Mormon Church To US Supreme Court: Ban Gay Marriage

[Serenity7855]

And by "preparing to meet God" you mean "railing about the evils of homosexuality?"

Hate the sin but love the sinner.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Because only homosexual paedophilia is bad, obviously.

Silly me, I should have figured that out by now.

Let's continue to ignore the elephant in the room of paedophiles emerging from bigoted homophobic religious sects and countries influenced by them.

Pfft, completely irrelevant.

 

[Serenity7855]

Well, the only person I've seen draw a link between homosexuality and pedophilia on this thread is you. I even provided the quotation for you that makes that connection. You even accused the media of censoring that supposed connection. So it does appear that you have indeed expressed your opinion on it. Otherwise, we wouldn't be talking about it.

This is what you quoted about me. That is the lies that you have tried to use to discredit me because you know that the truth cannot do it. Nothing in my words shows that I, Personally, make that connection then or afterwards.

I said: "What has not been raised here is the link that exist between pedophilia and homosexuals and is censored by the media.

This is where you can find evidence for that link that I am refferng to:. https://www.quora.com/Is-there-a-correlation-between-homosexuality-and-pedophilia. and many more where the link is evidenced It is these people who ave been brave enough to stand up and be counter. At this present time I don't know if there is a link, there is nothing obvious to say that it is a lie. Scholars do not usually falsify their studies, why would they. One thing is a surety is that the second there is conclusive evidence is the moment there will be a news black out about it.

something like 70% of pedophiles admit to being gay, and we condone them raising children.

This is a plain and simple question. Would you agree with allowing the individual to raise children. Nowhere in this quote do I say that there is a link between homosexuals and pedophiles. You are just playing with ambiguities.

 

[SkepticThinker]

This is what you quoted about me. That is the lies that you have tried to use to discredit me because you know that the truth cannot do it. Nothing in my words shows that I, Personally, make that connection then or afterwards.

I said: "What has not been raised here is the link that exist between pedophilia and homosexuals and is censored by the media.

This is where you can find evidence for that link that I am refferng to:. https://www.quora.com/Is-there-a-correlation-between-homosexuality-and-pedophilia. and many more where the link is evidenced It is these people who ave been brave enough to stand up and be counter. At this present time I don't know if there is a link, there is nothing obvious to say that it is a lie. Scholars do not usually falsify their studies, why would they. One thing is a surety is that the second there is conclusive evidence is the moment there will be a news black out about it.

something like 70% of pedophiles admit to being gay, and we condone them raising children.

This is a plain and simple question. Would you agree with allowing the individual to raise children. Nowhere in this quote do I say that there is a link between homosexuals and pedophiles. You are just playing with ambiguities.

This is maddening. You flat out say right in the quote that there is a link.

You say there is a link: "the link that exists between pedophilia and homosexuals"
Am I supposed to take that to mean there is not a link? I mean, what else is there to take away from that but that there is a link that exists? You even said the media censors this from us!

Now you are saying you don't think there's a link at the present time.

What words have I twisted here exactly? What have I lied about? You say a link exists and I'm not supposed to think you are saying that a link exists?

You are the person who brought up the subject of pedophilia and tried to link it to homosexuality I certainly didn't. You even tried to provide some articles to support that assertion, for Pete's sake.


If there is a link between pedophilia and homosexuality, then there must also be a link between heterosexuality and pedophilia, given that children are often preyed upon by adults of the opposite sex. I wonder why someone would fail to follow their own line of logic to its obvious conclusion and instead, only see half the picture.

 

[Serenity7855]

Well put. That's exactly what I'm trying to say.

Yes, that figures. rather then censor it from to prevent every ones sensibilities from being tarnished you want to allow the filth on our screen, because it entertains you, and just stop children from watching it. You cannot do that all the time we have such diversity in parent types. You cannot do that with a child that are wayward because they will find a way to watch it, or impressionable teenagers who are computer savvy from downloading it, and a million other scenarios where children could intentionally or accidentally see it. An astute and wise man would not have to be told this. He would know that a censor would stop everyone from seeing this and if it prevent just one child from being emotionally traumatised then it would have been worth it, but you will not see the logic of that because you are both in the world and of the world. Your mind has already been tainted and corrupted by the seemingly normal things of the world, and therefore overly tolerant to these low moral standards. Satan said that he will not take those he corrupts and lead away from God, Kicking and screaming, but he will take them to hell carefully, stealthily and with subtlety so that they will not know where they are going until it is to late. Like allowing a small change, then another and so on until the camel/Satan sleeps in the tent and the man is out in the cold/hell.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Yes, that figures. rather then censor it from to prevent every ones sensibilities from being tarnished you want to allow the filth on our screen, because it entertains you, and just stop children from watching it. You cannot do that all the time we have such diversity in parent types. You cannot do that with a child that are wayward because they will find a way to watch it, or impressionable teenagers who are computer savvy from downloading it, and a million other scenarios where children could intentionally or accidentally see it. An astute and wise man would not have to be told this. He would know that a censor would stop everyone from seeing this and if it prevent just one child from being emotionally traumatised then it would have been worth it, but you will not see the logic of that because you are both in the world and of the world. Your mind has already been tainted and corrupted by the seemingly normal things of the world, and therefore overly tolerant to these low moral standards. Satan said that he will not take those he corrupts and lead away from God, Kicking and screaming, but he will take them to hell carefully, stealthily and with subtlety so that they will not know where they are going until it is to late. Like allowing a small change, then another and so on until the camel/Satan sleeps in the tent and the man is out in the cold/hell.

Well first of all, I think you're making a mountain out of a mole hill here by imagining that children are going to be irreparably damaged if they find out gay people exist.

Secondly, it's not my job to parent your children. It's not the movie industry's job to parent your children nor is it television executives' job to parent your child. It's your job. And it's not like there's graphic gay porn on cable TV in the middle of the afternoon or something. I have no idea of the kind of thing you find offensive, though I did ask for some examples. We're supposed to live in a world gear strictly toward children? I don't understand this.

By the way, you know you can buy filters and stuff for your television and computer, right? Maybe that, plus some good parenting should be good enough.

 

[Serenity7855]

This is maddening. You flat out say right in the quote that there is a link.

Here is a link, right here, that makes that connection . https://www.quora.com/Is-there-a-correlation-between-homosexuality-and-pedophilia.and I have posted seven more.

I said that "the link that exist between pedophilia and homosexuals. On this website you will find professionals demonstrating that link. I am not a professional, I am a messenger, a mouth piece. I said that a link exists, you said there is no link, I showed you that there was. If you have problems comprehending that then that is not my fault, or was it the twisting of words that failed you

 

[SkepticThinker]

Here is a link, right here, that makes that connection . https://www.quora.com/Is-there-a-correlation-between-homosexuality-and-pedophilia.and I have posted seven more.

I said that "the link that exist between pedophilia and homosexuals. On this website you will find professionals demonstrating that link. I am not a professional, I am a messenger, a mouth piece. I said that a link exists, you said there is no link, I showed you that there was. If you have problems comprehending that then that is not my fault, or was it the twisting of words that failed you

Now you're saying that a link exists after you just came after me for telling you that you made a link you didn't make, and saying that at the present time you don't think there's a link? Now there's a link again. And you wonder why I have problems comprehending. You've changed your mind twice now.


Please stop throwing the same thing at me over and over when I've already addressed it.

I've made a point that addresses the lack of logic in claiming a link between pedophilia and homosexuality without also acknowledging the link between heterosexuality and pedophilia. You have thus far, not responded to it.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Here is a link, right here, that makes that connection . https://www.quora.com/Is-there-a-correlation-between-homosexuality-and-pedophilia.and I have posted seven more.

Again, from your own source:

No.

There's not only no correlation, but as one source says, "It's like comparing apples to rat poison." The simple answer is that pedophiles are attracted to children, not gender. (Though, some pedophiles prefer one gender over another.)

I could go on, but I'd be repeating a very well-written resource found at WebMD: http://www.webmd.com/sex-relatio...

I also found this very in depth article about pedophilia very interesting: http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/ra...
...
Just to be clear, we are discussing two different sexual preferences (and concepts) here: gender preference and age preference.
...
There is absolutely no evidence that gay men are pedophiles, and if anything the exact opposite is true, with us seeking to stay away from kids. When 98% of all criminal cases against pedophiles are committed by hetero men on young girls, and nearly all of those are girls they know; family members are far more likely to abuse/molest children, mostly girls, than gay men do anything. Unless one is saying that gay men are molesting little girls, the evidence is severely lacking. There's no evidence that gay men were molested either. Indeed, gay men have little contact with or interest in children whatsoever. It just happens to be the "recruiting" canard rehashed over and over again.

And your "professional," the one out of four who say yes, is not a professional at all, but a student. It even says that. She even cites, clearly, that "homosexuals are not more likely to abuse children." And what is also cited, which needs special attention payed to:

Just keep in mind the difference between correlation and causation. Correlation is a nondirectional concept. It says nothing about X leads to Y, or Y leads to X. It only says that X and Y tend to appear together. Therefore, we cannot jump to a conclusion that homosexuality causes pedophilia, or that pedophilia causes homosexuality.

And your "seven others" we've already been through. Three are all the same thing, three of those sources wouldn't post evidence against their biases, four of them (counting the three as one) contain claims counter to yours, and one of them links to nothing.

 

[Serenity7855]

Secondly, it's not my job to parent your children. It's not the movie industry's job to parent your children nor is it television executives' job to parent your child. It's your job. And it's not like there's graphic gay porn on cable TV in the middle of the afternoon or something. I have no idea of the kind of thing you find offensive, though I did ask for some examples. We're supposed to live in a world gear strictly toward children? I don't understand this.

We live within a society where we used to willingly be our brothers keeper, a place where you would never hear the words you just spoke. So, you see a child in a store opening a bottle of bleach to drink and turn your back whilst muttering these words "it's not my job to parent your children. It's not the movie industry's job to parent your children nor is it television executives' job to parent your child. It's your job." That never happens in my world. Yes it is the parents job, however, as conscientious caring people we should all be looking after each other as well. Caring is not to allow the eyes of the innocent, whether a parent or a stranger, to look upon inappropriate picture that pop up with no warning on our TV screen. Caring is also not to force others into you morals and values on homosexuality. I don't want to have to explain to my grandchildren why two men are lying on top of each other kissing at 6.30 in the evening. I don't want them to be indoctrinated with the low morals and iniquities of the world, I want them to be indoctrinated with the word of God. To be free of all of the negative emotions and turmoil surrounding sexual debauchery. So, because people like me exist in huge number in the world, perhaps those writer of these soaps should be a little more considerate..

 

[SkepticThinker]

We live within a society where we used to be our brothers keeper and you would never hear the words you just wrote. So you see a child in a store opening a bottle of bleach to drink and turn your back whilst muttering these words "it's not my job to parent your children. It's not the movie industry's job to parent your children nor is it television executives' job to parent your child. It's your job." That never happens in my world. We are all brothers and sisters, therefore, we all have a responsibility to each other to care and be mindful of others. Caring is not to allow the eyes of the innocent to look upon inappropriate picture that pop up with no warning on our TV screen. It is also not to force others into you morals and values on homosexuality. I don't want to have to explain to my grandchildren why two men are lying on top of each other kissing at 6.30 in the evening. I don't want them to be indoctrinated with the low morals of the world, I want them to be indoctrinated with the word of God. To be free of all of the negative emotions surrounding sexual deprivation. So, because people like me exist in huge number perhaps those writer of these soaps should be a little more considerate..

No where did I say nor imply that I would not stop a child from consuming a bottle of bleach if I saw it happening. Or that somebody else shouldn't do so. We were talking about policing the content of television, movies, books and the internet so that it's all child-friendly and there is no adult content, even for the adults. We were talking about monitoring what your children watch in the presence of their parents. I didn't suggest anywhere that we should just throw all the kids to the wolves.

When my niece and nephew are in my care, I monitor them. I don't show them horror movies or porn. I wouldn't show that to any kid. Nor would any reasonable person. If I take them out somewhere, I monitor them and make sure they're behaving.That's my job as their caregiver. I hate nothing worse than to have to parent some other person's kid at the park because they're too busy to do it. So there's another example of where it's your own job to parent your own kids. But that by no means should be taken to mean that if someone is witnessing a child drinking a bottle of bleach (or any other dangerous thing) that they should not do something to stop it and help the child.

Teach your kids whatever you want. Indoctrinate them with the words of god. That's another thing that's your job. And in the meantime, the world will go on around them. And in that world, gay people exist and go about their lives like everybody else. One would think that treating them with the same respect and dignity as any other human being might be moral in some way.

FYI: Just by the nature of what they are, soap operas are about romance, sex, deception, affairs, and all kinds of other stuff I'm sure you disapprove of. That's what they are. So don't let your kids watch them, if you don't approve of that kind of thing. Or better yet, purchase the child-friendly filter for your TV. In the same way you wouldn't let them watch Sex and the City, for example. Same idea.


Also I have to mention that you just responded to the post where I asked again for you to explain the flaw in your logic in linking homosexuality to pedophilia but not doing the same for heterosexuality and pedophilia and still no answer. Why?

 

[Serenity7855]

And your "seven others" we've already been through. Three are all the same thing, three of those sources wouldn't post evidence against their biases, four of them (counting the three as one) contain claims counter to yours, and one of them links to nothing.

Post #2572

That works out as more links then I actually posted. How do you get it so monumentally wrong? Do you read my post before responding to it? I Repeated the same link three times? I did list the same link twice by accident, however, three times? I have listed the links below. Maybe you could show me where these three links that are the same are. Show which link goes nowhere.

1. http://www.rense.com/general24/reportpedophilia.htm
2. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/news/homosexuality-pedophilia/
3. http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/9/18/903178/-
4. http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=is02e3
5. http://www.wnd.com/2002/04/13722/
6. http://www.rense.com/general24/reportpedophilia.htm
7. http://psc.dss.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/HTML/facts_molestation.html
8. https://www.quora.com/Is-there-a-correlation-between-homosexuality-and-pedophilia

Yes, I maybe should have read them but time didn't permit, however four of these links are to sites claiming a connection. And both you and SkepticThinker insinuated that it was all against my beliefs. SkepticThinker said: "The links you provided demonstrated pretty well that there is no link between pedophilia and homosexuality. So, thank you." and you said "And what you got didn't match your claims. It shows just how good at research you are." Can't you just tell that you are both atheists.

1&6. Child molestation and pedophilia occur far more commonly among homosexuals than among heterosexuals on a per capita basis, according to a new study.

5. “The rate of homosexual versus heterosexual child sexual abuse is staggering,” said Reisman, who was the principal investigator for an $800,000 Justice Department grant studying child pornography and violence. “Abel’s data of 150.2 boys abused per male homosexual offender finds no equal (yet) in heterosexual violations of 19.8 girls.”

8. Yes. Homosexuality is 4 to 20 times more common in pedophiles than in the general population. In addition, homosexual pedophiles on average abuse twice as many children as heterosexual pedophiles.
And just a few more thrown in just to solidify the fact that there is a growing amount of people studying the connection between homosexuality and Pedophilia.

1. Despite the vociferous LGBT protestations to the contrary, homosexual males actually do commit a disproportionate number of the child-sex abuse cases.
http://barbwire.com/2014/05/15/recent-example-link-homosexuality-pedophilia/

2. Despite efforts by homosexual activists to distance the gay lifestyle from pedophilia, there remains a disturbing connection between the two. This is because, by definition, male homosexuals are sexually attracted to other males. While many homosexuals may not seek young sexual partners, the evidence indicates that disproportionate numbers of gay men seek adolescent males or boys as sexual partners.
http://downloads.frc.org/EF/EF08L46.pdf

3. Gay activists have strenuously argued that there is no connection between homosexuality and the sexual abuse of children. They point out that the majority of child molestation cases are by heterosexuals. But they neglect a pivotal fact: Homosexuals comprise only a small percentage of the population, yet account for an extraordinarily high percentage of offenses against children.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/fr/865615/posts

4.A large percentage of male pedophiles are homosexual or bisexual in orientation to children, meaning they are attracted to male children or both male and female children
https://neuroanthropology.net/2010/05/10/inside-the-mind-of-a-pedophile/

 

[Serenity7855]

If there is a link between pedophilia and homosexuality, then there must also be a link between heterosexuality and pedophilia, given that children are often preyed upon by adults of the opposite sex. I wonder why someone would fail to follow their own line of logic to its obvious conclusion and instead, only see half the picture.

Well yes that is the case, however, the point that they are making is that there is far more cases of homosexual child abuse then hetrosexual child abuse. I wonder why someone would fail to follow their own line of logic to its obvious conclusion and instead, only see half the picture

 

[Serenity7855]

No where did I say nor imply that I would not stop a child from consuming a bottle of bleach if I saw it happening. Or that somebody else shouldn't do so.

It was allegorical.

We were talking about policing the content of television, movies, books and the internet so that it's all child-friendly and there is no adult content, even for the adults. We were talking about monitoring what your children watch in the presence of their parents. I didn't suggest anywhere that we should just throw all the kids to the wolves.

Why not for the adults. Why would any adult want to watch such intimacy that belong in a time and place that is more appropriate and conducive to the mood.

The only censor that should exist are the parents, and media should not be censored because some parents can't turn it off or change the channel. That is the responsibility of the parent(s), and adults should not have to have nothing but "child friendly" programming because some parents find it distasteful and don't go throw with the simple motions of pushing a button to take care of the problem.

To which you said:

"Well put. That's exactly what I'm trying to say."

By agreeing to this aren't you throwing all kids to the wolf because you are making the parents the sole deterrent to bad TV and exonerating those who see fit to put out this filth. "The only censor that should exist are the parents"

You also agreed with this "media should not be censored because some parents can't turn it off or change the channel." Can't you see how naive and poorly thought out this is. He is saying that the only time that a child can be exposed to inappropriate content on TV is if a parent turns on the TV, like they cannot turn it on themselves, or see it outside of the home, or watch it in their own bedroom

How very telling this is, spoken like an egocentric. "and adults should not have to have nothing but "child friendly" programming because some parents find it distasteful and don't go throw with the simple motions of pushing a button to take care of the problem."

It is not child friendly it is family orientated. What else are you eager to see. What adult content do you want to watch to desensitize you to it. Do you want to see men kissing and acting erotically. Maybe you like to watch crime soaps that are full of death, murder, rape, child abuse and immoralities. Why would you want to watch such damaging programs as opposed to innocent and uplifting family TV?

When my niece and nephew are in my care, I monitor them. I don't show them horror movies or porn. I wouldn't show that to any kid. Nor would any reasonable person.

Again you think that the only way they will see it is if you show it to them. There are a multiplicity of ways that they could see it, which is why it is best not to show it at all. It would be interesting to see how it would change society

If I take them out somewhere, I monitor them and make sure they're behaving.That's my job as their caregiver. I hate nothing worse than to have to parent some other person's kid at the park because they're too busy to do it.

Children are special, all children, not just your niece and nephew. There is nothing wrong in lending a friendly hand, regardless of what the parents are doing. You do not punish the child because of the irresponsibility and iniquities of the parent.

So there's another example of where it's your own job to parent your own kids. But that by no means should be taken to mean that if someone is witnessing a child drinking a bottle of bleach (or any other dangerous thing) that they should not do something to stop it and help the child.

Child raising is primarily the responsibility of the parents, but it is a shared responsibility with the world family. In many eastern countries whole villages take responsibility for their children, but that is because they have no TV to corrupt them.

Teach your kids whatever you want. Indoctrinate them with the words of god. That's another thing that's your job. And in the meantime, the world will go on around them. And in that world, gay people exist and go about their lives like everybody else. One would think that treating them with the same respect and dignity as any other human being might be moral in some way.

As I have said, they are not like everybody else. Who they are is a product of the world. I am in the world because I have no other choice but I am not of the world for the world is corrupt and wicked as a result of mans carnality and lusts. Gays are in the world but they are also of the world. They are an integral part of the corruption, demonstrated by a desire for adult TV

FYI: Just by the nature of what they are, soap operas are about romance, sex, deception, affairs, and all kinds of other stuff I'm sure you disapprove of. That's what they are. So don't let your kids watch them, if you don't approve of that kind of thing. Or better yet, purchase the child-friendly filter for your TV. In the same way you wouldn't let them watch Sex and the City, for example. Same idea.

You will not walk into my home and find a soap on my TV, which is a shame as it was not that long ago when they were harmless to watch.

Also I have to mention that you just responded to the post where I asked again for you to explain the flaw in your logic in linking homosexuality to pedophilia but not doing the same for heterosexuality and pedophilia and still no answer. Why?

I have answered. Post #2633

Well yes that is the case, however, the point that they are making is that there is far more cases of homosexual child abuse then hetrosexual child abuse. I wonder why someone would fail to follow their own line of logic to its obvious conclusion and instead, only see half the picture

 

[Serenity7855]

What words have I twisted here exactly? What have I lied about? You say a link exists and I'm not supposed to think you are saying that a link exists?

You are twisting the word "link" to mean that I know that there is a link between homosexuals and pedophilia and I am accusing gays of being pedophiles, when I have no authority to make such an assertion I absolutely don't know that, however, I can see why there are those that can see it and feel, as I do, that it is a worthy area to study and research. The only problem being reprisals from gays trying to stifle and censor the outcome if it is not in their favour. What I meant was that the link between homosexuality and pedophilia can be found on these sites, then I posted the relevant links, which contained four that were counter arguments. Admittedly there was some ambiguity over the word "link" which could have bee resolved just by asking for clarification rather then seizing the moment to accuse me of calling all gays pedophiles.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Why would you want to watch such damaging programs as opposed to innocent and uplifting family TV?

Because some of us are mature enough to handle "non-family" programing without becoming desensitized to it. Some of the animes I watch would probably make your head explode from the amount of extreme violence and gore. But even watching stuff that is so violent that many people don't like it because they find it to be too much, real violence upsets me. Mortal Kombat I have no problems with, but 9/11 videos make me cringe.

He is saying that the only time that a child can be exposed to inappropriate content on TV is if a parent turns on the TV, like they cannot turn it on themselves, or see it outside of the home, or watch it in their own bedroom

Outside of the home is an issue with anything, not just TV. But if you turn on something that a child shouldn't be watching with a child present, you have problems. In their own bedroom, you, as the parent, have parental controls and locks that you can use. It's not hard. It's a given I'd never let children watch something like Happy Tree Friends, but even with something like Batman, due to the violence, I wouldn't let a child watch it without parental consent.

Repeated the same link three times? I did list the same link twice by accident, however, three times?

It's not the same link, but the same exact story. It just further proves you aren't actually reading or considering the things you are posting, especially when you post something like quora (you may well just cite Yahoo! Answers because it's the same "community approval" system), and don't realize that 3 of the 4 people who replied do not agree with your position.

however four of these links are to sites claiming a connection.

Only one of them does, and it is one of those three that I mentioned that would never post anything against their own biases. The other two are the HuffPo link, which actually links to nothing, and the DailyKos link, which has a big "No" as an answer to the question of a link between homosexuals and pedophiles.

And both you and SkepticThinker insinuated that it was all against my beliefs.

We've never claimed that. We'd be idiots to believe the Family Research Council would say otherwise (much how it takes just not at all knowing what HuffPo and DailyKos are to think they would support your claim). The other ones do not support your claims. Not the one that features your student of a "professional," not the story article which clearly states that FBI statistics do not support the claim, and your UC Davis link even discredits your FRC link.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

This is what you linked to:
http://psc.dss.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/HTML/facts_molestation.html

What About Claims That Scientific Research Proves Gay Men Are Likely To Molest Children?

Some conservative groups have argued that scientific research strongly supports their claims that homosexuality and pedophilia are linked. The Family Research Council has produced what is perhaps the most extensive attempt to document this claim. It is an article by Timothy J. Dailey titled Homosexuality and Child Abuse.

With 76 footnotes, many of them referring to papers in scientific journals, it appears at first glance to be a thorough and scholarly discussion of the issue. On further examination, however, its central argument – that "the evidence indicates that homosexual men molest boys at rates grossly disproportionate to the rates at which heterosexual men molest girls" – doesn't hold up.

In the following section, the main sources cited by Dailey and the FRC to support their claim are reviewed. The papers are listed in the same order in which they are first cited by the FRC article.
...
In summary, the scientific sources cited by the FRC report do not support their argument. Most of the studies they referenced did not even assess the sexual orientation of abusers. Two studies explicitly concluded that sexual orientation and child molestation are unrelated. Notably, the FRC failed to cite the 1978 study by Groth and Birnbaum, which also contradicted their argument. Only one study (Erickson et al., 1988) might be interpreted as supporting the FRC argument, and it failed to detail its measurement procedures and did not differentiate bisexual from homosexual offenders.

That is where it discredits and discards your FRC link. And it goes on to say in the conclusion:

The empirical research does not show that gay or bisexual men are any more likely than heterosexual men to molest children. This is not to argue that homosexual and bisexual men never molest children. But there is no scientific basis for asserting that they are more likely than heterosexual men to do so. And, as explained above, many child molesters cannot be characterized as having an adult sexual orientation at all; they are fixated on children.

You keep posting these things, but they don't even agree with you.

 

[McBell]

This is what you linked to:
http://psc.dss.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/HTML/facts_molestation.html

That is where it discredits and discards your FRC link. And it goes on to say in the conclusion:

You keep posting these things, but they don't even agree with you.

the difference between the choir and not choir....

 

[Prestor John]

Before I begin I just want you to know that I am not hurt or offended at all by anything you have said. I do not take what people say on the internet personally.

I grew up with an older brother who was very opinionated and passionate and often contentious of the views of the Church. I am also very opinionated and I can get very passionate when discussing my views.

We grew up having “discussions” that anyone outside of our family would have expected to come to blows. We never hit one another and after we both got our points across and felt validated we would just pat each other on the back and return to whatever we were doing.

Even though there was a lot of emotion flying about, as soon as the “discussion” was over, there was no contention, because we got to say what we wanted to say and with the level of passion we felt was appropriate to convey our outrage and incredulity.

Needless to say, my wife hates how I can “flare up” when we have an argument about one thing or another and then as soon as the issue is resolved I ask, “What’s for dinner?”

She claims to need time to “process” what happened and what was said while I just rolled with the punches and was ready to get on with my life. (Also needless to say, but she usually comes out on top).

I also personally believe that forums such as these warrant a certain “buffer” that you would not have in a personal face-to-face discussion. Not only should people be able to say whatever they want to say, but they should realize that what someone says is directed at their argument, not necessarily at them directly.

We shouldn’t try to be a**holes, but we shouldn’t have to feel like we can’t say what we want to say. I was only apprehensive about responding to you because you are a member of the Church and I love ya. You know I do!

So when I mentioned that some of the things you said were “demeaning” or “belittling” I did not mean to say that you are a bad person or anything. All I meant was that the goal of your comments were to draw focus to what you believed was the absurdity of what I had said. Which was a completely valid argument for you to make.

To summarize, I am not offended and indeed I will never be offended by anything said on this site because I view anything said to “me” to actually be directed at what I have said. I am then left with the choice to either defend what I said or admit that what I had said was wrong and move on to something else.

I am sorry that my approach to “discussions” may sound insensitive, but none of my arguments are directed at you as a person, just at the “you” which has been constructed by what you have said.

I'm sorry you're apprehensive about responding to my comments. You can definitely trust me when I say that I have no ulterior motives in anything I say. I am 100% authentic in how I present myself and about as transparent as a person can be. In other words, what you see is what you get.

Yeah I figured. I never considered that you’d have any ulterior motive. It’s just that I value your opinion and that doesn’t happen often on these kinds of sites. I am just interested in what you have to say and then I’m blown away if you say something that differs at all from what I would have said.

Well, I don't just "claim to be" a member of the Church. I "am" a member of the Church.

Oops. Sorry about that, force of habit. I in no way was trying to intimate that you were not a member of the Church or that your membership/testimony was in question. I am just used to people misrepresenting what I say so I got into the habit of including things like “you made the claim”.

I get so tired because I write what I want to write, but then go over it again and again, rewording and rephrasing everything to try and make it “airtight”. I wish people just had their own arguments rather than relying on word-mining.

I have a strong testimony of the restored gospel of Jesus Christ. I was married in the temple (46 years ago in June) and both my husband and I have current temple recommends. I teach the "Teachings for Our Times" lessons in Relief Society, and my husband is in our ward's High Priests Group leadership.

I never doubted that. Sorry again.

I'm sorry that's how I came across. I don't think your views on same-sex marriage make you a "bad person" or that mine make me a "good person." I do believe that it's wrong for us to marginalize other people because of their moral choices.

I agree that people should not be marginalized for their moral choices.

I don’t believe that my stance on this issue, or the actions of the Church, were attempts to marginalize anyone.

Back in the April, 2012 General Conference, Elder Uchtdorf gave one of the best talks I've ever heard. It was called The Merciful Obtain Mercy. (Non-LDS posters following this thread may want to read it in its entirety.)

I remember that talk well.

I don’t know how relevant it is to this discussion though. At least, in relation to what I and the Church have said on this issue.

I'm not guilty of the sin of homosexual intimacy, but I am guilty of plenty of other sins, and I hope every day that my Father in Heaven will be merciful to me when I stand before Him to be judged. One thing I especially want to hear Him say is, "Kathryn, you did a pretty good job of not judging others. At least I could tell that you made a real effort to focus on getting the beam out of your own eye before worrying about the mote in someone else's eye."

Again, I don’t see the topic of judgment to be at all applicable to this issue.

I do not believe that my claiming that homosexual behavior is sinful is me “judging” anyone or me somehow trying to excuse my own sins. I never claimed that I was without sin or that I do not rely on the grace of our Lord and beg for His mercy.

I am going to quote a bit from ww.lds.org under “Same-Sex Attraction” in Gospel Topics here: https://www.lds.org/topics/same-gender-attraction?lang=eng

Just bear in mind that my intention in quoting sources is not to say, “I’m right and you’re wrong.” I am only sharing these sources to support why I believe/say/do the things I do.

“Jesus Christ, whom we follow, was clear in His condemnation of sexual immorality, but never cruel. His interest was always to lift the individual, never to tear down.”

I do not consider my sharing the doctrines of the LDS Church to be “cruel”. I never condemned anyone. I never said that they were lost or irredeemable. I never tore anyone down. I explained how the Lord views their sins and I shared that there was hope to be forgiven. I never strayed from the official stance of the LDS Church.

“Sexual activity should only occur between a man and a woman who are married.”

“The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints affirms the centrality of doctrines relating to human sexuality and gender as well as the sanctity and significance of marriage as the union of a man and a woman.”

“The Church distinguishes between same-sex attraction and behavior. While maintaining that feelings and inclinations toward the same sex are not inherently sinful, engaging in homosexual behavior is in conflict with the “doctrinal principle, based on sacred scripture … that marriage between a man and a woman is essential to the Creator's plan for the eternal destiny of His children.””

“The gospel of Jesus Christ is based on love, respect and agency. Mormons believe that all humans have inherited strengths, weaknesses, challenges and blessings and are invited to live, through the help and grace of God, the principles revealed by Jesus Christ. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints maintains that “God’s universal fatherhood and love charges each of us with an innate and reverent acknowledgment of our shared human dignity. We are to love one another. We are to treat each other with respect as brothers and sisters and fellow children of God, no matter how much we may differ from one another.”

When I stand before the Lord I want Him to say to me, “Timothy, you valiantly shared your testimony of me and you called all my wayward children to repentance. Because of your efforts, many came to me and I was able to heal and comfort them. Come and rejoice with your brothers and sisters.”

 

[Prestor John]

I don't disregard the standards of the Church. I do my best to measure up to them. I also did my best to teach them to my children, who are now grown and on their own. A number of months ago, I read something in the Washington Post by LDS journalist, David Mason. It said, "Some Mormons do hear the call of conscience more loudly than any political prescriptions from the church." I immediately thought, "Yes! That's me! I do value the opinions of the Church's leaders, but I value my own conscience even more!" I just can't feel towards the same negativity towards the LGBT community as other Mormons do. Honestly, I just can't.

I feel that a wire got crossed somewhere.

Never have the leaders of the Church taught or encouraged anyone to feel “negativity” towards anyone and that includes the LGBT community.

I remember a talk by Elder Boyd K. Packer that addressed this issue a little. His comments were more in regards to Church members who were experiencing same-sex attraction than the rest of the world, but I think it applies here. He said,

“When members are hurting, it is so easy to convince ourselves that we are justified, even duty bound, to use the influence of our appointment or our calling to somehow represent them. We then become their advocates -- sympathize with their complaints against the Church, and perhaps even soften the commandments to comfort them. Unwittingly we may turn about and face the wrong way. Then the channels of revelation are reversed. Let me say that again. Then the channels of revelation are reversed. In our efforts to comfort them, we lose our bearings and leave that segment of the line to which we are assigned unprotected. The question is not whether they need help and comfort. That goes without saying. The question is "How?" The Prophet Joseph Smith, when he organized the Relief Society said, "There is the need for decisions of character aside from sympathy.””

http://www.zionsbest.com/face.html

Enemies of the Church often tell me, after I testify to them concerning the impressions I have received from the Holy Spirit, that we cannot trust our feelings. They say that feelings deceive us. Well, I know from personal experience that it is rather easy to discern between the confirming witness of the Holy Spirit and our own personal feelings.

This leads to me say that even though what you say sounds reasonable and my initial gut-reaction is to nod in acceptance, I know in my heart of hearts, by the witness of the Holy Spirit, that the Lord does not look upon sin with the least degree of allowance and that I have been commissioned to share that fact with the world.

How are any of our wayward brothers and sisters going to know how their Father in Heaven feels about their situation unless we tell them?

How does it make the Church look when we try to “soften” the commandments of God, or are less-valiant in our declaration of His will, to appease those who live contrary to it? How does it make Him look?

Is homosexuality a sin or isn’t it? They need to know where the Lord stands so they can make the choice for themselves to follow Him or not.

My conscience won’t allow me to butter anyone up because I don’t want to offend them or make them feel bad. Any discomfort the truth may cause them in this life is better than an eternity of sorrow. They need to know and my conscience won’t allow me to be silent.

That would be like not warning someone when they are distractedly walking into traffic.

Yes, I believe that homosexual intimacy is wrong. That's why, if I were sexually attracted to other women, I would do my best not to act on that attraction. But, I would hope that if I failed in this, my fellow Mormons would not make this my defining quality. I would hope that they would see beyond it and recognize that I am a compassionate, honest, dependable person who just "sins differently than they do." Unfortunately, I don't think they would.

I’m sorry you feel that way.

My older brother left the Church many years ago after he came home from the MTC instead of going to the mission field. He claimed that everyone was judging him and making him feel guilty.

Even though he claimed this, I can personally attest that I saw no such judgment. I saw people inquiring after his health and how else he was doing. I never saw anything derogatory being said or done.

I honestly feel that he projected his guilt and shame from coming home onto others in an effort to justify his desire to commit sin.

I also need to point out that you earlier claimed that I was being judgmental in my desire to share the Church’s stance on this issue and to stand by the decisions of the Brethren, and now you are judging how members of the Church would react toward you if you suffered from a same-sex attraction.

That is rather hypocritical.