Gay People Love Kids (More than you might think!!1)

CorporateWhore

http://www.familyresearchinst.org/FRI_EduPamphlet2.html

The gay movement is forthright about seeking to legitimize child-adult homosexual sex. In 1987, The Journal of Homosexuality – the scholarly organ of the gay rights movement – published "Pedophilia and the Gay Movement." (29) Author Theo Sandfort detailed homosexual efforts to end "oppression towards pedophilia."

...


Gay adoption yay! What a great idea!

Discuss.

RolandTD20Kdrummer

NAMBLA anyone?

Eliot Rosewater

CorporateWhore wrote:

http://www.familyresearchinst.org/FRI_EduPamphlet2.html

The gay movement is forthright about seeking to legitimize child-adult homosexual sex. In 1987, The Journal of Homosexuality – the scholarly organ of the gay rights movement – published "Pedophilia and the Gay Movement." (29) Author Theo Sandfort detailed homosexual efforts to end "oppression towards pedophilia."

...


Gay adoption yay! What a great idea!

Discuss.

This is pushing the claim that homosexuals are deviants. While some may be, so are some heterosexuals. I don't believe that being gay is a choice....all of the time. But abusing a child is a choice 100% of the time. I seriously doubt the ratio of homosexual pedophiles is any greater than the ratio of heterosexual pedophiles. Sexual predators are a huge problem in our society. A problem that often gets covered up or just swept under the rug. These people are obviously sick and need some serious medical attention. Prison doesn't change them.

Juberoo

I'm the first one to dismiss homosexuality as natural, I don't hide my disgust and non-acceptance of it. But just because someone lives a gay life, doesn't make them automatically a pedophile. Stop stirring the pot. The link you presented was from the 80's...same sex relationships were still generally taboo and spoken of with unrealistic and untrue assumptions. If you have a legitimate comment then make it, if not then stop being ignorant.

CorporateWhore

Juberoo wrote:

I'm the first one to dismiss homosexuality as natural, I don't hide my disgust and non-acceptance of it. But just because someone lives a gay life, doesn't make them automatically a pedophile. Stop stirring the pot. The link you presented was from the 80's...same sex relationships were still generally taboo and spoken of with unrealistic and untrue assumptions. If you have a legitimate comment then make it, if not then stop being ignorant.

Actually it was from the 90s.

I didn't say all homosexuals are automatically pedophiles. But, they are automatically perverts and should not be taken seriously.

Homosexuality should still be taboo.

Rhinocerous Surprise

CorporateWhore wrote:

Actually it was from the 90s.

I didn't say all homosexuals are automatically pedophiles. But, they are automatically perverts and should not be taken seriously.

Homosexuality should still be taboo.

Would you say people always choose to gay, or would you concede that it's as natural a condition as heterosexuality, regardless of social taboos.

Juberoo

Rhinocerous Surprise wrote:

Would you say people always choose to gay, or would you concede that it's as natural a condition as heterosexuality, regardless of social taboos.

From a medical standpoint, there are two types of homosexuals. A genetic and an environmental.

There is plenty of building medical research that proves a definitive genetic and physical makeup in true homosexuals. There are also a small percentage of XXY males who have a tendency to lean towards homosexuality although their genetic makeup is not the same as a genetic homosexual. The extra gene gives them a more feminine makeup which can be confusing to some.

Others are homosexual or moreso bisexual by choice for social reasons.

(case in point...my teenage daughter has a male friend who has decided he is gay because he is uber feminine in behavior. He relates to girls on such a deeper level than his male counterparts. He would rather go clothes shopping at the mall than ever engage in a sport activity. He is fascinated by makeup and adores dressing and making up his "girl" friends. Because of this he assumes he is gay, although he has no interest in males from a sexual standpoint. I believe he is XXY although he has never been tested because of family ignorance of the issue. Hopefully as he gets older he will get the help he desperately needs to sort all of this out. My fear is that he will "experiment" with men eventually because it is what he believes is expected of him rather than what he "feels". This could lead to serious mental issues later on in life if he decides he is not truly gay. The guilt and shame he will suffer will be tumultuous. )

Rhinocerous Surprise

Juberoo wrote:

From a medical standpoint, there are two types of homosexuals. A genetic and an environmental.

There is plenty of building medical research that proves a definitive genetic and physical makeup in true homosexuals. There are also a small percentage of XXY males who have a tendency to lean towards homosexuality although their genetic makeup is not the same as a genetic homosexual. The extra gene gives them a more feminine makeup which can be confusing to some.

Others are homosexual or moreso bisexual by choice for social reasons.

Well, in the case of genetic homosexuals at least (and I'd extend this to environmental homosexuals as well, but one step at a time, right?), isn't denying them the right to marry/adopt/whatever on the grounds of their sexuality the same as doing it based on the colour of their skin?

Jeanie

Rhinocerous Surprise wrote:

Well, in the case of genetic homosexuals at least (and I'd extend this to environmental homosexuals as well, but one step at a time, right?), isn't denying them the right to marry/adopt/whatever on the grounds of their sexuality the same as doing it based on the colour of their skin?

Yes.

Juberoo

Rhinocerous Surprise wrote:

Well, in the case of genetic homosexuals at least (and I'd extend this to environmental homosexuals as well, but one step at a time, right?), isn't denying them the right to marry/adopt/whatever on the grounds of their sexuality the same as doing it based on the colour of their skin?

That depends on if you put this genetic anomaly in the same category as other defects.

From a discrimination standpoint, no. I personally do not believe that people who live this lifestyle should be denied basic human rights.

My spiritual standpoint is completely different. While I can accept their "genetic makeup" as fact, acting out on that is not acceptable. I put it into the same category as any other illness that might cause a person to act in an "unnatural" or "antisocial, general" behavior. For example alcoholism. It is now known as being caused or exacerbated by a distinct genetic defect. But this does not make it right to act upon it. It doesn't excuse alcoholic behavior. So from that view, while homosexuality may have a physical explaination, it is a defect that needs to be treated against.

Color of skin is not an anomaly so therefore isn't in the same category of discussion.

Rhinocerous Surprise

Juberoo wrote:

That depends on if you put this genetic anomaly in the same category as other defects.

From a discrimination standpoint, no. I personally do not believe that people who live this lifestyle should be denied basic human rights.

My spiritual standpoint is completely different. While I can accept their "genetic makeup" as fact, acting out on that is not acceptable. I put it into the same category as any other illness that might cause a person to act in an "unnatural" or "antisocial, general" behavior. For example alcoholism. It is now known as being caused or exacerbated by a distinct genetic defect. But this does not make it right to act upon it. It doesn't excuse alcoholic behavior. So from that view, while homosexuality may have a physical explaination, it is a defect that needs to be treated against.

Color of skin is not an anomaly so therefore isn't in the same category of discussion.

Colour of skin was considered "acceptable" grounds for denying people basic human rights at one point though. They were wrong about that, too.

Juberoo

Rhinocerous Surprise wrote:

Colour of skin was considered "acceptable" grounds for denying people basic human rights at one point though. They were wrong about that, too.

That doesn't mean anything. Color of skin doesn't cause a person to act a certain way. Homosexuality does. The two circumstances are completely different.

Rhinocerous Surprise

Juberoo wrote:

That doesn't mean anything. Color of skin doesn't cause a person to act a certain way. Homosexuality does. The two circumstances are completely different.

Heterosexuality causes people to act a certain way. PERSONALITY causes people to act a certain way. Sexuality doesn't cause make a person a threat any more than skin colour does. It's the individuals within all denominations that are threats, and saying homosexuals are any different to heterosexuals in that regard is blind prejudice.

Eliot Rosewater

CorporateWhore wrote:

Actually it was from the 90s.

I didn't say all homosexuals are automatically pedophiles. But, they are automatically perverts and should not be taken seriously.

Homosexuality should still be taboo.

There's a name for what you're experiencing... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bigotry

jeffbr

don't gimme no wrote:

There's a name for what you're experiencing... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bigotry

Bingo. There's another word as well:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homophobia

Austicman

RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:

NAMBLA anyone?

What the 'National American Marlon Brando Lookalike Association' are pedophiles OMG!!!

Vedd Hedd

Its a good thing priests cant adopt. Or school teachers.

Juberoo

Rhinocerous Surprise wrote:

Heterosexuality causes people to act a certain way. PERSONALITY causes people to act a certain way. Sexuality doesn't cause make a person a threat any more than skin colour does. It's the individuals within all denominations that are threats, and saying homosexuals are any different to heterosexuals in that regard is blind prejudice.

What it all boils down to is belief and reverence for a creator who has a right to dictate what is right and what is wrong. If you do not accept that thought into your philosophy of life, then you will never understand where or why religious people stand on various issues such as homosexuality.

For me, humility towards God and the bible cause me to support the ideology I do. Just as your reasons for your stance are yours. Who is to say which is right and which is wrong? They are individually equal. All we can do is choose to accept one anothers ability to decide. That doesn't mean we have to agree.

Juberoo

Vedd Hedd wrote:

Its a good thing priests cant adopt. Or school teachers.

Thats a great topic. Would you accept it as appropriate that a priest adopts a child? Sure he may show it copious amounts of love. He may be a wonderful parent. But the situation is less that "average/normal"...which of course is relative to the situation I know...but by any standard, is not typical. The home life would be "different", there would be no mother figure, the father's job would take precidence and require much attention, the child would be given into a world that would put him outside of the realm of his peers. Would such an environment be a good choice?

Vedd Hedd

Juberoo wrote:

Thats a great topic. Would you accept it as appropriate that a priest adopts a child? Sure he may show it copious amounts of love. He may be a wonderful parent. But the situation is less that "average/normal"...which of course is relative to the situation I know...but by any standard, is not typical. The home life would be "different", there would be no mother figure, the father's job would take precidence and require much attention, the child would be given into a world that would put him outside of the realm of his peers. Would such an environment be a good choice?

Nope. That and the fondling.

Deni

Juberoo wrote:

That depends on if you put this genetic anomaly in the same category as other defects.

From a discrimination standpoint, no. I personally do not believe that people who live this lifestyle should be denied basic human rights.

My spiritual standpoint is completely different. While I can accept their "genetic makeup" as fact, acting out on that is not acceptable. I put it into the same category as any other illness that might cause a person to act in an "unnatural" or "antisocial, general" behavior. For example alcoholism. It is now known as being caused or exacerbated by a distinct genetic defect. But this does not make it right to act upon it. It doesn't excuse alcoholic behavior. So from that view, while homosexuality may have a physical explaination, it is a defect that needs to be treated against.

Color of skin is not an anomaly so therefore isn't in the same category of discussion.

That to me is just as stupid as saying that people with true green eyes should be denied basic human rights. That's a fuck up of genetics too. They are also "unnatural". We shouldn't let them marry and have kids either. They should TRY to change the color of their eyes.

Whatever dude!

Deni

Juberoo wrote:

What it all boils down to is belief and reverence for a creator who has a right to dictate what is right and what is wrong. If you do not accept that thought into your philosophy of life, then you will never understand where or why religious people stand on various issues such as homosexuality.

For me, humility towards God and the bible cause me to support the ideology I do. Just as your reasons for your stance are yours. Who is to say which is right and which is wrong? They are individually equal. All we can do is choose to accept one anothers ability to decide. That doesn't mean we have to agree.

Okay, this is what I don't get. You have admitted that homosexuality is genetic. So, God created these people this way. And now you are saying that they should deny their nature because they were made wrong?

Is your God perfect? Can a perfect God create something imperfect?

In my opinion, being who you are... the way God made you... is the greatest honor you can give to God!

Unless you're gay? Sorry, it just doesn't make sense in my head. :(

Rhinocerous Surprise

Deni wrote:

Okay, this is what I don't get. You have admitted that homosexuality is genetic. So, God created these people this way. And now you are saying that they should deny their nature because they were made wrong?

Is your God perfect? Can a perfect God create something imperfect?

In my opinion, being who you are... the way God made you... is the greatest honor you can give to God!

Unless you're gay? Sorry, it just doesn't make sense in my head. :(

From my experience, hardline Catholics seem to think that homosexuals are made that way naturally. The unnatural part is acting on it. Whihc confuses me, because I don't see another option... Pretend to be straight?

Saying it boils down to faith in a creator who decides what's right and wrong is fine, but in my opinion, there comes a time when you have to acknowledge the disparity between "laws" that were handed down thousands of years ago, and our expanding understanding of how the human mind works.

RainDog

The lady doth protest too much, methinks.


As for Paul Cameron, according to Wikipedia, "his work has been repudiated for alleged misrepresentation of data by the American Sociological Association and Canadian Psychological Association." And let's not forget that "In 1983, the American Psychological Association decided to drop Cameron from membership for non-cooperation with an ethics investigation."

Damn, not only is homosexuality becoming less and less taboo, but it's public detractors keep getting outed as corrupt, insane, or gay themselves. I know how that's gotta hurt. Heroes are so hard to come by.

nickcat0

Rhinocerous Surprise wrote:

From my experience, hardline Catholics seem to think that homosexuals are made that way naturally. The unnatural part is acting on it. Whihc confuses me, because I don't see another option... Pretend to be straight?

I'm not an expert on "hardline catholics" but I think they believe , if you're gay , then you should abstain from sex .
Just consider it another temptation to be resisted .

even flow?

CorporateWhore wrote:

http://www.familyresearchinst.org/FRI_EduPamphlet2.html

The gay movement is forthright about seeking to legitimize child-adult homosexual sex. In 1987, The Journal of Homosexuality – the scholarly organ of the gay rights movement – published "Pedophilia and the Gay Movement." (29) Author Theo Sandfort detailed homosexual efforts to end "oppression towards pedophilia."

...


Gay adoption yay! What a great idea!

Discuss.

I heard that some priests were behind this too.

CorporateWhore

From the NAMBLA website:

"The issue of love between men and boys has intersected the gay movement since the late nineteenth century, with the rise of the first gay rights movement in Germany."

http://www.nambla.org/pederasty.htm

Deni

nickcat0 wrote:

I'm not an expert on "hardline catholics" but I think they believe , if you're gay , then you should abstain from sex .
Just consider it another temptation to be resisted .

Well, when I was a catholic... I guess according to the church I still am, but I no longer consider myself one... anyway, I was told that the only justifiable lifestyle for a gay person... the only life in which they were not committing a sin by just being gay is if they became a priest or a nun. That's it... every other way a gay person could live was sinful.

And that was reason # 219 why I'm no longer Catholic.

soulsinging

CorporateWhore wrote:

http://www.familyresearchinst.org/FRI_EduPamphlet2.html

The gay movement is forthright about seeking to legitimize child-adult homosexual sex. In 1987, The Journal of Homosexuality – the scholarly organ of the gay rights movement – published "Pedophilia and the Gay Movement." (29) Author Theo Sandfort detailed homosexual efforts to end "oppression towards pedophilia."

...


Gay adoption yay! What a great idea!

Discuss.

great unbiased source you've got there. i didn't need to read any further.

soulsinging

Juberoo wrote:

That depends on if you put this genetic anomaly in the same category as other defects.

From a discrimination standpoint, no. I personally do not believe that people who live this lifestyle should be denied basic human rights.

My spiritual standpoint is completely different. While I can accept their "genetic makeup" as fact, acting out on that is not acceptable. I put it into the same category as any other illness that might cause a person to act in an "unnatural" or "antisocial, general" behavior. For example alcoholism. It is now known as being caused or exacerbated by a distinct genetic defect. But this does not make it right to act upon it. It doesn't excuse alcoholic behavior. So from that view, while homosexuality may have a physical explaination, it is a defect that needs to be treated against.

Color of skin is not an anomaly so therefore isn't in the same category of discussion.

so alcoholics should not be allowed to marry either? or should be denied the right to purchase alcohol like other adults?

RainDog

CorporateWhore wrote:

From the NAMBLA website:

"The issue of love between men and boys has intersected the gay movement since the late nineteenth century, with the rise of the first gay rights movement in Germany."

http://www.nambla.org/pederasty.htm

Every organization defends their motivations.

But, um, not everyone visits the NAMBLA websight. What were you expecting to find?