Why are there "Gay Pride Parades" ?

[Charlemagne_III]

Most pedophiles are not gay:

See my answer above.

Since we cannot know which gays are pedophiles, and which pedophiles are same-sex and which are not and which are bi-sexual, all of the above, so far as our children are concerned, are to be protected from the plague of hetero-pedophilia and same-sex pedophilia.

 

[ricmat]

Of course I don’t, and thankfully humans have come up with a court system that removes personal bias from the equation as much as possible and puts a higher emphasis on objective evidence.

But it takes the personal bias of those involved out of the equation.

What does that even mean? I’ve heard the phrase ‘human nature’ used in so many different ways that the entire concept has become meaningless.

The nature of a thing in general refers to what it does, how it reacts, etc. Animals only react (although they can see and copy what other animals or humans do sometimes). They don’t think, ponder, etc. and then act. They cannot have morals because there is no right and wrong, there is only what their nature causes them to do.

It’s only because we are not constrained to react in a particular way that allows us to choose i.e. free will. That is human nature, the fact that we can choose how to act.

Neither do humans, thoughts and feelings are rarely a choice.

Correct. But humans can choose first, and then override feelings. Remember the Good Samaritan versus the others. Feelings often lead to immoral things, but upon reflection, we can choose not to act on our feelings (for example, to get revenge).

False, animals have displayed moral behavior on multiple occasions even when doing so may or has led to their own injury or death.

OK, but did they have the capacity to NOT act in that way?

God or not I choose the side of compassion and reason against fear and superstition.

Do you fear to believe in God?

If you are really interested in Natural Law, then the following book would be of interest to you: “50 Questions on the Natural Law” by Charles Rice.

 

[Peter_Plato]

You think there needs to be a source for the existence of humanity?

It’s referred to as the Principle of Sufficient Reason.

Call me quirky, but I prefer to think that things don’t just “pop” into existence for no reason, even if the “pop” is construed as a 13.7 billion year long bang.

 

[SMGS127]

In this case, he was, since he went after little boys rather than little girls.

The gender of abused children has been shown to have no relevance whatsoever with the abuser’s adult sexual orientation. Indeed, many abusers have no adult orientation whatsoever. A person who abuses a child can be heterosexual, bisexual, homosexual, or asexual, irrespective of the gender of the child.

In addition, it has been shown that gay men are no more likely to be attracted to children than straight men.

Your assertion is one of the biggest (and most unfortunate) myths in the conservative world, perpetuated by the Family Research Council with no scientific or philosophical backing whatsoever.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

In addition, it has been shown that gay men are no more likely to be attracted to children than straight men.

It would be fatuous in the extreme for you to suppose that Christians don’t also condemn heterosexual pedophilia. Is that what you think? That we have singled out gays? Well, after all, this thread is about gays, not heterosexuals.

And by the way, it’s rather telling isn’t it that you were not able to allege gay male pedophiles are** less likely **to be attracted to same-sex children than heterosexual pedophiles?

As to how you can determine how many male homosexuals are attracted to little boys, how is that done? Do you ask them all, and do they all tell you the truth? How would you know they are telling the truth if they think telling the truth might get them in jail?

 

[Bradski]

As to how you can determine how many male homosexuals are attracted to little boys, how is that done? Do you ask them all, and do they all tell you the truth? How would you know they are telling the truth if they think telling the truth might get them in jail?

I’m not sure the level of discussion here can get any lower. I feel like I need a shower.

 

[PRmerger]

If you listen hard you can just hear it. It’s Catholics face planting as they read comments like that.

Face planting? Or did you mean face palming?

I have no idea why Catholics would face plant (meaning, faint) when reading C3’s comments.

I do, however, admit to making a few looks like this when reading this thread:

 

[Bradski]

Face planting? Or did you mean face palming?

Ah yes. I’m face plant…sorry, face palming right now…

 

[InSearchofGrace]

Most pedophiles are not gay:

livescience.com/13409-myths-gay-people-debunked-sexual-orientation.html

That linked article is written by Clara Moskowitz, a lesbian researcher at Scientific American who married her same sex partner Sarah Wiodbury in 2012.

Most pedophiles are not gay because in absolute numbers, more are of course heterosexuals, i.e., adult males preying on female children or female adults to a lesser degree preying on male children. Read up on psychiatrist Dr. Gene Abel’s study revealing 21% of child molesters are exclusively homosexual, which means percentage wise, heterosexual pedophiles are a majority. However, 21% is a high prevalence, considering that admitted homosexuals are only 2 to 3 % of the male population.

While it is true that homosexuals are not all pedophiles and vice versa, there’s an overlap. It is simply incorrect to say there is no association at all.
,

 

[InSearchofGrace]

There’s no need to hind behind analogies and euphemisms. We have posters here, Catholics, who say that children should be kept away from people who are gay. There are posts that associate gay people with paedophiles. Scroll back a page or two and we have them described as perverts.

You’re in a bar with your niece or a friend or a work colleague. Either one will do. And you know that they are gay. Some guy rolls up and says – hey, get that perverted kiddy fiddler out of here and away from my kids. What do you say to your niece/friend/colleague? ‘Look, it’s OK, you just have to understand that he’s Catholic’.

You wouldn’t put up with it at all. Not in any circumstances. And where I come from, punches would be thrown. How come you turn a blind eye to what’s written here? Or do you agree with it all but rather have someone else do the dirty work?

And you are already figuring that this guy who rolls up and says - hey get that perverted kiddy fiddler out of here and away from my kids - would be a Catholic.

Nice generalization.
,

 

[SMGS127]

Read up on psychiatrist Dr. Gene Abel’s study revealing 21% of child molesters are exclusively homosexual, which means percentage wise, heterosexual pedophiles are a majority. However, 21% is a high prevalence, considering that admitted homosexuals are only 2 to 3 % of the male population.
,

From his article:
Gene Abel:

While it is a commonly held belief that men who prefer men as adult sexual partners molest boys and men who prefer women as adult sexual partners molest girls, our study results suggest different.

…

Contrary to public belief, only 8 percent reported they were exclusively homosexual in their adult sexual lives.

In addition, he counted every victim as a new instance of a rapist, even when discussing the same rapist, despite child molesters of young boys molesting boys at twice the rate of child molesters of young girls (likely due to ease of access, similar to why the priest scandal had such a high % of boy victims).

Your entire argument is dismissed out the window by your own cited study, let alone the fact that the study is complete methodological garbage. See for yourself:

cmrpi.org/pdfs/study.pdf

 

[Peter_Plato]

You think there needs to be a source for the existence of humanity?
I would suggest you actually do some research into this topic.

huffingtonpost.com/kidspirit/where-does-morality-come-from_b_1982110.html

Out of interest and to try to sort out how you might possibly have inferred something about the “source for the existence of humanity” from an article on “Where Does Morality Come From?” I read the article.

You do understand it was written by a sophomore at Harvard for an audience of adolescents? Not exactly cutting edge or sophisticated stuff. Leaving aside the implications of why you might have directed MY attention to such an article, it remains a mystery what the article has to do with human origins or “the existence of humanity.”

The key question regarding morality also seems to be answered in a manner which, to put it bluntly, flatly contradicts your position that morality has at least something to do with human origins since the article claims morality originates in reason, the origins and existence of which transcends and has thoroughly defied the ability of science to explain.

I "kid” you not. I have taken the liberty of highlighting the key points, so the wall of words does not pose an unsurmountable obstacle for you.

Much of what we are as beings can be explained by science. Application of the methods of science can explain the evolution of the universe, according to the known laws of physics and mathematics, from the Big Bang until recently. Science provides explanation for development of galaxies, stars, heavy elements, planets, the formation of life, and evolution of species. **And yet science seems to singularly fail at explaining human reason. **This force, though difficult to define, separates humans from animals. It includes human consciousness — rather than just react in accordance with our instincts, we can actually think and make decisions — and with it the ability to develop morality systems. The ability to engage in conscious thought makes us realize this unique ability.

**Not only is reason unexplained by current science, this paper considers human reason unexplainable by science. **It may appear faulty to claim something as unexplainable, given how much was not understood until science discovered it. In the days of Kepler, who could have predicted the physics of Einstein? However, there is no presumption of progress in science. **Currently science is incapable of answering questions about the origins of morality, and there are not even tools to answer these sorts of questions. **Of course if science eventually provides an explanation, we must as good scientists reassess our conclusions. But for now, the state of science leaves us with the hypothesis that reason and its accompanying morality is a supernatural force,…

Now that I have done the requisite reading and learning, it behooves you to point out with precision what it was about your position that this crucial “instruction” via the HuffPo article was intended to enlighten me on?

If anything, it completely contradicts and attempts to dispel the position regarding science and morality you have been adamantly defending in this thread:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=915948

Colour me

 

[SuperLuigi]

So, let me get this straight…

You want me to do actual “research” into morality using HuffPo?

http://forums.catholic-questions.org/picture.php?albumid=2053&pictureid=17308

Progressives love to make others do their research in an attempt to prove their point. And this request even asks you to use their sources

Oh, and we’re supposed to regard them as smarter than everyone else?

Could it get any more hilarious, especially since you’ve answered the call resoundingly?

 

[Thorolfr]

Most pedophiles are not gay because in absolute numbers, more are of course heterosexuals, i.e., adult males preying on female children or female adults to a lesser degree preying on male children. Read up on psychiatrist Dr. Gene Abel’s study revealing 21% of child molesters are exclusively homosexual, which means percentage wise, heterosexual pedophiles are a majority. However, 21% is a high prevalence, considering that admitted homosexuals are only 2 to 3 % of the male population.

Gene Abel explicitly states that most cases of boy molestation cannot be attributed to homosexuals:

[M]ost men who molest little boys are not gay. Only 21 percent of the child molesters we studied who assault little boys were exclusively homosexual. Nearly 80 percent of the men who molested little boys were heterosexual or bisexual, and most of these men were married and had children of their own.27

**Based on Abel’s statistics, if approximately 33 percent of all molestations are male-on-male, and 21 percent of these cases are committed by homosexuals, the actual percentage of molesters who are homosexual is 21% x 33% = 6.9%. Keeping in mind that even the best surveys have a margin of error of a few percentage points, this figure is pretty close to the figures usually given for the total percentage of homosexuals in the overall population, which is about five percent.**28 In other words, homosexual males are not a significantly greater threat to children proportionately than straight males. (In fact, one could argue that since the number of molestations committed by females is relatively rare, it is clear that lesbians pose less of a threat to children than straight males.)

bishop-accountability.org/news2007/05_06/2007_06_29_Pietrzyk_HomosexualityAnd.htm

 

[Bradski]

And you are already figuring that this guy who rolls up and says - hey get that perverted kiddy fiddler out of here and away from my kids - would be a Catholic.

Nice generalization.
,

I think you entirely missed the point of that little scenario. Maybe someone else will explain it to you.

 

[inocente]

Actually, from my perspective, you invoking the Lego police seems to imply that you see no problem with the way the parts fit together, so it is you who seem to be claiming that people are like Lego blocks and can behave in any way they see fit because their behaviour is inconsequential - like fitting Lego blocks together, it makes no difference how people behave - just as it makes no difference how Lego blocks fit together.

Give you your due, you are the master of contortionists.

But nope. The argument that naughty bits must only be coupled in designated manners necessarily reduces human beings to machine parts. It ignores all that is fine and honorable in human relationships and debases us all.

The argument was obviously invented to post-rationalize unreasoned phobias. It sounds silly to anyone who doesn’t suffer from the phobia, like arguing it’s unlucky to step on cracks in the pavement or something.

Analogy:

Ricmat: Games need rules.

You: Just because rules would make games easier to play does not mean it is true that games need rules.

Have you ever tried playing games without rules? Or playing games where the rules are completely at the whim of any of the players? Absence of rules reduces the idea of “game” to a kind of “Remind me what we were talking about, again,” status.

Morality is a game, and people are footballs?

Rules are for playing games. As soon as you make rules, you’re playing a game. That’s a standard mantra on management courses - if you want your team to respect you, don’t invent rules they can’t respect.

c.f. 1 Cor 13. No mention of rulebooks. Christ is not exactly a fan of legalism either.

Children should be allowed to have whatever candy they want.

My impression of what’s being said is that the rules of the game we’re supposed to play are:

1. We can have whatever candy we want.
2. Children we like should only be allowed whatever candy we say.
3. Children we don’t like should never be allowed candy.

 

[inocente]

So get yourself good and warm and cuddly with your gay and pedophile friends, but don’t you dare say that it goes without saying everyone’s child is safe in their presence and anyone who thinks otherwise is a bigot.

You seem unable to see any difference between child rape and what consenting adults might do in private.

Just as you appear to think Jesus sees no moral difference between what consenting adults might do in private, and a father offering up his two virgin daughters for public gang-rape by every man in town. (Your post #297. btw you forgot to respond to my reply, post #334, I can’t imagine why ).

Anyway, you are changing hearts and minds, although not perhaps as you might intend.

And the readings for today are:

1. God moves in a mysterious way / His wonders to perform.
2. First Law Of Holes: When in one, stop digging.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

I’m not sure the level of discussion here can get any lower. I feel like I need a shower.

Then go take one. You’ll feel better.

 

[Winterwolf00]

See my answer above.

Since we cannot know which gays are pedophiles, and which pedophiles are same-sex and which are not and which are bi-sexual, all of the above, so far as our children are concerned, are to be protected from the plague of hetero-pedophilia and same-sex pedophilia.

And yet you only presume that homosexuals are pedophiles.
Perfect example of hypocrisy.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

You seem unable to see any difference between child rape and what consenting adults might do in private.

Just as you appear to think Jesus sees no moral difference between what consenting adults might do in private, and a father offering up his two virgin daughters for public gang-rape by every man in town. (Your post #297. btw you forgot to respond to my reply, post #334, I can’t imagine why ).

Anyway, you are changing hearts and minds, although not perhaps as you might intend.

And the readings for today are:

1. God moves in a mysterious way / His wonders to perform.
2. First Law Of Holes: When in one, stop digging.

When one of your sons dies from AIDS as a result of a same-sex pedophile, and the other son commits suicide because of the same pedophile’s embrace, you will perhaps stop gladly digging the same 6 foot hole for the rest of God’s children.

You also might profit from a cold shower.

Sin is very ugly and it’s too bad there is at least one Baptist who thinks the only sin is to hate sin because that would amount to hating the sinner.