You are currently browsing the monthly archive for May 2013.

Many very good comments on this thread at this Psychology Today site. I copied them here to save them and think about some points further.

They were in response to an extremely irresponsible article promoting teenagers to have sex and wanting to abolish age-of-consent laws (or bring them down) by Marina Adshade. As you know, liberals who normalize homosexuality are the new NAMBLA light. They haven’t begun to advocate for sex with 2 yr olds yet, but they want to sexually exploit everyone teenager. Now they claim legal protections against sex at an early age are terrible and creates great injustices. Her main grotesque claim:

Age-of-consent laws impose high costs in terms of the personal hardship on the youth caught up in that enforcement (on both sides of the courtroom). So there must be pretty good evidence that younger teens are less capable of making healthily sexual decisions than are slightly older teens who are free to choose the nature of their own sexual relationships, right? Not exactly and, in fact, comprehensive research using data collected from 26,000 high school students in British Columbia found that the sexual decision making of those who became sexually active when they were 14 to 15 years old was no worse than those who became sexually active when they were 16 to 17 years old.

Comments:

Age of consent laws exist because of pedophiles. The state and the parents want a way to prosecute pedophiles even if the minor doesn’t want to.

………………..;;;

Very warped rationale…

Submitted by Alessandra
Marina Adshade (the author) stated:

Young youth in this study were equally likely as the older (16-17) group to have sex under the influence of drugs or alcohol (which one quarter of them did during their most recent sexual experience).

Since you consider this to be healthy behavior, little else needs to be said about your arguments.

And I’m sure pretty soon you’ll do another study showing that 12 yr olds are just as capable as 14 yr olds to make decisions about sex, so…

……………………

The purpose of statutory rape

Submitted by Anonymous:

The purpose of statutory rape laws is to make it taboo and discourage (and punishable as a crime by society) legal adults from having sex with minors. This is in the interest of protecting children from pedophiles. The premise is that children (although age of consent varies by state) due to their age lack the maturity to consent to sex due to the responsibilities and risks it entails (both psychological and physical).

Just because the 14-15 year olds are using birth control and aren’t getting STI/STDs more often than 16/17 year olds does not mean that they have the psychological maturity for a sexual relationship. It’s pretty clear in our society that a 14 or 15 year old (generally) is too young to be a good parent due to their maturity levels (they can’t even drive or in some states work!). Thus the conclusion that they can consent to sex because they have safe sex without addressing their psychological maturity is specious at best. Why doesn’t the study address the psychological or maturity level differences between 14/15 year olds and 16/17 year olds. Why is it that a 16 year old is deemed mature enough to have a driver’s license but a 14/15 year old isn’t? The reason is that the older ones tend to be more mature and have better decision making abilities due to more life experience.

The parents of a minor child are in control of raising their child according to their beliefs and have a RIGHT to not allow their child to date, drive, go on a field trip or a dance, have a surgery or engage in sexual activities. Society has decided that once someone is 18 they are legal adults who are old enough to make all of their own choices, vote, enter into contracts etc.. What parent wants their 14 year old child to have sex with someone who is 3 or 4 years older? At that those ages it’s a huge difference in maturity levels. My sister is 4 years younger than me and when I was a senior in high school (not that long ago) I would have NEVER have date a freshman or sophmore and any senior I knew acted like freshman/sophmores were too immature and not part of our social scene at all.

In this case, the parents have a right to not allow their child to have a sexual relationship in a school bathroom with Hunt who was 18, while the child was only 14 (ages at the start of the relationship-NY Times). Once the parents found out about the sexual relationship they warned Hunt to stop having sex with their daughter (I don’t care if it was due to homophobia or simply because of age or they don’t want their daughter having sex). Instead of respecting the parents wishes Hunt picked the child up in her car from the child’s house, took the child to her own parents house and preceded to have sex with the child again. We don’t know if Hunt manipulated the younger girl or exercised undue influence since she is so much older and the girl can’t tell because she is so young, but we do know that the girl’s parents think she is too young to have a sexual relationship with someone 4 years older. Everyone knows sex with someone underage is statuory rape, Hunt knew the girl’s age and was warned by the girl’s parents and still had sex with the girl so now she has to pay to price for that adult choice. When teens over or udner age engage in sex there are adult responsibilities that you are burdened with such as potential of pregnancy, STI/STD, getting in trouble for breaking school rules for having sex on campus, and being convicted for statutory rape for having sex with someone underage. Why didn’t Hunt just have sex with someone her own age after being warned? If she really cared about the girl not getting in trouble with her parents she would have left her alone. That would have been the mature thing to do.

……………………..;

Yeah, right… 14 year old adults… OK…

Submitted by Annie on May 26, 2013 – 1:54pm.

If 14 year olds are considered rational and mature enough to consent to sex, then heck, they should be rational and mature enough to be self-supporting, to have driver’s licenses, to sign legal contracts, to marry, to be drafted into the military, to be emancipated from their parents, to buy liquor, to arrange for their own abortions or receive welfare and raise their own children, etc.

Lets make 14 year olds legal adults, it would make all this so much simpler.

The 14 year olds will be delighted, and the pedophiles will be delighted. The liquor industry will be delighted. The military will probably be even more delighted the next time they decide to institute the draft.

I say there should be one age ONLY for complete adulthood, meaning complete legal responsibility for one’s own self / physical body, one’s own decisions, one’s own financial welfare, to be self-supporting, able to sign legal contracts, etc.

I personally think it should be age 18. No sex, no driving, no job, no alcohol, no adult responsibility AT ALL before age 18.

Then blammo! You hit 18 and you’re legally a full adult and take over the reins of your own life, totally.

……………………..

Legal age should mostly be 18

Submitted by Alessandra on May 26, 2013 – 2:07pm.

“I personally think it should be age 18. No sex, no driving, no job, no alcohol, no adult responsibility AT ALL before age 18.”

I tend to agree. In fact, in many other countries, no driver’s license before 18.

Of this list, my exception would be for jobs. Regulated but allowed. I think it’s very important that teenagers are allowed to work, especially those whose part of their survival depends on it. But while trying to keep them in school as well. Allowed as of 16.

…………………..

How would that work?

Submitted by Marina Adshade, Ph.D. on May 26, 2013 – 2:52pm.

I am curious as to how prohibiting sex until age 18 would work? Would the roughly 50% of American teens who become sexually active before that age all be incarcerated? Fined? How would such a law ever be enforced and it, if it could be, would the cost of enforcement really be worth the benefit to society as a whole?

………………………..

liberal culture needs to change

Submitted by Alessandra on May 26, 2013 – 3:26pm.

“Would the roughly 50% of American teens who become sexually active before that age all be incarcerated? ”

A lot of the reason why they are becoming sexually active is because liberals are encouraging them to do so.

It doesn’t have to be this way. The problem with teens starts with the morally corrupt, harmful adults surrounding them – like in the Kaitlyn case.

And what to do about it if it then happened? I don’t see what the problem would be to devise whatever policies and legal consequences to deal with it.

The benefits to society are multiple: less teen pregnancy and abortion, less emotional and sexual exploitation of teens, less STDs, sex is less cheapened by liberals, teens are taught to be responsible and “adults”, etc.

Yeah, definitely worth it.

……………………

In response to “I’m curious . . . “

Submitted by Arlene on May 27, 2013 – 9:05am.

The question was asked about how prohibiting sex to 18 would work.

As a fifty year old mother who has raised two young men to adulthood I can state they were both well aware they were ‘prohibited’ from having sex, and in fact are prohibited from doing so well past 18 and as long as they live in my home, unless they are married or have displayed enough responsibility toward a committed relationship that we might negotiate the situation.

That does not mean I believe they couldn’t have chosen to have sex or won’t choose to. It means I have set a boundary and that boundary relates, to them, that a sexual relationship with anybody is due serious thought and consideration.

I was also prohibited from having sex with the same rules. I had sex anyway, younger, with a boy my own age but we BOTH knew that we were playing with fire and that what we were doing was not acceptable to our parents. The boy has been my husband for almost 30 years but we recognize now how absolutely stupid we were. Many of my friends were the same.

As my grandmother was pregnant at 16, and then married, I would suggest this has how ‘prohibition’ of sex has always worked.

Boundaries are set because we recognize our children/teens/young adults require them. They will not always be adhered to but that doesn’t mean they should not be stated.

………………………

second and endorse Arlene

Submitted by Alessandra on May 27, 2013 – 9:41am.

You couldn’t have said it better, Arlene!

I totally agree, and it’s so sad that more kids can’t have parents who think like this, because the damage is huge. And obviously, in the end, it’s not the liberal adults that get hurt, it’s the kids.

While I think that we really need to focus on the psychological and emotional damage that liberals do to cheapening sex and degrading it to the most disgusting version of it possible, these stats also show us the other side of liberal destruction regarding sexuality, in terms of sexual health:

Nearly half of the 19 million new STDs each year are among young people aged 15–24 years

And:

More than 400,000 teen girls aged 15–19 years gave birth in 2009.

…………………….

We don’t have to incarcerate

Submitted by Shortcake on May 27, 2013 – 10:59am.

We don’t have to incarcerate teens to have laws to protect.

It is illegal for 14 year olds to possess cigarettes or smoke them. I am unaware of any 14 years olds doing time for having a pack of cigarettes. But society has created this law to let children know the activity is discouraged and considered not in their interest,

I am not advocating a law prohibiting sex before 18, but not every law needs to have incarceration as a penalty

………………………

RE How would that work?

Submitted by Annie on May 27, 2013 – 10:51am.

The only way I can think of to make this “real”, make it work, would involve a rather extremely radical and definitely fascist paradigm shift of our laws and culture. So, its just a fantasy.

But one aspect would be to heavily fine parents or incarcerate parents or give parents two years of community service sentences, if it is discovered and proven that their under-18 children are having illegal sex.

And to penalize the minors who are having sex: they too would get a community-service sentence, they would be required to attend two years of psychotherapy plus two years of parenting classes, and their ability or privilege to earn a driver’s license and a job would be delayed by one year.
Bummer!

Those who turn 18 are free to have legal sex with each other, but if anyone aged 18 or older has sex with anyone under age 18, it would be a felony offense: five years minimum. Doing really hard time in a federal pen for illegal sexual activity might have more impact than the weak penalty it is now.
Maybe (?)

If a female minor child becomes pregnant and her parents do not wish for her to have an abortion, the state would become the legal guardian of the newborn: NOT the minor child, NOT the minor child’s parents and NOT the bio-father or his parents. The infant would not be a “reward” for having unlawful sex, but as a ward of the state the newborn would be placed for private adoption by another, properly vetted, unrelated family.

That would be the worst penalty, seems to me. Not getting to keep the baby resulting from having sex as a minor, at all. Not even the minor’s parents, the newborn’s grandparents, would get to keep him or her. Because getting to keep the baby is like getting a reward for doing something illegal, and that makes no sense.

A second pregnancy on the part of a minor female child would result in the state issuing an order for a surgically-implanted IUD. When the female child reaches her 18th birthday, she can petition the state to have the IUD removed at the state’s expense.

See? Extreme, right-wing, fascist kinds of laws, rules, and penalties, every one; but that’s the only thing I can think of that would actually work.

I’m not even sure that such a radical change would make things “better”, but it would certainly be DIFFERENT than what we have in place now, which clearly isn’t working at all.

…………………..

nothing would work without an overhaul of the dominant culture

Submitted by Alessandra on May 27, 2013 – 2:27pm.

Although changing laws and their enforcement could have some impact, I think they would be sorely undermined if not accompanied by an overhaul of the destructive liberal culture regarding sexuality that is currently in place.

Regarding youth, this must mean radical change on two fronts: the entire educational system and what it teaches kids, and the cultural front, namely culture in its entertainment aspect.

If all millions of kids see and hear and admire are adults behaving like sexual pigs, who do hookups, porn, normalize homosexuality, plus drinking and drugs, and push for sex since early teen years – it’s hard to imagine that implementing this or that law would have much impact.

Anti-smoking laws only succeeded because the govt succeeded in changing people’s attitudes and perspective on smoking.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Updated June 8, 2013 – debate continues:


Submitted by Alessandra on June 8, 2013

sfreader said: “A “sexual predator” is someone who either commits forcible rape, or uses some form of coercion or enticement to induce another person into having sex. “

A sexual predator is someone who targets kids for sex. It doesn’t matter what other feelings they may have. And to claim that targeting kids for sex is a form of love is exactly what NAMBLA folks always argued. There are all kinds of people who have all kinds of dysfunctional affective dynamics mixed with the desire to sexually exploit kids for sex.

It’s not because an adult “loves” a child and wants to have “a special sexual experience and bond” with the child that they aren’t predatory.

Many liberals are “genuine sexual predators” and still consider themselves run-of-the-mill normal. How many people defending Kaitlyn will acknowledge they are “genuine sexual predators”? They believe raping kids is normal and they should rape as many as they wish – with total impunity – as long as they can emotionally manipulate the kid enough to make it consensual.

“An 18-year-old who lures a 15-year-old into prostitution so that he or she can take some, most, or all of the profits is a sexual predator.”

Why, because if the 15 yr old kept most of the profits, it wouldn’t be predatory?

“A 24-year-old teacher who coerces a 16-year-old student into having sex by threatening to flunk him/her, or promising to give him/her an “A,” is a sexual predator.”

Because if they simply just want to exploit their students for sex, without changing their grades, then it’s not predatory?

“An 18-year-old who hangs around the local junior high and entices 13- and 14-year-old girls with drugs and booze is a sexual predator.”

Anyone who claims a 13 or 14 yr old is capable of making their own decisions about sex is clearly claiming that kids are also capable of making their own decisions about alcohol and drugs, and thus cannot possibly be “enticed” in any way. And here we come to the fallacy of this predatory liberal agenda: there is no such thing as a 14 yr old adult. Propping up kids as adults is the only way they can justify their own predatory designs on all kids.

What is plain to see is that every child is a walking target for a perverted LGBT individual who thinks they are normal.

Who is making schools not safe today?

“An 18-year-old male who falls in love with a 15-year-old girl, and proceeds to “do what comes naturally,” without threats or coercion or force, is NOT a “sexual predator”– and he should not be treated like one.”

What comes “naturally” to a person without morals about sex and relationships, who has a harmful liberal agenda about sexuality, and who has no concern for others is not only harmful, but certainly not civilized. Spreading STDs is also what comes “naturally” to many of these young people and they believe they should never be held accountable in any way. What is “natural” to harmful and irresponsible people is certainly not “natural” for ethical people.

Liberal ideology about sex, sexuality, and relationships mostly revolves around normalizing every form of sexual dysfunction and perversion, legitimizing and rationalizing most forms of exploitation and harm that are perpetrated, and encouraging impunity and lack of accountability as often as possible.


The NAMBLA and Polanski mentality is alive and well

Submitted by Alessandra on June 8, 2013

“If Florida had a set of intelligent laws, the younger girl’s confirmation that the relationship was consensual would have been the END of it.”

That’s what NAMBLA and Roman Polanski have always argued.

See what good company you’re in? Oh, don’t bother denying it, it’s plain to see.

Kaitlyn’s parents shamelessly proclaimed that Kaitlyn was just “experimenting with her sexuality and the other girl’s.” So, what if this Kaitlyn had wanted to produce child porn with this 14-year-old? What if she wanted to have a three-some with an adult and the 14-year-old? Should she be allowed simply because she has a homosexual problem and her parents claim that Kaitlyn has the right to “experiment with other girls’ sexualities” in any way that her perverted homosexual mind conceives of? Kaitlyn’s “right” to “experiment” with other kids stops where other kids have the right not to be experimented with – and that applies to every single kid.

All the more power to the girl’s parents who went to the police. And lucky for them that they still can. If liberals continue to push for their “normalize homosexuality” crusade, pretty soon parents with ethical views on sexuality will probably be hauled into jail for not accepting homosexuality as normal and for objecting that their kids be groomed for homosexual sex, which we all know is hailed as the hate and bigotry thought crime du jour.

====================================

Invalid Comparison

Submitted by sfreader on June 8, 2013 – 9:26am.

“That’s what NAMBLA and Roman Polanski have always argued.”

There is NO valid comparison between an 18-year-old high-school student and the members of NAMBLA or Roman Polanski.

Polanski was 44 years old when he had sex with a 13-year-old girl– a girl who was literally young enough to be his granddaughter. Comparing Kaitlyn Hunt to him is beyond absurd.

“So, what if this Kaitlyn had wanted to produce child porn with this 14-year-old? What if she wanted to have a three-some with an adult and the 14-year-old?”

But she didn’t, and there’s no reason even to imagine that she might have. This is an 18-year-old high-school student, not some jaded 40-year-old drooling over pictures of kiddie porn.

“…her perverted homosexual mind…”

Uh-huh. She’s a pervert and a criminal just because she’s gay, or bisexual? Yeah, right.

================================

Comparison with Polanski and NAMBLA is quite valid

Submitted by Alessandra on June 8, 2013 – 10:41am.

“That’s what NAMBLA and Roman Polanski have always argued.”

sfreader said: There is NO valid comparison between an 18-year-old high-school student and the members of NAMBLA or Roman Polanski.

The comparison is completely valid. They all claim that if the sex is consensual, it is valid and non-predatory. It’s what you are claiming, it’s what Kaitlyn and her parents are claiming.

Polanski could have done the same thing to his victim when he was 18. It wouldn’t change anything of his mindset or his behavior. It’s not the age that matters, it’s the preying on the child. And he would have been the same as Kaitlyn.

“So, what if this Kaitlyn had wanted to produce child porn with this 14-year-old? What if she wanted to have a three-some with an adult and the 14-year-old?”

Submitted by sfreader: But she didn’t, and there’s no reason even to imagine that she might have.

That’s irrelevant. Your argument is that she is as adult as necessary to make decisions about having sex with adults. You are arguing she is a 14-yr-old adult. Adults can and do produce pornography. That means however, that if the victim had been asked to participate in producing porn, she would be engaging in child porn production – we call it **child** porn for a reason: the participants are children, not adults. And you have no argument against that.

Adults also engage in all kinds of perverted sexual behaviors, like threesomes. You would have no reason to object if this is what Kaitlyn wanted, because you claim that there must be nothing wrong with whatever Kaitlyn wants to do with any girl, as long as Kaitlyn feels some homosexual attraction towards the victim.


Reality Check

Submitted by sfreader on June 7, 2013 – 4:38pm.

One could argue all day long about whether young teenagers “should” or “should not” engage in sexual activities, but the reality is that some of them DO– and they do it willingly (even eagerly) with persons of their choice, usually someone close to their own age.

So– which makes more sense–

1. Have laws that prohibit teenagers below a certain age from having sex– which, as we all know, does not work; or

2. Change the laws so that they bear some reasonable resemblance to reality, and put more effort into educating young adults so that they have the information they need to make intelligent choices?

Like it or not, anybody who has reached puberty is physically an adult– and like it or not, some of those young adults WILL decide to have sex, regardless of what the law or their parents or anybody else thinks about it. Short of locking them up in their rooms every moment they aren’t in school, there’s no way to prevent them from doing so.

====================================

But saying “anybody who has

Submitted by ethy on June 7, 2013 – 6:53pm.

But saying “anybody who has reached puberty is physically an adult” is a bit misleading because being “physically an adult” — i.e., being sexually developed — is not necessarily being “mentally an adult.”

So if you’re not mentally an adult, your not an adult. Therefore, the minor was not a “young adult” as you claim. The minor was in fact an adolescent.

===============================

Puberty is not adulthood

Submitted by Alessandra on June 8, 2013 – 1:32am.

“So if you’re not mentally an adult, your not an adult. Therefore, the minor was not a “young adult” as you claim. The minor was in fact an adolescent.”

Exactly, but sexual predators must legitimize their preying on kids every way they can.

In other words, such Roman Polanskis of society would argue that a girl who reaches puberty by 10 or 11, which also happens, is an adult ready to have sex.

In every way, people with a perverted idea of sex, who most often normalize homosexuality, want to tear down the protections that are in place for children not to be exploited sexually.

On the subject:

NAMBLA (wiki)

The North American Man/Boy Love Association (NAMBLA) is a pedophile and pederasty advocacy organization in the United States that works to abolish age of consent laws criminalizing adult sexual involvement with minors,[2][3] and for the release of all men who have been jailed for sexual contacts with minors that did not involve coercion.

Read as many times as necessary. It’s exactly how liberals think. Instead of abolishing age of consent laws, liberals want to progressively bring them down, even if not abolishing them completely.

“NAMBLA’s website states that it is a political, civil rights, and educational organization whose goal is to end “the extreme oppression of men and boys in mutually consensual relationships.”

Heh! Just like the discourse from liberals here and everywhere: free Kate – it’s all consensual!

“In 1994 the Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD) adopted a “Position Statement Regarding NAMBLA” saying GLAAD “deplores the North American Man Boy Love Association’s (NAMBLA) goals, which include advocacy for sex between adult men and boys and the removal of legal protections for children. “

You can’t make this stuff up. And what are liberals and the repugnant GLAAD people doing above?

Advocating for sex between adults and children. Removing the legal protections for children! Because according to liberals (who normalize homosexuality and child sexual exploitation ), sex with children is just fine – the only problem is if they get caught. That’s the mentality of a pedophile.

GLAAD: “Diligent action is needed to convince Bruce Colton and Brian Workman to DROP the charges pressed against 18 year old Kaitlyn and give her the opportunity to pursue the fulfilling life she deserves to lead.”

Just like NAMBLA. No charges for pedophiles: it’s all normal.

And seriously, the “fulfilling” life of a deformed lesbian who targets kids for sex? There you go – no matter how deformed people are regarding sexuality, count on liberals to claim it’s all normal and good.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Updated June 9, 2013:

Some missing data

Submitted by ethy on May 28, 2013 – 2:37pm.

The study you cite as showing no difference in sexual-decision making between younger and older teens does in fact report significant differences. Specifically, it found:

“younger females were more than twice as likely (16.1%) to report forced sex in their lifetime than older females (7.3%) … younger females were significantly more likely to report having had unwanted sexual intercourse because of drug or alcohol use than were older females (18.3% vs. 11.3%).”

The author’s conclusion acknowledges that those differences support the hypothesis that “younger adolescents are at greater risk of exploitation.” They state that as follows:

“This study did find some support for the rationale that younger adolescents are at greater risk of exploitation than older teens. However, when considering the number of adolescents affected by this legislation, the change in age of consent may not have been necessary.”

While they do opine that Canada’s raising the age of consent from 14 to 16 might not have been necessary, that’s just a debatable opinion, not data itself. Given limitations of studies, that anything from this one study indicates risk of harm to minors means you can’t say it proves there’s no risk, and that risk data needs to be a part of the public discussion on the topic.

The study in full
http://beta.images.theglobeandmail.com/archive/01010/Read_the_study_on__…

==============================

More missing data

Another point- here are the criteria:

Comparisons included: forced sex, sex under the influence of alcohol or drugs, multiple partners, condom use, effective contraception use, self-reported sexually transmitted infections, and pregnancy involvement.

That’s all, nothing else. You notice there is no context about the type of interaction or relationship, aside of the question if it was forced. So if it was a completely loveless experience, if it was a bad emotional experience, as long as it was consensual, it doesn’t get counted as bad.

You can find many people who had sex early who will tell you that the experience was not good.

Furthermore, an early experience robs the child from having a truly mature first experience with someone they are seriously involved with later on, as young adults. If they are peer-pressured into having sex early, they have this robbed from them.


Well, Tell You What–

Submitted by sfreader on June 9, 2013 – 12:19am.

Since you are you so hung up on NAMBLA, why don’t you go to THEIR web site and complain to THEM directly?

As far as I’m concerned, this case has NOTHING to do with homosexuality per se, but rather, with idiot laws that treat an 18-year-old high-school student as if she were in the same league as a 30-year-old child molester or a 50-year-old pederast lusting after 12-year-old boys– and that treat a 14-year-old student as if she were an infant or a retard who doesn’t even have sovereignty over her own body.

Does her body belong to her parents? Does it belong to the Sate of Florida? If her parents chose to kill her, would they have the “right” to do so because her body belongs to them? If the State of Florida decided that there were too many 14-year-olds in the school system, would it have the right to execute her as being a “surplus” child?

No? But why not? If she’s just a brainless “thing” who belongs to her parents or to the state, why shouldn’t they have have the right to treat her like any other chattel… or cattle?

To whom does her body belong? If she is a human being, with the rights and responsibilities of a human being, then her body belongs to HER– not to her parents, not to the State of Florida, and certainly not to some self-righteous homophobe who, by her own admission, regards ALL homosexuals as “perverted, disoriented, and dysfunctional.”

If she is a human being, then her body belongs to HER… and not to YOU.

I said it before and I’ll say it again: there is NO valid comparison between Kaitlyn Hunt– an 18-year-old high-school student– and Roman Polanski, a 44-year-old man who had sex with a girl young enough to be his granddaughter. If you think that Kaitlyn Hunt can legitimately be compared to Roman Polanski, then your sense of perspective is seriously out of kilter.

But then, that’s obvious from the fact that you regard homosexuals– ALL homosexuals– as “perverted, disoriented, and dysfunctional.”

Bottom line: You hate gay people. Well, fine. Go join the Westboro Baptist Church, and walk around with a sign saying “GOD HATES FAGS.”

Or is that how you already spend your spare time?


The Kaitlyn-NAMBLA supporters v. social conservatives

Submitted by Alessandra on June 9, 2013 – 1:34am.

“Submitted by sfreader: Since you are you so hung up on NAMBLA, why don’t you go to THEIR web site and complain to THEM directly?”

Because you are representing them so well here.

“Does her body belong to her parents? ”

Her parents (like every parent) are legally and morally responsible for her well-being, that includes both mind and body.

“To whom does her body belong? If she is a human being, with the rights and responsibilities of a human being, then her body belongs to HER– not to her parents, not to the State of Florida, and certainly not to some self-righteous homophobe who, by her own admission, regards ALL homosexuals as “perverted, disoriented, and dysfunctional.””

You’re just repeating yourself. You are claiming she is an adult at 14 yrs of age. What is the basis for this claim? You believe that “human beings” are born “adults,” in other words, you claim they do not spend years growing up until reaching adulthood at 18 (legally speaking). And so you want consent laws to be abolished in order to have sexual access to any kid you want to target. We should underscore once again this is what NAMBLA also claims.

So, what do we have here: on one side, you, a teenager/very young adult (it’s what you sound like) who espouses a self-righteous homosexuality agenda who defends NAMBLA’s concepts in every way, promoting sexual exploitation of children. You also promote children making child porn and adults consuming child porn, it is consensual. In addition to child prostitution – if the child wants to sell her body, you claim she should do it.

And, on the other side, me, a woman who has a healthy and responsible social conservative view of sexuality and who wants protections in place against the sexual exploitation of kids.

As it’s plain to see, there is no end to how irresponsible and harmful people who think homosexuality is normal can be.

“I said it before and I’ll say it again: there is NO valid comparison between Kaitlyn Hunt– an 18-year-old high-school student– and Roman Polanski, a 44-year-old man who had sex with a girl young enough to be his granddaughter. ”

You can repeat nonsense as many times as you want, it doesn’t change the fact that it’s nonsense. It’s not the age difference that matters, it’s the age of the victim that matters along with the perverted nature of the attitudes and behaviors involved.

sfreader said: “Bottom line: You hate gay people. Well, fine. Go join the Westboro Baptist Church, and walk around with a sign saying “GOD HATES FAGS.” ”

Bottom line: you love all pedophiles, especially if they are into homosexual exploitation and abuse of kids. And you hate social conservatives – you know, people with ethics and a healthy view of sexuality. You and your homosexuality agenda are doing tremendous harm in society, both to kids and adults. So you can walk with a sign that says “I LOVE NAMBLA and NAWGLA- consent laws must be abolished.”

Or is that how you already spend your spare time, along with that special “school bathroom time” with kids?

Westboro is a little over the top, but as far as I know, they don’t go around raping kids or promoting the practice. Surprise of all surprises, they have something to teach you.

==================================

Keep Reading: the Answer Is Clear

Submitted by sfreader on June 9, 2013 – 12:32am.

The person who calls herself “Allesandra” is a homophobe who believes that ANY effort reform the absurd and arbitrary “statutory rape” laws is a homosexual “pervert” and an advocate of NAMBLA.

“Allesandra” cannot perceive any difference between an 18-year-old high-school student having sex with someone she regarded as a “peer”– and Roman Polanski, who, at the age of 44, had sex with a 13-year-old. In “Allessandra’s” view, an 18-year-old who has sex with someone less than four years younger than herself is in the same league as a middle-aged man who has sex with a girl young enough to be his granddaughter.

In short, rabid homophobia = complete lack of perspective.

No drugs required.

=================================

Peer v. predator

Submitted by Alessandra on June 9, 2013 – 2:21am.

sfreader said: “”Allesandra” cannot perceive any difference between an 18-year-old high-school student having sex with someone she regarded as a “peer”– and Roman Polanski, who, at the age of 44, had sex with a 13-year-old. In “Allessandra’s” view, an 18-year-old who has sex with someone less than four years younger than herself is in the same league as a middle-aged man who has sex with a girl young enough to be his granddaughter.”

Polanski is just one of millions examples of sexual exploitation of kids. I quote it because it’s a very well-known case, it’s outrageous that he was never properly convicted, and because he defends himself by saying that it was all consensual. Not only this, he has many supporters who want to guarantee impunity for sexual exploitation of children. As we can see, there are many parallels to the Kaitlyn case.

Is sfreader now pretending that young adults do not sexually exploit kids just as Polanski did? Is she pretending that we have no sexual predators who are younger than 44? There is a sad but very large body of research and testimonies of child victims that prove just how much sfreader is lying. Teenagers and young adults can be predatory and exploitative, and the number of victims is, sadly, very large.

So much so, that even middle-school kids sexually assault small kids and one-third of all sex offenders known to police are juveniles.

What can Polanski do to a 14 yr old that Kaitlyn (or any other 18 yr old) cannot? Nothing. They are in the same adult league.

Let us consider the example of an imaginary Polanski who is 18, and who does exactly the same thing he did in real life to his victim, but now it’s to a girl of 14. What changes in terms of the crimes and the sexual exploitation? Nothing. Yet sfreader would automatically claim it’s different.

sfreader claims that if a sexual predator thinks their target is their “peer,” that absolves them of all guilt or responsibility, and it gives them a green light to sexually exploit any child as they please. So, if Kaitlyn wanted to take all the girls who are 14 in her school and insert vibrators into them, and make child porn, according to sfreader, this is not predatory; they’re all “peers.”

This is outright absurd. Any teenager could claim they are “peers” with any child in middle-school. And older, dysfunctional adults could make the same “peer” claim towards any of their younger targets. In fact, a lot of pedophiles do claim this “peer” connection to kids.

“In short, rabid homophobia = complete lack of perspective.”

In short, rabid homosexuality agenda promoter who thinks homosexuality is normal = avid for homosexual exploitation of kids

======================

sfreader said: ‘ your repeated references to gay people as “perverts” make it clear that in your mind, all gay people are “perverts” and “predators.”‘

If you mean by that that I think that all adults with a homosexual problem target children for sex, you are mistaken. I don’t think that. A very large proportion of adults with a homosexual problem target adults with unwelcome homosexual advances, no doubt about that.

The more that young people with a homosexuality problem are told there is nothing wrong with their perverted psychology, the more they feel right about and entitled to act on it, that is also obvious. It’s exactly what happened to Kaitlyn. Given that this is what most kids are being told today, I also wouldn’t say they would all prey on others, but most would certainly target others.

As for people with a homosexuality problem being perverted, yes, that’s true. That is what homosexuality is: perverted, disoriented, and dysfunctional.

===========================

This is also important to note from the study:

Finally, given that existing laws do not seem to be protecting the most sexually vulnerable group of children, those less than 13 years of age, future policy in Canada should focus on effective strategies to address the
problem of child sexual abuse, including increasing the enforcement of existing child abuse laws.

Unfortunately they do not discuss  the issue more.

A question that has not been addressed regarding this case* is the role of this predatory lesbian’s parents. By the little information that has been reported, they encouraged their daughter, Kaitlyn Hunt, to target and groom underage girls for homosexual exploitation and statutory rape – something we can presume many other liberal parents also do.

Whether Kaitlyn’s parents can be legally defined as “aiding and abetting” in these harmful actions is a question for the justice system. But in practice, that is exactly what they seem to have done by the information reported. Apparently they had knowledge that their daughter was targeting girls for homosexual activity, they think this is normal, they encouraged it, and they counseled her to do it if she wanted to. Moreover, they did not report their daughter to authorities after her alleged statutory rape*. If this wasn’t enough, they adamantly want their daughter not to be prosecuted for the alleged statutory rape. In other words, they want their daughter to commit statutory rape of girls, as often as she likes, targeting as many kids as she wants, with total impunity. It’s clear that people defending homosexual statutory rape clearly espouse morally corrupt views on sexuality and work to destroy protections ensured by the law against child sexual exploitation and perversion.

The sexual grooming and statutory rape allegedly committed by Kaitlyn is defended by liberals based on their utterly false claim that homosexuality is normal, therefore pursuing homosexual behavior is not only acceptable but laudable – and that includes child exploitation, seduction, homosexual grooming, perversion, and statutory rape. Liberals wrongly believe that homosexual urges are biologically determined and therefore must be followed through in action – that is why they normalize homosexuality, and use the same rationale for porn and promiscuity. It’s all an excuse for rationalizing their dysfunctional attitudes and behaviors regarding sexuality, but any excuse will do for people who want just that.

It’s clear that those defending Kaitlyn would encourage, aid, and abet teenagers in committing many kinds of sexually exploitative and abusive actions, including every single statutory rape in society. This is, after all, the liberal recipe for sexuality regarding teenagers.  Despite their ridiculous protestations that they are not in the same boat as the NAMBLA folks, liberals who normalize homosexuality show us that, in practice, they want to largely achieve what NAMBLA failed to do. They want to have sex with minors and claim to be oppressed and misunderstood if they aren’t allowed to – the only difference is the cut-off age, since NAMBLA also included smaller kids. Furthermore, NAMBLA consistently pushed to lower consent age for sex – exactly one of the issues in this case.

Kaitlyn’s parents shamelessly proclaimed that Kaitlyn was just “experimenting with her sexuality and the other girl’s.” So, what if this Kaitlyn had wanted to produce child porn with this 14-year-old? What if she wanted to have a three-some with an adult and the 14-year-old? Should she be allowed simply because she has a homosexual problem and her parents claim that Kaitlyn has the right to “experiment with other girls’ sexualities” in any way that her perverted homosexual mind conceives of? Kaitlyn’s “right” to “experiment” with other kids stops where other kids have the right not to be experimented with – and that applies to every single kid. All the more power to the girl’s parents who went to the police. And lucky for them that they still can. If liberals continue to push for their “normalize homosexuality” crusade, pretty soon parents with ethical views on sexuality will probably be hauled into jail for not accepting homosexuality as normal and for objecting that their kids be groomed for homosexual sex, which we all know is hailed as the hate and bigotry thought crime du jour.

 

*Update June 8, 2013:

 

Well, more than two weeks after this story broke, there’s not a lot more information, but there is some.

So I wanted to say that, from the side of both families, it’s a bit murky to assume that we can deduce what the parents knew about what was going on with their daughters, and when they knew exactly what. Did Kaitlyn’s parents know she was having sex with the victim? Perhaps. Or perhaps they thought it was possible, but didn’t know for sure. And as far as we know anything, it certainly seems they made no effort to find out exactly what was happening, even while knowing that there are laws against sexual exploitation of minors.

To my mind, there is no way a young adult can come home and tell their parents that they are “dating” a 14 yr old and have that same kid spend the night (!) with them in their bedroom and the parents claim they could not presume this was a sexual encounter. Now, it’s true that we don’t know if the parents were home that day/night. We don’t know if Kaitlyn told them that she was “dating” or whatever similar  word she could have used to refer to what she was doing with the girl. So we’ll have to wait until the trial.

But the mom did say she thought the girls were just “experimenting with their sexualities” – when did she say that? Referring to what activities between the girls? We’ll have to wait.

 

=============

Update May 30 2013 – nice recap of several facts in this case

Support Honesty: Examining the facts of the Kaitlyn Hunt prosecution and Free Kate movement:

http://supporthonesty.net/

……………..

The best commentary so far:

http://theothermccain.com/category/crime/kaitlyn-hunt/

http://www.volokh.com/2013/05/20/statutory-rape-of-15-year-old-by-18-year-old/

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/crime/2013/05/kaitlyn_hunt_s_sexual_relationship_with_a_14_year_old_girl_the_florida_

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2013/05/21/us/hunt-arrest-affidavit.html?ref=florida&_r=0

More of my comments here:

http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/the-kaitlyn-hunt-case-teenage-romance-or-sexual-predator/

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/dollars-and-sex/201305/is-kaitlyn-hunts-girlfriend-too-young-consent-sex/

Police affidavit states:

Hunt had deformed  lesbian “sex” with victim – since women with a homosexual problem are too psychologically deformed to have sex with men, and for which the human body was designed. Hunt inserted other things/body parts into girl’s v0gina and had sex. It happened on more than one occasion. Kaitlyn affirmed that she did not think it was wrong to have sex with the girl “because girl acted older”!

Oh, and the lesbian pig wanted to be a nurse! Get these horrible people out of the medical professions.

She should get two years in prison plus be registered as a sex offender. Send a nice message to liberals who think they can sexually exploit children whenever they feel like it. And it’s too bad her parents and the whole GLAAD directorate can’t accompany her.

………..

Ah, and look at this!!! From a commenter at Salon:

JerseyDevil –     Saturday, May 25, 2013 05:40 PM +0200

The younger girl just turned 15 2 months ago.

The older girl is turning 19 in a 2.5 months.

“The relationship had been ongoing and the younger girl’s parents intentionally waited until Kaitlyn turned 18 before going to the police.”

I keep hearing this, but it does not make sense.

On the police affidavit Kate’s date of birth is given as August 1994.

This would make her 18 at the time the 2012-2013 school year started.

The affidavit states that they met in school, and began their relationship in November 2012.

If she was born in 8/1994 and they began their relationship in 11/2012….How can she have been 17 when they started dating?

Furthermore, the charges were filed in Feb 2013. This would not be ‘right after she turned 18’, as she had been 18 the entire time the relationship was going on, and had been 18 for over 6 months by the time the charges were filed.

The stories are not adding up here, and making me doubt one party’s honesty

===============

MAY 26 2013 update

NAMBLA (wiki)

The North American Man/Boy Love Association (NAMBLA) is a pedophile and pederasty advocacy organization in the United States that works to abolish age of consent laws criminalizing adult sexual involvement with minors,[2][3] and for the release of all men who have been jailed for sexual contacts with minors that did not involve coercion.

Read as many times as necessary. It’s exactly how liberals think, see the Kaitlyn case. Instead of abolishing age of consent laws, liberals want to progressively bring them down, even if not abolishing them completely.

“NAMBLA’s website states that it is a political, civil rights, and educational organization whose goal is to end “the extreme oppression of men and boys in mutually consensual relationships.”

Heh! Just like the discourse from liberals here and everywhere: free Kate – it’s all consensual!

“In 1994 the Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD) adopted a “Position Statement Regarding NAMBLA” saying GLAAD “deplores the North American Man Boy Love Association’s (NAMBLA) goals, which include advocacy for sex between adult men and boys and the removal of legal protections for children. “

You can’t make this stuff up. And what are liberals and the repugnant GLAAD people doing right here?

Advocating for sex between adults and children. Removing the legal protections for children! Because according to liberals (who normalize homosexuality and child sexual exploitation ), sex with children is just fine – the only problem is if they get caught – that’s the mentality of a pedophile.

GLAAD: “Diligent action is needed to convince Bruce Colton and Brian Workman to DROP the charges pressed against 18 year old Kaitlyn and give her the opportunity to pursue the fulfilling life she deserves to lead.”

Just like NAMBLA. No charges for pedophiles: it’s all normal.

And seriously, the “fulfilling” life of a deformed lesbian who targets kids for sex? There you go –  no matter how deformed people are regarding sexuality, count on  liberals to claim it’s all normal and good.

============

Oh, and I found out something good – excellent, in fact – about Anonymous (the hackers):

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2395171,00.asp

http://gawker.com/5855604/elaborate-anonymous-sting-snags-190-kiddie-porn-fans

They tried to snag child pornography consumers/exchangers.

I hadn’t heard about this and had always thought it was horrible that the hacking group never did anything about the problem, given all their hacking know-how, and being perhaps in the best position of all groups, such as governmental and non-profit ones dealing with child abuse, to track down and expose child abusers and pornographers/consumers of child porn.

What did the authorities do with the information provided by Anonymous though, we wonder? I really, really wonder – because we all know that most of the time very little is done.

The world is so wrong.

========================

Update: May 29th 2013

Tanny (at paterico) asked:  If the parents knew their daughter was having sex with Miss Smith are they culpable for damages?

It seems we’ll have to wait for the trial to know the answer. I would think if charges can’t be brought based on “aiding and abetting in child sexual battery” maybe based on a failure to report abuse of a child. Have to see what they mean by “child abuse” and if it fits in this case.

During the 2012 legislative session, the Florida legislature passed HB 1355/SB 1816 which had a significant impact on the Chapter 39 of Florida Statutes, the law relating to mandatory reports of child abuse. These changes to the mandatory reporting law will be effective July 1, 2012.

Here are some points to remember about the new law:

Reports of child abuse should be made to the Florida Department of Children and Families (DCF). Abuse reports can be made through the DCF statewide hotline (call 1-800-96-ABUSE) or through the DCF website.

Everyone in Florida is a mandated reporter but some people are professionally mandated reporters. For example, social workers, medical and mental health professionals, teachers and other school officials must give their names and occupation or place of business when calling.

Child abuse by parents, caregivers, any other adults and juvenile sex offenders should be reported to DCF’s statewide hotline.

Failure to report child abuse to DCF will be now a third degree felony (previously this was a first degree misdemeanor).

http://www.fcasv.org/publications/newsletters/fcasv-insight-summer-2012/florida%E2%80%99s-new-mandatory-reporting-law

=================

Mandatory reporting, yes! Liberals want these crap of people sexually abusing and exploiting kids as they please and they want to cover it up, in full collusion – felony.

I hope it applies. As a non-lawyer though: How could the following not be considered child abuse: (sexual battery); s.800.04. F.S. (lewd or lascivious offenses committed upon or in the presence of persons less than 16 years of age)?

Update May 30th – Answer: they can probably get away with lying, by denying they knew that their daughter was having sex with the 14 yr old, in case they actually knew.

=================

 

 

This is a very sad case. I don’t know what is happening in the medical community in terms of the reigning mentality regarding such choices. Who decided this? Why? A whole number of people had to approve of it. It’s horrible, truly horrible.

I’m happy that this kid has been adopted by these parents, and who are going to fight back regarding what these horrible doctors did to him. Another kid that might be saved from committing suicide in the future from all the psychological trauma that he will now face because of this surgery.

I hope he can rebuild himself as a boy.

A South Carolina couple sued doctors and state social workers on Tuesday for subjecting a 16-month-old child born with both male and female genitalia to what they say was medically unnecessary and irreversible sex-assignment surgery while the toddler was in foster care. The state and federal lawsuits – believed by the couple’s lawyers to be the first of their kind in the United States – argue that doctors should not have performed surgery to make the child’s body appear to be female when they knew they could not predict how gender would develop.

The child, now 8, has shown strong signs of identifying as male and recently began living as a boy, according to Pam and Mark Crawford, who adopted him after the surgery.

………….

Though doctors determined that he could be raised as either a boy or a girl, they opted for genital surgery that made the child’s body look female – a decision the Crawfords say was premature because his dominant gender identity had not yet emerged.

“The surgery eliminated M.C.’s potential to procreate as a male and caused a significant and permanent impairment of sexual function,” according to the filings in state court.

“The doctors knew that sex assignment surgeries on infants with conditions like M.C.’s poses a significant risk of imposing a gender that is ultimately rejected by the patient,” the lawsuit says.

The federal lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court in Charleston, South Carolina, says the surgery violated the child’s constitutional rights.

================

Not to mention every universal human and child rights.

Evil.

And another alleged case of a homosexual ephebophile wanting to sexually abuse/exploit a male teenager hits the news.

Pfizer executive faces porn charges in Puerto Rico

Federal authorities in Puerto Rico have arrested a Pfizer Inc. executive for allegedly producing child pornography.

Officials say 48-year-old Reinaldo Diaz Camacho was charged after Puerto Rico police received information that he was having sexually explicit conversations with a 16-year-old boy on Facebook.

U.S. Attorney Rosa Emilia Rodriguez said Thursday that the boy’s mother told authorities she had seen the conversations on her son’s cellphone.

Rodriguez says Diaz had sent the boy sexually explicit images via Facebook and text messages. She says a federal agent then posed as the teen on Facebook and continued to interact with Diaz. She says Diaz asked the boy to send naked pictures of himself.

================

As I wrote about it here (“There is no such thing as a sexual “minority” when speaking about LGBT individuals”), there is nothing that makes this homosexual pig a “minority” in the sense of an oppressed minority. He is an executive at an international firm, he is privileged in hundreds of ways, and he goes around trying to oppress, exploit, and abuse others, in this case, a teen boy.

There is no such thing as an LGBT “minority” and LGBT individuals do not make up a minority group. The entire “minority” entity is fictional when applied to LGBT people and it is used as propaganda purposes for pulling at the heart strings of naive liberals, but who are often quite irresponsible in matters related to abuse and exploitation.

Excerpt from

The Road to Tyranny, NOM Marriage News

May 16, 2013 at 4:55 pm
Among the points made in this blog article about the abuses of the IRS persecuting social conservative organizations – such as NOM – the authors also point out that the goal of people with a homosexuality agenda is to shut down all other points of view. And that is a cultural form of tyranny. While the title of the blog article is referring to a tyranny by the IRS, there is a much graver form of tyranny, which is not judicial, it’s not just legal – it is a cultural tyranny. Every criticism, every question must be censored and excluded from the public and/or social sphere of society.

IRS agents acted like the law doesn’t matter. Decency doesn’t matter. Diversity doesn’t matter. The rights of your fellow citizens, friends, neighbors and family to participate in democracy—even if they disagree with you—doesn’t matter. All that matters is getting to your enemies and shutting them down any way.

A piece published this week in the prestigious The Atlantic, coauthored by David Montez of GLAAD (a major gay advocacy organization), openly laid out their goals for America, their vision of America: a place where your views never get heard: “But even today, anti-LGBT activists, who continue to wrongfully state that gay people are unfit to be parents, have a platform in the media to spread their lies. We have a long way to go before groups like the National Organization for Marriage are no longer routinely invited to provide ‘balance’ on national cable news programs.”

(Note how they transform the idea that children ideally need a mom and dad, to the idea that gay people are “unfit” — not what we say of course — but the truth is not relevant to a determined, aggressive campaign designed to silence your opponents and treat them as bigots.)

Let’s play with labels a little. If socons are anti-gay or anti-LGBT, then gay agenda folks are anti-socon. So we arrive at the following: anti-socon activists claim that anti-LGBT activists claim that LGBT people are unfit to be parents. Are you with me? Well, as NOM says above, this is not what they claim.

But now this means that anti-socon activists claim that LGBT individuals are fit to be parents, and since they also claim that heterosexuals are also fit to be parents, the obvious corollary is that everyone is fit to be parents – which is a patent lie.

So this brings us to the question of what does it mean to be fit to be a parent? But I’d like to address that in another post.

What I want to ask here is, more basically, what are LGBT fit for?

I posted the question with one part of the answer at this NOM thread, which was followed by the usual trolling and name-calling (scary, bestial,  demonic, having no common decency and a sense of propriety!) by homosexuality activists who post at NOM.

As can be seen by the reactions on the thread – we can add another answer to the question “what are LGBT fit for?” and that is verbal, nasty abuse.

And why all this verbal abuse, this bullying, and this virulence from the deformed homosexuals and their supporters?

Ah, I posted a link to a gay bar. I committed the greatest crime for homosexual agenda proponents: I contradicted the narrative – simply by linking to a few pictures. And you know what a crime that is! Anyone who exposes LGBT reality must be viciously attacked by these sexually deformed bullies -those who are instituting a tyrannical sexuality culture that is particularly perverted. Therefore, anyone who questions this sexually violent and depraved culture is bullied, persecuted, offended, and harassed.

My first comment asked:

…………………..

Alessandra Posted May 16, 2013 at 5:33 pm | Permalink

And yet, the question must be asked: what are they [LGBT people] fit for?

http://www.toolshed-ps.com/Tool_Shed_2010/Mr_Tool_Shed_Leather.html

What an ugly world.

Isn’t this one of the many, many LGBT realities that the narrative of homosexuals wanting homosexual marriage covers up? How deformed are LGBT individuals? Why are they the way they are? Of course, they hate research regarding their psychology because every time a serious therapist investigates homosexuality, they find profound underlying psychological and cultural problems.

Imagine a little baby girl being given to two such homosexual pigs, who are so deformed they cannot have a wholesome intimate relationship with a woman.

I think it’s funny that homosexual men in such bars call others bigots any time we question how dysfunctional these men (and women like them) are. They shout slurs if anyone suggests they are unfit.

And these are the men who want to have power over boys in the BSA.

It’s these kinds of realities that Americans don’t want to face exist.

…………………

  1.  Richard Posted :

    Alessandra, you are truly one scary individual and your preoccupation with the likes of the site you share is indicative more of your proclivities and less the larger gay population getting married, raising families and settling in as responsible community citizens. How deformed are you? This is how you entertain yourself at night? This, then is your reality, your world. You own it.

  2.  peter Posted :

    Richard, the word you’re looking for is bestial.

  3.  AlessandraPosted :

    Richard,

    I don’t follow you. Are you saying these men are perverted, deformed, bestial? Are they in any way different than you and peter?

    If the majority of men in society were like this, would that change how perverted they are? Isn’t that your theory? “If many millions of men are like this, then it’s normal and anyone who questions it is a bigot! ”

    Don’t you want people to know the reality of LGBT individuals? As we can see, there is your narrative, and then there is reality.

    And in case we need to remind you, the numbers of homosexuals who got homosexual marriage in countries where it was legalized is extremely small. I wouldn’t be surprised if the number of homosexual men in repulsive gay bars is much, much higher than the total of farcically married homosexuals.

………………………………

  1.  peter Posted :

    Lol! Alessandra, you’re a treat. Demonic, but still a treat. God bless you. Better yet….priceless

  2.  Barb Chamberlan Posted :

    Thanks, Alessandra. It’s nice to see pics of the trolls who comment here.

  1. RichardPosted :

    Alessandra and Barb, my earlier post must have been too revealing of both your natures. Suffice it to say, common decency and a sense of propriety have escaped both your lives. We are left with these images: Barb trolls google to exploit children and Alessandra spends his nights trolling for titillation. Grotesque on both counts.

  2.  Randy E King Posted :

    Richard,

    There is nothing decent about the sexual depravity you pimp. Common decency dictates that we kick you folks out of our society.

    When Cain killed Able God commanded the tribe to turn its back on Cain. The 1st Amendment protects our right to treat you in kind.

  3.  RobertPosted :

    Randy, in what way does the First Amendment protect your “right” to treat anyone in a particular way? You are certainly free to malign gays, and normal people are free to malign you, in response. Is that what you’re talking about?

  1. Randy E KingPosted :

    MSDNC report on rape in the military:

    “male rape survivors are stepping forward to remind officials that men are targeted more often than women ”

    Feel good about yourselves Robert and Richard; are you proud of yourselves?

  2.  AlessandraPosted :

    About 10% of sexual assaults in the military were males sexually assaulting males.

    You can see the report here (2011):

    http://www.sapr.mil/index.php/annual-reports

    This is interesting because the estimates for homosexual males in the military are about 1-2% of all military personnel. And yet homosexual male sexual assaults were 10% of all assaults.

    That is much higher than their respective representation. And with the repeal of DADT, it will only climb. However there will be tremendous pressure, and much greater pressure than before, to cover up and lie about any homosexual perpetrator, in order to prove for political reasons that repealing DADT “worked.”

    These are the people who call us “demonic” and want to trample on every single one of our fundamental rights.

    1. Richard said: “Suffice it to say, common decency and a sense of propriety have escaped both your lives.”

    Wait… aren’t the men in gay bars “decent” to you? And are women with a homosexual problem in bars what you call having a “sense of propriety”?

    As you and peter demonstrate again and again here: for a pervert, nothing is perverted.

    Deep down, LGBT people know they are warped. They only want to engage in the marriage circus to avoid dealing head on with their profound psychological problems in the area of sexuality.

    You can take the LGBT out of the DSM, but you can’t take the profoundly deformed (DSM) psychological problems out of the LGBT folks.

    1. Robert said: “Randy, in what way does the First Amendment protect your “right” to treat anyone in a particular way? You are certainly free to malign gays, and normal people are free to malign you,”

    Given that you think that homosexuals dressed up like dogs or monkeys on a leash is “normal,” maybe you should get off your soapbox for stipulating what normality is.

  3.  Will FisherPosted :

    NOM moderator, I think you might want to shut this comment thread down. It’s degenerated into something that bears little resemblance to respectful dialogue.

  4. ……………………..

Will Fisher,

Actually the myriad ways that LGBT individuals denigrate sex, sexuality, themselves, and everybody else is a very interesting topic. Any thread on this topic should never be shut down, no matter how upset homosexual agenda proponents get when we expose the reality of the LGBT.

There is nothing that ever comes out of the mouth of a person with a homosexuality agenda that is ever respectful or truthful.

As long as people with your harmful agenda want to pollute the NOM blog with your nasty ideology, be prepared to read what decent people think in response.
===========================

Will Fisher Posted:

Alessandra, I’m a married, church-going, straight man. How do I have a homosexual problem/agenda? You’re crazy!

Will Fisher,

I see that you like lying about your own homosexuality agenda, the one that you promote in everyone of your comments here. As you show, you can be married, go to church, and have the most ignorant homosexuality agenda – all at the same time.

This pretty much sums up the current liberal homosexuality agenda:

The homosexuality agenda is the political and cultural movement to normalize homosexuality in every aspect of society, including legally, by systematically lying about its etiology and consequences, and to criminalize any questioning, differing viewpoints, objections of said homosexual agenda.

The homosexuality agenda (ridiculously called “gay rights movement” and other such euphemistic terms) is part of a larger liberal agenda regarding sexuality and personal behaviors (including the endorsement of promiscuity, hook-ups, perverse and perverted attitudes and behaviors related to sex, porn, adultery, abortion, destruction of traditional marriage, STD epidemics, etc.).

The homosexuality agenda is largely responsible for irresponsible and corrupt research and academic production regarding homosexuality.

Do not confuse the term “(homo)sexuality” with “(homo) sexual orientation. They are not the same.

Homosexuality is about sexual attitudes, values, attractions, repulsions, concepts and interpretations about sexuality, power and domination or subjection dynamics relating to the sexual other, affection or objectification of the sexual other, admiration or disrespect related to the sexual object,conscious and unconscious feelings related to self or other which shapes or deforms relation and sexual feelings towards other, obsessions and distortions, projections, fantasies, dysfunctions, traumas, impacts from social conditioning, problems with masculinity or femininity, problems with personal history and fundamental caretakers, etc. that will result in the sexualization of someone of the same sex and a hindering of the normal sexualization of someone of the opposite sex.

Society needs to be concerned about homosexuality, not homosexual orientation. Homosexual attraction or desire is only a mere product of a myriad configurations of these aforementioned dysfunctional
psycho-social dynamics.

==================

As a final comment, one of the things that was striking in the slurs flung above is that the fact that decent people are called “bestial” by homosexuals, because we insist on a sexuality paradigm that is ethical, wholesome, and respectful.

And these very same homosexuals insist on thinking, behaving, and dressing up as deformed sexuality monkeys on a leash, debasing and degrading sex and sexuality in ways that many beasts in the animal world rise above.

Which one then is the bestial? The homosexuals who think and behave like depraved chained dogs spreading STDs all around society or decent heterosexuals who are fighting for a wholesome culture regarding sexuality?

The fight for marriage will never be successful unless society starts to consider how deformed LGBT people’s ideas about sexuality are. And this only happens because most LGBT individuals, along with liberals, refuse to face how many profound psychological and ethical problems they have.

In Germany, a man with a homosexual problem, Markus K., has fathered 24 children so far – by donating his sperm to women with a homosexual problem (link to article below*):

In Germany, a recent court ruling has gutted the framework of anonymity in which many sperm donors have operated. A regional court ruled that a child’s desire to know her biological father trumped his desire for anonymity, and left some legal question as to whether such children are entitled to inheritance rights. But K. and the women to whom he donated are open about their children’s paternity. “I think it’s a child’s right to know its biological parents,” he said.

But, he and the mothers have come up with a way to make sure that both mothers have parental rights: K. told the German paper that he is listed as the birth father on each child’s birth certificate, and then gives the child up for adoption to its co-mother after eight weeks, allowing both mothers to be legal parents to their children. He sees many of his offspring on a regular basis.

But, with two more children on the way, K. is thinking he might soon retire as a sperm donor. “If the two babies, who are already on the way, are born, I’ll have 12 girls and 12 boys. That’s balanced, a good tally. I’ve promised five other women children. Then I’ll stop, it’ll be enough.”

……………………..

These people are embracing a new concept of what being a father is: “he sees many of his offspring on a regular basis.” I guess for the others, they don’t see him, and it doesn’t matter either. Either seeing a child for an hour a month is now “being a father” or actually “being a real father” does not matter anymore for people with a homosexuality problem.

Then there was this: he has fathered 24 children, he is never with most of them, he is never a real father to them, and he now thinks “that’s enough.” Isn’t that thoughtful of him?

If he isn’t a father to these 24 children, why not 50, 70, or 100?

As we can see, not content with normalizing their perverted sexuality, people with a homosexuality problem must pervert and destroy marriage, and now also, the very fundamental role of parenting.

He gives NO thought to what he is doing to any of these children. And, what’s even more interesting, according to him, who is the victim in this whole story? Himself!

He claims to be a victim because he wasn’t allowed to become a priest (!). And why? Because of those meanie conservatives that have ethics and principles when it comes to sexuality and relationships.

Can you imagine this guy as a priest? Another priest prone to seduce vulnerable teenage boys (as the great majority of sexually abusive priests in the CC scandal were – homosexual men), or to have orgies with other dysfunctional priests, or to get caught with a prostitute or a nun in the end. Fortunately, one less pink mafia pig in his targeted church.

He even admits that all this fathering obsession might be a way for him, in his deformed mind, to get an emotional revenge at the Church. He stated something like,”I was not allowed be a priest, but I can reproduce myself as often as I want. There!”

Obviously he doesn’t consider what he is doing to any of the children. That’s the kind of priest he would have made.

And obviously, no one encourages him to go investigate the mountain of underlying problems he has regarding sexuality and relationships – in order to resolve them – and live his life as he was born to be, a heterosexual human being.

………………….

*Seminarian expelled for being gay became a sperm donor for lesbians constrained by anti-gay donation rulesMegan Carpentier The Raw Story

+++++++++++++

Re this Der Spiegel article – linked in above article:

Papa Ed: The Busy Life of a Prolific Sperm Donor By Barbara Hardinghaus

In this article, the other thing that struck me as profoundly appalling was the fact that it is legal (or at least allowed) that a man will have sex with a woman in exchange for his sperm.

So the woman prostitutes herself to get the sperm – she gets paid “in sperm” instead of getting paid some cash! How gross.

These are liberals – the people who normalize homosexuality. They debase in every way the way that intimate relations and sex can be construed for human beings.

as K. makes reference to, that many private sperm donors — even for lesbians — “donate” in exchange for sex with the donees, as referenced in a 2012 article in Der Spiegel about a Dutch man, Ed Houben, who had fathered 82 children by the time of publication, some with lesbians.

From Der Spiegel:

Just like all of Ed’s children, Max has his round indented chin and large feet. The children usually have their mothers’ eyes. They are still young, but as they get older they’ll start asking questions, and they’ll want answers. Perhaps they’ll want a closer relationship with him, a more loving relationship. Or maybe they’ll want financial support.

When asked whether he worries about such things, Houben answers: “About what?”

If they’ll all show up on his doorstep one day, he says, “it’ll be what I wanted” And if they all want money from him, he says, he simply won’t have any. Certainly not enough for 84-plus children.

What is there to worry regarding the rights of children to a father or to a loving heterosexual couple? Children have no rights according to people with a liberal/homosexuality agenda.

Moreover, it’s plain to see the guy is completely emotionally messed up – serious arrested development there regarding establishing relationships with women. In addition to how he shows no responsibility or thought about the children he’s fathering. It’s all about trying to resolve his own rejection problems with women.

And if there was a common characteristic about all the women wanting the sperm in this story is that they showed a complete failure in establishing a wholesome, long-term relationship with a man. Now, I’m not saying that it must be all their fault – who knows what kinds of men they have searched for or came across in their lives?

But then, this generation that normalizes homosexuality, who is largely liberal, often adopts values and attitudes that destroys the principles for heterosexual marriage (by normalizing hookups, porn, etc.). So even in the case of a woman who wants to find a good, social conservative husband, where can she find such a man? I know of several women who cannot.

Although, in the article, by the profiles and information regarding the women seeking donors – aside from the homosexual ones – we would assume they are equally liberal and equally lacking good attitudes about marriage themselves. But there isn’t enough information to know more about them. Every bit of information in the article concerning the type of relationships that these women have points to problems. What are the attitudes about sex and relationships that these women have? And the men they have been with? These are questions that cannot be overlooked.

People with a homosexuality agenda must deform everything. They have become like some weird baby factories, where not a single baby is the product of love of its mother and father. Not a single one, because it’s impossible given their deformed minds.

Even when the subject refers to heterosexuals, it’s not all that different. Although, under exceptional circumstances, single heterosexual individuals can certainly raise kids from artificial means of conception, and be entitled to it, and do it lovingly, it’s not what we should strive to establish as normal.

Very interesting (and sad):

There’s been a stunning increase in the suicide rate among middle-aged Americans. The finding is part of a new study by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention that spells out how much suicide is a growing public health concern in the U.S.

In 2010, there were more suicides in the U.S., 38,000-plus, than there were fatal motor vehicle accidents. Most disturbing, that spike among the middle-aged, a 28 percent rise overall, a 40 percent jump among white Americans, and among men in their 50s, suicides increased by more than 48 percent.

….

And what about abuse of non-prescription drugs, illegal or illicit drugs? Have we seen — do we know whether those deaths are intentional from things like cocaine, heroin, methamphetamine?

THOMAS FRIEDEN: Well, one thing that’s quite striking is that, today, there are more people who die from prescription opiates than from heroin and cocaine combined, so a major problem.

And one thing that also isn’t always recognized is that alcohol is a significant contributor to depression and to mental health problems. That binge drinking and problem drinking can really exacerbate mental health problems. So for people to cut down, never more than four for men, never more than three for women at one sitting, makes a big difference.

 

(I added stuff after I first posted and updated it more May 2nd)

Below is the copy of what was a very symbolic debate with a liberal with a homosexuality agenda in a thread at the Patheos site (a very mixed quality site). Not because of this person’s political ideology per se though.

(“smrnda” is the commenter nick of this person, and she writes like  a woman – so I’ll refer to her as such).

What is interesting is smrnda’s incapacity to be rational and simultaneously have no self-awareness of her irrationality concerning certain of her postulates about me. I always find this funny and frightening at the same time in people (well, in more or less harmless cases, in any case).

Related to this is how smrnda determines who has knowledge (in her view, it’s her, of course, because she got a degree in psychology! ). And if anyone disagrees with her, they must not have knowledge or a degree, especially one in psychology (although she tries to kind of ascertain this and tries to categorize her opponent using a very childish method).

But as it became apparent, for smrnda, it’s not that other people know differently or know things she doesn’t know anything about – they must not know (!). There’s only one set of things to know and she knows it – end of discussion. By such attitudes and “reasonings,” my guess is she’s under 25, maybe still even in undergrad; I have to look if she says she has graduated – but it’s a guess.

As you will clearly see as the debate progresses, smrnda is incapable of thinking critically about anything she was taught in school. So she is more like an ideological pull-string doll. I’m sure that’s how she got her degree – by being a parrot. It’s frightening that such young people then go work as counselors or whatever, but there’s nothing special in that sense about smrnda, there’s a ton of such intellectually-challenged people with their little liberal school psychology degrees working.

Returning to the topic here, when confronted with questions about the flaws in her thinking – which clearly, she never had to confront in school – she does not respond rationally and usually completely ignores the flaw that is pointed out.

What she displays then is an attitude that says: “I am right. I am right because I was told at my school that what they say is right. I never questioned it and neither did them. So I can’t be wrong. Therefore, anyone questioning any of my beliefs must a) be wrong, b) have no knowledge.”

And it becomes ludicrous just how irrational she displays herself to be, being completely incapable of refuting glaring facts where she is wrong. Blatant cognitive dissonance – and this was a written debate!

So her political views on homosexuality are quite hum-drum and the typical liberal homosexuality agenda idiocy. But that’s not what I wanted to point out here. It’s the fact that she has a “fanatical” and completely out-of-touch-with-reality way to label and see me: “I have decided your knowledge (or the selective and distorted way I interpret what you write) is from 1900. So I know much better than you –  and so you cannot be right about anything, independently if you prove it or support it, and I don’t.”

No matter how much I point out how irrational she is both with the label and certain flaws in her arguments, she simply ignores it all. I will point out specifically where this happens below. And she always comes back to state: you cannot know, because I have determined that you must think a certain way, that is, I have branded you with a certain stereotype that cannot have valid knowledge. Then she devises a test (like three or four questions in psychology) to evaluate how she will more precisely categorize and stereotype me. For some reason, doubts linger. Although she never stated it, I can bet her evaluation of “the test” would go like this: I repeat 100% of what she thinks, result: I am “very knowledgeable” and pass “the test.” It’s funny.

Since I refused to take “the test,” smrnda could only take this refusal as proof that her initial stereotype that I must not have any knowledge must be true, even though she regrets that I did not answer her. Perhaps her regret was due to the fact that she wanted “scientific proof” – as provided by her very scientific test – that I must be the stereotype she has branded me with.

The most hillarious part was where smrnda affirms that no one “who knows anything about psychology (like her, btw)” believes that the mind has an “unconscious” anymore! I don’t know how much you, reader, know about psychology (or its history), but this is the equivalent of someone saying that “no one believes the human body contains a stomach or a brain – anymore!” It makes me laugh even now.

The unconscious apparently has been discarded in smrnda’s understanding and psychology curriculum – it got in the way of the homosexuality agenda, I suppose, so they just chucked it.

The last time smrnda heard of such a notion was related to Freud’s time, I imagine – which for her is probably like at Jesus’ time. And not only is Freud dead, but he’s been “discredited” as well! Conclusion: Freud didn’t know anything about anything either. That’s another favorite label of young “homosexuality agenda” liberals – “discredited.” Anything that a liberal professor declares as having been discredited is taken as Provenly So, therefore it must be dis-considered without further thought. Ask any such liberal student why has it been discredited and by whom and then watch the disaster unfold. They don’t know – usually. And they can’t prove it to you that it has been discredited, because they simply heard it and believed it. Now to smrnda’s credit, she does try to explain why certain types of psychoanalysis theories and practices were discredited. But she does this – and here comes the spoiler – while not realizing I was not particularly defending any of the ones she refers to, and not realizing that I was certainly not using them in my argumentation. Moreover she entirely skips addressing the types of  psychology mechanisms that I was specifically referring to. In other words, she insists – irrationally – that I must be talking about what she deludingly assumed I was, and then, with great certainty, she trumpets they have been “discredited.” Strawman, beautifully.

Ah, there’s a lot of material in this exchange. Anyone who wants to study how people irrationally stereotype and brand others, and how this acts a major filter for everything they then interpret coming from the other, here’s a nice little study subject: smrnda!

(what kind of a nick is that, btw? ; -)

Now I have to say, that right at the offset of the exchange, smrnda said something that almost made my chin drop. She said she wanted to explain something to me regarding her views, so she was going to the library to get a few of the articles that had it detailed.

When, in “exchanging” with anyone on the Wild Wild West of the Internet, has anyone ever said to you they would actually pick a book, much less physically go to the library and get some articles, instead of just cutting and pasting the first thing they find on google or wikipedia?

Now I thought: this is a once in a lifetime experience. I’m never going to see this again, this looks very nice. smrnda really wants to discuss some things in depth.

Ah, spoken too soon. As it turns out, smrnda’s intention was not to go to the library to get material to discuss, she wanted to get the articles that represent  her ideological Bible (of beliefs) to her. She wanted to come back and say: See? This is a peer-reviewed article, which for people under 35 apparently translates as the Truth and Nothing But – and it is therefore set in stone. The article (note: peer-reviewed!) states X. There is nothing further to discuss. You must believe (like I do).

Now smrnda is a product of a certain school system that has been rewarding her not to think and to just accept and believe what they are told. That is what the system usually conditions students to do. And the majority do it. If she had been in a much different system, starting with high school, she would be thinking a lot more than she is now.

……………………

I’m editing the whole text in Word, because it’s too big for WordPress to handle…

Stay tuned!

Also, in reviewing this exchange from 3 months ago, I realize there is so much to say about how she thinks – more than what she thinks- even though the latter is symbiotically related to the former.

It will take some time. I’m thinking about posting the text in divided segments.

If you are curious though, go here:

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/wwjtd/2013/01/not-impressed-with-the-boy-scouts-of-america/

blogsome 2010-07-29

There were many good comments on this recent, very frightening decision on the Julea Ward case. I thought M Warner summed it up nicely, using very plain language.

The judge said this in defense of his decision:

“The university had a rational basis for requiring students to counsel clients without imposing their personal values.”

So whose values are we supposed to “impose?”  This is the ridiculous point at the heart of any argument dealing with the mixing of our values and any kind of public policy. It’s the same lame excuse made by pro-choice Catholic politicians who hide behind it in order to “not impose” their own supposedly pro-life beliefs on everyone else.

Well if you aren’t imposing your own beliefs or your own values….whose values are you imposing? And why are you allowed to impose those?  But not your own?

See, in this case, the leaders at Eastern Michigan were allowed to impose their own personal values.  And the judge seemed to be alright imposing his own personal values as well. The only person that couldn’t impose their own personal values in all of this was the Christian who listened to her more correctly formed conscience. Pretty whack if you ask me.

It’s all a ruse. People who make such arguments are playing tricks where they make an imaginary distinction between values that are okay to impose (like abortions and homosexual activity are healthy choices) and those that are not okay to impose (like anything that disagrees with them).  And they try to portray the things that disagree with their agenda as just your “personal values” that simply can not be imposed on others in a pluralistic society.  And on the flip side they implicitly portray their own agenda (their own personal values) as objective, reasonable rules to the playground – not their own personal values of course.

In the end, all judgments we make are personal judgments informed by our personal values. There is no escaping it. Anyone who pretends otherwise is a fraud. We’re really in sad shape now that we have federal judges making these kinds of arguments. Particularly while overlooking the individual rights of the student in question and her freedom to respect her own conscience.

=============

 

“The university had a rational basis for requiring students to counsel clients without imposing their personal values.”

Rational? Orwellian.

 

‘,’Student expelled from program for her Christian (and ethical) views’,’0′,”,’publish’,’open’,’closed’,”,’student-expelled-from-program-for-her-christian-and-ethical-views’,”,’ http://www.ncregister.com/blog/student-booted-for-refusing-to-accept-homosexuality/ ‘,’2010-07-29 21:57:52′,’2010-07-29 21:57:52′,”,’0′,’http://socimages.blogsome.com/2010/07/29/student-expelled-from-program-for-her-christian-and-ethical-views/’,’0′) ***60′,’1′,’2010-08-01 06:20:57′,’2010-08-01 06:20:57′,’

Blogsome 2010-07-28

A comment on why the MSM insists on using the term “pedophile” to describe priests in the Catholic Church abuse scandal, given that 80% of the cases brought to justice have been for pederasty or homosexual ephebophilia sexual abuse.

Firstthings thread comment:

“suek: However the press doesn’t want to “tar” homosexuals and it _did_ want to tar Catholic priests, so it uses the more objectionable term [pedophile over pederast].”

It’s not that the press doesn’t want to “tar” homosexuals. The press is actively lying about and covering up most cases of violence that involves a homosexual perpetrator, whether it concerns minor sexual abuse, sexual harassment, dysfunctional parenting, domestic violence or other types of adult violence. The press usually does not outright lie, although the case of calling priests “pedophile” instead of “homosexual” in just about every headline, is a considerably manipulative way of misleading the public, given the high number of homosexual abuse cases in the Church scandal.

What is much graver is the fact that the press is seriously lying by omission or trivializing data concerning violence and other harmful behaviors perpetrated by homosexuals (or bisexuals). Specially if the question involves heterosexuals or minors as victims, then the propaganda machine goes into full gear. In this way, they are coddling a large number of perpetrators.

In the media, and in popular and political discourse, we observe an emphatic reinforcement of a “victim” stereotype for homosexuals. To a large degree, concerning bisexuals, there is a different, largely popular attitude, an invisibility of the entire category of bisexuals, more than the hammering of the victim stereotype.

If you look at the mass media and popular discourses on homosexuals and homosexuality, homosexuals are often portrayed in an extremely simplistic way, as gentle, benign creatures, oppressed by the horrible conservatives who don’t accept and normalize their homosexuality.

“All they want to do is love each other,” is a very popular meme. Another one is that “homosexuals aren’t violent (in any way),” “most child abusers are heterosexuals (to the point of implying that homosexuals are thus practically incapable of abusing children), “homosexuals do not sexually harass anyone, specially heterosexuals,” “a large number of homosexuals are driven to suicide because their homosexuality is not accepted, (thus, not only are they are more at risk of death by suicide than other vulnerable groups),” “homosexuals are in considerable personal danger everywhere because of the threat of ‘hate’ crimes, (and not because of how violent they are themselves to other homosexuals)” “homosexuals are discriminated against, but do not discriminate against others,” etc.

In our society, we find that all three categories of sexual orientation (hetero, bi, homo) perpetrate all kinds of violence related to sexuality and personal relations. However, while society has come (after a long fight to crack its thick denial walls) to recognize that heterosexuals abuse children, batter spouses, rape and sexually harass women in large numbers, we observe an intense public misinformation campaign that suggests that homosexuals basically never commit such crimes and the bisexual category is never even usually mentioned in popular discourse.

Taking minor abuse as an example, how does this impact cases of real abuse against children? If it is already a nightmare to bring to justice any case of child abuse, and get justice for it, then it becomes even more dire if the perpetrator is held by the public to be basically incapable of committing the crime, and, furthermore, the propaganda reaffirms that any suggestion of such a violent incident is due to “homophobia.” The same is true for sexual harassment, rape, and domestic violence. For example, the Gay Men’s Domestic Violence Project reports estimates of one in four homosexual men suffering domestic violence.

The graver consequence of reinforcing a stereotype of non-violent victims for a population that clearly includes a large number of perpetrators of aggression and crimes is that you victimize every single REAL victim of all this violence. The media and “gay” activists do form a profoundly irresponsible and damaging force in society, because as everyone knows, silence and denial about aggression and violence only further severely damage the victims, ensure the harmful dynamics continue unaddressed, and they give a green light to further violence by the perpetrators.

Given that public resources are limited, and are employed to deal with different violence problems in society in part due to a hierarchy of cultural values, this is another way that spreading lies and myths about violence can and often hurts the victims who have less power in society, less organized lobbies, less millionaire coffers to buy their influence, change laws that affect them, etc.

Isn’t there a compelling state interest to stop lying about who is violent in society? This systematic cover-up homosexual activists and the media engage in is profoundly corrupt.

 

‘,’Catholic Church abuse scandal – what’s in a word? A lot of propaganda.’,’0′,”,’publish’,’open’,’closed’,”,’catholic-church-abuse-scandal-whats-in-a-word-a-lot-of-propaganda’,”,’ http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/firstthoughts/2010/07/21/cultural-background-of-pedophilia/’,’2010-07-28 10:30:19′,’2010-07-28 10:30:19′,”,’0′,’http://socimages.blogsome.com/2010/07/28/catholic-church-abuse-scandal-whats-in-a-word-a-lot-of-propaganda/’,’0′) ***56′,’1′,’2010-07-28 11:52:26′,’2010-07-28 11:52:26′,’

Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

%d bloggers like this: