Same sex marriage - Yes or No?

[Tisme]

Paedophilia is reported to be 1-5% of males and somewhat less in females.

So let say only 0.5% of the population are paedophiles. That is still a whoppingly bigger number than the number of Catholic priests.

That means that just in my semi rural suburb wirh a pop of 4100, there are twenty pedos... And we don't even have a Catholic Church.

Come on guys, in your culturally Marxist zeal to throw every traditional western institution under the bus, your making gooses of yourselves.

Well seeing as same sex couples are 0.9% of all couples in Oz, and pedophiles are 3% of the population, I can't understand why the SJWs aren't putting in three times the effort on behalf of rock spiders either.

 

[basilio]

↑
Paedophilia is reported to be 1-5% of males and somewhat less in females.

So let say only 0.5% of the population are paedophiles. That is still a whoppingly bigger number than the number of Catholic priests.

That means that just in my semi rural suburb wirh a pop of 4100, there are twenty pedos... And we don't even have a Catholic Church.

Come on guys, in your culturally Marxist zeal to throw every traditional western institution under the bus, your making gooses of yourselves. Wayne


Well seeing as same sex couples are 0.9% of all couples in Oz, and pedophiles are 3% of the population, I can't understand why the SJWs aren't putting in three times the effort on behalf of rock spiders either. Tisme

There are a number of problems with the maths and logic of your statements.

1) Wayne suggests that .5% of 4100 is 20 Pedos. Mathematically it's actually only 8

2) Paedophile ? Who is a paedophile. Surveys sugest that "up to " 1-3-5% of men report fantasies of child sex. That doesn't translate into active behaviour. It would be very hard to properly quantify the number of people who take their fantasies and put them in practice.

3) The issue of child sex abuse in the Catholic Church is about the structures in the Church that have allowed Paedophiles to flourish. I outlined this in detail earlier. If the Church and other organisations had been doing their job instead of protecting their reputations and influence these people would have been been charged and jailed far earlier. On top of that the Church might have recognised that some of it's practices were unwittingly aiding corrupt priests.

4) The Royal Commission found that between 9% and 40% of the clergy in Catholic Institutions (depending on the institution) had been involved in child sex offences. Unfortunately that is way more than what is even considered as average across the population. The fact that were allowed to go unchecked over almost a lifetime and that at least some offenders destroyed the lives of hundreds of children and their families is shattering beyond reason. (And lets not forget all the other institutions that had similar outcomes.)

______________________________________________________________
Tisme why would anyone want to be "putting in an effort " for paedophiles ? Conflating this with SSM is yet another one of your nasty, poisonous efforts at debasing the discussion about allowing consenting adults the right to their adult relationships.

 

[SirRumpole]

1) Wayne suggests that .5% of 4100 is 20 Pedos. Mathematically it's actually only 8

One percent of 4100 = 41, half of that is 20.5.

 

[basilio]

One percent of 4100 = 41, half of that is 20.5.

My bad. It doesn't change the rest of the issues.
I wonder how idyllic Wayne's little piece of paradise is with 20 active child molesters on the loose? If one thinks about for a microsecond it just doesn't make sense.

 

[SirRumpole]

I wonder how idyllic Wayne's little piece of paradise is with 20 active child molesters on the loose? If one thinks about for a microsecond it just doesn't make sense.

One never knows how much pedophillia goes on in families that gets covered up.

I well remember Julia's tales of what went on in her family and wondered how many families are like that.

 

[Tisme]

↑
________________
Tisme why would anyone want to be "putting in an effort " for paedophiles ? Conflating this with SSM is yet another one of your nasty, poisonous efforts at debasing the discussion about allowing consenting adults the right to their adult relationships.

No it isn't conflation. It is thoroughly in line with the arguments put forward about homoseuality, SSM transwhatever ... basically (according to your doctrine) people have a right to identify with and play out their desires without any fear of social pariah attribution and better still we taxpayers should pay for that via govt funded social support payments, agencies, surgery, pills and a grooming SJW nursery national broadcaster.

Why would you object to pedophilia? And don't just talk about community standards, law, disgust, etc because for many of us the descent into base sacrilegious behaviour has been alarming.

You and others were pretty quick to support SSM because it supposedly had ancient roots in Grecian culture, hell someone even hand on heart stated marriage was a homosexual invention, well its fairly well documented that those same primitive low lifes embraced and celebrated pederasty, so what's the problem?

 

[Junior]

Why would you object to pedophilia? And don't just talk about community standards, law, disgust, etc because for many of us the descent into base sacrilegious behaviour has been alarming.

Same-sex relationship between two CONSENTING ADULTS is very, very different to an adult sexually abusing a child.

 

[Tisme]

Same-sex relationship between two CONSENTING ADULTS is very, very different to an adult sexually abusing a child.

How so? Since when was a 16 yearold an adult?

The new social nuances include the right to personal gratification without stigma. Who are you, or anyone deserving of passing judgement, God forbid it's predicated on archaic white anglo social expectations and norms, that just wont do.

 

[Junior]

How so? Since when was a 16 yearold an adult?

I made no mention of age. There is a grey area in terms of when a child becomes an adult, however surely we can all agree that say, someone under the age of 10 is a child.

Or to you, is an adult sexually abusing a child under the age of 10, no different morally to a same sex relationship between two consenting adults?? That's what your comments imply, and it's disturbing.

 

[Value Collector]

I made no mention of age. There is a grey area in terms of when a child becomes an adult, however surely we can all agree that say, someone under the age of 10 is a child.

Or to you, is an adult sexually abusing a child under the age of 10, no different morally to a same sex relationship between two consenting adults?? That's what your comments imply, and it's disturbing.

I would only use the term pedophile to describe someone attracted to some one that hasn't reached sexual maturity.

for example if some one is attracted to a 15 year girl that has reached sexual maturity because she started puberty early, I wouldn't call them a pedophile, of course if they act on it, then they are a criminal under the law, but not a pedophile in my opinion, I think that term should only apply to people attracted to prepubescent children, not young women capable of having children.

for example this girl is apparently 15, if a 20 year old guy liked the look of her, I wouldn't automatically think he is a pedophile, I might make fun of him jokingly and point out she is 15, but I wouldn't think he is a pedo.

 

[SirRumpole]

Got any more photos like that ?



And where do you get them from ?

 

[Value Collector]

Got any more photos like that ?



And where do you get them from ?

Google images

 

[Tisme]

I made no mention of age. There is a grey area in terms of when a child becomes an adult, however surely we can all agree that say, someone under the age of 10 is a child.

Or to you, is an adult sexually abusing a child under the age of 10, no different morally to a same sex relationship between two consenting adults?? That's what your comments imply, and it's disturbing.

I'm not implying anything except morality is a different thing to different people. I'm trying to gauge if the same campaigning successfully used elsewhere could, some day, result in acceptance of what is widely abhorred currently, so thus what is DILLIGAF line in the sand age now?

 

[SirRumpole]

I'm trying to gauge if the same campaigning successfully used elsewhere could, some day, result in acceptance of what is widely abhorred currently, so thus what is DILLIGAF line in the sand age now?

The Muslims want it reduced to 10 I believe.

http://www.rawa.org/temp/runews/201...slation-of-child-marriage-in-6-countries.html

 

[explod]

I would only use the term pedophile to describe someone attracted to some one that hasn't reached sexual maturity.

for example if some one is attracted to a 15 year girl that has reached sexual maturity because she started puberty early, I wouldn't call them a pedophile, of course if they act on it, then they are a criminal under the law, but not a pedophile in my opinion, I think that term should only apply to people attracted to prepubescent children, not young women capable of having children.

for example this girl is apparently 15, if a 20 year old guy liked the look of her, I wouldn't automatically think he is a pedophile, I might make fun of him jokingly and point out she is 15, but I wouldn't think he is a pedo.

As a Father and Grandfather I find the image abhorrent. However I'm very much heterasexual and love it whenever, wherever, even at my age. Why can't we move on to more constructive discussion.

Some of you are disgusting because of the revealed curiosity aspect

 

[SirRumpole]

Some of you are disgusting because of the revealed curiosity aspect

Just so you know, I was joking and did no further searches.

If you want the picture removed, just ask Joe.

Further more, whoever encouraged that girl to publish the photo has some questions to answer.

 

[Joe Blow]

I've gone ahead and removed the image in Value Collector's post.

This thread is about same sex marriage and the discussion seems to have drifted off topic. It would be good if it were steered back to the original topic so we can leave the child abuse aspect behind. It is a very sensitive subject for a lot of people and I think it's best if we move on from it.

 

[SirRumpole]

I just saw the iPhone ad.

I'll never buy one now.

Why companies try to pander to the one percent and risk turning off the 99% I'll never know.

 

[Tisme]

I just saw the iPhone ad.

I'll never buy one now.

Why companies try to pander to the one percent and risk turning off the 99% I'll never know.

They are saturation marketing Twatter with that ad. Universally the comments are one of revulsion, with many of those being optically punished saying they voted YES, but didn't want to see any of the mechanics ... .what you don't see can''t hurt you

 

[Macquack]

I just saw the iPhone ad.

I'll never buy one now.

Why companies try to pander to the one percent and risk turning off the 99% I'll never know.

Can you provide a link to the exact ad you refer to.