So I concede intent does matter.
I always seem to be the only one who thinks otherwise. ("The road to Hell is paved in good intentions?") I always look at the drunk driver who kills a family as worse than the disgruntled employee who assassinates his boss -- because of the amount of suffering inflicted, not because of whether he "meant" to do it.
So I concede intent does matter.I always seem to be the only one who thinks otherwise. ("The road to Hell is paved in good intentions?") I always look at the drunk driver who kills a family as worse than the disgruntled employee who assassinates his boss -- because of the amount of suffering inflicted, not because of whether he "meant" to do it.
No, you're not the only one, I agree 100% with you on that Kirth.
|
No, you're not the only one, I agree 100% with you on that Kirth.So I concede intent does matter.I always seem to be the only one who thinks otherwise. ("The road to Hell is paved in good intentions?") I always look at the drunk driver who kills a family as worse than the disgruntled employee who assassinates his boss -- because of the amount of suffering inflicted, not because of whether he "meant" to do it.
+1
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
So I concede intent does matter.I always seem to be the only one who thinks otherwise. ("The road to Hell is paved in good intentions?") I always look at the drunk driver who kills a family as worse than the disgruntled employee who assassinates his boss -- because of the amount of suffering inflicted, not because of whether he "meant" to do it.
I'm torn about that system too. I sorta prefer to have the cold-blooded calculated killer on the loose. I feel like I can at least reason with the guy. The dude who gets so angry at me for cutting him off that he chases me down and shoots me in the head - that's the guy I want off the streets.
The standard also tends to cause gender disparities in criminal cases. An abusive husband is generally better equiped to kill his spouse in a fit of rage. The abused wife on the other hand, frequently finds herself unable to escape the marriage and resorts to poison or other pre-meditated means of killing. The former gets less of a punishment than the later in most instances.
|
|
Doubtful. All congress has to do is ignore it and it becomes law. If you don't want to get involved, you just ignore it. Let the local community deal with it.In other news. The Washington D.C. City Council has approved a gay marriage bill. The Mayor has promised to sign it. However all laws regarding D.C., even the area outside of the Federal District are subject to Congressional approval.This will be a good test of Congressional support on the issue. ABC News story on the subject.
Yes, but as Rep. Chaffetz said in the article, the odds of them just ignoring it are slim. One side or the other will force a vote on the issue.
Yes, but as Rep. Chaffetz said in the article, the odds of them just ignoring it are slim. One side or the other will force a vote on the issue.Doubtful. All congress has to do is ignore it and it becomes law. If you don't want to get involved, you just ignore it. Let the local community deal with it.In other news. The Washington D.C. City Council has approved a gay marriage bill. The Mayor has promised to sign it. However all laws regarding D.C., even the area outside of the Federal District are subject to Congressional approval.This will be a good test of Congressional support on the issue. ABC News story on the subject.
huh?
Sounds like the chance of a vote is slim due to the procedures of the congress.
It reminds me a lot, from what I read of On the Geneology of Morals. In fact Nietzsche's first section of the book is on the concept and inherent "immorality" of the ideas of good and evil.Hmmm... the interview made it look like a semantics argument. He's all in favor of morality, just not immorality that masquerades under the term "moral."You might be interested to read this book. I keep thinking about it, long afterward.Thanks. That does look very interesting.
His point, very briefly, is that morality, despite being widely considered good, is neither inherently good or bad. According to him, it can't be considered inherently good because many people commit heinous acts with confidence they are doing the right thing. It can't be considered inherently bad any more than an axe or a gun can be considered inherently bad. Put another way, he rejects both the 'PEOPLE kill people' argument and the philosophy which underpins extremely restrictive gun lawns (a handgun ban, for example).
|
|
Yes, but as Rep. Chaffetz said in the article, the odds of them just ignoring it are slim. One side or the other will force a vote on the issue.Doubtful. All congress has to do is ignore it and it becomes law. If you don't want to get involved, you just ignore it. Let the local community deal with it.In other news. The Washington D.C. City Council has approved a gay marriage bill. The Mayor has promised to sign it. However all laws regarding D.C., even the area outside of the Federal District are subject to Congressional approval.This will be a good test of Congressional support on the issue. ABC News story on the subject.huh?
Of course the paragraph before readsSounds like the chance of a vote is slim due to the procedures of the congress.
While Chaffetz is confident that gay marriage could not survive an up or down vote in the Congress, the Utah Republican acknowledges that the House's liberal leadership will almost certainly thwart any efforts to block gay marriage from coming to a vote.
|
Yes, but as Rep. Chaffetz said in the article, the odds of them just ignoring it are slim. One side or the other will force a vote on the issue.Doubtful. All congress has to do is ignore it and it becomes law. If you don't want to get involved, you just ignore it. Let the local community deal with it.In other news. The Washington D.C. City Council has approved a gay marriage bill. The Mayor has promised to sign it. However all laws regarding D.C., even the area outside of the Federal District are subject to Congressional approval.This will be a good test of Congressional support on the issue. ABC News story on the subject.huh?
Of course the paragraph before readsSounds like the chance of a vote is slim due to the procedures of the congress.
While Chaffetz is confident that gay marriage could not survive an up or down vote in the Congress, the Utah Republican acknowledges that the House's liberal leadership will almost certainly thwart any efforts to block gay marriage from coming to a vote.Probably bad editing. That doesn't make sense. Maybe they didn't know what "thwart" means.
|
|
Probably bad editing. That doesn't make sense. Maybe they didn't know what "thwart" means.Yes, but as Rep. Chaffetz said in the article, the odds of them just ignoring it are slim. One side or the other will force a vote on the issue.Doubtful. All congress has to do is ignore it and it becomes law. If you don't want to get involved, you just ignore it. Let the local community deal with it.In other news. The Washington D.C. City Council has approved a gay marriage bill. The Mayor has promised to sign it. However all laws regarding D.C., even the area outside of the Federal District are subject to Congressional approval.This will be a good test of Congressional support on the issue. ABC News story on the subject.huh?
Of course the paragraph before readsSounds like the chance of a vote is slim due to the procedures of the congress.
While Chaffetz is confident that gay marriage could not survive an up or down vote in the Congress, the Utah Republican acknowledges that the House's liberal leadership will almost certainly thwart any efforts to block gay marriage from coming to a vote.Maybe. Has anyone noticed the boards acting wierd today? I keep having phantom posts in every thread.
Probably bad editing. That doesn't make sense. Maybe they didn't know what "thwart" means.Yes, but as Rep. Chaffetz said in the article, the odds of them just ignoring it are slim. One side or the other will force a vote on the issue.Doubtful. All congress has to do is ignore it and it becomes law. If you don't want to get involved, you just ignore it. Let the local community deal with it.In other news. The Washington D.C. City Council has approved a gay marriage bill. The Mayor has promised to sign it. However all laws regarding D.C., even the area outside of the Federal District are subject to Congressional approval.This will be a good test of Congressional support on the issue. ABC News story on the subject.huh?
Of course the paragraph before readsSounds like the chance of a vote is slim due to the procedures of the congress.
While Chaffetz is confident that gay marriage could not survive an up or down vote in the Congress, the Utah Republican acknowledges that the House's liberal leadership will almost certainly thwart any efforts to block gay marriage from coming to a vote.I don't see anything strange about that. The liberals will try to stop attempts to prevent a vote. Think of the liberals as the line for the FG kicking unit. They try to thwart any attempts to disrupt or block the kick.
|
|
I don't see anything strange about that. The liberals will try to stop attempts to prevent a vote. Think of the liberals as the line for the FG kicking unit. They try to thwart any attempts to disrupt or block the kick.
What makes it strange is the next paragraph turns around and says the leadership will not allow a vote. The article contradicts itself.
|
|
What makes it strange is the next paragraph turns around and says the leadership will not allow a vote. The article contradicts itself.
I don't see anything strange about that. The liberals will try to stop attempts to prevent a vote. Think of the liberals as the line for the FG kicking unit. They try to thwart any attempts to disrupt or block the kick.
Precisely. We agree what is going to happen - the Democratic leadership in Congress is going to keep this from coming to a vote so that they don't have to state an opinion on the issue (something they studiously avoid doing).
But the article says "the House's liberal leadership will almost certainly thwart any efforts to block gay marriage from coming to a vote." That is the opposite of what we (and Rep Chaffetz) are saying.
What makes it strange is the next paragraph turns around and says the leadership will not allow a vote. The article contradicts itself.
I don't see anything strange about that. The liberals will try to stop attempts to prevent a vote. Think of the liberals as the line for the FG kicking unit. They try to thwart any attempts to disrupt or block the kick.
Not really.
They will not allow any vote that will block gay marriage. Since doing nothing will mean the law will pass in D.C., all they have to do is stop any voting and it will happen, thus they have thwarted any effort to block it done by voting.
Same thing.
Dems will not allow any vote to occur. A vote is the only way to block gay marriage in D.C. at this moment (until the courts look at the other issues). No vote, no block. There is no contradiction in those statements.
|
|
What makes it strange is the next paragraph turns around and says the leadership will not allow a vote. The article contradicts itself.
I don't see anything strange about that. The liberals will try to stop attempts to prevent a vote. Think of the liberals as the line for the FG kicking unit. They try to thwart any attempts to disrupt or block the kick.Not really.
They will not allow any vote that will block gay marriage. Since doing nothing will mean the law will pass in D.C., all they have to do is stop any voting and it will happen, thus they have thwarted any effort to block it done by voting.
Same thing.
Dems will not allow any vote to occur. A vote is the only way to block gay marriage in D.C. at this moment (until the courts look at the other issues). No vote, no block. There is no contradiction in those statements.
But what it says is that they will thwart any effort to block a vote. For it to say what you are saying it said it would have to read "...that the House's liberal leadership will almost certainly thwart any efforts from coming to a vote that blocks gay marriage." The way it is written is says the will stop any effort to block a vote on gay marriage, not that they will attempt to thwart any effort to block gay marriage.
|
|
Your conclusion is right. Your reading of the article isn't.
that the House's liberal leadership will almost certainly thwart any efforts to block gay marriage from coming to a vote.
They will thwart efforts to block the vote. That means people want to block the vote, and the Dems are going to foil their efforts, which would mean they are going to force a vote. That is obviously misstated.
Your conclusion is right. Your reading of the article isn't.
They will thwart efforts to block the vote. That means people want to block the vote, and the Dems are going to foil their efforts, which would mean they are going to force a vote. That is obviously misstated.that the House's liberal leadership will almost certainly thwart any efforts to block gay marriage from coming to a vote.
They are thwarting the block on gay marriage, not the block on the vote. The vote is the means in which the block on gay marriage could be accomplished, but it is not what the "block" is referring to.
Consider these statements:
that the House's liberal leadership will almost certainly thwart any efforts to block gay marriage.
or substituting a different issue into the original statement.
that the House's liberal leadership will almost certainly thwart any efforts to legalize dope from coming to a vote.
|
|
Your conclusion is right. Your reading of the article isn't.
They will thwart efforts to block the vote. That means people want to block the vote, and the Dems are going to foil their efforts, which would mean they are going to force a vote. That is obviously misstated.that the House's liberal leadership will almost certainly thwart any efforts to block gay marriage from coming to a vote.
They are thwarting the block on gay marriage, not the block on the vote. The vote is the means in which the block on gay marriage could be accomplished, but it is not what the "block" is referring to.
Consider these statements:
that the House's liberal leadership will almost certainly thwart any efforts to block gay marriage.or substituting a different issue into the original statement.
that the House's liberal leadership will almost certainly thwart any efforts to legalize dope from coming to a vote.
Ahh. Hmm. Your right. Actually, either reading is possible.
It can either mean they are thwarting:
-the efforts to block gay marriage
-the efforts to prevent it from coming to a vote
It's still bad editing :)
It's still bad editing :)
And people wonder why newspaper sales are down :P
that the House's liberal leadership will almost certainly thwart any efforts to legalize dope from coming to a vote.
Yes! Good news.
|
Take California for example.Right, but California is widely reviled as "ultraliberal" to begin with. To be fair, we should look at Texas, too, and then realize that for most people, the reality lies somewhere in between.
Would that be the Texas whose largest city just elected an openly gay woman mayor?
Just asking.
|
|
Take California for example.Right, but California is widely reviled as "ultraliberal" to begin with. To be fair, we should look at Texas, too, and then realize that for most people, the reality lies somewhere in between.Would that be the Texas whose largest city just elected an openly gay woman mayor?
Just asking.
In this context, I think Kirth was referring to the laws, not the people. Parts of Houston and Austin in particular are known to be very liberal.
He was responding to David's post that with civil unions, gays and lesbians in California can get most of the same state-sponsored benefits of marriage. In contrast, Texas' constitution forbids the granting of any type of benefit or legal protection for same-sex couples regardless of what it's called.
Take California for example.Right, but California is widely reviled as "ultraliberal" to begin with. To be fair, we should look at Texas, too, and then realize that for most people, the reality lies somewhere in between.Would that be the Texas whose largest city just elected an openly gay woman mayor?
Just asking.
In this context, I think Kirth was referring to the laws, not the people. Parts of Houston and Austin in particular are known to be very liberal.
He was responding to David's post that with civil unions, gays and lesbians in California can get most of the same state-sponsored benefits of marriage. In contrast, Texas' constitution forbids the granting of any type of benefit or legal protection for same-sex couples regardless of what it's called.
But, then there is California Proposition 8.
|
|
But, then there is California Proposition 8.Take California for example.Right, but California is widely reviled as "ultraliberal" to begin with. To be fair, we should look at Texas, too, and then realize that for most people, the reality lies somewhere in between.Would that be the Texas whose largest city just elected an openly gay woman mayor?
Just asking.
In this context, I think Kirth was referring to the laws, not the people. Parts of Houston and Austin in particular are known to be very liberal.
He was responding to David's post that with civil unions, gays and lesbians in California can get most of the same state-sponsored benefits of marriage. In contrast, Texas' constitution forbids the granting of any type of benefit or legal protection for same-sex couples regardless of what it's called.
Except that even with Prop 8 gay and lesbian couple can still get the state sponsored benefits of marriage because of California's anti-discrimination laws. That was the whole point. This is proven by the last sentence of the second paragraph in the very article that you linked too to prove it wasn't so. "The proposition did not affect domestic partnerships in California."
Would that be the Texas whose largest city just elected an openly gay woman mayor?
No law against being gay (unlike in, say, Uganda); just against her marrying her girlfriend, or entering into a civil union with legal benefits, or anything resembling either of the above.
I'm torn about that system too. I sorta prefer to have the cold-blooded calculated killer on the loose. I feel like I can at least reason with the guy. The dude who gets so angry at me for cutting him off that he chases me down and shoots me in the head - that's the guy I want off the streets.
Having met and represented some of those types of people, trust me, the guy who loses his temper and does something stupid is less dangerous. (I would point out that the minute the guy starts chasing you down the freeway, there is a pretty good arguement for premeditaion. Premeditation can be formed just prior to the attack.) The ones that plan out the act tend to just be creepy. There really is something cold in their makeup.
As to gender disparity, though, you are right.
I'm torn about that system too. I sorta prefer to have the cold-blooded calculated killer on the loose. I feel like I can at least reason with the guy. The dude who gets so angry at me for cutting him off that he chases me down and shoots me in the head - that's the guy I want off the streets.
Having met and represented some of those types of people, trust me, the guy who loses his temper and does something stupid is less dangerous. (I would point out that the minute the guy starts chasing you down the freeway, there is a pretty good arguement for premeditaion. Premeditation can be formed just prior to the attack.) The ones that plan out the act tend to just be creepy. There really is something cold in their makeup.
As to gender disparity, though, you are right.
Wholeheartedly agree with you on that first part, I have to work with the unrealistically short tempered people AND have been exposed to(although I was not allowed to work directly with) the cold-blooded killers. Believe me, you'd rather get the explosively angry folk.
|
|
Would that be the Texas whose largest city just elected an openly gay woman mayor?No law against being gay (unlike in, say, Uganda); just against her marrying her girlfriend, or entering into a civil union with legal benefits, or anything resembling either of the above.
Which puts us on par with 45 other states. Whoop-de-doo. ;)
|
|
Which puts us on par with 45 other states. Whoop-de-doo. ;)Would that be the Texas whose largest city just elected an openly gay woman mayor?No law against being gay (unlike in, say, Uganda); just against her marrying her girlfriend, or entering into a civil union with legal benefits, or anything resembling either of the above.
And behind the United Kingdom, (formerly) the most uptight, sexually-repressed country in the world. Congratulations, America, on beating us to this title.
Also, Sebastian, as a contrast, in the UK, battered wives (and husbands, although that's a lot more difficult to get a jury to convict on) can use a defence of provocation (which is much more tightly defined than the common usage, basically it means abusive, violent, controlling) as mitigation in such cases. This generally leads to a manslaughter (I think that's the equivalent of negligent homicide although it might be one of the lower categories of murder) rather than murder charge being brought. I'm fairly sure it's a fairly recent (last couple of years) change.
so, if its utterly destructive to morale to have gay people serving, how is the situation managed in the field?
Maybe they feel that morale is so damaged by having to serve with Brits to begin with, that having to serve with an openly gay Brit is not much more of a reduction in morale. :P
...the UK has gay soldiers marching in uniform on gay pride marches, and their partners being treated just like any other army spouce
Man, and I complain about the constitutional monarchy. I take it back.
|
|
so, if its utterly destructive to morale to have gay people serving, how is the situation managed in the field?Maybe they feel that morale is so damaged by having serve with Brits to begin with, that having to serve with an openly gay Brit is not much more of a reduction in morale. :P
Yes, because it's always the Brits who are killing Americans in friendly fire incidents, isn't it?
And behind the United Kingdom, (formerly) the most uptight, sexually-repressed country in the world. Congratulations, America, on beating us to this title.
Also, Sebastian, as a contrast, in the UK, battered wives (and husbands, although that's a lot more difficult to get a jury to convict on) can use a defence of provocation (which is much more tightly defined than the common usage, basically it means abusive, violent, controlling) as mitigation in such cases. This generally leads to a manslaughter (I think that's the equivalent of negligent homicide although it might be one of the lower categories of murder) rather than murder charge being brought. I'm fairly sure it's a fairly recent (last couple of years) change.
Well keep in mind several of the colonies were formed by puritans, folks so uptight and sexually repressed they found Great Britain of the time too inhospitable...
There is a similar defense available here in some of the States, some statuorily, and some through common law. While the practice of law is similar to Britain, it is also different in some respects due to our federalist system. Each state has quite a bit of automomy about how it prosecutes crimes, and short of Constitutional issues or federal crimes (prosecuted in federal court), the federal government has little say in how it is done. Thus the varying treatment of battered spouse syndrome. As to the degree of murder, you have Murder 1st, killing with the intent formed before hand, Murder 2nd, killing in the heat of passion, but still having the intent to kill, Voluntary Manslaughter, killing recklessly (i.e. taking an action that you should have known and practically did know could cause death, even if that was not your intent- like drunk driving, or randomly firing a gun at a building not knowing if someone is inside) and Involuntary manslaughter, or grossly negligent actions that cause the death of another (a real case I had was a young man who passed a car at high speeds in an area where it was unsafe to do so, and his actions caused the deaths of two people)
All of this is subject to the same federalist caveats, in that while this is a general overview, States can, and do vary in how they catagorize this sort of crime.
the chief "defence" for don't ask, don't tell is that US morale would be SO badly damaged by serving with gay personel. however, thanks to joint operations, they are serving with openly gay soldiersso, if its utterly destructive to morale to have gay people serving, how is the situation managed in the field?
Interesting...I think the theory is that the US is a pretty diverse place, and that little Joey who grew up in small town Texas, where all he ever heard from his parents, his friends, his local government, and church leaders is about how "the gays" have an agenda to turn everyone to their side may have real issues with how he handled an intigrated military, and the command structure just shouldn't have to deal with it when they have other issues to deal with.
That said, the same arguements were made when the US intigrated African American and white forces, and guess what, when ordered to do so, racist little Joey of the 60's still managed that ok...I think we don't give enough credit to the command structure's ability to handle this sort of phobia be it racism or homophobia in a morale situation.
... to handle this sort of phobia be it racism or homophobia in a morale situation.
We all realize that this isn't really a phobia in the truest sense, right?
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
Well keep in mind several of the colonies were formed by puritans, folks so uptight and sexually repressed they found Great Britain of the time too inhospitable...** spoiler omitted **...
Thanks MeanDM - I knew my description of the various degrees of murder was spotty at best.
Too bad about the sociopaths being so sociopathic as compared to the heat of the moment killers. It seems that yet again I have been misled by Hollywood - whodathunk the rational killers aren't all like John Cusack in Grosse Pointe Blank.
(or, better yet, Sharon Stone in Basic Instinct)
John Cusack in Grosse Pointe Blank.
Would I love movie so much if it hadn't come out right around my 10th year high school reunion?
Well, yeah, OK, I would. It's got Benny "The Jet" Urquidez!!! (And Minnie Driver... mmmmmmmm... Minnie Driver...)
... to handle this sort of phobia be it racism or homophobia in a morale situation.We all realize that this isn't really a phobia in the truest sense, right?
Right, sorry, not in the clinical definition of phobia sense, so much as the cultural linguistics, common usage, sense "homophobic." Meaning one unreasonably afraid of homosexuals.
Too bad about the sociopaths being so sociopathic as compared to the heat of the moment killers. It seems that yet again I have been misled by Hollywood - whodathunk the rational killers aren't all like John Cusack in Grosse Pointe Blank.(or, better yet, Sharon Stone in Basic Instinct)
Yeah, talked to a guy yesterday who after he got robbed in a drug deal gone wrong, fired a gun at the robber's car as it was leaving, and one of the robbers died. While not a nice person,the chances of him killing some random citizen are pretty small.
Oh and MMMM Sharon Stone...
Right, sorry, not in the clinical definition of phobia sense, so much as the cultural linguistics, common usage, sense "homophobic." Meaning one unreasonably afraid of homosexuals.... to handle this sort of phobia be it racism or homophobia in a morale situation.We all realize that this isn't really a phobia in the truest sense, right?
I still think that's a horribly inaccurate use of the term. Most people who get slapped with the moniker of "homophobe" do not fear homosexuals, they dislike them.
I still think that's a horribly inaccurate use of the term. Most people who get slapped with the moniker of "homophobe" do not fear homosexuals, they dislike them.
In my experience, it's usually both. Anti-gay lobbying is replete with scaremongering. ("They want our children! They're going to rape our children to convert them!" Honey, we can't convert. We can only impress.) These are more or less the same slanders used against black people ("They're going to rape our women!" There's a well-known racial stereotype here that I could name, but the name itself is also something of a racial slur so I'm not going to do it.) in the US and Jews in Nazi Germany.
(Click the link and read before anybody jumps up and down and invokes Godwin as if it were an argument.)
No sensible person would argue that the Nazis and American racists didn't hate the Jews and black people, respectively. But this hate is obviously not based on things the victims actually did but rather on hysterical fears of things they were imagined to do.
A right is something that exists. You have the same rights in Saudi Arabia as you do here, they just choose to oppress those rights in Saudi.
Something granted is a privilege.
It's called the Bill of Rights, not the Bill of Privileges.
Now, the only true rights you have are those you, yourself, can defend. If you rely on a government to protect those rights, you are going to be disappointed more often than not.
+1!
In my experience, it's usually both. Anti-gay lobbying is replete with scaremongering. ("They want our children! They're going to rape our children to convert them!" Honey, we can't convert. We can only impress.)
I don't think I've heard that argument made before. I've heard things like young people will be socially pressured to "experiment" with their orientation, but I've never heard of the rape argument made. I guess I've just been too protected from the crazies out there.
In my experience, it's usually both. Anti-gay lobbying is replete with scaremongering. ("They want our children! They're going to rape our children to convert them!" Honey, we can't convert. We can only impress.)I don't think I've heard that argument made before. I've heard things like young people will be socially pressured to "experiment" with their orientation, but I've never heard of the rape argument made. I guess I've just been too protected from the crazies out there.
Not only have I heard the argument, but I have a friend who was molested by a homosexual elder who makes the argument. There's not much you can say to her because when she makes the argument she has this childhood trauma that trumps everything.
Not only have I heard the argument, but I have a friend who was molested by a homosexual elder who makes the argument. There's not much you can say to her because when she makes the argument she has this childhood trauma that trumps everything.In my experience, it's usually both. Anti-gay lobbying is replete with scaremongering. ("They want our children! They're going to rape our children to convert them!" Honey, we can't convert. We can only impress.)I don't think I've heard that argument made before. I've heard things like young people will be socially pressured to "experiment" with their orientation, but I've never heard of the rape argument made. I guess I've just been too protected from the crazies out there.
Well, I've heard stories that some (though not all) homosexuals are that way not because of genetics (hormone issues during pregnancy?), but due to a sexual abuse encounter they had when they were young. But I've just never heard anything about how homosexuals were intentionally doing it to "convert/infect" others with homosexuality, like it was an STD or something.
Well, I've heard stories that some (though not all) homosexuals are that way not because of genetics (hormone issues during pregnancy?), but due to a sexual abuse encounter they had when they were young.
Interesting -- I've never met a homosexual who was a child molester. There seem to be plenty of "hetero" ones around, though.
Well, I've heard stories that some (though not all) homosexuals are that way not because of genetics (hormone issues during pregnancy?), but due to a sexual abuse encounter they had when they were young.Interesting -- I've never met a homosexual who was a child molester. There seem to be plenty of "hetero" ones around, though.
The stories I've heard were of molestees not molesters.
The stories I've heard were of molestees not molesters.
I don't grasp the logic, then. OK, so a woman molests me, I'm supposed to become gay? Didn't know it worked like that -- all the gay men I've talked to have told me they always knew they were gay.
Molesters come in every shape, color, gender, and sex. I understand that statistics show men and those who are sexually abused to be more likely to become molesters.
But then my best friend of almost 20 years now is a man who was sexually abused and he is not a molester. He was abused by a woman. Perhaps that made him a heterosexual. (this is intended to be provocative--take it freely as you will)
As for what pres man has heard: my own understanding from the gay priest problems we have had in Canada is that the homosexual molestation problem does not produces homosexual victims.