Tuesday, October 9, 2012

The Sandusky touch.

The Sandusky case shows how some people allow their fear of being called a homophobe to enable men to rape young boys.  Jerry Sandusky was seen raping a young boy and was still allowed to continue with his homosexual molestations.  Not only that, Mr. Sandusky still doesn't think that he did anything wrong.  The classic, state-of-constant-denial in the gay mind. 

I am well aware that all homosexuals aren't a danger to children, but I am also aware of how very young boys are seduced into the glbt community by older homosexuals.  Same-sex attraction is emotion-based.  People are not born gay.

Story here.


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

    You're once again conflating homosexuality with pedophilia, spreading dangerous, vicious lies along the lines of the FRC. There have been studies done showing that pedophiles are attracted to children aged 9-13 or so specifically because of their FEMALE characteristics (hairlessness, e.g.).

    Your insistance on conflating the two harms both your argument and the LGBTQ community.

  2. 1. Can you name the heterosexual counterpart of NAMBLA? Apparently, only homosexual men are wicked enough to create an organization to rape young boys. And I know that not all gay men are a danger to children.

    2. Male on male sexual contact is homosexual activity. Child molesters are either heterosexual, bisexual, or homosexual.

    3. http://www.mega.nu/ampp/baldwin_pedophilia_homosexuality.pdf

  3. 1). Pedophilia is separate from homosexuality and separate from heterosexuality. Not that you'd care.

    2). No, child molesters are pedophiles. Your continued mischaracterization of them reveals how ignorant you truly are on the matter and how hateful you are of homosexuals.

  4. But you can't name the heterosexual equivalent of NAMBLA, which says a great deal about the homosexual spirit/mind.

    Again, child molesters are either gay, bi, or straight. Your semantic gymnastics won't work on me.

    Also, if you accuse me of "hatred" again, you'll be banned from this blog. I'm not going to put up with your homofascist labels.

  5. You continue to conflate the two. http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/Articles/000,002.htm

    You mischaracterize pedophiles as gay straight or bi.

    "In over 12 years of clinical experience working with child molesters, we have yet to see any example of a regression from an adult homosexual orientation. The child offender who is also attracted to and engaged in adult relationships is heterosexual"

    "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"

    Part of the confusion between homosexuality and the molestation of young boys comes from the terminology used by researchers themselves. If an adult male molests a young boy, that type of molestation is typically called a “homosexual molestation”. But when described this way, the term “homosexual” is used as an adjective in its most literal sense — the victim and perpetrator are of the same sex. It doesn’t refer to the sexual orientation of either the victim or the perpetrator.32

    Unfortunately, researchers aren’t always careful with how they use the word “homosexual” in their academic writings. After all, they understand the clinical meaning of the word according to context. “Homosexual abuse” merely describes the same-sex nature of the abuser and victim, not the sexual orientation of either the abuser or victim. And they often use the shorthand “homosexuals” to describe the men who abuse boys. But when they go the extra step of determining the actual sexual orientation of child molesters, they tend to be more careful. Some, like Dr. Freund, prefer the clinical terms “androphile” (attracted to men) and “gynophile” (attracted to women) to describe those who are attracted to adults.

    This point is crucial, one that many anti-gay activists are very hostile towards. Peter LaBarbera, of Americans for Truth, exclaimed, “Who cares if a guy is married? If he’s molesting boys, that’s homosexual behavior. It’s academic nonsense to talk about these people as heterosexuals.”33

    But it’s not nonsense at all. If a man is married, he’s not among the 3% who said they were gay in our stadium survey. He’s not among the gay couples who are adopting children or seeking to marry. He’s hidden among those who claim to be straight. If law enforcement were to focus their efforts on finding sexual predators among the “out” 3% who claim to be gay, 97% of male abusers of young boys would go unpunished.34

    And your NAMBLA thing is a logical fallacy, "Absence of proof is proof of absence" I believe.

    So perhaps you're just misinformed of the facts.

  6. Male on male sexual contact is homosexual behavior, plain and simple. You must have a gold medal in semantic gymnastics. If a man only rapes boys, he is a homosexual child molester. If he only rapes girls, he is a heterosexual child molester. If he rapes both, he is a bisexual child molester. Accept the truth.

    You say, “anti-gay,” but we say, “pro-hetero.” The term “anti-gay” is a slanderous misnomer.

    The mere existence of NAMBLA shows how far the homosexual mind can go verses the heterosexual mind. I’ve never heard of a group of heterosexuals creating a public organization to have sex with young girls.

  7. Your reductionist argument is not valid in this case. I have proven TWICE now that pedophilia is separate from heterosexuality, bisexuality, and homosexuality and backed it up with facts. Again, you mention NAMBLA and are making use of the "absence of proof is proof of absence" fallacy regarding a hypothetical organization.

    Please stop bearing false witness :)


Debate and discussion are welcome here, but attitude and ad hominem attacks will get you banned.