Who doesn't back gay marriage?

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

Quote:
Anyone wh sexually assaults a child should be shot in the face
anyone who assaults a child should be locked up for life and allowd access to the general population

Sounds like you're talking to Dick Cheney.

1 Reply

@izzythepush,

who you talkin at?

0 Replies

@farmerman,

That has to be some kind of sick homosexual joke that I don't get farmer man. So you think it's a brutish act to shoot someone in the face for sexually assaulting a child But you have no problem with them getting beaten to death and Pounded in the butt by the prison population. Only a homosexual or one of their advocates would claim that is not a brutish act.

I would rather be shot in the face than pounded in the butt And brutally beaten to death by Big Nancy in prison.

At least my idea is quick and somewhat humane yours on the other hand is advocating for brutal torture. But coming from the sick mind that thinks homosexual behavior is moral and acceptable that does not surprise me

2 Replies

@Shadow X,

Attila the Hun wonders how Hitler could be so brutal, so evil.

0 Replies

@Shadow X,

I presented the difference in a couple of end member results, neither of which is very civilized.
There is the concept of a fair trial and q sentence hearing. I see yougive a lot of thought to killing people as a judge and executioner.
Keeping a pedophile in the general population is, of course, showing that such criminals rank on the lower rungs of prison society.

Now how about getting back to your rant against gay marriage. You've not made a compelling case with anything that approaches logic.
You do seem to be one angry dude though. Im not sure what your problem is but don't take it out on those who have yet to fully benefit of our civil rights

2 Replies

@farmerman,

Who said anything about no fair trial?

Civil rights? Do you think that incestuous couples should receive those same rights? Don't start crying about civil rights or equality if you don't actually believe in them.

And I'd like to point out to everyone that none of these folks are willing to provide an equation... there's a good reason for that.

1 Reply

@farmerman,

Quote:

You've not made a compelling case with anything that approaches logic.

The compelling case is that marriage is about the orderly management of fertility in relation to private property. Marxist opponents of private property can be expected to undermine the institution.

1 Reply

@Shadow X,

Shadow X wrote:

That has to be one of the dumbest things I've ever heard.

Evidently you have never read any of your posts out loud.

Shadow X wrote:

Give me a freaking break. Just admit you don't want to provide an equation because either you don't know how to produce one or else you know any equation you so produce will prove my point right.

You seem to misapprehend your task here. If you have an argument, it's your job to make a valid one. It's not my fault that your numbers don't work and it's not my job to make your job easier. I'm not the one arguing that homosexuals shouldn't be allowed to marry because they are more likely to be child molesters than heterosexuals - that's you. If you now want to drop that argument because you can't make the numbers work, just say so. If not, then you need to make your numbers work, not me.

Shadow X wrote:

You also pull some bs about how you really don't care which side is right. That's funny because when people like farmer or setanta made ridiculous claims in support of homosexuality, you didn't say ONE WORD about their obviously wrong numbers. You only attacked the guy on the other side I the argument. So you can take that excuse and stuff it with the rest of your excuses.

I'm not the A2K referee and I don't have an obligation to be impartial. This is a thread where opponents of gay marriage have the opportunity to present their arguments. I'm not particularly interested in the arguments for gay marriage - I've heard them all before. If any of the participants have offered flawed numbers in opposition to your argument, that's their problem, not mine. If their numbers are terrible, you should have no trouble pointing that out. I have my own critique of your argument, and it doesn't rely on anyone else's numbers.

Shadow X wrote:

This argument could be over very quickly. Just provide the equation.

Indeed, this argument could be over very quickly. Just provide the evidence.

1 Reply

@spendius,

Touched a raw nerve did I my leetle sneaky down-thumbers?

Prefer irrelevant distractions do you? Everybody knows that game. You drag your way through sufficient irrelevant material to get the phrase "homosexual marriage" so habitually used that people accept it for no other reason than that there seems nothing else to do.

The real reason you hide from in the expectation that others will imitate you. Marxists don't announce their presence. They think family and marriage and private property are dead wood on the evolutionary tree of political organisation.

And they might be right.

I've never been a Boy Scout but they do have a good motto.

0 Replies

@Shadow X,

Quote:

Who said anything about no fair trial?

You are the one who posted that he would shoot a child molester in the face(no mention of anything like due process) . I merely provided you some more rope with that train of thought.
I am certainly learning more and more about you as we excavate down to your bigoted core.

0 Replies

@joefromchicago,

You're being so dishonest it's ridiculous. That's cool. No problem.

Here's where I'm going to start. Since we can't know definitively, how many pedophiles engage in homosexual behavior... we can determine how many child molestors engage in homosexual behavior. Smile

I will establish how many child molestors engage in homosexual behavior. After that gets established... I'll establish an estimate of how many pedophiles do so. (I'm even going to do you guys a favor and only count the ones under age 12... not the rest of the child molestors which would make you look even worse).

First things first. Using the department of justice's statistics:
http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/saycrle.pdf

Page12: Nearly a quarter (27%) of the victims under age 12 were male.
Page8: Overall, 6% of the offenders who sexually assaulted juveniles were female, compared with just 1% of the female offenders who sexually assaulted adults
Page5: Females under age 12 were the lone victims in 77% of their sexual assaults compared with 69% of young males.

So. If 27% of the victims under age 12 are male, that means out of 1000 victims, we have 270 males that were victimized. Of those males 94% of them were sexually assaulted by males. Which 270*.94 = 253.8 or 254.

Out of 254 male victims who were assaulted by males, 69% of them were assaulted alone. 254*.69 = 175.26 or 175. So we have at LEAST 175 cases out of 1000 where a male sexually assaulted another male under the age of 18. I'll even say that all 79 males that are left were assaulted by one guy. So we have 176 cases out of 1000 where a male sexually assaulted another male under the age of 18... Leaving 176/1000 = 17.6%

17.6% of the total child molestations being males engaged in homosexual activities with another male who was under the age of 12.

Do you disagree with those numbers and that conclusion? If so, on what grounds?

2 Replies

@Shadow X,

Shadow X wrote:

First things first. Using the department of justice's statistics:
http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/saycrle.pdf

Why are you still using that study? Here's what you said about it: "That's only representative of a short period of time. Not the entire population of victims in the USA." Indeed, the study itself reveals the unrepresentative nature of its data - 12 states (not including the four most populous states) over a five-year period in the 1990s. If the study's numbers aren't representative, why use them?

Shadow X wrote:

Out of 254 male victims who were assaulted by males, 69% of them were assaulted alone. 254*.69 = 175.26 or 175. So we have at LEAST 175 cases out of 1000 where a male sexually assaulted another male under the age of 18.

No, you've misread the statistics again. The 69% figure is for males under 12 who were sexually assaulted alone. And I'm not sure why you chose the "victimized alone" category - it would actually help your argument to include all sexual assaults on underage males.

Shadow X wrote:

I'll even say that all 79 males that are left were assaulted by one guy. So we have 176 cases out of 1000 where a male sexually assaulted another male under the age of 18... Leaving 176/1000 = 17.6%

Under 12, not under 18. And you're still not reading the stats correctly.

Shadow X wrote:

17.6% of the total child molestations being males engaged in homosexual activities with another male who was under the age of 12.

That doesn't even make sense as an English sentence. What are you trying to say? That 17.6% of all sexual assaults on male minors are committed by homosexuals?

1 Reply

@joefromchicago,

Quote:

Why are you still using that study? Here's what you said about it: "That's only representative of a short period of time. Not the entire population of victims in the USA." Indeed, the study itself reveals the unrepresentative nature of its data - 12 states (not including the four most populous states) over a five-year period in the 1990s. If the study's numbers aren't representative, why use them?

LoL And it starts. The homosexual advocate has to lie to attempt to make a point. I never stated that the study was not representative of child molestation in the USA. You were attempting to make the argument that you could take the number of child molestations in this study, multiply them times 4 (since they were inclusive of 12 states) and that would be a representation of the TOTAL amount of child molestation victims in the USA. Which is patently absurd. The study only covers a 5 year period... so if you wanted to extrapolate it out to include, say, 50 years of data... you would have to multiply your numbers by at least ~10.

The study is absolutely representative of child molestation in the USA... it simply needs to be extrapolated out correctly to include the fact that they only used 5 years worth of data. You did not do so... as usual you were being dishonest and attempting to argue those were ALL the child molestation victims.

So in conclusion this study is absolutely valid. The other reason I used that study is because if I used any other study by any other group/individual that indicated those who engage in homosexuality are much more likely to be child molestors, you would have people like farmer and jtt and setanta crying about how they were rightwing christian homophobes. Using the DOJ study bypasses that.

Quote:

No, you've misread the statistics again. The 69% figure is for males under 12 who were sexually assaulted alone. And I'm not sure why you chose the "victimized alone" category - it would actually help your argument to include all sexual assaults on underage males.

This has to just be a mistake on your part. I'm well aware that the 69% figure is for males who were assaulted alone. I couldn't use the # for all sexual assaults on males, because if I did you would come back and say (like you did earlier) that some of the cases would have had multiple victims. SO I went ahead and took that into account and ONLY used the % of victims that were sexually assaulted alone.

So... as I said: "Out of 254 male victims who were assaulted by males, 69% of them were assaulted alone. 254*.69 = 175.26 or 175. So we have at LEAST 175 cases out of 1000 where a male sexually assaulted another male under the age of 18."

That is absolutely accurate. Do you still dispute that? If so, on what grounds?

Quote:

I'll even say that all 79 males that are left were assaulted by one guy. So we have 176 cases out of 1000 where a male sexually assaulted another male under the age of 18... Leaving 176/1000 = 17.6%

Under 12, not under 18. And you're still not reading the stats correctly.

Agreed, I should have said under the age of 12. Whcih by the way, helps your argument, because if we included those under the age of 18, the number of people who engage in homosexual child molestation would be much higher.

So it should state: "I'll even say that all 79 males that are left were assaulted by one guy. So we have 176 cases out of 1000 where a male sexually assaulted another male under the age of 12... Leaving 176/1000 = 17.6%"

All the other numbers in that quote are still accurate. Do you still dispute that? If so, on what grounds?

Quote:

17.6% of the total child molestations being males engaged in homosexual activities with another male who was under the age of 12.

That doesn't even make sense as an English sentence. What are you trying to say? That 17.6% of all sexual assaults on male minors are committed by homosexuals?

Don't play stupid. You know exactly what I'm saying. If you don't, let me spell it out for you. 17.6% of all sexual assaults on children under the age of 12 are males sexually assaulting other males.

Do you disagree with that? If so, on what grounds?

1 Reply

@Shadow X,

Shadow X wrote:

The study is absolutely representative of child molestation in the USA... it simply needs to be extrapolated out correctly to include the fact that they only used 5 years worth of data.

No, it needs to be used with caution because the sample might not be representative. You really don't know much about statistics, do you?

Shadow X wrote:

This has to just be a mistake on your part. I'm well aware that the 69% figure is for males who were assaulted alone.

But you don't seem to be aware that you said it represented the percentage of victims under 18 who were assaulted alone. That's not correct.

Shadow X wrote:

I couldn't use the # for all sexual assaults on males, because if I did you would come back and say (like you did earlier) that some of the cases would have had multiple victims. SO I went ahead and took that into account and ONLY used the % of victims that were sexually assaulted alone.

That doesn't make any sense. If one person assaults two victims in the same incident, why wouldn't you count both victims? You evidently don't understand the DOJ's categorization here, or else you've completely misunderstood my previous comments. I'm going to guess that it's both.

Shadow X wrote:

So... as I said: "Out of 254 male victims who were assaulted by males, 69% of them were assaulted alone. 254*.69 = 175.26 or 175. So we have at LEAST 175 cases out of 1000 where a male sexually assaulted another male under the age of 18."

Given the DOJ numbers, that is correct. Indeed, the incidence should be greater than 17.5%, but I won't quibble.

Shadow X wrote:

So it should state: "I'll even say that all 79 males that are left were assaulted by one guy. So we have 176 cases out of 1000 where a male sexually assaulted another male under the age of 12... Leaving 176/1000 = 17.6%"

Not sure how 175 became 176, but otherwise I'm fine with that.

Shadow X wrote:

17.6% of all sexual assaults on children under the age of 12 are males sexually assaulting other males.

See, that wasn't so hard to say after all.

Shadow X wrote:

Do you disagree with that? If so, on what grounds?

I have no problem with that. In fact, if the DOJ numbers are representative, the percentage is undoubtedly higher.

2 Replies

@joefromchicago,

Quote:

No, it needs to be used with caution because the sample might not be representative. You really don't know much about statistics, do you?

No problem. In fact I agree. Considering, as you pointed out, most of these states are not some of the most populus and the states that are included have a lower homosexual population, it would seem to indicate that if we brought in the rest of the states the numbers would indicate even MORE child molestations of males on males.

Quote:

This has to just be a mistake on your part. I'm well aware that the 69% figure is for males who were assaulted alone.

But you don't seem to be aware that you said it represented the percentage of victims under 18 who were assaulted alone. That's not correct.

Maybe you didn't read it properly.
Page5 in the 5th paragraph states: "females under age 12 were the lone victims in 77% of their sexual assaults compared with 69% of young males."

So how about you try again because those are the victims under 12 who were assaulted alone... (as I said, I misspoke earlier when I said 18) However it certainly is the % of victims under 12 who were assaulted alone.

Do you still dispute that? If so, on what grounds?

Quote:

I couldn't use the # for all sexual assaults on males, because if I did you would come back and say (like you did earlier) that some of the cases would have had multiple victims. SO I went ahead and took that into account and ONLY used the % of victims that were sexually assaulted alone.

That doesn't make any sense. If one person assaults two victims in the same incident, why wouldn't you count both victims? You evidently don't understand the DOJ's categorization here, or else you've completely misunderstood my previous comments. I'm going to guess that it's both.

What are you even talking about? The point is that 69% of the victims were assaulted alone. So we counted the 69% of the victims because we know 69% of them were assaulted alone. That comes out to be 175 victims. The other 31% (or 79 victims) I completely took out of the equation because we don't know if those 31% averaged 2 or 3 or 4 or 5 victims... So rather than attempt to find that calculation, I simply gave up ground. I said that ALL of the rest of the 39% were assaulted by one male. That left us with a total of at LEAST 176 SEPERATE incidences of child molestation with different SOLO victims.

What part of that do you not understand?

Quote:

Given the DOJ numbers, that is correct. Indeed, the incidence should be greater than 17.5%, but I won't quibble.

That's absolutely correct, because I gave up quite a bit of ground for no reason except I can. According to the vast majority of survey's on the percentage of the population that are LGBT(notice this is inclusive of bisexuals as well), they almost always indicate around 5% of our population are included in that group.

Now why is it, that approximately 5% of our population is committing at LEAST 17.5% of the child molestations and even according to your own admission, undoubtedly the numbers are higher.

See that would make them overrepresented in the child molestation statistics by at least THREE TIMES what they are represented in the total population. That's a problem.

2 Replies

@Shadow X,

Quote:

No problem. In fact I agree.

Good. Now can you two get a room or at least a toilet cubicle?

0 Replies

@joefromchicago,

See how quickly they turn on you when you even show the slightest hint of not "towing the company line"?

0 Replies

@Shadow X,

Shadow X wrote:

The point is that 69% of the victims were assaulted alone. So we counted the 69% of the victims because we know 69% of them were assaulted alone. That comes out to be 175 victims. The other 31% (or 79 victims) I completely took out of the equation because we don't know if those 31% averaged 2 or 3 or 4 or 5 victims...

You're making this overly complicated for yourself. The DOJ study says that 27% of victims under 12 were male. Why not just stick with that number?

Shadow X wrote:

Now why is it, that approximately 5% of our population is committing at LEAST 17.5% of the child molestations and even according to your own admission, undoubtedly the numbers are higher.

You define any male-male sexual assault as homosexual in nature. I don't agree with that, but I'll never convince you that you're wrong, so I won't bother to try.

Nevertheless, even if you're correct, so what? Let's suppose that homosexuals are responsible for a greater percentage of child sexual assaults than would be predicted by mere chance. If indeed homosexuals are statistically more likely to commit child sexual assault than heterosexuals, how is that an argument against gay marriage?

Shadow X wrote:

See that would make them overrepresented in the child molestation statistics by at least THREE TIMES what they are represented in the total population. That's a problem.

So go ahead and argue that homosexuals shouldn't have any contact with children. Why argue that they shouldn't get married to each other?

1 Reply

re shadowX
"toEing the company line" not "towing". sheesh.

1 Reply

@joefromchicago,

Well I mean if you'll accept the 27%... I'll be happy to go with that.

Regardless... you ask why would this be an argument against homosexual marriage. Because when you give them the right to marriage they also receive the right to adopt children... which where you come from may be fine, but in my state it's not acceptable. The reason it's not acceptable is because you do not give a group of people that you know are much more likely to be child predators unfettered access to children.

Now that's just one of the arguments against homosexual marriage. As I pointed out before it's really an ancillary argument... it just so happens its the argument that is most offensive to homosexuals so they tend to get their panties in a wad quicker over it. The main reason you don't allow homosexual marriage is economic in nature.

2 Replies

Who doesn't back gay marriage?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know