It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Stylez
What Bigotry and violence? You talk as if they walk around with a tattoo "Im Gay" on there foreheads giving them away to all the haters so they can hate on em. According to 97% of 911 calls for violence to any gays the person doing the hating on them was their gay lover.
Now who is hating who huh Jax
Originally posted by Stylez
Jaxon Jaxon Jaxon* Sigh * ever been to a gay website ? Do yourlself a favor and google "Fistgate" and if you aren't convinced of an agenda then try reading ANY homosexual website and all the many people being "OUTED" by other gays. Check the many posts by homosexuals that are convinced they can convert this movie star or that guy they saw where ever etc. The many that "eased into" the lifestyle just by trying it so much they eventually just gave into it. Unless you are gay yourself and have your own opinion but that is all that would be is "your opinion"
People CAN change their orientation and do.
Originally posted by JaxonRoberts
reply to post by Stylez
Now, since we have never discussed the Rev. Wright topic, you are making a HUGE assumption! I found that man equally as disturbing! Personally, I would just LOVE to have an agnostic or atheist President, even though I am neither one of those. But I do believe that Government should be secular, and that would ensure that. But we will never see such a thing.
I was equally disturbed by Palin's religious background, so it was a no win scenario in November. Instead, I had to make my voting decision based on the secular issues, not spiritual issues.
I have also never stated that 'Reverend' Anderson didn't have the right to say whatever he wants, but this does not mean that I cannot have a problem with what he says. Big difference! Just like I don't agree with what you've said concerning this subject, but you absolutely have the right to say it! It is your opinion and you are entitled to it, but I do not have to agree with it.
Originally posted by EdCase512
There are two sides to every story.
The conversion is universal. A lot of straight men and women believe they could "convert" someone on the other team also.
Homosexuality is exactly that. A form of sexuality. Anyone feeling threatened needs to question their own, not others, "drives".
It also has NOTHING to do with the molestation of children.
I myself can happily say I am heterosexual in my orientation and comfortable enough in myself to comment on a "good looking" man.
Originally posted by JaxonRoberts
Originally posted by Stylez
What Bigotry and violence? You talk as if they walk around with a tattoo "Im Gay" on there foreheads giving them away to all the haters so they can hate on em. According to 97% of 911 calls for violence to any gays the person doing the hating on them was their gay lover.
Now who is hating who huh Jax
Well then, why don't you conduct yourself a little experiment. Get a same sex friend with thick skin, and just go for a little walk holding hands. Get back to me once you have and let's see if you have the same opinion.
Originally posted by oneclickaway
I did not mention any country specifically, therefore your comprehension seems lacking. I also did not say all sex was sin. I said that sexual depravity is often found in heterosexual christians.
Originally posted by Stylez
Originally posted by EdCase512
It also has NOTHING to do with the molestation of children.
Really? you ever check the ratios between Pedophila by straights and Pedastry by gays? It would amaze you the likelyhood of a homosexual having the svelt firm body of a younger male just about to reach puberty while his hormones are going nuts. That kinda thing gays want NO part of LOL
Source.
The onset of pedophilia usually occurs during adolescence. Occasional pedophiles begin their activities during middle age but this late onset is uncommon. In the United States, about 50% of men arrested for pedophilia are married.
Source.
Are homosexual adults in general sexually attracted to children and are preadolescent children at greater risk of molestation from homosexual adults than from heterosexual adults? There is no reason to believe so. The research to date all points to there being no significant relationship between a homosexual lifestyle and child molestation. There appears to be practically no reportage of sexual molestation of girls by lesbian adults, and the adult male who sexually molests young boys is not likely to be homosexual (Groth & Gary, 1982, p. 147).
Originally posted by Stylez
Not in this country there not. In America it is gays who are the fastest rising group of people contracting HIV / Aids and I believe that is what the poster was talking about. In Africa the disease was spread using dirty malaria virus needles when everyone was being vacinated.
It is the "spread" of it that the CDC is concerned about and what better way to spread it then a flesh injection into the hemoroidal arteries via anal sex with someone who chances of having over 150 sex partners is pretty likely given the statistics on gay sex and promiscuity
Originally posted by JaxonRoberts
And where did you find those statistics? Here's what I found:
Source.
The onset of pedophilia usually occurs during adolescence. Occasional pedophiles begin their activities during middle age but this late onset is uncommon. In the United States, about 50% of men arrested for pedophilia are married.
Then there's this:
Source.
Are homosexual adults in general sexually attracted to children and are preadolescent children at greater risk of molestation from homosexual adults than from heterosexual adults? There is no reason to believe so. The research to date all points to there being no significant relationship between a homosexual lifestyle and child molestation. There appears to be practically no reportage of sexual molestation of girls by lesbian adults, and the adult male who sexually molests young boys is not likely to be homosexual (Groth & Gary, 1982, p. 147).
Now if you have actual statistics or a source to back up you assertion, I would love to see them.
[edit on 31-8-2009 by JaxonRoberts]
Originally posted by JaxonRoberts
reply to post by EMPIRE
And if my aunt had wheels she'd be a wagon. The fact is you are reading things into it that are not there. Either you take it literally, or you take it contextually. You can't mix and match to suit your own needs. Contextually, I have no problem with the Creation story in Genesis. There is plenty of contextual symbolism to tie it to the creation and expansion of the Universe, right up to the 'talking snake' part of the story. At that point, it takes a hard turn into the realm of fairy tale.
It's the literal point of view that I dispute.
Originally posted by sdcigarpig
Originally posted by Stylez
Not in this country there not. In America it is gays who are the fastest rising group of people contracting HIV / Aids and I believe that is what the poster was talking about. In Africa the disease was spread using dirty malaria virus needles when everyone was being vacinated.
It is the "spread" of it that the CDC is concerned about and what better way to spread it then a flesh injection into the hemoroidal arteries via anal sex with someone who chances of having over 150 sex partners is pretty likely given the statistics on gay sex and promiscuity
I am not so sure about where you are getting your statistics from. HIV/Aids are affecting all walks of life, men, women and children in all countries. In Africa, the original sets of infections was through dirty needles, but right now in this age, a majority of the women that are being infected are from either rape or cause their husbands are infected.
Originally posted by JaxonRoberts
reply to post by Stylez
If a source is obviously biased, then it should be called into question. To not source your assertions is the ATS equivelant of just making them up. That is a weak argument that makes me think that you know your source is biased, and therefore questionable, or you have no source at all.
ATS is the online equivelant of Missouri, it's the 'Show Me' site!
Originally posted by JaxonRoberts
reply to post by Stylez
If a source is obviously biased, then it should be called into question. To not source your assertions is the ATS equivelant of just making them up. That is a weak argument that makes me think that you know your source is biased, and therefore questionable, or you have no source at all.
ATS is the online equivelant of Missouri, it's the 'Show Me' site!
Edit to add: The word 'Pedasterist' does not appear in the dictionary. Tsk, tsk!
[edit on 31-8-2009 by JaxonRoberts]
Originally posted by JaxonRoberts
reply to post by EMPIRE
I have, but I guess I just need to simplify it for you:
THE OLD TESTAMENT IS NOT TRUE! IT CANNOT AND SHOULD NOT BE TAKEN LITERALLY! IT IS THE WRITINGS OF AN ANCIENT NOMADIC TRIBE WITH ZERO UNDERSTANDING OF SCIENCE AND WERE TRYING TO EXPLAIN THEIR ORIGIN. THE FIRST FIVE BOOKS WERE WRITTEN BY MOSES OVER THREE THOUSAND YEARS AFTER ADAM AND EVE WERE SUPPOSED TO HAVE LIVED, AND MOSES WAS NOT EVEN RAISED A JEW! AND IF ADAM LIVED 900 YEARS, WE ARE DE-EVOLVING!
There, simple enough for you? Hope that helps. I really hate to do things like that, but you left me no choice. By the way, show me just one instance where I 'flip-flopped' anywhere in this thread! Good luck, you'll need it!
Originally posted by JaxonRoberts
THE OLD TESTAMENT IS NOT TRUE! IT CANNOT AND SHOULD NOT BE TAKEN LITERALLY!
Originally posted by JaxonRoberts
reply to post by Stylez
Thanks for the link. As it doesn't show up on a google search in regards to statistics, however, one must stick to the pedophile statistics, as this is the general term for any child molester, regardless of orientation.
one must stick to the pedophile statistics, as this is the general term for any child molester, regardless of orientation