Total Posts:22|Showing Posts:1-22
Jump to topic:

BSA covers up homosexual molestation

medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/21/2013 10:34:54 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
BSA covered up over 1200 cases of homosexual molestation, yet recently decided to allow gay members. That move was obviously made to pave the way for allowing openly homosexual scout leaders as well.
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/21/2013 10:48:34 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/21/2013 10:34:54 AM, medic0506 wrote:
That move was obviously made to pave the way for allowing openly homosexual scout leaders as well.

lol

not that Boy scout leaders molesting kids is funny...

but I really don't think this is some kind of a conspiracy to encourage molestations... as you seem to be implying.

The boy scouts are mostly controlled by mormons who didn't want gays allowed in at all... and this decision was made ONLY because a bunch of National sponsors who give tons of cash were threatening to Stop giving cash if they excluded gay scouts.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
Noumena
Posts: 6,047
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/21/2013 11:08:55 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Are we calling it heterosexual molestation now?
: At 5/13/2014 7:05:20 PM, Crescendo wrote:
: The difference is that the gay movement is currently pushing their will on Churches, as shown in the link to gay marriage in Denmark. Meanwhile, the Inquisition ended several centuries ago.
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/21/2013 11:17:55 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/21/2013 10:48:34 AM, mattrodstrom wrote:
At 6/21/2013 10:34:54 AM, medic0506 wrote:
That move was obviously made to pave the way for allowing openly homosexual scout leaders as well.

lol

not that Boy scout leaders molesting kids is funny...

but I really don't think this is some kind of a conspiracy to encourage molestations... as you seem to be implying.

The boy scouts are mostly controlled by mormons who didn't want gays allowed in at all... and this decision was made ONLY because a bunch of National sponsors who give tons of cash were threatening to Stop giving cash if they excluded gay scouts.

Also, the boyscouts are struggling among more secular places.. and the ban on gays (/religious overtones) wasn't seen as helping...

Thus, I know the NY counsel, and probably others, were all-for overturning the ban... (though they'd probably be running the risk of being kicked out of the National Organization if they'd previously said that Publicly) as it just gives them bad press and helps with the decimation of their program.

I very much enjoyed being in the boyscouts... But I'm not god-monger... and am also against banning kids from participating just because of their, what I see as their, relatively unharmful/benign, natural dispositions.

It can be a very good program, and help kids mature, teach them a lot, and be a lot of fun.... I'd like to see it prosper, and wouldn't want it to continue with the unecessary stigmatizing/denial of people or getting involved in such personal things as religion and sexual orientation as it has in the past... and Now such discrimination is singling it out and helping suppress the reach of Scouting in less, fanciful, areas of the country...

The boy scouts should seek to continue to provide a good, enjoyable, educational, program which helps kids mature and take responsibility for what they do.

That is what the programs about.. This other business just gets in the way of that.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/21/2013 11:18:21 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/21/2013 11:08:55 AM, Noumena wrote:
Are we calling it heterosexual molestation now?

If the situation fits go for it. I'm all for calling it what it really is.
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/21/2013 11:26:49 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/21/2013 11:17:55 AM, mattrodstrom wrote:
The boy scouts should seek to continue to provide a good, enjoyable, educational, program which helps kids mature and take responsibility for what they do.

That is what the programs about.. This other business just gets in the way of that.

There should be no shame in being honest...
and no shame in a kid being honest about his sexual orientation..

Foremost among all things the boyscout program seeks to encourage it's kids to be honest, straightforward, and sincere... And to respect yourself and others who show such honesty and sincerity in their lives...

Banning people who live openly in such a manner, be it because they're honest about not believing in god, or liking someone of the same sex, is rather petty and counter to the general mature, and respectful, attitude which the program has always aimed at encouraging.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
Noumena
Posts: 6,047
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/21/2013 11:34:20 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/21/2013 10:34:54 AM, medic0506 wrote:

BSA covered up over 1200 cases of homosexual molestation, yet recently decided to allow gay members.

The allegations go back to the 60's. Are you suggesting some sort of link? Furthermore, are you suggesting that allowing scouts the option of not hiding their orientation will in any way exacerbate this?

That move was obviously made to pave the way for allowing openly homosexual scout leaders as well.

Maybe. Do you think allowing homosexuals scout leaders the choice to be open will exacerbate this?
: At 5/13/2014 7:05:20 PM, Crescendo wrote:
: The difference is that the gay movement is currently pushing their will on Churches, as shown in the link to gay marriage in Denmark. Meanwhile, the Inquisition ended several centuries ago.
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/21/2013 11:50:26 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/21/2013 11:26:49 AM, mattrodstrom wrote:
At 6/21/2013 11:17:55 AM, mattrodstrom wrote:
The boy scouts should seek to continue to provide a good, enjoyable, educational, program which helps kids mature and take responsibility for what they do.

That is what the programs about.. This other business just gets in the way of that.

There should be no shame in being honest...
and no shame in a kid being honest about his sexual orientation..

Foremost among all things the boyscout program seeks to encourage it's kids to be honest, straightforward, and sincere... And to respect yourself and others who show such honesty and sincerity in their lives...

Banning people who live openly in such a manner, be it because they're honest about not believing in god, or liking someone of the same sex, is rather petty and counter to the general mature, and respectful, attitude which the program has always aimed at encouraging.

Then why infiltrate an obviously faith based organization?? Homosexualists know exactly what they're doing when they're trying to make a political statement. If they were all wholesome and innocent like, only trying to live their lives, they'd have respect for others who have religious beliefs, and realize that they don't fit into those kinds of organizations. They don't have that ability to live and let live though, it's all about changing everyone's thinking to adapt to them and their lifestyle. They've infiltrated the church, the schools, the workplace, the scouts, on top of demanding that we totally redefine marriage so that it can include friends with benefits. Call me a conspiracy theorist if you will, but I think that anyone who doesn't see the scope of what's happened over the past few decades, is na"ve. This is just a natural side effect of the sexual revolution, which has been nothing but bad for this country, and is going to continue to lead us swirling down the toilet into the sewer that is hedonism.

My God, I've turned into my grandpa.
Noumena
Posts: 6,047
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/21/2013 11:57:19 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/21/2013 11:50:26 AM, medic0506 wrote:
At 6/21/2013 11:26:49 AM, mattrodstrom wrote:
At 6/21/2013 11:17:55 AM, mattrodstrom wrote:
The boy scouts should seek to continue to provide a good, enjoyable, educational, program which helps kids mature and take responsibility for what they do.

That is what the programs about.. This other business just gets in the way of that.

There should be no shame in being honest...
and no shame in a kid being honest about his sexual orientation..

Foremost among all things the boyscout program seeks to encourage it's kids to be honest, straightforward, and sincere... And to respect yourself and others who show such honesty and sincerity in their lives...

Banning people who live openly in such a manner, be it because they're honest about not believing in god, or liking someone of the same sex, is rather petty and counter to the general mature, and respectful, attitude which the program has always aimed at encouraging.

Then why infiltrate an obviously faith based organization??

Homosexualists know exactly what they're doing when they're trying to make a political statement. If they were all wholesome and innocent like, only trying to live their lives, they'd have respect for others who have religious beliefs, and realize that they don't fit into those kinds of organizations. They don't have that ability to live and let live though, it's all about changing everyone's thinking to adapt to them and their lifestyle.

I don't care if you think I'm immoral for being gay. I care if you try to discriminate against me or people like me for it.

They've infiltrated the church, the schools, the workplace, the scouts, on top of demanding that we totally redefine marriage so that it can include friends with benefits. Call me a conspiracy theorist if you will,

Yer a conspiracy theorist.

but I think that anyone who doesn't see the scope of what's happened over the past few decades, is na"ve.

Anyone who says the kinds of things you do is either trolling or horrifyingly prejudiced.

This is just a natural side effect of the sexual revolution, which has been nothing but bad for this country, and is going to continue to lead us swirling down the toilet into the sewer that is hedonism.

My God, I've turned into my grandpa.

It's sad isn't it?
: At 5/13/2014 7:05:20 PM, Crescendo wrote:
: The difference is that the gay movement is currently pushing their will on Churches, as shown in the link to gay marriage in Denmark. Meanwhile, the Inquisition ended several centuries ago.
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/21/2013 12:05:34 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/21/2013 11:50:26 AM, medic0506 wrote:
Then why infiltrate an obviously faith based organization??

I didn't infiltrate it... I was a cub scout before I was an atheist.

And I was probably inducted into the boyscouts shortly before realizing that I didn't believe in god...

However, like church, CCD, and pretty much a whole lot of my social/family life.. I wouldn't really have been comfortable explaining that I didn't believe in God.

And, boyscouts was fun, a lot of my friends were there.. and I doubt the leaders would've really kicked me out if I did explain that I didn't really believe in god....

Plus, I wouldn't have wanted to explain that to them.. People can be bigoted morons, even if they're otherwise decent people.. and I wouldn't have wanted to cause unnecessary friction with people I respected and dealt with.

Now, thankfully.. I didn't exactly wear my atheism on my sleave, nor were my scout-leaders stupid crusaders seeking to root out atheists.. or make sure everyone was High-Ho-Away on the God-boat... So it wasn't an issue.. and I very much enjoyed participating in scouts, and think I got a lot out of it... I think most kids I was in scouts with got a lot out of it.

However, I dislike the idea of things like religious and sexual affiliation/orientation getting in the way of such a beneficial thing for kids... who, at that time in their lives, can really use a program like the boyscouts.. and would that the boyscout organization can find some way to avoid having such a petty kind of thing get in the way of the service that they can do for people.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/21/2013 12:16:36 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/21/2013 11:34:20 AM, Noumena wrote:
At 6/21/2013 10:34:54 AM, medic0506 wrote:

BSA covered up over 1200 cases of homosexual molestation, yet recently decided to allow gay members.

The allegations go back to the 60's. Are you suggesting some sort of link?

I think the link is self-evident. Allow homosexual pedophiles access to kids and there will be kids getting molested.

Furthermore, are you suggesting that allowing scouts the option of not hiding their orientation will in any way exacerbate this?

Exacerbate?? No, probably not, in fact it may even lower the numbers. The homosexual pedophile can just claim that the kid said he was gay and that it was consensual.

There are mental health professionals out there now claiming that pedophilia is just another sexual orientation, just like homosexuality, and it should be recognized as such. There are also some who are saying that kids having consensual sex doesn't cause any lasting harm to them. So it doesn't take a rocket surgeon to figure out what's in store down the road. Say goodbye to age of consent laws and statutory rape.

That move was obviously made to pave the way for allowing openly homosexual scout leaders as well.

Maybe. Do you think allowing homosexuals scout leaders the choice to be open will exacerbate this?

Yes, I think allowing homosexuals to be involved with kids increases the likelihood. I don't think all homosexuals are pedophiles, but unfortunately we can't tell who will offend until after the fact.

The important question is, why does a group of people who commit themselves to a lifestyle that precludes them from having their own children, need to be around and have access to other people's children?? I see no justifiable affirmative answer to that question.
Noumena
Posts: 6,047
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/21/2013 12:23:41 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/21/2013 12:16:36 PM, medic0506 wrote:

I think the link is self-evident. Allow homosexual pedophiles access to kids and there will be kids getting molested.

Ok that's a jump. At least yer not still beating behind the bush. Why do you think allowing gay scout leaders means allowing pedophiles?

Exacerbate?? No, probably not, in fact it may even lower the numbers. The homosexual pedophile can just claim that the kid said he was gay and that it was consensual.

Ugh. At least yer trolling.

There are mental health professionals out there now claiming that pedophilia is just another sexual orientation, just like homosexuality, and it should be recognized as such.

It's not and it shouldn't. Furthermore you haven't shown a link between accepting homosexuality and accepting pedophilia which is obviously what you think.

There are also some who are saying that kids having consensual sex doesn't cause any lasting harm to them.

Depends on the age. If the kid is seven, probably. If the kid is thirteen, there's no universal answer to that question.

So it doesn't take a rocket surgeon to figure out what's in store down the road. Say goodbye to age of consent laws and statutory rape.

Yeah K.

Yes, I think allowing homosexuals to be involved with kids increases the likelihood. I don't think all homosexuals are pedophiles, but unfortunately we can't tell who will offend until after the fact.

I don't think all heterosexuals are pedophiles, but unfortunately we can't tell who will offend until after the fact.

The important question is, why does a group of people who commit themselves to a lifestyle that precludes them from having their own children,

Being gay doesn't do that. Plenty of gay couples have children. It's people like you that try to stop that.

need to be around and have access to other people's children?? I see no justifiable affirmative answer to that question.

Do you think someone has to have children of their own in order to take pleasure in mentoring and helping children?
: At 5/13/2014 7:05:20 PM, Crescendo wrote:
: The difference is that the gay movement is currently pushing their will on Churches, as shown in the link to gay marriage in Denmark. Meanwhile, the Inquisition ended several centuries ago.
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/21/2013 12:27:28 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/21/2013 11:50:26 AM, medic0506 wrote:
Then why infiltrate an obviously faith based organization??

Also, the boy scouts isn't faith based...

With the exception of the Mormons, it's nominally religious at best...

Groups are often sponsored by churches (to hold meetings, store stuff, and whatnot) but the program makes no mention of particular religious beliefs (other than some belief in God/higher power, much like the masons)...

And the morals that they stress are clearly designed to be general enough that it transcends particular religious moralities, and is broad enough to be secular in nature.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/21/2013 12:32:01 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/21/2013 11:57:19 AM, Noumena wrote:

Homosexualists know exactly what they're doing when they're trying to make a political statement. If they were all wholesome and innocent like, only trying to live their lives, they'd have respect for others who have religious beliefs, and realize that they don't fit into those kinds of organizations. They don't have that ability to live and let live though, it's all about changing everyone's thinking to adapt to them and their lifestyle.

I don't care if you think I'm immoral for being gay. I care if you try to discriminate against me or people like me for it.

That's just an emotional ploy. It was the homosexualists who went looking for a fight, in the first place, and then they scream discrimination when they find what they went looking for, knowing full well they were the instigators. So go sell that crap to someone na"ve enough to fall for it.

They've infiltrated the church, the schools, the workplace, the scouts, on top of demanding that we totally redefine marriage so that it can include friends with benefits. Call me a conspiracy theorist if you will,

Yer a conspiracy theorist.

but I think that anyone who doesn't see the scope of what's happened over the past few decades, is na"ve.

Anyone who says the kinds of things you do is either trolling or horrifyingly prejudiced.

Yes I am, there are some things that are worthy of prejudice. I plead guilty to being prejudiced against moral decay of society.

This is just a natural side effect of the sexual revolution, which has been nothing but bad for this country, and is going to continue to lead us swirling down the toilet into the sewer that is hedonism.

My God, I've turned into my grandpa.

It's sad isn't it?

It's sad that he could see it all those years ago and I didn't believe him.
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/21/2013 12:32:33 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/21/2013 12:27:28 PM, mattrodstrom wrote:
At 6/21/2013 11:50:26 AM, medic0506 wrote:
Then why infiltrate an obviously faith based organization??

Also, the boy scouts isn't faith based...

With the exception of the Mormons, it's nominally religious at best...

Groups are often sponsored by churches (to hold meetings, store stuff, and whatnot) but the program makes no mention of particular religious beliefs (other than some belief in God/higher power, much like the masons)...

And the morals that they stress are clearly designed to be general enough that it transcends particular religious moralities, and is broad enough to be secular in nature.

Sure, do they mention God... Yes..

But, so far as I've ever been able to tell.. it's no more than a mention.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
Noumena
Posts: 6,047
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/21/2013 12:43:29 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/21/2013 12:32:01 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 6/21/2013 11:57:19 AM, Noumena wrote:

I don't care if you think I'm immoral for being gay. I care if you try to discriminate against me or people like me for it.

That's just an emotional ploy. It was the homosexualists who went looking for a fight, in the first place, and then they scream discrimination when they find what they went looking for, knowing full well they were the instigators. So go sell that crap to someone na"ve enough to fall for it.

How are "homosexualists" (and you got on to me about using the word homophobe?) the one's looking for a fight when the BSA was discriminating?

Yes I am, there are some things that are worthy of prejudice. I plead guilty to being prejudiced against moral decay of society.

Yeah no. Yer not just saying "so and so is bad". Yer positing a link between homosexuality and pedophilia, a link that has been completely falsified.
: At 5/13/2014 7:05:20 PM, Crescendo wrote:
: The difference is that the gay movement is currently pushing their will on Churches, as shown in the link to gay marriage in Denmark. Meanwhile, the Inquisition ended several centuries ago.
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/21/2013 2:17:44 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/21/2013 12:23:41 PM, Noumena wrote:
At 6/21/2013 12:16:36 PM, medic0506 wrote:

I think the link is self-evident. Allow homosexual pedophiles access to kids and there will be kids getting molested.

Ok that's a jump. At least yer not still beating behind the bush. Why do you think allowing gay scout leaders means allowing pedophiles?

1. Normal Christian parents, who follow biblical teachings on marital and sexual issues, and realize that all other sexual expression is unnatural, obviously aren't the pedophiles.
2. Who is more likely to commit sexual offenses, the people in group #1, or those who deny the natural procreative nature of their own bodies, and admit to having unnatural desires and sex.
3. Both pedophilia and homosexuality are linked to childhood trauma, and parental separation.

Exacerbate?? No, probably not, in fact it may even lower the numbers. The homosexual pedophile can just claim that the kid said he was gay and that it was consensual.

Ugh. At least yer trolling.

There are mental health professionals out there now claiming that pedophilia is just another sexual orientation, just like homosexuality, and it should be recognized as such.

It's not and it shouldn't. Furthermore you haven't shown a link between accepting homosexuality and accepting pedophilia which is obviously what you think.

Being open to unnatural sex acts is more than enough of a link, in addition to what I've already listed.

There are also some who are saying that kids having consensual sex doesn't cause any lasting harm to them.

Depends on the age. If the kid is seven, probably. If the kid is thirteen, there's no universal answer to that question.

I rest my case.

So it doesn't take a rocket surgeon to figure out what's in store down the road. Say goodbye to age of consent laws and statutory rape.

Yeah K.

Yes, I think allowing homosexuals to be involved with kids increases the likelihood. I don't think all homosexuals are pedophiles, but unfortunately we can't tell who will offend until after the fact.

I don't think all heterosexuals are pedophiles, but unfortunately we can't tell who will offend until after the fact.

The difference being that it is the heterosexuals who are having kids, so it's natural for heterosexuals to be around kids, and they have that right. There is no natural reason for homosexuals to need to be around other people's kids when they are giving up the ability to have their own.

The important question is, why does a group of people who commit themselves to a lifestyle that precludes them from having their own children,

Being gay doesn't do that. Plenty of gay couples have children. It's people like you that try to stop that.

You're inability to grasp the problem with what you said just illustrates my point. Even if they get a child through some other means, they aren't the parents, and by definition, they are intentionally depriving a child of the opposite sex role model, which has been shown for decades to lead to problems for children. The fact that they even consider it shows that they have no interest in doing what is in the best interest of kids, putting their own sexual desire ahead of the kids. That's not parent material.

need to be around and have access to other people's children?? I see no justifiable affirmative answer to that question.

Do you think someone has to have children of their own in order to take pleasure in mentoring and helping children?

No homosexual can serve as a good role model, especially in an organization whose members take an oath to fulfill their duty to God. Them being homosexual is breaking the oath and they didn't even get through the first sentence.
Noumena
Posts: 6,047
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/21/2013 3:10:46 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/21/2013 2:17:44 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 6/21/2013 12:23:41 PM, Noumena wrote:
At 6/21/2013 12:16:36 PM, medic0506 wrote:

I think the link is self-evident. Allow homosexual pedophiles access to kids and there will be kids getting molested.

Ok that's a jump. At least yer not still beating behind the bush. Why do you think allowing gay scout leaders means allowing pedophiles?

1. Normal Christian parents, who follow biblical teachings on marital and sexual issues, and realize that all other sexual expression is unnatural, obviously aren't the pedophiles.

Those aren't the only two types of people holding those positions and you know it. As if yer either gay or some old fashioned Christian in the scouts. False dichotomy is false dichotomy.

2. Who is more likely to commit sexual offenses, the people in group #1, or those who deny the natural procreative nature of their own bodies, and admit to having unnatural desires and sex.

Neither is prima facie more likely to commit such acts because pedophiliac attraction isn't some choice that comes out of slippery slope sexual thinking.

3. Both pedophilia and homosexuality are linked to childhood trauma, and parental separation.

No they're not. Proof pl0x.

Being open to unnatural sex acts is more than enough of a link, in addition to what I've already listed.

No it's not and you haven't even attempted to show why it would be. Also lol at "unnatural sex acts".

Depends on the age. If the kid is seven, probably. If the kid is thirteen, there's no universal answer to that question.

I rest my case.

What case? You said "kids" having sex causes emotional trauma. I'm saying it's not universal for every age under 18.

I don't think all heterosexuals are pedophiles, but unfortunately we can't tell who will offend until after the fact.

The difference being that it is the heterosexuals who are having kids, so it's natural for heterosexuals to be around kids, and they have that right. There is no natural reason for homosexuals to need to be around other people's kids when they are giving up the ability to have their own.

Again with the word "need". It's not about need. Heterosexuals don't *need* to going the BSA to be around children. No one *needs* to. But people obviously derive pleasure and enjoyment in mentoring young kids and helping them along the way as they grow up. The fact that yer seemingly blind to basic human motivation as it applies to homosexuals is highly disconcerting.

The important question is, why does a group of people who commit themselves to a lifestyle that precludes them from having their own children,

Being gay doesn't do that. Plenty of gay couples have children. It's people like you that try to stop that.

You're inability to grasp the problem with what you said just illustrates my point. Even if they get a child through some other means, they aren't the parents,

That's exactly what they are.

and by definition, they are intentionally depriving a child of the opposite sex role model, which has been shown for decades to lead to problems for children.

Lol source pl0x.

The fact that they even consider it shows that they have no interest in doing what is in the best interest of kids, putting their own sexual desire ahead of the kids. That's not parent material.

So if I want to have a kid with my partner, you know a priori that I'm doing so without any interest in the well being of the child. Great.

Do you think someone has to have children of their own in order to take pleasure in mentoring and helping children?

No homosexual can serve as a good role model, especially in an organization whose members take an oath to fulfill their duty to God. Them being homosexual is breaking the oath and they didn't even get through the first sentence.

Except that yer opinion on that isn't at all universal and you seem to have a hard time showing why it's valid in the first place.
: At 5/13/2014 7:05:20 PM, Crescendo wrote:
: The difference is that the gay movement is currently pushing their will on Churches, as shown in the link to gay marriage in Denmark. Meanwhile, the Inquisition ended several centuries ago.
sadolite
Posts: 8,836
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/21/2013 4:00:37 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/21/2013 11:57:19 AM, Noumena wrote:
At 6/21/2013 11:50:26 AM, medic0506 wrote:
At 6/21/2013 11:26:49 AM, mattrodstrom wrote:
At 6/21/2013 11:17:55 AM, mattrodstrom wrote:
The boy scouts should seek to continue to provide a good, enjoyable, educational, program which helps kids mature and take responsibility for what they do.

That is what the programs about.. This other business just gets in the way of that.

There should be no shame in being honest...
and no shame in a kid being honest about his sexual orientation..

Foremost among all things the boy scout program seeks to encourage it's kids to be honest, straightforward, and sincere... And to respect yourself and others who show such honesty and sincerity in their lives...

Banning people who live openly in such a manner, be it because they're honest about not believing in god, or liking someone of the same sex, is rather petty and counter to the general mature, and respectful, attitude which the program has always aimed at encouraging.

Then why infiltrate an obviously faith based organization??

Homosexuality know exactly what they're doing when they're trying to make a political statement. If they were all wholesome and innocent like, only trying to live their lives, they'd have respect for others who have religious beliefs, and realize that they don't fit into those kinds of organizations. They don't have that ability to live and let live though, it's all about changing everyone thinking to adapt to them and their lifestyle.

I don't care if you think I'm immoral for being gay. I care if you try to discriminate against me or people like me for it.

They've infiltrated the church, the schools, the workplace, the scouts, on top of demanding that we totally redefine marriage so that it can include friends with benefits. Call me a conspiracy theorist if you will,

Your a conspiracy theorist.

but I think that anyone who doesn't see the scope of what's happened over the past few decades, is na"ve.

Anyone who says the kinds of things you do is either trolling or horrifyingly prejudiced.

This is just a natural side effect of the sexual revolution, which has been nothing but bad for this country, and is going to continue to lead us swirling down the toilet into the sewer that is hedonism.

My God, I've turned into my grandpa.

It's sad isn't it?

"It's sad isn't it?"

No it's called finally seeing the wisdom in what he said, as one has to live awhile and experience life to get wisdom. That is why young people think old people are stupid and senile. When in reality it is the other way around. You have not lived long enough to have wisdom until you have suffered the "Unintended consequences" of what you thought was a well intentioned, good idea at the time.
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/21/2013 7:05:03 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/21/2013 3:10:46 PM, Noumena wrote:
At 6/21/2013 2:17:44 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 6/21/2013 12:23:41 PM, Noumena wrote:
At 6/21/2013 12:16:36 PM, medic0506 wrote:

I think the link is self-evident. Allow homosexual pedophiles access to kids and there will be kids getting molested.

Ok that's a jump. At least yer not still beating behind the bush. Why do you think allowing gay scout leaders means allowing pedophiles?

1. Normal Christian parents, who follow biblical teachings on marital and sexual issues, and realize that all other sexual expression is unnatural, obviously aren't the pedophiles.

Those aren't the only two types of people holding those positions and you know it. As if yer either gay or some old fashioned Christian in the scouts. False dichotomy is false dichotomy.

You're either part of that group of normal Christians, or you aren't, there's no in between on that.

2. Who is more likely to commit sexual offenses, the people in group #1, or those who deny the natural procreative nature of their own bodies, and admit to having unnatural desires and sex.

Neither is prima facie more likely to commit such acts because pedophiliac attraction isn't some choice that comes out of slippery slope sexual thinking.

And here you go again, just like other homosexuals, trying to say that pedophiles have no preference for male or female, when that is clearly contradicted by evidence.

3. Both pedophilia and homosexuality are linked to childhood trauma, and parental separation.

No they're not. Proof pl0x.

"In our clinical work over the past 34 years with perhaps three to four hundred men and women with same-sex attractions, we have found that the most common cause of same-sex attractions in males is an intense weakness in masculine confidence that is associated with strong feelings of loneliness and sadness. This insecurity arises from a number of factors, including same-sex peer rejection in early childhood as a result of a lack of eye"hand coordination. This challenge in boys interferes with male bonding in sports and with secure same-sex attachments. Other origins of male insecurity and sadness are an emotionally distant father relationship, a poor body image and, finally, sexual abuse victimization."

"Other causes of male same sex attractions are a mistrust of women arising from conflicts with a controlling, angry, and overly dependent mother or from significant rejection by females. Finally, selfishness and sexual narcissism are factors in some males."

http://www.childhealing.com...

I know exactly what you're going to say about that.

Being open to unnatural sex acts is more than enough of a link, in addition to what I've already listed.

No it's not and you haven't even attempted to show why it would be. Also lol at "unnatural sex acts".

Depends on the age. If the kid is seven, probably. If the kid is thirteen, there's no universal answer to that question.

I rest my case.

What case? You said "kids" having sex causes emotional trauma. I'm saying it's not universal for every age under 18.

We're talking about adult and child relations, not two 13 year olds having sex. Why risk it if there's a chance it could be harmful??

I don't think all heterosexuals are pedophiles, but unfortunately we can't tell who will offend until after the fact.

The difference being that it is the heterosexuals who are having kids, so it's natural for heterosexuals to be around kids, and they have that right. There is no natural reason for homosexuals to need to be around other people's kids when they are giving up the ability to have their own.

Again with the word "need". It's not about need. Heterosexuals don't *need* to going the BSA to be around children. No one *needs* to. But people obviously derive pleasure and enjoyment in mentoring young kids and helping them along the way as they grow up. The fact that yer seemingly blind to basic human motivation as it applies to homosexuals is highly disconcerting.

Homosexuals, by definition, make no sense as a role model or mentor for children. If wanting children were an important issue for them then they wouldn't have chosen a partner with which they can't have kids. This alleged "motivation" doesn't give them a right to access to other people's kids.

The important question is, why does a group of people who commit themselves to a lifestyle that precludes them from having their own children,

Being gay doesn't do that. Plenty of gay couples have children. It's people like you that try to stop that.

You're inability to grasp the problem with what you said just illustrates my point. Even if they get a child through some other means, they aren't the parents,

That's exactly what they are.

No "they" aren't, at best one of the partners might be the true parent of a child.

and by definition, they are intentionally depriving a child of the opposite sex role model, which has been shown for decades to lead to problems for children.

Lol source pl0x.

It's self-evident that you're removing either the father or mother figure in any same-sex couple. Look up the effects of raising kids without either a mother or father. They've been researching the effects of divorce, on children for decades now. I wish I were there to see your face when you read this part, you could also check the results of the Regnerus study.

The fact that they even consider it shows that they have no interest in doing what is in the best interest of kids, putting their own sexual desire ahead of the kids. That's not parent material.

So if I want to have a kid with my partner,

You have as much chance of "having a kid with your partner", as I do of making a kid by running into a cow pasture and parking my pecker in a steamy pile of cow dung. The odds of producing a child are exactly the same.

you know a priori that I'm doing so without any interest in the well being of the child. Great.

It's self-evident in the fact that you'd consider forcing a child to live without a mother figure, to further your own self-interest.

Do you think someone has to have children of their own in order to take pleasure in mentoring and helping children?

No homosexual can serve as a good role model, especially in an organization whose members take an oath to fulfill their duty to God. Them being homosexual is breaking the oath and they didn't even get through the first sentence.

Except that yer opinion on that isn't at all universal and you seem to have a hard time showing why it's valid in the first place.

Put on your flame suit and go see how many parents will turn their kids over to you to take to the park. I doubt that you'll find many. My basis for morality is the bible, and anyone who is a good role model will at least try to follow God's word, not fight against it.
YYW
Posts: 36,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/21/2013 7:21:47 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/21/2013 7:05:03 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 6/21/2013 3:10:46 PM, Noumena wrote:
At 6/21/2013 2:17:44 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 6/21/2013 12:23:41 PM, Noumena wrote:
At 6/21/2013 12:16:36 PM, medic0506 wrote:

I think the link is self-evident. Allow homosexual pedophiles access to kids and there will be kids getting molested.

Ok that's a jump. At least yer not still beating behind the bush. Why do you think allowing gay scout leaders means allowing pedophiles?

1. Normal Christian parents, who follow biblical teachings on marital and sexual issues, and realize that all other sexual expression is unnatural, obviously aren't the pedophiles.

Those aren't the only two types of people holding those positions and you know it. As if yer either gay or some old fashioned Christian in the scouts. False dichotomy is false dichotomy.

You're either part of that group of normal Christians, or you aren't, there's no in between on that.

Most pedophiles who abuse young boys are ostensibly heterosexual males.

2. Who is more likely to commit sexual offenses, the people in group #1, or those who deny the natural procreative nature of their own bodies, and admit to having unnatural desires and sex.

Neither is prima facie more likely to commit such acts because pedophiliac attraction isn't some choice that comes out of slippery slope sexual thinking.

And here you go again, just like other homosexuals, trying to say that pedophiles have no preference for male or female, when that is clearly contradicted by evidence.

Most pedophiles who abuse young boys are ostensibly heterosexual males.

3. Both pedophilia and homosexuality are linked to childhood trauma, and parental separation.

No they're not. Proof pl0x.

[a whole lot of bullsh!t from that website below]

http://www.childhealing.com...

I know exactly what you're going to say about that.

As someone who has spent a fair number of years in the social sciences, there are some things -like this- that just make me cringe (because it's bullsh!t pretending to be compelling research).

No it's not and you haven't even attempted to show why it would be. Also lol at "unnatural sex acts".

Depends on the age. If the kid is seven, probably. If the kid is thirteen, there's no universal answer to that question.

I rest my case.

What case? You said "kids" having sex causes emotional trauma. I'm saying it's not universal for every age under 18.

We're talking about adult and child relations, not two 13 year olds having sex. Why risk it if there's a chance it could be harmful??

Since most pedophiles who abuse young boys are ostensibly heterosexual males, heterosexual males should be banned from ever being around kids -even their own. See what I did there? I used stronger evidence and your logic to arrive at a conclusion even more absurd than yours. But troll on, Medic. Troll on.

The difference being that it is the heterosexuals who are having kids, so it's natural for heterosexuals to be around kids, and they have that right. There is no natural reason for homosexuals to need to be around other people's kids when they are giving up the ability to have their own.

Again with the word "need". It's not about need. Heterosexuals don't *need* to going the BSA to be around children. No one *needs* to. But people obviously derive pleasure and enjoyment in mentoring young kids and helping them along the way as they grow up. The fact that yer seemingly blind to basic human motivation as it applies to homosexuals is highly disconcerting.

Homosexuals, by definition, make no sense as a role model or mentor for children.

Most pedophiles who abuse young boys are ostensibly heterosexual males, therefore all heterosexual males make no sense as a role model or mentor for children. Ah ha! Goodness, I love part-to-whole fallacies. They're such fun!

If wanting children were an important issue for them then they wouldn't have chosen a partner with which they can't have kids. This alleged "motivation" doesn't give them a right to access to other people's kids.

Or, maybe heterosexual males choose to have kids because they are pedophiles!

The important question is, why does a group of people who commit themselves to a lifestyle that precludes them from having their own children,

Being gay doesn't do that. Plenty of gay couples have children. It's people like you that try to stop that.

You're inability to grasp the problem with what you said just illustrates my point. Even if they get a child through some other means, they aren't the parents,

That's exactly what they are.

No "they" aren't, at best one of the partners might be the true parent of a child.

Yeah... you have failed to make a coherent point here.

and by definition, they are intentionally depriving a child of the opposite sex role model, which has been shown for decades to lead to problems for children.

Lol source pl0x.

It's self-evident that you're removing either the father or mother figure in any same-sex couple.

No, it's not.

Look up the effects of raising kids without either a mother or father.

You cannot isolate causal relationships in child rearing with any degree of precision, and to pretend that you can is as intellectually dishonest as it is insulting to the social sciences -oh, but you wouldn't know that because you have no experience in what you're talking about.

They've been researching the effects of divorce, on children for decades now. I wish I were there to see your face when you read this part, you could also check the results of the Regnerus study.

Post hoc ergo propter hoc.

The fact that they even consider it shows that they have no interest in doing what is in the best interest of kids, putting their own sexual desire ahead of the kids. That's not parent material.

So if I want to have a kid with my partner,

You have as much chance of "having a kid with your partner", as I do of making a kid by running into a cow pasture and parking my pecker in a steamy pile of cow dung. The odds of producing a child are exactly the same.

That's pretty fvcked up, Medic. In one thread you're talking about water sports and now you're talking about what amounts to an excrement fetish. You should seek counseling, lest you develop a paraphilia.

you know a priori that I'm doing so without any interest in the well being of the child. Great.

It's self-evident in the fact that you'd consider forcing a child to live without a mother figure, to further your own self-interest.

Nonsense. There is no evidence AT ALL to suggest that a nuclear familial structure is any more or less beneficial than any other family structure.

Do you think someone has to have children of their own in order to take pleasure in mentoring and helping children?

No homosexual can serve as a good role model, especially in an organization whose members take an oath to fulfill their duty to God. Them being homosexual is breaking the oath and they didn't even get through the first sentence.

Except that yer opinion on that isn't at all universal and you seem to have a hard time showing why it's valid in the first place.

Put on your flame suit and go see how many parents will turn their kids over to you to take to the park. I doubt that you'll find many. My basis for morality is the bible, and anyone who is a good role model will at least try to follow God's word, not fight against it.

You. Fail. Completely.
Tsar of DDO
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2013 5:45:09 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/21/2013 7:21:47 PM, YYW wrote:

Most pedophiles who abuse young boys are ostensibly heterosexual males.

If a male derives sexual pleasure from another person who has the same sexual organs as himself, with whom he cannot possibly have normal, natural sexual relations, then it is logically incoherent to call that male a heterosexual.

Most pedophiles who abuse young boys are ostensibly heterosexual males.

SAA, logically incoherent.

[a whole lot of bullsh!t from that website below]

I knew it...lol...Those who have convinced themselves that they were born gay are going to scoff at anyone who says differently, or shows positive results from therapy directed at a possible underlying cause, that isn't genetic. Your personal incredulity does not refute the statements of those who have responded favorably to the treatments, no matter how much you want to protest against it.

As someone who has spent a fair number of years in the social sciences, there are some things -like this- that just make me cringe (because it's bullsh!t pretending to be compelling research).

It isn't research, it's a professional reporting positive results in his work. See above, same applies here. Incredulity is no argument.

Since most pedophiles who abuse young boys are ostensibly heterosexual males, heterosexual males should be banned from ever being around kids -even their own. See what I did there? I used stronger evidence and your logic to arrive at a conclusion even more absurd than yours. But troll on, Medic. Troll on.

SMH. Yeah, I see what you did there. You went full retard, that's what you did. You're guilty of the same logical incoherence that you started this post off with. You continue with the same incoherence several times below this paragraph, as well. Tsk Tsk

Most pedophiles who abuse young boys are ostensibly heterosexual males, therefore all heterosexual males make no sense as a role model or mentor for children. Ah ha! Goodness, I love part-to-whole fallacies. They're such fun!

Or, maybe heterosexual males choose to have kids because they are pedophiles!

Yeah... you have failed to make a coherent point here.

He's calling a couple who share homosexual desires "parents". It's not physically possible for them to be the parents of a child, at best only one can be.

It's self-evident that you're removing either the father or mother figure in any same-sex couple.

No, it's not.

And just when I thought you couldn't get any more logically incoherent, you surprise me and do just that...lol

Ok genius, where is the mother in a "two-father"(see the level of ridiculous that one has to go to, to even try to have a rational conversation about this??) household??

Look up the effects of raising kids without either a mother or father.

You cannot isolate causal relationships in child rearing with any degree of precision, and to pretend that you can is as intellectually dishonest as it is insulting to the social sciences -oh, but you wouldn't know that because you have no experience in what you're talking about.

It's intellectually dishonest to study the effects of not having one or the other parent?? Sorry but you not liking the results because it refutes what you want to see, does not make something intellectually dishonest.

Post hoc ergo propter hoc.

Not quite so. The evidence shows the effects, on the child, of having been raised without one or the other parent.

That's pretty fvcked up, Medic. In one thread you're talking about water sports and now you're talking about what amounts to an excrement fetish. You should seek counseling, lest you develop a paraphilia.

haha...fair point. But no worries, you have to have a demented sense of humor to work in EMS. The outcomes you read are the result of that sick, twisted sense of humor colliding with ridiculous arguments. It's bound to get ugly.

It's self-evident in the fact that you'd consider forcing a child to live without a mother figure, to further your own self-interest.

Nonsense. There is no evidence AT ALL to suggest that a nuclear familial structure is any more or less beneficial than any other family structure.

Depends on what outcomes you desire. If all that matters to you is that not all kids raised outside of a biological home, become axe murderers or are totally bat-sh!t crazy, then yes, you can interpret the results support your point. But if you're interested in seeing a comparison of how the kids fair, in different areas, by having been raised in different kinds of environments, then the results are not going to support your point.

I think the fact that we even need to resort to studies and research to show that it's best for kids to be raised by biological parents, or with both a mother and father figure in the household, is a sad reflection on the lack of morality that even having this discussion requires.