Merged A thread to discuss aspects of hoaxes/misinformation about the gay rights movements

While I am ok with consensual sex between an adolescent and an adult...I found this info. Now I can't check the veracity of some of these quotes, so could you help me out?

Filthy homosexual militants used to be quite in your face about their admitted child molestation epidemic till Madsen Avenue marketers and homos Marshal Kirk and Hunter Madsen came along and authored the Homosexual Agenda marketing and propaganda manifestos "Overhauling Straight America" and "After the Ball...", the first available online and the second from Amazon books.

Edited by zooterkin: 

<SNIP>

Edited for rule 4. See http://m.liveleak.com/view?i=864_1423465843

Click to expand...

What are your thoughts?

My first thought is the MA forbids copypasta of large volumes of text. Also, you should cite your source.

My second thought is that the first passage is complete hogwash. What is this, the Protocols of Zion for the gay movement?

After that it was tl;dr

ryu238 said:

While I am ok with consensual sex between an adolescent and an adult...I found this info. Now I can't check the veracity of some of these quotes, so could you help me out?

Click to expand...

If you can't check them, why are you posting stuff you have no reason to believe is true? Post a link to this large wall of text you copied to the forum so that when the mods get on you for breaking that rule we will have something to look at.

What are your thoughts?

Click to expand...

I think you need to do some research and get back to us when you find anything you can verify.

ETA; I was able to type various passages from your wall of text into Google to gets lots of information. Why aren't you doing this? Should only take you a few hours and you will have plenty to talk about here.

Ranb

It appears to be widespread pasta.

Or maybe not.

Jrrarglblarg said:

My first thought is the MA forbids copypasta of large volumes of text. Also, you should cite your source.

My second thought is that the first passage is complete hogwash. What is this, the Protocols of Zion for the gay movement?

After that it was tl;dr

Click to expand...

I am new so I can't post links yet.......and yeah you have a point about the Zion thing....

Ranb said:

If you can't check them, why are you posting stuff you have no reason to believe is true? Post a link to this large wall of text you copied to the forum so that when the mods get on you for breaking that rule we will have something to look at.

Click to expand...

I needed help and I am not allowed to post links yet. Apparently there is a 15 post minimum...who made that rule?

You can spell it out with spaces. The rule is to prevent spambots, not hamper noobs.

ryu238 said:

I needed help and I am not allowed to post links yet?.

Click to expand...

You can post links in this manner; (www).gayagenda.com or something like that. It will not show up as a link but people who read the forum will remove the () and find it. Simple?

Ranb

Ranb said:

You can post links in this manner; (www).gayagenda.com or something like that. It will not show up as a link but people who read the forum will remove the () and find it. Simple?

Ranb

Click to expand...

Thanks.
Here it is then: (www)liveleak.com/view?i=864_1423465843

I made the mistake of reading comments. Bleah!

My short answer is three part:

1) Whoever wrote that clearly has a lot of hatred for gays, judging from the tone.
2) All large movements will have some unsavory elements at the fringes, but I'm quite sure that these opinions are not representative of the mainstream of the gay rights movement today.
3) Almost all of that stuff is over 20 years old. The Dan Savage quote might be more recent, but lacks context and does not appear to be an endorsement of pedophilia in any case (I know he is not in favor of tolerating it as I am a regular listener of his podcast; it is most definitely not his position that child molestation should be legal or condoned).

Ok. Now that the link is up, what is real and what is bull?
For NAMBLA the gay rights movement has tried to separate itself from it.
First, the sexual desires of NAMBLA members are not
necessarily confined to same-sex interests. One report said that
an undercover investigation by police in California had found
that NAMBLA was "dominated by heterosexuals."
NAMBLA has always been banned from participation in gay
events in most places. In some cities attempts to ban the group
were given up because of possible legal problems, the law being
interpreted that they had a right to march in public parades.
In some jurisdictions there have always been problems in
trying to keep unwanted groups out of public events such as
parades. The St. Patrick's Day Parade controversies in the 1990s
in Boston and New York, which involved the right to march of gay
and lesbian groups, are cases in point. Some court rulings said
the parades were public events and the gays must be allowed to
participate, while other court rulings said parade organizers
had the right to exclude groups they didn't want to participate.
The issue was finally resolved in favor of the parade
organizers, who now may exclude unwanted groups. In 1996, this
decision enabled Gay Pride Parade organizers to exclude NAMBLA
for the first time in certain jurisdictions, where their earlier
legal advice had been that NAMBLA must be allowed to march in a
public parade.
So, the fact that NAMBLA participated in some gay events
didn't necessarily mean it was a welcome guest, but that the law
was held to require that it be allowed to participate.

ryu238 said:

Ok. Now that the link is up, what is real and what is bull?

Click to expand...

All of it is nonsense. Dismiss it from your mind. Next question.

Could you be more specific in why I should dismiss it...true on the ones I could find there was quote mining...

ryu238 said:

Could you be more specific in why I should dismiss it...

Click to expand...

Could you be more specific in why you should accept it?

............
Http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-report/browse-all-issues/2010/winter/10-myths

.............
ETA
Don't believe everything you read about the homo movement - especially when it is written by people who call it the homo movement.

True the anti-gay movement has lied: (www).amnation.com/vfr/archives/001046.html
(www).bishop-accountability.org/news2007/05_06/2007_06_29_Pietrzyk_HomosexualityAnd.htm

What are my thoughts?

As puppycow notes, the material is awfully old. Has the expansion of gay rights been responsible for a massive reduction in the offenses referred to? So it would seem. If the allegations were true it would be a very good argument for flinging open the closet door.

And as Ranb notes, if you can't check the veracity of the material, why not? If it's any good, it should be pretty easy.

While I suspect that a simpler explanation is that much of the material is inaccurate, biased and worthless, there is a point to be made here. If you divide the world coarsely and arbitrarily into "us" and "them," you automatically include all of them in the same group as the worst of them. Guilt by association is a bad habit any time, but it's worse if you're the author of the association.

Gay pederasts marched for gay rights, communists marched for peace. A common goal is not an equation.

That is true...and the stuff I could check was innacurate. At least for Dan savage.

I wouldn't give much credence to the people disputing the quote that appears in the original post. The homosexual agenda is a lot like the matrix -- people don't even know they're in it because they've been brainwarshed since birth.

One anti-gay guy wrote a paper citing this https://web.archive.org/web/20120306104535/http://dont.stanford.edu/commentary/army.htm as evidence of homosexuals molesting children...
It said "The study found that in 47% of the cases, homosexual men victimized a youth. " the link doesn't make that claim...at all.
Another claim was that homosexuals were three times more likely to molest...This was the link
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1556756
It says "Previous investigations have indicated that the ratio of sex offenders against female children vs. offenders against male children is approximately 2:1, while the ratio of gynephiles to androphiles among the general population is approximately 20:1. The present study investigated whether the etiology of preferred partner sex among pedophiles is related to the etiology of preferred partner sex among males preferring adult partners. Using phallometric test sensitivities to calculate the proportion of true pedophiles among various groups of sex offenders against children, and taking into consideration previously reported mean numbers of victims per offender group, the ratio of heterosexual to homosexual pedophiles was calculated to be approximately 11:1. This suggests that the resulting proportion of true pedophiles among persons with a homosexual erotic development is greater than that in persons who develop heterosexually. This, of course, would not indicate that androphilic males have a greater propensity to offend against children."....the last sentence doesn't match the rest huh?

That same study also did the same misquoting debunked here: http://www.bishop-accountability.org/news2007/05_06/2007_06_29_Pietrzyk_HomosexualityAnd.htm
Then they used this: Holmes, William C. (2 December 1998). "Sexual Abuse of Boys" (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=9846781) to support the idea that molestation causes gayness...but a similar study trying to say the same thing was extremely flawed.
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/warren...y-of-child-abuse-and-homosexuality-revisited/
So I would take that anti-gay claim with a pinch of salt.
Edit: looks like I was right: http://www.wattpad.com/39913804-christian-apologetic-semi-debunked-rape-leads-to

For the record I am checking the studies used in Steven Baldwin's study "Child Molestation and the Homosexual Movement"
He used this study as well: "Blanchard et al. (2000). Fraternal birth order and sexual orientation in pedophiles. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 29, 463-478."
The problem?
This study categorized convicted sex offenders according to whether they molested or reported sexual attraction to boys only, girls only, or both boys and girls. These groups were labeled, respectively, homosexual pedophiles, heterosexual pedophiles, and bisexual pedophiles. This classification referred to their attractions to children. Adult sexual orientation (or even whether the men had an adult sexual orientation) wasn't assessed.

ryu238 said:

While I am ok with consensual sex between an adolescent and an adult...I found this info. Now I can't check the veracity of some of these quotes, so could you help me out?

What are your thoughts?

Click to expand...

AFAIR there is not a higher proportion of pedophile among homosexual than heterosexual therefore the argument is idiotic.

I think that this person might be a troll for the 'anti-gay movement'.

Historically speaking in many countries when gay sex was first legalized this was done conditionally: often the relevant stature(s) covering same-sex intercourse weren't just removed rather they were amended so that it wasn't criminal if it was between people who were above some specific age. That age was often far higher than the comparable "age-of-consent" for heterosexual intercourse. For example: when gay sex was decriminalized in 1944 it still remained criminal if it was with someone under the age of 18. In comparison the "age of sexual autonomy" for "straight sex" has been 15 since 1864 for girls and 1937 for boys.

It should be noted that this decriminalization didn't come from any notions of "gay rights" or "personal freedom" rather it was the idea that homosexuality was a mental illness and one shouldn't punish people for being ill. It should instead be "treated". Likewise the higher age requirement was justified because of the desire to "protect" youths from being "converted" to homosexuality instead of developing "healthy and normative sexual urges".

Consequently, despite the fact that "gay sex between adults" was now not a crime, there was still widespread social and legal discrimination. As organized groups in favor of "gay rights" and sexual freedom in general started appearing one of the noticeable targets for reform was these discriminatory statures. In that environment it wasn't hard for "gay rights" groups to associate with "pedophile groups" because they, at least partly, shared the goal of reforming those laws.

Of course the actual "pro-pedophilia groups" were far more extreme because they typically wanted to abolish any formal "age-of-consent" completely whereas the gay rights groups major focus was upon equalizing the "age-of-consent" for both gay and straight sex. Which usually meant that the law shouldn't make any distinction between the sex or gender of the participants when it comes to "age-of-consent" or "age-of-sexual-autonomy". Likewise for laws in general.

Due to being both naive and ignorant people didn't notice the huge difference between equalizing the "age-of-consent" or lowering it in general and abolishing it completely. Thus they associated with groups which would in retrospect seem quite dubious although once this was pointed out to them, and it became problematic, most of the gay rights groups started to sever all ties to those pedophile groups.

That's basically how the "gay rights movement" happened to become involved with "pedophiles". I'd also like to point out that "pederasty" isn't "gay pedophilia": it's supposed to mean an attraction to or a relationship with male adolescence, which generally means boys in their teens. Whatever your opinion is about that it's generally not pedophilia in the rigorous sense of the word.

"In comparison the "age of sexual autonomy" for "straight sex" has been 15 since 1864 for girls and 1937 for boys." And it was far lower for centuries before hand.
"Of course the actual "pro-pedophilia groups" were far more extreme because they typically wanted to abolish any formal "age-of-consent" completely whereas the gay rights groups major focus was upon equalizing the "age-of-consent" for both gay and straight sex. Which usually meant that the law shouldn't make any distinction between the sex or gender of the participants when it comes to "age-of-consent" or "age-of-sexual-autonomy". Likewise for laws in general. "
Makes sense.
"That's basically how the "gay rights movement" happened to become involved with "pedophiles". I'd also like to point out that "pederasty" isn't "gay pedophilia": it's supposed to mean an attraction to or a relationship with male adolescence, which generally means boys in their teens. Whatever your opinion is about that it's generally not pedophilia in the rigorous sense of the word." I know. And it isn't wrong considering historical age of consent.

lesbian wants to destroy traditional marriage?

What do people think about the audio here: http://www.theblaze.com/stories/201...-marriage-fight-is-a-lie-to-destroy-marriage/
Here is the full audio for curious people: http://mpegmedia.abc.net.au/rn/podcast/2012/06/lms_20120611_0905.mp3

For the record traditional marriage, or rather the myth of its sanctity, is a tool of control. Take it away, and you are left with benefits that could easily be applied to civil unions.

ryu238 said:

What do people think about the audio here: http://www.theblaze.com/stories/201...-marriage-fight-is-a-lie-to-destroy-marriage/
Here is the full audio for curious people: http://mpegmedia.abc.net.au/rn/podcast/2012/06/lms_20120611_0905.mp3

Click to expand...

Radical feminists have been calling for the destruction of not only the patriarchy, but heterosexuality and the two-parent family structure for decades now. So I don't doubt in the least bit that some of them think gay marriage will help them in this quixotic quest to do away with basic human nature. But there are two issues with this idea: the first is that there's no reason to think this goal will be shared by all (or even most) gay marriage proponents, and the second is that just because a radical feminist thinks it will help destroy marriage doesn't mean that it will. After all, she's kind of crazy (lots of radical feminists are, some of them clinically so), so we shouldn't just accept her judgment about its effects.

ryu238 said:

One anti-gay guy wrote a paper citing this https://web.archive.org/web/20120306104535/http://dont.stanford.edu/commentary/army.htm as evidence of homosexuals molesting children...
It said "The study found that in 47% of the cases, homosexual men victimized a youth. " the link doesn't make that claim...at all.
Another claim was that homosexuals were three times more likely to molest...This was the link
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1556756
It says "Previous investigations have indicated that the ratio of sex offenders against female children vs. offenders against male children is approximately 2:1, while the ratio of gynephiles to androphiles among the general population is approximately 20:1. The present study investigated whether the etiology of preferred partner sex among pedophiles is related to the etiology of preferred partner sex among males preferring adult partners. Using phallometric test sensitivities to calculate the proportion of true pedophiles among various groups of sex offenders against children, and taking into consideration previously reported mean numbers of victims per offender group, the ratio of heterosexual to homosexual pedophiles was calculated to be approximately 11:1. This suggests that the resulting proportion of true pedophiles among persons with a homosexual erotic development is greater than that in persons who develop heterosexually. This, of course, would not indicate that androphilic males have a greater propensity to offend against children."....the last sentence doesn't match the rest huh?

Click to expand...

All I can tell you is this - in 15 years otj I never ran across a case where an out gay male molested pre-teen or teen males, but I saw many cases where a male that self identified as straight and culturally identified as straight (married to a woman with kids of their own) molested pre-teen or teen boys, including their own kids.

Think Sandusky.

ryu238 said:

"In comparison the "age of sexual autonomy" for "straight sex" has been 15 since 1864 for girls and 1937 for boys." And it was far lower for centuries before hand.
"Of course the actual "pro-pedophilia groups" were far more extreme because they typically wanted to abolish any formal "age-of-consent" completely whereas the gay rights groups major focus was upon equalizing the "age-of-consent" for both gay and straight sex. Which usually meant that the law shouldn't make any distinction between the sex or gender of the participants when it comes to "age-of-consent" or "age-of-sexual-autonomy". Likewise for laws in general. "
Makes sense.
"That's basically how the "gay rights movement" happened to become involved with "pedophiles". I'd also like to point out that "pederasty" isn't "gay pedophilia": it's supposed to mean an attraction to or a relationship with male adolescence, which generally means boys in their teens. Whatever your opinion is about that it's generally not pedophilia in the rigorous sense of the word." I know. And it isn't wrong considering historical age of consent.

Click to expand...

This is what we call a Wall of Words. Hitting the occassional carriage return will vastly improve readability.

ryu238 said:

For the record traditional marriage, or rather the myth of its scantily, is a tool of control. Take it away, and you are left with benefits that could easily be applied to civil unions.

Click to expand...

Could you possibly define scantily as used in your phrase "myth of it's scantily"?

fuelair said:

Could you possibly define scantily as used in your phrase "myth of it's scantily"?

Click to expand...

I'm gussing sanctity and autocorrect.

fuelair said:

Could you possibly define scantily as used in your phrase "myth of it's scantily"?

Click to expand...

If "Scantily of Marriage" isn't the name of a softcore porno movie, it really needs to be.

Arcade22 said:

Due to being both naive and ignorant people.....

That's basically how the "gay rights movement" happened to become involved with "pedophiles". I'd also like to point out that "pederasty" isn't "gay pedophilia": it's supposed to mean an attraction to or a relationship with male adolescence, which generally means boys in their teens. Whatever your opinion is about that it's generally not pedophilia in the rigorous sense of the word.

Click to expand...

I am sure that your description goes a very long way to describing how this stuff could explain what happened in Sweden, England, and some other countries. But in the U.S., there was no differing age of consent. The stuff coming out of America is far less the confusion arising from ignorant and naive people and far more the hatred arising from ignorant and bigoted people. It is not hard to find people who sincerely and fervently believe:
To the people who belive that crap, it is not important to explain the context of lifted quotes, to check the veracity of cited figures, or to investigate the thoroughness of studies.

Well it isn't going to happen is it? And in any case it should be a matter of choice. I'm currently into the 15th year of a marriageless partnership. Worked better than two previous actual marriage by a long way! But others prefer to formality. Let them have it if they want. We don't have to legislate over every little bit of interpersonal behaviour!

3point14 said:

I'm gussing sanctity and autocorrect.

Click to expand...

Yes, sorry. Changed it. My bad.

ryu238 said:

What do people think about the audio here: http://www.theblaze.com/stories/201...-marriage-fight-is-a-lie-to-destroy-marriage/
Here is the full audio for curious people: http://mpegmedia.abc.net.au/rn/podcast/2012/06/lms_20120611_0905.mp3

Click to expand...

It would be helpful if, when posting a video or posting a link and asking for comments, to provide some synopsis or description. Many don't watch videos or click on random links, for a variety of reasons.

Marriage is a sacred bond between two more humans and their favorite small appliances, all their cattle and chattel, county state and federal governments and any gods the participants choose to invite to the ceremony.

Men marrying men or women marrying women will have zero impact on the sanctity of my marriage. Redefining the traditional family to include two men or two women who also want to have children will have no impact on the structure or value of my traditional (man and woman and 2.5 child) family structure.