Pedophiles who prey on young boys in most cases are married men with children who are in positions of authority and hold a community trust.
I don't fear gay scout leaders...I fear the straight ones. I don't fear a gay guy in my life, I fear the straight guy, romancing me and developing a close relationship with my children.
And it's not real fear, it is understanding and being aware...
And I do not defend perverts. But I am wise enough to know who the enemy is...
and confident enough to know my children can't catch homosexuality. And if they decide they are...it ain't nothin' but a thang...It doesn't speak to who I am...
It's clear that you will fight to your last breath for some reason, however tenuous, to deny gay marriage.
Your logic would continuously shift to new extremes of incredulity.
"If we let gays marry they will want to marry their pet goldfish next." etc etc ad nauseum
People marry again and again already. It's just that they have to divorce before marrying the next one. We call that serial monogamy and people who deny gay marriage will fight to preserve their rights to do so.
Hardly a principled stand in defence of marriage is it?
Pedophiles who prey on young boys in most cases are married men with children who are in positions of authority and hold a community trust. So all the Catholic priests abusing boys over the years are...what, exactly?
I don't fear gay scout leaders...I fear the straight ones. I don't fear a gay guy in my life, I fear the straight guy, romancing me and developing a close relationship with my children.
Ok, you don't mind a gay Boy Scout leader. Would you mind a straight man being a Girl Scout leader, possibly counseling adolescent girls on puberty issues, going on overnight camping trips, etc.?
I don't know what the scouting rules are as such but I don't hear about a scout leader of whatever sexual orientation taking scouts of the opposite sex out on overnights.
I don't think that Baden-Powell (who incidentally liked looking at photographs of naked boys even whilst he railed against the evils of masturbation) allowed for that scenario.
It's very much in the exact same vein. Is it a wise move to take a person and put them in charge of a group of adolescents of the gender that person prefers sexually? We don't have male coaches walking around in the female showers, and vice versa. It's the same thing.
The Catholic church has many different kinds of sexual issues that it is not very good at confronting.
To be fair though, such abuses are by no means limited to catholic priests, there have been scandals in quite a few other denominations too which for some reason have not attracted the same amount of coverage. Perhaps they were not swept under the carpet and veiled with as much secrecy as the catholic bishops did.
One of the key points made out in many of the reports I used to read was an inability to form and maintain adult relationships - this was irrespective of the sex of the victim or whether or not the perpetrator was heterosexual or not.
The misreading of signals was also a major factor, the natural affection of children being interpreted as something more personal and intimate. Frequently the abusers were close relatives - parents, older siblings, uncles, grandfathers.
The subject is more involved and wider than many people think. NARTH has a viewpoint and an agenda just as much as NAMBLA does. They will both seize on anything they think helps their cause.
It's a common rule that these situations are dealt with by a member of the same sex, Period.
They do not make an exemption for gay male swimming coaches in the female showers.
My local sports centre has a sauna suite and they have times for men and times for women - they do not ask if the gay men want to be with the women instead, they don't ask te sexuality at all, just the gender.
It's a common rule that these situations are dealt with by a member of the same sex, Period.
Exactly. And just why are members of the opposite sex forbidden?
You can't honestly tell me that if you walked into a shower full of nude 16-year old football players that your thoughts would be 100% chaste. If it were me in the cheerleaders' shower, I couldn't promise you that certain thoughts wouldn't run through my mind either, and I guarantee you that not a single man anywhere of either preference would be completely immune.
Now, you and I and 99.9% of the population would probably never act on those thoughts even once. But just one act on one child is one too many. If "unfair" discrimination can reduce the possibility of that one act happening, then it's absolutely worth it to protect the children. Period.
No I wouldn't as you say act upon them but it's highly unlikely I would have the thoughts in the first place as youngsters of that age are not my bag. Here in the UK sixteen is the legal age of consent by the way.
However the argument made that to "protect" 0.01% is worth it could be indefinitely extended to ban just about anything you wanted to. It's overkill and it is also insulting to the 99.9% who are trustworthy individuals. Nobody would apply that argument on the basis that 0.01% of the heterosexual population in such a position of trust was a paedophile. Here we allow openly gay scout leaders and there are no problems. It is a non-issue.
Children are in much more danger from issues like obesity etc but we don't ban sweets (candy) or crisps (fries) or stop them eating Macdonalds. We don't stop them swimming because some children have been drowned. We don't stop them crossing the street because some children have been hit by cars. We try to apply common sense not fear. We teach them about dangers and how they should deal with them.
That is a much better solution in my own humble UK opinion.
Tref: That was "single" as in "solitary", not "unmarried".
Let me put it another way. Suppose you had a teenage son, and let's even say he's gay, too. Would you really want him to shower in the view of an adult who may have a sexual appetite for him?
I don't want straight male coaches watching my granddaughters in the shower any more than I'd want a gay man watching my grandsons.
My son, gay or not, would have been made as aware about the activities of paedophiles as would any daughter of mine. They would be told to report any such attempts to both myself and the appropriate authorities.
Over here everybody who applies for positions of trust is now vetted and checked for criminal records.
"It's clear that you will fight to your last breath for some reason, however tenuous, to deny gay marriage.
Your logic would continuously shift to new extremes of incredulity."
(Sounds like its contageous)
...and thats why you don't have any peadophiles in the UK? Its just as well they banned guns too! I wonder if that had anything to do with the rise in gun related crimes?
In my post on page 1, I mentioned that the issue is not about orintation but about the human condition. About all people.
I would give a years worth of pay to see a health, loving, spiritual, strong couple relationship...gay or not ...married or not! To know for myself it really exists and is attainable.
As far as taxes are concerned we can argue all day about its use and abuse and why we should not have to pay. Life is not fair.
I believe everyone has the right to be there own authentic selves without prejudice or penalty.
When it comes to exacting harm on another human being this is not being authentic but is a character defect. There will never be in our laws, a right to harm another.(rapist,child molesters)
The commitment to a Higher Power to live honorably,love hugly and stand firmly as a couple is...the higher ground. All this other stuff is just incidentals. If a Gay couple has taken the high road and wants to be recognized legally for their commiment then again...What's the Beef? I'd rather support the high ground no matter who it is, even if the majority of peoples do not live there.
quote: The commitment to a Higher Power to live honorably,love hugly and stand firmly as a couple is...the higher ground. All this other stuff is just incidentals. If a Gay couple has taken the high road and wants to be recognized legally for their commiment then again...What's the Beef?
The "Beef" (as you put it), is not from folks like myself, but is found in God's Word, or does that matter any more?.
If someone is a homosexual,and they decide to get "married" to someone of the same sex, how can you or anyone call it a "high road"? God obviously has a drastically different opinion.
Don't get me totally wrong here, I have a sister who is lesbian, and "married" to another woman, so I see the other side of the issue as well as the one I am espousing..
But to accept that which is now the "norm", and ignore what the Word teaches, makes no sense to me.
Am guessing they thought the same back in the days of Sodom & Gomorrha. Nothing new under the sun -- including "political correctness". -->
I would give a years worth of pay to see a health, loving, spiritual, strong couple relationship...gay or not ...married or not! To know for myself it really exists and is attainable.
I just celebrated my twelfth anniversay and things continue to improve. No, I'm not making the claim of perfection, but we are committed to each other. And yes, I've lived long enough to know that life can throw some curve balls our way, so this is in no way meant to be boastful. Who knows what tomorrow will hold?
The fact is, there are healthy, spiritual, committed, loving, strong relationships. It takes a little effort maybe to have one, but it's most definitely worth it.
I believe if we trawl back to the origin of the concept of marriage, we will no doubt find that marriage was introduced by God for His people.
1Cr 7:2 Nevertheless, [to avoid] fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband.
Eph 5:22 Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord.
If you want homosexual marriages you have to change more than a few words in God’s Word! …and who’s going to be the wife?
It all gets a bit too complicated when you move away from the Word.
1Cr 7:14 For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy.
Marriage is spiritual commitment for a man and woman who believe God’s Word with the above exception where the “unbelieving” is sanctified by the believer.
Yes, most of the world’s population has adopted monogamy as a good idea. They have even made it a legal issue. Doubt you got a legal and binding contract in the first century?
Point is, if you want a piece of paper to demonstrate your “commitment”, carry on!
You can call it “marriage”, you can call it partnering, you can call it whatever you like. You can get your legal goodies, but you only get God’s blessing on a genuine marriage by believing His Word.
The impression I got when I last read the Word was that God didn’t seem to be too much in favour of homosexuality…
God who is the searcher of all hearts is not interested in titles. He is interested in Truth.
And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free… not a licence!
The solution to get everyone to STFU about this issue is to simply ban government recognition of marriage altogether. Give domestic partner certificates out so people can have the taxes done together and have rights as a spouse, but don't call it marriage and don't act like it is.
Then, let whatever religion or non-religion people want to do to get married do it. The government really has no business dealing with religious concepts anyway.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
13
28
35
18
Popular Days
Mar 9
46
Mar 12
30
Mar 10
29
Mar 11
19
Top Posters In This Topic
Catcup 13 posts
Zixar 28 posts
Trefor Heywood 35 posts
dmiller 18 posts
Popular Days
Mar 9 2004
46 posts
Mar 12 2004
30 posts
Mar 10 2004
29 posts
Mar 11 2004
19 posts
def59
Here's a random list of web sites about the topic
www.narth.com/docs/pedophNEW.html
www.tegenwicht.org/13_rbt_eng/p_smear.htm
us2000.org/cfmc/Pedophilia.pdf
www.unites.uqam.ca/dsexo/Revue/ Vol2no1/10_Freund~1.html
www.behavenet.com/capsules/disorders/pedophiliaTR.htm
www.gayxjw.org/ped.html
www.puellula.org/HFP/
Link to comment
Share on other sites
karmicdebt
Pedophiles who prey on young boys in most cases are married men with children who are in positions of authority and hold a community trust.
I don't fear gay scout leaders...I fear the straight ones. I don't fear a gay guy in my life, I fear the straight guy, romancing me and developing a close relationship with my children.
And it's not real fear, it is understanding and being aware...
And I do not defend perverts. But I am wise enough to know who the enemy is...
and confident enough to know my children can't catch homosexuality. And if they decide they are...it ain't nothin' but a thang...It doesn't speak to who I am...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Trefor Heywood
def:
It's clear that you will fight to your last breath for some reason, however tenuous, to deny gay marriage.
Your logic would continuously shift to new extremes of incredulity.
"If we let gays marry they will want to marry their pet goldfish next." etc etc ad nauseum
People marry again and again already. It's just that they have to divorce before marrying the next one. We call that serial monogamy and people who deny gay marriage will fight to preserve their rights to do so.
Hardly a principled stand in defence of marriage is it?
Trefor Heywood
"Cymru Am Byth!"
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Zixar
Link to comment
Share on other sites
karmicdebt
Let's keep it in the same vein, okay...?
I don't have issue with a lesbian scout leader taking my girl scout on over night trips...
and again priests who molest boys are pedophiles who have used position and trust to gain access to boys...
Edited by GuestLink to comment
Share on other sites
Trefor Heywood
Zix:
I don't know what the scouting rules are as such but I don't hear about a scout leader of whatever sexual orientation taking scouts of the opposite sex out on overnights.
I don't think that Baden-Powell (who incidentally liked looking at photographs of naked boys even whilst he railed against the evils of masturbation) allowed for that scenario.
Trefor Heywood
"Cymru Am Byth!"
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Zixar
It's very much in the exact same vein. Is it a wise move to take a person and put them in charge of a group of adolescents of the gender that person prefers sexually? We don't have male coaches walking around in the female showers, and vice versa. It's the same thing.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Trefor Heywood
The Catholic church has many different kinds of sexual issues that it is not very good at confronting.
To be fair though, such abuses are by no means limited to catholic priests, there have been scandals in quite a few other denominations too which for some reason have not attracted the same amount of coverage. Perhaps they were not swept under the carpet and veiled with as much secrecy as the catholic bishops did.
One of the key points made out in many of the reports I used to read was an inability to form and maintain adult relationships - this was irrespective of the sex of the victim or whether or not the perpetrator was heterosexual or not.
The misreading of signals was also a major factor, the natural affection of children being interpreted as something more personal and intimate. Frequently the abusers were close relatives - parents, older siblings, uncles, grandfathers.
The subject is more involved and wider than many people think. NARTH has a viewpoint and an agenda just as much as NAMBLA does. They will both seize on anything they think helps their cause.
I say a plague on both their houses.
Trefor Heywood
"Cymru Am Byth!"
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Trefor Heywood
Zix:
It's a common rule that these situations are dealt with by a member of the same sex, Period.
They do not make an exemption for gay male swimming coaches in the female showers.
My local sports centre has a sauna suite and they have times for men and times for women - they do not ask if the gay men want to be with the women instead, they don't ask te sexuality at all, just the gender.
Trefor Heywood
"Cymru Am Byth!"
Link to comment
Share on other sites
karmicdebt
Zix, you are mixing the issue. Homosexuals are not attracted to children. Pedophiles are.
Now you may have the last word...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Zixar
You can't honestly tell me that if you walked into a shower full of nude 16-year old football players that your thoughts would be 100% chaste. If it were me in the cheerleaders' shower, I couldn't promise you that certain thoughts wouldn't run through my mind either, and I guarantee you that not a single man anywhere of either preference would be completely immune.
Now, you and I and 99.9% of the population would probably never act on those thoughts even once. But just one act on one child is one too many. If "unfair" discrimination can reduce the possibility of that one act happening, then it's absolutely worth it to protect the children. Period.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Trefor Heywood
Zix:
Only single men get "impure thoughts"?
No I wouldn't as you say act upon them but it's highly unlikely I would have the thoughts in the first place as youngsters of that age are not my bag. Here in the UK sixteen is the legal age of consent by the way.
However the argument made that to "protect" 0.01% is worth it could be indefinitely extended to ban just about anything you wanted to. It's overkill and it is also insulting to the 99.9% who are trustworthy individuals. Nobody would apply that argument on the basis that 0.01% of the heterosexual population in such a position of trust was a paedophile. Here we allow openly gay scout leaders and there are no problems. It is a non-issue.
Children are in much more danger from issues like obesity etc but we don't ban sweets (candy) or crisps (fries) or stop them eating Macdonalds. We don't stop them swimming because some children have been drowned. We don't stop them crossing the street because some children have been hit by cars. We try to apply common sense not fear. We teach them about dangers and how they should deal with them.
That is a much better solution in my own humble UK opinion.
Trefor Heywood
"Cymru Am Byth!"
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Zixar
Tref: That was "single" as in "solitary", not "unmarried".
Let me put it another way. Suppose you had a teenage son, and let's even say he's gay, too. Would you really want him to shower in the view of an adult who may have a sexual appetite for him?
I don't want straight male coaches watching my granddaughters in the shower any more than I'd want a gay man watching my grandsons.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
excathedra
you really have to teach your kids and keep communication open since there are pedophiles who go into fields just to be around kids
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Zixar
That's true. And there's a big difference between a gay math teacher and a gay basketball coach...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Trefor Heywood
Zix:
It wouldn't bother me.
My son, gay or not, would have been made as aware about the activities of paedophiles as would any daughter of mine. They would be told to report any such attempts to both myself and the appropriate authorities.
Over here everybody who applies for positions of trust is now vetted and checked for criminal records.
Trefor Heywood
"Cymru Am Byth!"
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Snoballer
"It's clear that you will fight to your last breath for some reason, however tenuous, to deny gay marriage.
Your logic would continuously shift to new extremes of incredulity."
(Sounds like its contageous)
...and thats why you don't have any peadophiles in the UK? Its just as well they banned guns too! I wonder if that had anything to do with the rise in gun related crimes?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
imbus
In my post on page 1, I mentioned that the issue is not about orintation but about the human condition. About all people.
I would give a years worth of pay to see a health, loving, spiritual, strong couple relationship...gay or not ...married or not! To know for myself it really exists and is attainable.
As far as taxes are concerned we can argue all day about its use and abuse and why we should not have to pay. Life is not fair.
I believe everyone has the right to be there own authentic selves without prejudice or penalty.
When it comes to exacting harm on another human being this is not being authentic but is a character defect. There will never be in our laws, a right to harm another.(rapist,child molesters)
The commitment to a Higher Power to live honorably,love hugly and stand firmly as a couple is...the higher ground. All this other stuff is just incidentals. If a Gay couple has taken the high road and wants to be recognized legally for their commiment then again...What's the Beef? I'd rather support the high ground no matter who it is, even if the majority of peoples do not live there.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dmiller
The "Beef" (as you put it), is not from folks like myself, but is found in God's Word, or does that matter any more?.
If someone is a homosexual,and they decide to get "married" to someone of the same sex, how can you or anyone call it a "high road"? God obviously has a drastically different opinion.
Don't get me totally wrong here, I have a sister who is lesbian, and "married" to another woman, so I see the other side of the issue as well as the one I am espousing..
But to accept that which is now the "norm", and ignore what the Word teaches, makes no sense to me.
Am guessing they thought the same back in the days of Sodom & Gomorrha. Nothing new under the sun -- including "political correctness".
-->
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Greek2me
Imbus,
How much money you make?
I just celebrated my twelfth anniversay and things continue to improve. No, I'm not making the claim of perfection, but we are committed to each other. And yes, I've lived long enough to know that life can throw some curve balls our way, so this is in no way meant to be boastful. Who knows what tomorrow will hold?
The fact is, there are healthy, spiritual, committed, loving, strong relationships. It takes a little effort maybe to have one, but it's most definitely worth it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Snoballer
I believe if we trawl back to the origin of the concept of marriage, we will no doubt find that marriage was introduced by God for His people.
1Cr 7:2 Nevertheless, [to avoid] fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband.
Eph 5:22 Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord.
If you want homosexual marriages you have to change more than a few words in God’s Word! …and who’s going to be the wife?
It all gets a bit too complicated when you move away from the Word.
1Cr 7:14 For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy.
Marriage is spiritual commitment for a man and woman who believe God’s Word with the above exception where the “unbelieving” is sanctified by the believer.
Yes, most of the world’s population has adopted monogamy as a good idea. They have even made it a legal issue. Doubt you got a legal and binding contract in the first century?
Point is, if you want a piece of paper to demonstrate your “commitment”, carry on!
You can call it “marriage”, you can call it partnering, you can call it whatever you like. You can get your legal goodies, but you only get God’s blessing on a genuine marriage by believing His Word.
The impression I got when I last read the Word was that God didn’t seem to be too much in favour of homosexuality…
God who is the searcher of all hearts is not interested in titles. He is interested in Truth.
And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free… not a licence!
IMHO
:)-->
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mister P-Mosh
The solution to get everyone to STFU about this issue is to simply ban government recognition of marriage altogether. Give domestic partner certificates out so people can have the taxes done together and have rights as a spouse, but don't call it marriage and don't act like it is.
Then, let whatever religion or non-religion people want to do to get married do it. The government really has no business dealing with religious concepts anyway.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dmiller
Mr P -- Took me a minute or two to figure out what STFU meant.
:D--> 
:D-->
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Snoballer
Bingo!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.