But Gosc123456, the same argument can be used to promote Phedofiles: what about: "Being phedofile is not a choice but results from a variety of factors (upbringing, biology...) and thus why discriminating against them?" - rings any bell?
Obviously there is more heterosexuels in total. But looking percentage wise, homosexual is much more problable to be also phedofile. Both are sexual prevertions, after all. And while pedophile sexually abuse a child, LBGTQ agitator abuse an entire society.
@Artem, so let me get this straight it is okay for a pedophile to abuse a child, rather than an person demanding his rights? How would you feel if others were systematically privileged for certain facilities determined on a racial or gender basis? Wouldn't you feel discriminated? How would you react? Would you give up and start blaming yourself?
All citizens are covered by the same law it doesn't matter if u commit crime vs a hetro or gay. Peoples attitudes cannot be solely changed by law in any society but it does have an effect. The Irish have opened debate world wide including here it's hot on the subject atm except we don't need referendums as we don't have to change constitution. Also the gay community here doesnt want referendum because they know it will never get up. Instead they are counting on a decision in parliament to amend act as the politicians dont really know what most think. So they have a strategy which will allow them this without consent from the public. Typical pro gay rubbish. Anyway, at this rate we will be next and unlike the Irish we won't have a say. To go with original question I think Poland protects its citizens well but it cannot force the gay stuff down the neck of its citizens, that is a thing for society. Having this stuff thrown at me before as if I had to agree I have gone from being neutral to anti.
What I was mainly referring to was the leftists' and homosexual activists' insistence on lowering the age of consent, which they have consistently done, for homosexuals to pursue relationships or sexual encounters with younger teens despite their denying it, and for them both to be prompt to excuse the crimes (or alleged crimes) of someone who is a homosexual.
@Marsupial I think people should be more considerate and less reactive. I can understand your concern up to a certain point, until which you become reactive in a negative way.
I find it rather difficult that an oppressed minority would somehow successfully manage to have **** forced down on citizens throats. Whenever the mind is closed, there is no space for evolving and harsher wars were fought over things that are today taken for granted.
In my opinion, if certain rights will eventually be refused it won't make the situation vanish. There's not plenty enough time to live in denial.
In what particular way this stuff was thrown at you and why is it making you become anti?
@Artem, the age of consent is really a delicate subject. For me the proper age of consent would be 18 years old, however it is irrelevant as it wouldn't stop the child from making poor decisions - it only gives the privilege to the parents to have an extent protection, as long as they are aware of what happened (which in most of the cases it doesn't happen).
I'm certainly against adults having intercourse with minors regardless of the circumstances.
Or rather, protecting our kids and teens against degeneracy and those who would abuse their naivete and good nature. Same reason why I actively opposed "gay straight alliance clubs" in high schools, because it would soon be occupied by older men. Funny how most of the times kids are initiated to homosexuality by much older men.
@tseug...In the debates I had with people and also in the general media the concensus seems to be that you either agree or you are wrong With those who support. In their views it is unthinkable that someone would oppose this lifestyle. They appeared and still do as fanatics to me. I don't like any fanatics and view with suspecion groups or individuals relentlessly pushing their agenda. I usually oppose them so no diff here. Not that it makes any diff I won't have any effect on the outcome. It's the same with the dawkins fanatics, when they became a fanatical pseudo religious group I started oposing them but before that didn't care. Simple.
Artem, what do you think might be the proper way to protect a child, by avoiding indirect exposure and therefore creating curiosities or by supporting indirect exposure through supervised educational means?
In life injustice and risks are everywhere which leads me to believe the proper way protect children is by self-awareness and education. Kids initiated to sex by adults is something to be opposed. The real question is how you can prevent this? So far many solutions have failed, because people were reticent when it came to certain measurements that can improve the children's abilities to decide for himself whether some things are good or not.
I may be mistaken, however I can't remember how effective is telling to a child that a life should be lived a certain way and how some things shouldn't be done; instead of openly talking to them - with hope to make them discover themselves whatever suits them right.
" It is the society-wide implications of a tiny 3% minority that wants to impose its views and values on the rest of society."
No, Polonius, it a three per cent minority who would like to be treated equally. Stop being so dramatic.
" looking percentage wise, homosexual is much more problable to be also phedofile"
could you link us to those percentages? No I thought not. In fact the persons most likely to abuse children are living in their homes, eg dad or stepdad.
I would rather keep the sexual predators away from children. To be sure, not all homosexuals are pedophiles. Yet a grossly disproportionate number of them are. I don't say this to be insensitive, "hateful," intolerant or "homophobic." It's "just the factts.
The connection between homosexual abuse and "gay identity" is undeniable. Although clearly not all "gay"-identified men and women abuse children, or were abused as children, the verifiable reality is that an alarmingly high percentage of them do and were. As with most forms of abuse, the cycle is both circular and vicious. "Born that way?" Not so much. "Made that way?" Sadly, it appears so.
Of equal concern I find the fact that many of the most prominent "LGBT" activists across the globe have either overtly endorsed, or given their implicit approval of, what the left euphemistically calls "intergenerational intimacy" (read: child rape).
" Yet a grossly disproportionate number of them are. I don't say this to be insensitive, "hateful," intolerant or "homophobic." It's "just the factts."
no, it is your misinformed opinion, not 'factts' . Investigate the difference if you can be bothered.
@englishbird Consider, for instance, a study published in the left-leaning Archives of Sexual Behavior of over 200 convicted pedophiles and pederasts. It found that "86 percent of offenders against males described themselves as homosexual or bisexual." This demonstrates, as notes Peter Sprigg of the Family Research Council, that "homosexual or bisexual men are approximately 10 times more likely to molest children than heterosexual men."
It found that "86 percent of offenders against males described themselves as homosexual or bisexual." This demonstrates, as notes Peter Sprigg of the Family Research Council, that "homosexual or bisexual men are approximately 10 times more likely to molest children than heterosexual men."
It demonstrates no such thing.
Make no mistake, sex offenses are still very much a man's crime, according to the Justice Department. Men were the perpetrators in 96 percent of the sex assaults reported in 1999.
Women were most often involved in cases in which the victim was under age 6, making up 12 percent of those offenders. Women were involved in 3 percent of the sex cases in which the victim was age 6 through 12, and 3 percent for victims ages 13 through 17.
Given those numbers we would expect to see men accounting for more than 86 percent of offenders against males, wouldn't we.
As for Peter Sprigg and the Family Research Council, the Southern Poverty Law Center include that outfit on their list of hate groups and Sprigg is on record as saying that he thinks being gay should be a crime and that gays should be "exported" from the USA
I don't expect to see a link or a book by some scholar. If they wrote one they would be ridiculed by their pro-left peers and be deemed as having left the pc circle. As we all know pc is more important than truth and scientific fact. The other reason could be because it's not true.
As we all know pc is more important than truth and scientific fact. The other reason could be because it's not true.
So, we have one supposedly possible hypothesis which is completely unsupported by any facts or studies and we have another hypothesis which is completely supported by facts and studies; I wonder which might be the correct one.
No wonder Sprigg is on that list. As anyone opposing LGTB agenda. On the other hand take "marriage equality" activist Peter Tatchell, for instance. The GLAAD-affiliated blog "GoodAsYou" glowingly describes Tatchell as a "noted British rights activist." He's "one of the most widely respected leaders of the international LGBT movement" one of the blog's commenters gushes.
Here's what "widely respected" and "noted rights activist" Tatchell thinks of child rape. He wrote the following in The Guardian, one of the U.K.'s premier newspapers:
"The positive nature of some child-adult sexual relationships is not confined to non-Western cultures. Several of my friends - gay and straight, male and female - had sex with adults from the ages of nine to 13. None feel they were abused. ... It is time society acknowledged the truth that not all sex involving children is unwanted, abusive and harmful."
No wonder Sprigg is on that list. As anyone opposing LGTB agenda.
Really? Care to explain why the previous two popes weren't on that list?
Anyway, back to the facts, given that men were the perpetrators in 96% of the sex assaults in 1999, why did only 86 percent of offenders against males described themselves as homosexual or bisexual? Why were men so under-represented in those assaults? Could it be that paedophiles are more likely to be hetrosexual than homosexual or bisexual?
@englishbird, just because we cannot understand someone's behaviour it doesn't mean we should be rude or jump to conclusions - regardless of how poorly a person might behave; instead we should hold our "guns" and find better approaches.
that is nice of you. The thing is, I understand his behaviour very well, and other's. He has some sexual fetish and is shouting loud about gay men being peadophiles in the belief that this will cover it up. I have seen it over and over again. Men who are comfortable in their sexuality do not have to shout that loud.
@englishbird the thing is that if we continue perpetuating the same pattern we might achieve nothing. Your personal inflictions shouldn't undermine someone's behaviour; or else you are not any better than the rest of them.
What about religion? Everyone is entitled to shout whatever the **** they want, as long as they do it in private however since this is a public conversation some moderation is required - to which purpose would be the exploitations of different scenarios in order to find a inner common sense.
It's because I was thinking about the meaning in native language, by the time I already figured it out it was too late and I became too lazy to try to find the proper word that would represent what I was thinking of.
Could it be that paedophiles are more likely to be hetrosexual than homosexual or bisexual?
Since only 1.5% of the population are homo's and 98.5% are hetro's that would only make sense. I wonder what that figure would be if you put in proportionality ? I think we already know the answer to that.
It is the society-wide implications of a tiny 3% minority that wants to impose its views and values on the rest of society
Actually it is about half that, 1 1/2 % are gay in society. Then you have the young boys who are really not gay but act gay because it is "cool" and they get attention for flaunting a gay walk or talk or hair doo.
Women on the other hand get a man's haircut and wear trousers because it gives them a feel of authority over other women. All just a big show to get recognition. So the 1.5% of society that are actually gay sure do howl loud to impose their beliefs, views, immorality on the other 98.5% by DEMMANDING their respect.
Us real men that drink our beer from a bottle, sweat, stink, pass gas, beltch, desire sex from the opposite sex, sit with our legs apart for comfort, anti- gay are the 98.5% that refuse to be told what we MUST accept
when we already know it is wrong.
Archives - 2010-2019 / News / Does democratic Poland guarantee it's LGBT citizens respect for human and civil rights?
