the direction of a mental illness... Kind of like when a man is caught mounting a farm animal..you just cannot get your head around it.. not a sexuality.. just mental !!

Watching Sky News one night couple years ago Two paedophiles ( father and son ) turned themselves over to the authorities begging and pleading to get help, fearing they will abduct children soon and they felt scared they will do it causing harm... They begged for help... From what I heard, these two men were once victims of a history of sex abuse growing up...Again this all leans to a mental illness in my opinion..... I fail to link any of it to a sexuality as they do not have a gender preference...

Anyway Doc...talking about paedophiles makes my skin crawl.. so I kept this short and care not to continue it.. I will however gladly speak with you about Gay marriage ( the topic itself ) IF you are interested lol.. If not.. okie dokie then.. :D

By the way, I'm mad at you! I was in Dublin two years ago and sent an e-mail you never answered! But I forgive you because I will always remember your wonderful letter to Maria Fernanda.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

By the way, I'm mad at you! I was in Dublin two years ago and sent an e-mail you never answered! But I forgive you because I will always remember your wonderful letter to Maria Fernanda.

Email? I never saw any email Doc.. and trust me, if I had of seen an email from yourself, I would have went all out to read and reply.. PM me and let me know what email you used..If you get a moment.. Cheers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not challenging what you are saying, because i don't think anyone can argue against the importance of role models fullstop and not just with gender but generation as well. The role grandparents play for example could possibly be more important.imo. Children who grow up with strong grandparent role models, have an added bonus, a deeper sense of belonging, and a whole other dimension to who and what their parents are about. Children learn a lot from watching how their parents interact with their parents and so on - It provides a child with a real and strong sense of family/pack hierarchy and understanding as to where their place is. There is a true sense of security that can help offset any natural fear of losing a parent and having to fend for self which is the childs egos biggest fear, or dysfunction that many children experience in feeling like they have to be the parent of their parent! I'm not sure exactly yet how to word it but there is just something powerful for a child to know and witness in the family hierarchy, that someone is there for the best interests of them and their parents too. That someone is looking after their parents and that they get to witness their parents also caring for their parents.

Grand parents tend to play lucid roles and slot in as needed and if played right along with what the parents do or don't do, can counter balance things. They can be the role of the best friend - emotional support when the parent can't get away with playing compromising their authority. To the role of the alpha educator or "wise one" - for a child to witness their parent having a healthy rapport with their parent, is all part of the blueprint for healthy relationships ? I find there is a lot to be said for the role grand parents play in raising children too. many cultures do that and allow the elder gen's to have massive influence and authority over child care.

So children who grow up with out grandparents can suffer from similar issues. I have seen that first hand, and i can think of some nice examples personally, where those who have the strongest sense of family and place, happen to have extremely strong grand parent role model/ influence in their life. As if a elder matriarch of the family really does make a family behave like a family unit and stay in touch. Where as those who don't, get lazy or fall out of staying in touch and where it is implied that no one can bothered to gel together within a family, what is that saying to the children? As children do not understand it in the same way or realise that patterns of laziness can and do just happen.

So is it not so much about gender, or who is representing the family structure, but more about the numbers of who is playing what role and across what generation.

I'm just interested in how society has got to this point in such short a time for it is not that long in the grander scheme of things that children and childhoods were even given such presidence. The concept of childhood is as new a thing as Disneyland. Disneyland prob invented the fairytale childhood Lol. But i am told and history books support this, that until fairly recently children were very much seen and not heard, the so called traditional family unit that society tries to imprint from,was this - the role fathers played were nil, surprisingly. Males had very little to do with child raising, they certainly did not entertain or play with their children or relate to them on any social or emotional level. It was the females job of the family, including older female siblings to help raise and socialise the children. Children didn't have childhoods and they we were not treated like they were supposed to have this innocence until a certain age. I'm not sure entirely where that concept comes from - Disney again ?

Middle class and upper class families as my family were, told stories of how the Mother didn't even have that much to do with children either, they were raised by nannies and maids. all female again, no male figures. And then from a young age sent to boarding school - as young as 5, 6. The boarding school took over for most of that with the children only going home so many times a year for holidays. Again primarily female in the educating and childcare roles. Boarding schools were not mixed but gender specific. In working class families, if children were not going to school, they were working. So looking back into history male "input" has always been very weak, barely there. Why should it make a difference intodays society if males have input or not ? or worded more correctly, why should it matter if the role models are both female and male - isn't the important thing that children just have the role models regardless if they are all female or male or a balance of both, just as long as they are present ?

Lots of good points in here. Back even further young children of the gentry and above were sent out to other homes to learn to be ladies or squires and only saw their parents rarely. The idea of childhood continuing onto late teens is a product of free and universal education which came into effect in the western world from the late 1800s onwards (In 1870 i australia) The idea was that the new industries and commerce of the industrial age required peole to be educated to a reasonable standard In the napoleonic wars and industrial revolution children served as oficers o warships from about the age of 12 and worked in factories or mines even younger than this.

Access to both genders is important in the construction of identity We learn how to be, and create who we are, from our childhood experinces. If a child has close strong role models of both genders they will have a beter chance to be a more comlete human being.Also humans have to learn appropriate responses A boy deprived of women will have trouble learning about and understanding women, His marriage will be more difficult as a result. A boy deprived of "intimate" contact with adult men will not learnt the ways and customs, speech, or behaviour of men, and will have trouble fitting into a male society as an adult. Finally there are the skills of men and women based on their biogical and genetic diffeernces. These are best learned from contact with adults of both genders. Women have better pattern recognition colour vision near sight and attention to detail. They are also better at multi tasking. Men are more direct in single tasking more efficient in a one task. They have better long sight and motion detection, as well as greater strength stamina etc.

In my childhhod this translated into my mother and grandmother teaching me sewing, washing, cooking, reading, writing, entertaining, etc. My father taught me to design and build, to take my creative part and use it to plan, construct, and complete a task. He taught me how to turn my imagination into practical play; searching for buried treasures, exploring, hunting, trapping and shooting for food, building and flying model aeroplanes and all sorts of vehicular devices.

Of course some of this was culturally based, but both were experts in their fields. Neither had time or opportunity in their own lives to learn the other's areas of expertise, even if they had been suited to it. As their biological child, I had the genetic abilty to do all the things each of them did, and between the two of them, they taught me how to.

I take your point about grandparents, and raise you one. I am a grand uncle and a great granduncle. I am involved with many of my great nieces and nephews including one living with us now. I do my best to pass on my knolwedge skills and attitudes to them, to give them the same advantages I have enjoyed all my life.

Modern children have been identified as lacking a sense of personal and cultural place an d space. They have no"extended family '" or tribe of which they are apart MAny dont even have a biologicla father or mother in their family. Many have no, or very limited, contacts with biological grandparents aunts or uncles. They are lost and leaderless.

This has great and negative social effects all around the western world. It is a large cause of the sense of depression, loneliness, lack of belonging/identity, and suicide, among young westerners.

Edited by Mr Walker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The legalization of gay marriage would have the same effect as the legalization of interracial marriage had in the late 1960s. This is about equal rights, and I just don't see why you can't marry whomever or whatever you're in love in with. (As long as the two parties consent, are over eighteen years of age, etc.)

How do laws against gay marriage "regulate" or "protect"?

There is NO biological compaison between interracial sex and gay sex or the consequences of either, therefore no comparison between interracial marriages and gay mariages. This is furphy, possibly deliberately designed to make those concerned about gay sex/marriage sound like racists.

The state regulates all marriges because it also gives benefits to, and places legal obligations on, married couples. For example as a married teacher I get a govt house with low rent. I get several thousands of dollars of extra income for having a dependent spouse,(ie one without her own income) and many thousands more in tax benefits. I can divide my superannuation and my income to maximise pension and other govt benefits which I canot do if if i am not living in some form of govt approved relationship. If i left my wife the state would determine how our assets and income were to be divided. And if we had children, how their care and support would be arranged.

Edited by Mr Walker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey Doc...

I'll cut to the chase .......... I do not ( and will not ) view sick paedophiles as gay or straight...

I'm not sure how this thread got here, and the topic should have never had this many pages, but of course there are homosexual and heterosexual pedophiles.

There does need to be a distinction. For any crime, you want the most specific profile available to catch the criminal.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not sure how this thread got here, and the topic should have never had this many pages, but of course there are homosexual and heterosexual pedophiles.

I don't think there are, and sex abuse is not a sexuality.. I peg paedophilia as a mental illness.. You can peg it what you wish, as long as you don't want me to agree with you !!

As for how this thread went from gay marriage to peado crimes and who does it more? I have no idea who or why they derailed it to that... it is silly

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think there are, and sex abuse is not a sexuality.. I peg paedophilia as a mental illness.. You can peg it what you wish, as long as you don't want me to agree with you !!

As for how this thread went from gay marriage to peado crimes and who does it more? I have no idea who or why they derailed it to that... it is silly

BM if paedophilia is a mental illness, then the perpetrators are not responsible for their actions. I don't think it's a mental illness. I think you pegged it earlier. Kids are just smaller and easier to manipulate, so the morally lacking and narcissistic target them. I don't think it's a sexuality either, I seriously doubt paedophiles have an identity with their preferences. And they are both hetero and homo. To me they are just moral despots and basically sexual theifs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BM if paedophilia is a mental illness, then the perpetrators are not responsible for their actions. I don't think it's a mental illness. I think you pegged it earlier. Kids are just smaller and easier to manipulate, so the morally lacking and narcissistic target them. I don't think it's a sexuality either, I seriously doubt paedophiles have an identity with their preferences. And they are both hetero and homo. To me they are just moral despots and basically sexual theifs.

There are many types of mental illness. Chronic depression is a mental illness and people that have it would still be responsible for their crimes. It needs to be a type of mental illness where the person is unaware that what they're doing is wrong or that they are delusional. Schizophrenia would fit the bill for this but pedophiles know exactly what they are doing and certainly know it is against the law.

I think Beckys_Mom is correct!

Edited by Euphorbia

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are many types of mental illness. Chronic depression is a mental illness and people that have it would still be responsible for their crimes. It needs to be a type of mental illness where the person is unaware that what they're doing is wrong or that they are delusional. Schizophrenia would fit the bill for this but pedophiles know exactly what they are doing and certainly know it is against the law.

I think Beckys_Mom is correct!

It wouldn't be the first time.

Still, i doubt it. It seems as if it's more just cowardly narcissistic behavior,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 7

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.