Jesus and homosexuality
Christ's Love
WHAT JESUS SAID ABOUT HOMOSEXUALITY _____________. The blank is
supposed to represent Jesus' silence on the subject. The problem is
that Jesus is not silent on the subject of homosexuals, homosexuality
or 'gay marriage'. Jesus said of marriage and unions, "'Haven't you
read,' He replied, 'that at the beginning the Creator made them male
and female' and said, 'For this reason a man will leave his father and
mother and be united to his wife and the two will become one flesh'"
(Matthew 19:4-5) Jesus isn't exactly silent on the matter of unions
(male/female) and He isn't silent on who can be married (male/female)
and Jesus isn't silent about who can have sex and with whom (only in
marriage male/female and only as husband and wife). An argument from
silence when there is a preponderance of evidence in the Bible that
homosexuality is a sin is not a legitimate argument. We all know
Jesus, God the Son, is anti sin and since homosexuality is a sin then
Jesus is not a proponent of a homosexual lifestyle. Jesus also never
said any thing about pedophilia or racial prejudice. Do we accept,
tolerate or condone those activities in ourselves or in others because
of His perceived silence about them? NO. We understand the nature of
God and know that God in the flesh would not violate that nature by
condoning any sin.
Always remember: Christ love's you, and so do I! Each and every one of you!
Dionisio
> In many homosexual rallies there will be at least one sign that reads-
> WHAT JESUS SAID ABOUT HOMOSEXUALITY _____________. The blank is
> supposed to represent Jesus' silence on the subject. The problem is
> that Jesus is not silent on the subject of homosexuals, homosexuality
> or 'gay marriage'.
And then we have that pesky Centurion...
Oops.
--
And the Thought of the Moment (TM) is:
"The sponsor of one of the bills that would outlaw gay marriages in Michigan asserts that
same-sex unions would 'lead to further disintegration of the traditional family unit.' But
it appears at least worth asking how a public declaration of commitment, monogamy and
permanence by any two people would subvert family values. Strong marriages are the
foundation of strong families and a strong nation, but committed relationships can and do
take different forms. At their best, marriages are tangible expressions of love, respect,
security, social stability and human dignity. Preemptive legislation that presumes only
heterosexual relationships invoke that kind of commitment may not defend the sanctity of
the institution of marriage, but weaken it."
-- Editorial in the Detroit Free Press.
(Brought to you by SigChanger. http://www.phranc.nl)
juanjo
Sunny B
Many scholars hold that Jesus himself was gay, so its unlikely he'd be
a homophobe like you:
http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_jegay.htm
Indications that Jesus did have a homosexual orientation:
"In the Gospel of John, the disciple John frequently refers to
himself in the third person as 'the disciple whom Jesus loved'." 4 One
might argue that Jesus loved all of his followers in a non-sexual way.
Thus to identify Jesus' love for John in a special way might indicate
a sexual relationship. The disciple was "the" beloved. He was in a
class by himself.
During the Last Supper before Jesus' execution, the author(s) of the
Gospel of John describes how the "beloved" disciple laid himself on
Jesus' inner tunic -- his undergarment. See John 13:25 and 21:20.
Robert Goss, assistant professor of comparative religion at Webster
University in St. Louis, LA, noted that Jesus and the beloved
disciple: "... eat together, side by side. What's being portrayed here
is a pederastic relationship between an older man and a younger man. A
Greek reader would understand." 5 Jesus appears to have loved all of
his male and female followers in a close, trusting, non-erotic
manner.
On the other hand: Some commentators have suggested that it was a
common practice in Judea at that time for heterosexual man to lay his
head on another's undergarment. Such behavior was common between two
heterosexuals in an emotionally close but non-erotic relationship
during the first century CE. 6
Jenny Stokes, research director for Saltshakers, a conservative
Christian group in Australia, said that there are five words for love
in Greek (the language in which the Gospels were written: Agape:
spiritual, unconditional love,
Eros: erotic love,
Philia: love between friends,
Storge: familial love.
The Gospel references to "the disciple whom Jesus loved" use the word
"agape." 3 Whether the authors originally used "eros" and the word
was subsequently changed is open to speculation.
"Jagannath" interprets the Gospels differently. He argues that Jesus
may have been bisexual. He wrote:
"In the Book of John a word is used eight times that means 'is in love
with' with the implication of sexual intimacy. Five times it is used
with reference to Jesus' relationship with John. Once it is used to
define Jesus' relationship with Lazarus. And it is also used to
describe his relationship with Mary and with her sister Martha." 7
During the crucifixion, in John 19:26-28, Jesus is described as
seeing his mother and an unidentified man: "the disciple standing by,
whom he loved." Again, Jesus probably loved all of his 12 or 70
disciples in a non-sexual manner. But this particular disciple is
identified as "the" disciple who Jesus loved. That might indicate a
special intimate relationship with one special disciple.
The late Morton Smith, of Columbia University reported in 1958 that
he had found a fragment of a manuscript which at the Mar Saba
monastery near Jerusalem. It contained the full text of Mark, chapter
10. Apparently the version that is in the Christian Scriptures is an
edited version of the original. Additional verses allegedly formed
part of the full version of Mark, and were inserted after verse 34. It
discusses how a young man, naked but for a linen covering, expressed
his love for Jesus and stayed with him at his place all night. More
details.
"J Richards" suggested that Mark 7:14-16 shows that Jesus approves of
homosexual acts. The critical phrase reads: "There is nothing from
without a man, that entering into him can defile him..." Richards
suggests that Jesus gave great emphasis to this teaching, directing it
to everyone. Richards suggests that the sentence refers to dietary
laws and also extends to "blood transfusions, medication, organ
transplants, and artificial insemination" and to homosexual acts as
well. 8
On the other hand, these words have historically been interpreted as
overturning the Mosaic law about eating,
Rollan McCleary, was awarded his doctorate from the University of
Queensland in Australia during 2003-MAY for his work researching the
sexual orientation of Jesus and his disciples. He obtained about
$33,000 US in funding from the government to finance his degree. He
concluded that Jesus and at least three of his disciples were gay. He
based this conclusion on excerpts from the Gospel of John and on
Jesus' astrological chart based on the approximate year, month, day
and place where he was born. But not even the year of Jesus' birth is
known. Many theologians have concluded that Jesus was born sometime in
the Fall, between 4 and 7 BCE. Also, there is disagreement about where
Jesus was born. Different theologians argue Bethlehem in Judea,
Nazareth, and Bethlehem in the Galilee. The task of creating an
astrological chart appears quite impossible. Dr. McCleary told
Australian Broadcasting Commission radio that, in the past, "one or
two queer theologians" had attempted to show Jesus was gay. "People
haven't taken them very seriously because they don't have any evidence
and they say things so sensationally that people are not really going
to listen or just be very angry. What I'm doing is showing a much more
theological and also astrological dimension on all this which will
make a lot more sense to people." 9 He has written a book based on his
doctoral thesis which was published in 2004. 18
An anonymous webmaster wrote about a revelation that he received
during her/his daily prayer and meditation:
"Suddenly many aspects of the New Testament made sense. Jesus never
married. He preached love, tolerance, and forgiveness of sins. He did
not condemn and vilify as his so-called followers do today. He
surrounded himself with men whom he loved. The Bible says nothing of
Jesus' sexuality, yet we are taught that he was both divine and fully
man. Why did he never marry? Why is the New Testament silent about his
sexuality? It became so clear when I had the insight that Jesus was
probably gay and that He understood hatred and bigotry first-hand." 10
Unfortunately, this webmaster merely described a type of vision that
he/she had and did not provide any supporting evidence. It is unlikely
to be convincing to others. Unfortunately, the statement is no longer
online.
Mark 14:51-52 describes the incident when Jesus was arrested by the
religious police. It describes how one of Jesus' followers was
scantily dressed. The King James Version says he had a linen cloth
cast on his naked body; the size and location of the cloth is not
defined. The New International Version says that he was "wearing
nothing but a linen garment." When the police tried to seize him,
they were able to grab only his cloth; the man ran away naked.
Reverend Peter Murphy wrote: "We don't know from the sources what
really was going on, but we do know that something was very peculiar
between Jesus and young men." 11 (Emphasis in the original.)
Michael Kelly wrote of Jesus' attitude towards a same-sex couple as
described in Matthew 8:5-13: and Luke 7:2: "One day a Roman Centurion
asked him to heal his dying servant. Scholars of both Scripture and
Ancient History tell us that Roman Centurions, who were not permitted
to marry while in service, regularly chose a favorite male slave to be
their personal assistant and sexual servant. Such liaisons were common
in the Greco-Roman world and it was not unusual for them to deepen
into loving partnerships....Jesus offered to go to the servant, but
the centurion asked him simply to speak a word of healing, since he
was not worthy to welcome this itinerant Jewish teacher under his
roof. Jesus responded by healing the servant and proclaiming that even
in Israel he had never found faith like this! So, in the one Gospel
story where Jesus encountered people sharing what we would call a 'gay
relationship,' we see him simply concerned about — and deeply moved by
— their faith and love." Kelly implies that Jesus' sensitivity towards
the gay couple might have arisen from his own bisexual or homosexual
orientation. 1
Some commentators argue from silence. They note that there is no
passage in the Christian Scriptures (New Testament) that directly
describes anything about Jesus' sexuality. There are many direct and
indirect references to Jesus' sensuality. He was accused of being a
"drunkard and a glutton" and of partying with "prostitutes and
sinners." He apparently enjoyed a tender foot massage from a woman.
Yet, neither Jesus' sexuality nor his celibacy is mentioned. Yet, sex
is referred to, elsewhere in the Bible, quite often. One might argue
that the books in the Christian Scriptures might have once described
Jesus' sexual relationships, but that these passages have been
vigorously censored by the later church because they were
unconventional.
Other commentators have noted that Jesus is silent towards
homosexuality in the Gospels. Yet, Paul's opinions and those of many
other authors in the Hebrew Scriptures (Old Testament) are clearly
stated. They conclude that Jesus might have been gay. Odler Jeanlouie
speculated: "Is it meaningful that, in the Sermon on the Mount,
central to his teaching, he offered a one-way trip to the Kingdom of
God, to anyone who is persecuted?" 12
Public reactions to the suggestion that Jesus was gay:
Some indications of the anger displayed by Americans on this topic
include:
Bomb threats and a promise to "burn the place to the ground" sent to
the Manhattan Theatre Club if they included the Terrance McNally play
Corpus Christi (The Body of Christ) in its 1998 schedule. It portrayed
Jesus and his disciples as a group of gays. The American Society for
the Defense of Tradition, Family and Property (TFP) and the Family
Research Council organized a demonstration of over 3,000 Roman
Catholic and Protestant Christians to protest the play being shown in
New York City. 13 The theatre first cancelled the play, then
reinstated it. In 1999-AUG, after being staged in New York City, it
completed a run at the Edinburgh Festival. Florida legislators
threatened to cut off funding for the Florida Atlantic University if
this same play was shown there.
Sheik Omar Bakri Muhammad, judge of the Shari'ah Court of the UK --
an Islamic group -- issued a death fatwa against Terrence McNally. The
fatwa is not enforceable in the UK. However, "If he travels to an
Islamic state, then he would risk arrest and execution." 14
The protests have continued. A Roman Catholic group, America Needs
Fatima, a subgroup of TFP has distributed hundreds of signed,
preprinted postcards which protested the proposed 2004-MAR production
of "Corpus Christi," in Madison, WI. The group had previously been
successful in having the play canceled at a community college in Grand
Rapids, MI. 15
Over a million people wrote protest letters from 1984 to the end of
1985 against a non existent gay Jesus film. It was believed to have
portrayed Jesus as a bisexual who had an affair with Mary Magdalene.
By late 1984, the office of the Attorney general of Illinois was
receiving about 1,000 protest letters a week. The movie was a hoax --
a Christian urban legend. No trace of it was ever found. 16
On the other hand, a survey conducted by Talk Radio in London, UK, on
1997-DEC-14 found that:
51% said that revelations of Jesus being a homosexual would not
affect their religious belief.
49% said it would. 17
Christ's Love
<moc-rr-...@5ellimd.com> wrote:
>Christ's Love wrote:
>
>> In many homosexual rallies there will be at least one sign that reads-
>> WHAT JESUS SAID ABOUT HOMOSEXUALITY _____________. The blank is
>> supposed to represent Jesus' silence on the subject. The problem is
>> that Jesus is not silent on the subject of homosexuals, homosexuality
>> or 'gay marriage'.
>
>And then we have that pesky Centurion...
>
Irrelevant, moron.
Christ's Love
<ebers...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>Your babble would be much more convincing if it actually expressed
>some love, but it doesn't. It is all just legalistic hypocrisy of the
>type that Christ would have rejected.
You have no idea what Christ is like, lying moron.
Christ's Love
Liar.
Mr.Smartypants
>
> - Show quoted text -
The Zionists follow Lucifer and have openly admitted it on several
occasions. Their argument is that Lucifer is the God of Here and Now
and that's all they're concerned with, not the hereafter.
It's not surprising then that they'd do anything and everything to put
ALMIGHTY GOD in disrepute.
Christ's Love
Isreal has a place in God's plan. They were His original chosen. You
desparage them at your own peril.
Dionisio
> Dionisio <moc-rr-...@5ellimd.com> wrote:
>>Christ's Love wrote:
>>>In many homosexual rallies there will be at least one sign that reads-
>>>WHAT JESUS SAID ABOUT HOMOSEXUALITY _____________. The blank is
>>>supposed to represent Jesus' silence on the subject. The problem is
>>>that Jesus is not silent on the subject of homosexuals, homosexuality
>>>or 'gay marriage'.
>>
>>And then we have that pesky Centurion...
>
> Irrelevant, moron.
But enough about your opinion about moi. Let's get back to that Centurion.
Izzums you afraid that the truth will have you placed under house arrest?
--
And the Thought of the Moment (TM) is:
"We may be onto something here. Now. Suppose the overwhelming majority of those around you
told you to cover yourself with bacon fat and jump into a barrel of starving weasels...?"
-- bru...@access3.digex.net (Bruce Garrett) (10-26-94)
Greg Carr
http://www.narth.com/index.html get help if you are a homosexual and
want to stop.
Homosexuality is an ABOMINATION to the LORD. Leviticus 18:22 Thou
shalt
not
lie with
mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination. Leviticus 20:13 If a
man
also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have
committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their
blood
shall be upon them. And of course the apostle Paul said in Romans
1:27:
And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman,
burned
in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is
unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error
which was meet. If your a follower of Yu'shua you cannot be an
ABOMINATION.
I Corinthians 6:9
Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God?
Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers,
nor
effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,
No believer in Yu’shua or who claims to follow the Bible can be a
homosexual or a supporter of them. The Cdn govt should change the laws
of this country so that homosexuality and incest and rape and
bestiality are death penalty crimes and that warlocks and witches are
put to death.
>Many scholars hold that Jesus himself was gay, so its unlikely he'd be
>a homophobe like you:
No they don't. Less than 1% of them and they themselves are usu. anal
sex ppl.
>
>http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_jegay.htm
>
>Indications that Jesus did have a homosexual orientation:
> "In the Gospel of John, the disciple John frequently refers to
>himself in the third person as 'the disciple whom Jesus loved'." 4 One
>might argue that Jesus loved all of his followers in a non-sexual way.
That is correct. He doesn't mention hating any of his Disciples but he
did try and get away from them once and awhile.
>Thus to identify Jesus' love for John in a special way might indicate
>a sexual relationship. The disciple was "the" beloved. He was in a
>class by himself.
No. That interpretation means you are a homosexual.
>During the Last Supper before Jesus' execution, the author(s) of the
>Gospel of John describes how the "beloved" disciple laid himself on
>Jesus' inner tunic -- his undergarment. See John 13:25 and 21:20.
>Robert Goss, assistant professor of comparative religion at Webster
>University in St. Louis, LA, noted that Jesus and the beloved
>disciple: "... eat together, side by side. What's being portrayed here
>is a pederastic relationship between an older man and a younger man. A
>Greek reader would understand." 5 Jesus appears to have loved all of
>his male and female followers in a close, trusting, non-erotic
>manner.
The last sentence is correct. The ones before are lies.
>
>On the other hand: Some commentators have suggested that it was a
>common practice in Judea at that time for heterosexual man to lay his
>head on another's undergarment. Such behavior was common between two
>heterosexuals in an emotionally close but non-erotic relationship
>during the first century CE. 6
> Jenny Stokes, research director for Saltshakers, a conservative
>Christian group in Australia, said that there are five words for love
>in Greek (the language in which the Gospels were written: Agape:
>spiritual, unconditional love,
> Eros: erotic love,
> Philia: love between friends,
> Storge: familial love.
>
>The Gospel references to "the disciple whom Jesus loved" use the word
>"agape." 3 Whether the authors originally used "eros" and the word
>was subsequently changed is open to speculation.
>
>
>
> "Jagannath" interprets the Gospels differently. He argues that Jesus
>may have been bisexual. He wrote:
This cowardly sexual deviant doesn't even use his real name and you
claim he is a scholar.
>
>"In the Book of John a word is used eight times that means 'is in love
>with' with the implication of sexual intimacy. Five times it is used
>with reference to Jesus' relationship with John. Once it is used to
>define Jesus' relationship with Lazarus. And it is also used to
>describe his relationship with Mary and with her sister Martha." 7
Nonsense.
>
> During the crucifixion, in John 19:26-28, Jesus is described as
>seeing his mother and an unidentified man: "the disciple standing by,
>whom he loved." Again, Jesus probably loved all of his 12 or 70
>disciples in a non-sexual manner. But this particular disciple is
>identified as "the" disciple who Jesus loved. That might indicate a
>special intimate relationship with one special disciple.
He happened to like one more than the rest. That is all he meant.
> The late Morton Smith, of Columbia University reported in 1958 that
>he had found a fragment of a manuscript which at the Mar Saba
>monastery near Jerusalem. It contained the full text of Mark, chapter
>10. Apparently the version that is in the Christian Scriptures is an
>edited version of the original. Additional verses allegedly formed
>part of the full version of Mark, and were inserted after verse 34. It
>discusses how a young man, naked but for a linen covering, expressed
>his love for Jesus and stayed with him at his place all night. More
>details.
Not a part of the Bible and even if true it shows that he helped a
poor person with lodging for the night.
> "J Richards" suggested that Mark 7:14-16 shows that Jesus approves of
>homosexual acts.
This person doesn't use his real name probably due to a history of
child pedophilia charges and you use him as a scholar. What tripe.
>The critical phrase reads: "There is nothing from
>without a man, that entering into him can defile him..." Richards
>suggests that Jesus gave great emphasis to this teaching, directing it
>to everyone. Richards suggests that the sentence refers to dietary
>laws and also extends to "blood transfusions, medication, organ
>transplants, and artificial insemination" and to homosexual acts as
>well. 8
The LORD could easily have refuted the parts of Leviticus against
homosexuality but of course didn't.
>
>On the other hand, these words have historically been interpreted as
>overturning the Mosaic law about eating,
> Rollan McCleary,
McCleary is a homosexual spreading lies in order to encourage young
men to suck on his penis instead of beating him up.
>was awarded his doctorate from the University of
>Queensland in Australia during 2003-MAY for his work researching the
>sexual orientation of Jesus and his disciples. He obtained about
>$33,000 US in funding from the government to finance his degree. He
>concluded that Jesus and at least three of his disciples were gay.
He is making up lies.
>He
>based this conclusion on excerpts from the Gospel of John and on
>Jesus' astrological chart based on the approximate year, month, day
>and place where he was born.
Astrology is forbidden by the Bible and can't be used to predict
anything. Are you such an idiot that you believe in astrology? This
man is no scientist.
Deuteronomy 4:19
And when you look up to the sky and see the sun, the moon and the
stars - all the heavenly array - do not be enticed into bowing down to
them and worshipping things the LORD your God has apportioned to all
the nations under heaven.
>But not even the year of Jesus' birth is
>known. Many theologians have concluded that Jesus was born sometime in
>the Fall, between 4 and 7 BCE.
These liars rarely spout such nonsense anymore. It is the year 0. For
some reason they kept the Roman names when making the Gregorian
calendar while starting at the birth of the LORD.
>Also, there is disagreement about where
>Jesus was born. Different theologians argue Bethlehem in Judea,
>Nazareth, and Bethlehem in the Galilee. The task of creating an
>astrological chart appears quite impossible.
Since astrology is false who cares?
> Dr. McCleary told
>Australian Broadcasting Commission radio that, in the past, "one or
>two queer theologians" had attempted to show Jesus was gay. "People
>haven't taken them very seriously because they don't have any evidence
>and they say things so sensationally that people are not really going
>to listen or just be very angry. What I'm doing is showing a much more
>theological and also astrological dimension on all this which will
>make a lot more sense to people." 9 He has written a book based on his
>doctoral thesis which was published in 2004. 18
> An anonymous webmaster wrote about a revelation that he received
>during her/his daily prayer and meditation:
What a credible source!!!!! A man high on meth and drinking from a
bottle of vermouth told me:
>
>"Suddenly many aspects of the New Testament made sense. Jesus never
>married. He preached love, tolerance, and forgiveness of sins. He did
>not condemn and vilify as his so-called followers do today.
He hit ppl in the head with knotted rope and overturned tables of
merchandise and currency. He railed against his followers at times.
He
>surrounded himself with men whom he loved. The Bible says nothing of
>Jesus' sexuality, yet we are taught that he was both divine and fully
>man. Why did he never marry? Why is the New Testament silent about his
>sexuality? It became so clear when I had the insight that Jesus was
>probably gay and that He understood hatred and bigotry first-hand." 10
>
>Unfortunately, this webmaster merely described a type of vision that
>he/she had and did not provide any supporting evidence. It is unlikely
>to be convincing to others.
It is to homosexuals desperate to belong to a faith that wants them
not.
>Unfortunately, the statement is no longer
>online.
ROTFL. Probably had another vision telling him to stop being such a
fag hag.
>
> Mark 14:51-52 describes the incident when Jesus was arrested by the
>religious police. It describes how one of Jesus' followers was
>scantily dressed. The King James Version says he had a linen cloth
>cast on his naked body; the size and location of the cloth is not
>defined. The New International Version says that he was "wearing
>nothing but a linen garment." When the police tried to seize him,
>they were able to grab only his cloth; the man ran away naked.
>Reverend Peter Murphy wrote: "We don't know from the sources what
>really was going on, but we do know that something was very peculiar
>between Jesus and young men." 11 (Emphasis in the original.)
> Michael Kelly wrote of Jesus' attitude towards a same-sex couple as
>described in Matthew 8:5-13: and Luke 7:2: "One day a Roman Centurion
>asked him to heal his dying servant. Scholars of both Scripture and
>Ancient History tell us that Roman Centurions, who were not permitted
>to marry while in service, regularly chose a favorite male slave to be
>their personal assistant and sexual servant. Such liaisons were common
>in the Greco-Roman world and it was not unusual for them to deepen
>into loving partnerships....Jesus offered to go to the servant, but
>the centurion asked him simply to speak a word of healing, since he
>was not worthy to welcome this itinerant Jewish teacher under his
>roof. Jesus responded by healing the servant and proclaiming that even
>in Israel he had never found faith like this! So, in the one Gospel
>story where Jesus encountered people sharing what we would call a 'gay
>relationship,'
There is zero evidence that the ppl in question had any sexual
relationship.
>we see him simply concerned about — and deeply moved by
>— their faith and love." Kelly implies that Jesus' sensitivity towards
>the gay couple might have arisen from his own bisexual or homosexual
>orientation.
I imply that Kelly has sex with school children.
1
> Some commentators argue from silence. They note that there is no
>passage in the Christian Scriptures (New Testament) that directly
>describes anything about Jesus' sexuality. There are many direct and
>indirect references to Jesus' sensuality. He was accused of being a
>"drunkard and a glutton" and of partying with "prostitutes and
>sinners."
For some reason the accusations of fornication are left out.
> He apparently enjoyed a tender foot massage from a woman.
>Yet, neither Jesus' sexuality nor his celibacy is mentioned. Yet, sex
>is referred to, elsewhere in the Bible, quite often. One might argue
>that the books in the Christian Scriptures might have once described
>Jesus' sexual relationships, but that these passages have been
>vigorously censored by the later church because they were
>unconventional.
> Other commentators have noted that Jesus is silent towards
>homosexuality in the Gospels. Yet, Paul's opinions and those of many
>other authors in the Hebrew Scriptures (Old Testament) are clearly
>stated. They conclude that Jesus might have been gay. Odler Jeanlouie
>speculated: "Is it meaningful that, in the Sermon on the Mount,
>central to his teaching, he offered a one-way trip to the Kingdom of
>God, to anyone who is persecuted?" 12
Only if it is for their faith.
>
>
>
>Public reactions to the suggestion that Jesus was gay:
> Some indications of the anger displayed by Americans on this topic
>include:
>
> Bomb threats and a promise to "burn the place to the ground" sent to
>the Manhattan Theatre Club if they included the Terrance McNally play
>Corpus Christi (The Body of Christ) in its 1998 schedule. It portrayed
>Jesus and his disciples as a group of gays. The American Society for
>the Defense of Tradition, Family and Property (TFP) and the Family
>Research Council organized a demonstration of over 3,000 Roman
>Catholic and Protestant Christians to protest the play being shown in
>New York City. 13 The theatre first cancelled the play, then
>reinstated it. In 1999-AUG, after being staged in New York City, it
>completed a run at the Edinburgh Festival. Florida legislators
>threatened to cut off funding for the Florida Atlantic University if
>this same play was shown there.
Good. Take away their money.
> Sheik Omar Bakri Muhammad, judge of the Shari'ah Court of the UK --
>an Islamic group -- issued a death fatwa against Terrence McNally.
Sad that the Muslim extremists are doing what Christians and Jews
should be doing as a matter of public policy.
>The
>fatwa is not enforceable in the UK. However, "If he travels to an
>Islamic state, then he would risk arrest and execution." 14
> The protests have continued. A Roman Catholic group, America Needs
>Fatima, a subgroup of TFP has distributed hundreds of signed,
>preprinted postcards which protested the proposed 2004-MAR production
>of "Corpus Christi," in Madison, WI. The group had previously been
>successful in having the play canceled at a community college in Grand
>Rapids, MI.
Clap clap clap.
>15
> Over a million people wrote protest letters from 1984 to the end of
>1985 against a non existent gay Jesus film. It was believed to have
>portrayed Jesus as a bisexual who had an affair with Mary Magdalene.
>By late 1984, the office of the Attorney general of Illinois was
>receiving about 1,000 protest letters a week. The movie was a hoax --
>a Christian urban legend. No trace of it was ever found. 16
>
>On the other hand, a survey conducted by Talk Radio in London, UK, on
>1997-DEC-14 found that:
>
> 51% said that revelations of Jesus being a homosexual would not
>affect their religious belief.
> 49% said it would. 17
Work towards making homosexuality a capital punishment offence.
We are awaiting the return of our JHVH in the flesh or his Son. His Son Yu'shua died on the cross for our sins, was resurrected and walked the earth for awhile then ascended unto Heaven. We await the Third Coming not the Second.
Scottish Quaker Robert Barclay-"The weighty Truths of God were neglected, and, as it were, went into Desuetude. ...
Who will be the last Coalition soldier to be maimed in Iraq?
Canadian troops out of Afghanistan and into Darfur.http://www.amnesty.ca/instantkarma/petition.php
Good luck to anyone trying to learn Hebrew. I am looking for a Hebrew-Gregorian calendar in both Hebrew and English lettering.
I am looking for my missing automobile. Left in the care of Low's Tire (Firestone) on King George Hwy which has since gone out of business. A man who claimed to be a tow truck driver named Jerry (sounded Black) called me and said he had it
but when I called him back he denied it. JVD-968 "89 Plymouth Reliant white with red interior. Devellis in lettering on the rear trunk. Contact me by email or the GRC if you are one of those ppl. Am looking for the address of Dave Reynolds and any info about him. He used to run Low's Tires and since he refuses to answer his email lows...@telus.net I can only assume he is the person who stole my vehicle and the contents in it. I have talked to the new owners and they claim to know nothing.
3P3BK41D9KT921716 is the vin number. John Reynolds still has a valid email lows...@telus.net but refuses to return my inquiries.Any info about this thief is appreciated.
I am also looking for various books and CD's that I have discovered missing. All are marked Greg Carr on the inside cover or somewhere in the CD booklet. $5 reward for each CD and for each book. Will pay $200 for info regarding how they disappeared because I honestly don't know.
No One
> http://www.narth.com/index.html get help if you are a homosexual and
> want to stop.
Let me guess. They tie you to a bondage chair, tape your eyelids open,
and make you look at pictures of Karl Rove with his clothes off.
Muhammad Pakistan
to some people. Evidently, they tend to rant and rave about men being
homosexual, yet there is hardly a peep out of the adversary's of homosexuals
when it comes to gay women like Vice President Dick Cheney's daughter Mary, a
very successful business person who not only "married" a female park ranger,
but have given him a "baster boy" grand son. No condemnation there from the
Leviticus law believers at all!
Is being a faggot only bad if you're a man?
tanir...@aol.com
> You have no idea what Christ is like, lying moron.
>
> Always remember: Christ love's you, and so do I! Each and every one of you!
Wow. The irony...you claim to love everyone, but you call them
names. Calling yourself "Christ's Love" and claim to love everyone,
then you spew ignorance and hatred.
BTW, you really should try to use correct punctuation in your sign
line.
No One
The last sentence in Leviticus is, "These are the commandments which
the LORD commanded Moses for the children of Israel on Mount Sinai."
It doesn't apply to anyone else, and the prohibition, which is
actually against anal sex, applies only to men. Don't ask why - it is
simply a taboo for some tribes in the Middle East 4000 years ago.
To put it in perspective, there is a film you can rent called
_Trembling Before G*d_ about gay orthodox Jews in modern Israel. At
the very end, it describes a converstation with a highly regarded
rabbi who didn't see a problem if there was no anal sex. When oral
sex was described to him, the rabbi's reaction was "why would you want
to put someone's schwanz in your mouth?" It was the first time he
had heard of it.
scorpi...@live.com
>
> - Show quoted text -
Excellent post.
James Riske
The lies brought forth by depraved faggots in an attempt to justify
their filthy lifestyle can be truly jaw-dropping at times...
--
Frodo: "Why do you do that?"
Sam: "What?"
Frodo: "Call him names? Run him down all the time."
Sam: "Because that's what he is Mister Frodo. There's naught left in him
but lies and deceit.
Dionisio
> LOL! Religion in the USA, the same country that gave the world the Mormons,
> who believe that Jesus walked in America!
>
> What a bunch of crazy asses. You people will believe any bag of shit laid on
> your door.
Hey! Don't forget Scientology!
<ducks>
--
And the Thought of the Moment (TM) is:
Among life's perpetually charming questions is whether the truly evil do more harm than
the self-righteous and wrong.
--JON MARGOLIS
James Riske
> James Riske <james...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> The lies brought forth by depraved faggots in an attempt to justify
>> their filthy lifestyle can be truly jaw-dropping at times...
>>
>>
>
> sky and a place called Hell, just because some fat fuck he donated money to
> on TV says to.
I have never donated money to anyone on TV.
>
>
> Where was it said that Christ had a girlfriend? He kept the company of men
> and was obviously a leftist socialist.
Being in the company of men does not make anyone a faggot, if you
believe it does then go to the nearest male steel worker and call him a
faggot based solely on the fact that he is constantly in the company of men.
>
> Do you visit any of your Republican friends in prison?
I don't have any friends in prison, republican or otherwise.
>
> Here's your list, kiddy diddler.
Studies prove that a male faggot is many times more likely to be a
pedophile than a human non-faggot is.
Since you have no proof or even a shred of evidence that I am a "kiddy
diddler" (aka pedophile) then odds are higher that you are one yourself.
>
> Why not explain your heroes? Oh gracious man of God and staunch Republican!
Not a man of good nor am I a republican, you continue to lie.
>
> You're just more American white trash. Probably from the deep south.
>
I live in Ohio, my gawd you faggots really HATE it when someone dares to
point you out for what you truly are.
Mr.Smartypants
Go fuck yourself.
God chose the SEMITES not the Ashkenazi imposters who inhabit Israel
today.
Sunny Beasty
>> Who cares what the bible says. I'm more interested in what health
> authorities say about destructive ways faggots have infected innocent
> people with their slovenly sex habits.
>
Which health authorities? Please cite.
> Taking it "up the ass" is damn stupid. Ask a surgeon someday how many
> ruptured rectums he has repaired., Ask him about how after years of that
> disgusting behaviors many queers have to wear diapers because their
> elimination track has been totally compromised and no longer functions
> normally.
I know many heterosexual men who like fucking women in the ass and I
see nothing wrong with it as long as they are consenting adults. How
is fucking a male ass any different - and mor importantly - why do you
care? Why are you not so incensed about heterosexual anal intercourse?
w...@where.com
>On Sun, 25 May 2008 01:48:41 -0500, w...@where.com wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 24 May 2008 22:05:44 -0700, ZeD <z...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>
>>>Usually I don't respond to stupidity but you take the cake.
>>>I'd like to see what studies you are citing here that show
>>>male homosexuals as being more likely that non gays to be
>>>pedophiles. The last time I heard about any studies done
>>>in that area, straight males were counted as 99.99% of all
>>>the known child molesters.
>>
>>The Journal of Homosexuality, a magazine for mostly academia, has
>>covered the matter of 'Chicken Hawks' extensively for decades. Of
>>course, now the subject is totally verboten because it is not
>>politically correct to tell any truth at all about homosexuals. However,
>>your basic statement that most pedos are what would be described as
>>'straight' is more or less correct. Since homosexuals are a mere 2% to
>>3% of the population, it stands to reason that because of the great
>>disparity in the size of straight vs. homosexual population there in all
>>probability are more 'Chicken Hawks' who are straight. Although, I'd
>>argue about that term 'straight' when applied to males who molest
>>immature children. Merely being married doesn't necessarily prove one
>>to be 'straight.'
>>
>>- Strawman -
>
>Ya we can mince words all day long and still be saying the same thing.
>Being gay or straight isn't a defense for what a pedo is, but when an
>ignoramus starts citing scientific studies that don't exist I have to
>draw a line. I read somewhere that gays amount to around 10% of the
>total population
Studies which don't exist?
Chicken Kills Hawk
Journal of Homosexuality
Vol 26 Number 4, 1994
A rather extensive article of how the "chickens," the kids preyed upon
by the Hawks - older homos, were killing their homo molesters.
=====================================
Here's another bunch of "non-existent" studies, you ignoramus.
Subject: Homosexuals and the 10% Fallacy
Date: Published: 3/31/93 (162 lines)
Source: Wall Street Journal. Copyright Dow Jones & Co. Inc.
Homosexuals and the 10% Fallacy
---
By J. Gordon Muir
How many Americans are homosexual?
For years, conventional wisdom has said that 10% or more of the
population is gay. Derived from surveys in the 1940s by pioneer sex
researcher Alfred C. Kinsey, the one-in-10 figure is routinely cited
in academic works, sex education materials, government reports and
the media. The 10% estimate also has been used extensively by
activists lobbying for gay-affirmation programs and extensions of
family benefits to homosexual employees of major corporations, as
well as seen as evidence of gays' voting clout.
But there long has been much evidence that the 10% estimate is
far too high. Surveys with large samples from the U. S., Canada,
Britain, France, Norway, Denmark and other nations give a picture of
homosexuality experience rates of 6% or less, with an exclusive
homosexuality prevalence of 1% or less.
The most comprehensive example is the continuing survey conducted
by the U. S. Census Bureau since 1988 for the National Center for
Health Statistics of the Centers for Disease Control. The survey,
which polls about 10,000 subjects quarterly on "AIDS Knowledge and
Attitudes," asks confidentially if any of several statements is
true, including this one: "you are a man who has had sex with
another man at some time since 1977, even one time." No more than 2%
to 3% of the more than 50,000 men surveyed have answered "yes to at
least one statement." Since some yes answers were given to the four
other questions (blood transfusions, intravenous drug use, etc.),
the data strongly suggest that the prevalence of even incidental
homosexual behavior is less than 2% for men. Most studies report
that women have about half of the male prevalence rate, so a general
population estimate for homosexuality would fall below 1.5%. A
national poll showed that 2.4% of voters in the 1992 presidential
election described themselves as homosexual.
Numerous other surveys reveal similar percentages. Father-son
researchers Paul and Kirk Cameron have compiled a new report, "The
Prevalence of Homosexuality" (scheduled to be published in
Psychological Reports), that summarizes more than 30 surveys with
"large, plausibly unbiased samples." Here are a few of them:
-- France: A 1991-92 government survey of 20,055 adults reports
that 1.4% of men and 0.4% of women had had homosexual intercourse in
the five years preceding the survey. The exclusive lifetime
homosexual rates were 0.7% for men and 0.6% for women; lifetime
homosexuality experience was 4.1% for men and 2.6% for women.
-- Britain: A 1990-91 nation-wide survey of 18,876 adults aged 16
to 59 reports that 1.4% of men had had homosexual contact in the
five years preceding the survey. Only 6.1% of men had any lifetime
homosexual experience.
-- U. S.: A nation-wide 1989 household sample of 1,537 adults
conducted by the National Opinion Research Center at the University
of Chicago finds that of sexually active adults over 18, 1.2% of
males and 1.2% of females reported homosexual activity in the year
preceding the survey; 4.9% to 5.6% of both sexes reported since age
18 having had partners of both genders, and 0.6% to 0.7% exclusively
homosexual partners.
&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&
-- U. S.: A stratified cluster sample from the Minnesota
Adolescent Health Survey (1986-87) of 36,741 public school students
in seventh through 12th grade found that 0.6% of the boys and 0.2%
of the girls identified themselves as "most or 100% homosexual";
0.7% of the boys and 0.8% of the girls identified themselves as
"bisexual"; and 10.1% of males and 11.3% of females were "unsure."
COMMENT: Kids this age aren't sure about themselves at all. That's
why the homos want to get into the schools to convince these confused
kids that they are homosexuals.
&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&
-- Canada: A nation-wide cluster random sample of 5,514
first-year college students under age 25 finds 98% heterosexual, 1%
bisexual, 1% homosexual.
-- Norway: A 1987 nation-wide random mail sample of 6,155 adults
age 18-60 finds that 0.9% of males and 0.9% of females had
homosexual experiences within three years of the survey, and 3.5% of
males and 3% of females had ever had any homosexual experience.
-- Denmark: A 1989 stratified random sample of 3,178 adults age
18-59 finds homosexual intercourse reported by 2.7% of sexually
experienced males. Less than 1% of men were exclusively homosexual.
Many other studies also vary greatly from the Kinsey research,
which in retrospect has little validity. (The widely publicized new
"Janus Report" -- "9% of men and 5% of women may be considered
homosexuals" -- was based on a nonrandom sample, among other
problems. Methodological flaws are likely to have contributed to its
out-of-step results.)
Among Kinsey's most serious flaws:
-- About 25% of Kinsey's 5,300 male subjects were former or
present prisoners; a high percentage were sex offenders (he had the
histories of about 1,400). Many respondents were recruited from sex
lectures, where they had gone to get the answer to sex problems;
others were recruited by underworld figures and leaders of
homosexual groups. At least 200 male prostitutes were among his
interviewees, and could have amounted to as much as 4% of his
sample. Some groups were underrepresented, such as church attenders;
others were missing entirely. Kinsey represented this as a
"carefully planned population survey." His alleged mirror of what
the nation was doing sexually kicked off the sexual revolution.
Even Kinsey never said that 10% of the population was homosexual,
only that 10% of men over age 16 are more or less exclusively
homosexual for periods of up to three years. (By defining adult as
age 16 and over, Kinsey misrepresented as adult behavior homosexual
play among heterosexual adolescents that may have occurred only
once.) For women, the figure was about half of the male prevalence.
As for lifelong, exclusive homosexuality, Kinsey placed the figure
at 4%, and as for any overt homosexual experience, 37%.
Kinsey's failings aside, sex surveys should never be considered
as singularly definitive, because of the problem of volunteer bias;
many people don't want to discuss their most intimate sexual natures
with a clipboard-bearing stranger or an anonymous telephone
interviewer. The refusal rate for sex surveys ranges widely, with
some reporting rejections of more than 50%. Although homosexuals
contend that social stigma prevents them from full representation in
surveys, researchers have found that the sexually unconventional are
more eager to discuss sex than people are generally.
\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
Although Kinsey had been criticized early on by other scientists,
including psychologist Abraham Maslow (whose advice he ignored), the
10% fallacy was revealed in the mid-1980s when statisticians began
tracking AIDS cases. Adapting the 10% estimate and known rates of
infection with HIV among gay men, New York City's department of
health grossly overestimated the size of the city's HIV-infected gay
population as 250,000 (indirectly placing the total number of
homosexual-bisexual men at 400,000 to 500,000). In 1988, these
figures had to be revised down to 50,000 and 100,000, respectively.
The Centers for Disease Control has also stopped using the Kinsey
data for national projections.
&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&
It was no accident that the 10% figure became engraved in stone.
In their 1989 book, "After the Ball," a blueprint for gay political
activism, Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen boast that "when straights
are asked by pollsters for a formal estimate, the figure played back
most often is the `10% gay' statistic which our propagandists have
been drilling into their heads for years."
******************************************************************
Now that the mythology surrounding Kinsey's homosexuality
statistics is being laid to rest, perhaps it's time to examine some
other Kinsey conclusions. A good place to start would be his
findings on childhood sexuality.
Kinsey's research contains the only body of experimental data
purporting to demonstrate that children from a very young age are
sexual and have sexual needs. This wisdom is part of the
"scientific" foundation of modern sex education, allowing Lester
Kirkendall, a sex education pioneer and Kinsey colleague, to predict
in a professional journal in 1985 that once our sense of guilt
diminishes, cross-generational (adult-child) sex and other forms of
sexual expression "will become legitimate."
But the Kinsey "findings" are based on criminal experiments
conducted by pedophiles who sexually stimulated infants (as young as
two months) and children against their will, without parental
consent (obviously), for up to 24 hours at a time. Kinsey compiled
these data in a series of tables illustrating normal childhood
sexual response and orgasmic capacity. A Lancet reviewer has called
for an explanation from Kinsey's surviving co-workers. (None has
been offered.) The National Institutes of Health's fraud specialist
Walter Stewart has called for an investigation. It's about time.
---
Dr. Muir, a physician and former medical researcher, is
contributing author, editor and co-publisher of "Kinsey, Sex and
Fraud" (Huntington House Publishers, 1990). Robert H. Knight of the
Family Research Council contributed to this article.
[This article is made available here by Dow Jones Co. for the
personal and non-commercial use of callers to this bbs, in the
hope that it will be of some help to those who are suffering
from the disease and others who are seeking to help them.]
[Copyright Ben Gardiner, 1993, for AIDS Info BBS, San Francisco,
California, U.S.A., 1-415-626-1246, source of this file. Only
non-commercial reproduction is permitted.]
----
- Strawman -
--
http://www.americanvandals.com
w...@where.com
<sunny...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
>On May 24, 3:36 pm, w...@where.com wrote:
>>> Who cares what the bible says. I'm more interested in what health
>> authorities say about destructive ways faggots have infected innocent
>> people with their slovenly sex habits.
>>
>
>Which health authorities? Please cite.
>
>> Taking it "up the ass" is damn stupid. Ask a surgeon someday how many
>> ruptured rectums he has repaired., Ask him about how after years of that
>> disgusting behaviors many queers have to wear diapers because their
>> elimination track has been totally compromised and no longer functions
>> normally.
>
>I know many heterosexual men who like fucking women in the ass and I
>see nothing wrong with it as long as they are consenting adults.
You've been watching too many porn films and have come to believe that
your fantasy is reality. If you know "many" hetero men who have anal
relations with women, I guarantee you these "women" are HIV/AIDS/HERPES
infected prostitutes. Because there are VERY few women who would submit
to something that degrading.
>How
>is fucking a male ass any different - and mor importantly - why do you
>care? Why are you not so incensed about heterosexual anal intercourse?
Because these ass fuckers have started a disease that has killed
millions of people world-wide. Plus, they have gained entree into our
school system in an effort to teach the kids that homosexuality is the
way to go. Equal time should be given to teaching these kids that the
homo life style consisted of one disgusting disease after another even
before AIDS.
w...@where.com
<sunny...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
This is how much faggots & AIDS carriers care about whether or not they
infect anyone else. (Matter of fact, that is what is behind the fag
agenda in their continuing fight to have the right to donate blood. They
want the chance to infect an entire population. That's how much hate
they have in them.)
USA Today (07/07/94) P. 3A; Marshall, Steve
The Florida state welfare agency is in an uproar this week
following the revelation that a two-year-old's new adopted parents are
both HIV-positive. State caseworkers and the St. Petersburg couple's
lawyer were aware of the infections, but said nothing to Circuit Judge
Horace Andrews, who granted the adoption in March. Caseworkers were
forced to struggle with clashing laws--one guaranteeing the
confidentiality of AIDS patients, and one requiring them to conduct
their duties with the child's best interest in mind. Judge Andrews said
that had he known of the parents' HIV status, he would have taken their
health and life expectancy into consideration before granting the
adoption. Florida officials are now drawing up a policy to ensure that
judges receive all pertinent information, including HIV status, needed
to make an informed decision.
w...@where.com
<sunny...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
>On May 24, 3:36 pm, w...@where.com wrote:
>>> Who cares what the bible says. I'm more interested in what health
>> authorities say about destructive ways faggots have infected innocent
>> people with their slovenly sex habits.
>>
>
>Which health authorities? Please cite.
To claim you people have not transmitted AIDS and other diseases to
people is totally ridiculous. Long before AIDS you shit-eaters were
passing various forms of hepatitis back and forth like others do the
common cold. That's one reason you shits got hit with AIDS. You're
immune systems were worn out from all the exotic amoebic diseases you
got from taking it up the butt, plus a myriad of STDs you all thought
were a joke and so easily fixed with antibiotics. Did you a-wipes
really think you could put your tongues up assholes and not have
horrible diseases happen. Even a puppy dog knows enough not to eat its
own shit.
w...@where.com
<sunny...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
Read you ignorant a-wipe.
a. Anal-genital
Anal intercourse is the sine qua non of sex for many gay men.22 Yet
human physiology makes it clear that the body was not designed to
accommodate this activity. The rectum is significantly different from
the vagina with regard to suitability for penetration by a penis. The
vagina has natural lubricants and is supported by a network of muscles.
It is composed of a mucus membrane with a multi-layer stratified
squamous epithelium that allows it to endure friction without damage and
to resist the immunological actions caused by semen and sperm. In
comparison, the anus is a delicate mechanism of small muscles that
comprise an "exit-only" passage. With repeated trauma, friction and
stretching, the sphincter loses its tone and its ability to maintain a
tight seal. Consequently, anal intercourse leads to leakage of fecal
material that can easily become chronic.
The potential for injury is exacerbated by the fact that the intestine
has only a single layer of cells separating it from highly vascular
tissue, that is, blood. Therefore, any organisms that are introduced
into the rectum have a much easier time establishing a foothold for
infection than they would in a vagina. The single layer tissue cannot
withstand the friction associated with penile penetration, resulting in
traumas that expose both participants to blood, organisms in feces, and
a mixing of bodily fluids.
Furthermore, ejaculate has components that are immunosuppressive. In the
course of ordinary reproductive physiology, this allows the sperm to
evade the immune defenses of the female. Rectal insemination of rabbits
has shown that sperm impaired the immune defenses of the recipient.23
Semen may have a similar impact on humans.24
The end result is that the fragility of the anus and rectum, along with
the immunosuppressive effect of ejaculate, make anal-genital intercourse
a most efficient manner of transmitting HIV and other infections. The
list of diseases found with extraordinary frequency among male
homosexual practitioners as a result of anal intercourse is alarming:
Anal Cancer
Chlamydia trachomatis
Cryptosporidium
Giardia lamblia
Herpes simplex virus
Human immunodeficiency virus
Human papilloma virus
Isospora belli
Microsporidia
Gonorrhea
Viral hepatitis types B & C
Syphilis25
Sexual transmission of some of these diseases is so rare in the
exclusively heterosexual population as to be virtually unknown. Others,
while found among heterosexual and homosexual practitioners, are clearly
predominated by those involved in homosexual activity. Syphilis, for
example is found among heterosexual and homosexual practitioners. But in
1999, King County, Washington (Seattle), reported that 85 percent of
syphilis cases were among self-identified homosexual practitioners.26
And as noted above, syphilis among homosexual men is now at epidemic
levels in San Francisco.27
A 1988 CDC survey identified 21 percent of all Hepatitis B cases as
being homosexually transmitted while 18 percent were heterosexually
transmitted.28 Since homosexuals comprise such a small percent of the
population (only 1-3 percent),29 they have a significantly higher rate
of infection than heterosexuals.30
Anal intercourse also puts men at significant risk for anal cancer. Anal
cancer is the result of infection with some subtypes of human papilloma
virus (HPV), which are known viral carcinogens. Data as of 1989 showed
the rates of anal cancer in male homosexual practitioners to be 10 times
that of heterosexual males, and growing. 30 Thus, the prevalence of anal
cancer among gay men is of great concern. For those with AIDS, the rates
are doubled.31
Other physical problems associated with anal intercourse are:
hemorrhoids
anal fissures
anorectal trauma
retained foreign bodies.32
=================================================
Of course, a shit-for-brains fool like yourself will still be in denial
- until some or all of the above crap happens to you personally - which
it will in time.
juanjo
> On Sat, 24 May 2008 22:05:44 -0700, ZeD <z...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >Usually I don't respond to stupidity but you take the cake.
> >I'd like to see what studies you are citing here that show
> >male homosexuals as being more likely that non gays to be
> >pedophiles. The last time I heard about any studies done
> >in that area, straight males were counted as 99.99% of all
> >the known child molesters.
>
> The Journal of Homosexuality, a magazine for mostly academia, has
> covered the matter of 'Chicken Hawks' extensively for decades.
Of course you have not bothered to actually report anything accurate
about what they said. But here are some facts for you to chew upon
Fact No. 1. 80% of all child molestation in this country is male upon
female not male upon male.
Fact No. 2. The 20% which is male upon male is almost exclusively
perpetrated by heterosexual or bisexually identified males, often
married or by men with no identifiable sexual orientation but who
engage in child molestation of male children or male and female
children.
see for example:
Homosexuality and Child Sexual Abuse: Science, Religion, and the
Slippery Slope
by Mark E. Pietrzyk
Executive Summary
In response to the scandal involving former Congressman Mark
Foley, a number of conservative religious groups have claimed that
homosexuals pose a substantially greater risk of committing sexual
abuse against children than heterosexuals, and have issued papers
citing a number of scientific studies to support these claims.
However, when one examines the studies cited in these papers, one
finds that the religious right has engaged in some serious distortion
of the works of others. The scientists who authored the studies made
no such claim about homosexuals posing a greater threat to children,
and in fact in many cases argued the opposite.
In addition, many in the religious right have employed a
version of the "slippery slope" argument, charging that the gay rights
movement has led inevitably to tolerance for pedophilia by eroding all
traditional norms of sexual behavior. However, the "slippery slope"
argument is based on the false premise that the protection of children
from sexual activity is a long-standing part of the Judeo-Christian
ethic, which has only recently come under assault as a result of the
gay rights movement. In fact, throughout most of history, the Judeo-
Christian tradition tolerated and even approved of sexual relations
between adult males and girls of twelve years of age or even younger.
The contemporary taboo against sex between adults and minors developed
only in the late nineteenth century, as societies became increasingly
committed to the ideals of individual rights and personal autonomy,
which led to concern about the possibility of coercion and
exploitation in adult-minor relationships.
__________________________________________________________________
Introduction
In the wake of the scandal of former Congressman Mark Foley's
inappropriate behavior involving teenage male pages, a number of
conservative commentators and organizations are reviving an old charge
that homosexuals are more likely to sexually abuse children. The
Family Research Council is promoting a paper by one Timothy Dailey
which claims that since approximately one-third of child sex crimes
are committed by men against boys, and homosexuals comprise only 1 to
3 percent of the population, gay men are greatly overrepresented in
child sex offenses.1 Articles by Steve Baldwin and Judith Reisman in
Pat Robertson's Regent University Law Review make similar claims and
argue that "homosexuals sexually molest young boys with an incidence
that is five times greater than the molestation of girls."2 A booklet
from Focus on the Family charges that "studies indicate that around 35
percent of pedophiles are homosexuals. . . . a child molester is 17
times more likely to be homosexual than heterosexual."3
In addition to these claims, a number of conservative Christians
have employed a version of the "slippery slope" argument, charging
that the gay rights movement inevitably leads to tolerance for
pedophilia by eroding all traditional norms of sexual behavior.
Robert Knight, formerly of the Family Research Council and now with
Concerned Women for America, argues that if gay marriage is accepted,
"Why not [marriage between] three men? Three women? A man and a
boy?"4 Senator Rick Santorum has blamed the Catholic Church's sex
abuse scandals on modern liberalism, arguing "It is startling that
those in the media and academia appear most disturbed by this aberrant
behavior, since they have zealously promoted moral relativism by
sanctioning 'private' moral matters such as alternative lifestyles."5
Similarly, the Wall Street Journal has complained, "Some of those
liberals now shouting the loudest for [House Speaker] Hastert's head
are the same voices who tell us that the larger society must be
tolerant of private lifestyle choices, and certainly must never leap
to conclusions about gay men and young boys."6 Mary Eberstadt, a
writer for the Weekly Standard, has written no fewer than three
articles attempting to link homosexuality to pedophilia, arguing that
the growing success of the gay rights movement has brought a formerly
taboo subject out into the open.7
There are, however, two major problems with these claims which
try to link homosexuality with pedophilia. First, the statistical
data that has been cited is based upon a serious distortion of
reputable scientists' studies on child molestation. The scientists
who authored the studies made no such claim about homosexuals posing a
greater threat to children, and in fact in many cases explicitly
argued the opposite. These scientists have concluded that pedophilia
is a separate orientation from homosexuality and that the vast
majority of molesters who target boys have either no interest in
mature males or are heterosexual men who are attracted to the feminine
characteristics of young boys.
Second, the "slippery slope" argument is based on the false
premise that the protection of children from sexual activity is a long-
standing part of the Judeo-Christian ethic, which has only recently
come under assault as a result of the gay rights movement. In fact,
throughout most of history, the Judeo-Christian tradition tolerated
and even approved of sexual relations between adult males and girls of
twelve years of age or even younger. The contemporary taboo against
sex between adults and minors developed only in the late nineteenth
century, as societies became increasingly committed to the ideals of
individual rights and personal autonomy, which led to concern about
the possibility of coercion and exploitation in adult-minor
relationships. If the slippery slope argument has any validity, it
more aptly applies to defenders of religious tradition and orthodoxy
than to proponents of gay rights.
Scientific Research on Pedophilia
In a recently published paper, Timothy Dailey of the Family
Research Council repeats a common claim made by many conservative
Christian groups that approximately one-third of child sex abuse cases
are committed by men against boys. Since homosexuals make up a small
proportion of the population, he argues, homosexuals constitute a
disproportionate threat against children.8 To support this
statistical claim, Dailey cites the work of several researchers,
including A. Nicholas Groth, an Orlando, Florida psychologist who has
treated over 3000 child molesters over the past several decades; W.
L. Marshall, a psychologist at Queen's University in Canada; and the
late Kurt Freund, a psychiatrist at the Clarke Institute of Psychiatry
in Canada. Freund, in turn, has based his findings on studies
conducted by Dr. Groth and David Finkelhor, a sociologist and director
of the Crimes against Children Research Center at the University of
New Hampshire.9
Conservative spokespersons Steven Baldwin and Judith Reisman, in
an attempt to support their claim that "homosexuals molest children at
a rate vastly higher than heterosexuals," cite a study by Gene Abel, a
psychiatrist at Emory University, Atlanta.10 Finally, Focus on the
Family cites the work of Kurt Freund in support of its allegations.11
The numerous citations of the scientific literature by social
conservatives initially look impressive. However, when one examines
the original studies that have been cited, one finds that the
conclusions of the original studies are contrary to the claims made by
those citing the studies. Most significantly, while social
conservatives claim that all the cases of sexual molestation of young
boys by adult males are committed by homosexuals, the scientists whom
they cite explicitly reject this assertion. Let us examine the actual
claims of the scientists, one by one.
The Work of Dr. A. Nicholas Groth
A. Nicholas Groth is a pioneer in the scientific study of sexual
offenders against women and children, who has treated over 3000 child
molesters over the course of two decades.12 A former director of the
Sex Offender Program at the Connecticut Department of Corrections,
Groth is the author of Men Who Rape: Psychology of the Offender,13 a
work widely regarded as a classic textbook on the psychology of sexual
violence. In his work, Groth has found that approximately one-third
of all cases of child molestation involve an underage boy and an adult
male14, a statistic which has been used incessantly by certain
conservative activist groups in an effort to prove that homosexuals
are disproportionately responsible for acts of child molestation.
However, Groth explicitly states that it is a myth that men who molest
boys are homosexual.
According to Groth, child molesters can be divided into two
types: "fixated" and "regressed." The fixated offender is attracted
primarily to children and has little or no interest in adult
relationships; such a person is known in clinical terms as a
"pedophile." The regressed offender is interested in and capable of
adult sexual relationships; however, this person may on occasion
regress to sexual encounters with children, often as a result of
difficulties and frustration in his adult relationships.15
Groth writes that the fixated offender, or pedophile, tends to
select boys more often than girls, but for reasons having nothing to
do with homosexuality:
In general, fixated child molesters are drawn to children sexually in
that they identify with the child and appear in some ways to
want to remain children themselves. It is for this reason that the
trend for fixated offenders is to target boys as victims. . . . They
see the boy as a projected representation of themselves. They feel
themselves to be more child than adult - more boys than men - and
therefore find themselves more comfortable (especially sexually) in
the company of children. . . .16
Groth stresses that "these same individuals are uninterested in
adult homosexual relationships. In fact, they frequently express a
strong sexual aversion to adult males, reporting that what they find
attractive about the immature boy are his feminine features and the
absence of secondary sexual characteristics such as body hair and
muscles."17 The second type of offender, the regressed offender, is
predominantly heterosexual. However, he may temporarily turn to boys
or girls as a result of complications in his adult relations.18
Although regressed offenders are more likely to choose girls than boys
as victims, writes Groth, what attracts the regressed male offender to
boys are the feminine characteristics of pre- pubescents. Groth found
no cases of boy molestation in which the offender had an adult
homosexual orientation. Concludes Groth,
Homosexuality and homosexual pedophilia are not
synonymous. In fact, it may be that these two orientations are
mutually exclusive, the reason being that the homosexual male is
sexually attracted to masculine qualities whereas the heterosexual
male is sexually attracted to feminine characteristics, and the
sexually immature child's qualities are more feminine than
masculine. . . . The child offender who is attracted to and engaged in
adult sexual relationships is heterosexual. It appears, therefore,
that the adult heterosexual male constitutes a greater sexual risk to
underage children than does the adult homosexual male.19
The Work of Dr. Kurt Freund
The late Dr. Kurt Freund was a psychiatrist at the Clarke
Institute of Psychiatry in Toronto, Canada. A sex researcher for well
over 30 years, Dr. Freund was a pioneer in the use of the penile
plethysmograph, a device which measures the sexual arousal of subjects
in response to visual stimuli. Freund's work has been cited by
Timothy Dailey and by Focus on the Family as evidence for the claim
that "around 35 percent of pedophiles are homosexuals."20 Actually,
this is a grotesque distortion of what Freund has written.
Like other researchers, Freund draws a sharp distinction between
attraction to adult males and attraction to prepubescent males. The
clinical term he uses to describe the phenomenon of men who are
attracted to other men is "androphilia"; attraction to adult women is
known as "gynephilia." (Since pedophilia is rarely found in women,
Freund's studies are based solely on men). Like Groth and other
researchers, Freund has found that a high proportion of pedophiles
prefer boys to girls, and that these pedophiles generally have little
or no interest in adult males. Nowhere does Freund state that
homosexuals are more inclined to molest children. In fact, according
to a study he conducted of a sample of heterosexual and homosexual
men, he found that there was no greater propensity for pedophilia
among homosexuals than among heterosexuals: "the erotic attractiveness
of male children (or pubescents) for androphiles is not greater than
the erotic attractiveness of female children (or pubescents) to
gynephiles."21
Freund stresses that pedophiles are significantly different from
men who prefer adult partners, whether heterosexual or homosexual, in
that their arousal pattern is lacking in gender differentiation. That
is, pedophiles are attracted in general to the bodies of children; and
since children lack the secondary sex characteristics which
distinguish mature males and females - body hair and muscles in men,
breasts in women - pedophiles are often attracted to both male and
female children. In contrast, Freund has found that true bisexuality
among the adult- preferring population is very rare.22
This finding is consistent with other research studies on the
phenomenon of pedophilia. These studies stress that what the
pedophile seeks are the qualities of "childness," such as small
stature, hairlessness, and an innocent, trusting disposition; the
maleness or femaleness of the child is secondary.23
The Work of Dr. Gene G. Abel
Dr. Gene Abel is a Professor of Psychiatry at Emory University
and a former president of the National Society for Behavioral
Medicine. He has been a researcher in the field of sexual violence
for over twenty-five years and has published over 100 scientific
articles. A number of years ago, Abel completed an eight-year study
for the National Institute of Mental Health of 403 child molesters.
He found that child molesters do not usually fit popular stereotypes:
Most of us think that a child molester is a rather slimy
individual( a stranger in town, sitting in his car near a
schoolyard, luring children with candy. Our findings reveal that, on
the contrary, the child molester is not a stranger, but is someone we
know well. He often is a man we trust, a man our children
trust. . . . As a rule, he is married and has children of his own
whom he usually does not molest. He is almost always a
well-respected, even loved, member of his community. He is often an
active Christian who is involved in his church.24
In his study, Dr. Abel found that nonincestuous offenders against
boys have many more victims than nonincestuous offenders against
girls; specifically, offenders against males averaged approximately
150 victims, while offenders against females averaged only 20 victims.
25 This statistic has been used by the conservative Christian group
Focus on the Family, which claims that since homosexuals molest seven
times as many victims as heterosexuals, "homosexuals, as a group,
represent a serious threat."26
However, 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.)
The Family Research Council's analyst Timothy Dailey, who argues
that there is a link between homosexuality and child molestation,
admits that pedophiles who target boys may also have sexual relations
with women. However, he implies that such men are merely closet
homosexuals and refuses to admit that heterosexual men may well be
attracted to women and to underage boys at the same time. This tactic
leads Dailey to again distort the work of a reputable researcher, W.
L. Marshall. Marshall's paper, "Sexual Offenders Against Male
Children: Sexual Preferences," discusses the results of a study of the
sexual orientation of a sample of male sex offenders against boys.
Marshall measured the sexual orientation of the offenders by means of
a plethysmograph, a device which measures arousal responses. Marshall
found that out of his sample of 21 offenders against boys, two-thirds
of the offenders were predominantly heterosexual in their adult
orientation.29 Yet Dailey completely omits this result, and cites
Marshall's paper as evidence for the notion that sex offenders against
male children are invariably homosexual.30
In fact, Marshall's study found that not only could heterosexual
males be attracted to women and young boys simultaneously, the
heterosexual males were more inclined to be attracted to the very
young, whereas the homosexual offenders chose older victims:
heterosexually-oriented men characteristically chose
victims who were clearly pre-pubescent, whereas the
homosexually-oriented offenders chose pubescent boys. In their
remarks to us during the course of our assessment interviews, the
offenders described the features of boys which they found to be
attractive. The homosexuals mentioned the early appearance of male
secondary sexual features. . . . Amongst the heterosexuals, the
commonest remarks concerning attractive features of the victims, were
that the young boys did not have any body hair and that their bodies
were soft and smooth. These two distinct descriptions of their
victims suggests that the heterosexual offenders were looking for
female-like features in the boys while the homosexuals were looking
for male features.31
Other scientists that have been cited by social conservatives
also repudiate the idea that most men who abuse boys are homosexual.
One such scientist, David Finkelhor, states in his 1984 text, Child
Sexual Abuse: New Theory and Research, that "the evidence suggests
that a great number of the men who victimize young boys are not
self-identified homosexuals. On the one hand, many abusers of boys
appear to be married and have lengthy heterosexual histories. Others
are exclusive pedophiles, who have no interest in adult males at all
and do not consider themselves to be gay."32 These statements are
entirely ignored by conservatives.
Religious Tradition and the "Slippery Slope"
Aside from misquoting scientific literature, it is a popular
tactic among certain social conservatives to attempt to link
pedophilia to homosexuality by employing a version of the "slippery
slope" argument. By rejecting traditional values against
homosexuality, it is argued, the gay rights movement has called into
question all restrictions and values pertaining to sexuality,
including those restrictions which protect children. If one ancient
taboo on sexuality is disregarded, it is argued, one begins to proceed
down a slippery slope to the point where all taboos on sexuality are
challenged and overthrown.
One writer, Mary Eberstadt, has charged that homosexuals are
almost entirely responsible for eroding the taboo against sex between
adults and minors, noting that "pedophilia chic" among gays is the
"last gasp of a nihilism that has exhausted itself by chasing down
every other avenue of liberation, only to find one last roadblock
still manned by the bourgeoisie."33 In one article, she argues:
Of all that Christianity has represented since its inception, there
has been one teaching in which believers could take particular
historical pride. That was the notion, virtually unique to
Christianity (and Judaism), that not only were sexual relations
between adults and children wrong - a proscription that puzzled and
irritated the ancient pagans, as it does the pagans of today - but
that this particular exploitation of innocents was an especially
grievous sin. . . . Anyone who doubts the historical consistency of
the Church's teaching here should know that the advocates of
pedophilia in the world today - the outright public enthusiasts for
man-boy sex - vociferously deplore the Church specifically on account
of its millennia-old condemnation of the sexual exploitation of the
young.34
The "slippery slope" argument is sometimes supported by the use
of quotations from various gay activists and scholars who argue
against the legitimacy of age-of-consent laws and for the legitimacy
of sex between adults and minors. There are certainly a significant
number of gay activists on the left who believe that the gay rights
movement should be part of a broader movement which aims to erode many
moral restraints on sexuality, and among these activists there are
some who would like to lower or abolish age of consent laws. The
relevant issue, however, is to what extent are the opinions of these
people representative of gays as a whole? The statistics noted in the
first part of this paper give no solid evidence for the notion that
gay male population is more inclined to molest children than the
straight male population. So, does the gay rights movement pose an
inherent threat of a "slippery slope" to tolerance for pedophilia by
eroding moral foundations?
One major problem with this "slippery slope" argument is that
certain assumptions about our moral traditions are just plain wrong.
An honest examination of the historical record indicates that Biblical
law and the Judeo-Christian tradition, far from condemning pedophilia,
often condoned sexual relations between adults and children. The
contemporary social and legal taboo against sex with children
developed only gradually over the centuries, and did not become firmly
established until the late nineteenth/early twentieth centuries. The
very concepts of age of consent and statutory rape did not derive from
Biblical orthodoxy and ancient tradition, but rather evolved out of
the same modernist conceptions of individual rights and equality which
underlie the contemporary struggle for gay rights. Thus, if the
slippery slope argument has any validity at all, it more aptly applies
to contemporary proponents of Biblical orthodoxy and "traditional
family values" than to proponents of gay rights.
Judaism
When considering the historical record of attitudes toward
sexual relations with children, it should be kept in mind that adult
exploitation of children in general was widely tolerated in both
ancient and medieval times. Parents who had difficulty supporting
themselves were allowed by both secular and religious authorities to
sell the labor of their children or even abandon them.35 In many
respects, children were regarded merely as the personal property of
the male head of the household. Exploitation of other human beings,
in the form of slavery, prostitution, or even child prostitution, did
not matter as much as did the purity and "naturalness" of one's sexual
acts.36
The attitude of the ancient Israelites toward the crime of rape
can be found in the Bible, Deuteronomy 22:28-29, which states,
If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed,
and lay hold on [seize] her, and lie with her, and they be found;
Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's
father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he
hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days.
To modern ears, this may seem a strange penalty for the crime
of rape. What kind of punishment is it which forces the rapist to pay
a fine to the father of the victim and marry the victim? Furthermore,
it must be recognized that under ancient Jewish tradition, a girl was
usually married by the time she reached puberty37; the virgin "damsel"
mentioned in the Biblical passage was understood to be a young girl
between the ages of three and twelve and a half.38 Why would any sane
person subject a raped child to marriage with her attacker?
The reason is that the feelings of the victim of rape are not
really all that important under Biblical law. Rape was considered a
crime by the ancient Jews not so much because it caused harm to the
female but because it violated the property rights of the father and
the rules of social order. The virgin status of a young girl was a
valuable asset to a father hoping to obtain a suitable bride-price
from the man who would marry his daughter. If this asset was
destroyed before marriage, it was an economic loss to the father.
That is why the offender is forced to pay a fine to the father and
marry the victim.39 In fact, the Bible implicitly gives permission to
the father to sell his daughter as a slave. Exodus 21 contains
regulations regarding the treatment of slaves, and Exodus 21:7-11
gives specific instructions regarding the treatment of female slaves
that have been sold to other men by their fathers.40 A father was
permitted to sell his daughter into slavery as long as she remained
under the age of twelve.41
More detailed information on the sexual ethics of ancient
Judaism can be found in the Talmud. The Talmud is the record of oral
law and commentaries which supplements the written law of Scripture;
in Jewish tradition, the oral law is part of the divine revelation
received by Moses on Mount Sinai.
According to the Talmud, the recommended age for marriage is
sometime after twelve for females, and thirteen for males. Marriage
below these ages was generally frowned upon. However, a father was
allowed to betroth his daughter to another man at an earlier age, and
sexual intercourse was regarded as a valid means of sealing a
betrothal. The age limit for betrothal through sexual intercourse was
shockingly low. According to the Talmud, "A girl of the age of three
years and one day may be betrothed by intercourse."42
This age limit was apparently chosen because, according to
Rabbinical discussion, the features of virginity in the young female
(the hymen, which breaks and bleeds the first time after intercourse)
did not finish developing until the age of three years and one day.
Intercourse with a female younger than this was like "putting a finger
in the eye,"43 that is, as putting a finger in the eye causes it to
tear and tear again, intercourse with a female younger than three
causes the hymen to initially bleed but then to grow back again,
restoring the sign of virginity. Thus intercourse with a female
younger than three years and one day was not a crime; it was simply
invalid as a means of sealing betrothal by ending her virgin status,
since the signs of virginity would eventually reappear. According to
the Talmud, "When a grown-up man has intercourse with a little girl it
is nothing, for when a girl is less than [three years], it is as if
one puts the finger into the eye."44
The Bible sets down a number of laws prohibiting various sexual
unions - bestiality, homosexuality, incest, adultery - under the
penalty of death. However, there is a significant loophole in the
original understanding of these commandments that is described in some
detail in the Talmud: in order for such unions to be considered truly
unlawful, both partners must be of an age of sexual significance. As
noted above, the age of sexual significance for females was three
years and one day; for males, it was nine years and one day. If
either partner in the forbidden union was under the age of
significance both partners were exempt from any punishment.45
According to the Talmud, sexual acts with children under these ages
did not break Biblical law precisely because such children were not
really sexual beings. Needless to say, the possibility of
psychological harm to a child as a result of an unwanted sexual act
was not a consideration.
The age loophole even applies to the famous injunction against
homosexuality, Leviticus 20:13, "If a man also lie with mankind, as he
lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they
shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them."
According to Talmudic commentary on this law,
[Homosexual] pederasty with a child below nine years of age is not
deemed as pederasty with a child above that. . . . only he who is able
to engage in sexual intercourse, may, as the passive subject of
pederasty throw guilt [upon the active offender]. . . . [Thus only]
pederasty at the age of nine years and a day [and above] . . . is
liable to punishment.46
These attitudes about the sexual status of children persisted
for many centuries, and were confirmed for the most part by the great
twelfth-century Jewish theologian Moses Maimonides. According to
Maimonides, while it was "not proper" for a father to betroth his
daughter while she was under the age of twelve, and it was
"detestable" for a child to be betrothed to an old man, the father
still had the right to betroth his daughter by means of sexual
intercourse with another man when she was at the age of three years
and one day.47 According to Maimonides, it was important for the
father to marry off his sons and daughters as close to the age of
puberty as possible, for if they were left unmarried, they might be
"led to adultery or indecent thoughts."48
Maimonides also tried to close some loopholes in Talmudic law by
recommending flogging for certain acts which, although not in
violation of any specific law, were still contrary to public order and
decency. One such loophole was that in the traditional understanding
of the Levitical prohibition against homosexuality, which exempted
acts committed with boys under the age of nine on the grounds that
such acts were not true acts of sexual intercourse. Remarking upon
the penalty under this law, Maimonides wrote:
the rule is as follows: If both [partners] are adults, they are
punishable by stoning. . . . If he is a minor aged nine years and one
day, or older [i.e., between the ages of nine and thirteen], the adult
who has connection with him, is punishable by stoning, while the minor
is exempt. If the minor is nine years old, or less, both are exempt.
It behooves the court, however, to have the adult flogged for
disobedience, inasmuch as he has lain with a male, even though with
one less than nine years of age.49
There are several interesting facts about this ruling which
should be noted. First, the primary concern is over the nature of the
sexual act; the issue of possible harm to the child plays no role in
determining the punishment. Second, the loophole is only partially
closed; flogging is a less severe punishment than the death penalty,
which was called for not only for homosexual acts, but for acts of
incest, adultery, and bestiality.
To the extent that sexual relations with female children were
considered problematic under Judaism, it was because a female child
below the age of puberty was unable to conceive. This raised the
tricky question of whether intercourse with such a child was
permitted, insofar as it apparently violated the Biblical commandment
to procreate. However, most rabbis up until the fifteenth century
counseled that marriage and sexual relations with a girl too young for
procreation was perfectly acceptable, since eventually the girl would
acquire the capability to conceive.50 Maimonides took a stricter
view, counseling against marriage to a child unless the man had
another wife with which to procreate (polygamy was permitted under
Jewish law):
One should not marry a sterile woman, an old woman, a barren woman, or
a minor female who is incapable of giving birth, unless he has already
fulfilled the commandment to be fruitful and multiply, or unless he
has another wife by whom he can fulfill this commandment.51
Christianity
Christian canon law followed Roman law in setting the minimum
age of marriage at twelve for females and fourteen for males. The
logic behind these marital age limits was that these were the
approximate ages of puberty for both genders, indicating readiness for
procreation.52 In ancient Rome, among both pagans and Christians,
marriage at an early age was frequent. Betrothals often occurred even
before puberty, although the consummation of marriage through
intercourse usually did not take place until after the girl's first
menstruation. Very often, the age discrepancy of marriage partners
was great. According to one historian, "the matching of a man with a
woman young enough to be his daughter or even granddaughter was
generally accepted."53
One such example of betrothal between a mature male and young
girl is that of St. Augustine (354-439 A.D.). At the age of thirty-
one, Augustine betrothed himself to a ten-year-old girl. However, he
found it impossible to wait for the girl to reach puberty so he could
consummate the marriage and satisfy his sexual desires. In
desperation, Augustine took a mistress, but this act only tormented
him with guilt. Not long afterward, Augustine converted to
Christianity and adopted a life of celibacy.54
Medieval Christianity continued to maintain the age of twelve as
a minimal age for females to enter into marriage. However, even this
low age limit was not absolute. Using natural law logic, Catholic
authorities argued that the decisive factor which determined a child's
readiness for marriage and sexual relations was the onset of puberty,
and not necessarily age as such. According to one Catholic scholar,
"If it could be satisfactorily proved that puberty . . . was actually
attained by the boy before the completion of his fourteenth year, or
by the girl before the completion of her twelfth year, then . . . the
party could enter upon a valid marriage."55
Sexual intercourse which took place before marital age limits or
puberty was not necessarily illicit or sinful. On the contrary, some
popes ruled that intercourse below the age of twelve/fourteen had the
effect of sealing a marriage contract, as long as such intercourse
took place after the age of discretion, which was seven.56 Once
intercourse had taken place, the marriage could not be annulled. In
the twelfth century, Pope Alexander III ruled,
If a girl of tender age is betrothed and delivered to her husband, and
afterwards desires to marry a different man, her petition is not to be
granted if her husband swears that he has had carnal knowledge of her
even at the early age of eleven or twelve.57
Thus even for very young partners, the act of intercourse bound the
two of them together for life. As one Catholic scholar has written,
"carnal relations between the parties seemed to indicate sufficient
maturity and made up for the defect of years."58 Sexual intercourse
below the age of discretion (seven) was not a crime, but merely
"invalid," and thus, inconsequential, as under Jewish law.59
Parents arranged marriages for their pre-pubescent children
during the Middle Ages for a variety of dynastic, economic, and
cultural reasons.60 Such marriages were usually consummated at the
age of twelve. Although physicians warned of the dangers of
impregnating very young girls and implored husbands to wait until the
wife reached the age of at least fourteen, such warnings usually went
unheeded, and the Catholic Church continued to bless marital bonds
with twelve-year-old girls.61
Although technically the consent of the child was necessary for
a marriage to take place, the child was usually not in a position to
challenge his or her parents and resist an unwanted union. This led
to a number of abuses which went unchallenged by the Church. In 1526,
the Dutch scholar Erasmus complained,
it is no uncommon case, especially in France, for a girl of scarce ten
years to be married and a mother next year. . . . It seems portentous,
and yet we sometimes see it, especially in Britain and Italy, that a
tender child is married to a septuagenerian. . . . Yet Church laws do
not rescind such nuptials. . . .62
In later centuries, some Christian commentators would denounce
sexual relations with young girls as being equivalent to rape. In the
sixteenth century, canonist Egidio Bossi argued for this
interpretation on the grounds that a child could hardly be considered
as being in a position to give consent. However, he recommended that
the age of consent be fixed at only six or seven years of age.63
At the Council of Trent in the sixteenth century, there was some
discussion among the Church leadership about possibly raising the age
for marriage. Cardinal Charles De Guise of Lorraine, France,
advocated raising the age of marriage for women to twenty and for men
to twenty-five. The bishop of Cordia, Spain, argued for the ages of
twenty for women and twenty-two for men. However, the majority of
those on the Council were opposed to raising the age for marriage on
the grounds that adolescents would be tempted to commit fornication
unless they were permitted to marry. The conservatives prevailed: the
age limit remained at twelve for females and fourteen for males.64
In English civil law, the principle of statutory rape was
established in the thirteenth century. The statute of Westminster I
made it a misdemeanor (i.e., minor crime) to have sexual relations
with a girl under the age of twelve, whether with her consent or
without it; the punishment for this crime was two years in prison and
the payment of a ransom.65
However, three centuries later, in 1571, an English court put on
trial one "W.D.," a man indicted for the rape of a seven year old
girl. Despite irrefutable evidence that W.D. did in fact have
forcible intercourse with the girl, the court decided that W.D. could
not be convicted of rape because "the court doubted of rape in so
tender a child." The court noted that (if she had been nine years and
more, it would have been otherwise," and W.D. could have been
prosecuted for rape. But since she was only seven, rape did not
technically occur.66
This decision sounds strange to modern ears, but it must be
remembered that the court was simply following the Judeo-Christian
ethical heritage, which saw rape not so much in terms of the
psychological damage done to the victim, but in terms of the theft of
virginity and the violation of sexual morality. Since a pre-pubescent
child had no sexual status, rape of such a child was not considered a
crime.
Fortunately, by the sixteenth century, more enlightened human
beings were beginning to discover the absurdity of such a narrow
view. In response to the case of W.D., Parliament passed a law in
1576 making it a felony to "unlawfully and carnally know any woman
child under the age of ten years," whether with or without her
consent. This essentially closed the loophole created by the case of
W.D.67
As a result of the Enlightenment, substantial advances were made
in the understanding of human rights, and religious leaders and groups
began to crusade for moral and social reform on a number of issues.
The anti-slavery movement was one such crusade; another was the
crusade to raise the age of consent.
Up until the late nineteenth century, the age of consent in many
countries continued to be fixed at twelve. Although an orthodox
interpretation of Biblical law could find no grounds for condemning
the exploitation of children, sexual or otherwise, many Christians
felt that the rights of women and female children to resist unwanted
sexual unions was a moral imperative. Consequently, reform movements
arose to lobby for an increase in the age of consent.
A chief concern of many of these moral reformers was the problem
of child prostitution. The use of female children as prostitutes was
becoming increasingly prevalent in the nineteenth century, due to
men's fear of catching venereal disease from older prostitutes. Many
female children were being sold by their parents or forced by economic
circumstances to service men sexually. Many of these children
acquired venereal diseases themselves as a result, some dying. Others
were raped and tortured. To remedy this state of affairs, a British
feminist by the name of Josephine Butler lobbied to raise the age of
consent, which at that time in Britain was still twelve. Aided by the
crusading reporting of W. T. Stead of the Pall Mall Gazette, who
documented the existence of girls as young as three to five years old
in England's brothels, Butler was successful in getting the age of
consent raised to sixteen.68
The publicity created by Butler's campaign spread to the United
States, which soon saw the rise of its own Christian feminist movement
to raise the age of consent. As of 1886, twenty-five of the American
states, following earlier English law, had an age of consent of ten
years; four states, following Christian canon law on marriage, had an
age of consent of twelve; Delaware, following Christian canon law on
the age of discretion, set its age of consent at seven.69
The Women's Christian Temperance Union and various allied
organizations conducted petition drives and lobbying to raise the age
of consent in the states and the District of Columbia. Initial
successes sparked a backlash in some states; in 1892, the New York
Senate, which had previously raised New York's age of consent to
sixteen, considered lowering it back to ten. Reflecting a split
between liberal and conservative views on the subject, reports from
Texas indicated that older men tended to favor retaining a low age of
consent while younger men favored raising it. Nevertheless, by 1895,
reformers succeeded in raising the age of consent to between sixteen
and eighteen in twenty-two states. However, those states reflecting
the most conservative religious views - those in the South - lagged in
raising their age of consent. Alabama, Mississippi, North Carolina,
and South Carolina kept their age of consent at ten, while Kentucky,
Tennessee, Virginia, and West Virginia set their age of consent at
twelve. But eventually, these states as well raised their age of
consent.70
By 1918, the Catholic Church finally raised its permissible age
for marriage from fourteen for males and twelve for females to sixteen
for males and fourteen for females.71 To this day, in a number of
underdeveloped, predominantly Catholic countries, it is common for
adult males to marry and impregnate barely pubescent girls. In
Mexico, adult men may wed girls of fourteen years of age or even
younger.72
Conclusions
A number of recent studies and articles have attempted to
discredit the gay rights movement by linking homosexuality to
pedophilia. These writings have either cited articles in the
scientific literature alleging to show that homosexual males are more
inclined to molest children than heterosexual males, or they have
attempted to demonstrate an inevitable trend toward toleration of
pedophilia by employing the "slippery slope" argument.
However, the very scientists that are cited in support of the
contention that gays are more likely to be molesters explicitly reject
the idea that homosexuals pose a disproportionate threat to children.
These scientists note that pedophilia is a separate orientation from
homosexuality and that the vast majority of molesters who target boys
have either no interest in mature males or are heterosexual men who
are attracted to the feminine characteristics of pre-pubescent males.
As for the "slippery slope" argument, the biggest mistake many
social conservatives make is to assume that the contemporary taboo
against sexual relations with children is a longstanding part of the
Judeo-Christian tradition, which is only now coming under assault by
the left. In fact, the Judeo-Christian tradition and many other
religious traditions tolerated and even affirmed pedophilic
relationships for centuries. The contemporary taboo against such
relationships developed only a little over one hundred years ago, as
people became more enlightened about the potentially damaging aspects
of sexual relations between persons of unequal maturity and power.
If anything, the slippery slope argument applies more aptly in
reverse: a return to religious orthodoxy and tradition would seem to
require a return to the dark days of the past when adults could
sexually exploit children with impunity. In particular, those who
cite Leviticus 20:13 ("If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth
with a woman . . .") as an authoritative statement on the ethics of
homosexuality should be asked whether they also accept the original
understanding of that law, which is that there is no penalty for men
who have sexual relations with boys under the age of nine years and
one day. Or perhaps instead, proponents of Biblical morality can
admit that there are times when moral codes can and must be modified
in light of new knowledge and understanding.
NOTES
1. Timothy J. Dailey, "Homosexuality and Child Sexual Abuse."
Washington, D.C.: The Family Research Council, 2002.
http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=IS02E3&f=WA06J01
2. Steve Baldwin, "Child Molestation and the Homosexual Movement,"
Regent University Law Review 14 (Spring 2002): 279; Judith Reisman,
"Crafting Bi/Homosexual Youth," ibid., 301.
3. Larry Burtoft, The Social Significance of Homosexuality: Questions
and Answers (Colorado Springs: Focus on the Family, 1994), 64, 90.
The booklet has subsequently been retitled as Setting the Record
Straight: What Research Really Says About the Social Consequences of
Homosexuality.
4. Quoted in "Legal Gay Marriage on the Nation's Horizon," USA Today,
January 2 1996, 6A.
5. Hon. Senator Rick Santorum, "Fishers of Men," 12 July 2002,
Catholic Online. http://www.catholic.org/featured/headline.php?ID=30
6. Wall Street Journal, 3 October 2006.
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110009033
7. Mary Eberstadt, "Pedophilia Chic," Weekly Standard, June 17, 1996;
"Pedophilia Chic Reconsidered," Weekly Standard, January 8, 2000; "The
Elephant in the Sacristy," Weekly Standard, June 17, 2002
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/001/344fsdzu.asp
8. Dailey, 1.
9. Kurt Freund, Robin Watson, and Douglas Rienzo, "Heterosexuality,
Homosexuality, and Erotic Age Preference," The Journal of Sex Research
26 (February 1989): 115. Freund cites Paul Cameron, "Homosexual
Molestation of Children," Psychological Reports 57 (1985): 1227-36,
which is based on data from Groth and Finkelhor.
10. Gene Abel et al., "Self-Reported Sex Crimes of Nonincarcerated
Paraphiliacs," Journal of Interpersonal Violence 2 (March 1987): 3-25,
cited in Baldwin, 279, and Reisman, 300-301.
11. Burtoft, 64. The study cited is Kurt Freund et al., "Pedophilia
and Heterosexuality vs. Homosexuality," Journal of Sex and Marital
Therapy 10, no. 3 (1984): 197.
12. "OCA Stirs Emotions with Its 2nd Flier," The Oregonian, Sept. 25,
1992, D1.
13 A. Nicholas Groth, Men Who Rape: The Psychology of the Offender
(New York: Plenum Press, 1979).
14. A. Nicholas Groth and H. Jean Birnbaum, "Adult Sexual Orientation
and Attraction to Underage Persons," Archives of Sexual Behavior 7,
no. 3 (1978): 175.
15. A. Nicholas Groth, William F. Hobson, and Thomas S. Gary, "The
Child Molester: Clinical Observations," in Social Work and Child
Sexual Abuse, eds. Jon R. Conte and David A. Shore (New York: Haworth
Press, 1982), 129-44.
16. Ibid., 136.
17. Groth and Birnbaum, 180.
18. Ibid., 177.
19. Ibid.
20. Burtoft, 64.
21. Freund et al., "Heterosexuality, Homosexuality, and Erotic Age
Preference," 115.
22. Kurt Freund, Robin Watson, Robert Dickey, and Douglas Rienzo,
"Erotic Gender Differentiation in Pedophilia," Archives of Sexual
Behavior, 20, no. 6 (1991): 555-566; Kurt Freund and Michael Kuban,
"Erotic Gender Differentiation in Pedophilia: A Follow-Up," Archives
of Sexual Behavior 22, no. 6 (1993): 619-628.
23. Frank G. Bolton, Jr., Larry A. Morris, and Ann E. MacEachron,
Males at Risk: The Other Side of Child Sexual Abuse (London: Sage
Publications, 1989), 61; Kathleen Coulborn Faller, Understanding
Child Sexual Maltreatment (London: Sage Publications, 1990), 55.
24. Gene G. Abel, "The Child Abuser: How Can You Spot Him?," Redbook,
August 1987, 98-99.
25. Gene Abel et al., "Self-Reported Sex Crimes of Nonincarcerated
Paraphiliacs," 3-25.
26. Burtoft, 64, 90.
27. Abel, "The Child Abuser," 100.
28. F.L. Whitham, "Culturally Invariable Properties of Male
Homosexuality: Tentative Conclusions from Cross-Cultural Research,"
Archives of Sexual Behavior 12 (1983): 207-26; "Presidential
Candidates Embrace Gay Issues and Enjoy Donations," Wall Street
Journal, January 10, 2000.
29. W.L. Marshall, H.E. Barbaree, and Jennifer Butt, "Sexual
Offenders Against Male Children: Sexual Preferences," Behavior
Research and Therapy 26, no. 5 (1988): 383-91.
30. Dailey, 5-6.
31. Marshall et al., 390.
32. David Finkelhor, Child Sexual Abuse: New Theory and Research (New
York: Free Press, 1984), 196.
33. Eberstadt, "Pedophilia Chic," 20.
34. Eberstadt, "The Elephant in the Sacristy," 2.
35. John Boswell, The Kindness of Strangers (New York: Pantheon
Books, 1988), 3-179.
36. An excellent history of traditional attitudes toward child sexual
abuse can be found in Florence Rush, The Best Kept Secret: Sexual
Abuse of Children (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1980).
37. Judith Romney Wegner, Chattel or Person? The Status of Women in
the Mishnah (New York: Oxford University Press, 1988), 15.
38. Louis M. Epstein, Sex Laws and Customs in Judaism (New York: Ktav
Publishing House, 1948), 184-85.
39. Epstein, 179-83; Wegner, 13-15.
40. The New Oxford Annotated Bible with the Apocrypha (New York:
Oxford University Press, 1977), 94n.
41. Wegner, 14.
42. Niddah 44b, The Babylonian Talmud: Seder Tohoroth, trans. I.
Epstein (London: Soncino Press, 1948), 308.
43. Ibid.
44. Kethuboth 11b, The Babylonian Talmud: Seder Nashim, trans. I.
Epstein (London: Soncino Press, 1936), 58.
45. Epstein, 132-33, 213.
46. Sanhedrin 54a-55a, The Babylonian Talmud: Seder Nezikin, vol. 3,
367, 370-71.
47. The Code of Maimonides: The Book of Women, trans. Isaac Klein
(New Haven: Yale University Press, 1972), 17-21.
48. The Code of Maimonides: The Book of Holiness, trans. Louis I.
Rabinowitz and Philip Grossman (New Haven: Yale University Press,
1965), 138-39.
49. Ibid., 13; Epstein, 136.
50. David M. Feldman, Birth Control in Jewish Law (New York: New York
University Press, 1968) 41-42, 65-69, 176-77.
51. The Code of Maimonides: The Book of Women, p. 94.
52. Susan Treggiari, Roman Marriage (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1991),
39-42.
53. Treggiari, 102; John C. O'Dea, The Matrimonial Impediment of
Nonage (Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press, 1944),
1.
54. Augustine: Confessions and Enchiridion, trans. Albert C. Outler
(Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1955), Book 6, Chapters 13-16; Vern
L. Bullough, "History in Adult Human Sexual Behavior with Children and
Adolescents in Western Societies," in Jay R. Feierman, ed.,
Pedophilia: Biosocial Dimensions (New York: Springer-Verlag, 1990),
70-71.
55. O'Dea, 1-3; Rush, 30-3.
56. Rush, 32-34.
57. Quoted in John Fulton, The Laws of Marriage (New York: E. and
J.B. Young, 1883), 112.
58. O'Dea, 8.
59. For an example, see Charles Edward Smith, Papal Enforcement of
Some Medieval Marriage Laws (Port Washington, NY: Kennikat Press,
1940), 142-44.
60. V.H.H. Green, Medieval Civilization in Western Europe (London:
Edward Arnold Ltd., 1971), 184-85.
61. William J. Fielding, Strange Customs of Courtship and Marriage
(New York: The New Home Library, 1942), 166-68.
62. Quoted in G.G. Coulton, Medieval Panorama (New York: MacMillan,
1944), 639.
63. "Rape and Marriage in the Medieval Canon Law," in James A.
Brundage, ed., Sex, Law and Marriage in the Middle Ages (Brookfield,
Vermont: Ashgate, 1993), 67.
64. O'Dea, 4-6.
65. Sir Matthew Hale, The History of the Pleas of the Crown, vol. 1,
(Philadelphia: Robert H. Small, 1847), 627.
66. Mortimer Levine, "A More Than Ordinary Case of Rape," American
Journal of Legal History, 7 (April 1963): 159-63.
67. Ibid., 163.
68. Bullough, 74-77; Glen Petrie, A Singular Iniquity: The Campaigns
of Josephine Butler (New York: Viking Press, 1971), 112-14, 244-54.
69. David J. Pivar, Purity Crusade: Sexual Morality and Social
Control, 1868-1900 (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1973), 141-43.
70. Ibid., 139-46.
71. O'Dea, 18-19.
72. "Expectant Couple Caught in Clash of Two Cultures," USA Today,
January 29 1996, D1, D2.
w...@where.com
>>
>Scientific studies. I see no science in any of that mumbo jumbo crap
Of course not. It's called denial.
Mr.Smartypants
I knew two guys who fucked each other's ass for over 10 years. They
started as teens and continued after they both got married. i think
everyone who knew or suspected they were doing it thought they had
quit when they got married. I know I thought that I wasn't sure if
they were or they weren't but now that they were married they
certainly wouldn't be.
I was wrong. The one guy admitted to his wife after she had confessed
fucking someone else for 10 years that he was fucking Mr. X. She
nearly shit herself. She called Mrs. X and told her and *she* nearly
shit herself.
Somehow they got it all sorted out and stayed married. After the heat
died down the boys went back to ramming each other's poophole. They
live 1,500 miles apart now so I don't think they're ramming each other
but they could each have found someone else to poke.
I am curious if they both now have to wear diapers. I can't see anyone
taking that much pipe up the tunnel and still maintaining any kind of
structural integrity.
My question is: Would it be rude to phone them and ask if they now
need DEPENDS?
w...@where.com
<jonp...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>On May 24, 11:48 pm, w...@where.com wrote:
>> On Sat, 24 May 2008 22:05:44 -0700, ZeD <z...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >Usually I don't respond to stupidity but you take the cake.
>> >I'd like to see what studies you are citing here that show
>> >male homosexuals as being more likely that non gays to be
>> >pedophiles. The last time I heard about any studies done
>> >in that area, straight males were counted as 99.99% of all
>> >the known child molesters.
>>
>> The Journal of Homosexuality, a magazine for mostly academia, has
>> covered the matter of 'Chicken Hawks' extensively for decades.
>
>Of course you have not bothered to actually report anything accurate
>about what they said. But here are some facts for you to chew upon
>
>Fact No. 1. 80% of all child molestation in this country is male upon
>female not male upon male.
Your point is?
>Fact No. 2. The 20% which is male upon male is almost exclusively
>perpetrated by heterosexual or bisexually identified males, often
>married or by men with no identifiable sexual orientation but who
>engage in child molestation of male children or male and female
>children.
>
Married men are not necessarily straight. They're just hiding. But they
still are homos. You can slice it. You can dice. You can shred it. But
an apple is still an apple.
>
>
>
>Homosexuality and Child Sexual Abuse: Science, Religion, and the
>Slippery Slope
>
> by Mark E. Pietrzyk
>
>
> Executive Summary
>
> In response to the scandal involving former Congressman Mark
>Foley, a number of conservative religious groups have claimed that
>homosexuals pose a substantially greater risk of committing sexual
When one figures that homos are between 1% to a max of 3% of the
population, their child molestation is far in excess of the greater
population of male heteros.
Slice it. Dice it. Shred it. It's still an apple, faggot.
>
>
It seems all you faggots can do is brag about the few 'conservatives'
that have been caught on the down/low. Get a life - before AIDS hits
and you have none left.
> In addition to these claims, a number of conservative Christians
>have employed a version of the "slippery slope" argument, charging
>that the gay rights movement inevitably leads to tolerance for
>pedophilia by eroding all traditional norms of sexual behavior.
Before the politically correct sixties, the news was full of accounts of
Chicken Hawks and where they hung out in the various cities. Denying it
is merely revising history. Only after the pc sixties was all traces of
the truth about you shits and your predilection for 'young stuff' erased
from news archives.
Yaddah-yaddah-yaddah. Copy/paste all the pc correct crap you like, every
damn hetero knows exactly what you shit-eaters are. Though the news is
hidden and buried these days, most of us still remember how you proudly
called the NAMBLA perverts part of your world. It was merely a
publicity ploy decades back when you shit-eaters were forced to deny
them, much like that lying shit Obama had to deny his grandma and his
preacher friend of 20 years. I guess that's the price of being
"accepted." Clue: you shit-eaters will never be accepted except by your
own kind.
If you think I'm going to read 10,000 lines of pc crap by academia types
who sympathize with, or, are homos themselves, forget it. Academia and
parts of the medical profession sold off their integrity in order to
protect themselves from your activist terrorists who raid their offices,
churches, etc., and cause fear and havoc. Such terrorists are the ones
who tore apart the meeting halls of the American Psychiatric Association
and threatened their members with physical harm if they didn't remove
you sick bastards from their roll call of sickos and claim homosexuality
was fine and dandy.
Eat shit. Get AIDS. Die.
w...@where.com
>On Sun, 25 May 2008 01:48:41 -0500, w...@where.com wrote:
>
Don't be trying to palm off that old crap that "social scientists" are
in any fashion whatsoever practicing science. That's crap.
What you have posted is revisionist pc crapola written by spineless
liberals. The world knows exactly what you shit-eaters are and no
amount of revisionism is going to change that. Even the kids you try
brainwashing in the school system will reach a point in their teens
where they will recognize what distorted human beings you really are. (I
kind of choked on even referring to shit-eaters like you as "human
beings.")
w...@where.com
It would not only be rude, it would by politically incorrect - which is
worse than rudeness.
w...@where.com
>On Sun, 25 May 2008 19:58:38 -0500, w...@where.com wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 25 May 2008 17:49:46 -0700, ZeD <z...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>
>>>Scientific studies. I see no science in any of that mumbo jumbo crap
>>
>>Of course not. It's called denial.
>>
>>- Strawman -
>
>lol what you have is terminal denial religoboy
Uh, wrong. I'm an atheist/agnostic. I really don't give a fig whether
there is or isn't a god. I'm too busy with this life to worry about the
next one.
w...@where.com
>and everyone who doesn't buy your story must be gay?
>Typical case of you be with us or you be against us.
>No room for intellect there. I suppose anyone who
>doesn't follow your sexual practices are perverts too.
>Closed minded drooling idiots are the real problem
>in this country. Thanks for helping. lol
>
>...and no amount of evidence is going to change you.
They're still chicken hawks. They just have found another way to
disguise it. Now they are openly preying on kids who are hardly old
enough to make any kind of life altering decision as to whether they are
homosexual or not. How many of these kids will die because of the
liberal establishment who are paying the way for homos to get into the
schools. We need a president who will 'stack' the Supreme Court the way
Roosevelt tried. Then its jail time for any faggot who even looks at a
kid, plus it would round up time for HIV testing and indictments for
murder for any faggot who thinks he can get even with the world by
killing people with his rotted dick.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1499463/posts
Time Magazine, School Event Expose Massive Cultural Campaign to Promote
Homosexuality to Kids
Concerned Women for America ^ | October 7, 2005 | Robert Knight and
Benjamin Frichtl
Posted on Sunday, October 09, 2005 12:45:43 PM by EveningStar
A TIME magazine cover story and a recent pro-homosexual school event
should leave no doubt that homosexual activists are recruiting kids into
homosexual sex and a gay identity, using tolerance as a ruse.
The TIME October 10 piece, The Battle Over Gay Teens, which includes not
a single reference to the extremely dangerous medical consequences of
homosexual behavior, especially for boys, includes these details:
A cocktail party in Manhattan with billionaire liquor magnate Edgar
Bronfman, Sr. and Clinton political strategist David Mixner was held in
May to raise money for the Point Foundation, a scholarship program to
turn gay kids into homosexual activists...
(Excerpt) Read more at cwfa.org ...
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1112856,00.html
w...@where.com
Another example of homo chicken hawks quickly found. Though a few years
old it shows you ass-licking shit-eaters haven't changed. It just once
in a while you goof and let the cat out of the bag.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1483453/posts
Roanoke, VA Gay Pride Festival - Theme: "SWEET 16, CRUISIN' FOR A KISS"
- WACHOVIA CORP IS SPONSOR
Roanoke Pride, Inc. ^ | September 13, 2005 | Roanoke Pride, Inc.
Posted on Tuesday, September 13, 2005 8:42:13 AM by Perseverando
Yes, it's their 16th annual "festival," but "SWEET SIXTEEN Cruisin' for
a Kiss" (see the website) is just a little too obvious of an
in-your-face double entendre.
May I point out that in Virginia, sixteen year olds are minors, i.e.,
contributing to the delinquency of a minor, statutory rape, etc. That's
nothing to be proud about!
w...@where.com
Copyright 1987 Chicago Tribune Company
Chicago Tribune
April 26, 1987 Sunday, FINAL EDITION
Correction Appended
SECTION: SUNDAY MAGAZINE; Pg. 14; ZONE: C
This report dealt with the 2,507 homosexual men who tested negative
for HIV at entry into the MACS study, who were still at risk of
developing
infection by HIV and who had completed their first follow-up visit. The
sexual activity data reported are based on the men's answers to
questions about the number of partners with whom various sexual
practices were performed six months before the original test and during
the six-month follow-up period. Over this period, 95 of the previously
negative 2,507 subjects tested positive for HIV antibodies.
The questionnaire covered the following sexual practices: active
masturbation of sexual partners, oral-genital intercourse, oral-genital
intercourse to ejaculation, anal intercourse, anal intercourse to
ejaculation, anilingus ("rimming"), digital-anal insertion, hand-anal
insertion ("fisting"), dildo use and enema/douche use. For oral
intercourse, anal intercourse, digital-anal insertion, "rimming" and
"fisting," the data were collected for both receptive and insertive
participants. Only receptive dildo and enema/douche use were studied.
Testing for antibody to HIV was done both by a screening method and,
in the case of positives, a second, confirmatory test.
The study produced a dramatic finding, published in Lancet:
"Receptive anal intercourse accounts for nearly all new HIV infections
among homosexual men studied in this report."
======================================================
Butt pounders in denial, denial, denial, denial, etc.
Da Beast
> You've been watching too many porn films and have come to believe that
> your fantasy is reality. If you know "many" hetero men who have anal
> relations with women, I guarantee you these "women" are HIV/AIDS/HERPES
> infected prostitutes. Because there are VERY few women who would submit
> to something that degrading.
>
I know many men who have had anal sex with women. I am one of
them....I have screwed countless men AND women up the butt. I know for
a FACT that many women enjoy it.
> >How
> >is fucking a male ass any different - and mor importantly - why do you
> >care? Why are you not so incensed about heterosexual anal intercourse?
>
> Because these ass fuckers have started a disease that has killed
> millions of people world-wide. Plus, they have gained entree into our
> school system in an effort to teach the kids that homosexuality is the
> way to go. Equal time should be given to teaching these kids that the
> homo life style consisted of one disgusting disease after another even
> before AIDS.
Bullshit, AIDS started in Africa has a straight disease and it has
remained a straight disease in Africa and Asia.
The Master
> Being in the company of men does not make anyone a faggot, if you believe it
> does then go to the nearest male steel worker and call him a faggot based
> solely on the fact that he is constantly in the company of men.
No, but having a 12 way oral orgy where his male friends all took turns
"eating and drinking" him DOES! The "bread of life" is his OBVIOUSLY his
cum... Geez...
w...@where.com
That study, representing the first cluster of AIDS cases in
California, found that the gay men who had more sexual
partners -- 60 a year as compared to 25 for the control
group -- appeared to be more at risk. Also, the gays who were most
sexually active were often most likely to party, use "poppers"
(amyl nitrate,a stimulant that is inhaled and that was widely
available over the counter) and keep late hours. Also, those who
were "rectal passive" appeared to be at greater risk. But they
were not intravenous drug users, who were identified as a
separate risk group.
Another 1982 CDC study in California reported that 81.5 percent of
a second cluster of AIDS patients had engaged in the practice
called "fisting," which causes rectal trauma, in the years before
they fell ill. The researchers defined fisting as the insertion of a
portion of the hand--or even the entire fist--into the anus of
another person. The 27 men studied had a median of 120 sexual
partners during the year before the onset of symptoms, with one
man reporting up to 250 sexual partners in each of the three years
before symptoms. Some homosexual spokesmen, including Dr.
Enlow, challenged the importance of fisting, contending that it is
so uncommon that less than 5 percent of gay men include it in
their lifestyles.
===============================================
This is how the AIDS epidemic became an epidemic, because the
idiot politicians turned it over to the homosexuals to re-invent
homosexuality with a pack of lies by revisionism and excuses.
These shit-eaters want to convince us they are normal. They want entree
into our schools so they can train our kids to eat shit? Yep, the
Muslims are right about America. We are a sick, sick culture.
James Riske
> On Sat, 24 May 2008 19:52:42 -0400, James Riske <james...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> itsall_bull wrote:
>>> James Riske <james...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>> The lies brought forth by depraved faggots in an attempt to justify
>>>> their filthy lifestyle can be truly jaw-dropping at times...
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Says the demented inbreed who probably thinks that there's a big ghost in the
>>> sky and a place called Hell, just because some fat fuck he donated money to
>>> on TV says to.
>> I have never donated money to anyone on TV.
>>
>>>
>>> Where was it said that Christ had a girlfriend? He kept the company of men
>>> and was obviously a leftist socialist.
>> Being in the company of men does not make anyone a faggot, if you
>> believe it does then go to the nearest male steel worker and call him a
>> faggot based solely on the fact that he is constantly in the company of men.
>>
>>
>> I don't have any friends in prison, republican or otherwise.
>>
>>> Here's your list, kiddy diddler.
>> Studies prove that a male faggot is many times more likely to be a
>> pedophile than a human non-faggot is.
>> Since you have no proof or even a shred of evidence that I am a "kiddy
>> diddler" (aka pedophile) then odds are higher that you are one yourself.
>
> Usually I don't respond to stupidity but you take the cake.
> I'd like to see what studies you are citing here that show
> male homosexuals as being more likely that non gays to be
> pedophiles. The last time I heard about any studies done
> in that area, straight males were counted as 99.99% of all
> the known child molesters.
"plenty of evidence indicates that homosexuals and bisexuals are notably
relatively overrepresented among pedophiles and hebephiles. On the other
hand, the majority of homosexuals and bisexuals are teleiophiles and are
unlikely to molest children because they have no sexual interest in
children. Alternatively, if one ignores the above terminology and
focuses on the phenomena of sexual interest in the same sex, sexual
interest in the opposite sex, sexual interest in children, and sexual
interest in adults, then a considerable amount of evidence indicates
that sexual interest in the same sex is notably relatively elevated
among individuals with any level of sexual interest in children compared
to individuals with sexual interest in adults but not children, although
the majority of adults with any level of sexual interest in the same sex
are sexually interested in adults but not children. "
http://www.homosexinfo.org/Sexuality/Pedophilia
--
Frodo: "Why do you do that?"
Sam: "What?"
Frodo: "Call him names? Run him down all the time."
Sam: "Because that's what he is Mister Frodo. There's naught left in him
but lies and deceit.
James Riske
> On Sun, 25 May 2008 17:49:46 -0700, ZeD <z...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>> Scientific studies. I see no science in any of that mumbo jumbo crap
>
> Of course not. It's called denial.
>
> - Strawman -
Exactly!
James Riske
Your biblical revisionism isn't working faggot.
Sunny B
> The Master wrote:
> > On Sat, 24 May 2008, James Riske wrote:
>
> >> Being in the company of men does not make anyone a faggot, if you
> >> believe it does then go to the nearest male steel worker and call him
> >> a faggot based solely on the fact that he is constantly in the company
> >> of men.
>
> > No, but having a 12 way oral orgy where his male friends all took turns
> > "eating and drinking" him DOES! The "bread of life" is his OBVIOUSLY
> > his cum... Geez...
>
> Your biblical revisionism isn't working faggot.
>
pointed out over a 100 years ago that those who exhibit the most
hateful homophobic bigotry are usually themselves closet cases.
James Riske
People who naturally despise filthy faggots are not really gay
themselves just as people who naturally despise pedophiles are not
really pedophiles.
Stay stupid...
The Master
> People who naturally despise filthy faggots are not really gay themselves
> just as people who naturally despise pedophiles are not really pedophiles.
What two or more adults decide to do to eachother in private doesn't
concern you. Pedophilia means not all people involved are adults, and
rape isn't by choice.
The ability of the government to legislate morality is a dangerous thing.
You may very well think homosexuality is wrong. But if you only give a
shit about the "rights" you personally exercise, your rights are just as
worthless to someone else who agrees with another set. In other words,
the moment rights are dictated by public opinion and are government
granted, the very idea of rights vanish...
Ban homosexuality, because enough people don't like it.
Ban guns, because enough people don't like it.
Ban freedom of the press, because enough people don't like it.
Ban religion, because enough people don't like it.
You see the point? I personally respect RIGHTS, even those I don't use.
Daedalus
This is the most intelligent thing I've ever seen you write.
Jade
Da Beast
> People who naturally despise filthy faggots are not really gay
> themselves just as people who naturally despise pedophiles are not
> really pedophiles.
>
Tell that to Reverend Ted Haggard and Senator Larry Craig....both VERY
VOCAL conservative anti-gay Republicans who were secretly gay....the
first with a meth addicted gay hooker, and second came on to an
undercover cop in the men's loo. Look I'm not talking about Joe Six
Pack who hates gays and otes Republican. Chances are he's just a
straight guy who needs someone to hate. I'm talking about the loud in
your face homophobes like yourself who feel the need to come on the
net and spew hate against gays. Some of you seem to know quite a bit
about our sex habits and you guys seem to enjoy describing them in
detail. So why the hatred? Masking something? It's so obvious a child
could tell. Come out of the closet...you'll feel better.
Mr.Smartypants
LOL!! You may be right.
The other point I would like to make concerning this little story is
that it would make a fascinating case study for marriage counsellors,
sociologists and other related fields.
These people managed to stay married and managed to raise children who
so far as I know didn't turn out to be socio/psychopaths.
Is it possible this type of situation is far more common than we
suppose? If so, would it be considered the norm?
Does anyone else know of similar situations?
>
> - Strawman -
> --http://www.americanvandals.com- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
w...@where.com
wrote:
It is very revealing that the worst thing a homosexual can say about a
hetero is that the hetero is also a homo. It reveals a deep-seated
self-loathing in them.
w...@where.com
<james...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Sunny B wrote:
>> On May 26, 4:28 pm, James Riske <james.ri...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>> The Master wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 24 May 2008, James Riske wrote:
>>>>> Being in the company of men does not make anyone a faggot, if you
>>>>> believe it does then go to the nearest male steel worker and call him
>>>>> a faggot based solely on the fact that he is constantly in the company
>>>>> of men.
>>>> No, but having a 12 way oral orgy where his male friends all took turns
>>>> "eating and drinking" him DOES! The "bread of life" is his OBVIOUSLY
>>>> his cum... Geez...
>>> Your biblical revisionism isn't working faggot.
>>>
>> Neither is your pathetic attempt to deny your own homosexuality. Freud
>> pointed out over a 100 years ago that those who exhibit the most
>> hateful homophobic bigotry are usually themselves closet cases.
>
>
>People who naturally despise filthy faggots are not really gay
>themselves just as people who naturally despise pedophiles are not
>really pedophiles.
>
>Stay stupid...
You don't have to be chicken to know when an egg is rotten.