Crazy things famous Christians say

Would current ''pedophiles'' who are attracted to 14 year old's of the same gender, upgrade from ''pedophilia'' to ''homosexual'', and no longer be considered ''pedophiles?
Click to expand...

Actually they'd still be hebephiles, defined as follows:


"Hebephilia is the primary or exclusive adult sexual interest in pubescent individuals approximately 11-14 years old, and is one of several types of chronophilia (sexual preference for a specific physiological appearance related to age). It differs from ephebophilia, which is the primary or exclusive sexual attraction to individuals in later adolescence (generally ages 15-19),[1][2] and differs from pedophilia,[2] which is the primary or exclusive sexual attraction to prepubescent children (with the prepubescent age range extending to 13 for diagnostic criteria)."

If it's a male child, of the same gender (homo = same, sex = gender), why is it not homosexual?
Click to expand...

Because attraction to children is an orientation in itself separate from being homosexual or heterosexual. Just like we don't call men who are attracted to little girls heterosexuals. We call them pedophiles.
 
Jan Ardena said:
That is the definition.
Click to expand...
I think everyone but you understands the definition.

An adult who is attracted to children is a pedophile. They are not attracted to them because of their sex; they are attracted to them because of their age.
A person who is attracted to someone of the same sex is a homosexual. They are not attracted to them because of their age; they are attracted to them because of their sex.

Very simple really.
 
Magical Realist said:
Right. A person who is attracted to boys is a pedophile and not gay or homosexual. His orientation is towards children.
Click to expand...

If a male is sexually attracted to boys, to male children in other words, then he would seem to be a homosexual pedophile simply by definition. If a male is sexually attracted to female children, then he would seem to be a heterosexual pedophile.

Obvously it would be a mistake to suggest that the existence of adults who prefer sex with children of their own (or the opposite) sex discredits homosexuals (or heterosexuals) in general. The vast majority of each sexual orientation doesn't practice and typically disapproves of pedophilia.

Gay is an entirely different orientation that means you are attracted to adults of your same sex. A necessary distinction that homophobes like you deliberately avoid making. You DO understand the difference between a boy and a man don't you?
Click to expand...

That was a gratuitous insult. Captain Kremmen may think that you are behaving well, but I don't.

Your rhetorical strategy of denying that the bad examples of homosexuals (the pedophiles in this case) really count as homosexuals, isn't really any different than Christians insisting that since Christianity is a good thing by definition, whatever bad examples of Christians that you choose to post about either aren't bad or aren't truly Christians at all.

It's special pleading either way, the attempt to annoit a favored group as somehow immune from criticism.

But that isn't really the foremost logical defect of this thread. (It's a new logical defect to add to the list.) The basic problem with what you are trying to do (and the mistake that somebody trying to use NAMBLA against homosexuals in general would also be making) is faulty generalization.

When the subject is "religion", you post things that particular Christian fundies have (supposedly) said, things that you personally find "crazy" or otherwise objectionable. Then you suggest that your examples somehow discredit all religion and all religious people whatsoever. You seem to imagine yourself ripping off the smiling mask and revealing the horror that religion truly is.

Never mind all the religious people who aren't Christian, the Christians who aren't fundies, and the fundies who don't agree with the things you've quoted.

No excruciatingly fine distinctions there. No concern to make sure that criticisms are fine-tuned. Everyone who displays any religiosity, and anyone who defends their religious friends against unfair accusations, get both barrels of MR's double-ought hatred in the face.

Fuck'em, they're religious, they deserve it.
 
yazata said:
Your rhetorical strategy of denying that the bad examples of homosexuals (the pedophiles in this case) really count as homosexuals, isn't really any different than Christians insisting that since Christianity is a good thing by definition, whatever bad examples of Christians that you choose to post about either aren't bad or aren't truly Christians at all.
Click to expand...
OK, and that's one value of this kind of thread.

It forces an overt choice: either all these famous and public people so obviously and generally referred to as Christian, selected by large numbers of people as Christian authorities and spokesmen, self-described as speaking from and for the Christian point of view, and accepted in these roles by everyone at all other times (not just their enemies, but their friends and fellow Christians and so forth),

are revealed to be not Christian when they are quoted like this, which is ridiculous,

or what they are saying is not really bad, according to their fellow Christians, which is damning,

or some third option must be found. And the contorted, incoherent, angry and accusing, often surreal inability to find that third option is the illustrated point.

The third option - homosexual pedophiles, like heterosexual pedophiles, are psychologically aberrant and in behavior criminal - has long been found and accepted, among the defenders of civil rights for gay people. They exist, they do bad things to children, and everyone (even themselves, ordinarily) agrees that children should be protected from them.

An option like that is available to the defenders of civil rights for Christians: Christian fundamentalists exist, they do bad things to children, and children should be protected from them.

jan said:
Why would ''so many poster'' accuse him of generalisation, if generalisation wasn't abound?
Click to expand...
Very interesting question - I posted a possible answer above, essentially that this kind of accusatory incoherence from the cornered in cognitive dissonance is so common and standard that the back inference can be made without extraordinary evidence or further argument: cognitive dissonance can be inferred, here. Reality has thrown up something a particular world view cannot handle.
 
If a male is sexually attracted to boys, to male children in other words, then he would seem to be a homosexual pedophile simply by definition. If a male is sexually attracted to female children, then he would seem to be a heterosexual pedophile.
Click to expand...

As long as you understand the grammatical difference between saying "a homosexual pedophile" and "a homosexual", then there's no problem. Like I already showed, homosexual used as an adjective for pedophile is describing a same gender relationship and NOT a sexual orientation. It's like the act of "homosexual rape" which often occurs in prisons. It doesn't MEAN homosexuals committed the rape or even were raped. It just means the rape was "same gender." Most the homosexual rape occurring in prison doesn't involve homosexual men at all. And yet we call it "homosexual rape." Just like we call same-sex pedophiles "homosexual pedophiles." See the difference?

Obvously it would be a mistake to suggest that the existence of adults who prefer sex with children of their own (or the opposite) sex discredits homosexuals (or heterosexuals) in general. The vast majority of each sexual orientation doesn't practice and typically disapproves of pedophilia.
Click to expand...

And yet this is what homophobic Christian organizations do all the time. (See next post for an example) They add up the number of boy molestations, then conclude that because they are committed by men, they are being committed by GAY men because a homosexual pedophile must afterall be a homosexual. And this is used to prove that gay men molest children way more often than heterosexual men molest little girls. It's a lie meant to demonize homosexuality. Chalk it up as yet another batshit crazy thing Christians like to say.

Snip self-righteous diatribe about how I'm persecuting poor innocent religious folk. As I've stated over and over, I'm simply quoting crazy things Christians have said. I'm incriminating Christians with their own words. I leave the generalizations up to the readers. I WILL say this though--if a Christian manages to NOT be homophobic after reading the Bible, then I'd say they probably misunderstood it. It's very clear how homophobia springs from the Judeo-Christian tradition, which continues to justify vilifying and dehumanizing gay people based on nothing more than the laws of a 2500 year old goatherder tribe.
 
Last edited:
Quote from an infamous anti-gay hategroup website:


"How Much Child Molestation is Homosexual?


"Do homosexuals disproportionately molest children? Gay activists vehemently deny it, yet the empirical evidence says otherwise. The key concept is proportionality. Probably a numerical majority of child molestations involve a male adult and a female child, but given the small fraction of homosexual practitioners, the number of homosexual molestations is disproportionate to the percentage of homosexuals. This briefing summarizes some of the key evidence.

Three Critical Facts


Homosexuals comprise < 2% of adults
90+% of child molesters are male
The Gay Report — 23% of gays reported sex with boys aged <16; 7% with boys aged <13

From Facts to Disproportionate Reality
Human Rights Watch 2008 World Report — ~150 million girls, ~73 million boys “have experienced rape or other sexual violence”
U.S., Canadian reports — girl/boy ratio also about 2:1
25-40% of molestations are thus same-sex, far in excess of the percentage of homosexuals

Homosexual Molestation in Positions of Authority


~43% of sex between teachers & pupils
~50% of sex between foster parents & foster children
21 group home sex scandals — 71% were same-sex

Sex With One’s Own Children
Homosexual parents — 18%; Heterosexual parents — 0.6%
 
billvon said:
I think everyone but you understands the definition.

An adult who is attracted to children is a pedophile. They are not attracted to them because of their sex; they are attracted to them because of their age.
A person who is attracted to someone of the same sex is a homosexual. They are not attracted to them because of their age; they are attracted to them because of their sex.

Very simple really.
Click to expand...

What do you regard people (hetero/homo) who are specifically attracted to people their own age, or 5 years either way?

jan.
 
Magical Realist said:
Actually they'd still be hebephiles, defined as follows:


"Hebephilia is the primary or exclusive adult sexual interest in pubescent individuals approximately 11-14 years old, and is one of several types of chronophilia (sexual preference for a specific physiological appearance related to age). It differs from ephebophilia, which is the primary or exclusive sexual attraction to individuals in later adolescence (generally ages 15-19),[1][2] and differs from pedophilia,[2] which is the primary or exclusive sexual attraction to prepubescent children (with the prepubescent age range extending to 13 for diagnostic criteria)."



Because attraction to children is an orientation in itself separate from being homosexual or heterosexual. Just like we don't call men who are attracted to little girls heterosexuals. We call them pedophiles.
Click to expand...

Look at the age range...

In 1969, Vahey was arrested on child sexual abuse charges after police said he pinched the penises of eight boys, ages 7 to 9, at an Orange County, Calif., high school where he taught swimming. Vahey, then 20, told authorities he had started touching boys without their consent at age 14.
Click to expand...


At least 14 victims of notorious pedophile priest Gerald Francis Ridsdale have formed a group to lobby for a Department of Justice investigation into how victims were paid widely varying compensation by the Catholic church...

...He is serving a minimum 19 years for raping and molesting 40 children, aged 6-16, between 1961 and 1987.
Click to expand...

BRUSSELS – The ex-wife of a notorious pedophile [Marc Dutroux] who aided her husband's horrific abuse and murder of young girls — and who let two children starve to death while her husband was in jail — was approved Tuesday for early release from prison, infuriating the victims' parents and reopening a dark chapter in Belgian history.

The girls held captive in his basement after his release ranged from 8 to 19 years old.
Click to expand...

jan.
 
iceaura,

Very interesting question - I posted a possible answer above, essentially that this kind of accusatory incoherence from the cornered in cognitive dissonance is so common and standard that the back inference can be made without extraordinary evidence or further argument: cognitive dissonance can be inferred, here. Reality has thrown up something a particular world view cannot handle.
Click to expand...

This is interesting. Can you elaborate on ''reality'' which was thrown up?
Also could you elaborate on the particular world view in question, and give reasons as to why it cannot handle it?

jan.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top