- "While we don't have much say over the desires that we have, we
certainly can decide which we prefer-and then search for ways to act on
that basis." ~ Daniel Akst
I've been saying this all along: If a man molests an underage boy, or a woman molests an underage girl, it is a homosexual act, by virtue of the gender of the offender.
It is absolutely incomprehensible that a heterosexual could molest a child of the same sex. Heterosexual men are simply not attracted to other males, regardless of age. Likewise heterosexual women.
I know homosexuals and their enablers like to claim that most (some even say all) men who molest boys are heterosexual, but it can't be true. Even if they appear to be heterosexual to others, as soon as they molest a child of the same sex, or indulge in child pornography, they are homosexual.
The act defines them.
The same is true of men who claim they are bisexual. It doesn't matter if they are married, or are otherwise known as womanizers, or appear "macho". If they have sex with another man, they are homosexual.
And, homosexuality is deviancy.
Merriam-Webster's dictionary defines the word, "deviant" thus:
"different from what is considered to be normal or morally correct."
It is not normal for people to have sex with another person of the same sex. Nor is it morally correct. Because it is morally incorrect, it is not at all surprising that a homosexual would possess child pornography
. Morally incorrect people have a warped sense of morals, if they have any morals at all.
Homosexuality is abnormal behavior and not natural. Whether the other participant is a child or an adult. Whether the act is consensual. It is not normal. It is not natural. It is sick.
16 comments:
I have to disagree with your last statement. It is NOT "sick." It is evil, it is wicked, it is deviant, it is perverse, etc, but it is NOT an illness.
That's why I use the term "dysfunction", because it seems to be more precise to me, and likely is.
But I would also add an exception to that which I in general agree: I expect there are those who don't care how they "get off" and will use any victim as preferable to their own hand.
Yet, it is indeed peculiar that all the "heterosexuals" to whom the activists and their enablers point are often men abusing boys. Somehow, in the case of Sandusky for example, the fact that they might be or had been married proves their point, regardless of the fact that so many homosexuals, like "Bishop" Vicky Gene Robinson, were married at one time.
It is absolutely incomprehensible that a heterosexual could molest a child of the same sex.
How pathetically ignorant that statement is!
Heterosexual men are simply not attracted to other males, regardless of age.
Who told you that pedophilia had anything to do with sexual attraction?
as soon as they molest a child of the same sex, or indulge in child pornography, they are homosexual.
See sentence #2 above.
If they have sex with another man, they are homosexual.
Which book were you reading this from again?
it is not at all surprising that a homosexual would possess child pornography
Frankly I wouldn't find it surprising if you possessed child pornography.
regardless of the fact that so many homosexuals... were married at one time.
So many? What percent, would you say?
"Who told you that pedophilia had anything to do with sexual attraction?"
Who told you it didn't and what sources can you cite to prove your point that the sex of the child is of no consequence ANY time one is molested? What proof can you provide that attraction to children by ANY child molester isn't merely their "orientation", and as homosexuals are turned on by the thought of sex with men, pedophiles aren't turned on by the thought of sex with children?
"regardless of the fact that so many homosexuals... were married at one time.
So many? What percent, would you say?"
What possible difference does it make to put a precise number on it? The fact that homosexuals married due to the fact that they believed it served them better to do so is not the least bit unheard of. Once again it seems you prefer a less than honest manner of discussion.
But because I am nothing if not fair and balanced, I would caution against sweeping comments such as
"it is not at all surprising that a homosexual would possess child pornography"
I don't think the connection is established in any way. But I do believe that people like Sandusky and those in the Roman Catholic sex scandals so favored by "holier-than-thou" lefties are primarily cases of homosexuality as both perpetrator and victim are male. This does not mean all pedophiles are homosexuals and we know that some men seek out young girls. What is ludicrous is to pretend there is something about such cases that dispels the notion that the perps are homosexual, or at least bi-sexual.
But the activists and their enablers need to make that case believed by society to distance themselves. They don't. All they need to say is that amongst their community they have pedophiles as well as the hetero community, and of course their pedophiles would naturally seek victims of the same gender. That's the most rational and logical response and is most likely true anyway.
Art, in quoting me, you left out the point. I wrote,
"Because it is morally incorrect, it is not at all surprising that a homosexual would possess child pornography."
The point is morals. If one has no morals, one is capable of committing any immoral act without remorse. If he feels it's ok to lie, it's ok to cheat. If it's ok to cheat, it's ok to steal. If it's ok to steal, it's ok to kill, or molest children, or possess child pornography.
Plus, Since homosexuals are obsessed with all things involving all manner of immoral sex, it isn't indeed surprising that a homosexual would possess child pornography.
But Mark. Even mafioso have their standards. The point here is more that it is unnecessary to make such a statement as well as less than accurate, even if everyone concedes such a thing would be a good wager.
Coincidentally, Wintery Knight has a recent post regarding the arrest of a major homosexual activist on child pornography charges. I didn't read the linked source to find out details. Not sure I want to. But as Jim has made as sweeping a generalization as you have, I am a bit curious to see if they describe in anyway what was found, so as to ascertain whether or not this homosexual had pics/vids of young girls, young boys (or both). If his stash was more one than the other, or there was some admission as to which prompted his acquiring what he had (such as, "I got them for the little boys" or girls or whatever), we could see whether you or Jim is closer to reality. I encourage anyone similarly interested to place their wagers first, then go see for yourself.
Personally, it really isn't important, for the sake of the victims, whether they are boys or girls. He should be locked away forever after castration, or some such punishment, regardless. But considering the discussion here, with Jim so sure heteros are the real and more common culprits, and Mark going the other way, what the heck?
Art, I wonder if that's the same homosexual activist I liked to in my post.
Sweeping generalization? How so? My whole point is, the act (of homosexuality) defines them (homosexuals).
If a man is considered heterosexual before he has sex with another male, regardless of age, he becomes a homosexual.
what sources can you cite to prove your point that the sex of the child is of no consequence ANY time one is molested?
First, I didn't make such a point. Second, it is you that made the original assertion that same-sex pedophilia is based on sexual attraction to a specific gender. Your assertion came with no evidence or citations.
is not the least bit unheard of.
Of course it is not unheard of. But the percentage of gays who do this is certainly not large enough to give that group the credibility to define homosexuality or homosexual behaviors as a "lifestyle".
If a man is considered heterosexual before he has sex with another male, regardless of age, he becomes a homosexual.
Kind of a convoluted sentence here, but I guess you are saying when it comes to homosexuality, there's no such thing as "testing the waters."
Are you also saying that if a young person has never had sexual relations with another person of either gender but is attracted sexually or romantically to a person of the same sex, they are still heterosexual unless and until they have same gender sex. Have I got that right?
In other words, it's not sexual attraction. It's not romantic attraction. Homosexuality is defined by the physical act of same gender sexual activity.
Is that the conclusion of your research?
"Homosexuality is defined by the physical act of same gender sexual activity.
Is that the conclusion of your research?"
Yes. But, it isn't research. It's common sense and logic, which you apparently don't understand.
My logic is just fine. Sexual behavior is not the only determinant of defining homosexuality. Sexual desire or attraction to a person of the same sex is also a definition of homosexuality.
In fact I would maintain that the desire or attraction is MORE definitive than the sexual behavior. People can have a sexual encounter with a person of the same sex while in a state of inebriation or in the context of experimentation, for example, and yet not have a persistent desire or attraction to people of the same sex. I would say that such a person is in fact NOT a homosexual. Conversely, a person who has a persistent sexual desire or attraction to persons of the same sex is a homosexual even without ever having sexual relations with anyone.
Common sense dictates that it is not the act that defines them. It is the "orientation", their persistent attraction and desire for persons of the same sex.
Wow! Jim actually has a worthy comment! The behavior confirms the desire. If the desire is made known. Prisoners serving long sentences often abuse weaker prisoners but upon release do not engage in homosexual behavior. So it is true that behavior alone is insufficient in determining another's orientation. From a Biblical perspective, the orientation is merely one of zillions of unfortunate urges any given human being might experience. But it is the behavior that is prohibited.
The behavior confirms the desire.
And then you imply that the behavior of prisoners is not necessarily one of same sex attraction but of power. Which refutes your statement all by yourself.
But it is the behavior that is prohibited.
In the Bible, yes. So? Our laws are not bound by the Bible, First Amendment and all that.
"And then you imply that the behavior of prisoners is not necessarily one of same sex attraction but of power. Which refutes your statement all by yourself."
Not at all, pea-brain. A homosexual is sexually attracted to men. When he engages in sex with a man, it confirms his desire for sex with a man.
But a prisoner doesn't necessarily desire sex with a man in the same way. That is to say, he doesn't want sex with a man at all. He might force himself upon another man in order to humiliate and dominate the other, or, he might do so because using his own hand isn't good enough for him. But if his natural inclination does not lean toward seeking out sex with a man due to an attraction to men, then his sexual contact is NOT a confirmation of homosexual orientation, but of another equally deviant attitude toward sexuality.
A homosexual is sexually attracted to men
Correctamundo! By definition.
When he engages in sex with a man, it confirms his desire for sex with a man.
Confirms to whom? Who needs confirmation? The homosexual already knows. Is there a certification process? Having sex with a man, as you note in the case of a prisoner, does not confirm the desire for sex with a man.
So your logic...isn't.
Jim,
I made a clear distinction between someone with an attraction to those of the same gender as opposed to a prisoner looking to dominate/humiliate another or pleasure himself in some way other than his own hand. With the former, engagement in the behavior confirms his attraction to men. With the latter, it confirms his desire to dominate/humiliate another or pleasure himself in some way other than his own hand. How does this simple logical distinction escape you?
And as to whom this confirms, it is to the observer for whatever purpose the information might serve. You truly are Parkie-like dense, aren't you?
Post a Comment