Vort

Then I am very sorry for any of your neighbors who might happen to exercise some parental discipline within your sight. "Young" doesn't mean three. My eleven-year-old daughter is young, and if she were fighting with her sibling, I might well tell them to hoof it home from a few blocks out. If you were there, I suppose I would get a visit from DSHS and probably have six months to a year of follow-up interference in my sacred family life, all because someone didn't approve of my discipline methods.

Possibly because of repeated exchanges similar to this one: Vort: Let's do a gedankenexperiment. Imagine two men with virtually identical personality makeups... So even if we accept the idea that homosexuals are no more likely than heterosexuals to want to molest children, the very fact that they are willing to act out on their natural, God-given homosexual attraction suggests that they would be equally willing to act out on their natural, God-given sexual attraction to children. Response 1: I agree that homosexuality does not fit into the "normal" cycle of life but I disagree that homosexual individuals are more prone to sexual relationships with children. [Of course, she is not disagreeing at all. I specified "even if we accept the idea that homosexuals are no more likely than heterosexuals to want to molest children".] Response 2: But who is to say that he is prone to so many areas? [um...I am. It was a hypothetical situation that I brought up to illustrate the point.] Response 3: Where are the documented sources for all these opinions/suggestions or are just personal views? [Was the very first sentence in my first post not sufficient to answer this?] In each case, simply READING my post would have been sufficient to inform the responders that they were mistaken in their inferences. Perhaps you can explain to me how these responses are reasonable in light of my statements to which they were responding. Certainly I entertain that possibility. I am a technical writer by profession, and thus am always highly self-conscious about my writing. When I see that I have failed to express myself properly, I acknowledge it and try again. But the other side of that coin is that the reader assumes the responsibility to read what the writer writes without injecting unwarranted and spurious inferences. No, but they are supposed to be readers.

A mother tells her squabbling daughters to get out on a suburban neighborhood sidewalk and walk two blocks home -- and you call the cops on her?!

Don't worry about your "comparative worthiness". Doubtless some of your peers are struggling with things that may not be as visible as your struggles over the last two years. And if others don't have difficulties of that magnitude -- good for them! But that doesn't mean anything as far as your place with them goes. It's not your place (or theirs) to judge whether you are "less worthy than" or "as worthy as" or "more worthy than" someone else. Just go to Church, attend activities, and enjoy the fellowship of the Saints. Everyone is at a different place on the path to eternal life. As long as we are on the path and facing the right direction, where we are today along that path is of much less importance.

This wasn't one of my "overly [sic] effort to be amusing and witty". It was an expression of disgust toward those who would violate the public trust by staging a violent action disguised as unstaged true life merely as a means of providing entertainment. It was those people, not anyone on this list, I was referring to as "morons". If I was misunderstood as calling list participants morons, I apologize. For the rest, I get frustrated when people fail even to read my posts before commenting and then insist on assigning to me attitudes and beliefs I don't accept. This ignorance can be avoided merely by READING THE FREAKING POST BEFORE YOU RESPOND. I don't justify my snippy responses, but I also refuse to accept all responsibility for misunderstandings resulting from people's refusal to read and consider a post before responding.

Can you cite "most of the findings"? They are agents of an organization that views homosexuality as a sin. What are the odds they will self-identify as homosexuals? But the fact that they derive sexual satisfaction from sexual activity with members of the same sex makes them, by definition, homosexuals. Why do you have such difficulty accepting this? Strange, then, that it is almost always boys being molested. How are "certified mental health professionals" qualified to determine whether something is a perversion? On what "factual basis" is the opposite claim made? On the "factual basis" that "certified mental health professionals" have decided not to call it a perversion any more? So in your universe, the only people guilty of perversion are those who act in a way they don't want to act. So the homosexual who refuses to have sex with other men and the pedophile who refuses to defile children are the real perverts, in your universe. Do I understand you correctly? You clearly have no idea what my view is, so you are eminently unqualified to make any statement about it. And your "very literal definition of perversion" is beyond ridiculous. Well, I certainly believe your words at face value. Glad you have such a robust sense of humor. How not? Interesting that you level this accusation, given that you have judged me wrongly and have failed to get your facts straight. What do you make of that?

Then you are using a special definition. I can use a special definition, too, and prove that Adolph Hitler was not responsible for murdering anyone. I will simply define a murderer as someone who commits murder and who isn't Adolph Hitler. See how easy that is? By definition, homosexuality is same-sex attraction. Age of the attractor is an independent variable.

The very structure of your statement suggests that you don't understand what I'm saying, even though I have been trying to keep it very simple and without other entanglements. Very frustrating. Let's look at each sentence individually. Well, the problem I have is connecting what you consider the perversion of homosexuality with child molestation. Why? This is quite obvious. Let's use some (made-up) numbers to illustrate: Let us assume that 5% of the population is homosexual. The least figure I have seen is 0.2% homosexual, while some homosexual groups have suggested that upward of 10% (or more) are homosexual. My 5% figure is giving the homosexual lobby too much credit, but so be it. For simplicity, let us assume that the remaining 95% is heterosexual. Let us also assume that pedophilia (as expressed through child molestation) is an independent condition that "afflicts" homosexuals and heterosexuals with equal percentage. Let's say that, I don't know, 5% of people are pedophiles. So, then, how many people are homosexuals and pedophiles? That would be 5% of 5%, or 1 in 400 (0.25%). Now, take two individuals from that group. One of those individuals has denied himself of his homosexual urges. The other has embraced his homosexual urges. Of those two, which is more likely to embrace his pedophilic urges? I say the one who has already embraced one sexual perversion. If I had to choose, I would be far more likely to entrust my child to the one who has demonstrated his mastery over his unclean carnality by rejecting his homosexual inclinations. What exactly do you find difficult to understand about this? I just cannot understand why if someone is homosexual they could also be a child molester, I just don't see the connection at all IMO Let me turn the question around. What is it about homosexuality that precludes the homosexual from also being a pedophile? The Catholic priests who fondled boys were by definition homosexuals. So how can you think that homosexuals are somehow unable simultaneously to be child molesters? but reading your views on homosexuality then I can see why you feel the way you do. Doubtful. How do you think I feel? If homosexuals are a minority, then it stands to reason that only a minority of child molesters will be homosexual. What, exactly, do you think this demonstrates? Agreed. For example, you seem to have decided that anyone who does not embrace homosexuality or parrot the PC line about homosexual child abuse (e.g. the infamous Catholic priests) must therefore be a "gay-basher". You have applied this prejudice to me and have interpreted my words through this lens. As a result, you have completely failed to understand what I have said, despite the fact that I have said it as clearly as I know how. You have actually applied meanings to my words that I specifically disallowed. So, as you note, I can only assume you are repeating the tropes that you have heard and applying your own prejudices to what I have written. Suzie, this question betrays your complete misunderstanding of what I wrote. I despair at possibly being able to explain to you, in a way that you are willing to understand, what I am getting at. Let me try once more, in as few words as possible. Those who have embraced a sexual perversion have shown themselves to be the kind of people who embrace sexual perversion. Therefore, those who have embraced a sexual perversion seem much more likely to embrace another sexual perversion (such as child molestation or pedophilia) than those who have refused to embrace sexual perversion. This does not mean that all homosexuals are child molesters. Indeed, this is not a subtle difference; it is a starkly obvious point, at least to me. Does that explain things any more clearly?

I failed to respond to this initially. Homosexual molestation is, by definition...well, homosexual. The perpetrator of homosexual molestation is very obviously homosexual, since s/he is molesting someone of the same sex in order to achieve sexual gratification.

Thanks for the link. Actually, I have very little interest in it (beyond the fact that UC Davis' psychology department doesn't rate high on my trust list). I do not believe that every homosexual is likely to be a child molester, too. However, I get tired of those who feign confusion at someone's opinion that he would not willingly entrust his child to a homosexual. That fact that someone has already publicly embraced a sexual perversion does not engender confidence that he will refuse to embrace another, if so inclined. The supposed "confusion" over why a parent might not want his child cared for by a homosexual for fear of molestation is ridiculous. You may not agree that it's a significant problem, but it is dishonest to pretend that there is no reasoned basis for the feeling. (In addition, a lot of parents probably just don't want their children exposed to the societal normalization of homosexuality. But that's a separate issue.) PS A quick read-through of the link you provided confirmed my biases: The article makes little attempt at an even-handed analysis. Rather, it is a pedagogical treatise instructing the reader how he ought to think about things.

Here is my original post. Please read it carefully, and it will surely answer the questions that plague you about what I'm struggling to say. In short: It is neither opinion nor suggestion. It is observation coupled with reasoning. I know of no one who has done a controlled, double-blind study of men with identical inclinations who choose to react to those inclinations differently and how such reactions might statistically effect their propensity toward child molestation. But my reasoning seems sound to me. If it doesn't seem sound to you, then by all means explain what you think is lacking.

Does no one actually bother to read these threads?

Of those predisposed to a certain sexual perversion (e.g. child molestation), those who have shown themselves willing to submit to other sexual perversions (e.g. homosexuality) are more likely to submit to the given perversion than are those who have consistently rejected submission to other sexual perversions.

Sorry, I'm not understanding. What exactly are you having trouble with in my post?

Did you miss my first post in this thread?

I pretty specifically disallowed that idea. You appear not to understand what I wrote, despite your first sentence. You might wish to review what I wrote a bit more closely.

True but non sequitur. Engaging in a heterosexual relationship with another consenting adult, especially through marriage, is not a countersocial occurrence, and so suggests nothing about someone's willingness to engage in a sexual relationship with a child. Various sexual perversions, such as homosexuality and voyeurism, are countersocial. Thus it is reasonable to assume that someone who sates his perverse sexual lust in one area is more likely to do it in another.

I agree with you.

Let's do a gedankenexperiment. Imagine two men with virtually identical personality makeups. They have very similar strengths and weaknesses; in particular, both have personality weaknesses that predisposes them to three types of sexual behavior: HomosexualityVoyeurismAttraction to childrenBut while these two men have similar baseline personalities, there is an important difference: Mr. A has experimented with homosexuality and voyeurism, while Mr. B has assiduously kept himself from any such thing. Which of the two would you want watching your children? Those who have engaged in sexual perversions of one sort have already shown themselves to be the type of person who indulges their sexual perversions. If they have any predisposition toward child sexual attraction, it seems obvious to me that they would be far more likely to indulge that perversion than would those who deny themselves of ungodliness. So even if we accept the idea that homosexuals are no more likely than heterosexuals to want to molest children, the very fact that they are willing to act out on their natural, God-given homosexual attraction suggests that they would be equally willing to act out on their natural, God-given sexual attraction to children.

I'm waiting to see the staged kidnapping where the "target" is packing heat and decides to save the victim. Hey, great social experiment, morons.

By definition, slaves are powerless under the law. The slaves were unable to defend themselves. Moses may well have felt that the only way to prevent the Egyptian's continued abuse of the Hebrew slaves was to get rid of him permanently. We don't know, of course. It's all conjecture. But that's the point. It was murder in a strictly legal sense, but whether it was murder in a moral sense is not obvious.

When the choice is between Jack Black and real talent, Hollywood has shown time and again how it will choose.

By definition, murder is intentional killing that is unlawful, either legally or morally. While Moses' killing was obviously illegal and thus murder in a strictly legal sense, it is debatable whether it was immoral and thus murder in the moral sense.

No, except for part of the clips you posted, and no. So it's like staging a fake bank robbery or gangland execution and then filming the reaction of the onlookers as a form of entertainment. Yeah, that's pretty awful.

I'm not understanding the premise. They intentionally planted someone to pretend to be a bigot so they could film the reactions of others? What kind of horrible show would play such things for entertainment? Oh, wait, that's right. A show that wished to portray all believers in secure borders as unrepentant bigots.