Gay man molests three brothers

[darin]

:-/

Poor kids - yet another homosexual 'imposing' his lifestyle on children.

BREA – Police arrested a man Wednesday night accused of sexually molesting three brothers several times over the past six years.

The arrest of Martin Chavez Ramirez, 41, came after a two-week investigation that started after the mother of the victims reported the abuse, police said.

The mother found out about the molestations when one of her sons was having emotional problems, Brea police Capt. Martin Needham said.

The boys were first molested when they were between 10 and 17 years of age, Needham said. "There were multiple offenses over the years." he added.

Ramirez, described as a family friend, was arrested at 7:45 p.m. at his home near Placentia Avenue and Yorba Linda Boulevard in Fullerton.

The incidents are alleged to have occurred at Ramirez' former home in the 200 block of East Acacia in Brea as well as at the victims' homes in Placentia and Fullerton. Ramirez has also lived in Anaheim, Placentia and Fullerton, Needham said.

Read more:

http://www.ocregister.com/ocregister/news/crimecourts/article_1589148.php

[Grumplestillskin]

wow. That guy is really bad Darin.

[jillian]

:-/

Poor kids - yet another homosexual 'imposing' his lifestyle on children.

BREA – Police arrested a man Wednesday night accused of sexually molesting three brothers several times over the past six years.

The arrest of Martin Chavez Ramirez, 41, came after a two-week investigation that started after the mother of the victims reported the abuse, police said.

The mother found out about the molestations when one of her sons was having emotional problems, Brea police Capt. Martin Needham said.

The boys were first molested when they were between 10 and 17 years of age, Needham said. "There were multiple offenses over the years." he added.

Ramirez, described as a family friend, was arrested at 7:45 p.m. at his home near Placentia Avenue and Yorba Linda Boulevard in Fullerton.

The incidents are alleged to have occurred at Ramirez' former home in the 200 block of East Acacia in Brea as well as at the victims' homes in Placentia and Fullerton. Ramirez has also lived in Anaheim, Placentia and Fullerton, Needham said.

Read more:

http://www.ocregister.com/ocregister/news/crimecourts/article_1589148.php

That's interesting, I'm sure. But, once again, homosexuality has no greater relationship to pedophilia than heterosexuality does.... no matter how many times you repeat the same unfounded stuff over and over and over....

You know what a Goebbels' Lie is, right?

[Grumplestillskin]

That's interesting, I'm sure. But, once again, homosexuality has no greater relationship to pedophilia than heterosexuality does.... no matter how many times you repeat the same unfounded stuff over and over and over....

You know what a Goebbels' Lie is, right?

I think it's absolutely terrible what that man did.

[jillian]

I think it's absolutely terrible what that man did.

Aye... tis.

[The ClayTaurus]

Is it just me, or did a bunch of posts just go missing?

[jillian]

Is it just me, or did a bunch of posts just go missing?

Seems that way.

[TheStripey1]

:-/

Poor kids - yet another homosexual 'imposing' his lifestyle on children.

BREA – Police arrested a man Wednesday night accused of sexually molesting three brothers several times over the past six years.

The arrest of Martin Chavez Ramirez, 41, came after a two-week investigation that started after the mother of the victims reported the abuse, police said.

The mother found out about the molestations when one of her sons was having emotional problems, Brea police Capt. Martin Needham said.

The boys were first molested when they were between 10 and 17 years of age, Needham said. "There were multiple offenses over the years." he added.

Ramirez, described as a family friend, was arrested at 7:45 p.m. at his home near Placentia Avenue and Yorba Linda Boulevard in Fullerton.

The incidents are alleged to have occurred at Ramirez' former home in the 200 block of East Acacia in Brea as well as at the victims' homes in Placentia and Fullerton. Ramirez has also lived in Anaheim, Placentia and Fullerton, Needham said.

Read more:

http://www.ocregister.com/ocregister/news/crimecourts/article_1589148.php


I bet he's an illegal alien...

[TheStripey1]

hmmmm.... I thought there were a bunch of replies when I clicked on this thread... I was settling in for another longassed thread... guess I'll go back to the turncoat thread...

I still bet he was an illegal alien tho...

and yes... a terrible thing...

have y'all been watching the To Catch A Predator on NBC? Those folks are sure doing a good job of ridding the country of a bunch of pedophillic assholes...

[darin]

The guy needs to be executed, IMO. He performed a systematic mind-fuck on those kids; he's of no benefit to society - no rehabilitation there. :(

[theHawk]

That's interesting, I'm sure. But, once again, homosexuality has no greater relationship to pedophilia than heterosexuality does.... no matter how many times you repeat the same unfounded stuff over and over and over....

You know what a Goebbels' Lie is, right?

So since homosexuals barely make up 2%-5% of the population, then only 2-5% of all child molestation cases will involve homosexuals.

Think you've got Goebbel's Lie down pat.

[glockmail]

So since homosexuals barely make up 2%-5% of the population, then only 2-5% of all child molestation cases will involve homosexuals.

Think you've got Goebbel's Lie down pat. I think it's actually 1-2% of the population.

[avatar4321]

That's interesting, I'm sure. But, once again, homosexuality has no greater relationship to pedophilia than heterosexuality does.... no matter how many times you repeat the same unfounded stuff over and over and over....

You know what a Goebbels' Lie is, right?

Yeah, you just demonstrated it for us:)

[jillian]

Yeah, you just demonstrated it for us:)

Sure I did... as opposed to all the Christian sites that bash gays. :lame2:


See... thing is, I understand that you have religious issues with them. That's fine and it's your business. It's the pretense that there's something scientific about those beliefs that I take issue with.

[glockmail]

Sure I did... as opposed to all the Christian sites that bash gays. .....

Interesting that you consider voicing opinions that do not agree with yours as "bashing". Why not provide links of said bashing so others can make their own conclusion?

[LiberalNation]

No a lot of anti-gay sites are just bashing not exspressing a different. That can be done without bashing, name calling, ect.

[theHawk]

I think it's actually 1-2% of the population.

I know I was being liberal.

[glockmail]

I know I was being liberal. Glad to be there to reel you back in. ;)

[theHawk]

Sure I did... as opposed to all the Christian sites that bash gays. :lame2:


Nice knock on Christianity. Could you explain what you mean though, are you suggesting that Christians that say homosexuality is a sin are a bunch of liars because it says otherwise in the Bible?

[LiberalNation]

No but saying god hates fags is a bit of a stretch on their part and bashing.

[glockmail]

No but saying god hates fags is a bit of a stretch on their part and bashing. That's one lunatic. Any others?

[theHawk]

No but saying god hates fags is a bit of a stretch on their part and bashing.

Well if someone says you will go to hell for being gay, is that hatred?

[LiberalNation]

Depends, the really not there place to declare who will or will not get in Heaven if their "Christians" it's god but if that's all they say and if not done in a confrontational way, I wouldn't call it bashing.

But then again most people are more sensitive than myself.

[LiberalNation]

That's one lunatic. Any others?

Do an internet search man, you will find them.

[glockmail]

Do an internet search man, you will find them. Sorry, couldn't find any. :laugh2:

[LiberalNation]

Well I'm on a school computer and can't find any for you right now without risking bringing up something you're not supposed to.

[jillian]

Well if someone says you will go to hell for being gay, is that hatred?

Why the need to say it to someone?

[glockmail]

Why the need to say it to someone? Duh, its part of our religion.

[theHawk]

Why the need to say it to someone?

To try to get people to see the error of their ways, and to help them get into heaven.

At least I think that's why God told mankind homosexuality is a sin and not to do it!

[LiberalNation]

No it's not. Especially telling gays they're going to hell while ignoring other sinners and their sins.

[jillian]

To try to get people to see the error of their ways, and to help them get into heaven.

At least I think that's why God told mankind homosexuality is a sin and not to do it!

Here's a hint: unless they're asking, they don't WANT your help to either see "the error of their ways" or to "help them get into heaven". I figure the issue of heaven is between each of us and our maker.

If one looks at the Bible, it also says that people should be stoned for mixing fibers, as I recall.

[theHawk]

No it's not. Especially telling gays they're going to hell while ignoring other sinners and their sins.

lol, ignoring other sins? Try reading the bible someday, think you'll find it covers many, many sins other than homosexuality.

You only hear Christians talking about gays because thats what you choose to pay attention to. There also aren't currently large political movements to condone other sins, such as murder, rape, theiving, adultry ect.

[OCA]

I bet he's an illegal alien...

Now why would you think that? Prejudice?

He was just another disturbed homosexual lifestyle choice perversionist.

[Missileman]

So since homosexuals barely make up 2%-5% of the population, then only 2-5% of all child molestation cases will involve homosexuals.

Think you've got Goebbel's Lie down pat.

Actually, since homosexuals make up 2-5% of the population, then only 2-5% of child molesters will be homosexuals. The number of victims has no direct bearing on the population representation. It's like arguing that since most serial killers are white, the average number of victims per murderer is disproportional to their population, so therefore white people are more likely to commit murder.

[manu1959]

I bet he's an illegal alien...

are there legal aliens?

[Missileman]

If one looks at the Bible, it also says that people should be stoned for mixing fibers, as I recall.

Oh Shit! I just drank a glass of Metamucil! :coffee:

[Missileman]

are there legal aliens?

Yup!

[manu1959]

Actually, since homosexuals make up 2-5% of the population, then only 2-5% of child molesters will be homosexuals. The number of victims has no direct bearing on the population representation. It's like arguing that since most serial killers are white, the average number of victims per murderer is disproportional to their population, so therefore white people are more likely to commit murder.

not true.....

[manu1959]

Yup!

really where are they? area 51? going through passport check?

[Missileman]

not true.....

You'll need to explain why before I consider it a possibility.

[Missileman]

really where are they? area 51? going through passport check?

Every green-card carrying citizen from another country is a legal alien.

[manu1959]

You'll need to explain why before I consider it a possibility.

you assume a group can only do something in proportion to what porpotion they are to society as a whole ..... and that the rest of society will make up the difference.....

[Missileman]

you assume a group can only do something in proportion to what porpotion they are to society as a whole ..... and that the rest of society will make up the difference.....

No, I conclude that if a group is more likely to have an attribute, the percentage of the group that has the attribute will be higher than their representation in the population. It's simple logic.

[manu1959]

No, I conclude that if a group is more likely to have an attribute, the percentage of the group that has the attribute will be higher than their representation in the population. It's simple logic.

no you said: "since homosexuals make up 2-5% of the population, then only 2-5% of child molesters will be homosexuals."

so that would mean that out of a 100 people that molest only 2-5% of them can be gay because gays only make up 2-5% of the population....

when there will be howevere many there are because math does not determine behavior.

[Missileman]

no you said: "since homosexuals make up 2-5% of the population, then only 2-5% of child molesters will be homosexuals."

so that would mean that out of a 100 people that molest only 2-5% of them can be gay because gays only make up 2-5% of the population....

when there will be howevere many there are because math does not determine behavior.

For example, if homosexuals were twice as likely to molest children than heterosexuals then 4-10% of child molesters would be homosexual.

[manu1959]

For example, if homosexuals were twice as likely to molest children than heterosexuals then 4-10% of child molesters would be homosexual.

so you admit you "logical" math example is flawed....you are a better man than most :poke:

[Pale Rider]

No but saying god hates fags is a bit of a stretch on their part and bashing.

Well, God doesn't specifically say he "hates" queers, but he is pretty specific about what he thinks of them.....


The Bible Speaks On Homosexuality
1. The Law of God speaks against it.
Leviticus 18:22, “Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.” An abomination is anything that is disgusting to God.

Leviticus 20:13, “If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.”

Deuteronomy 23:17,28 “There shall be no whore of the daughters of Israel, nor a sodomite of the sons of Israel. Thou shalt not bring the hire of a whore, or the price of a dog, into the house of the LORD thy God for any vow: for even both these are abomination unto the LORD thy God.” The word “dog” means a sodomite or a male prostitute.

http://www.fbbc.com/messages/kohl_political_science_homosexuality.htm

So, it's MORE of a stretch to say God is "OK" with fags, than it is to say he hates them.

[Missileman]

so you admit you "logical" math example is flawed....you are a better man than most :poke:

No, it's not. My post 34 was in reply to Hawk's post 11 in which he claimed that the number of victims would be proportional to the percentage of homosexuals within the population. Not taking into account the average number of victims per offender type would render any conclusion reached by Hawk's comparison meaningless. To decide whether homosexuals are more likley to molest children, the number of homosexual pedophiles among all pedophiles should be compared to the number of homosexuals among the general population.

[Pale Rider]

Study shows link between homosexuality and pedophilia



By Interim Staff
A new study by Dr. Timothy J. Dailey and the Washington D.C.-based Family Research Council recently confirmed what police and psychiatrists have known for decades: a definitive link exists between male homosexuality and pedophilia.

The report entitled Homosexuality and Child Sexual Abuse, shows that while homosexual men make up less than three per cent of the adult male population, they commit a disproportionate number (one third or more) of child sexual molestations. Dailey's report is being sent to parents, youth groups, school administrators, Catholic bishops, and religious organizations.

Homosexuality and Child Sexual Abuse presents a number of controversial findings. The first is that a significant percentage of child sexual abuse victims are boys. The second finding of Dailey's report contradicts the "inaccurate but widely accepted claims of sex researcher Alfred Kinsey" that homosexuals comprise at least 10 per cent of the population. Based upon a study of three large data sets, the General Social Survey, the National Health and Social Life Survey, and the U.S. Census, "a recent study in demography estimates the number of exclusive male homosexuals in the general population at 2.5 per cent, and the number of exclusive lesbians at 1.4 per cent," writes Dailey.

More at:
http://www.theinterim.com/2002/sept/02study.html

[manu1959]

No, it's not. My post 34 was in reply to Hawk's post 11 in which he claimed that the number of victims would be proportional to the percentage of homosexuals within the population. Not taking into account the average number of victims per offender type would render any conclusion reached by Hawk's comparison meaningless. To decide whether homosexuals are more likley to molest children, the number of homosexual pedophiles among all pedophiles should be compared to the number of homosexuals among the general population.

so you were being sarcastic .... and you agree with me then ... they are as likley as the facts bear out .....

[Pale Rider]

Male Homosexuals Commit A Disproportionate Number of Child Sex Abuse Cases



Homosexual apologists admit that some homosexuals sexually molest children, but they deny that homosexuals are more likely to commit such offenses. After all, they argue, the majority of child molestation cases are heterosexual in nature. While this is correct in terms of absolute numbers, this argument ignores the fact that homosexuals comprise only a very small percentage of the population.

The evidence indicates that homosexual men molest boys at rates grossly disproportionate to the rates at which heterosexual men molest girls. To demonstrate this it is necessary to connect several statistics related to the problem of child sex abuse: 1) men are almost always the perpetrator; 2) up to one-third or more of child sex abuse cases are committed against boys; 3) less than three percent of the population are homosexuals. Thus, a tiny percentage of the population (homosexual men), commit one-third or more of the cases of child sexual molestation.

http://www.traditionalvalues.org/urban/one-a.php

[Pale Rider]

However, despite efforts by homosexual activists to distance the gay lifestyle from pedophilia, there remains a disturbing connection between the two. This is because, by definition, male homosexuals are sexually attracted to other males. While many homosexuals may not seek young sexual partners, the evidence indicates that disproportionate numbers of gay men seek adolescent males or boys as sexual partners. In this paper we will consider the following evidence linking homosexuality to pedophilia:

Pedophiles are invariably males: Almost all sex crimes against children are committed by men.

Significant numbers of victims are males: Up to one-third of all sex crimes against children are committed against boys (as opposed to girls).

The 10 percent fallacy: Studies indicate that, contrary to the inaccurate but widely accepted claims of sex researcher Alfred Kinsey, homosexuals comprise between 1 to 3 percent of the population.

Homosexuals are overrepresented in child sex offenses: Individuals from the 1 to 3 percent of the population that is sexually attracted to the same sex are committing up to one-third of the sex crimes against children.

Some homosexual activists defend the historic connection between homosexuality and pedophilia: Such activists consider the defense of "boy-lovers" to be a legitimate gay rights issue.

Pedophile themes abound in homosexual literary culture: Gay fiction as well as serious academic treatises promote "intergenerational intimacy."

http://www.traditionalvalues.org/urban/one-a.php

[Missileman]

Study shows link between homosexuality and pedophilia



By Interim Staff
A new study by Dr. Timothy J. Dailey and the Washington D.C.-based Family Research Council recently confirmed what police and psychiatrists have known for decades: a definitive link exists between male homosexuality and pedophilia.

The report entitled Homosexuality and Child Sexual Abuse, shows that while homosexual men make up less than three per cent of the adult male population, they commit a disproportionate number (one third or more) of child sexual molestations. Dailey's report is being sent to parents, youth groups, school administrators, Catholic bishops, and religious organizations.

Homosexuality and Child Sexual Abuse presents a number of controversial findings. The first is that a significant percentage of child sexual abuse victims are boys. The second finding of Dailey's report contradicts the "inaccurate but widely accepted claims of sex researcher Alfred Kinsey" that homosexuals comprise at least 10 per cent of the population. Based upon a study of three large data sets, the General Social Survey, the National Health and Social Life Survey, and the U.S. Census, "a recent study in demography estimates the number of exclusive male homosexuals in the general population at 2.5 per cent, and the number of exclusive lesbians at 1.4 per cent," writes Dailey.

More at:
http://www.theinterim.com/2002/sept/02study.html

Hey PR...if I can show an outright lie within the article you just posted, will you post a retraction?

[Missileman]

so you were being sarcastic .... and you agree with me then ... they are as likley as the facts bear out .....

Absolutely as likely as the facts bear out. It's the facts that are in question.

[manu1959]

Almost all sex crimes against children are committed by men.

Up to one-third of all sex crimes against children are committed against boys (as opposed to girls).

Homosexuals are overrepresented in child sex offenses: Individuals from the 1 to 3 percent of the population that is sexually attracted to the same sex are committing up to one-third of the sex crimes against children.



so.....

33% of sex crimes against children are committed by gays....thus the remaining 75% by hetros

so if you are molested.... chances are you are a boy, you will be molested by a male and it is three times as likely it will be a straight guy that molests you.

[jillian]

so.....

33% of sex crimes against children are committed by gays....thus the remaining 75% by hetros

so if you are molested.... chances are you are a boy, you will be molested by a male and it is three times as likely it will be a straight guy that molests you.

And 66% of the time you will be a female molested by a heterosexual male. Either way, pedophilia is sick...

You know what percentage of gay men commit acts of pedophilia as opposed to the percentage of the heterosexual community which does?

[manu1959]

And 66% of the time you will be a female molested by a heterosexual male. Either way, pedophilia is sick...

You know what percentage of gay men commit acts of pedophilia as opposed to the percentage of the heterosexual community which does?

based on the above figures?

what % of the population is gay?

[Pale Rider]

Hey PR...if I can show an outright lie within the article you just posted, will you post a retraction?

First, let it be known, I didn't write the article, so I'd have nothing to retract. Second, if you can indisputably prove a lie, I'd love to see it.

[Pale Rider]

And 66% of the time you will be a female molested by a heterosexual male. Either way, pedophilia is sick...

You know what percentage of gay men commit acts of pedophilia as opposed to the percentage of the heterosexual community which does?

You can argue numbers as a homosexual/pedophile apologist until you're blue in the face, but at the end of the day the fact of the matter is, homosexuality is a perverted act, and so is molesting a child. But to a fag who already is OK with perversion, pedophilia is just a small step away. They've already convinced all you apologists that men screwing men up the ass is beautiful, so it's just a matter of time until they convince you molesting little boys is OK to.

[Missileman]

First, let it be known, I didn't write the article. Second, if you can indisputably prove a lie, I'd love to see it.

From the article:

The link between homosexuality and pedophilia is rejected by many mainstream research groups, which have even begun to view pedophilia in value-neutral terms. The American Psychiatric Association removed pedophilia from its list of sexual perversions in 1994

From: http://www.psych.org/news_room/press_releases/diagnosticcriteriapedophilia.pdf


AMERICAN PSYCHIATRIC ASSOCIATION STATEMENT
DIAGNOSTIC CRITERIA FOR PEDOPHILIA
June 17, 2003
Arlington, Va. -- Pedophilia, included in the American Psychiatric Association Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) since 1968, continues to be classified as a mental disorder.

Notice that 9 years after they supposedly removed it, it continues to be included in the DSM.

[Yurt]

You can argue numbers as a homosexual/pedophile apologist until you're blue in the face, but at the end of the day the fact of the matter is, homosexuality is a perverted act, and so is molesting a child. But to a fag who already is OK with perversion, pedophilia is just a small step away. They've already convinced all you apologists that men screwing men up the ass is beautiful, so it's just a matter of time until they convince you molesting little boys is OK to.

It is interesting you are still promoting this view given our discussion a wee bit ago.

This is the slippery slope argument. If we allow this, then this will also happen. The slippery slope is a metaphor often used for public policy arguments, by both liberals and conservatives. The argument itself though is a "slippery slope."

Two consenting adults having disgusting immoral anal sex, is not the same as pedophilia. As we discussed before. To outlaw gay sex is fine, so long as we live under a theocratic government. If we don't, then I feel it is wrong to do so. I think anal sex is absolutely wrong and is responsible for the massive spread of AIDS and other VDs. But, to outlaw it solely on religious grounds, takes us into the twilight zone of "church and state."

IMHO

If you outlaw for non-religious grounds, then it becomes a "balancing test."

Would like to know your reasons. If you have stated them before, sorry, I have forgotten or not read them. Thanks Pale.

[avatar4321]

It is interesting you are still promoting this view given our discussion a wee bit ago.

This is the slippery slope argument. If we allow this, then this will also happen. The slippery slope is a metaphor often used for public policy arguments, by both liberals and conservatives. The argument itself though is a "slippery slope."

Two consenting adults having disgusting immoral anal sex, is not the same as pedophilia. As we discussed before. To outlaw gay sex is fine, so long as we live under a theocratic government. If we don't, then I feel it is wrong to do so. I think anal sex is absolutely wrong and is responsible for the massive spread of AIDS and other VDs. But, to outlaw it solely on religious grounds, takes us into the twilight zone of "church and state."

IMHO

If you outlaw for non-religious grounds, then it becomes a "balancing test."

Would like to know your reasons. If you have stated them before, sorry, I have forgotten or not read them. Thanks Pale.

Yeah the slippery slope argument was used alot to response to arguments on the "sexual revolution" in the sixties. And what do you know, here we are further down that slippery slope and people still dont see it as valid...

[Pale Rider]

From the article:


From: http://www.psych.org/news_room/press_releases/diagnosticcriteriapedophilia.pdf



Notice that 9 years after they supposedly removed it, it continues to be included in the DSM.

That's good to see. Now if they'd only do that with homosexuality as well, they may regain full credibility in my eyes. But until then, all I see is a bunch of scared silly head doctors that caved against the relentless onslaught of pressure from the homo and lesbo communities.

[Pale Rider]

It is interesting you are still promoting this view given our discussion a wee bit ago.

This is the slippery slope argument. If we allow this, then this will also happen. The slippery slope is a metaphor often used for public policy arguments, by both liberals and conservatives. The argument itself though is a "slippery slope."

Two consenting adults having disgusting immoral anal sex, is not the same as pedophilia. As we discussed before. To outlaw gay sex is fine, so long as we live under a theocratic government. If we don't, then I feel it is wrong to do so. I think anal sex is absolutely wrong and is responsible for the massive spread of AIDS and other VDs. But, to outlaw it solely on religious grounds, takes us into the twilight zone of "church and state."

IMHO

If you outlaw for non-religious grounds, then it becomes a "balancing test."

Would like to know your reasons. If you have stated them before, sorry, I have forgotten or not read them. Thanks Pale.

There's no slippery slope here Yurt. There's only deviant behavior and those that allow it by looking the other way. To a deviant, his/her "limit" is nothing like your's or mine. So to the normal person, as you state yourself, homosexual sex is sick enough to make one feel like hurling, as is pedophilia, only that includes wanting to kick the shit out of someone after you hurl. But to the individual that finds NOTHING WRONG with homosexual sex, what he thinks is right and wrong is distorded, so age may not, and as indicated, DOES NOT, mean much to him. Male on male sex is what they crave, and age is just a little side matter.

[Missileman]

That's good to see. Now if they'd only do that with homosexuality as well, they may regain full credibility in my eyes. But until then, all I see is a bunch of scared silly head doctors that caved against the relentless onslaught of pressure from the homo and lesbo communities.

Homosexuality can't be a disease...it's a lifestyle choice, remember? Everyone's born heterosexual, yet upwards of 5% of people make this totally unnatural choice, and there's nothing actually different about them. :poke:

[Sitarro]

You know what a Goebbels' Lie is, right?

I know about that, that's the technique started by Joseph Goebbels and perfected by those politicians on the left that use it constantly to lure dimwits to the Democrat party. I have seen it for years by the homosexual lobby claiming that they were born that way and it's perfectly normal, it's taken decades but it is sure working well with the last two generations. Or how about Algore and his bullshit....he's been at it since his first book of lies and look how well it's doing.....he's up for a Nobel and an Oscar and he even has "scientist'' buying it. Or how about the pro abortion lies about how that tiny human is just a fetus and a woman has the right to have it removed like a cancerous growth, people will vote for someone on that single issue alone. Yeah, those progressive have it down to a science.

[Sitarro]

There's no slippery slope here Yurt. There's only deviant behavior and those that allow it by looking the other way. To a deviant, his/her "limit" is nothing like your's or mine. So to the normal person, as you state yourself, homosexual sex is sick enough to make one feel like hurling, as is pedophilia, only that includes wanting to kick the shit out of someone after you hurl. But to the individual that finds NOTHING WRONG with homosexual sex, what he thinks is right and wrong is distorded, so age may not, and as indicated, DOES NOT, mean much to him. Male on male sex is what they crave, and age is just a little side matter.

Yea, we all know who NAMBLA supports with their contributions and votes, I saw them at a Kerry-Heinz rally along with all of the other freaks.

[Gunny]

Sure I did... as opposed to all the Christian sites that bash gays. :lame2:


See... thing is, I understand that you have religious issues with them. That's fine and it's your business. It's the pretense that there's something scientific about those beliefs that I take issue with.

How many of those "Christian site" think homosexuality should be outlawed? They are entitled to believe something is wrong just as you are entitled to apologize for it and/or attempt to claim the abnormal is normal. I take issue with anyone trying to tell me the dogshit on my shoe is perfume.

[Abbey Marie]

Yea, we all know who NAMBLA supports with their contributions and votes, I saw them at a Kerry-Heinz rally along with all of the other freaks.

So we have both NAMBLA and al qaeda hoping for a Dem win at the ballots. There is an old saying that you are judged by the company you keep.

[Gunny]

No it's not. Especially telling gays they're going to hell while ignoring other sinners and their sins.

Incorrect. Christ intones us to spread his message. That would include those things considered sins.

I love the hypocrisy from those who claim Christians are selective in their application of religion; while, they are picking and choosing which sins they choose to consider "sins," while ignoring the ones that inconvenient to their material desires.

[Gunny]

lol, ignoring other sins? Try reading the bible someday, think you'll find it covers many, many sins other than homosexuality.

You only hear Christians talking about gays because thats what you choose to pay attention to. There also aren't currently large political movements to condone other sins, such as murder, rape, theiving, adultry ect.

Well, that and the fact homosexuals manage to keep their names on Page One on a continuing basis.

[mrg666]

are there legal aliens?
sting was / is :laugh2:

[Pale Rider]

Homosexuality can't be a disease...it's a lifestyle choice, remember? Everyone's born heterosexual, yet upwards of 5% of people make this totally unnatural choice, and there's nothing actually different about them. :poke:

I contend that for one man to have the urge to commit sexual acts on another man, is a mental illness. It's an unnatural act. Acting on those urges is the choice, and a bad one at that.

[Pale Rider]

So we have both NAMBLA and al qaeda hoping for a Dem win at the ballots. There is an old saying that you are judged by the company you keep.

Birds of a feather flock together = NAMBLA, HOMOS, LIBERALS.

[Missileman]

I contend that for one man to have the urge to commit sexual acts on another man, is a mental illness. It's an unnatural act. Acting on those urges is the choice, and a bad one at that.

If they are acting under the influence of a mental disease, they aren't truely making a choice, right?

[Gunny]

If they are acting under the influence of a mental disease, they aren't truely making a choice, right?

I've never seen any one person try so hard to be so full of shit.

Well, yeah I have, but that's beside the point. I'm sure you get the idea.

[Missileman]

I've never seen any one person try so hard to be so full of shit.

You succeed where I have failed! :poke:


Well, yeah I have, but that's beside the point. I'm sure you get the idea.

Refute the logic if you can. While you're at it, name another disease whose symptoms/effects are considered a choice made by the afflicted.

[Roomy]

You succeed where I have failed! :poke:



Refute the logic if you can. While you're at it, name another disease whose symptoms/effects are considered a choice made by the afflicted.

Drug tobacco and or alcohol related diseases to name but a few.

[Abbey Marie]

You succeed where I have failed! :poke:



Refute the logic if you can. While you're at it, name another disease whose symptoms/effects are considered a choice made by the afflicted.

Alcoholism.

[manu1959]

missleman,

what exactly are you trying to convince anyone of?

[Yurt]

There's no slippery slope here Yurt. There's only deviant behavior and those that allow it by looking the other way. To a deviant, his/her "limit" is nothing like your's or mine. So to the normal person, as you state yourself, homosexual sex is sick enough to make one feel like hurling, as is pedophilia, only that includes wanting to kick the shit out of someone after you hurl. But to the individual that finds NOTHING WRONG with homosexual sex, what he thinks is right and wrong is distorded, so age may not, and as indicated, DOES NOT, mean much to him. Male on male sex is what they crave, and age is just a little side matter.

Ok, I can see your point.

[-Cp]

But, once again, homosexuality has no greater relationship to pedophilia than heterosexuality does....


LINK Please??? Proving that statistic....

[-Cp]

But, once again, homosexuality has no greater relationship to pedophilia than heterosexuality does.... no matter how many times you repeat the same unfounded stuff over and over and over....

You know what a Goebbels' Lie is, right?


I know what a Goebbels' lie is - it's everything that you post..



However, despite efforts by homosexual activists to distance the gay lifestyle from pedophilia, there remains a disturbing connection between the two. This is because, by definition, male homosexuals are sexually attracted to other males. While many homosexuals may not seek young sexual partners, the evidence indicates that disproportionate numbers of gay men seek adolescent males or boys as sexual partners. In this paper we will consider the following evidence linking homosexuality to pedophilia:

· Pedophiles are invariably males: Almost all sex crimes against children are committed by men.

· Significant numbers of victims are males: Up to one-third of all sex crimes against children are committed against boys (as opposed to girls).

· The 10 percent fallacy: Studies indicate that, contrary to the inaccurate but widely accepted claims of sex researcher Alfred Kinsey, homosexuals comprise between 1 to 3 percent of the population.

· Homosexuals are overrepresented in child sex offenses: Individuals from the 1 to 3 percent of the population that is sexually attracted to the same sex are committing up to one-third of the sex crimes against children.

· Some homosexual activists defend the historic connection between homosexuality and pedophilia: Such activists consider the defense of "boy-lovers" to be a legitimate gay rights issue.

· Pedophile themes abound in homosexual literary culture: Gay fiction as well as serious academic treatises promote "intergenerational intimacy."

MALE HOMOSEXUALS COMMIT A DISPROPORTIONATE NUMBER OF CHILD SEX ABUSE CASES
Homosexual apologists admit that some homosexuals sexually molest children, but they deny that homosexuals are more likely to commit such offenses. After all, they argue, the majority of child molestation cases are heterosexual in nature. While this is correct in terms of absolute numbers, this argument ignores the fact that homosexuals comprise only a very small percentage of the population.

The evidence indicates that homosexual men molest boys at rates grossly disproportionate to the rates at which heterosexual men molest girls. To demonstrate this it is necessary to connect several statistics related to the problem of child sex abuse: 1) men are almost always the perpetrator; 2) up to one-third or more of child sex abuse cases are committed against boys; 3) less than three percent of the population are homosexuals. Thus, a tiny percentage of the population (homosexual men), commit one-third or more of the cases of child sexual molestation.

http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=IS02E3

[-Cp]

Homosexuals Comprise Less than 3 Percent of the Population
· Relying upon three large data sets: the General Social Survey, the National Health and Social Life Survey, and the U.S. census, a recent study in Demography estimates the number of exclusive male homosexuals in the general population at 2.5 percent, and the number of exclusive lesbians at 1.4 percent.[12]

· A study of the sexual behavior of men in the United States based on the National Survey of Men (a nationally representative sample comprised of 3,321 men aged twenty to thirty-nine, published in Family Planning Perspectives), found that "2 percent of sexually active men aged twenty to thirty-nine . . . had had any same-gender sexual activity during the last ten years. Approximately 1 percent of the men (1.3 percent among whites and 0.2 percent among blacks) reported having had exclusively homosexual activity.[13]

· J. Gordon Muir, writing in The Wall Street Journal, discusses a number of studies that have found that homosexuals comprise between 1 to 3 percent of the population.[14]

· In a survey of studies on homosexuals in different populations, the Archives of Sexual Behavior reported a random sample of Hawaii State residents interviewed by telephone. The study found "just about 3 percent of males and 1.2 percent of females as having engaged in same-sex or bisexual activity."[15] However, this relatively higher number is attributed to the fact that the study was not limited to exclusive homosexuals, but included all those who at some time in their lives engaged in same-sex activities.[16]

Homosexual Pedophiles are Vastly Overrepresented in Child Sex Abuse Cases
Homosexual pedophiles sexually molest children at a far greater rate compared to the percentage of homosexuals in the general population. A study in the Journal of Sex Research found, as we have noted above, that "approximately one-third of [child sex offenders] had victimized boys and two-thirds had victimized girls." The authors then make a prescient observation: "Interestingly, this ratio differs substantially from the ratio of gynephiles (men who erotically prefer physically mature females) to androphiles (men who erotically prefer physically mature males), which is at least 20 to 1."[17]

In other words, although heterosexuals outnumber homosexuals by a ratio of at least 20 to 1, homosexual pedophiles commit about one-third of the total number of child sex offenses.

Similarly, the Archives of Sexual Behavior also noted that homosexual pedophiles are significantly overrepresented in child sex offence cases:

The best epidemiological evidence indicates that only 2 to 4 percent of men attracted to adults prefer men (ACSF Investigators, 1992; Billy et al.,1993; Fay et al.,1989; Johnson et al.,1992); in contrast, around 25 to 40 percent of men attracted to children prefer boys (Blanchard et al.,1999; Gebhard et al.,1965; Mohr et al.,1964). Thus, the rate of homosexual attraction is 6 to 20 times higher among pedophiles."[18]
The stark imbalance between homosexual and heterosexual child molestationswas confirmed in the Archives of Sexual Behavior study itself, which divided 260 pedophile participants into three groups: "152 heterosexual pedophiles (men with offenses or self-reported attractions involving girls only), 43 bisexual pedophiles (boys and girls), and 65 homosexual pedophiles (boys only)."[19] In other words, 25 percent of the offenders were homosexual pedophiles--or 41 percent if those who molest girls as well as boys are included.

Other studies report an unusually high percentage of child molestations by homosexual pedophiles:

· A study on pedophilia in the Psychiatric Journal of the University of Ottawa reported: "According to the literature, findings of a two-to-one ratio of heterosexual to homosexual pedophiles have been documented."[20]

· The Journal of Sex Research reports a study that included "199 offenders against female children and 96 offenders against male children. . . . This would indicate a proportional prevalence of 32 percent of homosexual offenders against children."[21]

· A study of male child sex offenders in Child Abuse and Neglect found that fourteen percent targeted only males, and a further 28 percent chose males as well as females as victims, thus indicating that 42 percent of male pedophiles engaged in homosexual molestation.[22]


Sources From Above:
12. Dan Black, et al., "Demographics of the Gay and Lesbian Population in the United States: Evidence from Available Systematic Data Sources," Demography 37 (May 2000): 141.
13. John O. G. Billy, et al., "The Sexual Behavior of Men in the United States," Family Planning Perspectives 25 (March/April 1993): 58.
14. J. Gordon Muir, "Homosexuals and the 10 percent Fallacy," Wall Street Journal (March 31, 1993).
15. Milton Diamond, "Homosexuality and Bisexuality in Different Populations," Archives of Sexual Behavior 22 (1993):300.
16. Ibid. Significantly, a number of studies that were surveyed, and which skewed the overall percentages of homosexuals upwards, included such vague definers as those having had "any homosexual body contact." In contrast, one study that was limited to self-identifying homosexuals found that less than 2 percent of the male respondents considered their "sexual orientation" to be homosexual, p. 293.
17. Freund, "Heterosexuality, Homosexuality, and Erotic Age Preference," p. 107. In this and previous studies, Freund claims that homosexuals are no more likely than heterosexuals to be attracted to children (p. 115). However, Silverthorn, et al., mentions the limitations of studies by Freund and others: "Studies of homosexual male preferences are also limited. . . . The Freund et al.(1973) study was possibly compromised because the homosexual men used in the study were selected to be sexually attracted to adults, but not teenaged, males. The Bailey et al. (1994) study was limited in that it did not present participants with objective stimuli but simply asked participants to report what age of sexual partner they preferred . . . the Jankowiak et al. (1992) study . . . was limited in two ways: the homosexual male participants had a limited age range of 'middle-aged professionals' and the stimuli presented to participants were also of a limited age range ('university to middle-aged')." Silverthorn attempted to correct these deficiencies, and in his study found that homosexuals "preferred younger partners than those who preferred female partners"--including those as young as fifteen. Zebulon A. Silverthorne and Vernon L. Quinsey, "Sexual Partner Age Preferences of Homosexual and Heterosexual Men and Women," Archives of Sexual Behavior 29 (February 2000): 67-76.
18. Ray Blanchard, et al., "Fraternal Birth Order and Sexual Orientation in Pedophiles," Archives of Sexual Behavior 29 (2000): 464.
19. Ibid., p. 471.
20. John M. W. Bradford, et al., "The Heterogeneity/Homogeneity of Pedophilia," Psychiatric Journal of the University of Ottawa 13 (1988): 225. Elsewhere the study notes: "Researchers have variously estimated the incidence of homosexual pedophilia between 19 percent and 33 percent of reported molestations," p. 218.
21. Freund, "Pedophilia and Heterosexuality vs. Homosexuality," p. 197.
22. Michele Elliott, "Child Sexual Abuse Prevention: What Offenders Tell Us," Child Abuse and Neglect 19 (1995): 581.

http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=IS02E3

[Missileman]

Alcoholism.

Alcoholism, like all addictions are marked by the individuals inability to choose to stop. If they could choose to stop, they wouldn't be addicts.

[Missileman]

missleman,

what exactly are you trying to convince anyone of?

Lot's of things, but at this moment, that homosexuality can't be a disease AND a choice.

[Abbey Marie]

Alcoholism, like all addictions are marked by the individuals inability to choose to stop. If they could choose to stop, they wouldn't be addicts.

If they can't choose to stop, how do we have so many alcoholics stop drinking and who never drink the rest of their lives?

And, are you actaully saying that alocholics and drug addicts do not choose to imbibe? Are they tied down and force-fed?

[Dilloduck]

Lot's of things, but at this moment, that homosexuality can't be a disease AND a choice.

Would you buy a self-destructive condition AND a choice?

[Missileman]

If they can't choose to stop, how do we have so many alcoholics stop drinking and who never drink the rest of their lives?

Most addicts don't simply choose to stop. It takes some outside force in most cases to make them stop. Post-treatment is the only phase of their illness where they have a choice, and the choices are abstinence or relapse.



And, are you actaully saying that alocholics and drug addicts do not choose to imbibe? Are they tied down and force-fed?

No, I'm saying that they didn't choose to become alcoholics or addicts. They chose to take a drink or take a drug, but they did not choose the manner in which their body reacted to it.

[Missileman]

Would you buy a self-destructive condition AND a choice?

Nope.

[Abbey Marie]

Most addicts don't simply choose to stop. It takes some outside force in most cases to make them stop. Post-treatment is the only phase of their illness where they have a choice, and the choices are abstinence or relapse.

So you agree that they can stop.



No, I'm saying that they didn't choose to become alcoholics or addicts. They chose to take a drink or take a drug, but they did not choose the manner in which their body reacted to it.

Are you ever going to make some analogy to gays here?

[Dilloduck]

Nope.

Too bad----there are a lot of people with self-destructive conditions that can improve or remain healthy by making the right choices.

[Missileman]

So you agree that they can stop.




Are you ever going to make some analogy to gays here?

It started out that way. Lot's of people are upset that the APA removed homosexuality from the DSM. This infers that these people believe that homosexuality is a disease. A lot of these same people also like to argue that everyone's born heterosexual and that homosexuals are merely heterosexuals who choose to engage in homosexual sex and live a homosexual lifestyle. The two positions are mutually exclusive.

[Missileman]

Too bad----there are a lot of people with self-destructive conditions that can improve or remain healthy by making the right choices.

Is the condition the result of a conscious decision on their part to acquire the condition?

[Dilloduck]

Is the condition the result of a conscious decision on their part to acquire the condition?

intent isn't that easy to prove--some claim we are ultimately responsible for everything about ourseslves.

[Missileman]

intent isn't that easy to prove--some claim we are ultimately responsible for everything about ourseslves.

Sure it is, it's done every day in courts of law. That's why there's a difference between manslaughter and murder.

[Dilloduck]

Sure it is, it's done every day in courts of law. That's why there's a difference between manslaughter and murder.

I didn't say it wasn't done--I said i wasn't always easy and we're talking not talking about criminal intent

[Missileman]

I didn't say it wasn't done--I said i wasn't always easy and we're talking not talking about criminal intent

And I wasn't talking about responsibility, but about a deliberate, conscious, informed choice.

[Gunny]

You succeed where I have failed! :poke:



Refute the logic if you can. While you're at it, name another disease whose symptoms/effects are considered a choice made by the afflicted.

I would say alcohol, drug and/or tobacco addiction would probably fit the bill. ALL are behavioral disorders, just as homosexuality is, and all require a conscious choice to engage in said behavior.

So much for your "logic.":laugh2:

[Gunny]

Most addicts don't simply choose to stop. It takes some outside force in most cases to make them stop. Post-treatment is the only phase of their illness where they have a choice, and the choices are abstinence or relapse.




No, I'm saying that they didn't choose to become alcoholics or addicts. They chose to take a drink or take a drug, but they did not choose the manner in which their body reacted to it.

Which is all pretty-much irrelevant to the point that drug, alcohol, and/or tobacco addiction are choices to engage in destructive behavior, and the addictions are considered diseases.

[Gunny]

And I wasn't talking about responsibility, but about a deliberate, conscious, informed choice.

Is becoming addicted to drugs, alcohol and/or tobacco a conscious, informed choice? Or do most people have that "it'll happen to the next guy but not me" mindset?

[OCA]

It started out that way. Lot's of people are upset that the APA removed homosexuality from the DSM. This infers that these people believe that homosexuality is a disease. A lot of these same people also like to argue that everyone's born heterosexual and that homosexuals are merely heterosexuals who choose to engage in homosexual sex and live a homosexual lifestyle. The two positions are mutually exclusive.

No actually they aren't Missile. I believe that there is something mentally defective about a person who can go ahead and make the choice to live the queer lifestyle.

[Missileman]

Is becoming addicted to drugs, alcohol and/or tobacco a conscious, informed choice? Or do most people have that "it'll happen to the next guy but not me" mindset?

There are millions (billions?) of people who choose to take a drink or smoke a bowl without becoming addicted, especially with alcohol. There seems to be a higher risk of addiction with hard drugs and tobacco. So yeah, I imagine that most addicts figured it couldn't happen to them and were wrong.

The use is a choice, the resulting addiction is not.

[Gunny]

There are millions (billions?) of people who choose to take a drink or smoke a bowl without becoming addicted, especially with alcohol. There seems to be a higher risk of addiction with hard drugs and tobacco. So yeah, I imagine that most addicts figured it couldn't happen to them and were wrong.

The use is a choice, the resulting addiction is not.

The decision to give in to that addiction IS a choice.

[Missileman]

The decision to give in to that addiction IS a choice.

I disagree. If you can choose whether or not to partake, you're not an addict.

[Gunny]

I disagree. If you can choose whether or not to partake, you're not an addict.

That isn't the way they tell it at AA. They call themselves addicts for life, even if they haven't touched a drop in decades.

I'm addicted to nicotine. I make the decision to not smoke. Doesn't mean I don't want a cigarette most of the time.

It all comes down to knowing what is right and not giving in to temptation ... a conscious decision.

[Missileman]

That isn't the way they tell it at AA. They call themselves addicts for life, even if they haven't touched a drop in decades.


Ask anyone of them if they could go to a bar and choose to have just one beer.

[Gunny]

Ask anyone of them if they could go to a bar and choose to have just one beer.

Maybe they could, maybe they could not. I don't see the relevancy other than the fact that you are determined to take away the personal accountability by blaming the behavior and not the person for engaging in it.

I'm reasonably sure I could smoke just one cigarette. But why take the chance, and why put myself through it?

[Missileman]

Maybe they could, maybe they could not. I don't see the relevancy other than the fact that you are determined to take away the personal accountability by blaming the behavior and not the person for engaging in it.

I'm reasonably sure I could smoke just one cigarette. But why take the chance, and why put myself through it?

No, I'm trying to point out that we deem people with mental disorders not responsible for their behavior and sure as hell don't claim that other mental disorders (retardation, bi-polar, schizo, allzheimers, etc.) are afflctions that the sufferer chooses to have or the resulting abnormal behavior something the sufferer is choosing to engage in.

[Gunny]

No, I'm trying to point out that we deem people with mental disorders not responsible for their behavior and sure as hell don't claim that other mental disorders (retardation, bi-polar, schizo, allzheimers, etc.) are afflctions that the sufferer chooses to have or the resulting abnormal behavior something the sufferer is choosing to engage in.

My initial response regarding this issue was to your challenge/question.

Note the difference in examples. What you have listed in this response are proven, genetic/psychological and/or physical disorders that generally result in predictable behavior based on the disorder.

The disorders I listed are all behavioral disorders, with only speculation rather than scientific fact as to whether or not genetics and/or other deformity plays a role. We DO hold drug/alcohol/tobacco addicts accountable for their actions.

The difference between your examples and mine are yours are involuntary while mine are vountary.

Drug/alcohol/tobacco addiction are labelled diseases. So, it is entirely possible to have something labelled a disease, and STILL be held accountable for the behavior associated with the disease.

In the case of drugs and/or alcohol, the fact that the addict is controlled by one or the other, and does not have the willpower to quit engaging in self-destructive behavior gets little if any sympathy in court.

And nonsmokers don't give a damn about smokers and their addiction and state governments use the addiction to extort more taxes.

But it IS still a choice and requires a conscious effort to stick that needle in your arm, pop that cork and/or light up.

[manu1959]

can someone tell me why it matters to you if a person chooses to have gay sex?

[Gunny]

can someone tell me why it matters to you if a person chooses to have gay sex?

It doesn't. It matters when they want to add legislation to the Constitution that is discriminatory in nature by catering solely to aberrant sexual behavior.

[Pale Rider]

can someone tell me why it matters to you if a person chooses to have gay sex?

It doesn't matter to me either. It's just when the queer/lezbo community continuously keep pushing their agenda, and thusly keeping it in the fore front of the news.

If I never heard another thing about a faggot or lesbian in my life, it would suit me just fine. But when they keep pushing to indroctrinate children and make special laws tailored just for them, it ticks me off a lot.

[avatar4321]

It doesn't matter to me either. It's just when the queer/lezbo community continuously keep pushing their agenda, and thusly keeping it in the fore front of the news.

If I never heard another thing about a faggot or lesbian in my life, it would suit me just fine. But when they keep pushing to indroctrinate children and make special laws tailored just for them, it ticks me off a lot.

Especially the way they are pushing it, through courts or schools, behind the publics back.

Don't get me wrong, id still oppose it if they were trying to go through the proper channels. But the fact that they aren't ticks me off even more.

[Pale Rider]

Especially the way they are pushing it, through courts or schools, behind the publics back.

Don't get me wrong, id still oppose it if they were trying to go through the proper channels. But the fact that they aren't ticks me off even more.

That's because when they try this shit in full public view, they run into opposition. The vast majority of people in this WORLD are against homosexuals and their perverted lifestyle choice.

The best thing these people could EVER do, is SHUT THE HELL UP AND GO AWAY! Get BACK in their CLOSET!

[glockmail]

can someone tell me why it matters to you if a person chooses to have gay sex? Because it is an egregious sin.

[Bonnie]

No, I'm trying to point out that we deem people with mental disorders not responsible for their behavior and sure as hell don't claim that other mental disorders (retardation, bi-polar, schizo, allzheimers, etc.) are afflctions that the sufferer chooses to have or the resulting abnormal behavior something the sufferer is choosing to engage in.

Curious, are you sugesting then that gay sexuality is akin to mental disorders? And if that's the case then all the more reason to not legitamize it, but rather to treat it as a disease.

[Bonnie]

can someone tell me why it matters to you if a person chooses to have gay sex?

C'mon manu you know better than that. After all the discussions we have had about not caring what people do sexually behind closed doors as long as it doesn't invlove snuff movies or kids, or both. The fact that a judge now says parents have no rights to raise their kids as they wish regarding embracing homosexuality sends absolute chills down my spine because it syas to me there is an agenda other than respect for fellow man. :slap: ;)

[Missileman]

Curious, are you sugesting then that gay sexuality is akin to mental disorders? And if that's the case then all the more reason to not legitamize it, but rather to treat it as a disease.

No, I don't actually think that homosexuality is a disease. I was merely arguing that those who like to call homosexuality a choice are among those who also think the APA was wrong to remove it from the DSM. I think it's illogical to argue both positions simultaneously.

[Bonnie]

No, I don't actually think that homosexuality is a disease. I was merely arguing that those who like to call homosexuality a choice are among those who also think the APA was wrong to remove it from the DSM. I think it's illogical to argue both positions simultaneously.

True it's an either ..or... position

[Gunny]

No, I don't actually think that homosexuality is a disease. I was merely arguing that those who like to call homosexuality a choice are among those who also think the APA was wrong to remove it from the DSM. I think it's illogical to argue both positions simultaneously.

And I clearly provided evidence where labelled diseases ARE choices.

[Missileman]

And I clearly provided evidence where labelled diseases ARE choices.

No, you presented evidence that some mental diseases are the result of a choice...HUGE difference. If you were to go to a restaurant and choose to eat chicken and it turns out that you get salmonella, you didn't choose to get sick.

Addictions are the result of a behavior. The remaining mental disorders cause a behavior. In either case, it's silly to argue that people are choosing to get a disease.

[manu1959]

No, you presented evidence that some mental diseases are the result of a choice...HUGE difference. If you were to go to a restaurant and choose to eat chicken and it turns out that you get salmonella, you didn't choose to get sick.

Addictions are the result of a behavior. The remaining mental disorders cause a behavior. In either case, it's silly to argue that people are choosing to get a disease.

if you chose not to eat chicken then you would not get salmonella.....similarly if you chose not to have gay sex you can not be gay....choices have consequences

[glockmail]

No, you presented evidence that some mental diseases are the result of a choice...HUGE difference. If you were to go to a restaurant and choose to eat chicken and it turns out that you get salmonella, you didn't choose to get sick.

Addictions are the result of a behavior. The remaining mental disorders cause a behavior. In either case, it's silly to argue that people are choosing to get a disease.


They are choosing to go to hell. Why not choose to get a disease?

[Gunny]

No, you presented evidence that some mental diseases are the result of a choice...HUGE difference. If you were to go to a restaurant and choose to eat chicken and it turns out that you get salmonella, you didn't choose to get sick.

Addictions are the result of a behavior. The remaining mental disorders cause a behavior. In either case, it's silly to argue that people are choosing to get a disease.

Sorry, no sale. Alcoholism and drug addiction (to include nicotine addiction) are choices, AND considered diseases. Period.

Y

[manu1959]

They are choosing to go to hell. Why not choose to get a disease?

if there actually is a hell then most of the world is going there

[Missileman]

if you chose not to eat chicken then you would not get salmonella.....similarly if you chose not to have gay sex you can not be gay....choices have consequences

Or if you swear that you've taken your last snort of meth off the ass of a male prostitute, you can't be gay...must be 100% heterosexual in that case. :laugh2:

Or if you NEVER eat, you can't get food poisoning, right...

[glockmail]

if there actually is a hell then most of the world is going there There's plenty of room. Think of a huge data base, like Google or Utube.

[Missileman]

Sorry, no sale. Alcoholism and drug addiction (to include nicotine addiction) are choices, AND considered diseases. Period.

Y

Then I guess all non-innate diseases are a choice...:cuckoo:

[manu1959]

Or if you swear that you've taken your last snort of meth off the ass of a male prostitute, you can't be gay...must be 100% heterosexual in that case. :laugh2:

Or if you NEVER eat, you can't get food poisoning, right...

the first one sounds like you may have a bit too much knowledge.....:laugh2:

the second would be correct....if choose not to eat anything you will not get food poisioning...but as i said choices have consequences.....

[Missileman]

the first one sounds like you may have a bit too much knowledge.....:laugh2:



Too much knowledge indeed...but thankfully, not first-hand.

[manu1959]

Too much knowledge indeed...but thankfully, not first-hand.

had em tied behinde you back huh?

.....could a "gay" person choose not to have gay sex?

[Missileman]

had em tied behinde you back huh?

.....could a "gay" person choose not to have gay sex?

It's called celibacy...practiced by heteros too.

[manu1959]

It's called celibacy...practiced by heteros too.

so we agree....having sex gay or straight is a choice.....as such, just as an alcholic or a smoker could chose not to be an alcholic or a smoker, a gay person could choose not to have gay sex and by definition no longer be gay....

your witness

[Gunny]

Then I guess all non-innate diseases are a choice...:cuckoo:

Attempted deflection denied.

You made the statement (as you have many times in the past) that homosexuality can be either a choice or a disease, but not both.

I refuted your argument. Simple as that.

Is being a homicidal sociopath a disease, or it is a choice? If it's a disease, how can we rightfully hold homicidal sociopaths accountable for their actions if they are a result of the disease?

[manu1959]

Is being a homicidal sociopath a disease, or it is a choice? If it's a disease, how can we rightfully hold homicidal sociopaths accountable for their actions if they are a result of the disease?

we don't....we call it insanity...if they have a good lawyer....and they go to the hospital and then are released.....

all murders are insane they should all die....quickly

[Gunny]

we don't....we call it insanity...if they have a good lawyer....and they go to the hospital and then are released.....

all murders are insane they should all die....quickly

Either way they are held accountable for their actions.

[manu1959]

so we agree....having sex gay or straight is a choice.....as such, just as an alcholic or a smoker could chose not to be an alcholic or a smoker, a gay person could choose not to have gay sex and by definition no longer be gay....

your witness

looks like i win :dance:

[Missileman]

so we agree....having sex gay or straight is a choice.....as such, just as an alcholic or a smoker could chose not to be an alcholic or a smoker, a gay person could choose not to have gay sex and by definition no longer be gay....

your witness

Having the sex is a choice, sure, same as for heteros. That doesn't make being gay a choice any more than it's a choice for heteros. Addicts can choose to abstain, they can't choose to no longer be an addict. They will always be an addict.

[manu1959]

Having the sex is a choice, sure, same as for heteros. That doesn't make being gay a choice any more than it's a choice for heteros. Addicts can choose to abstain, they can't choose to no longer be an addict. They will always be an addict.

nope .... time is up .... you were counted out ... i won ...

gay sex is a choice you admited it and i proved it.

i win..i win...i win...

[Missileman]

Attempted deflection denied.

You made the statement (as you have many times in the past) that homosexuality can be either a choice or a disease, but not both.

I refuted your argument. Simple as that.

Refuted the salmonella argument? Where? You have shown that a disease can result from a choice, that's all. The disease itself is not a choice.


Is being a homicidal sociopath a disease, or it is a choice? If it's a disease, how can we rightfully hold homicidal sociopaths accountable for their actions if they are a result of the disease?

If they are found mentally ill, we don't hold them accountable. It's called not guilty by reason of mental defect.

[Gunny]

Refuted the salmonella argument? Where? You have shown that a disease can result from a choice, that's all. The disease itself is not a choice.

I made no comment on salmonella as it is irrelevant.

You're now resorting to semantics. If a person chooses to engage in behavior that has a KNOWN possible effect of resulting in a disease, that is indeed choosing the disease.

If they are found mentally ill, we don't hold them accountable. It's called not guilty by reason of mental defect.

We do hold them accountable. Finding them not guilty by reason of mental defect in a court of law only allows them to escape the criminal responsibility of their crime.

They are still held accountable by being segregated from society and incarcerated in mental institutions.

[manu1959]

We do hold them accountable. Finding them not guilty by reason of mental defect in a court of law only allows them to escape the criminal responsibility of their crime.

They are still held accountable by being segregated from society and incarcerated in mental institutions.

murder by definition is not the action of a sane individual

[Missileman]

You're now resorting to semantics. If a person chooses to engage in behavior that has a KNOWN possible effect of resulting in a disease, that is indeed choosing the disease.


EVERYONE KNOWS that chicken is often contaminated with salmonella...obviously, using your logic, people who get salmonella from eating chicken are choosing to get it. Put any more spin on your argument and the fucking planet will come to a stop from the gyroscopic forces.

[manu1959]

EVERYONE KNOWS that chicken is often contaminated with salmonella...obviously, using your logic, people who get salmonella from eating chicken are choosing to get it.


duh.......

[Pale Rider]

This whole chicken, salmonella arguement brings back disturbing memmories of an extreme, incest proponent, looney left nut job, from the other board called mattskrammer. Trying to talk sense to him was usually deflected from the issue by him comparing hamburgers to howitzers, or something as foolish as that.

So no matter how you slice it, homosexuality is a sick, vile, deviant, perverted and dangerous lifestyle. For a man to WANT to have sex with ANOTHER MAN is totally and absolutely ABNORMAL, and for him to ACT OUT these urges is a CHOICE.

THERE - IS - NO - DISPUTING - THAT - FACT.

[manu1959]

This whole chicken, salmonella arguement brings back disturbing memmories of an extreme, incest proponent, looney left nut job, from the other board called mattskrammer. Trying to talk sense to him was usually deflected from the issue by him comparing hamburgers to howitzers, or something as foolish as that.

So no matter how you slice it, homosexuality is a sick, vile, deviant, perverted and dangerous lifestyle. For a man to WANT to have sex with ANOTHER MAN is totally and absolutely ABNORMAL, and for him to ACT OUT these urges is a CHOICE.

THERE - IS - NO - DISPUTING - THAT - FACT.

what about two women....like say selma hayek and penelope cruz

http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/156955.php

[Pale Rider]

what about two women....like say selma hayek and penelope cruz

http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/156955.php

Same thing. It's sick, and I'm half surprized you felt the need to ask.

[Missileman]

This whole chicken, salmonella arguement brings back disturbing memmories of an extreme, incest proponent, looney left nut job, from the other board called mattskrammer. Trying to talk sense to him was usually deflected from the issue by him comparing hamburgers to howitzers, or something as foolish as that.

My argument is hardly "Krammeresque". I was comparing a disease to a disease...if you think it foolish, provide an argument to show it is. "Nuh uh, is not" doesn't cut it.


So no matter how you slice it, homosexuality is a sick, vile, deviant, perverted and dangerous lifestyle. For a man to WANT to have sex with ANOTHER MAN is totally and absolutely ABNORMAL, and for him to ACT OUT these urges is a CHOICE.

THERE - IS - NO - DISPUTING - THAT - FACT.


And all I'm saying is if that's your argument, then it's illogical to argue that it's also a disease.

[Pale Rider]

My argument is hardly "Krammeresque". I was comparing a disease to a disease...if you think it foolish, provide an argument to show it is. "Nuh uh, is not" doesn't cut it.
You were comparing eating CHICKEN and getting SICK to homosexuality. If that isn't "krammeresque", I don't know what is.



And all I'm saying is if that's your argument, then it's illogical to argue that it's also a disease.
Disease... illness... you're splitting hairs, and for what? Are you trying to argue whether or not you are born with it, or "catch it?" I can see trying to differentiate that. And I'd say it would have to be classified case by case. Because someone who may not EVER have had any homosexual ideas, I believe, can be made to think that it is OK to have them. Especially when they're indoctrinated into believing it's all fine and dandy when they are very young, instead of being told the honest truth. It's a vile, sick, perverted and filthy lifestyle. The queers know this, that's why they're trying to get at the kids at a very young age in schools. They're looking for new MEAT.

[mrg666]

It's called celibacy...practiced by heteros too.
are we forgetting here that sex first and foremost is supposed to be a means of re production . ie one male one female (for most)

[darin]

are we forgetting here that sex first and foremost is supposed to be a means of re production . ie one male one female (for most)

I don't agree. I think that's the second purpose of sex. I think the first purpose of sex is to bond a man and woman together, spiritually.

[mrg666]

so the two dogs in the street are bonding ?
its a natural urge and was meant as a reproductive means i agree we enjoy it
and it does create a bond
if we got an electric shock everytime it was done well we wouldnt be doing it

[darin]

so the two dogs in the street are bonding ?

Are the two dogs in the street husband and wife? Humans are NOT mere Animals.



its a natural urge and was meant as a reproductive means i agree we enjoy it
and it does create a bond

Its just that you have that backwards. God designed Sex to BOND a husband and wife, so to give their KIDS the best shot of growing up right. Before a husband and wife can be good parents, they MUST united. Bonded.



if we got an electric shock everytime it was done well we wouldnt be doing it

We would - but THEN we'd be doing it primarily for procreation.

[mrg666]

Are the two dogs in the street husband and wife? Humans are NOT mere Animals.



Its just that you have that backwards. God designed Sex to BOND a husband and wife, so to give their KIDS the best shot of growing up right. Before a husband and wife can be good parents, they MUST united. Bonded.



We would - but THEN we'd be doing it primarily for procreation.
i have to disagree primal instincts are still in us going back thousands of years
if it hurt to do what comes naturally we wouldnt have done it
hence we wouldnt have evolved ,
thats the thing we have evolved the dog / cow / horse, rabbit havent
even the black widow waits till its over before she kills him (the ultimate vinegar stroke)

[darin]

i have to disagree primal instincts are still in us going back thousands of years

That is exactly beside the point.



if it hurt to do what comes naturally we wouldnt have done it
hence we wouldnt have evolved ,

But it does NOT hurt us. We have sex, men and women, to form a BOND. TO unite in body and spirit. THEN we're prepared to procreate. IF, like you say, Sex was 'primarily' for procreation, we would have evolved to get pregnant EVERY time, right? Or at least MOST times?

We didn't evolve our sexuality. God created it within us for a reason. For the reasons I've articulated above.


thats the thing we have evolved the dog / cow / horse, rabbit havent

And they never WILL because they don't have a SOUL. Dogs, Cows, Horses, Rabbits are as they always have been.



even the black widow waits till its over before she kills him (the ultimate vinegar stroke)

Black widows SELDOM kill their mates. That's a myth.

[glockmail]

EVERYONE KNOWS that chicken is often contaminated with salmonella...obviously, using your logic, people who get salmonella from eating chicken are choosing to get it. Put any more spin on your argument and the fucking planet will come to a stop from the gyroscopic forces.

I eat chicken often- cooked until juices run clear.

I enjoy sex often- with the woman I married.

[mrg666]

That is exactly beside the point.



[quote]But it does NOT hurt us. We have sex, men and women, to form a BOND. TO unite in body and spirit. THEN we're prepared to procreate. IF, like you say, Sex was 'primarily' for procreation, we would have evolved to get pregnant EVERY time, right? Or at least MOST times?
it certainly wasnt designed for us to have a good time the initial idea was to keep up the population as with any other species the fact that we enjoy it makes it easier i agree that it creates a bond most other creatures do this


We didn't evolve our sexuality. God created it within us for a reason. For the reasons I've articulated above.
why bring god into it we evolved from pond creatures our sexuality evolved with us



And they never WILL because they don't have a SOUL. Dogs, Cows, Horses, Rabbits are as they always have been.
lets hope they never get a soul then because the food chain would have us all on soya beans and spuds



Black widows SELDOM kill their mates. That's a myth.
i swallowed the myth then :laugh2:

[darin]

it certainly wasnt designed for us to have a good time the initial idea was to keep up the population as with any other species the fact that we enjoy it makes it easier i agree that it creates a bond most other creatures do this



And In ORDER to give children the BEST CHANCE of survival and normal development, Sex BONDS the Husband and Wife together. You're putting the cart before the horse.


why bring god into it we evolved from pond creatures our sexuality evolved with us


Because not bringing God into the discussion would mean a less-honest discussion. It's MORE dishonest to say we just 'accidentally' evolved. ;)


lets hope they never get a soul then because the food chain would have us all on soya beans and spuds

Okay then...whatever.

[mrg666]

what i mean is from the primevil stages we were like any other animal
yes we evolved i dont go with the adam and eve thing sorry
we have evolved sex as we have evolved, our inteligence as allowed us this
ie to take it from a animalistic act to a act of love and ultimately creation

[darin]

what i mean is from the primevil stages we were like any other animal
yes we evolved i dont go with the adam and eve thing sorry
we have evolved sex as we have evolved our inteligence as allowed us this
ie to take it from a animalistic act to a act of love and ultimately creation

That's your problem then. You reject the notion of your Father creating us. That ruins it for you. Your life is never going to be as fulfilling as it COULD if you'd stop to acknowledge the wonderfulness and logic behind the Creator.

We had no Primeval stages. We were never 'animalistic' as a species. Cavemen never existed.

Sex is primarily what BONDS a husband and Wife. That BOND enables them to better create and raise children.

Your disbelief of that fact doesn't change the fact's truthfulness.

:)

[mrg666]

my paternal father created me (is name is bruce )
my belief is that folk use religion as a crutch
ill never say never but ive never felt the need for a crutch beyond a bottle of jack daniels :cheers2:

[darin]

my paternal father created me (is name is bruce )
my belief is that folk use religion as a crutch
ill never say never but ive never felt the need for a crutch beyond a bottle of jack daniels :cheers2:

Denial of God is a Crutch. It's a way people can reconcile their distance with their Creator, and justify their Sin. :)

:beer:

[mrg666]

touche :cool:

[Missileman]

You were comparing eating CHICKEN and getting SICK to homosexuality. If that isn't "krammeresque", I don't know what is.

No dipshit, I was comparing eating chicken and getting sick with drinking alcohol and getting sick...notice the correlation. Learn how to fuckin read already.


Disease... illness... you're splitting hairs, and for what? Are you trying to argue whether or not you are born with it, or "catch it?" I can see trying to differentiate that. And I'd say it would have to be classified case by case. Because someone who may not EVER have had any homosexual ideas, I believe, can be made to think that it is OK to have them. Especially when they're indoctrinated into believing it's all fine and dandy when they are very young, instead of being told the honest truth. It's a vile, sick, perverted and filthy lifestyle. The queers know this, that's why they're trying to get at the kids at a very young age in schools. They're looking for new MEAT.

Really slowly, so you can keep up: I'm......not......arguing......that......homosexua lity.......is........or.......isn't......a........ disease.

I'm arguing that if it's a disease, it's not a choice...if it's a choice, it's not a disease.

[Missileman]

are we forgetting here that sex first and foremost is supposed to be a means of re production . ie one male one female (for most)

It's way beyond that for human beings.