Mother won't let son join boy scouts due to anti gay policy

[Smokey 1]

There are statistics that report that there are more heterosexual pedophiles 11:1 over homosexual pedophiles.

Well that matches up well with the proportion of gays in the population doesn't it? Actually considering that gays only make up about 2-3% of the population it appears they may be over-represented in that category.

[Smokey 1]

Where have I denied anything?

You were denying that the priests and male scout leaders who were molesting boys past the age of puberty are homosexuals.

[Smokey 1]

Yes, you are. You claimed most of the problems with the church and boy scouts was with gays, yet you can't provide anything to back up that statement. My only point is that you claim gays were most of the problem, but lack the facts to back that up.

You are right, I don't have the numbers of how many abused kids were above or below the age of puberty. But the cases where they were above that age the perp would definately be a homosexual by definition. It makes sense considering that historically gays have been encouraged to go into the priesthood by their families so it stands to reason that they might be over-represented in that population.

[Smokey 1]

Male on male sex is not always homosexual sex.

It is when both are sexually mature. If not what is it?

[Smokey 1]

Smokey has a problem wrapping his head around any male on male sex that is not considered homosexual.

The only exception is when the victim is a little child and from what I understand a true pedophile is not particular about which sex they abuse. Other than that male on male sex is definately homosexual sex.

[Norman]

What's an 'anology'?

betamanlet, I don't think that republicans like you can be trusted to sit on a toilet the right way round, but I don't feel the need to post incessant threads attacking them, as you do attacking Liberals.

He's a one trick phony!

[Bmoreteacher]

You were denying that the priests and male scout leaders who were molesting boys past the age of puberty are homosexuals.

Again, WHERE did I supposedly do this? I'm looking for a post number, please.

[Bmoreteacher]

You are right, I don't have the numbers of how many abused kids were above or below the age of puberty. But the cases where they were above that age the perp would definately be a homosexual by definition. It makes sense considering that historically gays have been encouraged to go into the priesthood by their families so it stands to reason that they might be over-represented in that population.

And I havent contested that. I just find it alarming that you'll make the claim that MOST of the church's issues were from gays without having the facts to back that up.

[Smokey 1]

And I havent contested that. I just find it alarming that you'll make the claim that MOST of the church's issues were from gays without having the facts to back that up.

OK, but that was based in the details of the cases that I heard about. All of them were with victims past puberty.

[Bmoreteacher]

OK, but that was based in the details of the cases that I heard about. All of them were with victims past puberty.

Yet you're unable to prove your assertion, and instead go around acting like I'm the one making things up.

[Smokey 1]

Yet you're unable to prove your assertion, and instead go around acting like I'm the one making things up.

I do know that in the cases where the victims were sexually mature (past puberty) the perps were homosexual. If you really need the numbers of those compared to the numbers where the victims were sexually immature children I am sure you can find them. I really don't care because in both cases the perps are scumbags.

BTW, in posts #101 and #108 you were trying to shift the blame to peds and away from gays.

[The Astute Reader(tm)]

If you aren't prepared to discuss the topic, please don't post in my threads, okay? if you reply again and it has nothing to do with the topic,i will report your post.

I see. You only want to hear from people who agree with you and/or think you're a really swell guy. The only problem is every thread of yours would have only two replies; both of them from your mother.

Oh, and as this has nothing to do with your latest whine, please do report me. Let us know how it turns out.

[Bmoreteacher]

I do know that in the cases where the victims were sexually mature (past puberty) the perps were homosexual. If you really need the numbers of those compared to the numbers where the victims were sexually immature children I am sure you can find them. I really don't care because in both cases the perps are scumbags.

BTW, in posts #101 and #108 you were trying to shift the blame to peds and away from gays.

No, in posts 101 and 108 I was proving that you don't even understand puberty, let alone pedophilia or homosexuality. I don't really need the numbers, I just need you to admit that you made things up to make gays look bad. How shameful.

[Smokey 1]

No, in posts 101 and 108 I was proving that you don't even understand puberty, let alone pedophilia or homosexuality. I don't really need the numbers, I just need you to admit that you made things up to make gays look bad. How shameful.

No I will not admit to that because it is not true. I wasn't trying to make gays look bad. Why would I do that? I don't care about gays one way or the other so I have no motivation to make gays look good or bad. If anything you are trying to make heterosexuals look bad by claiming men who molest sexually mature but underage males are not homosexual. The problem with that is there is a dictionary that says otherwise. A male that has consensual sex with another is homosexual, period.

What do you think I made up?

BTW, I find it hard to believe that you actually believe most 13 year olds are pre-pubescent. This is from your Wiki cite (do you even read your own links?)

The major landmark of puberty for males is the first ejaculation, which occurs on average at age 13. For females, it is menarche, the onset of menstruation, which occurs on average between ages 12 and 13. [

[Bmoreteacher]

No I will not admit to that because it is not true. I wasn't trying to make gays look bad. Why would I do that? I don't care about gays one way or the other so I have no motivation to make gays look good or bad. If anything you are trying to make heterosexuals look bad by claiming men who molest sexually mature but underage males are not homosexual. The problem with that is there is a dictionary that says otherwise. A male that has consensual sex with another is homosexual, period.

What do you think I made up?

BTW, I find it hard to believe that you actually believe most 13 year olds are pre-pubescent. This is from your Wiki cite (do you even read your own links?)

You say that you don't care about gays one way or the other, but then you make baseless statements like "Most of the Church's problems were with gay priests." Claiming I am trying to make heterosexuals look bad is simply stupid, as you continue claiming that I have said something I haven't.

Yes, I do read my own link. Do you know what an average is? You claimed that most 13 year olds were through with puberty, which isn't the case by a long shot...hence what you made up.

[Smokey 1]

You say that you don't care about gays one way or the other, but then you make baseless statements like "Most of the Church's problems were with gay priests."

Who does that statement make me "care" about gays one way or the other? It is simply the truth.

Claiming I am trying to make heterosexuals look bad is simply stupid, as you continue claiming that I have said something I haven't.

No, I didn't say you said that but you imply it by saying homosexuals were not involved in the scout and church molestations so that only leaves straight people holding the bag. That is incredibly stupid on your part to imply that adult men having sex with sexually mature underage males are heterosexual.

Yes, I do read my own link. Do you know what an average is? You claimed that most 13 year olds were through with puberty, which isn't the case by a long shot...hence what you made up.

Yes and even that article was conservative in saying 12-13 years is the average (it is just Wiki after all). I subbed middle school for a year and by my observation a good percentage of the 6th graders were obviously already into puberty. As someone who allegedly works with youngsters you should know that most 13 year olds have hit puberty. I made nothing up.

[Bmoreteacher]

Who does that statement make me "care" about gays one way or the other? It is simply the truth.

How is that the truth when you can't find any information to back that statement up?

No, I didn't say you said that but you imply it by saying homosexuals were not involved in the scout and church molestations so that only leaves straight people holding the bag. That is incredibly stupid on your part to imply that adult men having sex with sexually mature underage males are heterosexual.

I neither said nor implied any such thing. 13 year olds are ON AVERAGE just BEGINNING to hit sexual maturity. Simply having a nocturnal emission does not mean they are sexually mature, there are still plenty of bodily changes happening.

Yes and even that article was conservative in saying 12-13 years is the average (it is just Wiki after all). I subbed middle school for a year and by my observation a good percentage of the 6th graders were obviously already into puberty. As someone who allegedly works with youngsters you should know that most 13 year olds have hit puberty. I made nothing up.

You claimed 13 year olds were through puberty, which they are not by a long shot.

[Smokey 1]

How is that the truth when you can't find any information to back that statement up?

What truth is that? The ages of the molested kids? I am sure that info can be found but I have no reason or will to look for it.

I neither said nor implied any such thing. 13 year olds are ON AVERAGE just BEGINNING to hit sexual maturity. Simply having a nocturnal emission does not mean they are sexually mature, there are still plenty of bodily changes happening.

What am I going to believe, you or my eyes? The point is I used 13 as a low end for my argument but there were cases of 14, 15 and 16 year olds getting molested. I suppose you are going to argue they are just little sexually immature children too.

You claimed 13 year olds were through puberty, which they are not by a long shot.

Again, see my statements above and I still don't buy your premise that most 13 year olds are sexually immature children. I will believe my own eyes on that one. I was past puberty at that age as were both of my boys.

[Bmoreteacher]

What truth is that? The ages of the molested kids? I am sure that info can be found but I have no reason or will to look for it.

You're right, info can be found, and it discredits your idea that most of the incidents were with boys above puberty:

The largest group of alleged victims (50.9%) was between the ages of 11 and 14, 27.3% were 15-17, 16% were 8-10 and nearly 6% were under age 7. Overall, 81% of victims were male and 19% female. Male victims tended to be older than female victims. Over 40% of all victims were males between the ages of 11 and 14. http://www.philvaz.com/apologetics/P...useScandal.htm

What am I going to believe, you or my eyes? The point is I used 13 as a low end for my argument but there were cases of 14, 15 and 16 year olds getting molested. I suppose you are going to argue they are just little sexually immature children too.

I'm not going to do any such thing. My argument has never been that gay men don't go after adolescents (just like straight men or straight women) but rather it has been that I disagree with what you said about MOST of the Church's and BSA's problems being with gay men. The whole thing originated with your assertion that the BSA could get sued out of existence if they allowed gay men to be scout leaders, which I find extremely asinine given that the perps who go after kids don't typically voice their sexual orientations in a healthy way, so you're not going to catch them simply by having them declare a sexual orientation.

Again, see my statements above and I still don't buy your premise that most 13 year olds are sexually immature children. I will believe my own eyes on that one. I was past puberty at that age as were both of my boys.

Most 13 year olds are not FULLY DEVELOPED sexually, hence, they are sexually immature. You couldn't possibly tell that just by looking at them.

[Smokey 1]

Doesn't this tell you something?

Overall, 81% of victims were male and 19% female. Male victims tended to be older than female victims. Over 40% of all victims were males between the ages of 11 and 14.