Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Some gay men ARE disgusting child molestors of boys (usually pubescent or post-pubescent boys.) Just as some straight men are disgusting child molestors of boys (usually pre-pubescent) and/or girls (pre-pubescent, pubescent or post-pubescent).
My issue with the OP is that he is trying to claim that men who molest boys are ALL homosexuals ( ie gay men) and that No heterosexual men (ie straight men) molest boys. He is also trying to claim that I have said that NO homosexual men molest children. Which is patently false.
The research I linked directly to, shows that men who molest boys either have no adult sexual orientation at all (fixated pedophiles), or are men with an adult heterosexual or homosexual, or bisexual sexual orientation (regressed pedophiles/child molestors). Amongst this second category, regressed heterosexual men are in the majority, according to the studies I posted.
Ive read all of this thread and find it to be fairly circular at this point. The over arching point that is agreed upon by all is that Pedophiles, regardless of primary sexual indentity are "Evil".
The idea that all homosexual acts make a person "Gay" is the primary arguement here. Society likes to put everyone into nice neat boxes as to their identity: Sexuality, Nationality or Race, everyone is suposed to go into a nice neat box: Doesn't happen in the real world. Most Straight and Gay people aren't even familier with terms like fixated pedophiles or regressed pedophiles: They probably should be. Straight people look at the act of pedophilia and say it is a Homosexual act and therefore the Perpretraitors must be gay. I know enough Gay and Lesbians that are just as Apalled by pedophilia as any straight person that I have come to the realization that Pedophiles lie in Straight, Gay, Lesbian and Bi-sexual communities and not just one.
I consider myself more enlightened on the subject from this debate.
By deliberately not linking to the sources of your quote mines, it appears that you intended people to believe your quote mines came from legitimate, reputable peer-reviewed academic sources. Instead you have been exposed as quote mining from anti-gay religuous propaganda websites. These groups have been exposed over and over again as distorting and misrepresenting any studies or articles they cite.
I gave you the source THE JOURNAL OF HOMOSEXUALITY...including page numbers. And you can't misrepresent or take out of context the quotes I presented.
Quit being such an overt fraud already... it's really shameless and extremely tiresome.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaymax
You continue to misrepresent what I posted and the research articles I linked directly to. And you continue to misrepresent what you yourself posted. Which shows that:
1. You don't understand the content of what I've actually posted and linked to. Ie: you don't actually understand much about child molestation or sexual orientation and have never read any published original articles or studies, so are confused about what the research actually says or does not say.
I know enough about the subject to understand that a male performing sex acts on another male does not fit the definition of heterosexual behavior.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaymax
2. You don't appear to understand what academic peer-reviewed published Journals are. Or the difference between a quote on a religious anti-gay website misrepresenting an article or study, and the original article or study itself.
I understand the nature of the "peer-review" process completely. I'm just under no juvenile delusions about what that process actually accomplishes. You obviously accept it as the stamp of unquestionable credibility, while I KNOW it is a overt form of censorship by means of excluding opinion which is not in substantial or total agreement with the consensus opinion, or peer-group. That you fail to recognize this speaks volumes about you, but is not at all surprising to me.
There are only two types of people who place value in the "peer reviewed" claim .. those that promote the opinion that was "reviewed and approved", and those who are intellectually incapable of recognizing how the process actually does the exact opposite of what they believe it does. It is by definition the process of allowing a collective group to censor information directly, by deciding which opinions are published and which are not published. Of course there is no clearer definition of censorship ... and no effort is made to disguise this fact ... it's simply implied that this literal form of censorship is done solely for the purpose of validating and protecting the integrity of the information "reviewed". Of course there is no inherent integrity in the process itself, but it does rely on a level of faith in the publishers/editors of these "journals" which would rival the trust children place in Santa's visit on Christmas Eve. As one matures, they realize the futility in sending wish lists to the North Pole, as well as the dubious nature of peer-reviewed journal information.
The nonsense you posted from pedophile apologist whack-job professors and psychologists who have managed to convinced you that dogs meow, is a perfect example of this. But this holds true across the board, no matter what professional discipline utilizes the peer-review mechanism. The one thing you WILL NOT FIND in a peer-reviewed journal, is conflicting opinion. That's the big clue you seem to be missing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaymax
Or
3. You are deliberately misrepresenting what I posted and what the studies and articles I linked to actually mean, to create strawman statements.
Again, I addressed your exact words, as well as the exact statements you posted directly from your source "Peer-Reviewed" studies presented.
And it's always the same thing with deceivers like you .... first you make illegitimate claims, and once they are resoundingly proven false, you back track and then insist that even your exact words, and clear claims have been "taken out of context".
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaymax
And/or
4, You are so blinded by your prejuduce and bigotry that your mind won't allow you see anything that contradicts your misinformed, willfully ignorant opinions.
And when all else fails, play the "race card". I swear ... you're a one trick pony .... a hot fudge sundae of lies, deceptions, logical fallacies, with the obligatory cherry on top ... the "bigot" charge.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaymax
I think ALL of the above probably applies to your posts in this thread.
But sadly for you, it appears that most people on this thread can actually read.
You've chosen to quote mine religious anti-gay propaganda websites for your "information".
I've chosen to transparently link to published original articles directly from academic peer-reviewed Journal sources.
Oh yes ... this is another well worn tactic of deception ... which is a blatant fraud on the surface. Your sources are always trustworthy, but any sources that challenge you are not. This ploy only works on the tiny minds that can't think for themselves.
The reality is ... a source of information does not in and of itself make information true or false. And those who employ the tactic of dismissing information based on who reports it, is a fraud who cannot refute the information itself, so they attack the source. But it is the information itself that is either true or false ... and it makes no difference who reports it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaymax
You linked to the homophobic NARTH website owned by a religious anti-gay fringe group which had some quote mines distorting and misrepresenting some articles from the Journal of Homosexuality. Then you tried to pass it off as a direct link to the actual Journal of Homosexuality.
We all know who the "fraud" is. And it's not me.
I clearly posted a link, so there is no way to misrepresent where that link links to .... and I also clearly stated that I am not a "subscriber" of The Journal of Homosexuality, so I cannot provide you a direct link to the articles quoted. But I did give you and everyone else all of the information you need to verify or refute the information, including the source, the article names and page numbers. If it is your contention that the statements and quotes are misrepresented, or untrue, then the onus is on you to prove that claim ... and not my obligation to pay for a subscription for you to a disgusting rag which openly promotes sex with children.
Just network a little. I'm sure you probably already have a friend or two that are subscribers.
Ive read all of this thread and find it to be fairly circular at this point. The over arching point that is agreed upon by all is that Pedophiles, regardless of primary sexual indentity are "Evil".
The idea that all homosexual acts make a person "Gay" is the primary arguement here. Society likes to put everyone into nice neat boxes as to their identity: Sexuality, Nationality or Race, everyone is suposed to go into a nice neat box: Doesn't happen in the real world. Most Straight and Gay people aren't even familier with terms like fixated pedophiles or regressed pedophiles: They probably should be. Straight people look at the act of pedophilia and say it is a Homosexual act and therefore the Perpretraitors must be gay. I know enough Gay and Lesbians that are just as Apalled by pedophilia as any straight person that I have come to the realization that Pedophiles lie in Straight, Gay, Lesbian and Bi-sexual communities and not just one.
I consider myself more enlightened on the subject from this debate.
I can only speak for myself .... no one else ... but I'd like to clarify a couple of points, so that no one is confused about MY position.
I indeed subscribe to the notion that those who desire and engage in same sex relations are homosexual, by definition. And folks can say that view is too rigid or black & white. That's fine ... they are free to do so. But its just a fact which is true on the surface and free of inane rationalizations. That doesn't mean that there aren't instances where someone is persuaded, or coerced or forced into such an act against there wishes, desires or inclinations ... which would then not be an act of homosexuality, but a coerced act. And this is ALWAYS true in the case of young children, as they cannot consent to sexual activity of any variety, nor are they mature enough to even understand such things as sexual orientation.
But I want to correct the statement I highlighted above ... straight people (at least this straight person) don't consider pedophilia as an act of homosexuality ... we consider it a sexual assault on a child. Homosexuality only enters the discussion if the perpetrator is the same sex as the child. It would be ludicrous to claim that all pedophiles are homosexual, particularly given the fact that more child molestations occur which observe a heterosexual orientation.
What I reject is the effort being made to marginalize or deny the prevalence of homosexual pedophiles by inanely labeling a male that assaults a male child as a heterosexual. And I don't care what form of rationalizing takes place to draw such a counter intuitive conclusion, be it "self identification" by the perpetrator themselves, or some "clinical" explanation by the psychiatric community defining the special circumstances that magically allow UP to become DOWN. It's just pure double talk.
The medical community is not unlike the legal community in their love of fancy Latin terms, and created labels that make something sound far more complex than it really is. (It makes them feel needed when they are asked to explain them to the unsophisticated layman). But the reality is, as far as the two subtypes of pedophiles called Fixated and Regressed are concerned ... there is nothing magical here. The "fixated" pedophile can be defined as someone who has no adult sexual/intimate relationships, with only children as their selected targets. While the "Regressed" pedophile does have adult sexual relationships. It's really no more complicated than that.
You could also define it as the difference between a predator who operates under the cover of being a normal person with normal relationships, and one who has not managed to create that image, for whatever reason.
But neither should be mistaken as a reason for believing that up is actually down .... that there are these complex issues that cause a heterosexual to desire same sex relations with children. It requires too much mental gymnastics to believe such nonsense.
That these perverts who molest children are mentally deranged is all too obvious to begin with ... so attempting to clinically define what they may be thinking and feeling and motivated by may be of interest to the psychiatric pathologist, but to a sane, rational mind, this is just a bunch of psycho-babble coming from those who are frequently as nutty as the patients they work with.
Like I've said before ... these perverts can believe they are chickens, and they can dress themselves in yellow clothing exclusively ..and they can flap their arms as if they were wings ... and make clucking sounds ... but they aren't any closer to being able to lay eggs than you or I. And I'm not sure who is really more disturbed ... the man who thinks he's a chicken, or the people explaining the absence of eggs.
I indeed subscribe to the notion that those who desire and engage in same sex relations are homosexual, by definition. And folks can say that view is too rigid or black & white. That's fine ... they are free to do so. But its just a fact which is true on the surface and free of inane rationalizations.
Jaymax has CLEARLY demonstrated this to NOT be fact. You've lost this one.
If there was any reason to put Guy on Ignore, its this very thread.
No one should pay him any attention for the propaganda spewing hate he posts.
Are you kidding?
This thread is a breath of fresh air in a forum literally gasping for the oxygen of truth on the PC topics....where all but one point of view is taboo. And GNT has a singular ability (and by that I mean no one else here even comes close) to eloquently and directly challenge the ocean of 'progressive' propaganda posted here daily. Lots of other members wholeheartedly agree with him, but few are as articulate and none that I've ever seen have the patience he has to elaborate at such length in response to such BS and stay within the TOS. Believe me, I'd have much more to say if I didn't have to stay on eggshells.
Summarily, lots of us are sick and tired of the nonsense GNT is taking on. But, for the most part, we are just enjoying the read....because GNT is a tough act to follow.
The other poster is slightly confused ... for that person, I would only say:
"The purpose of this thread is to paint all child molesters as a threat no matter who they are, as well as anyone who presents false claims, distortions, or deceptions which may impede the ability for the rest of us to identify them".
If that includes members of the homosexual community, tough. Political correctness be damned. The only concern should be for protecting the safety of children, not the image or reputation of a group.
How is it helpful to deny the facts that men who molest boys can be, and often are, heterosexual men who are attracted to adult women? (Regressed pedophiles)
How will you identify child molestors and protect children if you assume boys are safe with a man just because he is heterosexual?
How is it helpful to spread myths that gay men are far more likely to molest children than straight men when all the evidence from over 60 years of research shows this is not true?
If you ever actually read the studies, you might realise how much you don't actually know about pedophilia and child molestation.
And if you ever actually read my posts and the studies I linked to, you might realise that I have never claimed that all child molestors and pedophiles are heterosexual and that none of them are gay. That's a very obvious strawman argument.
You are buying into ignorant homophobic myths and propaganda and irresponsibly spreading it around. Not surprising considering where you get your "information" (relgious anti-gay propaganda websites).
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
.... and I also clearly stated that I am not a "subscriber" of The Journal of Homosexuality, so I cannot provide you a direct link to the articles quoted. But I did give you and everyone else all of the information you need to verify or refute the information, including the source, the article names and page numbers. If it is your contention that the statements and quotes are misrepresented, or untrue, then the onus is on you to prove that claim ... and not my obligation to pay for a subscription for you to a disgusting rag which openly promotes sex with children. 
