Next!!

[dancingqueen]

I have to wonder how many gays are actually taking advantage of this.

You "married", DQ???

Religiously, no. I do, however, share my taxes and medical coverage with my partner. I have no interest in marriage.
Of course if you bothered reading my responses instead of what you wish them to be you could already deduce to that.

[Barry Morris]

...Of course if you bothered reading my responses instead of what you wish them to be you could already deduce to that.

My dear DQ, I rarely ask a question I don't already know the answer to.

[Nihilistic Heathen]

That was fast.

"Using the same tactics used by “gay” rights activists, pedophiles have begun to seek similar status arguing their desire for children is a sexual orientation no different than heterosexual or homosexuals.

Critics of the homosexual lifestyle have long claimed that once it became acceptable to identify homosexuality as simply an “alternative lifestyle” or sexual orientation, logically nothing would be off limits.

“Gay” advocates have taken offense at such a position insisting this would never happen. However, psychiatrists are now beginning to advocate redefining pedophilia in the same way homosexuality was redefined several years ago.

In 1973 the American Psychiatric Association declassified homosexuality from its list of mental disorders. A group of psychiatrists with B4U-Act recently held a symposium proposing a new definition of pedophilia in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Health Disorders of the APA."

http://allenbwest.com/2015/06/that-w...-equal-rights/

That article is very misleading.....

Dr. Quinsey and Dr Van Gijseghem were testifying at a standing committee about Bill C-54 An Act to amend the Criminal Code (sexual offences against children).

My argumentation before the Committee was exactly the opposite
What I said, in sum, is the following: Real pedophiles (about 15 to 20 percent of all child sexual abusers) would better be incarcerated rather than referred to some therapy program as an alternative. The reason: they are untreatable. Why are they untreatable? Because a sexual orientation (an exclusive attraction to prepubescent children is a sexual orientation) is irreversible.
Unlike the way Lilley’s quote was interpreted, I affirm that pedophilia is definitely a pathologic attraction and acting out this attraction is a very serious crime.

Dr Hubert Van Gijseghem, Ph.D.
Forensic Psychologist
Université de Montréal

Then there's this from that article "In July, 2010 Harvard health Publications said, “Pedophilia is a sexual orientation and unlikely to change. Treatment aims to enable someone to resist acting on his sexual urges.”"

A look at the Harvard publication reveals something different....

Pessimism about pedophilia

Harvard Mental Health Letter

There is no cure, so the focus is on protecting children.

Pedophilia, the sexual attraction to children who have not yet reached puberty, remains a vexing challenge for clinicians and public officials. Classified as a paraphilia, an abnormal sexual behavior, researchers have found no effective treatment. Like other sexual orientations, pedophilia is unlikely to change. The goal of treatment, therefore, is to prevent someone from acting on pedophile urges — either by decreasing sexual arousal around children or increasing the ability to manage that arousal. But neither is as effective for reducing harm as preventing access to children, or providing close supervision.

...

The draft version of DSM-V, now undergoing review, proposes several changes to the diagnosis of pedophilia. One is to expand the definition of this disorder to include hebephilia, an attraction to children who are going through puberty. The hybrid category, pedohebephilia, would consist of the pedophilic type (attracted to prepubescent children, generally younger than 11), the hebephilic type (attracted to pubescent children, usually ages 11 through 14), and the pedohebephilic type (attracted to both). In another significant change, the draft suggests that the use of pornography depicting prepubescent or pubescent children for six months or longer should be considered a symptom of pedohebephilia.

So a publication titled "Pessimism about pedophilia" with the first sentence stating "There is no cure, so the focus is on protecting children." is advocating for equal rights of pedophiles? Barry claims Immanuel Kant's work is bull****, what the heck is this.

[RWGR]

My dear DQ, I rarely ask a question I don't already know the answer to.

That's a great way to be close-minded all your life.

[The Chronic Liar]

My dear DQ, I rarely ask a question I don't already know the answer to.

Not usually a source of pride with most people.

[Barry Morris]

Not usually a source of pride with most people.

Not hard to figure out, after all these years.

[The Chronic Liar]

Not hard to figure out, after all these years.

Most have stopped trying.

[Barry Morris]

Most have stopped trying.

Or thinking.

[Barry Morris]

That article is very misleading...

Thanks for the clarification, NH.

[BFLPE]

Barry's still young enough to know it all.

[The Voice]

I remember when DQ Railed against the 1%'ers.


Funny that he is a 2%er and he wants to impose his morals on the Majority.


Gay couples should be and ARE afforded all the rights that Common Law marriage affords them.


But the Privileged 2%ers feel that they have a right to affront the Sanctity of marriage as defined by our western Christian/Judeo society.

[The Voice]

My dear DQ, I rarely ask a question I don't already know the answer to.

That would seem to be an impossibility as you seem to be an expert on all subjects or have a close friend or relative who has privileged inside info.

[RWGR]

I remember when DQ Railed against the 1%'ers.


Funny that he is a 2%er and he wants to impose his morals on the Majority.


Gay couples should be and ARE afforded all the rights that Common Law marriage affords them.


But the Privileged 2%ers feel that they have a right to affront the Sanctity of marriage as defined by our western Christian/Judeo society.

ouch!!

[dancingqueen]

I remember when DQ Railed against the 1%'ers.


Funny that he is a 2%er and he wants to impose his morals on the Majority.


Gay couples should be and ARE afforded all the rights that Common Law marriage affords them.


But the Privileged 2%ers feel that they have a right to affront the Sanctity of marriage as defined by our western Christian/Judeo society.

Funny. Last time I Checked being gay does not mean I agree with all gays. I do not wish to impose my morals on others, I want reason and facts to be observed over opinions.
Do I think your religion is dumb, yes, I have seen more logic come from a used diaper. But practice what you believe in, I have no malice towards dumb people, I just don't want it affecting me in any way.
Because it's dumb.

[RWGR]

Yeah, well you're a blah blah nanny boo boo stinky dumb face!!!

[The Voice]

Do I think your religion is dumb, yes, I have seen more logic come from a used diaper. But practice what you believe in, I have no malice towards dumb people, I just don't want it affecting me in any way.
Because it's dumb.

What was it you accused SB of? Not paying attention to your posts?


I am not a Christian. But I do LIVE in a Christian Country where the Vast Majority are Christian or come from a Christian background.


I will ask you again. To what end do the LBQT need to get married?


I will answer that question for you. To NO END other than to put their LBQT ism out there in every ones face.


The LGQT community represents LESS THAN 2% of the population yet somehow the whole community has to celebrate their diversity?

[The Berean]

That would seem to be an impossibility as you seem to be an expert on all subjects or have a close friend or relative who has privileged inside info.

I'm old enough to know people all over the place!!!

I guess I have all kinds of sources!!!

Or did you think of that??

[BFLPE]

..........

Hey, Barry's daughter returns. WB.

[The Berean]

Hey, Barry's daughter returns. WB.

Nope, It's Barry. You enjoy yourself.

[The Berean]

ouch!!

Interesting. An anti-gay response. One of very, very few.

Of course there IS a reason for that.