Page 8 of 10 FirstFirst ... 678910 LastLast
Results 71 to 80 of 91
  1. #71  
    SEAduced SuperMod Hawkgirl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    South Florida
    Posts
    4,065
    Quote Originally Posted by Thorn View Post
    Yes, straight men can and do engage is same sex encounters and still continue to identify as straight.
    I think the word is Polyamourous...or bi. With the exception of a rape, if a straight guy has sex with another man, he's not straight.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #72  
    Banned
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    62
    Quote Originally Posted by Hawkgirl View Post
    I think the word is Polyamourous...or bi. With the exception of a rape, if a straight guy has sex with another man, he's not straight.
    And, by the same token, if a man is having sex with a woman, he's not gay.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  3. #73  
    Fabulous Poster
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    10,161
    Quote Originally Posted by Odysseus View Post
    Attempting to personalize this into an attack on Bailey is despicable. As a parent of two daughters, I would not send them out alone with a male adult, nor would any sane parent. One of the arguments against the presumption of gays being more inclined to sexual conduct with children is that the majority of pedophilia incidents occur between heterosexual men and girls, so obviously there is a danger there, assuming that gay activists are telling the truth (of course, this is only part of the truth, as molestations of boys by men make up roughly one-third of the total, while gay men make up roughly 1-2% of the population, so the overrepresentation of gay men in case involving children by a factor of 200 should be of concern to any honest researcher). And, there is a great deal of evidence that supports the BSA position:


    In fact, a number of studies performed over a period spanning more than half a century — many of which were performed by homosexuals or their sympathizers— have shown that an extremely large percentage of sexually active homosexuals also participate in child sexual molestation.
    This is not "homophobia" or "hatred," this is simple scientific fact.
    For example;
    • Homosexual Alfred Kinsey, the preeminent sexual researcher in the history of sexual research, found in 1948 that 37 percent of all male homosexuals admitted to having sex with children under 17 years old.4
    • A very recent (2000) study published in the Archives of Sexual Behavior found that "The best epidemiological evidence indicates that only 2-4% of men attracted to adults prefer men. In contrast, around 25-40% of men attracted to children prefer boys. Thus, the rate of homosexual attraction is 620 times higher among pedophiles."5
    • Another 2000 study in the Archives of Sexual Behavior found that". . . all but 9 of the 48 homosexual men preferred the youngest two male age categories" for sexual activity;' These age categories were fifteen and twenty years old.6
    • Yet another recent study in the Archives of Sexual Behavior found that "Pedophilia appears to have a greater than chance association with two other statistically infrequent phenomena. The first of these is homosexuality . . . Recent surveys estimate the prevalence of homosexuality, among men attracted to adults, in the neighborhood of 2%. In contrast, the prevalence of homosexuality among pedophiles may be as high as 30-40%."7
    • A 1989 study in the Journal of Sex Research noted that " . . . the proportion of sex offenders against male children among homosexual men is substantially larger than the proportion of sex offenders against female children among heterosexual men . . . the development of pedophilia is more closely linked with homosexuality than with heterosexuality."8
    • A 1988 study of 229 convicted child molesters published in the Archives of Sexual Behavior found that 86% of pedophiles described themselves as homosexual or bisexual.9
    • In a 1984 Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy article, sex researchers found that "The proportional prevalence of [male] offenders against male children in this group of 457 offenders against children was 36 percent."10
    • Homosexual activists Karla Jay and I Allen Young revealed in their 1979 Gay Report that 73% of all homosexuals I have acted as "chicken hawks" — that is, they have preyed on adolescent or younger boys.11
    • In a 1992 study published in the Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy, sex researchers K. Freud and R. I. Watson found that homosexual males are three times more likely than straight men to engage in pedophilia, and that the average pedophile victimizes between 20 and 150 boys before being arrested.12
    • A study by sex researchers Alan Bell and Martin Weinberg found that 25% of white homosexual men have had sex with boys sixteen years and younger.13
    http://www.catholicculture.org/cultu...fm?recnum=6506

    As you wrote above, "People like you often tell more about themselves than they would like to when they post such as this." What will your inevitable denial of these studies tell us about you?

    All of your Paul Cameron bullshit has been professionally debunked. Interesting that you are still pumping it. The deceptions should be obvious to an intelligent and objective person, which clearly you are not.

    But as an aside, it's funny how Kinsey is a disproven moron when it suits your ilk , but a valuable resource when you want to use his work. You are without integrity.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #74  
    Fabulous Poster
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    10,161
    Quote Originally Posted by Hawkgirl View Post
    Unless you are naive, it is pretty much an accomplishment for the gays and the lesbians when they "flip" a straight person. Perhaps you live in a cave, or you don't know any gays.
    Flip schmip. People don't flip. They do experiment, but they don't flip. I had a male roommate once who practically bragged about having sex with lesbians. I'll translate that for you: he would go to the sleeziest bar in town, get roaring drunk with other alcoholics (and I suspect that drugs were involved as well) and then end up in some sexual situation which may or may not have included some woman trying to get pregnant by a handsome blond haired blue eyed drunk.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #75  
    Fabulous Poster
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    10,161
    Quote Originally Posted by Bailey View Post
    From what I read on the subject a lot of straight men star in gay porn for the money. So i guess its a choice after all.
    This post makes no sense. Just because someone is willing to pay a heterosexual bodybuilder to make gay porn doesn't change the "actor's" sexual orientation, anymore than a lesbian being a whore or a concubine in some Arab's haram makers her heterosexual. People do things for money that they wouldn't do for free. Have you ever heard of someone mining iron ore for fun or romance?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #76  
    Senior Member Bailey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    6,158
    Quote Originally Posted by Novaheart View Post
    This post makes no sense. Just because someone is willing to pay a heterosexual bodybuilder to make gay porn doesn't change the "actor's" sexual orientation, anymore than a lesbian being a whore or a concubine in some Arab's haram makers her heterosexual. People do things for money that they wouldn't do for free. Have you ever heard of someone mining iron ore for fun or romance?


    No it makes perfect sense, if you are not gay but can suck it up as it were(pun or no pun may have been intended :D ) and have sex with a man then why cant you delude yourself into doing it instead of for money?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #77  
    LTC Member Odysseus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    FT Belvoir, VA
    Posts
    15,638
    Quote Originally Posted by Novaheart View Post
    All of your Paul Cameron bullshit has been professionally debunked. Interesting that you are still pumping it. The deceptions should be obvious to an intelligent and objective person, which clearly you are not.
    And here we go again. First, a blanket dismissal, followed by an ad hominem attack. I will address the former, first.

    Paul Cameron is not cited as a source for any of the articles listed. Using him as a straw man is may feel good, but it doesn't address the findings of the other studies cited. Nor does it have anything to do with Calhoun's overcrowding study, which I also referenced. If you have objections to the studies in question that are based on facts, then by all means, feel free to explain them, but if this is the best that you have, then you might as well give up. This leads to the second part of your response. Neither of us is "objective", in that we both have opinions on the subject, but you are far less objective on this issue than anyone here. It is obvious that any failure to fully embrace your lifestyle offends and angers you. Given how close you are to the issue, this is understandable, but it does not exempt you from the requirement to argue facts, rather than simply dismiss any disagreement as bigotry or religious fanaticism. If you cannot even acknowledge that there are significant drawbacks to homosexuality, then why should we take your claims of the positives at face value? If you cannot present your arguments without insulting and demeaning the people who disagree with you, why should we listen? If you cannot convince with argument, then your insults simply demonstrate that your arguments are invalid. It's just smoke on the battlefield that you use to try to obscure your maneuver, but it doesn't work.

    Quote Originally Posted by Novaheart View Post
    But as an aside, it's funny how Kinsey is a disproven moron when it suits your ilk , but a valuable resource when you want to use his work. You are without integrity.
    The article cited Kinsey. I merely quoted it because I didn't want to omit its citations, which would have been dishonest. I consider Kinsey a flawed researcher with an agenda, but some of his data is useful. Sorry if that's too nuanced a position for you. In the case of the citation, keep in mind that Kinsey's interviews were conducted with prison populations, so they will tend to skew higher for illegal acts, such as molestation. It's also why his estimates of the gay population were off . Obviously, a prison population is much more likely to skew towards homosexuality than the general population, both because of the enforced absence of the opposite sex, and the fact that because homosexuality was illegal, you would find a higher percentage of homosexuals among those who had been arrested for anything. If you poll a prison population for any illegal conduct, you will find a higher percentage of it in prison than outside, simply because of the filtering of the sample through the legal system. This isn't meant as a judgment, it simply explains the disparity in the numbers. However, those numbers had other impacts, and that's where Kinsey's work is problematical. Where Kinsey tends to fall apart is in his theories, most of which were based on the skewed research and filtered through his own personal agenda. In his defense, he always sought to expand his research pool in order to gain a more representative sample. Like many pioneers, he was working in uncharted territory and often made mistakes that later generations of researchers corrected. In this regard, he is a lot like Freud, whose value is not in the dogmatic repetition of his theories, but in the recognition that he was the first to seek a means of codifying mental illness as other doctors were doing with physical illnesses.

    As for my integrity, you took an entire list of citations of studies, tarred them all with your comment about a researcher who was not cited and had no input into those studies, and then cherry-picked one citation in order to attack me. I don't think that my integrity is is in question in this exchange
    --Odysseus
    Sic Hacer Pace, Para Bellum.

    Before you can do things for people, you must be the kind of man who can get things done. But to get things done, you must love the doing, not the people!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #78  
    Senior Member txradioguy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Bavaria
    Posts
    8,066
    Quote Originally Posted by Odysseus View Post
    And here we go again. First, a blanket dismissal, followed by an ad hominem attack.
    Nova's jsut sensitive right now cause all of his silly BS is getting shot down.
    In Memory Of My Friend 1st Sgt. Tim Millsap A Co, 70th Eng. Bn. 3rd Bde 1st AD...K.I.A. 25 April 2005

    Liberalism Is The Philosophy Of The Stupid

    To Achieve Ordered Liberty You Must Have Moral Order As Well

    The libs/dems of today are the Quislings of former years. The cowards who would vote a fraud into office in exchange for handouts from the devil.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #79  
    Fabulous Poster
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    10,161
    Quote Originally Posted by Odysseus View Post
    If you have objections to the studies in question that are based on facts, then by all means, feel free to explain them........
    It's been done. It's tiresome. It doesn't work, as is clear from the fact that you are still promoting this bullshit.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #80  
    Fabulous Poster
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    10,161
    Quote Originally Posted by Bailey View Post
    No it makes perfect sense, if you are not gay but can suck it up as it were(pun or no pun may have been intended :D ) and have sex with a man then why cant you delude yourself into doing it instead of for money?
    Let me know how that works out.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •