Scouts may lift ban on gays

[Rick im Kansas]

I am aware of my gayness and am gay about my awareness.

[RubyTheDyke]

Papaw wrote:

<quoted text>
Of course you are and you're always right too, pumpkin.
Facts my asz.

Perused some of the conversation and I think people error because they fail to understand the difference between sexual orientation and sexual objectives. What is being overlooked is the fact that sex is not just a biological act, it is a form of communication and a conveyance of person's emotional, symbolic inner narrative, so that a sexual act might not necessarily be indictive of or be compelled by a person's gender/sexual orientation, but compelled by that person's narrative he/she is expressing through a sexual act. A simple example I think we all can agree on is serial stranger rape. Obviously this goes far beyond the biological urge to have sex. This is also why a man can be straight in his orientation, be married, sexually active and sucessful with his wife, yet have a compulsion to sexually act against a male child.

[RubyTheDyke]

Rick im Kansas wrote:

I am aware of my gayness and am gay about my awareness.

Let me ride your coattails here Darling and say to the question that might follow,"how do you know that homosexuality isn't "sexually acting out": I think the only answer really is the one you gave, Hon, and if homosexuality can be called to question as simply a narrative, so can heterosexuality for the very same reasons. If one is asserting one is straight by birth, homosexuality is establisheose by the very same reasons. I am born what I am, what I do with my sexuality can and is influenced by my environment.

[Str8laces]

Once upon a time, a man cold beat his wife, and not be in trouble, it was a common sight to see pregnant women, smoking, dating a different race was taboo, and being gay was not talked about,
So, Gay folk have come along way!

[Rick im Kansas]

Only gay awareness can free us to all be queer.

[Papaw]

RubyTheDyke wrote:

<quoted text>
Perused some of the conversation and I think people error because they fail to understand the difference between sexual orientation and sexual objectives. What is being overlooked is the fact that sex is not just a biological act, it is a form of communication and a conveyance of person's emotional, symbolic inner narrative, so that a sexual act might not necessarily be indictive of or be compelled by a person's gender/sexual orientation, but compelled by that person's narrative he/she is expressing through a sexual act. A simple example I think we all can agree on is serial stranger rape. Obviously this goes far beyond the biological urge to have sex. This is also why a man can be straight in his orientation, be married, sexually active and sucessful with his wife, yet have a compulsion to sexually act against a male child.

Ok, let's start again. I am of the opinion that sexual orientation is like eye color and curly hair....you're born with it. That opinion is based on statements made to me from G/L people. Some of those were friends, some were not. Having been hearing this without prejudice for years and using analytical practices that makes this info "empirical" as well. None of these people admitted to or were suspected of pedophilia. If I ever spoke with a pedophile I was unaware of it. I do not think nor have I seen evidence to back it up that pedophiles are hetero/homo. I see it as falling into a peer pressured way of life which protects the pedophile from detection. What may be confusing is that YES some pedophiles were "created" by early molestation. I have not found info to show that all molested children become pedophilic. Some pedophiles are not molested so that opens the question of where did the pedophilia originate in that person. Was the deviation present from birth like eye color or did it develop from environmental influences like human preferences, food additives, injuries or medicine.

[RubyTheDyke]

Papaw wrote:

<quoted text>
Ok, let's start again. I am of the opinion that sexual orientation is like eye color and curly hair....you're born with it. That opinion is based on statements made to me from G/L people. Some of those were friends, some were not. Having been hearing this without prejudice for years and using analytical practices that makes this info "empirical" as well. None of these people admitted to or were suspected of pedophilia. If I ever spoke with a pedophile I was unaware of it. I do not think nor have I seen evidence to back it up that pedophiles are hetero/homo. I see it as falling into a peer pressured way of life which protects the pedophile from detection. What may be confusing is that YES some pedophiles were "created" by early molestation. I have not found info to show that all molested children become pedophilic. Some pedophiles are not molested so that opens the question of where did the pedophilia originate in that person. Was the deviation present from birth like eye color or did it develop from environmental influences like human preferences, food additives, injuries or medicine.

I think that's fair, especially since we're talking about subjective experiences someone's "trigger" is going to be a matter of individual context and we simply can't construct "event criteria" monolith. Something that might be innocuous to one person is going to cause significant trauma in another. That's the role of a competent therapist, to facilitate working through -if possible. Part of my problemin sitting in on S.O. panel reviews has been the lean toward aversion therapy and not a lot of insight work. I suppose you have to triage your approach as first and formost have to find a mechanism to break their cycle of harm but I still feel that if you know the message, understand the message you can change the message and stop empowering the reasons for the behavior. Call me Polyanna...

[Rick in Kansas]

Papaw wrote:

Of course you are and you're always right too, pumpkin.
Facts my asz.

Yes dear, facts, facts which you cannot refute only pathetically deny. I make no claim of always being right and the am the first to admit it when I am proven wrong, you have come nowhere close, cupcake.

[Jupiter]

Papaw wrote:

<quoted text>
Of course you are and you're always right too, pumpkin.
Facts my asz.

So if you don't agree with something, it can't be a fact? You're an idiot.

[Papaw]

Jupiter wrote:

<quoted text>
So if you don't agree with something, it can't be a fact? You're an idiot.

No, I'm trying to point out that some people want it one way and refuse to look from a higher angle in order to see the whole picture. Some of you (or one poster) are not viewing the entire picture. I'm not refusing to see your point from your angle but it just isn't logical and it goes awry from what I have seen.
I'm not denying that heteros commit heinous crimes just that if children turn you on you aren't primarily hetero or homo, you're a child molester. By following your logic, you're saying all child molesters are hetero and that isn't a fact. There have been occasions of homosexuals committing molestation.

[Jupiter]

Papaw wrote:

<quoted text>
No, I'm trying to point out that some people want it one way and refuse to look from a higher angle in order to see the whole picture. Some of you (or one poster) are not viewing the entire picture. I'm not refusing to see your point from your angle but it just isn't logical and it goes awry from what I have seen.
I'm not denying that heteros commit heinous crimes just that if children turn you on you aren't primarily hetero or homo, you're a child molester. By following your logic, you're saying all child molesters are hetero and that isn't a fact. There have been occasions of homosexuals committing molestation.

How could you come to the conclusion, by what I've posted, that I'm saying that all child molesters are hetero? I'm sure that both hetero- and homosexual people have been child molesters. However, I disagree with you that pedophilia is a person's primary sexual orientation. Pedos don't want to date or marry their victims.

[Rick in Kansas]

Papaw wrote:

No, I'm trying to point out that some people want it one way and refuse to look from a higher angle in order to see the whole picture. Some of you (or one poster) are not viewing the entire picture. I'm not refusing to see your point from your angle but it just isn't logical and it goes awry from what I have seen.
I'm not denying that heteros commit heinous crimes just that if children turn you on you aren't primarily hetero or homo, you're a child molester. By following your logic, you're saying all child molesters are hetero and that isn't a fact. There have been occasions of homosexuals committing molestation.

Are you sure it is us who isn't seeing the entire picture? The Boy Scout's ban on Gay adults as volunteers, you know, the basis for this particular discussion, is premised, in part, on the assumption that ALL gay men are a sexual threat to young boys and therefore must be kept away from them. We both know this part to be completely untrue, the only real disagreement between us has been who the real threat to these boys might actually be. I point out that every last study on the subject, including the one commissioned by the Catholic Church of their abuse problem, has found that the vast majority of such abusers self-identify, behave and are perceived by others as being heterosexual. Your response to this is an illogical disconnect, that there has to be a reason why this isn't true. "Real heterosexuals" would not/could not do this. If we're ever going to have any success in trying to limit the damage of men who do this, we finally have to be honest about who we should be worried about and it ain't lesbian mothers who become den mothers, or openly gay men who either have sons in the program or who grew up in scouting themselves. Statistically speaking, we have known for decades who these monsters usually turn out to be, but for some odd reason, those who want to cling to their prejudices, refuse to listen. Your average "homosexual pedophile"/sexual abuser of young boys is openly heterosexual, likely married to or cohabiting with an adult of the female variety. If the abuse started in the home, the man putting it to mommy heads the suspect list. Maintaining a facade with their heterosexuality is the perfect distraction, especially for all those folks looking for signs of possible homosexuality. If you don't have any, the more you can get away with, as evidenced by the horrifying number of young male victims the average one gets away with before getting caught.

The Boy Scout ban on gay volunteers is nothing more than a dangerous lie to be telling young boys. It tells them that the only monsters they have to fear are gay ones, because as you keep insisting, we all know that if they were really heterosexual, they wouldn't do that. I doubt it was your intention to become a useful idiot to pedophiles and child molesters, but as long as you allow them to hang on to the notion that heterosexuals don't do that, that is exactly what you become.

[Momma]

Rick and Jupiter you have gotten the attention you craved for several days. That's really what you were after wasn't it.

[Jupiter]

Momma wrote:

Rick and Jupiter you have gotten the attention you craved for several days. That's really what you were after wasn't it.

And what are you after, dear?

[Pimpin in a Double Wide]

Jupiter wrote:

<quoted text>
And what are you after, dear?

Answer the question bitch before you get dealt with.

[Gee]

Pimpin in a Double Wide wrote:

<quoted text>
Answer the question bitch before you get dealt with.

Hey Pimpin what about dealing with me? Smack it to them hard like MOMMA used to........LOL

[Truth-Hurts]

Rick in Kansas wrote:

<quoted text>Dear, if that is really the best argument you can come up with you should have kept it to yourself, it's not like I really needed any more proof that you can't fake having a clue.

It's just a simple question...should have a simple answer. What's your answer?

[nancy29346]

Lililth_Satans_Bore wrote:

<quoted text>And christians teach children how to rub two crosses together to hate people

Good one

[nancy29346]

Papaw wrote:

<quoted text>
No, I'm trying to point out that some people want it one way and refuse to look from a higher angle in order to see the whole picture. Some of you (or one poster) are not viewing the entire picture. I'm not refusing to see your point from your angle but it just isn't logical and it goes awry from what I have seen.
I'm not denying that heteros commit heinous crimes just that if children turn you on you aren't primarily hetero or homo, you're a child molester. By following your logic, you're saying all child molesters are hetero and that isn't a fact. There have been occasions of homosexuals committing molestation.

Apples and oranges.

You are talking different sexual preferences here.

There heterosexuals

Homosexuals

and

pedophiles.

Pedophiles are neither homosexual nor heterosexual..they are PEDOPHILES>

[Pimpin in a Double Wide]

nancy29346 wrote:

<quoted text>
Apples and oranges.
You are talking different sexual preferences here.
There heterosexuals
Homosexuals
and
pedophiles.
Pedophiles are neither homosexual nor heterosexual..they are PEDOPHILES>

You nailed that one, the pedophiles I like doing business with the most. First, they'll pay out the ass, literally, plus you can always blackmail the shit out of them afterwards.