by clash_city_rockers 72 Replies latest jw friends
Clash,
You are confusing homosexuality and lesbianism with pedophilia. Those priests are pedophiles, which is defined as an adult having a sexual desire for children. A gay man has a sexual desire for other men; a lesbian has a sexual attraction to other women. NOT children...get the difference? You're erroneously assuming something that is totally incorrect.
Dana
No Safe, you are failing to define that there are also forms of peodophilia that are aslo acts of homosexual sin.
For example
1. 40 year old man molests a 10 year old girl that is (regular) peodophilia
2. 40 year old man molests a 10 year old boy that is homosexual peodophilia.
Don't be like the WT and decieve others with your silly word games
late,
jr
Who a person loves has no bearing on their ability to care for children. Who a person allows to be in contact with their children, on the other hand, certainly does. If I loved someone who had the capacity to hurt my kids, there is no way they would ever have access to my kids. It's quite simple.
I find it quite ludicrous that someone who has no children is questioning how I evaluate another person's character in relation to my children. If I know the individual in question, if I've seen how they relate to children, if my kids are comfortable in their presence...these are clues that let me know whether there is any significant risk. A gay man or woman does NOT equal pedophile. Get it yet?
Dana
Say, have I fallen into the whole "feeding the troll" thingee here?? Why didn't someone stop me?!
As for silly word games, it is you who are failing to acknowledge the difference. You're arguing semantics. I'm off to bed. Enjoy yourself.
Dana
Safe wrote:
Who a person loves has no bearing on their ability to care for children.
Wrong who a person loves is a reflection of their moral character. The one who you love is an extension of yourself your other half. If you love a child abuser, a violent criminal, a greedy ruthless unscrupulous business man, a homosexual, a bank robber and so on. This reflects a character that is morally deviant such a character would be unsafe for kids.
You also said:
If I loved someone who had the capacity to hurt my kids there is no way they would ever have access to my kids. It's quite simple.The problem with this is that the nature of intimate relationships will always involve your kids. The lifestyle that you are trying to defend has too many dialectical tensions and is internally inconsistent to be reasonable nor is it safe for your kids.
You did not present evidence. You did however make some more erroneous assertions.
Firstly, as Safe4kids has pointed out, homosexuality is not the same as paedophilia. By your definition, an adult male molesting a boy is a homosexual. Yet studies have demonstrated that paedophiles are usually attracted to children of both sexes. That adult male that molests a boy is very likely to also molest a girl, which, by your logic, would then turn him back into a heterosexual. The point is that it is children molesters are attracted to, not individuals of a particular sex.
You did not provide any evidence. However, here are extracts from the University of California website which address this issue:
Another problem related to terminology arises because sexual abuse of male children by adult men2 is often referred to as "homosexual molestation." The adjective "homosexual" (or "heterosexual" when a man abuses a female child) refers to the victim's gender in relation to that of the perpetrator. Unfortunately, people sometimes mistakenly interpret it as referring to the perpetrator's sexual orientation.To avoid this confusion, it is preferable to refer to men's sexual abuse of boys with the more accurate label of male-male molestation. Similarly, it is preferable to refer to men's abuse of girls as male-female molestation. These labels are more accurate because they describe the sex of the individuals involved but don't convey implicit assumptions about the perpetrator's sexual orientation.
Groth and Birnbaum (1978) found that none of the 175 adult males in their sample – all of whom were convicted in Massachusetts of sexual assault against a child – had an exclusively homosexual adult sexual orientation. 83 of the men (47%) were classified as "fixated;" 70 others (40%) were classified as regressed adult heterosexuals; the remaining 22 (13%) were classified as regressed adult bisexuals. Of the last group, Groth and Birnbaum observed that "in their adult relationships they engaged in sex on occasion with men as well as with women. However, in no case did this attraction to men exceed their preference for women....There were no men who were primarily sexually attracted to other adult males..." (p.180).
Another researcher took a different perspective. Dr. Carole Jenny reviewed 352 medical charts, representing all of the sexually abused children seen in the emergency room or child abuse clinic of a Denver children's hospital during a one-year period (from July 1, 1991 to June 30, 1992). The molester was a gay or lesbian adult in only 2 of the 269 cases in which an adult molester could be identified, less than 1% of the cases (Jenny et al., 1994).
In yet another approach to studying adult sexual attraction to children, some Canadian researchers observed how homosexual and heterosexual adult men responded to slides of males and females of various ages (child, pubescent, and mature adult). All of the research subjects were first screened to ensure that they preferred physically mature sexual partners. In some of the slides shown to subjects, the model was clothed; in others, he or she was nude. The slides were accompanied by audiotaped recordings. The recordings paired with the nude models described an imaginary sexual interaction between the model and the subject. The recordings paired with the pictures of clothed models described the model engaging in neutral activities (e.g., swimming). To measure sexual arousal, changes in the subjects' penis volume were monitored while they watched the slides and listened to the audiotapes. The researchers found that homosexual males responded no more to male children than heterosexual males responded to female children (Freund et al., 1989).For the entire essay, including a demolishment of the dishonest and unscientific methodology of the one study that has attempted to show that homosexuals are more likely to abuse children, go here: http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/facts_molestation.html#note2
For another (shorter) summary, go here: http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_chil.htm
Now, do you have any factual, objective evidence to back up your assertions, or will you simply continue to enjoy your prejudices without attempting to verify their accuracy?
Expatbrit
That is fine if you want to conseed the debate that way. But you have failed to champion your position or at least give a reason for the hope and ligitamacy that can be found in such a lifestyle.
I do thank you for interacting
cheers,
jr
LOL! Have a pleasant evening, Clash.
Expatbrit
expatbrit wrote:(snip)
Yet studies have demonstrated that paedophiles are usually attracted to children of both sexes. That adult male that molests a boy is very likely to also molest a girl, which, by your logic, would then turn him back into a heterosexual. The point is that it is children molesters are attracted to, not individuals of a particular sex.
He still comited a homosexual act which you have to give an account to that fact. You may call him bi-sexual. But bi-sexuality is still sexually and morally devian, because of the homosexual nature of the other half of bi-sexuality.
And arbratrary studies don't really salitify your case. You can do a statistical body count in which homosexuals have done more carnage to young boys thatn your kind would like to fess up to. If we did a body cound it would be very embarissing for the gay agenda and it's atemps to make ligit the gay lifestyle. Maybe later one tonight I'll count up all from the Roman Catholic site and the Silent lambs site and give a running total.
exbritpat,
I was speeking to Safe
