:har::har::har::har::har::har:
edit because ......why bother with the the fool anymore

I don't find this to be the case. What I see is members that do not agree with the statement that homosexuals are child molesters. That is simply ridiculas.

The same chance as everyone else in proving your point/theory or otherwise.

Nah..he would ask his chimp Bubbles what to do.

I wonder how the wedding planners and shops handeled the sudden surge of orders. Probibly pulled half of retailers and tailors in new york out of recession in one night :hmmm:

So, if you refuse to even lift a figure (exempt your middle one )to help assemble the data needed. And I will use the 11 to 1 figure to establish
the doubt on the mantra of the Sinless one's assertions.
And move on from there.

"the ratio of heterosexual to homosexual pedophiles was calculated to be approximately 11:1"

found here:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1556756

Shalom

ZeeWolf :yawn:

I know there's got to be some sort of integration and between shop renting of material and services, but I doubt that will be enough to cater to every couple that married and will marry in these days. And it has a riple effect, guests also need fancy clothes for the wedding, not only the grooms and the brides.
You think the services were prepared for this??

Ratio 11:1, riiight, on one person that gets married there are 11 people that will need the services, tailors, taxi's....

No, I will use "Phony" Dr. Hottentot.


ZeeWolf

Even if we accept that all/most/some/just one homosexuals are child molesters, what does that have to do with them being allowed to get married? :06:

The homosexual pedophiles will still be homosexual pedophiles whether or not they are allowed to get married. Heterosexual pedophiles will still be heterosexual pedophiles whether or not gays are allowed to get married.

So no one should say what they think unless it's guaranteed that there will be an opposing opinion for each person?

I highly doubt that Tarzan would care one way or the other about this discussion.

Interesting. I'll come back to this.

I figure if that crowd (the wicked and adulterous generation) could hate and spit on Jesus.
For predicting the Temple in Jerusalem will be destroyed so utterly that not one stone would be
left upon another. And that is exactly what happened in 70A.D.[/quote]
You're jumbling Biblical quotes and trying to force them into a mold they weren't made to fit. According to the Bible Jesus said "A wicked and adulterous generation seeks a sign", which was a retort to the Pharisees when they demanded he prove himself by performing a supernatural feat. And the Pharisees, though Jews, could more aptly be compared to other religious/political leader wannabes, especially modern leaders of the Religious Right. Jesus never advocated hating any group despite knowing what was to happen.

Second, they didn't hate him and spit on him for predicting the destruction of the Temple. They did so because they were incited by the religious leaders, and they followed what they were told. And they weren't representative of all Jews, just the ones who were there that day. In that respect they were no different than the Germans who followed the Nazis. Not the Nazis themselves, but the otherwise good people who let perverted leaders goad them into acts of hatred.

Now, back to "reconsidering your plight". What exactly do you mean by this? That you're reconsidering whether you're right in your stated beliefs? Or whether you should even be here?

Do you really believe you're stupid, or is that just another arguing point?

As for helping you with "research", if you make a claim it's your job to back it up. In another discussion on another part of this forum, I uncovered evidence in support of the person opposing me. I brought this evidence forward, because I don't lie and I don't cheat. Likewise, if I stumbled on real evidence that supported your claims I would say so, and at least open it up for discussion, if not support it outright. That said, I'm not going to go looking for "facts" that support hatred, not that I believe there are any. So yes, in your quest to destroy anything and anyone you consider inferior or "wrong", you are indeed on your own.

Good point. :sunny:

He should be thinking about Jane :DL, or maybe Cheetah :hmmm:

A link:yeah:
http://webcache.googleusercontent.co...lestation.html

And the cakes and pastry. Imagine the spike in sugar demand. Enough to make Cuba rich.

Listen ZeeTroll (see, I can be as witty as you with the usernames).
This is the last time I will bother with a reply to you. I offered a discussion in the holocaust thread.
As you do not only fight Marxism, but also the English language and grammar, I asked you to make your point clear. You behaved like a spoiled brat and refused to give an adult answer.

Also thank you very much for proving many of the points, about which I wrote in post #71, with your answer. As you might not have noticed, I called nobody else in this thread with whom I disagree, a conspiracy guy, only you. Use your braincells and try to figure out why this is so.

And please refrain from uttering poorly concealed threats against me. If you want to step up to your words and do it old-school: bring it on! I offer you, that we both do it old-school European style: 1 vs 1, no weapons, no cops...
PM me if you want do do this or put your threats where the sun never shines!

Have a nice rahowa!

Quote:

Another article dealing with the proportionality issue of child abuse was published by Freund and Watson in 1992. These authors5 noted the 1985 literature review by FRI’s chairman, and agreed that the ratio of female to male pedophilic victims was about 2:1, even as the proportion of heterosexual to homosexual men is about 20:1. Freund and Watson did some ‘figuring’ to arrive at an estimate that homosexual men are ‘only’ twice as apt to be pedophiles. They concluded that their findings generated support for the notion that “a homosexual development notably often does not result in androphilia [sexual desire for men] but in homosexual pedophilia [desire for boys]. … This, of course, should not be understood as saying that androphiles may have a greater propensity to offend against children than do gynephiles [men interested in sex with women],….” (p. 41). Notice that both sets of Canadian investigators went to some lengths to ‘interpret’ or ‘gloss’ their results as not harmful to the gay rights cause, but were honest enough to report ‘the facts’ as they found them.

http://www.familyresearchinst.org/20...of-pedophilia/

Just a heads-up on how the Family Research Council is likely to present anything to do with homosexuality.

The FRC are hardly an unbiased observer. They are a heavily politicised group with a self-admitted goal of conservative Christian lobbying.

Their VP for Policy believes that homosexuality should be a criminal offence.

Source - http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35224225/

Good point Tchocky. I think it is hard to find any body of folks that are unbiased in any matter. NAMBLA is just plain sick IMO. I do not believe homosexuality is a criminal offense.

Dear Dr. Judith Reisman, president of the Institute for Media Education

Your not a scum anymore, I changed my mind. please forgive me :oops:

Sincerely

ZeeWolf

Here are numbers that I will incorporate in my data:

The following experts are from here:

http://www.dakotavoice.com/2009/06/p...osexual-world/

"Judith Reisman, president of the Institute for Media Education, says that Department of Justice statistics show that 67 percent of all reported sex abuse victims are children and 64 percent of forcible sodomy victims are boys under 12." :o

And this is really a welcome example of a liberal tooth pulling. From the Hate the truth group Human Rights Campaign and the 2.9%:

"This is especially telling because according to a survey commissioned last year by the pro-homosexual Human Rights Campaign, only 2.9% of the population is homosexual. This means that while only making up a tiny portion of the overall population, the perpetration of male molestation by homosexuals is greater than the much larger general population."

Not there yet,

ZeeWolf

Thanks man :up:

ZeeWolf