CHILD MOLESTATION & THE GAY AGENDA - PART 1

by Perry 64 Replies latest members adult

• 

  Mimilly

  Perry - I am usually a laid-back kinda gal - that is, until my thinking is compared with the likes of the borg.

  I've no doubt that somewhere, a homosexual has molested a child. That NAMBLA (sp?) group is a fringe sicko group that does not represent the majority and should be watched closely because of what they advocate.

  I would also not call this fringe group to be 'prominent leadership' within the gay community.

  I hope you have the intelligence to understand that any researcher can bias a study by taking a few words here and a few words there. Hell, the JWs do it all the time. This is one of those studies.

  The list of credits means zip to me. You said you are talking about child molestation. So did my post. What your thread is trying to do is make it seem as though all homosexuals seek to molest children - and THAT is bullshit. I don't care who they are - PEDOPHILES molest kids, and among them are some homosexuals.

  Don't bother with a part ll of this topic. It insults the intelligence of many here.

  Mimilly
• 

  DakotaRed

  Perry, there have been gays right here on this forum speak out against pedophelia. While I believe it is possible and likely that some gays might also be pedophiles, not all are. To my knowledge, heterosexuals make up the majority of pedophiles. Surely, we cannot advocate condemning the entire heterosexual community?

  Pedophiles are pedophiles, be they gay, straight or whatever. And, should be dealt with as such without trying to include another agenda into it.

  Lew W

  Watchtower Decruit
• 

  Perry

  The list of credits means zip to me. You said you are talking about child molestation. So did my post. What your thread is trying to do is make it seem as though all homosexuals seek to molest children - and THAT is bullshit. I don't care who they are - PEDOPHILES molest kids, and among them are some homosexuals.

  We usually crave to get our hands on documentation that has to do with this problem. Now, when it is politically incorrect to expose another group why is it the "credits mean zip"?

  I didn't mean to upset you or anyone else and only brought this topic up because it's on everyone's minds. I was hoping to get a more critical review of the material. The sources certainly do not appear fringe.....although I do doubt they represent the majority of gays. We have seen with the WT how our leadership can and will at times exert their own will over the will of those they lead. Human nature being what it is....why would this groups' leadership be any different? I light of his propositions, should we protest just as loud?

  Dakota,

  One of his arguments is that "intergenerational" sex is likely to influence someone's sexuality. He cites reports that show a 7 time proportional likelihood of child abuse coming from a non-straight person. Let's say for the sake of argument that .5% of the population are molesters, according to my calculations this would still mean that over 96% of gays are not molesters.

  That being the case, my point is this. Has the gay community in their plight to love everyone without judgement, become lax in condemming people who claim to speak for them, but display corruption from the pedeophilia community?

  Edited by - Perry on 28 July 2002 16:25:21
• 

  Mimilly

  Perry - I am certain that if you picked up the phone and dialed a MAINSTREAM gay advocacy group, they would tell you where to look for the articles that you want. This article apparently fell into your lap so-to-speak and now you want proof that the guy who did the study is wrong. Well - go look! Call up the various groups and see for yourself.

  I'm sure they will be more than pleased to be of assistance to you in this matter. And btw - this study sounded like something the borg would put out. That in itself should ring warning bells.

  hugs,

  Mimilly

  edited to add: The credits meant zip to me because the study insulted my intelligence - it screamed bias.

  Edited by - Mimilly on 28 July 2002 16:23:49
• 

  Perry

  Hugs back Mimilly :-)
• 

  Jankyn

  Let's see.

  ALL the experts (American Psychiatric Association, American Psycological Association) say there is NO connection between pedophilia and homosexuality. The two are in fact different things entirely.

  The gay and lesbian press has written extensively about this for years, and has been covering the current abuse scandal thoroughly (see articles over the past 9 months in The Advocate, The Blade (Washington, DC), The Bay Area Reporter, The Philadelphia Gay News...I could go on, because even the local gay paper in Sacramento has covered it).

  NO GLBT organization supports the stance of NAMBLA, and they are pariahs to the GLBT community. The rejection of NAMBLA has been widely publicized both within and without the GLBT community, but is conveniently ignored by right-wing homophobes with an axe to grind.

  The Catholic Church tries to play the victim by blaming gay priests for the abuse of children. This makes it possible for them to ignore female victims--in fact most of the victims are probably girls (evidence suggests 4 to 6 times as many victims are female as male, but it's the boys who get the media attention)--and deflect attention from their own complicity in covering up the crimes. David Clohessey (SNAP--the Catholic survivor's group) expresses "dismay" at the way the Church is scapegoating gays. (Check out the SNAP website: http://www.survivorsnetwork.org ) 

  And, oh, yeah, let's not forget that gays and lesbians are among the victims of pedophiles.  But somehow it's all their fault.

  What a load of hooey this guy is shoveling.

  Jankyn

  Edited to add:  I did check out the documentation.  Not only is Regent Univ. a well-known right-wing Christian organization, but this guy is quoting the likes of Beverly LaHaye.  Hardly an disinterested academic, she and hubby Tim (of "Left Behind" fame) are the founders of Concerned Women For America, a virulently anti-gay group.  Now, had he cited independent academic sources, I might be willing to give him some credence--but the independent academic sources don't support his theories at all.  In short, this is about as balanced a piece as a WT article.  Just because you've added footnotes doesn't mean you've added credibility.

  Edited by - Jankyn on 28 July 2002 16:53:18

  Edited by - Jankyn on 28 July 2002 16:54:56

  Edited by - Jankyn on 28 July 2002 16:55:41
• 

  teejay

  I'm nearly at the point of being flustered due to the fact that there is so much (mis) information here and so many ways I could respond. I will comment on two quotes:

  Gay characters have become the norm on sitcoms; it has become fashionable to attack the Boy Scouts; homosexual propaganda inundates many of our public schools; nearly all the mainstream religious denominations have "revised" their understanding of Biblical teaching concerning homosexuality; and the gay "rights" legislative agenda is succeeding beyond the advocates wildest imaginations.

  ... the destructive impact homosexuality has upon Western Civilization is rarely discussed ... some conservative publications ignore the issue and instead have published articles arguing for greater tolerance of the gay lifestyle. However, it is time to acknowledge that homosexual behavior threatens the foundation of Western civilization -- the nuclear family.

  Perry,

  I will admit that I didn't read all (nine pages) of your post. Sorry. And I don't really know where you were going with it, so this might miss the mark from what you were looking for. If so, I apologize for that, too.

  All I'll say is that, yes the mainstream media (and maybe society in general) has become more accepting of homosexuality -- more tolerant and less abusive, but is that a bad thing?

  Secondly, I was amused by the author's hugely ironic statement: "the destructive impact of homosexuality on Western Civilization". Correct me if I'm wrong, but the ancient Greeks and Romans, on which Western Civilization rests, was noted for its inclusion of homosexuality as a normal sexual expression, yes? It was not until orthodox Christianity came into the mix that homophobia became the norm.

  It's true that, by its very nature, homosexuality threatens the ideal of "nuclear family." So what? Something can be said of ALL cultures: they either change to fit a people that are themselves collectively changing or they die. Why should present day cultures be any different? We change, we grow, we adjust to new circumstances... or we die. It's true of species, individuals, cultures.

  Imo, homosexuality threatens the nuclear family less than does the *planned* single-parent family of Murphy Brown fame that was denounced by Quayle (and the religious Right) years ago. As far as I'm concerned, that lifestyle is even MORE destructive as it presupposes the unimportance of both parents in the rearing of children.

  More to the point of your post: Are there *some* homosexuals that lean toward pedophilia? No doubt. As there are some Blacks, some Spanish Americans, some Italians, etc. It's a general statement that I think most would not be able to argue with. On the other hand, to suggest that there is a wide scale agenda in that direction on the part of gays and that there is an equally vibrant conspiracy to suppress said agenda (as I gleaned from my scan of your post here) is absurd.
• 

  scootergirl

  perry wrote:

  ...only brought this topic up because it's on everyone's minds

  I agree that this is bullshit and I refuse to even give you an ounce of my rebuttle w/such silly accusations! And , BTW, I don't think it has been on everyone's mind!

  Edited by - scootergirl on 28 July 2002 17:11:21
• 

  ISP

  This whole issue is a red herring to me.

  The WTS stands condemned because of it child abuse policies. The child abuse within the WTS is much more balanced between heterosexual/homosexual activity than say the much publicised abuse in Catholicism which is virtually all homosexual. Paedophilia is the problem. To now attack the gay community would be to miss the point......the WTS paedophile protection policy is the target.

  I question the relevance of this to JW issues.

  ISP
• 

  COMF

  The fact is, Perry, if you believe what you posted, you are an idiot. If you don't believe it, you're a troll.