Could We Discuss The Podcast In My Post After Listening With Open Minds?

[Libs]

I answered all of your questions, DB.

[DBMormon]

I answered all of your questions, DB.

You answered the first set near the beginning but not the next set of conclusions your answers led to... namely post #357.

If you have would you mind telling me which post # as I can not locate it. If you find you haven't, would you entertain me

[Damien the Leper]

From another thread:

While I find the blanket dismissal of the man's entire life and service to his God, the Church, and his fellow man to be a bit on the callous side, I find myself in agreement with you.

Elder Dunn was called on the carpet for his misdeeds, publically apologized, and repented of them longer ago than many of our children have been alive.

Let it go....

Yes- this is at least the fifth post in which you are trying to deflect attention away from your own misdeeds.

I disagree- but that's hardly a surprise, now is it?

I'm wounded. Cut to the quick. To quote the great philosopher Jonathan Harris, "Oh...the pain. The pain!"

Or perhaps to illustrate yours.

The bottom line is that this thread is not about me- or your quarrels with me (real or imagined).

This thread is about dredging up a decades old pseudo-scandal allegedly in order to facilitate understanding.

As has been previously noted, I am skeptical of this rationale, and of the usefulness in dragging poor Elder Dunn's name through the mud just one more time.

Too often, these sorts of threads are created not to facilitate understanding, but to incite a bit of rhetorical Elder abuse (pun-intended) and a bit of psuedo-pious moral preening from the Pomp of Babylon.

In that regard, this thread has succeeded beyond the critic's wildest dreams....

NOT because we played "Pile on DBReel"- but because we took the time to try and reason with him.

For that heinous error, we were falsely accused of trying to "justify sin".

Like Pandora's box, once the lid was cracked open, all manner of quasi-pious condemnation of Dunn and the hurch flowed out- mostly from people not worthy to latchet his sandals.

Let's be clear about what you said here:

It's equally funny when one considers that this "thou shalt not judge" meme is used singularly (almost exclusive) to silence critics of sin.

Neither Libs, nor Tacenda, nor Valentinus, nor any of the other LGBT water carriers were insisting their fellow travellers "not judge" Dan Cathy, or Chick-Fil-A, or Mitt Romney, or the Mormon or Catholic Churches.

None of these stalwart souls hastened to chastize the Southern Poverty Law Center for declaring anyone who disagree with them to be "haters".

Nope- this standard is used exclusively (almost universally) to silence just one side of the debate- those who would decry evil.

I mention in another thread these idiots and the SPL is mentioned in the link.

To which I responded:

Excuse me, Selek. Nowhere did I condone the actions of the critics of Dan Cathy. In fact, CFR. Also, I have not negatively criticized the church of its position. I have argued against yours and others, albeit vehemently, but you nor anyone else on this board is an official representative of the church.

The church and its members have every right to believe as they do. However, it is the right of others to question the beliefs of the church and its members. To do so, does not make one an anti-Mormon if they disagree with conclusions and arguments made by the church, LDS apologists, and church members. To label someone as such shows a deeply ingrained predisposition of insecurity.

Your failure continues to astound me, Selek. Now are you going to address the issue? Or are you going to continue to sidestep as though you made your point or that you did nothing wrong?

This is the 3rd or 4th time that I will CFR you concerning your accusations. Please be explicit in your evidence and not making silly assumptions.

[Libs]

You answered the first set near the beginning but not the next set of conclusions your answers led to... namely post #357.

If you have would you mind telling me which post # as I can not locate it. If you find you haven't, would you entertain me

Ah, okay. I'll have to go back and look. I may have missed that or just forgotten about it.

[Libs]

LIBS - and any others who addressed my previous questioning

So the difference is that one is consenting adults and the other isn’t. What makes one person a consenting adult and not the other person? The Law, Moral code? Whether we are talking animals or underage people, if we take God out of the picture it boils down to legal law and moral code and what society is willing and not willing to allow. Both of the are based on popularity and not any real fixed line in the sand. It is possible then that both beastialty and pedophilia could be permitted at some later time if the general population at some point becomes forward thinking and progressive and accepts these behaviors as natural and permissable. It could be both legal and morally acceptable. There are people who have attractions to both the two illegal issues and can’t help themselves. At it’s root homosexuality can be seen as applicable and grabbing at the same acceptance that other issues do. So how is homosexual behavior at it’s root different? I would also say that heterosexual behavior is no different as well. The only true difference outside of legality and moral acceptance in a general population is if God exists and if he staes what is right and what is wrong. Only then do we have a firm line drawn, and not leave what is right and what is wrong up to public opinion.

Obviously in the underage case we must assume consent has been given verbally though obviously not legal consent. In the animal case there is legal precident that animal consent is not needed to do harm to an animal, as the farmer asks no one before he kills his chickens or cow for food. Any deterrant to kill an animal is again a matter of law and again an be changed by popular opinion

Any thoughts ???

again not exactly my view but playing devils advocate

I do remember this, now. I had decided I didn't want to get too involved in a discussion about "slippery slopes" and beastiality. IMO, those things really degrade the discussion. I see no connection between homosexuality and the other things you have mentioned.

Civil law really is about what society wants to accept, in the general culture, and not, necessarily, what some feel is "best" or good or true. Our constitution was framed to allow as much freedom of expression as possible, since that was denied to many of our forefathers and one of the reasons they came to this country. In that spirit, it seems best to allow people to determine for themselves what they believe to be in their own best interest (including whether or not to marry). The examples of a "slippery slope" that some people keep throwing out there...most of these examples cause harm or abuse to an innocent victim. Yes, we kill animals for food, but most states have laws against abusive behavior towards animals. All states have age limits for persons entering a contract, like marriage, and also many have statutory rape laws, that make it a crime for an adult to have sex with a minor. Yes, age limits and other things can change, in accordance with cultural standards...that has always been the case. This can occur, whether or not ss marriage is legal, in any particular area. There will always be radicals pushing for something unreasonable...that doesn't mean they will succeed.

[Tacenda]

I am sensitive to the issue as well, though for somewhat different reasons. When I was 16 years old, and looked about 14, I was propositioned by older homosexual men several times in the Seattle bus terminal on my way home to Bellevue after work. And, I have a male relative who was sexually abused at the tender age of 6 by an elderly man, and subsequently suffered from it into adulthood. I also have a male friend who was raped when he was about 14 by a homosexual man in his early 20's, and the event was so traumatic that decades later I had to take him to the hospital for suicide prevention treatment, and later I helped him through his suicide watch.

I get that not all homosexuals are pedophiles. And, I can even understand the political motive behind the gay movement downplaying this unsavory aspect of their community--which they attempt to do by idiosyncratically defining the term "homosexual" as adults. It is just that I think we are all better served by sweeping it out from under the rug.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

It's all starting to make more sense now. Why didn't you mention these horrible situations before? Now I see where you're coming from. My nephew was abused at a sleepover at a friend's house by an exchange student that was living there. My nephew is gay but I don't think that incident caused it.

Have you had any close relationship with anyone else that's gay that are decent loving & caring human beings? Because these guys you had unfortunately met aren't the norm IMO.

[california boy]

The worst of all disingenuousness in the whole thing? The attempt by the homophile orthodoxy to claim that sexual abuse by men of boys and by women of girls is not a homosexual phenomenon. The argue all the more passionately against this because it's an absurdity. Fact is, if 1-3% of the male population is indeed homosexual and 1/3 of all child sex abuse is male on male, then the percentage of homosexuals who sexually abuse underaged males is astoundingly high. I haven't the heart to do the math.

We are all aware of the fairly recent tragic scandal that occurred on the Penn State campus. Sandusky is a straight man, married, with a family. NO ONE has suggested or has come forward with any evidence that he was gay. You are making an assumption that pedophiles that molest boys are gay. Do you have anything to back that assumption up or are you just ASSUMING that because some pedophiles molest males and some molest females? Being gay does not mean you are attracted to little boys any more than being straight means you are attracted to little girls.

None of this has any bearing on extending the right to marriage to all Americans anyway. Those that support gay marriage are fighting for the right to come together in a loving relationship that is recognized by the laws of the land. All sorts of irrelevant slander goes on by those that want to keep gays from being in a legally recognized marriage relationship. It is a shame that a small group of people feel this is the the approach they need to take to deny anyone the right to marry.

Edited August 18, 2012 by california boy

[Calm]

My nephew was abused at a sleepover at a friend's house by an exchange student that was living there. My nephew is gay but I don't think that incident caused it.

The three older gay male relatives closest to me all shared that their first sexual experience was of homosexual rape, two by older youths...one was by his brother and his brother's friend, one was at a regional scout jamboree, one was by an older man. I asked a psychologist whose clientele including a number of homosexuals how common did he believe was the correlation (not causation) between homosexual rape as first sexual experience and later homosexuality. He said in the past it was one of the highest indicators, not so much any more; he either declined to speculate on the change or I have forgotten.

BTW, he never allowed his kids to go to any sleepovers anywhere, not even with siblings' families he was that cautious after listening to the stories.

Edited August 18, 2012 by calmoriah

[california boy]

LIBS - and any others who addressed my previous questioning

So the difference is that one is consenting adults and the other isn’t. What makes one person a consenting adult and not the other person? The Law, Moral code? Whether we are talking animals or underage people, if we take God out of the picture it boils down to legal law and moral code and what society is willing and not willing to allow. Both of the are based on popularity and not any real fixed line in the sand. It is possible then that both beastialty and pedophilia could be permitted at some later time if the general population at some point becomes forward thinking and progressive and accepts these behaviors as natural and permissable. It could be both legal and morally acceptable. There are people who have attractions to both the two illegal issues and can’t help themselves. At it’s root homosexuality can be seen as applicable and grabbing at the same acceptance that other issues do. So how is homosexual behavior at it’s root different? I would also say that heterosexual behavior is no different as well. The only true difference outside of legality and moral acceptance in a general population is if God exists and if he staes what is right and what is wrong. Only then do we have a firm line drawn, and not leave what is right and what is wrong up to public opinion.

Obviously in the underage case we must assume consent has been given verbally though obviously not legal consent. In the animal case there is legal precident that animal consent is not needed to do harm to an animal, as the farmer asks no one before he kills his chickens or cow for food. Any deterrant to kill an animal is again a matter of law and again an be changed by popular opinion

Any thoughts ???

again not exactly my view but playing devils advocate

Do you feel you have to believe in God to be moral?

I am not a fan of slippery slope arguments because you can make a slippery slope argument for anything. I can make a slippery slope argument that the Mormon church will change their doctrine and allow gay marriage simply by stating that in the past when the church has discriminated against a minority group, they have come to realize that discrimination is not of God. When enough members feel that it is wrong to discriminating against gays, then gay temple marriages will become doctrine. Sex outside of marriage is a sin. And that will be the official doctrine.

Do I think that will really happen? Probably not.

[Calm]

We are all aware of the fairly recent tragic scandal that occurred on the Penn State campus. Sandusky is a straight man, married, with a family. NO ONE has suggested or has come forward with any evidence that he was gay. You are making an assumption that pedophiles that molest boys are gay. Do you have anything to back that assumption up or are you just ASSUMING that because some pedophiles molest males and some molest females? Being gay does not mean you are attracted to little boys any more than being straight means you are attracted to little girls.

Seems to me the appropriate way to describe it if there is not something more technical out there....which I expect there is would be bisexual nonexclusive pedophile, experiencing heterosexual attraction towards adults and homosexual attraction toward children.

Now, as to the types of pedophiles, you have exclusive vs. non-exclusive and homosexual vs. heterosexual. Therefore the four types of pedophiles would be as follows:

exclusive, homosexual

exclusive, heterosexual

non-exclusive, homosexual

non-exclusive, heterosexual

Exclusive vs. Non-exclusive

This is based on the pedophile's actual sexual attraction. Exclusive pedophiles are only attracted to children, not adults. They have little to no erotic interest in adults their own age. Non-exclusive pedophiles are attracted to both children and adults and can be sexually aroused by both. In a US study of adult male pedophiles, 93% fell into the non-exclusive type and only 7% were in the exclusive type.

Homosexual vs. Heterosexual

Not only do most pedophiles prefer children of a specific age, they also prefer children of a specific sex. Most pedophiles self-identify themselves as homosexual, heterosexual, or bisexual. Not to create confusion, but the use of these terms by pedophiles does not indicate their sexual orientation towards adults. Most pedophiles are heterosexual in adult relationships.***** The use of homosexual or heterosexual in terms of pedophilia is exclusively in reference to the gender of the preferred children by the pedophile.

=====

So my question would be what percentage of pedophiles are heterosexual in their adult relationships and does it match percentagewise the heterosexual rate among the normal population. If gays are somewhere between 2-5% (don't know if I am up on my rates) in the general population, and gays (as in attracted to adults) are 20% of the nonexclusive pedophile, then why heterosexuals would still be most of pedophiles, there would be a huge imbalance based on demographics....kind of like when it is a minority is overly represented in jails or such.....and it would be wise to try to explore why the difference.

There must be some studies done on comparing percentagewise adult homosexuals and adult heterosexuals who engage in pedophilic behaviour, whether with the same gender as he desires with adults or a different one. Anyone know them?

Classifying exclusive homosexual pedophiles as gay if "gay" means not just homosexual, but attracted to adult only as identical for statistical purposes as gays who have no pedophilia behaviour would be incorrect as would be classifying exclusive heterosexual pedophiles with straights. If one is going to insist that homosexual covers both adult and pedophilia homosexual behaviour simply because it is same gender, then one would be required to also use heterosexual to include all adult and pedophilia heterosexual behaviour.....which would greatly throw off the statistics and render little if any helpful asistence to those who need it. A pedophile does not process things the same way as an adult, whether gay or straight and thus should be treated independently as a statistic and for treatment, etc. or people will be doing much more harm than good.

Read more: http://wiki.answers....s#ixzz23sq9jNmE

"A random sample of 175 males convicted of sexual assault against children was screened with reference to their adult sexual orientation and the sex of their victims. The sample divided fairly evenly into two groups based on whether they were sexually fixated exclusively on children or had regressed from peer relationships. Female children were victimized nearly twice as often as male children. All regressed offenders, whether their victims were male or female children, were heterosexual in their adult orientation. There were no examples of regression to child victims among peer-oriented, homosexual males. The possibility emerges that homosexuality and homosexual pedophilia may be mutually exclusive and that the adult heterosexual male constitutes a greater risk to the underage child than does the adult homosexual male."

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/666571?dopt=Abstract

http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/HTML/facts_molestation.html

The empirical research does not show that gay or bisexual men are any more likely than heterosexual men to molest children. This is not to argue that homosexual and bisexual men never molest children. But there is no scientific basis for asserting that they are more likely than heterosexual men to do so. And, as explained above, many child molesters cannot be characterized as having an adult sexual orientation at all; they are fixated on children.

Edited August 18, 2012 by calmoriah

[Libs]

Actually, the APA doesn't use those kinds of classifications (that I could find). They don't use heterosexual or homosexual in reference to pedophiles.

Pedophilic Disorder

Pedophilic Disorder

A. Over a period of at least 6 months, an equal or greater sexual arousal from prepubescent or early pubescent children than from physically mature persons, as manifested by fantasies, urges, or behaviors.

B. The individual has acted on these sexual urges, or the sexual urges or fantasies cause marked distress or impairment in social, occupational, or other important areas of functioning.

C. The individual must be at least 18 years of age and at least 5 years older than the children in Criterion A.

Specify type:

Classic Type—Sexually Attracted to Prepubescent Children (Tanner Stage 1)

Hebephilic Type—Sexually Attracted to Early Pubescent Children (Tanner Stages 2-3)

Pedohebephilic Type—Sexually Attracted to Both

Specify type:

Sexually Attracted to Males

Sexually Attracted to Females

Sexually Attracted to Both

Edited August 18, 2012 by Libs

[Calm]

Yes, I saw that one but I was specifically looking for something that deal with both adult and child sexual preference....the nonexclusive variety, that has some variation with it. To avoid confusion, I think homo and hetero should be purely applied to adult and just use Male/ male Male/female Female/male and Female/female (where the cap indicates adult )for pedophilia preferences.

Edited August 18, 2012 by calmoriah

[wenglund]

From another thread:

Let's be clear about what you said here:

I mention in another thread these idiots and the SPL is mentioned in the link.

To which I responded:

Your failure continues to astound me, Selek. Now are you going to address the issue? Or are you going to continue to sidestep as though you made your point or that you did nothing wrong?

This is the 3rd or 4th time that I will CFR you concerning your accusations. Please be explicit in your evidence and not making silly assumptions.

I don't know why this is brought here where it is not only off topic but a thread where selek is banned from posting.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

Have you had any close relationship with anyone else that's gay that are decent loving & caring human beings? Because these guys you had unfortunately met aren't the norm IMO.

As explained in my other thread, I have had a number of homosexual friends and coworkers throughout my life, and possibly even a relative. Most weren't bad people or difficult to be around, and some even nice. However, I didn't find them to be all that caring and loving as a group. If anything, on the whole I found them to be self-centered and self-absorbed, sorry to say.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited August 18, 2012 by wenglund

[ERayR]

As explained in my other thread, I have had a number of homosexual friends and coworkers throughout my life, and possibly even a relative. Most weren't bad people or difficult to be around, and some even nice. However, I didn't find them to be all that caring and loving as a group. If anything, on the whole I found them to be self-centered and self-absorbed, sorry to say.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I would say that is to be expected from a group whose members define themselves by their appetites.

[california boy]

I would say that is to be expected from a group whose members define themselves by their appetites.

I am so over these disgusting broad stroke condemnation of gays. Gay men do not define themselves by their appetites any more than straight men. If you have something to show the contrairy please show it. Otherwise you should really reconsider your projection on gays.

I think these kinds of statements are what the church cautions against when they ask for greater civility.

Edited August 18, 2012 by california boy

[Damien the Leper]

I don't know why this is brought here where it is not only off topic but a thread where selek is banned from posting.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I didn't realize that Selek had been banned. I requested a CFR concerning accusations he made against me. He has failed to answer it therefore breaking the rules.

Any issues that I have with Selek is none of your business.

[Somebodyz]

I didn't realize that Selek had been banned. I requested a CFR concerning accusations he made against me. He has failed to answer it therefore breaking the rules.

Any issues that I have with Selek is none of your business.

You are making it our business, when you keep nagging on threads, were Selek isn't even present. Go do it in the thread were you want the CFR. Stop spreading it across other threads.

[KevinG]

I am off-put by anyone who uses their sexual appetite as a primary identifier. That is not reserved to homosexuals. I know homosexuals who are very private about their intimate life and heterosexuals who won't shut up about sex even in public.

[Nemesis]

SIgh, I agree thread closed.

[california boy]

I am off-put by anyone who uses their sexual appetite as a primary identifier. That is not reserved to homosexuals. I know homosexuals who are very private about their intimate life and heterosexuals who won't shut up about sex even in public.

Yeah well it is difficult to get married to the person you love in this country without identifying yourselves as gay. Otherwise, I would totally support your point.