IMG_1307e

Latest Examples of the Undeniable Link Between Homosexuality and Pedophilia

avatar
Print Friendly and PDF

This article is not meant to indict all homosexuals as pedophiles or even to imply that most homosexuals actually support such a horrendous thing. Nevertheless, the dangerous link between homosexuality and pedophilia is one that must not be ignored.

Despite the vociferous LGBT protestations to the contrary, homosexual males actually do commit a disproportionate number of the child-sex abuse cases. A study in the Journal of Sex Research found that “although heterosexuals outnumber homosexuals by a ratio of at least 20 to 1, homosexual pedophiles commit about one-third of the total number of child sex offenses.”

Therefore, armed with this critical information, we can confidently conclude that since almost thirty percent of child sexual abuse is committed by homosexual or bisexual men — but less than 3% of American men self-identify as such — that homosexual or bisexual men molest children at 10 times the rate of heterosexuals. And this statistic is based upon the unlikely assumption of full reporting, meaning that the problem is probably worse than we know.

That brings us to our latest examples, illustrating the incontrovertible and menacing link between homosexuality and pedophilia. The Washington Times reported on Monday:

A Washington state man working as a psychologist in a British Columbia school system has been charged in federal court with possessing child pornography.

The seattlepi.com reports that William Brook lived in Point Roberts, a small Whatcom County community located on a peninsula with no land access to the United States. American authorities say Brook was working for the Delta, British Columbia school system.

Prosecutors charge that Brook bought and traded child pornography online, downloading hundreds of child rape photos and videos.

Charging documents say Brook had an online profile where he declared his “love” for “pre-teen/pubescent boys and young teens” no older than 14.

He remains jailed without bond pending that hearing.

Also, the Washington Times reported the following on Tuesday:

He was one of the most beloved teachers in the world of international schools that serve the children of diplomats, well-off Americans and local elites. He was often the first to arrive in the morning, and last to leave. He led student trips to exotic places and gave out cookies and milk at bedtime.

That was the public persona of William Vahey until a maid stole a memory drive from him in November. On it was evidence that Vahey had molested scores of adolescent boys, possibly more.

The discovery of a man the FBI regards as one of the most prolific pedophiles in memory has set off a crisis in the community of international schools, where parents are being told their children may have been victims, and administrators are scurrying to close loopholes exposed by Vahey’s abuses.

Apparently, not even Vahey’s victims knew they had been molested. The double-cream Oreos that he handed out were laced with sleeping pills — enough to leave the boys unconscious as he touched them and posed them for nude photographs.

These not-so-isolated incidents clearly demonstrate the precise reason why we must continue to keep homosexual men as far away as possible from our young boys, especially when we’re talking about settings like a Boy Scout campout or any other all-male overnight gathering where “gay” sexual predators are known to malevolently prowl. And it really doesn’t matter — or at least it shouldn’t — how much pressure is brought to bear by powerful multinational corporations like the Walt Disney Company. We’re talking about battling the dominion of darkness here; so, with all due respect, the Magic Kingdom needs to keep Mickey’s nose out of this.

Watch an honest “gay” man, Walter Lee Hampton II, explain how older men pursue sex with underage teen boys — something he has seen a lot of in his life as a homosexual. Here is his own description of the video, published February 8, 2014.

Based upon my life experiences ..if I had Teenage sons I would NOT allow them around GAY MEN!..because over the years I have seen many GAY MEN pursue TEENAGE BOYS (ages 14-17) for SEX. and I have seen this VERY OFTEN.

As an example of how mainstream pedophilia has become within the homosexual movement, we need only look no further than President Barack Obama’s extremely controversial selection of Kevin Jennings as the so-called Safe Schools Czar. Jennings was the founder of the sexual extremist group GLSEN.

BarbWire.com Editor-in-Chief Matt Barber revealed the following in his shocking expose entitled The Left’s Push for Adult-Child Sex:

Wrote the Washington Times of Jennings in 2009:

“A teacher was told by a 15-year-old high school sophomore that he was having homosexual sex with an ‘older man.’ At the very least, statutory rape occurred. Fox News reported that the teacher violated a state law requiring that he report the abuse. That former teacher, Kevin Jennings, is President Obama’s ‘safe school czar.’

“In this one case in which Mr. Jennings had a real chance to protect a young boy from a sexual predator, he not only failed to do what the law required but actually encouraged the relationship.”

Jennings later lied about the encounter until audio surfaced of him bragging on it. “I looked at [the boy],” he quipped, “and said, ‘You know, I hope you knew to use a condom.’”

Still, this pattern of homosexual abuse and facilitation of such abuse by the “LGBT” movement is nothing new.

Take Jennings hero Harry Hay. Hay is considered the “founding father” of the modern “gay rights” movement. Among other things, he has been honored as an “icon” for “LGBT History Month” by the entire homosexual activist community.

Not surprisingly, Hay was a child rape enthusiast and avid supporter of the pedophile North American Man/Boy Love Association, or NAMBLA. In 1983, while keynoting a NAMBLA event, Hay said the following:

“It seems to me that in the gay community the people who should be running interference for NAMBLA are the parents and friends of gays. Because if the parents and friends of gays are truly friends of gays, they would know from their gay kids that the relationship with an older man is precisely what 13-, 14-, and 15-year-old kids need more than anything else in the world.”

IMG_1307e

Feature image: Harry Hay, pioneer for so-called “gay rights,” voicing his support for the pedophile group NAM/BLA.

Even Academia has inexcusably jumped on the reprobate bandwagon by co-opting the homosexual “born that way” argument and applying it to pedophilia as well. Prof. John Money of Johns Hopkins University has publicly stated that pedophilia is “no more a voluntary choice than are left-handedness or color blindness” and that it can’t be “altered, suppressed or replaced.” Dr. Peter J. Fagan, writing in the Journal of the American Medical Association, and Prof. Fred Berlin, founder of the Johns Hopkins Sexual Disorders Clinic, each independently concluded that pedophilia is not a voluntary choice. And there are many others arguing the same thing (i.e.: Dr. Richard Green, sexologist and psychiatrist; Sarah Goode, University of Winchester), referring to it as “intergenerational intimacy” instead of what it actually is: child molestation. Before long, pedophilia, like homosexuality, will be completely equated with race/gender, and the laws prohibiting it will inevitably be argued as discriminatory. Although legalized pedophilia may not be an immediate consequence of such questionable “studies,” liberals will most certainly continue their perverse push to progressively lower the age of consent.

Wesley J. Smith at National Review in “Normalizing Pedophilia” took note of an article in the British Guardian newspaper, “Pedophilia: Bringing Dark Desires Into the Light,” which makes the horrendous claim that “pedophiles may be wired differently. This is radical stuff. But there is a growing conviction, notably in Canada, that pedophilia should probably be classified as a distinct sexual orientation, like heterosexuality or homosexuality.” Wesley Smith further reported that some academics have been justifying sex with minors for over a decade. One of those individuals — Theo Sandfort, a former editor of the notorious Dutch pedophile journal Paidika, author of the 2001 book Childhood Sexuality and co-editor of the 1990 book Male Intergenerational Intimacy — is now serving as a member of the Columbia University faculty.

The monthly Harvard Mental Health Letter published by Harvard Health Publications (July 2010):

Pedophilia is a sexual orientation and unlikely to change … Consensus now exists that pedophilia is a distinct sexual orientation.

Undoubtedly and unfortunately, the normalization of deviancy and sexual anarchy is on the march. No longer can we afford to keep our heads buried in the sand regarding this egregious matter. We must without reserve expose this darkness of depravity to the light of God’s truth and serious public scrutiny. Our children are in serious peril if we don’t.

The common argument made by homosexual apologists to the aforementioned claims is that homosexuality and pedophilia are two completely different issues. Although it is obviously true that not all homosexual behavior is adult-child in nature, homosexual pedophilia still remains homosexuality (same sex activity) — no matter how some may try to spin it.

Once the sexual behavior of an individual breaks the containment of God’s absolute moral standard, there is no limit to the depths of depravity to which one may sink. Homosexuality is no doubt one step along this perverse slippery slope.

And it’s time to sound the alarm.

(Correction: BarbWire has learned that the original image accompanying this column had apparently been altered. That image has been removed accordingly.)

Print Friendly and PDF



Posting Policy

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse. Read More

comments

  • Unashamed Overcomer

    Funny, how Walter Lee Hampton went and changed his words around to exonerate gay pedophiles. Anything to save the home team, huh?

    • Jacobus Arminius

      What do you mean?

      • Unashamed Overcomer

        look at the video description he wrote AFTER gays told him to stop connecting gay men with pedophilia.

    • Tim Miller

      What are you talking about. Care to present some facts based in reality.

  • Jacobus Arminius

    Pedophilia is a “sexual orientation.” We told you so…thank you homosexual deviants.

    • garybryson

      you’re not that smart are you hetrosexual deviant?

      • Indiana Conservative

        Shoving a penis up another males rearend is not natural.Being a heterosexual os

        • im_on_the_fence

          *is….but you’re from Indiana, so….

        • Drew Humberd

          Sounds like you’ve thought about it a bit.

          • grada3784

            You know. Conservative Christians and their love for porn.

        • helen s

          Shoving? Not so natural. Add a little lube and consideration and, voila’, natural. And fun!

        • grada3784

          But shoving one up a female’s is amazingly popular in the straight community.

          • L1011

            And they have no problem with that.

      • Jacobus Arminius

        Do you deny that HARVARD is saying this?

    • grada3784

      Still pushing people away with the insults?

      • thisoldspouse

        That you find the truth insulting is more a reflection of your own depravity.

        • grada3784

          Hardly, you perversion of Christianioity.

        • grada3784

          Hardly, poor pathetic little you. Your control problems are showing.

  • garybryson

    No real evidence and when you link to an frc pamphlet, you’ve already lost the argument. Smells more like desperation on the side of the religious wrong. BTW- did you see that Arkansa, Orgeon, and Idaho.all have marriage equaliy now??? Losing on every front

    • thisoldspouse

      Lawlessness on every front. And you’re happy about it. Figures.

      Enjoy your fascism. It won’t last forever.

      • garybryson

        I know spouser, the activist judeges, all of them(lol), are out to get the christians. You just don’t get it that you have no standing in the courts with the ridiculous arguments being made agaisnt marriage equality. You will continue to lose as these judege are making the right decision based on the 14th amendment. You’ll get over it

        • QuadGMoto

          So tell me, are hetersexual people allowed to marry someone of the same sex, but not homosexuals?

          • garybryson

            see below…you can’t fix stupid….

          • QuadGMoto

            That’s not an answer.

          • Drew Humberd

            You realize this incredibly flimsy defense falls apart when compared to interracial marriage, right? Obviously there was “equality” by your definition when any man could marry any woman who was of the same race as he. We’ve since determined as a society that deciding what race a person’s spouse must be is a detriment to freedom.

          • QuadGMoto

            Because skin color is irrelevant. The color of one’s skin has nothing to do with whether or not someone is human. That justification was used to excuse slavery. And if it is irrelevant in relation to slavery, then it is irrelevant in relation to marriage.

            Still, the claim you guys are advancing is “unequal”. Therefore, the question, “is it unequal?” is precisely the question to be asked. If you are going to make the claim, then YOUR claim is what must be tested.

            So tell me, are hetersexual people allowed to marry someone of the same sex, but not homosexuals?

          • shepetgene

            I think we addressed this well in another thread with the comparison to religion and worship in a Mosque. If you lived in a society where Freedom of Religion recognized only Islam as a valued religion in society then by your definition if you were allowed to worship in a mosque freely, then you would have Freedom of Religion. Your definition is only valuing heterosexual couples as a valid relationship and worthy of marriage. Yes they are free to marry a person of the opposite sex, which by your definition would be equality, but that is only from a worldview that values heterosexual couples as valid, societally sanctioned couples.

          • Guest

            I did not participate in that thread.

            And you still have not answered the question.

          • shepetgene

            Is this going into some rabbit hole of two male friends marrying each other for the tax breaks? Yes, if same-sex marriage is legal then I suppose two men could scam the government that way. Just like right now a male and a female friend could do the same thing. That’s not really an argument against same-sex marriage but marriage fraud.

          • QuadGMoto

            I did not participate in that thread.

            Yes they are free to marry a person of the opposite sex

            Straight up, factually WRONG. Under existing definitions of marriage as one man, one woman (which is what is being attacked using the “equality” assertion) heterosexuals are no more able to marry someone of the same sex than homosexuals.

          • shepetgene

            Actually I wasn’t answering your question there. I thought you were asking if homosexuals could marry someone of the opposite sex. That is what I was saying. I think we both just misunderstood each other.

            The comment about the Mosque and Freedom of Religion explains why your thinking around there already being equality under the law is wrong. That addresses your original question more accurately.

          • QuadGMoto

            Except it doesn’t.

            If the same law applies to everyone whether they want to violate it or not, then it is not unequally applied.

            Throwing a self-contradictory “Freedom = no choice” religious argument into the mix does not change anything.

          • shepetgene

            Yes it does. Because there is a false-sense of equality. The current law does not provide equality for same-sex couples. It devalues them as couples. Yes, the law is equally discriminatory to all people, but same-sex couples (being the people that want to marry someone of the same sex) are facing the burden of the discrimination. That is not “equality.”

            And that is probably why this argument has been failing in the judicial system over and over again.

          • QuadGMoto

            You are asserting that same sex couples are the same as heterosexual couples. They’re not. See any simple textbook on male and female biology, physiology, and/or psychology.

            M+F is not equal to M+M or F+F, no matter how long you hold your breath or stomp your feet.

          • shepetgene

            I’m not asserting they are the same. I’m asserting they deserve the same value within the society and deserve equal treatment under the law in recognition of their relationships.

            I’m well-versed in biology and physiology, thank you. I never asserted they were the same with respect to those.

          • QuadGMoto

            I never asserted they were the same with respect to those.

            Then by simple, basic logic, it should be obvious to you that “not the same” cannot mean “has the same value.”

            I’m asserting they deserve the same value within the society…

            Thank you for that admission.

          • shepetgene

            Do you really have to always use that obnoxious bolding?

            No need to thank me for that admission. It’s only your fringe group of extremists that are arguing against their societal value. It’s not holding up in the legal courts or the court of public opinion.

            And your “not being the same” and “not having the same value” statement is not correct. Here’s a very basic example: 1 dollar and 37 cents is not the same thing as 1 euro, but they are given the same value by society (on this day).

          • QuadGMoto

            No need to thank me for that admission.

            Maybe you should look up the definition of “assertion”.

            It’s not holding up in the legal courts or the court of public opinion.

            Neither of which has any legitimate authority to make law.

            Economic value of money is not the same thing as social value to a society. Producing children and raising them to be productive, law-abiding, stable adults is a social value that same-sex couples cannot do by their very nature.

          • shepetgene

            I don’t understand how I’m misusing that term. I do think that same-sex couples provide equal societal value.

            And the judicial system is tasked with determining the validity of law and denying same-sex couples marriage has been determined to be invalid in multiple court cases.

          • QuadGMoto

            The judicial system is tasked with applying the law, and only evaluation the validity of a law when two laws contradict each other.

          • shepetgene

            You are right. I misspoke. These laws are judged invalid because they conflict with previously established constitutional rights.

          • QuadGMoto

            Thank you for that. Seriously.

            The argument I’m seeing your side making is using the 14th Amendment Constitutional law. The portion being used is this:

            nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

            Here’s the thing about laws. They inherently affect what people want to do. Do you want to rob a bank? Nope, can’t do that. Do you want to commit murder? Nope, can’t do that. Do you want to rape, plunder, and pillage your weaselly black heart out? Nope, can’t do that.

            If what was meant by this amendment was that laws could not be passed which affected those who want to do a thing differently than those who do not want to do a thing, then it would necessarily invalidate all laws. Therefore, it cannot mean that. Yet that is what your side is asserting.

            What it means is that laws cannot create special groups. “Group A is free to murder, but not group B. Group C can rape, pillage, and plunder their weaselly black hearts out, but no one else.” That is unequal protection under the law.

            Thus my question: “Are heterosexuals permitted to marry someone of the same sex, but not homosexuals?” In other words, do laws (and Constitutional amendments) which define marriage as one man plus one woman affect everyone the same regardless of their desires? Or is their impact only in the area of wants where laws operate out of necessity?

            My argument is that there is not a contradiction. Therefore judges do not have legitimate authority to overturn duly passed laws.

          • John Naughton

            “Are heterosexuals permitted to marry someone of the same sex, but not homosexuals?”

            Are men allowed to marry women, but women are not allowed?

          • grada3784

            Except that the judges are disagreeing with you.

          • Drew Humberd

            Except that same-sex families do produce children who end up being productive.

          • QuadGMoto

            You sure have a funny definition for “produce”.

          • Drew Humberd

            Really? So you guys DO consider heterosexual families who don’t reproduce via traditional means inferior to “normal” families. Man, those adoptive parents and people who conceive via in vitro are so disgusting!

          • Guest

            never-mind

          • unsavedheathen

            The ability for a couple to independently procreate, the underlying point behind your biology/physiology argument, has never been a determinative factor in any state’s decision on whether or not to issue a marriage license.

          • Jacobus Arminius

            Read recent article on BarbWire: “Struggling With Homosexuality?”

          • QuadGMoto

            Gee, what response is possible to someone so obviously intent on refusing to acknowledge reality?

          • Drew Humberd

            I’m still confused as to why it’s okay for me to hypothetically marry some woman I don’t have feelings for when what’s at stake is putatively the sanctity of marriage.

            If I’m marrying someone for reasons unrelated to love and a desire to raise a family with that person, am I not devaluing marriage?

            I mean, I understand what this is really about–you don’t actually want us to get married at all. I just think it’s odd that you’re so glib about “just marry a woman, presto changeo no discrimination-o” when we would inevitably be condemning such a woman to a loveless marriage. That doesn’t seem like equality.

          • QuadGMoto

            I’m still confused as to why it’s okay for me to hypothetically marry some woman I don’t have feelings for…

            No one is forcing you to get married. You have the freedom to choose to stay single.

            That still leaves my question.

            Are hetersexual people allowed to marry someone of the same sex, but not homosexuals?

          • shepetgene

            We already addressed that question together. No they are not. They are equally discriminated against by the letter of the law. Same-sex couples, however, face the burden of the discrimination. Moreover, the current laws only provide societal value to heterosexual couples and are not actually providing an equal environment.

          • QuadGMoto

            Moreover, the current laws only provide societal value to heterosexual couples and are not actually providing an equal environment.

            A) There is an equal environment. The laws do/did apply equally to everyone. Just because you don’t like a law does not mean it is unequal in application. In other words:

            They are equally discriminated against by the letter of the law.

            B) Passing legislation is only the legitimate domain of legislators, not the courts.

          • unsavedheathen

            You seem to possess a basic misunderstanding of the role of the judiciary in our federal republic. No judge has ever passed legislation. Judges rule on the constitutionality of laws passed by legislatures. This is a basic safeguard against the tyranny of the majority that has served this country well since its founding.

          • Drew Humberd

            Do you really want to walk down that road? I mean, all I have to do if you want me to be uselessly glib is point out that men and women don’t have the same rights as to who they can marry, and voila, it’s gender discrimination. Why don’t I have the same rights as a woman?!

            Or you could present a good argument for why marriage equality shouldn’t be legal. I wish you the best of luck with that, as I believe lawyers on the subject have failed almost twenty times in a row now. Feel free to blame liberal judges, like Justice Kennedy, who was appointed by Ronald Reagan.

          • QuadGMoto

            Everyone does have the same rights as to who they are able to marry. You just want to marry someone else.

            marriage equality

            Basic law of logic number 1: A thing is equal to itself. Marriage is marriage. What you want is something different than marriage that you make “equal” by force of law. You can pout all you want, but M+M or F+F is not, and can never be equal to M+F because it is physically impossible.

          • shepetgene

            We’re not pouting, because we’re not children. We’re adults who are facing a real discrimination and losing dignity, parental rights, money, and for some people with trans-national partners the ability to live with their partners among many other things. Your belittling of that is despicable.

          • Rob

            And you can cry “it’s impossible!!!” all you want, but guess what? IT’S HAPPENING!! You have two choices: Learn to get along with people (y’know, like the Golden Rule taught you as a kid?), or get out of the way.

          • QuadGMoto

            I acknowledge that people like you are pretending they’re equal. But constantly insisting they are does not actually make it true.

          • Drew Humberd

            “Physically impossible”, eh?

          • Jacobus Arminius

            Look at recent article on BarbWire: “Struggling With Homosexuality?”

          • thisoldspouse

            Your comparison falls apart completely when we point out that homosexuals may marry not only the same type of person as a heterosexual person may, but he may marry the exact same person.

            So, your argument is nothing like the inter-racial argument. Nothing at all. There is no discrimination.

          • shepetgene

            Please see QuadGMoto and I below with regards to why it is discrimination. Or any of the myriad court cases where it was ruled as such.

          • Boetica

            The Supreme Court has upheld traditional marriage laws. Even in California the citizens affirmed that marriage is between a man and a woman. LIBERAL CALIFORNIA.

          • Drew Humberd

            You can’t marry the same person as someone else, dude. I think you may be confused.

          • shepetgene

            I think he means a gay or a straight man are both legally able to marry the same woman. Not at the same time of course, but because of that there is no discrimination.

            His overall statement is still wrong, but I think that was the point of that bit of it.

          • Drew Humberd

            It’s such an incredibly stupid argument that I stopped trying. That “you can marry the same hypothetical person you have no interest in” would be a valid argument on behalf of discrimination is just flat-out hilarious.

          • shepetgene

            Amen

          • Jacobus Arminius

            Then go for celibacy.

          • Drew Humberd

            You first!

          • Jacobus Arminius

            Check out recent article on BarbWire: “Struggling With Homosexuality?”

          • thisoldspouse

            Homosexuals may marry the exact same person (excluding close family relations) that anyone else may marry.

            Why is this so confusing for you?

          • Drew Humberd

            No one may marry the same person someone else marries. Dude. That’s polygamy. Are you perchance a time-travelling Mormon?

          • thisoldspouse

            Learn the nuances of the language in order to engage in intelligent debate. May marry as opposed to has married. In other words, a homosexual is not treated differently under the law.

          • Drew Humberd

            Ah, so what you’re saying is that if the law were changed tomorrow and one could only marry a person of the same sex as they are, you would have no problem with it because it would be equal. Thanks for clarifying that for me!

          • Boetica

            “Nature’s God” tells us what an appropriate mate is.

          • Boetica

            Any single adult male can marry any single adult female. That is what he is trying to say. That is marriage equality. Because 2% of the population have abnormal attractions is no reason to change the definition of marriage.

          • Boetica

            Who are you to tell someone who they can love? Anti-polygamy or anti-polyandry laws are discrimination.

          • Boetica

            Race is genetic. Homosexuality is not.

        • Dannyboy

          Judges, especially liberal ones, just copy each other. The idea that suddenly same sex marriage must be *mandated* after hundreds of years of US law and history, is absurd. The judges’ rulings that restricting marriage to the opposite sex has “no rational basis” defies all fact and logic. What if a judge decided that putting a person in prison for murder lacked a rational basis? What, a judge can make any ruling?

          • pleasebereasonable

            How do you explain the conservative judges who were appointed by gop presidents that have come to the same conclusion?

          • Dannyboy

            They are gutless just like the GOP establishment and they are not conservative even if they were nominated by Republicans. Often, a true conservative can’t get approved because the Democrats won’t vote to approve him.

          • pleasebereasonable

            Oh, I get it now…..No True Scotsman.

          • QuadGMoto

            Words mean things. “Conservative” is defined by a set of ideals. Someone who acts contrary to those ideals does not match that list by definition.

          • pleasebereasonable

            Like I said, I get it……your owner personal set is the definition. Again, No True Scotsman.

          • grada3784

            Yeah. Conservative means smaller government, except for sex. Then it’s spend a fortune sticking conservative noses in other people’s private parts.

          • Boetica

            You are the ones who are exposing yourselves. Any single adult male can marry any other single adult female. That is equality under the law. Because 2% of the population have abnormal attractions is no reason to change the definition of marriage.

          • Jacobus Arminius

            Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

          • Jacobus Arminius

            See recent article on BarbWire: “Struggling With Homosexuality?”

    • Youcan’tfixstupid

      Political courts are ignoring the constitution and the wishes of voters to overturn laws against gay marriage. That is our country losing.

    • Jacobus Arminius

      Lose the battles, win THE war.

      • garybryson

        not even close to winning anything much less the war.

    • L1011

      That’s like using the bible to prove the validity of Christianity.

  • shepetgene

    I’m not even going to begin to post all of the things on this that I have before, because it’s quite frankly ridiculous that you would need to keep hearing this BUT cherry picking one study, which does not explain it’s methods on how they were asked what their sexual orientation was, cannot be used to suddenly say most pedophiles who molest boys identify as homosexual. The link between homosexuality and pedophilia has been discredited in further studies and is not supported by any major medical organization. And pointing to an anecdotal story of a male pedophile who was attracted to boys does not make your case.

    There was recently a high-profile case of a married man with children in my area who collected child pornography. There must be a link between married men and pedophilia. There has to be, because I can point to this one case.

    If you have a religious aversion to homosexuality and you want to restrict our rights because of it, just be honest about it. Stop trying to twist science to scapegoat our community.

    • thisoldspouse

      You can’t hide behind the “anecdote” farce on this one (even though you present one to try to bolster your case.) The author cited studies. Read them. Look at the empirical evidence. Homosexuals are ardently after children in every public arena: education, popular entertainment, cultural products, etc. That you try to deny this is obviously proof of your desperate attempts to hide it.

      • shepetgene

        That was a sarcastic anecdote. The point being, that’s obviously not a true statement, even though it is anecdotally supported by one case.

        And the author cited a questionable study, which has not been repeated, and then misconstrues another study by claiming a man who molests a boy is a “homosexual” as opposed to a “pedophile.” There’s a reason all medical organizations do not support this link – because it is not a real link. The Family Research Council is intentionally using old and cherry-picked studies or twisting study results to make a political statement unsupported by research as a whole.

        • QuadGMoto

          An anecdote is an individual datum point.

          You can pretend the evidence does not exist all you want (and you do). That does not change the fact that you are simply wrong.

          • shepetgene

            No. I’m not willfully ignoring studies done in the last 15 years, like the Family Research Council is, in order to make my points.

          • QuadGMoto

            You’re just asserting that they’re always invalid. That’s just your excuse for ignoring them.

          • shepetgene

            No. That is not the statement I’m making. I’m pointing to one study that is methodologically unclear. And the other study, I actually am completely comfortable with the results, just not the way FRC is twisting them.

          • QuadGMoto

            Like I said, always invalid.

          • shepetgene

            Again. That’s not what I’m saying. No matter how many times you attempt to simplify my statements to that it does not make that true.

          • QuadGMoto

            And yet that is precisely the resulting effect. You’re more sophisticated in varying your excuses by study, but they’re still just excuses that are not applied to studies you like.

          • shepetgene

            No, they are criticisms. Studies are important, but they are not without flaws. And my criticism of the study showing statistics about how many crimes are committed by “homosexual pedophiles” versus “heterosexual pedophiles” is not with the study itself but with how this site is twisting that study. They are equating “homosexual pedophiles” with “homosexuals” which is not the same thing. That is again, a criticism of this site, not the study.

          • Tim Miller

            You cant argue with stupid. If there was any brains behind this they wouldn’t be so wrong on so many different things.
            Again some people just cant grip reality or common sense.

          • pleasebereasonable

            Resulting effect does not equal intent. If the resulting effect is to invalidate a study, perhaps the failure lies with the study itself…..

      • Tim Miller

        Well I have also read a study by the “Complete BS Foundation” that proves that all those on the religious right are secretly vampires who are just waiting to take over the country on their attack unicorn. There the study I just cited is about just as legitimate.

        • Jacobus Arminius

          Check out the recent article “Struggling with Homosexuality?” It should help you see the compassionate side of Mr. Allen

          • garybryson

            spammerific

    • QuadGMoto

      Ah, the old “no evidence is ever enough” ploy.

      • shepetgene

        No the old “using one study that has been refuted by multiple studies since and does not explain in its methods on how it came up with that statement about 86% of pedophile being identified as homosexual or bisexual, which would make anyone suspect those results” ploy.

        • QuadGMoto

          Like I said…

          • shepetgene

            Here is a statement by the American Psychological Association. They make their comments on the research in its entirety, not by cherry-picking studies that support their results.

            “Studies on who commits child sexual abuse vary in their findings, but the most common finding is that the majority of sexual offenders are family members or are otherwise known to the child. Sexual abuse by strangers is not nearly as common as sexual abuse by family members. Research further shows that men perpetrate most instances of sexual abuse, but there are cases in which women are the offenders. Despite a common myth, homosexual men are not more likely to sexually abuse children than heterosexual men are.”

          • Matthew T. Mason

            Oh, yes, the American Psychological Association.

            Did I ever mention they published the infamous pro-pedophilia Rind study?

            Sure, lying pedo defenders like shepetgene will look at you and swear up one side and down the other there are no homosexual pedophiles. (Of course, they act as if homosexuals are just to the right of Jesus Christ.)

            They will also deliberately brush aside if not completely ignore the presentation of cold, hard facts because none of them are convenient to them or the agenda.

            But I digress.

            The APA ceased having credibility of any kind the minute they published that study.

          • shepetgene

            We have this disagreement every time, so I will just start again by stating clearly. I am NOT defending pedophilia. I am defending the gay community from being smeared with the pedophilia moniker. Those are two different things that you cannot seem to keep straight.

          • Matthew T. Mason

            I am NOT defending pedophilia.

            Then act like it.

            I am defending the gay community from being smeared with the pedophilia moniker.

            There’s no smearing involved. As far back as 1972, there has been an expressed desire within the homosexual community to have sexual relations with underage kids. Any one who disputes that is either ignorant or a liar.

          • garybryson

            Is that all you have matty? Go around and accuse people of defending pedophiles? The only liars here those like yourself who lie for christ. You have zero idea about that which you speak. Zero idea. Your a nother heterofascist liar for christ

          • shepetgene

            The Rind study also specifically stated the intentions of the study were NOT to argue against the moral problems of child sexual abuse, but to determine exactly what were the damaging effects of child sexual abuse. I.e. even if child sexual abuse does not lead to long-lasting mental health issues in some cases, the authors were not advocating for changing laws due to that. That article was twisted again by both pro-pedophile groups and right-wing groups.

            Part of being a child sexual abuse survivor is the feeling of victimhood and society adding a “broken” label to you. For a person like that it might actually be heartening to see a study that showed you don’t necessarily have long-term harm from child sexual abuse. That’s a positive way the study might benefit society. It’s unfortunate that it was used by pro-pedophile side, but that does not make the study pro-pedophilia.

          • Matthew T. Mason

            Yeah, why do you insist on doing this over and over again?

            Let me make myself clear:

            I am saying you are a pedo defender because defending pedophiles and pedophilia is what you do. Defending the Rind study is incontrovertible proof of that.

            You want to impress me? Stop lying, and admit to what you are doing. Then ask God for forgiveness and mercy.

          • shepetgene

            I have no desire to impress you. I just wish you would see the world is slightly more nuanced than you are allowing. Also, you came to me calling me a pedo-defender, not the other way around. Why do you keep doing this over and over again?

            I’m defending the original intent of the Rind study, not its use by pro-pedophilia groups to argue for reformed sexual consent laws.

          • Matthew T. Mason

            You only desire to impress your homosexual colleagues, which is the problem.

            Look, I know what the original intent of the Rind study was. I read the abstract. Which is why I am saying what I have. And why you aren’t fooling me or God for so much as a second.

            Admitting you are a liar to God, others and yourself is the first step. Take it.

          • garybryson

            No need to impress the overtly ignorant

      • BillTheCat45

        Ah, the old “made-up evidence masquerading as fact” ploy.

  • michael myers

    Love reading posts from the homofascist gaystapo and their “mouthpieces”

    • shepetgene

      Har har har. Great oral sex joke. Look at how much fun wordplay you can put in a comment! I noticed you didn’t actually post anything refuting any of the claims we’re making.

    • Elcoguy

      In other words…..the cultural majority….you must feel lonely way out on the fringe by yourself.

  • aCultureWarrior

    Jeff Allen writes: “This article is not meant to indict all homosexuals as pedophiles or even to imply that most homosexuals actually support such a horrendous thing..”
    Man/Boy “Love” might not be every homosexuals “thing” Jeff, but proud and unrepentant people don’t judge others that are doing their own “thing” (i.e. the shoplifter, even though his crime is not as serious as the burglar, still doesn’t judge him, as they’re both involved in immoral activities).

    • Pjs8200

      Oh do tell….please share your source on this.

    • grada3784

      Darn it. Another copy of the agenda I missed.

  • CajunPatriot

    Matt, you know you will receive snide comments from sodomists, along with posts such as: “That is old news, we already know that.” or “The conclusions are erred. They drew conclusions not justified by empirical evidence” or “your quotations are from ‘Christian’ or rightist sources, making them all spurious,” or “no real doctors or scientists would say or conclude such things.”

    Since I have seen the devastation upon children by homosexuals/sodomists I can concur with the conclusion that it is inescapable that some homosexuals are child predators and pedophiles and that homosexual pedophiles, though small in number, commit such horrid abuse and crimes on children an inordinate amount of time.

    • garybryson

      What a liar. What devastation ahve you seen…none. It’s amazing that hose who follow god dont seem to be able to get through a post here without lying.

      • CajunPatriot

        You are the liar, pervert. My wife and for decades now have provided licensed counseling for children who have suffered sex abuse. The teenager raped in a Burger King by a 51 year old homosexual pedophile shocked a small community. Children sexually molested by homosexual priests shocked another community nearby. You live in an alternate reality, pervert. Get more of God and of Christ, Get deliverance from your perversion and quit commenting on things you have no idea about.

        • im_on_the_fence

          I bet you’re a fine, upstanding Christian too? Bet you walk on water, being as judgmental as you are…

        • NOODLESOUP

          The penalty should be castration for child anal rape.

          • shepetgene

            What if we just continue to punish all child sexual abuse equally? It seems odd to design a specific punishment for vaginal versus anal versus oral penetration.

          • pleasebereasonable

            It sure does, with the exception that oral penetration has the added crime of “sin”. /snark

          • grada3784

            Why not for all child rape. Afraid you’ll catch too many straights?

        • Pjs8200

          You expect us to believe that you’re a licensed counselor but refer to homosexuals as perverts? Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight

          • CajunPatriot

            Wroooong! No one I know, including myself, counsels with Sexually aberrant deviants, especially pedophiles, when it is known even to secular psychiatrists that there is no remedy to their perversions only ongoing lifelong therapy, and too often recidivism.

          • grada3784

            Which is an argument that it’s a separate orientation.

          • Jacobus Arminius

            See the recent article “Struggling with Homosexuality?” It should help you see the compassionate side of Mr. Allen.

          • Pjs8200

            Yeah…sure…compassion….whatever.

        • luke

          so just because a couple gays molest people means that all gays are molesters????

        • BillTheCat45

          Go to hell and take your American Taliban with you, you fake patriot piece of human garbage. Must suck to see your worldview slipping away, loser, HAHAHAHAHAHAHA

          Yeh, a HOMO PRIEST, NO SURPRISE THERE SINCE MOST OF YOU ARE IN THE CLOSET

        • grada3784

          You’re like the psychiatrist who maintained that gays were sick because all his gay patients were sick, conveniently ignoring that all his heterosexual patients were sick too.

        • garybryson

          The only pervert here is you. Perverting reality to fit your own world view. Nobody but nobody beleives that you have counseled children abused by homosexuals. You sir are a liar for christ.

      • Youcan’tfixstupid

        Because you say it’s a lie, makes it a lie?

  • Warren Throckmorton

    A great example of lying by misusing a study.

    • thisoldspouse

      But misusing the sexual organs and the elimination port is just dandy, right?

      • Rockon

        Throckmorton was a therapist and an advocate of change therapy and also expressed/knew quite well the euphemism and Orwellian foundation the homosexual activist movement was/is built on and how and when it started. Then all of the sudden, overnight, he became a pro-homosexual activist blogger…almost literally overnight. I think anybody should find that suspect, don’t you?

        • Matthew T. Mason

          Someone impersonating him online.

          • Rockon

            No. It’s really him.

          • Matthew T. Mason

            How do you know? This is the internet, dude. You can be anyone you want.

          • Jacobus Arminius

            I heard from a reliable source that it’s him.

        • NOODLESOUP

          They are never satisfied for their own actions but the real intent is force acceptance of their ugly lives

          • BillTheCat45

            Said the ugliest one in the room.

          • Jacobus Arminius

            See recent article on BarbWire: “Struggling With Homosexuality?” Very compassionate article to go with the video.

          • grada3784

            Ask yourself why you’re struggling so much with Homosexuality?

        • thisoldspouse

          That’s the usual result of constant and viciously applied extortion. Most people, especially those with vulnerable families, can withstand years or decades of that type of onslaught.

      • ScottJL

        Hmm. In case you weren’t up on male biology, males urinate from the same “elimination port” as they ejaculate semen. Just saying.

      • L1011

        Yes

      • Rob

        The vagina is also an “elimination port,” let’s not forget.

        Look, you can do whatever you want in the privacy of your own bedroom with any consenting adult, as can I. That’s really all there is to the matter.

      • grada3784

        How do men have sex without using the frontal elimination port?

    • Jacobus Arminius

      Are you denying that Leftists are calling pedophilia an orientation?

      • shepetgene

        While a lot of people are arguing for pedophilia to be classified as a sexual orientation – which makes sense as nobody has really found a way to rehabilitate them to be attracted to adults effectively. There is no largely supported movement arguing for it to be a protected sexual orientation. Hence while almost all laws that protect sexual orientation specifically define it as “heterosexuality, homosexuality, or bisexuality” and a few specifically call out pedophilia as an orientation that is not protected.

        • JGSRELP

          Stop with your facts. This is barbwire. Facts will get you booted from here and you’ll make the regular commenters very unhappy. ;)

          • Jacobus Arminius

            Actually, many of the regular commenters are the homosexual denialists.

          • Jacobus Arminius

            See recent, very compassionate article on BarbWire: “Struggling With Homosexuality?”

        • Jacobus Arminius

          Give it time. That’s coming? Why not? If you guys argue for what you want, why wouldn’t the pedophiles?

          • L1011

            Well why shouldn’t they, it’s a free country? However nobody in their right mind would allow children under 16 the legal right to sex (consensual sex) with someone over the age of 18.

          • shepetgene

            That’s not really an argument against equal treatment of same-sex couples. That’s really a separate issue to be considered on its own merits. Heads up: there aren’t a lot of merits there and the inability of a child to give consent is going to be hard to get around socially and through the courts.

          • Truth Offends

            In America, individuals are equal under the law–not “couples”.

          • shepetgene

            In the case of the same-sex couple, each of the individuals in the couple are being unfairly discriminated against compared to their heterosexual counterparts. That line of argument is pretty easy to see through.

          • Truth Offends

            Homosexuals can and always could marry (people of the opposite sex). No discrimination. No rights denied. No violation of the 14th amendment.
            Supporters of “gay marriage” do not want “equal treatment” for homosexuals; they want special treatment for homosexuals. They want a “right” to define marriage and to deny voters their actual right to define marriage.

          • shepetgene

            I addressed my point on that earlier in the thread with QuadGMoto, if you would like to read that.

          • Truth Offends

            Whatever it is that you said to QuadGMoto does not change the fact that what I said is true.

          • QuadGMoto

            Well said. And per normal, shepetgene refuses to acknowledge the point.

          • Drew Humberd

            Would you consider it “equal treatment” if the right to marry a person of the opposite gender was negated and everyone had the right to marry someone of the same gender?

          • Truth Offends

            Yes, if that was how the law was written–a law defining marriage as only b/w two of same “gender”.

          • Drew Humberd

            So you would consider your desire to marry someone of the opposite gender (not sure why you used scare quotes, honestly) a need for “special treatment”? And a desire to “define” marriage? If a judge were to rule that you had a right to marry the person of your choice, would you believe that the voters had been stripped of rights?

          • Truth Offends

            I think the point I made is clear.
            I use “gender” b/c most normal people say “sex” (or at least they used to).

          • Drew Humberd

            So you wouldn’t feel any need to form a family if what you considered a family was illegal?

            I find it interesting that you define your language in terms of what “most normal people say.” Are you really such a majoritarian that you simply cannot imagine a world where social norms are a thing that can be challenged?

          • Truth Offends

            How ridiculous! Of course I can “image a world where social norms are a thing that can be challenged”! It’s the world I’ve lived in my entire life!
            Your question about “families” changes the subject. We were talking about marriage.

          • Drew Humberd

            Your responses seem to indicate that regardless of what social norms are, we should accept them as given. That was the reason for my question.

            I don’t think my question about “families” changes the subject from marriage, as the primary purpose of marriage is the formation of a family. Do you disagree?

          • Truth Offends

            What “seems” to you to be what I believe about social norms is not correct.
            Discussing “families” is changing the subject (which was “marriage”). And, I’m not really into discussing that right now. Maybe another time, just not tonight.

          • Drew Humberd

            Well, if you answered my questions instead of evading wildly, perhaps my questions would be more on topic! :)

          • Truth Offends

            I did(!) answer your questions!
            You replied (with 1st question) to this post of mine:

            ~~Homosexuals can and always could marry (people of the opposite sex). No discrimination. No rights denied. No violation of the 14th amendment.
            Supporters of “gay marriage” do not want “equal treatment” for homosexuals; they want special treatment for homosexuals. They want a “right” to define marriage and to deny voters their actual right to define marriage.~~

            Your Post/Question #1: “Would you consider it “equal
            treatment” if the right to marry a person of the opposite gender was negated and everyone had the right to marry someone of the same gender?”
            My Answer: Yes, if that was how the law was written–a law defining marriage as only b/w two of same “gender”.

            Your Post/Question #2: “So you would consider your desire to marry someone of the opposite gender…a need for “special treatment”? And a desire to “define” marriage? If a judge were to rule that you had a right to marry the person of your choice, would you believe that the voters had been stripped of rights?”
            My Answer: “I think the point I made is clear. And, no. I am not a hypocrite on this issue.” ~~~That means, you can look at my original comment that you first replied to, and my answer is in there, “I’m not a hypocrite on this issue.” In other words: Yes, to all your questions in your Post #2 (as they relate to my original comment, and my answer to your Post/Comment #1).

            You then changed the subject to “families”.

          • Drew Humberd

            Well, the thing is, you’re not being very clear. There’s no way in which you can define the current law as “equal” (that is, allowing equal access to the institution of marriage) and somehow define marriage equality as “special treatment for homosexuals.” If you believe that LGBT people have the same access to marriage that you do now, then I don’t see how that changes post-marriage equality–LGBT people may marry someone of either gender, and so may you. That’s why I was asking about a hypothetical world in which a person could only marry someone else of the same gender–because you don’t seem to see that right as being equal to the right to marry someone of the opposite gender.

            It’s also worth noting that the voters have no inherent “right” to define marriage inequitably. All laws are subject to judicial review because we, as a society, understand that the will of the majority is not always just. If your argument is that the judges who have overturned restrictive marriage laws throughout the country are universally biased, you can make that argument, but considering the breadth of the political spectrum those judges fall on, I’m not sure that your case is very sound.

            I’m still very unclear as to how using the term “family” was “changing the subject” from “marriage.” I asked you to clarify what you believe marriage is if not the formation of a family, and you said that you were too tired to answer that.

          • Truth Offends

            First, I didn’t say I was “too tired” to talk about “families”. I said, “I’m not really into discussing that right now.”

            Second, I clearly answered your questions from your previous posts. Now you are asking new questions.

            The Constitution is silent on marriage. Therefore, those decisions are rendered to the states, or to “We the People”. Laws saying marriage is b/w one man and one woman do not discriminate against any man or any woman. Homosexuals want a “right” to define marriage and a “right” to nullify the votes of those who exercised their actual right to define marriage–THAT is demanding a “special” right. When the Supreme Court ruled (5-4) that laws defining marriage as b/w one man and one woman were “unconstitutional,” those 5 judges went beyond their Constitutional authority and changed the meaning of marriage and nullified the voters’ definition. SCOTUS set the precedent for all other courts. Basically, it was 5 Supreme Court justices who changed the entire course of American history–for the worse.

          • Drew Humberd

            So you’re still refusing to explain your deeply-felt distinction between marriage and families.

            I’m asking different questions because your answers to my previous questions were unilluminating.

            The Constitution is silent on many specific topics. However, it does create guidelines. One of those guidelines is the protection of minorities from the persecution of the majority. Laws that do not discriminate on the basis of their text can absolutely create discriminatory environments–that’s how we got poll taxes intended to prevent Black Americans from voting, “separate but equal” schools that were rarely equal, etc.

            LGBT Americans don’t want a “right” to define marriage, they want the right of marriage. If you don’t believe that those five Supreme Court Justices, including Justice Anthony Kennedy, a conservative Reagan appointee, were acting within the limit of their authority to protect Americans who pose no harm to anyone else, then I’d be curious what you consider to be the actual purview of the judicial branch of government–to be a rubber-stamp for the will of the body politic?

            I don’t know how closely you followed the Prop 8 and DOMA hearings. I followed them very closely. Do you believe the arguments presented by the anti-marriage-equality side were convincing? Do you think they presented a cogent case for state seizure of property on death instead of disposing with it according to the wishes of the deceased? For the “right” of doctors to restrict spouses and children from the bedside of an ailing patient? If you feel these cases were convincing, why do you think Justice Kennedy ruled against them despite his conservative background? If you agree that these cases were unconvincing, what would you have done differently?

      • grada3784

        If it is, then you have gay, straight and pedophile. In which case you can blame neither gays nor straights for pedophilia.

        However, since studies show that more pedophiles are straight than gay, I’d say we could blame you for misogyny for ignoring all the girls that get molested.

    • Unashamed Overcomer

      Warren Throckmorton your comment is a great example of gagging over a knat but swallowing camels. Go ahead and stand down.

    • Jacobus Arminius

      See recent article on BarbWire: “Struggling With Homosexuality?” It might help you are someone like you. A very compassionate article to go with the video.

      • garybryson

        spam

  • JC

    “. . . heterosexual men proportionately engage in same-sex child
    molestation more than homosexual men engage in opposite-sex child
    molestation. This means that when both sexes of molested children and
    both sexual orientations of male teleiophilic molesters are considered,
    heterosexual non-pedophiles may proportionately molest as many or more
    children than homosexuals and the total numbers of children molested by
    heterosexuals would exceed that of homosexuals by at least 10:1 These
    proportions help explain why the proportion of children molested that
    are girls is not over 95% (most estimates and reports are that 70-80%
    of children molested are girls).” Jeff Allen shows selective bias in
    focusing on one type of proportion outside the context of the whole.
    Discussing the whole problem of child molestation would expose the
    dominant heterosexual role.

    • thisoldspouse

      Why don’t you first learn what proportionality means and then come back for an intelligent discussion.

    • Jacobus Arminius

      When one group offends at 10 times the rate of ANY OTHER, that deserves some serious scrutiny. Check out Mr. Allen’s latest article: “Struggling With Homosexuality?”

  • iconoclast12

    Meanwhile, back at the Vatican….

    • MC

      Yes, there are a lot of gay priests molesting boys. 90% are homosexual abuse.

  • magic1114

    Homos and pedophiles… Ewww! Lol, keep em’ outta my neighborhood!

    • luke

      why don’t you just move to russia?

      • Jacobus Arminius

        You need to read the recent article “Struggling with Homosexuality?” It should help you see the compassionate side of Mr. Allen.

      • thisoldspouse

        Easier for sodomites to move to North Korea, where a Christian-less society will no doubt suit them.

  • climate3

    Guess what u shysters. We know about that pic u distorted and its going to be on blast in less than an hour. No one is buying your lies about pedophilia and gays and before this day is over, A LOT of people are going to know about what you tried to do with the Republicans for Obama photo. Get your lies together.

  • The Skeptical Chymist

    Those who are against gay and lesbian rights always try to point to pedophilia to make their point, even when in their first sentences they deny that is what they are doing.

    Let’s not play games here. Let’s continue to prosecute pedophiles and child pornographers with extreme vigor, but recognize the rights of those whose have same-sex orientations to live their lives as fully-recognized members of society. By granting them the right to marry, with all the privileges thereof, we will reduce the rate of promiscuity and STDs, and immensely improve the lives of those with this orientation, and no cost to ourselves.

    Conflating the issues of pedophilia and gay and lesbian rights makes no logical sense. The two are separable, and should be recognized as such.

    • Dannyboy

      Pedophilia or not, homosexual programs target children under the guise of “family life” or “disease prevention” or “tolerance and diversity” or “safety.”
      Homosexual groups clearly sit around and think up such terms so that they can place their programs into schools. “How,” they ask, “can we coerce stupid principals and dummy teachers to accept our brainwashing without unduly alerting them?” Thus, homosexuals don’t have to molest the kids’ bodies. They only need to molest their minds and hearts.

      • Dannyboy

        The homosexual leaders tell people “We have to teach your 6 year old boy about safe lubricated anal sex in school NOW because if we don’t he might engage in it later on and get a disease.”
        You disagree? Well then tell us, homosexual posters, at what age do you think kids should be taught lubricated anal sex? 9? 12? 16? Name an age. See, you can’t do it.

        • flakingnapstich

          No classroom is teaching 6 year old about using lube during anal sex. Where are you getting this BS?

          • pleasebereasonable

            The bible

          • grada3784

            The Bible expresses absolutely no opinion on lube.

          • Dannyboy

            Look around. You ever use Google? I find most homosexuals can’t find information that is out there because they don’t want to. The question stands: at what age should schools teach anal sex?

          • flakingnapstich

            In other words, you made it up and can’t be bothered to support your lies.

          • Dannyboy

            Here is a sample for the homosexuals to get turned on by – Google it: “School Uses Planned Parenthood Curriculum to Teach Kids Oral Sex”. In fact, they were teaching kids ANAL sex too. There are many more examples of such stuff being taught to even younger kids by the pro-homosexuals, who prey on kids.

          • Drew Humberd

            Wow, you couldn’t even be bothered to link the article attacking Planned Parenthood written by a woman who is paid to attack Planned Parenthood.

            And the kids were in fifth grade, not six. That’s probably why you didn’t link.

          • QuadGMoto

            You do know that comments with links go to moderation and usually don’t show up for hours, right?!? That is why most people here avoid links.

          • Drew Humberd

            Good comeback.

          • John Masters

            And you know that as an absolute fact because you sat through that class…right? Dude, seriously stop making it up. And oh, by the way, Didn’t one of the big anti-gay lawyers working for Alliance Defending Freedom (a female) get arrested for taping her 14 year old daughter having sex with grown men…Explain that Dannyboy…how is it this whole pedophilia thing is just about homosexuals. What do you call what your ADF friend did?

          • Jacobus Arminius

            You should check out the latest article that just appeared on BarbWire: “Struggling With Homosexuality?”

          • grada3784

            It seems that conservative straights are struggling a lot more with homosexuality than gays are.

          • John Masters

            At the same age they teach other kind. You do know that some straight people engage in anal sex…right? Or are you that backward?

          • Strepsi

            in fact married straight people do a LOT of the anal sex!

          • Homo Erectus

            While you’re on Google, look up Reaction Formation to learn how it applies to some of these posters.

          • Pjs8200

            Why do you spend so much time looking for stuff like that?

          • grada3784

            The religious right is against lube. They want the kids to take the pastors raw.

        • Strepsi

          That doesn’t happen. ONE principal in ONE school answered ONE question to ONE 11-year old. with a response about oral sex. The prinicipal was most definitely not taking orders from the homosexual leaders… they are far too busy planning the ruination of your marriage and arranging for your cat to marry your dog.

        • abqdan

          Name a SINGLE school that has asked to teach this to 6 year olds. Go on – find a link to a credible source with the name of a school and the principal. There are none.

          As to age – we should be teaching at an age appropriate level responsible sexual activity for both heterosexual and homosexual children. That should probably be around 11, but it doesn’t have to be graphic. Sex ed should be part of the curriculum over the first few teen years. The purpose is to protect all kids from unwanted pregnancy and disease.

      • Pjs8200

        I don’t usually say things like this, but seriously, you’re an idiot.

    • Zohydro

      “The two are eparable, and should be recognized as such.” Just like biological gender?

    • Matthew T. Mason

      Those who are against gay and lesbian rights always try to point to pedophilia to make their point

      Oh, I’m sorry. I had no idea the sexual abuse of children was a “g-y” rights issue.

      Oh, wait, yes I did.

      Let’s not play games here.

      Then don’t. With the mountain of evidence in existence, to deny there is a connection is simply asinine.

    • Jacobus Arminius

      He didn’t deny that that was what he was doing. He proved their was a link, but made it clear that the link doesn’t exist for ALL homosexuals. Pretty basic stuff.

      Check out the article that just popped up: “Struggling With Homosexuality?”

    • foodArts

      The problem with your solution, Skeptical Chymist, is that allowing homosexual marriage to be legal will not bypass their desire to rape young boys. Did you read the article at all?? They have been pushing to legalize sex between men and minor boys for years, what good would it do to give in to their deviant behavior??

      The problem we’re facing is that people want to make this sinful lifestyle mainstream, when a mere 3 – 5% of the U.S. population considers themselves to be LGBT. How can this be a logical decision to stand behind?? I really don’t think you’ve thought this through, like at all.

      • garybryson

        It’s obvious that you haven’t either. gay men do not have a desire to rape young boys. Do you have ANY nonbiased proof other than boobwire? Nope

        • MC

          Here,

          “The percentage of homosexual pedophiles ranges from 9% to 40%, which is approximately 4 to 20 times higher than the rate of adult men attracted to other adult men (using a prevalence rate of adult homosexuality of 2%—4%)”

          “A study by Abel et al. of 377 non incarcerated, non-incest-related pedophiles, whose legal situations had been resolved and who were surveyed using an anonymous self-report questionnaire, found that heterosexual pedophiles on average reported abusing 19.8 children and committing 23.2 acts, whereas homosexual pedophiles had abused 150.2 children and committed 281.7 acts.”

          Abel GG, Becker JV, Mittelman M, Cunningham-Rathner J, Rouleau JL, Murphy WD. Self-reported sex crimes of nonincarcerated paraphiliacs. J Interpers Violence . 1987; 2: 3— 25.

          “This article will present data gathered by the authors through structured clinical interviews of 561 paraphiliacs regarding demographic characteristics, frequency and variety of deviant sexual acts, and number and characteristics of victims. Results show that nonincarcerated sex offenders (1) are well educated and socioeconomically diverse; (2) report an average number of crimes and victims that is substantially higher than that represented in the current literature; and (3) sexually molest young boys with an incidence that is five times greater than the molestation of young girls. The relevance of these findings is discussed.”

          “Heterosexual pedophiles, in self-report studies, have on average abused 5.2 children and committed an average of 34 sexual acts vs homosexual pedophiles who have on average abused 10.7 children and committed an average of 52 acts. Bisexual offenders have on average abused 27.3 children and committed more than 120 acts. A study by Abel et al.”

          Murray JB. Psychological profile of pedophiles and child molesters. J Psychol . 2000; 134: 211— 224.

          Cohen LJ, Galynker II. Clinical features of pedophilia and implications for treatment. J Psychiatr Pract . 2002; 8: 276— 289.

          “This finding does not imply that homosexuals are more likely to molest children, ***just that a larger percentage of pedophiles are homosexual or bisexual in orientation***to children”.

          Blanchard R, Barbaree HE, Bogaert AF, et al. Fraternal birth order and sexual orientation in pedophiles. Arch Sex Behav . 2000; 29: 463— 478.

          “A study by Blanchard et al. evaluated the intelligence of 679 pedophilic subjects and found that the mean intelligence rating of bisexual and homosexual pedophiles was significantly lower than heterosexual offenders (either pedophile or teleiophile). The main factor for this difference in intellectual functioning was a higher percentage of subjects with borderline and full cognitive impairment in the bisexual and homosexual populations”.

          Blanchard R, Watson MS, Choy A, et al. Pedophiles: mental retardation, maternal age, and sexual orientation. Arch Sex Behav . 1999; 28: 111— 127.

    • helligusvart

      Marriage was created by God, not the U.S. government. Same sex “marriage” is not marriage. No rights are being violated by defining marriage as God does, between one man and one woman (Gen. 2:21-24). Jesus repeats this in Matthew 19:4-6. So much for Jesus not speaking about homosexuality. A lot of our country’s problems are caused by the fact that we refuse to consider Jesus Christ when making our laws. And don’t quote the 1st Amendment to me. The 1st Amendment does not prohibit Congress or the states from passing Christian laws. All it does is prohibit Congress from favoring one Christian denomination over another. Many states had official churches, and members received benefits that non-members didn’t have. Some state constitutions (such as NC, SC, AR, MD, MS, TN, and TX) required office holders to acknowledge the existence of God. And since almost everyone in America at that time was at least nominally Christian, these clauses would have specifically referred to the Christian God.
      Also, same-sex “marriage” will not cut down on rates of promiscuity and STD’s. Many, if not most “married” homosexuals still engage in massive promiscuity and therefore put themselves at the same risks of contracting STD’s as “unmarried” homosexuals. It is part and parcel of the homosexual lifestyle. “Marriage” won’t change that.

      • The Skeptical Chymist

        The reason I want same-sex marriage to be legal in all 50 states is that I have close friends who would benefit from it. In one case, it is a lesbian couple that has been together for more than a decade. In the other, it is a male couple that has likewise been together for more than a decade. Your “statistics” about married homosexuals engaging in massive promiscuity are based on nothing at all. You invent statistics out of thin air. You know, most rapists are heterosexual males. By your logic, you would think that rape is part of the heterosexual male lifestyle, and we should do all we can to convince people not to participate in heterosexual sex. Some feminists have tried to make that claim, but most thinking people don’t take that point of view very seriously.

        And your claim that marriage was created by God is made irrelevant by the fact that humans created God, not the other way around. Some may disagree with that statement (as you evidently do), but they have no greater claim to the truth than anyone else.

      • Drew Humberd

        Jesus addresses a question about divorce in the terms it was put to him. There is no way that a reasonable person can consider Matthew 19 to be a discussion of homosexual marriage.

  • ReidDA

    Not only did you mislead with your picture here, but you have had it pointed out to you that the story about Kevin Jennings is wrong as well (as attested to by the student) he was 16 at the time that he revealed that he’d had some interest in an older man (no sex had occurred at this time.) Kevin chose to counsel the student and keep his secret in confidence instead of outing the kid so he would have to deal with the likes of some of the posters on here when his sexual orientation was revealed.

    • climate3

      Also the young man said he did not have sex.

    • Jacobus Arminius

      Check out the recent article “Struggling with Homosexuality?” It should help you see the compassionate side of Mr. Allen.

      • grada3784

        Christians have always wanted to just love us to death. See Scott Lively and Uganda.

  • im_on_the_fence

    Going to remove this post again? Afraid of the truth?

    Guess what u shysters. We know about that pic u distorted and its going
    to be on blast in less than an hour. No one is buying your lies about
    pedophilia and gays and before this day is over, A LOT of people are
    going to know about what you tried to do with the Republicans for Obama
    photo. Get your lies together.

    Lyin’ right wing-nut turds….go back to your caves…

  • TruthDetector

    Talk about misleading. The boy himself told Jennings he had sex with the man (per Jennings’ own words), and Jennings himself identified the boy as 15. The fact that the boy later (as an adult) came back and changed the story for damage control is both blatant and irrelevant. Jennings himself believed (whether true or not) the boy to be 15 and was on notice (again, as per his own words) that the boy had been sexually assaulted by an adult man cruising a bus station. Nice spin, but you FAIL.

    • Jacobus Arminius

      Check out the recent article “Struggling with Homosexuality?” It should help you see the compassionate side of Mr Allen.

  • climate3

    More explanation is needed on removed pic. Where online did u get it and the parties smeared are owed an apology.

  • Drew Humberd

    Here’s a question: what amount of scientifically-backed evidence would it take your average BarbWire (God, I still can’t get over that name, it sounds like a Streisand fansite) reader to admit that homosexuality is innate, non-harmful, and leads to healthy families?

    Because I think the answer for most of you would be “No amount would convince me of that,” at which point you need to stop trying to use science to justify your claims.

    • QuadGMoto

      Because I think the answer for most of you would be “No amount would convince me of that,” at which point you need to stop trying to use science to justify your claims.

      Irony overdose alert!

      • Drew Humberd

        It would be pretty ironic if you had any actual evidence you’d presented, sure.

        • QuadGMoto

          The first step of the scientific method is observation.

          Hmm, what can we observe about humans? That it takes a man and a woman to produce a child? That males and females are different in complementary ways?

          It’s not that hard. Maybe you should try it sometime.

          • L1011

            You don’t think most gay people have experienced sexual activity with the opposite sex? Most have, and that was how they confirmed they were gay.

          • Drew Humberd

            That homosexuality, and sanction of it, has existed for literally the entire existence of human civilization? That it exists in many other species? That “production” of children is not in any way inextricably linked with the civil right of marriage?

            By the way, feel free to stop avoiding my question any time you want.

    • pleasebereasonable

      sounds like a Streisand fansite – or a Pam Anderson flick

    • L1011

      It wouldn’t matter to them, because it is the “behavior” that is sinful in their minds. They see it no different than a kleptomaniac, the klepto may live their entire life with a desire to shoplift, but they haven’t broken the law until they actually do shoplift.

    • Jacobus Arminius

      There’s hope for homosexuals. God can do anything. Check out the compassionate article: “Struggling With Homosexuality?” I just popped up on the site.

      • garybryson

        spammer

      • Drew Humberd

        Yeah thanks for spamming this throughout the thread, bro, guaranteed no gay person on earth has heard the “we don’t HATE you, we just think you’re disgusting and that you should never be allowed to form intimate bonds with other human beings” speech before. Thanks for this fresh take.

      • grada3784

        There’s hope for bigots. God can do anything.

  • Matthew T. Mason

    And so, here we are again. More proof of the undeniable link between homosexuality and pedophilia.

    And, naturally, the pedo defenders came out, claiming vociferously, “It’s not true! It’s not true! Who are you gonna believe? Me, or your lyin’ eyes?”

    It makes you kind of wonder what one might find if someone bothered to look at these people’s computer hard drives.

    There are those who would say,”Tell them about Jesus.”

    I say, fine, but as I have zero tolerance for anyone who sexually abuses children as well as those who defend it (And guess what? Jesus was not exactly a fan of harming children either.), I say we first separate these morally vacant sickos from the rest of society, then tell them about Jesus.

    I wholehearted expect and welcome attacks from the usual suspects on my comments. It will serve only to prove my point.

    • TampaDink

      How do you explain the troubling fact that most child molesters are heterosexual? Shouldn’t heterosexuality, by your reasoning, be linked to pedophilia as well?

      • Matthew T. Mason

        According to whom?

        • TampaDink

          According to the law of averages. If we gay folks represent 3-7% of the population, how could we possibly be responsible for the majority of child rapes?

          • Matthew T. Mason

            In other words, according to you.

            Took less than three hours. Thanks!

          • TampaDink

            Oh dear! I had no idea that I was being timed to respond. Perhaps I shouldn’t have gone out to lunch….since you need my attention.

            Do the math. How could 3-7% of the population commit the majority of sex crimes?

          • QuadGMoto

            You mean you’re having trouble with the answer to that question? Why is that?

          • TampaDink

            I had no trouble with the answer. Perhaps the trouble is that you don’t like my answer.

          • QuadGMoto

            You think it’s impossible for a particular subset of any population to commit the majority of crimes? While that’s implied in your question, it’s certainly not stated. Or maybe you meant something else?

          • TampaDink

            That is what I meant. Sorry if you find this to be unacceptable.

          • QuadGMoto

            It’s incredibly naive. It’s actually normal for the vast majority of various crimes to be committed by a small percentage of the population. That’s because for each type of crime, there tends to be only a small percentage that is inclined to commit those crimes.

          • TampaDink

            Yet the majority of victims are girls who have been violated by men. So, I really have a hard time believing that gay people are more prone than straight people to be pedophiles.

          • John Masters

            Nope, it’s not a matter of the law of averages. A significantly higher percentage of molestation is male on female. Just the facts ma’am. So, as TampaDink notes, if the shoe fits wear it.

          • grada3784

            Simple. Christian misogynists ignore all the girls molested. Only boys count.

          • TampaDink

            So true.

          • Jacobus Arminius

            Read “Stuggling With Homosexuality?” Mr. Allen’s latest. Might help you.

          • grada3784

            Why? I’m struggling with Haterosexuality, not Homosexuality. And it certainly won’t help withj your misogyny either.

          • Jacobus Arminius

            Not the majority in numbers, but the higher percentage rate. There’s a difference.

            Read Mr. Allen’s latest article: “Struggling With Homosexuality?” It might be of some help.

          • TampaDink

            How would that help?

        • BillTheCat45

          Studies, science, you know, that stuff your side ignores.

    • BillTheCat45

      You have no proof you fairy tale reading human garbage. The world is changing and you can’t stop it.

    • helen s

      “According to the American Psychological Association, “homosexual people are not more likely to sexually abuse children than heterosexual people are.” Gregory Herek, a professor at the University of California, Davis, who is one of the nation’s leading researchers on prejudice against sexual minorities, reviewed a series of studies and found no evidence that gay people molest children at higher rates than heterosexual people.”

      • Matthew T. Mason

        ROTF!!!!

      • Jacobus Arminius

        Read the recent article “Struggling with Homosexuality?” It should help you see the compassionate side of Mr. Allen.

    • helen s

      “The Child Molestation Research and Prevention Institute notes that 90% of child molesters target children in their network of family and friends. Most child molesters, therefore, are not gay people lingering outside schools waiting to snatch children from the playground, as much religious-right rhetoric suggests.”

  • DC/Tex

    More TRUTH about the homosexual agenda!
    The homosexual (not PC gay) “AGENDA” is the worst disease infecting and destroying the morals, family values, and the children (their main target) of the USA and the world.
    Homosexuals WERE NOT BORN THAT WAY, they CHOOSE their UNNATUAL UNHEALTHY lifestyle, so, homosexuality does not qualify as a civil rights discrimination issue.
    Homosexuals had equal rights, now they have special rights and want more. Every special right awarded to homosexuals infringes on our rights.
    Homosexuality will NEVER be natural, healthy (mentally or physically), normal, accepted, or OK!
    God loves everyone, as we all should, including homosexuals. God hates all sin, as we all should, including homosexuality and He says it is an abomination.

    • Pjs8200

      Really? So then what you’re saying is that you were a homosexual and chose to change your orientation to be a heterosexual. How long did that take you? And at what age did you decided you wanted to be straight?

      • DC/Tex

        No decision needed, being heterosexual is natural and normal, as God intended.

        • pleasebereasonable

          Straight = Natural innate born orientation

          Gay = Obvious choice because strait is natural innate born orientation

          Proof: Bible

          Reliability of Assertion: 100% to those who believe myths are reality. 0% for those who demand scientific proof.

          • ReidDA

            Isn’t religion a choice as well?

        • BillTheCat45

          So is being gay you intolerant s c u m bag

        • Pjs8200

          So you didn’t choose your sexual orientation, WTF makes you think ANY of us chose our orientations?!?!?!?!?

          • Jacobus Arminius

            You choose your behaviors. Difference between attractions and actions. Some of us use self-control.

          • Pjs8200

            The only thing you CHOOSE is your religious beliefs. But I guess it’s easy for a heterosexual to sit there any say they use self control……NOT

          • grada3784

            Really? What is the divorce rate in the Bible Belt? How about the rate of teenage pregnancy?

        • cminca

          Tell you what–
          Blow me. Enjoy it.
          Then I’ll believe it is a choice.

    • BillTheCat45

      As your good people would say, go to hell.

    • ScottJL

      I’m curious, what made you an “expert” on how one “chooses” sexual orientation?

      • thisoldspouse

        It’s chosen for you at birth. If you were born with a penis and male gonads, you were designed to work sexually in tandem with a female, and visa versa. There is no arguing against design. Only a mentally ill person tries to.

        • ScottJL

          I’m sorry, but you told me your opinion, but did not address my question (which wasn’t asked of you anyway). Could you please provide your credentials for your expertise in biology/sociology/psychology?

          • thisoldspouse

            You’re posting on a public site, so your comments are fair game for replies.

            And biology isn’t an “opinion.”

          • ScottJL

            Yes, I am posting on a public site, and my question was addressed to a specific individual, thanks for butting in. In any event, since you can’t provide credentials, I’ll have say you’re hardly an expert in the subject matter and your opinion is only that, your own personal opinion.

          • grada3784

            thisoldspouse thinks it’s God. Really, all it has is serious control issues.

          • ScottJL

            Yes, that’s quite apparently, tad big of an ego problem. Fortunately it is only one small voice among millions. Memento mori and all that.

  • pleasebereasonable

    The link to the “study” is a Family Research Council publication. A more anti-gay biased group has never existed. Please forgive me if I roll my eyes not not even bother to read it.

    • Jacobus Arminius

      Read and watch video on recent article on BarbWire: “Struggling With Homosexuality?”

  • BillTheCat45

    Wow, what a SURPRISE, the sleaze merchants of Boob Wire make-up more lies. Not a shock coming from the American Taliban otherwise known as the extreme Christian Right.

    You poor, delusional losers. YOU’VE LOST THE WAR, WE WON. Throwing a giant tantrum will not help and only serves to make you look like the dim bulb bigots that you are.

    • Jacobus Arminius

      Look at recent article on BarbWire: “Struggling With Homosexuality?”

  • MGS

    I’m honestly waiting for the article to be written about the child sexual abuse in the catholic church. A majority of homosexuals, male and female, have no problem calling out and prosecuting pedophiles and child abuse when they see it. The catholic church however has a bad habit of trying to cover it up and just shuffle the priests around.

    • thisoldspouse

      You mean the homosexual priests molesting little boys?

      • garybryson

        Nice trolling spouser. The priests are pedophiles not homosexuals. Two different things babe.

        • Truth Offends

          LOL!!! Right. They’re “pedophiles” when their victims are 17 years old and then they become “homosexuals” the day their victims turn 18 years old. LOL!!!

        • thisoldspouse

          No, they self-identify as homosexual. They prefer males.

          Now are you redefining “homosexual” for us, too?

          • garybryson

            You know this how? Are you a priest? Hmmmmm

        • 1776Mariner

          See my comment to MSG above. Of the less than 2% of priests who were predators (meaning 98% of priests are not predators), 80% were homosexuals. That is according to a court ordered investigation.

      • MGS

        no, I mean the priests of all orientations. because straight priests do it too.

        • 1776Mariner
          • grada3784

            Why, oh, why do we always forget the little girls molested? And the faithful priests who are gay?

          • 1776Mariner

            Little girls are molested by pedophiles. They are included in the data.

      • 1776Mariner

        See my comment above to MGS.

      • Rob

        It is a time-honored tradition of catholicism to be told to enter the priesthood and “pray the gay away.” Guess what? That’s never going to happen. Stupid Catholics.

        • 1776Mariner

          No, actually according to Canon Law, homosexuals are NEVER supposed to be ordained. So if a bishop ordained a man knowing he was a homosexual, he was violating Canon Law. Of course we probably have had some bad bishops, like Weakland and Garrity who were scandals to the church in the USA in more ways than one. I would not put it past either of them to have done such.

    • 1776Mariner

      @MGS: You don’t have to wait. There is plenty on this. At the time of the scandal, the courts mandated that an independent investigation be done. This study revealed that more than 98% of Roman Catholic priests during that period of sexual abuse were not sexual predators but faithful priests who cared for their flock appropriately . Of the less than 2% who were sexual predators, a minority were pedophiles, another minority were priests who molested female adults and finally, the majority, 80% of the less than 2%, were homosexuals who went after post pubescent boys.

      (Hmmm… not screening priest candidates for psychological problems after Vatican II was not too smart, so yes the leaders of the church made mistakes. And they also made mistakes by putting abusive priests back into parishes after being reassured by the medical “experts” that these men were safe to return to ministry after undergoing intense psycholigical therapy, which we now know is not true as these people are never able to be rehabilitated enough to be trusted around possible future victims).

      BUT, post scandal, the Church has implemented the gold standard of policies to protect all against sexual abuse. Yet every time there is a story about the Church, trolls bring up past sex abuses as if the Church is the worst organization in the world. The safest place for kids today is a Catholic campus and church. Of course the trolls scoff at that, I am sure.

      let me give you a news flash: Other pastors of other faiths have a much higher rate of sexual abuse of their flocks, and always have, than RC priests even during the worst part of the scandal. The same can be said about school teachers and rabbis. Sexual predators are very sneaky and are expert in being able to worm their way into positions that afford them access to victims. That is the case of all these situations whether they be of secular or religious groups.

      That being said, the Church has been just as much a victim of these sexual predators as the individual victims. Yet note that today in our sexually permissive culture, that homosexuality is being championed as “normal”. Watch out for many more victims of sexual abuse as this perversion is foisted upon our culture giving homosexuals uninhibited access to innocent victims. Ah, there is nothing new under the sun.

      BTW, I realize all homosexuals are not sexual abusers. But unfortunately, too many are as homosexuality is a case of arrested sexual development (despite the claims of the APA) and these people have “issues”, some of which are so severe that they become sexual abusers. Homosexuals are poor souls who need our love and understanding as brothers and sisters in Christ in helping them to be able to live their lives in the chaste way that our loving God asks of all of us. Of course when we approach them this way, we are accused of homophobia for not letting them be “married” which they claim, erroneously, is their “right”. May heaven help us all.

      • QuadGMoto

        That’s information that’s rarely heard. Thanks for sharing it!

      • MGS

        I will admit I have not kept up on the issues of the churches and they sexual predators who have been in them. Since I have been in school for the past 3 years I have purposely avoided most news, and I also do now know when the post scandal policies began. But If things have been getting better over the past 3 years, then I stand corrected and am happy.
        I whole heartedly believe that churches, synagogues, mosques, temples, and any other place of worship should be a safe haven for people. I grew up seeing it improve some of my friends lives. For them, it made them happy and gave them that something extra in life.
        As for there being predators in all facets of life, not just the churches, I know and accept this. I merely bring up the catholic church as it is/was known widely because of the scandal. I would hope that no matter what orientation, religious affiliation, gender, race, or any other factor, would never impede on a sexual predator being prosecuted.
        I would argue against the idea that there are too many homosexual predators, but even one predator, straight or gay, male or female, is too many. Just like with the straight community, there are only an extremely small number of predators in their community, and in the even smaller gay community, there is still only a small number of gay predators. Do they exist, yes. I will never deny that. But are there a lot? no.
        As for the APA stance on homosexuality, I fully support it. I feel that homosecuality is a choice. I don’t feel it is a mental condition any more than a religion is. That is because I also don’t believe you are born christian, catholic, jewish, islamic, hindu, muslim, ect. It’s something that you either learn about growing up, discover on your own, or is taught to you(the latter referring to religion). To settle this quickly, do I feel homosexuality should be taught in schools, no. do I feel it should be discussed without bias in a sex-ed class along with abstinence and contraceptives (condoms and birth control), yes.
        For the marriage portion, I personally could care less. I only want to make sure that when I find someone I love and decide to spend my life with them, that if something happens to them I am able to visit them and care for them while they are in the hospital.

        I would also point you in the direction of a post on this site I commented on about the young actress who came out and the paster/father who wrote her a not so well thought out letter. The gentleman who wrote the article, Matt Moore, was a shining example of how people should communicate when talking about gays and the church. I’ll let you read my post on that to see my opinion on it.

        • 1776Mariner

          I am a retired health professional. We were taught that homosexuality is a case of arrested sexual development. When the APA came out with their revision of this, claiming that homosexuality is no longer to be considered a pathological diagnosis but normal sexuality, it was done with very little in the way of studies, literature, etc. to back it up as is usually done when such a new stance is taken. We later learned that homosexuals had taken key positions in the organization. Hmmm…suspicious wouldn’t you say? So, I continue to believe as I was taught before political correctness took over the APA. Sadly, new generations of health professionals are being taught this and they have no clue. Oh, well.

          As for choosing ones orientation, with all the pro-gay spin over the past several decades, I have no doubt that teenagers, going through typical teenage drama and angst, have chosen homosexuality as their orientation. But the vast majority are actual cases of arrested sexual development from difficult home situations. And with their being so many broken families in the past decades, it is only going to get worse as these less than ideal situations only ensure that these children will suffer from this malady. Labeling it as normal does not help, IMHO. We are in challenging times. Regardless, the pendulum swings. When the culture finally implodes, the Church will come out of the shadows, to where they are being driven, to rebuild the culture. As I said, there is nothing new under the sun.

          I will check out the post you mentioned.

      • grada3784

        And of the 98% faithful priests, probably about 80% are gay. Plus the problem with a cover-up is that we never know when all the info is out, as in how many girls were molested.

        • 1776Mariner

          The 98% are mostly gay? Not hardly. The Catholic priests I have known in my many decades of life are real men. And they are Godly men. You must have a very skewed outlook on life to believe that.

          And BTW, in my life I have had one predator priest cross my path in my home parish when I was growing up. He was a newly ordained priest who was so charming. He fooled everyone. He even volunteered with the city police department to help counsel their troubled youth. He had the police snowed too for years. It took about fifteen years for him to finally be exposed for the pervert he turned out to be. And he was defrocked and prosecuted.

          But like I have said before, these predators are very sneaky and are extremely adept at getting jobs/positions that give them easy access to victims. And what better professions than teaching, priesthood, ministry, etc. And the victims are afraid to say anything because they don’t think anyone will believe them. After all, the pedophiles go after children and the homosexuals go after teen males for the most part. Both are easily cowed and manipulated.

          BTW, the court ordered study was done by an independent non-church group. And the Church was very compliant in cooperating with this court ordered study. So a cover up is not likely. As I said, the Catholic Church today has the gold standard of protecting its flock from sexual predators. Would that all organizations and churches would do half as much. But anti-Catholic bigots will continue to hammer away with their snide remarks. Oh, well. Your problem…not ours.

          • grada3784

            info on this court ordered study you refer to? A name or a lnk?

          • grada3784

            Fom the US Bishops report

            The report stated there were approximately 10,667 reported victims
            (younger than 18 years) of clergy sexual abuse between 1950 and 2002:

            Around 81% of these victims were male.

            Female victims of sexual abuse by Catholic priests tended to be
            younger than the males. Data analyzed by John Jay researchers, shows
            that the number and proportion of sexual misconduct directed at girls
            under 8 years old was higher than that experienced by boys the same age.[95]

            22.6% were age 10 or younger, 51% were between the ages of 11 and 14, and 27% were between the ages to 15 to 17 years.[96][97][98]

            A substantial number (almost 2000) of very young children were victimized by priests during this time period.

            9,281 victim surveys had information about an investigation. In
            6,696 (72%) cases, an investigation of the allegation was carried out.
            Of these, 4,570 (80%) were substantiated; 1,028 (18%) were
            unsubstantiated; 83 (1.5%) were found to be false. In 56 cases, priests
            were reported to deny the allegations.

            More than 10 percent of these allegations were characterized as not
            substantiated because diocese or order could not determine whether the
            alleged abuse actually took place.

            For approximately 20 percent of the allegations, the priest was
            deceased or inactive at the time of the receipt of the allegation and
            typically no investigation was conducted in these circumstances.

            In 38.4% of allegations, the abuse is alleged to have occurred
            within a single year, in 21.8% the alleged abuse lasted more than a year
            but less than 2 years, in 28% between 2 and 4 years, in 10.2% between 5
            and 9 years and, in under 1%, 10 or more years.

          • grada3784

            From Commonweal 6/3/2013:

            While it’s true that most dioceses self-report their data, and that many
            refuse to allow auditors into parishes and schools, no one can deny
            that the Catholic Church made significant progress on this issue. Yet
            some bishops still act as if the sexual-abuse scandal never happened.

            Hardly seems like a gold standard.

      • grada3784

        If you read the US Bishops report, even the bishops didn’t the idea that it abuse was a homosexual issue.

      • Drew Humberd

        Yep, the Church was the real victim, not the children who were molested. Yeesh.

  • Unashamed Overcomer

    When is the new gay alphabet identifier going to debut?: LGBTQIP P stands for P*******

    • thisoldspouse

      It should be “M” for “minor-attracted person.” That’s the newest society-softening euphemism.

  • Rob

    So, you took down the photoshopped image and replaced it with a 30 year old picture as a representation of the latest example? Yeah, that’s recent….

    • Jacobus Arminius

      So what. Maybe you should consider the content of the article not the picture. Talk about trying to deflect from the REAL issue. See latest article: “Struggling with Homosexuality?”

      • grada3784

        So what, he says. About false witness against one’s neighbor.

  • Dannyboy

    Google these words: Homosexual book for 1st-graders WorldNetDaily
    The book “King and King” depicts 2 men kissing. That is the, uh, climax for homosexuals. They just eat it up.
    It’s about a king who seeks a woman but then discovers that he would rather have sex with another man.
    It is intended to confuse little kids about gender roles and ultimately brainwash them so that they are comfortable with homosexuality and will hopefully engage in it someday themselves. Perhaps even with an older man, who knows? Watch, the homosexuals will claim there is no such book. I understand that the second edition of the book will depict one man putting his …

    • shepetgene

      Why would we deny that book exists? It’s a children’s book. It is about as sexual as any children’s book with a prince and a princess falling in love and kissing. You’re the one adding the “perhaps an older man” spin on it. And you’re right. It is supposed to address that it is normal for some people to be gay.

    • Drew Humberd

      Yep, kissing is the climax.

  • Strepsi

    “This article is not meant to indict all homosexuals as pedophiles or even to imply that most homosexuals actually support such a horrendous thing.” Wow, Jeff Allen in a article full of lies you even started with a whopper. Your headline:

    Latest Examples of the Undeniable Link Between Homosexuality and Pedophilia

    Why do Christians just LIE so much?

  • Strepsi

    Thank God no straight Christian male ever looked at an underage girl sexually!

    • ScottJL

      Thank God no Catholic Priest ever looked at an underage male sexua…. oh. nevermind.

      • 1776Mariner

        See my comment below to get my response to this comment of yours. It gets tiresome to keep repeating things to educate the ignorant, even if it is a work of mercy ;) So rather than repeating it to you, just check that out please.l

        • ScottJL

          I’m sorry, you’re too lazy to use copy and paste? I’m too lazy to search for your other comment.

          • 1776Mariner

            Actually am trying to not hog too much space on this site. The response was filled with much into therefore rather long. Oh, well. Your loss.

  • http://BarbWire.com/ Brian Fitzpatrick

    Nobody at BarbWire photoshopped a photo. Jeff Allen used a publicly available image that turned out to be photoshopped, and when he discovered the error, he replaced the photo. I made a similar mistake myself the other day, acknowledged the error, and corrected it. Innocent mistakes are not morally wrong, but accusing people falsely and maliciously of having evil motives IS morally wrong.

    • shepetgene

      Has that “effing” libel suit been sorted out yet?

      • http://BarbWire.com/ Brian Fitzpatrick

        Not yet. The story is developing beyond the lawsuit.

    • ReidDA

      give me a break, it appears on ONE site on the internet and there is it caveated that they don’t know the source. One look at it would show that it has been photoshopped even if you were looking at it on your phone.

      • Jacobus Arminius

        The same photoshop program that can alter a internet picture is the same exact photoshop that can be used to make a poster like the one being held by the men in the photo.

        • grada3784

          Nothing like Christians enabling false witness against their neighbor. Now that’s love.

    • Tara

      I agree with Reid on this one. Either Jeff placed that image in the article knowing it’s a fake, or he is a total idiot. That image was completely unbelievable, and by even Barbwire’s standards should have been minimally fact checked.

      • http://BarbWire.com/ Brian Fitzpatrick

        If you have read any three of Jeff’s articles, you’d know he’s no idiot.

        • Tara

          Must of been intentional then

          • Jacobus Arminius

            Nope, just an error given all the millions of photos on google.

      • Jacobus Arminius

        Read Mr. Allen’s latest: “Struggling With Homosexuality?”

        • Tara

          Isn’t he sweet! He calls gays pedophiles without any credible facts to make this claim, either knowingly or stupidly placed a obviously photoshopped inflammatory photograph, but he loves them. If many perfectly happy gays (not the tourtured, pathetic ones portrayed) in stable relationship with kids followed the Catholic Churchs advise, it would lead to the death and destruction of their families. With Friends like that who needs enemies.

    • Drew Humberd

      Journalism again, Brian? :)

      • http://BarbWire.com/ Brian Fitzpatrick

        Nobody’s perfect, Drew, but I don’t think we’ve even come close to the degree of “error” committed by Walter Duranty, the foreign correspondent who deliberately covered up Stalin’s starving of millions of Ukrainians. To Duranty, serving his far left ideology was more important than reporting with integrity. Duranty won a Pulitzer for his deceptive reporting, and the NY Times has refused for 80 years to give it back. Why do you think that’s so?

        • Drew Humberd

          “Nobody’s perfect, but despite my website’s numerous abrogations of journalistic integrity we’re at least better than someone who covered up starving people.”

          Seriously, Brian, do you LISTEN to yourself? Do you read these little screeds before you click “Post as Brian Fitzpatrick”? Do you honestly believe that what you are doing here on BarbWire can be described as anything OTHER than “serving [your] far [right] ideology” over “reporting with integrity”?

          There is no way on Earth that any serious journalist would have mistaken that photo for anything but the saddest Photoshop kludge. At some point, the line between what Jeff Allen calls “an innocent mistake” and “deception” starts to blur.

  • Emma Duncan

    Speaking of paedophiles, I heard that anti gay Alliance for defending freedom, attorney, Lisa Biron, was sentenced to 40 years for taking her 14 year old daughter to Canada to have sex with 2 men, whom she taped on her phone, and also taped herself having sex with the girl. can’t beat that good Christian family love.

    • Gowdy_The_Pinhead

      LOL

    • Jacobus Arminius

      See recent article on BarbWire: “Struggling With Homosexuality?” Very compassionate article w/ video.

  • Guest

    Of course homosexuals are pederasts. That’s been known for thousands of years.

  • Pingback: Today On Matt Barber's Site | Dj Matioka Blog

  • Steve Roberts

    I can’t believe how many homosexuals and pedophiles there are posting on this article of truth. They’ve gone from defensive mode to attack mode. Some are so twisted and blind, that they mention the Vatican or priests raping little boys. Yet they refuse to see the truth, and the reason why homosexuals should never ever be allowed to become priests in the first place. Homosexual pedophiles, all of them. They infiltrated the Church, the Boy Scouts, the public school system as teachers, counselors, and they’ve put themselves within law enforcement. You homosexuals shouldn’t be attacking anyone for pointing out the rampant pedophilia that runs deep in your community. You should look at fixing your own kind, accepting responsibility, and leave our children alone. Stop going after them with your music videos, school curriculum, even children’s cartoons. It’s sick. You want to be left alone, then keep your business where it belongs, in the bedroom. Also, even the notion of lgbt rights is ridiculous, you have the same human rights as every other person in the world. You want special rights, not equal rights.

  • Ollie Corbett

    ‘Despite the vociferous LGBT protestations to the contrary, homosexual males
    actually do commit a disproportionate number of the child-sex abuse
    cases’

    Followed by a link to a FRC leaflet that mentions a study by Dr Robin Wilson et al – the same Dr Robin Wilson who says that the study actually suggests the complete opposite to this statement and that these groups use a purposeful misreading of what the study is talking about, whilst ignoring statements about androphilic homosexuality

    But then, hey, that’s just inconvenient when you’re trying to prove a point and reality and science aren’t really your friends.

    http://www.centerforinquiry.net/uploads/attachments/Anti-gayActivismandtheMisuseofScience_1.pdf

    • Jacobus Arminius

      READ recent article “Struggling with Homosexuality?” It should help you see the compassionate side of Mr. Allen.

  • abqdan

    Those figures are wrong, but even if they are right, that means over 65% of sexual abuse is from heterosexuals – and that is generally from parents or relatives. Shouldn’t we be preventing straight people from getting married? Maybe Russia was right, and all kids should be raised away from their parents?

    In reality, the bulk of all studies show that sexual abuse is about a power dynamic, not sex. Pedophiles abuse both boys and girls, irrespective of the adult’s sexual orientation. In the majority of cases, such abuse occurs within the family unit, and a large percentage of those cases involve a second husband. The one thing that we could do to stop a very large majority of child abuse is to ban second marriages, and ban parents with underage kids from living with a new partner.

    One study does not represent the whole field of abuse research.

    • Jacobus Arminius

      Look at the recent article “Struggling with Homosexuality?” It should help you see the compassionate side of Mr. Allen

  • Jacobus Arminius

    Read the recent article “Struggling with Homosexuality?” It should help you see the compassionate side of Mr. Allen.

    • grada3784

      That’s probably as honest as the photoshopped picture. Christians either want to love us to death or throw a pout and take their marbles and go home.

  • Jacobus Arminius

    Nope, not okay to molest anyone. But when one group offends at ten times the rate of any other, it bears consideration.

    See latest article: “Struggling With Homosexuality?”

    • garybryson

      Exactly. The hetero’s shouldn’t be allowed anywhere near kids at the rate that they molest them. Good catch jackobus

  • Jacobus Arminius

    Check out the recent article “Struggling with Homosexuality?” It should help you see Mr. Allen’s heart.

  • thisoldspouse

    I find the un-touched photo just as disturbing. Fake “Republicans” posing for open socialism is about as perverted as it gets.

  • Sam

    Gay men are the most sexually promiscuous people on earth. People should find out what goes on in San Francisco down on market street each year at the gay fetish festival they have. A reporter went in and took pictures and it was unbelievable what the gays did at this perversion of a festival. Anybody that would prey on children and do them harm deserves to be shot and killed. Come to think of it, all child predators should be executed in my view.

  • PATRICIA MEAD

    Is abnormal sex a choice or is it an abnormal hormone condition? I believe it is some of both. So what is causing an abnormal hormone condition? Could it be the plan to reduce the world population? Just what is contained in the numerous filthy government vaccines that are injected into babies from birth forward?

  • 1776Mariner

    Because of the sex scandal the courts mandated that an independent investigation of Catholic priests in the US be done. This study revealed that more than 98% of Roman Catholic priests during that period of sexual abuse were not sexual predators but faithful priests who cared for their flock appropriately. Of the less than 2% who were sexual predators, a minority were pedophiles (they go after children, both boys and girls), another minority were priests who molested female adults and finally, the majority, 80% of the less than 2%, were homosexuals who went after post pubescent boys.

    So the majority of sexual predator priests were in the homosexual category. So when you speak of predator priests, you are mostly speaking of homosexual men who, in violation of Canon Law, were ordained. And now we know why the Church does not condone the ordination of homosexuals to the priesthood. These men were either knowingly ordained by bad bishops who flaunted Canon Law, or were very clever in hiding their homosexuality and were ordained unknowingly by bishops.

    While it is true that not all homosexuals are predators, because homosexuality is a sexual abnormality, those with severe cases are more apt to molest. We must be very compassionate in helping homosexuals, but telling them they are normal is not compassion. Helping them deal with their unnatural attractions is how to help them. But this, unfortunately, is not politically correct and so we are called homo-phobes for doing so. BTW, homo-phobes is a made up word to discredit traditional moral values of our western civilization and the people who hold to those values. So I will refer to those who call me a homo-phobe, hetero-phobes. We can make up words too.

  • Pingback: Roundup | Eternity Matters

  • grada3784

    I’m waiting for the article by Jeff Allen providing the undeniable link between heterosexuality and serial rape/murder because of Ted Bundy. It’s the exact same logic as what is being used here.linking

EmailTitle2

Sign up for BarbWire alerts!