Should the boy scouts allow openly gay scouts and scoutmasters.

Redress said:

More fiction. You cannot document a single thing you are claiming. I can.

Click to expand...

Erroneous and meaningless.

I've already documented the birth-defect reality of both homosexuality and transsexuality in other recent threads.

And, I provided Google search-phrase link to all of the studies that validate that there is a significantly higher incidence of pedophilia associated with homosexulity than heterosexuality, there for all to read.

And you've just said, "nah-nah, no it's not, and I can prove it [with links]!"

Well, if you can, get to it!

Ontologuy said:

False.

That's not what they're saying.

What they're saying is that homosexuals are considerably more likely, per capita percentage, to be pedophiles than heterosexuals.

That's a fact.

There are studies that have been done to support that reality -- just Google "are homosexuals more likely to be pedophiles?" and they'll pop right up for you to review.

Click to expand...

At the top of the search list:

Facts About Homosexuality and Child Molestation | UCDavis.edu


#2 on the list:
http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_chil.htm


There are many, many more that all say the same thing. All I did was copy/paste what you put inside the quotes above.

Ontologuy said:

And I clearly pointed out to you that, no people were not "apparently" equating homosexuality with pedophilia, as there was no apparent equating happening, either in the posts of people in this thread or in a reference to others by posters in this thread.

I clearly pointed out to you that your "apparently" assertion was absolutely and obviously false.

Here you are simply trying to use subterfuge to "pretend" I've posted other than this or to "pretend" that your "real" point was that "homosexuality is not the same as pedophilia", when clearly neiher was the case.

Stop trying to obfuscate via subterfuge.



False, obviously.

And what you care or not about the facts of the birth-defect nature of homosexuality and transsexuality I accurately presented is meaningless.

Click to expand...

You didn't point anything out to me. My very first post was very clear...to everybody but apparently you that I in no way believe that homosexuality is the same a pedophilia.

Again...what I know is that you don't know anything about what is responsible for human sexual orientation.

We're done, dude...ya dig? I don't care about what you think you believe is true. You're just not that intelligent to know more than the conventional science on human sexual orientation.

Removable Mind said:

You didn't point anything out to me. My very first post was very clear...to everybody but apparently you that I in no way believe that homosexuality is the same a pedophilia.

Click to expand...

:roll:

And the obfuscation subterfuge simply continues despite being so clearly called on it ...

Removable Mind said:

Again...what I know is that you don't know anything about what is responsible for human sexual orientation.

Click to expand...

Your "knowledge" is obviously subverted.

The birth-defect reality of both homosexuality and transsexuality is known and quite obvious.

Removable Mind said:

We're done, dude...ya dig? I don't care about what you think you believe is true. You're just not that intelligent to know more than the conventional science on human sexual orientation.

Click to expand...

Initiating unjustified ad hominems at me as a cover for your obvious obfuscation and subterfuge is neither applicable .. or effective as a cover-up.

Ontologuy said:

I've presented the fact that homosexuality, like transsexuality, is a birth defect, in other recent threads, complete with scientific validation, so don't play dumb for "your" audience.

Click to expand...

Birth defect? It might be classed as a mutation - and most people have a few of those - but not a birth defect.

MoSurveyor said:

Birth defect? It might be classed as a mutation - and most people have a few of those - but not a birth defect.

Click to expand...

It would have to be a defect, which it isn't, and it would have to happen prenatally, which is not known at all right now. He is factually completely wrong in every possible way.

Ontologuy said:

:roll:

And the obfuscation subterfuge simply continues despite being so clearly called on it ...



Your "knowledge" is obviously subverted.

The birth-defect reality of both homosexuality and transsexuality is known and quite obvious.



Initiating unjustified ad hominems at me as a cover for your obvious obfuscation and subterfuge is neither applicable .. or effective as a cover-up.

Click to expand...

Strawmen are infamous for hiding behind walls of sesquipedalian jargon.

Redress said:

It would have to be a defect, which it isn't, and it would have to happen prenatally, which is not known at all right now. He is factually completely wrong in every possible way.

Click to expand...

Denial is futile.

Both homosexuality and transsexuality are caused by a dysfunction in the two hormonal blasts during gestation (one for physiology, the other for neuropsychology) that sets the relationship between sex and gender identity-and-attraction.

It's scientific knowledge today.

That's, obviously, not a "mutation", as it is not genetic reproduced, meaning that if a homosexual gets pregnant and a heterosexual gets pregnant both have an equal chance of producing either a heterosexual or homosexual offspring.

Thus homosexuality and transsexuality are both birth defects, and obviously so, as they represent a defect in the body-mind relationship that has a pre-birth occurrance orientation.

They're obviously birth defects.

Acceptance really is for the best.

shlunka said:

View attachment 67146144 Strawmen are infamous for hiding behind walls of sesquipedalian jargon.

Click to expand...

Meaningless .. except to validate that your original "joke" was merely an intentional act of demeaning the facts I presented, likely because you took opposition to them but couldn't form a cogent rational argument in rebuttal.

Ontologuy said:

Meaningless .. except to validate that your original "joke" was merely an intentional act of demeaning the facts I presented, likely because you took opposition to them but couldn't form a cogent rational argument in rebuttal.

Click to expand...

Or perhaps I find moral arguments to have ambiguous interpretations and are infinitesimal in their significance. I wouldn't say it's meaningless, also, your facts aren't actually facts at all. Moreover, homosexuals don't choose to be gay, no more than I choose to write this response. We are all guided by our genetic inheritance and the environment we were forcibly positioned inside, there are no unadulterated decisions, and therefore there is no free will in terms of sexual preference. If you desire a rebuttal, I can provide one, but again, I find ethical arguments to be superfluous and are usually filled with turgid jargon coming from dilettantes.

shlunka said:

Or perhaps I find moral arguments to have ambiguous interpretations and are infinitesimal in their significance. I wouldn't say it's meaningless, also, your facts aren't actually facts at all. Moreover, homosexuals don't choose to be gay, no more than I choose to write this response. We are all guided by our genetic inheritance and the environment we were forcibly positioned inside, there are no unadulterated decisions, and therefore there is no free will in terms of sexual preference. If you desire a rebuttal, I can provide one, but again, I find ethical arguments to be superfluous and are usually filled with turgid jargon coming from dilettantes.

Click to expand...

Those are your idiosyncracies, and that's life, I suppose. Most people do have such challenges to grasping reality.

Regardless, my presentations are all factual, and the gestation origin of transsexuality and homosexuality that makes them birth defects is known science.

Whether there's some genetic triggers or whatever, is still being researched.

Nevertheless, marriage has existed since before the agricultural revolution, is over 12,000 years old, and has always been between a man and a woman as husband and wife.

Any other type of domestic partnership civil union is simply not marriage.

So, for SS couples, I think the recognized designation of "homarriage" solves the problem for most, both straight and gay.

Sounds like a win-win to me.

Ontologuy said:

Denial is futile.

Both homosexuality and transsexuality are caused by a dysfunction in the two hormonal blasts during gestation (one for physiology, the other for neuropsychology) that sets the relationship between sex and gender identity-and-attraction.

It's scientific knowledge today.

That's, obviously, not a "mutation", as it is not genetic reproduced, meaning that if a homosexual gets pregnant and a heterosexual gets pregnant both have an equal chance of producing either a heterosexual or homosexual offspring.

Thus homosexuality and transsexuality are both birth defects, and obviously so, as they represent a defect in the body-mind relationship that has a pre-birth occurrance orientation.

They're obviously birth defects.

Acceptance really is for the best.

Click to expand...

Did you make that up, or did you get it from some random WordPress blog?

Ontologuy said:

Those are your idiosyncracies, and that's life, I suppose. Most people do have such challenges to grasping reality.

Regardless, my presentations are all factual, and the gestation origin of transsexuality and homosexuality that makes them birth defects is known science.

Whether there's some genetic triggers or whatever, is still being researched.

Nevertheless, marriage has existed since before the agricultural revolution, is over 12,000 years old, and has always been between a man and a woman as husband and wife.

Any other type of domestic partnership civil union is simply not marriage.

So, for SS couples, I think the recognized designation of "homarriage" solves the problem for most, both straight and gay.

Sounds like a win-win to me.

Click to expand...

Your condescending arrogance knows no bounds does it? You say that I cannot grasp reality because I don't believe in the conscious mind having free-will?

Redress said:

Did you make that up, or did you get it from some random WordPress blog?

Click to expand...

Meaningless, obviously.

You're lost for cogent rational detailed topical relevant response .. so insults are your alternative.

No debate points for you there.

shlunka said:

Your condescending arrogance knows no bounds does it?

Click to expand...

Your projection is meaningless.

You would do well to re-read your previous post and admit to the condescending arrogance you obviously presented that I merely mirrored back to you for your own edification.

shlunka said:

You say that I cannot grasp reality because I don't believe in the conscious mind having free-will?

Click to expand...

Your question here contains false implied premises that likely mean you're just trying to divert from the thread topic.

Please stay on topic.

Ontologuy said:

Your projection is meaningless.

You would do well to re-read your previous post and admit to the condescending arrogance you obviously presented that I merely mirrored back to you for your own edification.



Your question here contains false implied premises that likely mean you're just trying to divert from the thread topic.

Please stay on topic.

Click to expand...

Where is the condescension in me saying that I find ethical arguments to be superfluous? I then asked if you wished to engage in an argument, which also shows no condescension whatsoever. There was no projection in any of my posts, you pulled the card of arrogance when you stated "Most people do have such challenges in grasping reality." Where are the falsely implied premises? By disagreeing in my statement of conscious free-will not existing, you automatically assume the role of believing in free-will. Implying that something exists without any evidence whatsoever, also puts the burden of proof on you, yet you only state "Your question here contains false implied premises". Or from your earlier "Likely because you couldn't form a cogent rebuttal." I claimed that your POST was a strawman argument hiding behind a wall of sesquipedalian jargon, I still believe this is true. I pointed out a lack of evidence in your lengthily worded post, and then you are the first to jump to personal insults, and yet retain the nerve to say that I'm projecting?

Ontologuy said:

Meaningless, obviously.

You're lost for cogent rational detailed topical relevant response .. so insults are your alternative.

No debate points for you there.

Click to expand...

So you cannot back up your claim. How unsurprising.

Hint: homosexuality is not a defect. It does not harm an individual.

shlunka said:

Where is the condescension in me saying that I find ethical arguments to be superfluous? I then asked if you wished to engage in an argument, which also shows no condescension whatsoever. There was no projection in any of my posts, you pulled the card of arrogance when you stated "Most people do have such challenges in grasping reality." Where are the falsely implied premises? By disagreeing in my statement of conscious free-will not existing, you automatically assume the role of believing in free-will. Implying that something exists without any evidence whatsoever, also puts the burden of proof on you, yet you only state "Your question here contains false implied premises". Or from your earlier "Likely because you couldn't form a cogent rebuttal." I claimed that your POST was a strawman argument hiding behind a wall of sesquipedalian jargon, I still believe this is true. I pointed out a lack of evidence in your lengthily worded post, and then you are the first to jump to personal insults, and yet retain the nerve to say that I'm projecting?

Click to expand...

:roll:

You are so busy hunting for my flaws, you're blinded to your own.

If you have some on-topic details to post, do so, otherwise I will leave you to your mote-hunt.

Ontologuy said:

Same old meaningless completely disproven stupidity that I always post.

Click to expand...

Corrected for accuracy. Everything you post has been thoroughly debunked. You are uneducated on this topic and seem unwilling to learn anything about it.

I encourage all posters to do the same thing to Onologuy's posts that I have done. Remind him that he is ignorant on this topic. You needn't respond to the dumb things he says.

Redress said:

So you cannot back up your claim. How unsurprising.

Click to expand...

:roll:

Your premise is false, so your conclusive derision is also, obviously.

But if you want to fabricate about what I supposedly did or didn't do, at least you'll be distracted from your own obvious lack of presenting any scientifically current support whatsoever for your denial.

Redress said:

Hint: homosexuality is not a defect.

Click to expand...

Why, because you want it not to be???

I've presented the scientific reality of the birth-defect nature of both transsexuality and its etiological cousin homosexuality.

But so far, all you've said in reply is, "Uh-uh -- no it's not!"

Convincing. :roll:

Redress said:

It does not harm an individual.

Click to expand...

The hell it doesn't!

You try spending your childhood, preteen, and teen years at intrinsic cross-purposes between your body and your mind without it cooking up at least a moderate neurosis.

Transsexuals are cheering for the day when the birth defect of transsexuality will be defeated. In fact it was a transsexual who initially presented to me the gestation science about the hormone blasts I previously presented! And this person elaborated on the same conditions that cause the substantitively specific yet similarly engendered birth defect of homosexuality.

Until you've been a homosexual and have been honest with the reality of the coping necessary to function with the birth defect of homosexuality, you don't know what you're talking about when you blithely state that homosexuality "does not harm an individual". :roll:

Homosexuals today have sadly been infected with the pre-conceived ideology that "there's nothing wrong with me" simply so they can achieve political goals they should be given now that the etiology of homosexuality is known, that it isn't a learned behavior or a "contagion" that can "infect" others who observe it.

This ideological mindset, however, sadly dumbs them down to the realities of harm anyone without a normal heterosexual drive is most certainly going to experience within themselves and the neuropsychological damage that most certainly causes.

Homosexuality is a birth defect .. and you can't fantasize that reality away with "Uh-uh, no it's not!" .. no matter what political goals you wish to thereby dishonorably achieve.

Ontologuy said:

More stupid debunked crap that I always post no matter how often I have been proven to be wrong.

Click to expand...

Edited for accuracy. Please ignore all of the ignorant comments that Ontologuy makes. They have been proven wrong countless times. His refusal to accept this is based on his denial that he has no education on this topic; he tries to mask this by posting misinformation. He masks his lack of education on this topic, poorly.

MoSurveyor said:

I'm kind of on the fence on that one. For places where BSofA actually pays people to work, yes, and I suspect they don't discriminate in filling those jobs. Volunteer work is another area, though.

Click to expand...

I imagine that they probably do. If they have a policy that discriminates in one area, it most likely permeates the entire organization. I participated in scouting for years. I, myself am an Eagle Scout, but I am now ashamed to be associated in any way with an organization that chooses to discriminate and hate. Hopefully the BSA will see the error of their ways.

Studies clearly show what makes perfect sense: the birth defect that causes homosexuality also causes other defective behavior, which includes a significant increase in peophilia compared to the heterosexual population:

Homosexuals more likely to molest kids, study reports - (BP)

Since heterosexuals outnumber the homosexual population about 44 to 1, as a group the incidence of homosexuals molesting children is up to 40 times greater than heterosexuals

Click to expand...

.

Report: Pedophilia more common among ‘gays’

In her thesis – also written for the Regent University Law Review – Reisman cited psychologist Eugene Abel, whose research found that homosexuals “sexually molest young boys with an incidence that is occurring from five times greater than the molestation of girls. …”

Abel also found that non-incarcerated “child molesters admitted from 23.4 to 281.7 acts per offender … whose targets were males.”

“The rate of homosexual versus heterosexual child sexual abuse is staggering,” said Reisman, who was the principal investigator for an $800,000 Justice Department grant studying child pornography and violence. “Abel’s data of 150.2 boys abused per male homosexual offender finds no equal (yet) in heterosexual violations of 19.8 girls.”

Click to expand...

Are proportionally more incidents of child sexual abuse perpetrated by gays and lesbians than by heterosexuals? - Born Gay - ProCon.orgStudies show that

"While pro-homosexual activists like to claim that pedophilia is a completely distinct orientation from homosexuality, evidence shows a disproportionate overlap between the two. Although almost all child molesters are male and less than 3 percent of men are homosexual, about a third of all child sex abuse cases involve men molesting boys -- and in one study, 86% of such men identified themselves as homosexual or bisexual."

Click to expand...

How Homosexualists Redefine* Homosexual Child Molesting

homosexuals have same-sex contacts with children (those legally underage to consent to sex with a person who is not underage) at a rate of 10 to 30 times higher than heterosexuals

Click to expand...

And on and on and on.

Pre-conceived ideologists compelled to political agendas for "gay rights" and the oxymoronically inane "same-sex marriage" have engaged in a damage-control campaign of denial of the study-shown reality that homosexuals most certainly do molest children at a staggeringly greater rate than do heterosexuals.

Clearly the birth defect of homosexuality carries with it other understandably associated defects.

With all the homo-apologists in power, however, the truth of this fact is being censored, and it is left to those courageous people to tell the truth in the defense and safety of children.

The Boy Scouts of America do most certainly have a real case against homosexual males being allowed in their organization of boys, as it is statistically proven that males are by far the greatest abusers of children, and, that homosexuals are up to 40 times or more likely to abuse children than are heterosexuals :shock: .

Considering psychological realities, it would not surprise me if those who are the most rabid homo-apologists in the media in the matter are attempting to cover up their own pedophilia! :shock: :shock: :shock: That's similar in cover-up denial to what the Catholic Church did trying to protect pedophile priests! They're certainly not the only ones who would engage in such a cover-up of the reality of the increased incidence of pedophilia among homosexuals!

The reality that the incidence of pedophilia is so significantly greater in homosexuals is a huge, huge fact that pre-conceived ideologists, trolls against truth-tellers, and others don't want the public to know.

So they repsond with a huge damage-control misinformation and flame-baiting campagain against those who tell the truth about the birth defect of homosexuality and its associated significant increase of pedophilia, in violation of rules of proper conduct.

The facts I have presented are clear, obvious, and reflect reality.

Sometimes the truth is hard to take ..

.. But acceptance is always for the best.

Ontologuy said:

Studies clearly show what makes perfect sense: the birth defect that causes homosexuality also causes other defective behavior, which includes a significant increase in peophilia compared to the heterosexual population:

Homosexuals more likely to molest kids, study reports - (BP).

Report: Pedophilia more common among ‘gays’


Are proportionally more incidents of child sexual abuse perpetrated by gays and lesbians than by heterosexuals? - Born Gay - ProCon.orgStudies show that


How Homosexualists Redefine* Homosexual Child Molesting

And on and on and on.

Pre-conceived ideologists compelled to political agendas for "gay rights" and the oxymoronically inane "same-sex marriage" have engaged in a damage-control campaign of denial of the study-shown reality that homosexuals most certainly do molest children at a staggeringly greater rate than do heterosexuals.

Clearly the birth defect of homosexuality carries with it other understandably associated defects.

With all the homo-apologists in power, however, the truth of this fact is being censored, and it is left to those courageous people to tell the truth in the defense and safety of children.

The Boy Scouts of America do most certainly have a real case against homosexual males being allowed in their organization of boys, as it is statistically proven that males are by far the greatest abusers of children, and, that homosexuals are up to 40 times or more likely to abuse children than are heterosexuals :shock: .

Considering psychological realities, it would not surprise me if those who are the most rabid homo-apologists in the media in the matter are attempting to cover up their own pedophilia! :shock: :shock: :shock: That's similar in cover-up denial to what the Catholic Church did trying to protect pedophile priests! They're certainly not the only ones who would engage in such a cover-up of the reality of the increased incidence of pedophilia among homosexuals!

The reality that the incidence of pedophilia is so significantly greater in homosexuals is a huge, huge fact that pre-conceived ideologists, trolls against truth-tellers, and others don't want the public to know.

So they repsond with a huge damage-control misinformation and flame-baiting campagain against those who tell the truth about the birth defect of homosexuality and its associated significant increase of pedophilia, in violation of rules of proper conduct.

The facts I have presented are clear, obvious, and reflect reality.

Sometimes the truth is hard to take ..

.. But acceptance is always for the best.

Click to expand...

Ok, let's look at these sources, shall we? Thge first two are both based of the same source, Judith Reisman, who is a commentator for World News Daily. Let's look at an example of what she has to say: The Culture Wars: Why Know? : The New Yorker

Reisman also endorses a book called “The Pink Swastika,” which challenges the “myths” that gays were victimized in Nazi Germany. The Nazi Party and the Holocaust itself, she writes, were largely the creation of “the German homosexual movement.” Thanks to Alfred Kinsey, she warns, the American homosexual movement is poised to repeat those crimes. “Idealistic ‘gay youth’ groups are being formed and staffed in classrooms nationwide by recruiters too similar to those who formed the original ‘Hitler youth.’ ”

Click to expand...

AS for the study itself, it does not actually look at the orientation of those comminting child molestation, but rather the gender of the attacker and victim. So that is a fail.

Second source is WND. LoLz. It also looks at the gender of attackers and not orientation. Moving on, the third source is based on an article from the family Research Council, and guess what, it does not look at orientation but at gender of attacker and victim. Fourth source makes up it's own definition of homosexuality, which is, guess what, not based on the real definition.

Damn, that is a lot of fail.

Now let's move onto real data: Facts About Homosexuality and Child Molestation

Using the fixated-regressed distinction, Groth and Birnbaum (1978) studied 175 adult males who were convicted in Massachusetts of sexual assault against a child. None of the men had an exclusively homosexual adult sexual orientation. 83 (47%) were classified as "fixated;" 70 others (40%) were classified as regressed adult heterosexuals; the remaining 22 (13%) were classified as regressed adult bisexuals. Of the last group, Groth and Birnbaum observed that "in their adult relationships they engaged in sex on occasion with men as well as with women. However, in no case did this attraction to men exceed their preference for women....There were no men who were primarily sexually attracted to other adult males..." (p.180).

Click to expand...

Other researchers have taken different approaches, but have similarly failed to find a connection between homosexuality and child molestation. Dr. Carole Jenny and her colleagues reviewed 352 medical charts, representing all of the sexually abused children seen in the emergency room or child abuse clinic of a Denver children's hospital during a one-year period (from July 1, 1991 to June 30, 1992). The molester was a gay or lesbian adult in fewer than 1% in which an adult molester could be identified – only 2 of the 269 cases (Jenny et al., 1994).

Click to expand...

Oops, turns out Ontologuy is entirely and completely wrong....

Redress said:

Ok, let's look at these sources, shall we? Thge first two are both based of the same source, Judith Reisman, who is a commentator for World News Daily. Let's look at an example of what she has to say: The Culture Wars: Why Know? : The New Yorker AS for the study itself, it does not actually look at the orientation of those comminting child molestation, but rather the gender of the attacker and victim. So that is a fail. Second source is WND. LoLz. It also looks at the gender of attackers and not orientation. Moving on, the third source is based on an article from the family Research Council, and guess what, it does not look at orientation but at gender of attacker and victim. Fourth source makes up it's own definition of homosexuality, which is, guess what, not based on the real definition. Damn, that is a lot of fail. Now let's move onto real data: Facts About Homosexuality and Child Molestation Oops, turns out Ontologuy is entirely and completely wrong....

Click to expand...

The only fail here is your attack on the person of the study conductors that has nothing to do with the accurate studies that are continually validated by subsequent studies from other valid sources, that the birth defect of homosexuality most definitely has a significantly higher incidence of pedophilia associated with it than does heterosexuality, obviously.

You say that the sexual orientation of the child molesters in the study is "in question", when it's obvious that it isn't.

All those boys molested by the openly homosexual older males validates the pedophiles' orientation by the fact that they molested .. wait for it .. .. exclusively boys. :shock: .. :roll:

It is obvious subterfuge via obfuscation to ever seriously question the "orientation" of older males who molest younger males, as these older males clearly had a homosexual orientation for the boys they molested. Your excuse that "well, they hadn't had any 'adult' relationships so how do we know?" is ludicrously laughable, and, of course, would not at all be sufficiently convincing to the Boys Scouts of America when they saw for a fact that greatly higher percentage of pedophilia among males-on-boys, especially considering so many of these males admitted to their homosexuality.

To say that those males who molested younger males weren't "clearly" homosexual simply because they didn't have a preference for adults is the height of erroneous thinking, as that would mean you could bury your head in the sand and never see the reality that these males are molesting exclusively boys and thus they are .. wait for it .. .. obviously homosexual.

:roll:

Your seriously irrational thinking may allow you to bury your head in the sand and hide from the reality that the many, many studies show: that the birth defect of homosexuality is associated with a significant increase of pedophilia.

Homosexuality is evidenced at an early age, pre-teen/teen, and such accurate information revealed simply does not require having had an "adult" peer sexual relationship, obviously.

You can cite all the homo-apologist pre-conceived ideological misinformation damage-control sites and sites whose funding rises and falls with media acceptance and rejection respectively all you want, but common sense reasoning will accurately refute them every time.

Nevertheless, your adamant insistance on defending the indefensible makes me seriously wonder what your personal motive is in the matter.