Gay Marriage

Abel's study methods are questionable, at best. He recommends sexually-specific therapy for a large proportion of children when they test positive on a sexual-deviancy test (AASI), when there's no norm for what "normal" behavior is. The courts also have a tendency to dismiss his findings.

 

It would be nice to see a debate in this forum that did not degenerate into:



"You're intolerant for having a valid opinion seperate from mine. I could discuss the merits of your argument and have a meaningful debate, but like a growing majority of young liberals I will proceed to call you a stupid bastard and compare you to hitler and the kkk instead..."



"Yeah well, your sources are obviously leaning to the left and shouldn't be relied upon as 'objective'! Now here are some links to gaysgotohell.com that address why homosexuality has lead to the destruction of everything good about america..."



You would think that after junior high you would have found more constructive ways to persuade rather than destructive ways to persist...

 

WOW!

Someone actually interested in discussing facts and offering opinions, theories about the actual issue!

Now Im not sure who Abel is, but I had read/heard numerous reports and statistics that 'Gay Men' (as a whole) have about 6 times the amount of child molesters to deal with.

I do not have 'personal' knowledge of this and thats why Im questioning these studies.

NOTE - I AM THE ONE QUESTIONING THE STUDIES AND YOU ARE NOT MATTHEW.

Years ago, Two Lawyers in Vancouver began to investigate Child Pornography and one of them told me this chilling and highly disturbing account.

They were 'staked out' in a popular 'gay bar'.
While talking to the homosexuals they noticed there was a regular 'group' who often came and went - but were seemingly 'unpopular' with the rest of the Gays.

When asked, the regulars said "Oh.. those guys are what we call 'ChickenHawks'.
They are into young boys and most of us dont associate with them".

WTF?

The lawyers said they could not even believe that a group of known child rapists would be regarded as 'Disliked' but perfectly allowed to come and go.

Other than that - I will look up Abels studies and see just exactly what his methods are.
I dont know if these studies are refering to molestation of 'Post-Pubescent' molestation.
(this the kind found among Catholic Priest allegations)

Or

If he is refering to what is called 'PedoPhilia' molestations of 'Pre' Pubescent boys?

HUckFinn:
Your exactly right - the so-called 'Freedom of Speech' people in here are so obviously OPPOSED to Freedom they will eventually DEMAND any discussion be stopped.

Absolute Hypocrites in the worst sense of the word.

 

have been called right wing not liberal but thats all labels i guess..

Personaly if you can think of any good reason to debate the two possible threads i posted ...fine .. i was not trying to persuade anybody, just a little honesty from a few people would be nice..not hide behind studies

 

ok carry on ... i will stay out of it ... you just irked me for a while thats all.

 

My point is: Why bother with these discussions?

If neither side gives ground or even acknowledges the VALIDITY of the other's point of view what is the point of the discussion.

Pissing match?

Cause it doesn't look like this is going to convince anybody for pro or con...

 

this is a really interesting debate. i wonder if people did this before an amendment was passed that made it legal for interacial couples to marry in 1977.

 

i just think its beautiful when two people fall in love and want to spend their life with that one special person no matter sexual orientation. Let Love Reing

 

I've readily acknowledged the bias of my sources, but I've also pointed out that sources like the APA (or the laughable "religioustolerance.org") are no less biased. In any case, I try to cite links that include references/footnotes, but nobody here bothers to meaningfully engage them.

So far, you've only provided links to APA policy statements, which I don't consider very authoritative. You haven't cited actual studies or even attempted to refute the ones I've provided.

Profound.

Obviously. Any "intelligent person" (by definition) must agree with you.

 

What amendment would that be?

 

hmmm...i do not remember if it is an amendment or not...sorry...hm...it was legalized in 1977 though...my law teacher and i had a discussion about this. i am writing a paper on the legalization of marijuana and how we got on this subject i have no idea. but it was a good conversation. i just think its interesting thats all

 

hehe... might want to read what you link, first.... you posted the link earlier, here:

 

Here is my study:
I want to find the correlation between drinking water and killing people.
I would start by questioning murderers about drinking water. If I find that most or all have then I could say that my study shows that drinking water may lead to murder. Is it correct? Well it is correct that murderers drink water, but what does that have to do with killing people? It doesn't.

That's why I don't go bother with studies so much. I go with what I know and try to progress rather than sit in the pseudo-comfort of the status quo. I try to live and let live.

Scientists have recently been able to find more and more correlation between homosexuality and genetics. In the animal kingdom we have seen signs of homosexuality. We are starting to learn that it is not as abnormal as we may have thought. And regardless of what any one individual, or groups of individuals think about gay men or women being together, I see no valid reason why we need to restrict the rights of these individuals solely based on sexual orientation.

I don't get what the problem is with us, our country first descriminates based on skin color and gender, now this. When are we going to move on and give our citizens the freedom they deserve. Instead we go through the same cycles, the same resistance to change.

Either give homosexual couples the same benefits under the law that are afforded to hetersexual couples, or take those benefits away from everyone.


How would you feel, Huck or Brocktoon, if your significant other whom you have been with 20, 30, 40 years suddenly died, and the home and everything you built together was taken away by their family because they were uncomfortable with your relationship? Or your partner was dying, and you couldn't even visit them in the hospital? It is a travesty. We need to treat our citizens better than that, regardless if you like their lifestyle or not. The christian lifestyle is not one I choose for myself, but I would be just as angered to hear a similar story coming from a christian.

 

Yeah, religious tolerance is so laughable...

You have no empathy, Huck.

 

i am bisexual and happy...we are all loved in some form.

 

1967 actually (I love google ) The supreme court struck down a ban, which made it legal...

http://www.ameasite.org/loving.asp

 

Just what I am talking about. Take the same people here debating against gay rights, and stick them back in that time frame and they would likely be having a fit over interracial marriage, or anything else that they might not do themselves.

Basically, it has to be something that Huck or Brocktoon would approve of before it is okay for the general public. I certainly hope you guys like chocolate, because I don't know what I would do if my right to eat chocolate was taken away.

 

Great post!

 

see... i am such a flake sometimes... thank you for correcting. what is up with Huck? i do not quite understand.