Who doesn't back gay marriage?

@Frank Apisa,

Yeah because it's totally my fault that the homosexual community advocates for pedophilia and other deviant lifestyles.

Homosexuals represent less than 3% of the total population... yet they have the single largest group that advocates for pedophilia to be made legal. You don't see a problem with that?

1 Reply

@Shadow X,

Shadow X wrote:

Yeah because it's totally my fault that the homosexual community advocates for pedophilia and other deviant lifestyles.

Homosexuals represent less than 3% of the total population... yet they have the single largest group that advocates for pedophilia to be made legal. You don't see a problem with that?

Shadow...do you realize that 93.4% of all statistics are made up right on the spot where they are offered?

2 Replies

https://fbcdn-sphotos-b-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-prn1/65651_560868353958456_1470899241_n.jpg

As my original point stated... acceptance of the homosexual community is nothing more than the first step to the acceptance of other deviant lifestyles because homosexuality is nothing more than a symptom of a larger mental problem.

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Maybe people like you... but as for myself, I can actually source all of my statistics from valid studies performed by well-known respected collegiate professors... and things like the DOJ statistics.

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

https://fbcdn-sphotos-c-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-prn1/164898_556830721028886_614348824_n.jpg

0 Replies

Wehre are all the quotes from the heterosexual community advocating for pedophilia? I mean approximately 97% of the population is heterosexual... if the amount of pedophilia acceptance in the homosexual community is the standard then we should have thousands upon thousands of quotes from the heterosexual community advocating for pedophilia right?

But we don't. There's a good reason for that. Because heterosexuality is not a symptom of a larger disease unlike homosexuality.

1 Reply

@Shadow X,

Shadow X wrote:

Wehre are all the quotes from the heterosexual community advocating for pedophilia? I mean approximately 97% of the population is heterosexual... if the amount of pedophilia acceptance in the homosexual community is the standard then we should have thousands upon thousands of quotes from the heterosexual community advocating for pedophilia right?

But we don't. There's a good reason for that. Because heterosexuality is not a symptom of a larger disease unlike homosexuality.

As I said earlier: "You are sick...I'll grant you that. But I suspect that you suspect the wrong Genesis of the sickness. "

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Yeah... why am I not surprised that a homosexual advocate doesn't seem to have a problem with the pedophilia epidemic within the homosexual community.

BTW... that's an ad hominem attack.... You say nothing about the pedophilia, you say nothing about the quotes or statistics or sources provided... you just attack my character by saying I'm sick. That's an ad hominem. Seriously... go look it up. I'll even find it for you.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

1 Reply

Another reason homosexual marriage should not be allowed.

First of all, i do not believe in any subsidies. I dont think we should be paying married couples anything. The gov should not appropriate money feom one group to support another group. If you are going to do so however you better have a damn good reason for doing so. So why are we giving money to married couples? We do so because it provides an environment that is conducive to the creation of children or revenue streams for society.

Now I'd like to point out why Heteros get those benefits that homosexuals should not. Lets take two couples. We will call them Hetero Couple and Homo Couple. BOTH couples will take more out of the system in the form of marriage benefits than they put into the system to help pay for those benefits. To make the numbers easy to understand... Lets say BOTH couples take out $200,000 in marriage benefits and they both put in $100,000 in taxes. That means BOTH Hetero and Homo couple are net negative $100,000. The difference is that Homo couple is incapable of reproduction in and of themselves. So when they die their revenue stream ends as being net negative. Now Hetero couple is net neg $100,000 as well however they produced 4 children. Two of those children got married and two did not. The two that did not get married pay $50,000 into the system making up for the $100,000 that their parents were in the whole. The other two children get married and have more children and so on and so forth. That revenue stream that was created by the heterosexuals could theoretically be worth trillions of dollars to society and last for thousands of years. THAT is why we provide benefits.

Now to head off a few issues that will likely be brought up. First gay couples can adopt. Of course they can. But we are not paying for the RAISING of the revenue stream, we are paying for the CREATION of those revenue streams. Anyone can raise a child, straight or gay or single parent or a grandparent... Hell even wolves and monkeys have shown they are capable of raising a child to adulthood. But the ONLY relationship that is capable of CREATING human children is the heterosexual relationship. Another thing, history has shown unequivocally that once the child or revenue stream is created that over time (even if one is a sociopath) the revenue stream will be overall beneficial to the economy.

Now why do we provide benefits to sterile couples or to really old people who get married? We do so because it is costly, inefficient sand ultimately ineffective to test every couple to see if they're sterile or have become sterile every year or if they're just choosing not to have children. It is not economically feasible to test. So we choose to provide the entire group (heterosexual married couples) for the POTENTIAL of child creation. A potential that homosexuals in and of themselves do not provide. Therefore they do not qualify.

If you feel as though sterile or old couples or anyone else who receives benefits should not have them, that is fine and perfectly understandable. However, with that being said, you ONLY have a legitimate argument as to why certain heterosexual groups should not receive those benefits but you absolutely no legitimate argument WHATSOEVER as to why homosexuals SHOULD receive those benefits.

0 Replies

@Shadow X,

Shadow X wrote:

Yeah... why am I not surprised that a homosexual advocate doesn't seem to have a problem with the pedophilia epidemic within the homosexual community.

BTW... that's an ad hominem attack.... You say nothing about the pedophilia, you say nothing about the quotes or statistics or sources provided... you just attack my character by saying I'm sick. That's an ad hominem. Seriously... go look it up. I'll even find it for you.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

Shadow...you were the one who brought up your sickness. You initiated this area of the discussion.

How is my reply to what you instigated...an ad hominem.

Do you know what an ad hominem is?

Discussing what YOU raised is not an ad hominem attack...it is a discussion of the subject matter YOU raised.

Jeez.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Yes actually it is an ad hominem attack. Please go read the link I gave you before you embarass yourself even further.

1 Reply

From The proportions of heterosexual and homosexual pedophiles among sex offenders against children: an exploratory study. -- Freund K, Watson RJ.

Quote:

Previous investigations have indicated that the ratio of sex offenders against female children vs. offenders against male children is approximately 2:1, while the ratio of gynephiles to androphiles among the general population is approximately 20:1. The present study investigated whether the etiology of preferred partner sex among pedophiles is related to the etiology of preferred partner sex among males preferring adult partners. Using phallometric test sensitivities to calculate the proportion of true pedophiles among various groups of sex offenders against children, and taking into consideration previously reported mean numbers of victims per offender group, the ratio of heterosexual to homosexual pedophiles was calculated to be approximately 11:1. This suggests that the resulting proportion of true pedophiles among persons with a homosexual erotic development is greater than that in persons who develop heterosexually. This, of course, would not indicate that androphilic males have a greater propensity to offend against children. (emphasis added)

From the University of California at Davis' Psychology Department, a page entirled "Facts about Homosexuality and Child Molestation" has the following conclusion:

Quote:

The empirical research does not show that gay or bisexual men are any more likely than heterosexual men to molest children. This is not to argue that homosexual and bisexual men never molest children. But there is no scientific basis for asserting that they are more likely than heterosexual men to do so. And, as explained above, many child molesters cannot be characterized as having an adult sexual orientation at all; they are fixated on children.

I recommend THAT PAGE as it discussion right-wing, and particularly christian right-wing anti-homosexual propaganda on this issue.

These are just two examples of reputable, scholarly research which denies the riht-wing, often religious, usually hysterical claims about homosexuals and child abuse. Right-wing organizations, especially religiously motivated organizations, provide hundreds of pages of accusations, but don't provide reliable, scholarly sources for their claims.

2 Replies

@Setanta,

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.

1 Reply

@Shadow X,

Shadow X wrote:

Yes actually it is an ad hominem attack. Please go read the link I gave you before you embarass yourself even further.

Shadow raises a subject.

Frank discusses the raised subject.

That is not an ad hominem attack.

Go read a dictionary before you embarass (sic) yourself even further.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Another article dealing with the proportionality issue of child abuse was published by Freund and Watson in 1992. These authors5 noted the 1985 literature review by FRI’s chairman, and agreed that the ratio of female to male pedophilic victims was about 2:1, even as the proportion of heterosexual to homosexual men is about 20:1. Freund and Watson did some ‘figuring’ to arrive at an estimate that homosexual men are ‘only’ twice as apt to be pedophiles. They concluded that their findings generated support for the notion that “a homosexual development notably often does not result in androphilia [sexual desire for men] but in homosexual pedophilia [desire for boys]. … This, of course, should not be understood as saying that androphiles may have a greater propensity to offend against children than do gynephiles [men interested in sex with women],….” (p. 41). Notice that both sets of Canadian investigators went to some lengths to ‘interpret’ or ‘gloss’ their results as not harmful to the gay rights cause, but were honest enough to report ‘the facts’ as they found them.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Shadow X is a bigot, and I will not legitimise his bigotry by debating with him. Suffice it to say that nobody on A2K who advocates equality for gays supports paedophiles. Paedophiles should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. The two people on A2K who are concerned about paedophile's rights, and see viewing child pornography as a victimless crime, Hawkeye and BillRM, are both resoundingly heterosexual.

Instead of allowing a bigot to demonise a whole bunch of people we should be looking at the valuable contribution that gays have made to society, people like Alan Turing.

Quote:

During World War II, Turing worked for the Government Code and Cypher School (GC&CS) at Bletchley Park, Britain's codebreaking centre. For a time he was head of Hut 8, the section responsible for German naval cryptanalysis. He devised a number of techniques for breaking German ciphers, including the method of the bombe, an electromechanical machine that could find settings for the Enigma machine.

Turing's homosexuality resulted in a criminal prosecution in 1952, when homosexual acts were still illegal in the United Kingdom. He accepted treatment with female hormones (chemical castration) as an alternative to prison. Turing died in 1954, just over two weeks before his 42nd birthday, from cyanide poisoning. An inquest determined that his death was suicide; his mother and some others believed his death was accidental.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Turing

Most conservative estimates find codebreakers at Bletchley Park responsible for shortening the war by two years. Hitler's rocket programme was the most advanced in the world, and they weren't that far off getting the A bomb. Those two years could have given Hitler victory. We owe men like Alan Turing a debt of gratitude, and how he was treated later in life was disgraceful. We need to make sure nothing like that happens again.

2 Replies

@izzythepush,

izzythepush wrote:

Shadow X is a bigot, and I will not legitimise his bigotry by debating with him.

Yer right, Iz...and I will cease my contact with his forthwith.

0 Replies

@izzythepush,

Yeah we wouldn't want you to have to deal with reality and the astoundingly high rate of pedophilia in the homosexual community. We wouldn't want you to have to deal with the fact that homosexuals have a much higher rate of deviant lifestyles than any other group.

You just want to post war stories of gay guys.

I'm sure if we looked really hard we could find war stories of pedophiles too... I guess that makes them okay? Give me a freaking break.

The only argument you have is to ignore it and call other people bigots. Pathetic.

1 Reply

@Shadow X,

I don't accept ipse dixit claims==no evidence, no credence.

1 Reply

@Shadow X,

I've already backed up my claim. All you've done is puke up more right-wing christian propaganda which itself is not supported by reliable evidence.

1 Reply

Who doesn't back gay marriage?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know