California Voters Approve Gay-Marriage Ban

As I told you already. I do not believe we should provide them any subsidies at all. But again the ONLY argument u have is why heterosexuals should NOT receive those benefits but u have no argument whatsoever as to why homosexual should receive those benefits.

As I told you already. I do not believe we should provide them any subsidies at all. But again the ONLY argument u have is why heterosexuals should NOT receive those benefits but u have no argument whatsoever as to why homosexual should receive those benefits.

I reported it cause I didn't see it on the thread. If it duplicates I apologize.

I will be honest and you have made a case that I can understand even though I do not agree with it. I have stated the same case as being a legitimate case for a sociopath to make. What I am saying is that if you are a sociopath there is a good reason to make such a case.

I look at this as modern day slavery and not taking into account all that people contribute to society.

I am in no way calling heterosexuals out on this because most all of the gay people I speak to only seem to be concerned with their gay agenda and screw everyone else. Not all of them do this but it does not make them any better than you in my opinion.

I certainly appreciate your honesty. I would like to point out that this was not my argument. This has been the argument as to why we provide marriage benefits since we instituted them. This exact argument was made earlier this year in front of the Supreme Court.

And btw I don't look at it as slavery. I look at it like... Disability. Unless you are disabled you do not qualify for the benefits. Unless you are capable of providing the benefit of child creation to society then u simply do not qualify to receive the benefits.

If u want to go get married have at it. You can go to any town in any county in any state in this country and have a ceremony, give each other rings, say vows and kiss in front if all ur friends and family and then go on ur honeymoon and live happily ever after. Nobody will stop you and I don't give a damn what you do behind your doors. UNTIL you start expecting me to pay you for it out of my hard earned money. Then it DOES become my business.

Does this mean that you think they should deserve the same rights as disabled people? Maybe we should subsidize them for not being able to get pregnant and pay for what ever it takes them to have a child such as paying a surrogate mother or something similar?

Well like I said I don't believe in any subsidies however if the homosexuals want to attempt to cure their disability then I could understand the argument.

I see your point but my question was do you think that they should have the same rights as other disabled people?

Are you asking me if a homosexual is disabled should be be allowed to receive disability? Absolutely.

Is their disability not being able to have children or do you see their disability as being different than you in some other way?

Texas Judge Forbids Lesbian Woman From Living With Her Partner
http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2013/05/17/2029361/texas-judge-forbids-lesbian-woman-from-living-with-her-partner/?mobile=nc

That really is sad and I wish that there was a federal law of equality that all states should have to adhere to.

I think you missed my point. I wasn't stating that homosexuals are disabled. That would indicate they have no control over their actions. I was using Disability but I could have simply used Unemployment. I do not look at the denial of homosexual marriage as slavery, I consider it to be like unemployment. Unless you can qualify for the unemployment then you cannot receive the benefits. Rich people with jobs are not able to get those unemployment benefits. The same is true with marriage. The homosexuals simply do not meet the qualifications to be able to receive marriage benefits.

Did you even read the link?

According to Price, Judge John Roach, a Republican who presides over a state trial court in McKinney, Texas, placed a so-called “morality clause” in Compton’s divorce papers. This clause forbids Compton having a person that she is not related to “by blood or marriage” at her home past 9pm when her children are present.

First of all, if she didn't agree with it, she shouldn't have signed the divorce papers that includes a morality clause. And it doesn't simply deny her from living with another woman... it denies her ability to allow ANYONE to live in her house... or more specifically be in her house after 9pm.

How bout you folks try again.

Let me ask you a question. How do you respond to these absolutely damning... despicable numbers?

First let me give you the source.
http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/saycrle.pdf

~27% of victims of pedophilia are males.
~98% of perpetrators of pedophilia are males.

That means that of the 27% of victims of pedophilia are males and 98% of those are molested by men. Let's say there are 1000 victims of pedophilia. 270 of those are males. of those 270 ... 265 of those are victims of men.

So out of the total population of child molestors, homosexuals represent 26.5% of the child molestors. Now why in the **** does <1% of the total population represent 26.5% of the total pedophiles?

That is the single biggest issue that I have with homosexuals. They are VASTLY overrepresented in regards to pedophilia. 2600% more than what they represent in the total population... that's a problem.

You're making the assumption that a man who molests male children is homosexual.

This from the Psych dept at UC (Davis) might provide you some background.

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

I challenge your assertion and want you to back up your claim. Every time I have this discussion with a homosexual, or someone who is supporting them, they always make this same argument about pedophiles can't be labeled homosexuals and they always source the EXACT same webpage/document:

http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/...olestation.html

The problem is, this is not a study or even a legitimate survey. This is a glorified blog entry by a self-described "internationally recognized authority on sexual prejudice (also called homophobia), hate crimes, and AIDS stigma." Not only is this not an actual scientific study, it is simply this one man surveying a group of studies that he hand picks ALL of which are from the 70's and 80's except for a couple. He then comes out and says "case closed, after reviewing all these studies that I hand picked, I've concluded that homosexuals cannot be pedophiles." Providing this as a "source" is tantamount to me sourcing Jerry Falwell who went and hand picked a group of studies from the 70's and 80's and he comes out and tells you that "case closed, after reviewing all these studies I've concluded that homosexuals are all pedophiles."

Now... How about you back up your claim. Show that pedophiles have no sexual attraction to adults. Show that pedophiles have no preference in regards to the gender of their victim. Until then a male pedophile that has sex with a young boy is a homosexual

You see this is nothing more than an excuse. The only way homosexuals can justify the absolute ABSURDLY high rate of pedophilia in the homosexual community is to say that the guy who wants to have sex with that young boy isn't ACTUALLY a homosexual... he's some kind of weird third sexuality so you can't pin those activities on homosexuality. It's a ludicrous position to take.

Well it's not my area of expertise - but I'm not surprised it's often cited - it's a literature review that covers a bunch of studies.

Try this then - or do a google scholar search
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00926238408405945#.UZnBiEr6Ung

How do you explain that female homosexuals, like females in general are rarely pedophiles. Is that a different sort of homosexuality?

This is such a straw man argument:


I never said homosexuals weren't capable of pedophilia, I merely said that kiddy fiddlers that sexually abused boys were not necessarily homosexual.

Your binary approach to sexuality tells me everything I need to know about where you're coming from.

Shocking, the only study you could find was one that your original link referenced in regards to his argument. Notice this occured in 1984 and has been shown to be incorrect on multiple occasions.

I don't need to explain female homosexuals rarely being pedophiles. They are simply a minute portion of the population in regards to pedophiles just like the heterosexual female pedophiles. That doesn't make them any less pedophiles or homosexual/heterosexual. They are simply both. If women like to have sex with females, REGARDLESS of age, they are homosexuals. If they like to have sex with females and they target underage children, they're homosexual pedophiles. If women like to have sex with males and they target underage children, they're heterosexual pedophiles.

You stated, "I never said homosexuals weren't capable of pedophilia, I merely said that kiddy fiddlers that sexually abused boys were not necessarily homosexual."

Right... you're claiming that a male that has sex with a younger male is not a homosexual... he's a pedophile.

The simple fact that you must use this absurd logic to justify your position tells me everything I need to know about where you're coming from. And to be quite honest it's rather disturbing that you would put the safety of children at risk simply to defend your position on homosexuality. You want to ignore the statistics that clearly indicate a disproportionate number of homosexual pedophiles because it looks bad on that community.

Let's examine your assertion. Pedophiles go after children who have not reached puberty. Let's say we have a child that has not reached puberty and you have a homosexual that wants to have sex with that child. According to what you and the link you provided are claiming... that individual cannot be labeled as a homosexual because he is attracted to someone who has not hit puberty. Now the kid reaches puberty and the homosexual still wants to have sex with him. Is the homosexual now a homosexual? Or is he still some weird third sexuality that doesn't really count as homosexual? In otherwords at what age or what point in development does the victim have to be to be for the offender to be classified as a homosexual as opposed to a pedophile?

Whether you like it or not, the statistics clearly indicate a disproportionate amount of male on male sexual attraction within the pedophile community. I'll put it this way... in a room full of 100 people... you would be MUCH more likely to make contact with a pedophile if the 100 people were homosexual than you would if the 100 people were heterosexual. I don't particularly care if you like that fact or not. I'm sorry if the numbers indicate, what amounts to be, an epidemic of pedophilia in the homosexual community. If you have a problem with it, I suggest you address them, not me.

Well I can give you my observation but I am sure there are many ways of twisting this information.

The source is 13 years old but lets say it is still creditable.



Well lets take a look at this in a different light, this could also reveal that 98% of all sociopaths are male compared to woman sociopaths and I think that this number will be close to what can be found.

Another thing I noticed was the language you used. your first quote was

Then your wording changed to men



I am not sure that I would call all of the 98% men because I think that you will see that many of them young males were not men but rather curious young boys behaving in a way that offended their siblings or friends.

We can look at other information that is damning to heterosexuals and not very damning to homosexuals, should we use this information to take away rights from heterosexuals and allow homosexuals to continue receiving their rights?