Federal Appeals Court Holds Prop 8 Unconstitutional

You take a rather narrow view imo of what psychitrists are allowed to do. Here's another source for you:

http://www.apa.org/pi/lgbt/resources/therapeutic-response.pdf

I see nothing wrong with this idea that a therapist can provide support, without directly imposing a specific sexual orientation outcome. What they do NOT support is direct attempts to change orientation due to the risks involved.

Beyond just addressing what the person wants, the therapist should consider why they want it as well. If society and stigma are the cause of the person wanting to change their orientation, that's not the same as someone just wanting to change their orientation so they can have a family. And as I pointed out, your scenario is somewhat unlikely, as even homosexuals are capable (and do) have a family.

In any event, I propose a more plausable explaination for why homosexuals want to change their orientation. According to the respected, reputable, amazing source that is the CDC, it's because of social stigma:

http://www.cdc.gov/msmhealth/stigma-...rimination.htm

So society first stigmatizes them, causing them depression and other mental illness. And then when the depressed individuals are motivated to change their orientation, you wonder why we point the finger more at the social stigma being the problem instead letting them indulge in a risky forced attempt to change orientation. The APA supports affirmative reinforcement for those who wish to explore their orientation, they don't support forced attempts to change it because other people made them feel bad about it. I find this to be an acceptable solution to a complicated problem.

 

Here's some more interesting facts from your sources:
http://www.drrichardhall.com/Articles/pedophiles.pdf

In other words, focusing on the bolded part: The findings do not imply that homosexuals in general are more likely to be pedophiles, but it does show that a pedophile is more likely to have homosexual attractions. There's an important difference - namely that the need to protect your children from all homosexuals is unfounded, at least by this given report.

This quote also specifically refutes the idea that "epidemic" means "most" in this case... this quote is from just below the areas you quoted:

It's also important to look more closely at this quote:

Note, one thing this does NOT say is that the homosexual pedophile was abused by another man. It just says they were abused. So the idea that gay pedophile creates another gay pedophile when they abuse a young boy is not supported by this.

 

Don't let the facts get in the way of a good story.

 

In most cases the pedophile is heterosexual in the normal sex life. The attraction for the pedophile is the child More often than not per-pubescent that is the attraction. It has nothing to do with being either homosexual or heterosexual. It is the child that is the attraction.

 

Makes sense, and now that I look at one of the quotes I made more closely, it's almost explicit.

That bolded part is important... It points to a distinction between how someone might be oriented in normal situations, and how they are oriented towards children. Which would explain how it can be possible that a disproportionate amount of pedophiles display homosexual attractions towards children, while at the same time supporting the idea that "this finding does not imply that homosexuals are more likely to molest children".

 

That would be the salient point but people that don't WANT to get it won't be swayed by logic.

Fact is a pre-pubescent child will not react sexually in the same way that an adult of the same gender will so there is no comparison between a person's adult sexuality (if indeed they have one) and how their sexuality is orientated towards children. I would suspect that convenience of access is more often than not a feature to be considered when victims are chosen.

 

Indeed. In considering the phrase "homosexual pedophile", one should not assume this use of "homosexual" to be synonymous with "gay". The primary drive is an attraction to children, and sexual gratification tied to the power exercised over the victim. By way of contrast, for a gay man the primary attraction factor is male gender, expressed through adult relationships in which sexual gratification is not necessarily the central factor.

Not that I expect hatemongering propagandists to ever acknowledge that such a difference between the two exists.

 

You're probably correct, but it at least shows that the source silhouette used certainly didn't intend for their research to be taken this way.

Left with the knowledge that when they said "epidemic", they didn't mean "majority", with the sources being quite careful to specify orientation towards CHILDREN, with the clarification that when it say child molesters were likely abused themselves, it didn't specify that it was a male abuser, and even saying outright that their research did not imply homosexuals were more likely to be child molesters, it's pretty clear she's going to need a new source or is not worth taking seriously.

There's circumstantial evidence... links here and there to overlapping percentages, but the sources themselves are a poor direct inditement. Indeed, all of what I've read has confirmed that child abusers are rarely self-identified gays, and almost always live a heterosexual adult lifestyle. Studies on self-identified gay and straight men who were shown explicit pictures of younger and older boys and girls showed no distinction. An examination of boys who were abused showed that their abuser was rarely someone who identified and practiced homosexuality in their adult life.

I'd cite a source, but I'm sure even the most qualified one would be shot down. But I believe it's fairly clear that even the sources provided to silhouette don't point to anything on the contrary.

 

It is that exactly a pre-pubesent child is almost sexually ambiguous. This relates to the pedophile in some way and stimulates their sexual urge. It is neither homosexual nor heterosexual that is why it is called something totally different pedophilia. Nice post by the way.

 

Oh, golly, the Mayo Clinic disagrees with your layman's take on complex psychology. For any readers wanting a more prestigous take on that point, read here:

In fact, reasearchers consider the orientation of pedophiles as very particular and towards a given gender of the child that they had this to say at the very conclusion of their 2007 Special Article:

And just for fun I'll throw this in as a reminder:

And finally, from the same Mayo Clinic Article:

 

Read what you just quoted very carefully and you'll notice they were careful to specify that the orientation the spoke of was specifically orientation for children. They were careful to distinguish between the category of homosexuals who identify and practice as such with adult pastners, and the category of pedophiles who show homosexual attractions to children. I quoted and showed that they were careful to specify that their research did not imply a homosexual was more likely to be a pedophile. You are confusing the use ofthe word homosexual to imply it includes all homosexuals, and not just pedophiles that showed homosexual attraction to children. I repeat, all your quotes and my quote show they were careful to make the distinction. If you can not see this, perhaps you should have a trusted second opinion review my quotes and your quotes (or better yet, read the source) and see if they can identify the distinction made. It's easy to miss.

Similarly, when they said "child molesters are more likely to have been abused themselves", they did not say that the first abuser was male, an easy misinterpretation to make.

And lastly, I hope you've looked up the meaning of epidemic. Another mistake to make.

 

What you just quoted in this post proves the point of those debating against you. It is not about orientation but about an attraction to children.
This issue has nothing to do with homosexual or heterosexual. As I said before it's about an attraction to children.
Thank you for posting an article that proves you wrong. Good job. Problem is like the rest of your quotes and links you don't understand them or misread them. Because no matter what the articles say you will not change your mind.
So thanks again for proving yourself wrong.

 

I should have said: "Uphill struggle............with a boulder tied around your ankle!"

 

Here's the little snag with your theory. Time for you to read carefully. There is such a thing as logical deduction. Try not to ignore it while reading the following.

We have the Mayo clinic identifying a phenomenon where homosexual pedophiles are more likely to have been abused than heterosexual ones. That just stands alone. They are not really sure of what to make of that, only that IT IS. The point is that they know the DIFFERENCES in attraction to young males vs young females IS SIGNIFICANT. And the lines between "pedophile" and a person attracted to adults of the same gender is blurry, especially when you consider that "gays" are promoting a known pedophile to children in California schools as their ambassador. Look into the gay linguistics and the lines get even blurrier when you find that every third word refers [fondly] to having sex with underaged minors and evey very young children.

In short, one man's pedophile is another man's "man in love"... My suspicion is that the way this is interpreted has to do with the amount of investment a person has in his denial system in justify what was done to him as a boy and subsequently what he is doing to others as a man... Denial this intense is often accompanied by other co-morbidities...

Well, what do you know? The puzzle piece fits. And we've been looking for that darn piece for so long now. It didn't help that folks were shoving it out of view for so long now...and continuing to try to do so as we sit here talking about it..

The point is that world-reknowned Mayo Clinic believes the discussion about just exactly what pedophila is, and the different type of pedophiles according to sexual orientations towards same or opposite genders, is ONGOING. In other words, it isn't definitive yet. And until it is, we should put the brakes on promoting guys like Harvey Milk, just in case promoting a child-sodomizer to children in schools might be a bad idea..

Mayo Clinic again:

 

The line between the orientation of an adult towards children and towards other adults is not as "blurry" as you think. It has been tested, and the test itself proved there was no link. The test I speak of was even used as a source in the Mayo Clinic report you've been quoting.

I gave a link to the source here, and discussed its reliance to the Mayo Clinic report here:

http://www.politicalforum.com/gay-l...philes-shows-no-link-adult-homosexuality.html

Let me put it to you a different way. This scenario is completely made up, but it might help display the flaw in your logic.

For sake of demonstration, let's assume that 75% of all terrorism is committed by Islamic people from Iran. Let's also assume that .000001% of terrorism is committed by Islamic people from the rest of the world.

Would it be accurate to say that 75.000001% of all terrorism is committed by all Islamic people, combined? Technically, yes... if you're willing to group the Iranian Islamic people with all of the rest of Islamic people over the world. But I dare say, just because both use the word "Islam", it would not be fair to group all of the Islamic people in the world together. This is known as the fallacy of equivocation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivocation

And that's exactly what you're doing when you group male pedophiles who molest male children together with all homosexuals.

The "imprinting" you speak of has been demonstrated to be a pedophile imprinting their pedophilia on the child, and has been shown to be distinct from the orientation of the pedophile towards adults.

 

Has anybody ever grouped all the homosexuals together? I think you are the only one grouping them all together. Interpreting a statement about a small segment of the homosexuals to be a statement about all homosexuals.

 

Any man who sexually abuses boys is, by definition, at the least a homosexual.

 

Equivocation. The abuse is technically homosexual, since it occurred between two people of the same sex. Hence the clinical term "homosexual pedophile". Pedophile is the orientation, and homosexual refers to the abuse. It may also refer to the preference of the pedophile (still oriented on children) in selecting victims.

It does NOT refer to same-sex orientation occurring in gay men whose objects of affection are adults. "Homosexual pedophile" does not mean "gay pedophile" - the terms "gay" and "pedophile" are mutually exclusive, as they each refer to different orientations.

So spare us your "definitions". They're clearly based on either a misunderstanding or deliberate twisting of the terms, and we aren't falling for it.

 

Is the alleged pedophile Jerry Sandusky (sp?) gay even though he is married to a woman and has children of his own?

There's no evidence he has ever had an attraction to or relationship with an adult male.

 

If I understand, he assaulted both pre pubescent and post pubescent boys, so his behavior would indicate he is bisexual. Although, all his children are adopted. Could be his marriage was for appearances. His efforts as a homosexual to conform to societal expectations.

 

Perhaps he has no adult attractions whatsoever? Only his wife would know.

 

Maybe true, but it doesn't mean that a "homosexual" who abuses boys can be analyzed as the same type of person that sleeps with adult men.

That was exactly my point about the Islam demonstration I just made... Just because an extreme group of islamics and a peaceful group of islamic both are technically, by definition, "islamic", that doesn't mean it makes sense to group them together and analyze them as one unit for their risk of causing terrorism. This is a classic example of the fallacy of equivocation.

 

Post pubescent boys are considered adult when it comes to defining pedophillia.

 

Your comments tend to take many threads to places of ignorance and stupidity. Really... it is simply useless and disgusting stuff.

 

They are the APAs silly classifications, not mine.