Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.

Thousands of primary school pupils reported for homophobia

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. Kids do say daft things. Small amount of them mean it. Having a child label of racist or homophobic is just silly red tape. Perhaps the child should be taken to one side and have this explained to them with the Teacher and Parents present.

    1. Indeed – I know I said some pretty stupid things as a child without realising, shall we say, all the subtleties of what I was saying.

      However, by the time the child has reached secondary school age the meaning and lack of acceptability should have been made clear to them for words that are regarded as homophobic, sexist, racist, etc.

    2. Eddy - from 2007 4 Sep 2011, 5:42pm

      Taz and Colin, I would LOVE to agree with your opinion (and the opinion of Adrian Hart of the Manifesto Club who claims that “Children simply access words they hear around them and re-deploy them, often without understanding their meaning”), however I know with complete certainty that many young children are deeply homophobic.

      I used to be a teacher in an inner-city primary school. The staff knew I was gay (out and proud), the school was generally liberal, and no religion was stuffed down the children’s throats at assemblies although one teacher was known to be making the children pray for a couple of minutes each day.

      As a young gay teacher I felt it my responsibility in class to gently raise the question of how people should respond to gay and lesbian people. I did this by way of a powerful story in which a child was excluded by others for being different. In the discussion that I encouraged I discovered (with shock) that:

      (see next posting)

      1. Eddy - from 2007 4 Sep 2011, 5:48pm

        - about one quarter of the 30 children in the class absolutely knew what a gay person was (they knew that “gay”, “poof”, “queer”, homosexual were all words for the same kind of person)

        and

        – all of that 25% of the class ALSO associated with such gay/poof/queer/homosexual persons ABSOLUTE DISGUST. They showed this to me by the looks of repugnance they wore when describing such people and in the vocabulary of disgust/distaste that they used.

        I was truly shocked. These children’s attitude to homosexual people were clearly utterly fixed by the age of seven.

        However, I also knew that none of these children had developed their attitudes by themselves. In the case of each such child they had absorbed the homophobia that existed in their homes.

        1. Eddy - from 2007 4 Sep 2011, 5:54pm

          Lastly, there was one child who frequently slung homophobic abuse around the classroom. I set up a private meeting with his mother. She showed me in the course of our conversation that she knew how to expertly play the politically correct game. She said she couldn’t IMAGINE where her son had learnt such attitudes and vocabulary and asserted he never used or heard such language at home.

          Subsequently, I had a number of one-to-one sessions with the child concerned. It emerged, from what he told me, that his mother would frequently disparage him and his two brothers as “dirty little queers” and suchlike and draw comparisons between them and a number of men who were known to be gay on their council estate.

          I managed to lessen this lad’s usage of homophobic language but I knew that in fact all I really succeeded in doing was teaching him to hide his deep-seated homophobic attitude.

          1. I came out at a very early age so I had to deal with playground homophobia quite regularly but some of those kids who used to be homophobic are now some of my closest friends, many of them actually come along to pride events with me and joining groups which help fight against homophobia.

            You can’t class a kid as homophobic/racist because of what they say as children they usually do not mean it and just see it as a popularity thing not because of your minority.

    3. burningworm 6 Sep 2011, 9:32am

      There is a southpark episode where being gay is cool. Within the classroom the kids are arguing amongst themselves that they are gayer than their class mates. I’m a quarter bi, my grandfather was bi and on and on.

      Its pretty funny.

      Until homo is as ordinary as hetero children will always side with being ‘normal’. Its outlandish to label a child as racist or sexist or homophobic. Words are used without real meaning. Most adults say things they dont mean but are held accountable for me (as they should be), children should not.

    4. billywingart 7 Sep 2011, 7:43am

      the time to kill off homophobia is from the beginning of when the kid can talk. Before the hate can take root.

      I’d even support one year olds seeing gay same sex couples kissing. it appears that from about age 1 kids understand there are males and females – something different.

      On the other hand we have bigots here in the USA who say….

      Give me a child by the age of 7 and I’ll make him an Xtian for life”

      which is what the catholic church did with hitler – just go read mein kampf – he grew up in a posioned society.

      they made hims something all right – the worst murderer in history – who got elected by leveraging the churchs hatred of the jews for a millenia that posioned german etc society.

      And the proof is he has not yet been explcitly EXcommunicated. While they babble about protecting life, their smokescreen for their direct responsibility for the 55 million murders in WWII

  2. concerned resident of E3 4 Sep 2011, 1:08am

    hmm, I think a substantial number of gay or lesbian adults can remember using homophobic word as kids. This vilification is idiotic.

  3. Children learn first from their parents, brothers and sisters and other family members, then people around them, where ever they go. Sad but true little children learn to hate from these people. Even sadder is the fact that the grandparents taught their children (mom and dad) to hate first and then passed it down like a cancer in the family. Most will say no they don’t do that, but the truth is they do, knowingly or knowingly they pass the hate speech down from one generation to another. When will we ever learn how to not to teach our children to hate, knowingly or unknowingly?

    1. Eddy - from 2007 4 Sep 2011, 5:55pm

      You are absolutely corect, Tommy. (Please see my reply to Taz and Colin at the top of this thread.)

  4. This seems like a non-story based on a Daily-Mail-baiting press release to me. Uses of homophobic or racist language are almost certainly just being recorded internally to monitor the prevalence of such incidents, to keep tabs on how big a problem it is or how successful the school is being in its attempts to reduce it, rather than to brand any individual child as a homophobe or racist for life. (But I’m sure that’s how the Mail scumbags will spin it anyway)

    Frankly I’m just glad schools are taking this stuff seriously now – younger kids almost certainly have no homophobic intent when they throw around words like “gay” in a negative sense, but they definitely should be taught it’s inappropriate. When some of those kids hit secondary school they may well realise they’re gay themselves and it’s not a great feeling to realise what you are is that same word you’ve grown up knowing as nothing more than a synonym for “sh*t”.

    1. Yes, I am a primary teacher. We record these things internally so that we can monitor behaviour and, if there is a pattern emerging or more serious incident, we can look back and see how that pattern has occurred. The recording of incidents can also be a good learning tool, an opportunity to explain to children the imappropriate use of such language and to check their understanding of such language.

      1. Good to have confirmation from a teacher on this. It’d be nice if PinkNews updated the article to incorporate a teacher’s perspective to balance out the sensationalist spin put on it by the Manifesto Club. I’m not holding my breath though.

      2. Michaelangelo 4 Sep 2011, 4:32pm

        You should be ashamed of yourself.

        I thought teachers wanted to help children learn, not monitor them like some fascist secret police.

        Whatever spin you choose to put on it, hounding little children and recording their actions in such a big brotherish way is little short of Orwellian.

        1. If that’s Orwellian then the whole educational system has been Orwellian pretty much since its inception. Even in the days when homophobia was considered more or less acceptable (or at least ignored), if a child was heard swearing you can bet *that* would have been recorded and the kid reprimanded for it. What’s the difference here?

        2. de Villiers 5 Sep 2011, 8:40am

          If you consider that teaching children manners and applying proper discipline is either fascist or similar to the behaviour of the secret police then either you have never properly experienced those institutions or you have no sense of perspective.

        3. Well saying as how we want children to learn that homophobia is wrong I think it is perfectly fair to be a teacher that reprimands kids for using offensive language.

          And did you know the police do it to? Shock! Horror!

    2. Tom Hackett 29 Sep 2011, 8:53am

      Very well said, thank you.

  5. I find this article pretty odd, these kids are still very young and it is even quoted that they do not fully understand what they are saying. I would be much more concerned about physical violence then silly name calling.

    1. Psychological abuse can be just as damaging, and sometimes more so in the longer term, as physical violence. So I would be just as concerned to monitor what you call ‘silly name calling’ as I would physical violence. Intimidating and humiliating someone verbally can be a prelude to more physical acts of abuse toward that person, and it can be part of a pattern of abuse which can include acts of physical violence perpetatred against the person when not in the presence of eye witnesses, so I wouldn’t so readily dismiss this so called ‘silly name calling’ as you call it.

  6. I couldnt call a child homophobic. Just uneducated.

    1. Eddy - from 2007 4 Sep 2011, 5:58pm

      Adam, children have to be taught that they are responsible for their behaviour. Also, by the age of seven children are perfectly able to reason and to therefore decide what is right and what is wrong.

  7. This is why that bigotry and racism is a cirme of evil and violence and terroerism in religions and any where else and serious reprimands must be taken for this evil mess, our nation is under evil vile the hate religions are just evil pedephilia occults not real churches pay attention , how many bad pastors have been arrested almost every month alot, you cant even count, just occults, they; brainwash and decieve people and destroy feed poison evil to people and the tu;rn into terrorirst and harras people a little boy in junior high just told me today he was rapped by four pentecostal pastors in the church he went to and he want go to another one ever and now he hate all men he says, this is the kind of evil that your wicked religions are quilty of , you dont let them or allow them to continue to spread their evil maliciousness into the lives of families, to take them down, and out all of these hetersexual religions need to be continually investigated, for all type of abuses

  8. These children has been taught badly and wrongly , by racist parents or occult relighions, or gangs of klans, i know some persoanlally when i went to school one of my friends lashed out at her racist familiy right out in front of me and told them she would not allow their devils and evils from the past to be apart of her life ;and famiiley, the evil would not run down into her families line, and her children would learn to love everyone and treat other with kindness , i know i was one of her freinds and she did just what she said, another religious occults and hate groups must be reprimanded for the evil they cause children and families, they are a nusiance in our nation and a danger to all families, right now every where the hhate monsters is the only one causeing problems along with rapeste and murders, get it same evils same father satan, children show love and kindness as long as they are tau;ght it and shown it, thats how devistaing our nation is to our famiiies.

  9. Rayne Van-Dunem 4 Sep 2011, 5:59am

    Some may call this “vilification”, “necessary” or “Daily Mail/Fox News bait”, but I think this is an example of why emotion should be looked at as a natural resource and shouldn’t be dismissed as “fickle” and “untrustworthy” barometers of the personal, interpersonal and mass freedom in human culture.

    Language and expression are only reflections or projections of personal sentiment, but language the a means by which we codify law and imposed morality. If the emotions of past, long-dead people form the laws which are or once were in force in any given jurisdiction, then imagine what can be done with our emotions in the now and for the future.

    Emotion is a natural resource, fair usage of it is necessary, and equitable distribution of it should be emphasized. Misuse or misdirection of emotion should be corrected through better means than what we have now, and these reports may reflect the inadequacy of current means.

  10. I know that my analogy is a little different perhaps, but I look at kids almost like a computer which needs good “not corrupt” software to operate or perform well. I see kids the same way! A child taught the difference between right and wrong will have a conscience and good morals. From the very young to the older the examples they see are often the product they become, that is until they can truly decide what they do and don’t like about the beliefs instilled in them as a child. I have heard repeatedly during my life that children between the age of 3 – 5 will often have for life the values and instincts learned during this window of their life.I n many cases it is sad to see bad attitudes and bigoted behavior are an inherited behavior trait in kids which we need to change! The monkey see monkey do situation is a bad example but a true one with kids.

    1. Eddy - from 2007 4 Sep 2011, 6:03pm

      Steve-R, yes, indeed, by the age of roughly 5, 6, or 7, children’s basic attitudes and responses are set, fixed. And unfortunately the imprinting that has occurred by this time cannot be reversed. Children can be educated, their rational processes can be altered, but the basic responses are set during the first years of life. Children are like super-sponges: in those early years they may not say or do much but they are forever watching, noting, creating a framework for their future behaviour.

  11. Peter & Michael 4 Sep 2011, 8:20am

    Trouble is kids are stereotyped from birth, tv plays a large part in this, besides advertising. Blue for a boy, pink for a girl is completely illogical, yet until the art of the stereotype is broken, kids will always follow the ideals of their parents whom mostly hold old fashioned views learnt from their parents. As a gay couple we have always taught our children, grandchildren and great grandchildren that one can love whomever they choose. No doubt they will be bullied for their views at school, but at least we have planted the seed of equality in their lives!

  12. Perhaps they are not homophobic. perhaps they find homosexuality distasteful. Are all such people homophobic?
    Pretty sad to start labelling primary school kids. I suppose they are all bigots too.

    1. Evil Keith 4 Sep 2011, 8:40am

      Fvck off…………

    2. Go drink sum domestos you big germ

      1. Well chosen avatar, I think he’s trying to tell us he’s “clean round the bend”

        1. I’d say he just drinks the stuff – there has to be a logical reason for this mental instability, and that’s as good as any.

    3. “I suppose they are all bigots too.”

      Well, you’re an expert on that. But school? Nah, you never really went there, that much is obvious….

    4. Why do you all get so angry at this poor sad little man? When that is what he wants you to do? You fall into his sad little trap. He feeds off your anger. He’s like a germ growing and multiplying everytime you respond to him. He obviously has learning difficulties and a very sad life. If you ignore him he will go away. Poor keith. I feel sorry for him.

      1. Well, personally, I like to laugh at him. That and show him up for the debauch idiot he really is, in public, by proving his wrong over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over…..

      2. Learning Difficulties does not make you homophobic. Thats just his own hatred.

    5. I’m sure lots of children find homosexuality distasteful just as they are scared of the dark or frightened of spiders. The point is that all of these things are learnt from their parents and their society. No brainer

      1. Michaelangelo 4 Sep 2011, 4:38pm

        Actually, they’re not all learnt from parents or society. Often, distaste or disgust is innate, and is very much a coping mechanism.

        I noticed that you all turned on keith, but non of you bothered engaging in answering is valid point. Ad hominem attacks are just immature. Why not answer “I suppose they’re [primary school children] bigots too?”

        What would you have done to them, send them for “re-education” Soviet-style, monitor them like a fascist police-state, or imprison them for hurting your precious feelings?

        1. You’re right Michaelangelo, some prejudices are innate. Racial discrimination – feeling less empathy and even disgust for people who have different coloured skin or other features has been shown to have an important evolutionary. It was indeed a ‘coping mechanism’ of sorts. The effects can still be seen in modern humans in the many experiments that used brain scans to measure emotional to pictures of people of different races. We are in fact an innately racist species.

          However, the evidence from anthropological studies that look at cultures which are permissive and accepting of non-heterosexual orientations suggest that these types of prejudice are learnt.

          1. ‘…important evolutionary role…’ that should say

            and ‘…emotional responses to pictures..’

            (there is some kind of problem with the message board)

        2. “I noticed that you all turned on keith, but non of you bothered engaging in answering is valid point. ”

          Actually we did, despite the fact he’s offensive, ignorant, and severely misinformed. Take the time to read the posts, then see if you are so keen to defend that creature.

          “Actually, they’re not all learnt from parents or society. Often, distaste or disgust is innate, and is very much a coping mechanism.”

          That’s a personal opinion, not fact. Prejudice is adopted, not a factor children have at birth as some “coping methodology”. Social learning theory suggests that prejudice is learned in the same way other attitudes and values are learned, primarily through association, reinforcement and modeling.”. Google any paper on this and you’ll see your opinion is quite mistaken.

    6. @Keith
      .
      Since Domestos kills 99% all known germs, and since you continue to appear in your mission to pollute these threads like a rancid, bacteria infested cesspit of putrefaction.
      .
      Why not imbibe a few bottles of disinfectant
      .
      Go on you great big streptococcus

      1. Eddy - from 2007 4 Sep 2011, 6:07pm

        Hi JohnK. Well said! This “Keith” individual is exactly the kind of person who if in charge of young children imparts to them and fills them with his rancid self-consuming hatred. And so it goes round, and round. And, for sure, this “Keith” was himself once filled by others with the hatred that now consumes him.

        1. Hi Eddy. Nice to see you on form, and back on pinknews.
          I think you a right, “rancid self-consuming hatred.” does appear to be Keith’s specialist subject.

        2. Hi Eddy. Nice to see you back here. Sorry to hear about the ‘anal prolapse’.
          This should help!

          http://beadcircle.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/needle-thread.jpg

          1. I thought you never made anything personal?

          2. Jock S. Trap 8 Sep 2011, 11:24am

            Irrelevent to the story.

    7. David Myers 6 Sep 2011, 12:47am

      Troll alert. Do not feed or he will highjack this thread like he did the next one.

    8. Jock S. Trap 8 Sep 2011, 11:23am

      Isn’t that You and your ike’s agenda – to hate?

      I mean this is what your teaching here…

  13. Kids still understand these words in some cases.
    These kids need to be educated early on what these words mean and that they’re not always appropriate to use

  14. I had a chance to read the full report on the The Manifesto Club site

    http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/256707/Anti-bullying-rule-that-brands-children-racist/Anti-bullying-rule-that-brands-children-racist

    And I agree with others that reporting is a little extreme, and not the best way to handle this. A simple talk with the child and the parents, and a little education, goes must further and is more effective than reporting. If the abuse is bullying, then the school has an obligation to handle any further instances with more action, but I’m still not sure what the reporting will achieve.

  15. Evil Keith 4 Sep 2011, 10:53am

    All Pink News forums have been rendered useless due to the bigot Keith.

    This site no longer caters for LGBT if it allows this level of abuse.

    Therefore from now on all I am going to say is FVCK OFF……. to every one of Keiths comments.

    Keith…. You can FVCK OFF…….

    1. David Myers 6 Sep 2011, 12:48am

      Absolutely right. Make a troll – do not feed comment and move on to discuss the actual content of the thread rather than give him ego gratification and a chance to preach his Church of Keith attitudes.

  16. Paddyswurds 4 Sep 2011, 11:41am

    ctually, the best strategy is to do what most sensible and literate commentators on this site have done , and that is to either abandon the site altogether or stop commenting until such time as PN takes steps to eradicate this sort of illiterate bigot. They succeeded in getting rid of D Skinner and others so it is not beyond their capability. This keith being is probably a reincarnation of the vile pepa or pepa, who knows but should deffo be stopped. No GLB person wants to come on a supposedly Gay website and have to put up with the vile vomit of these people.

    1. Paddyswurds 4 Sep 2011, 11:44am

      oops..
      …a reincarnation of the vile pepa or rich**
      …Actually**
      ….obv.

    2. I guess you people only endorse equality and freedom of speech when it suits you.
      I have the same right to post here as anyone and the right of religious expression as protected under law.
      Don’t like freedoms? Move to uganda where freedoms are more restricted. I will be happy to book a one way flight for you!

      1. Also. I have never posted under any other name. There must be more than one person that is disgusted by homosexuality. How can that be when homosexual practices have created such goodness in the world.
        Let’s list them below…

        .Actually, let’s not!

        1. Yawn.

          Why not quote us something of utter irrelevance like that fool who got eaten by a whale or that murderous bloke who took his kid up a mountain to kill him because of the “voices”…..

          1. Eddy - from 2007 4 Sep 2011, 8:46pm

            Hi Will! Eddy here. Long time, no chat! Hope you are well and thriving. As you may have noticed I still pop in and out for a decko at what’s going on. I see we have another sad homophobic loser hanging around getting a sick thrill out of insulting gay men and women.

            Anyway, just wanted to say hi to you.

          2. Hey Eddie. How have you been doing?

            Have you met Keith? He’s a swell guy. Not too bright and thinks that all gays are paedophiles, slavery is rocking and stoning ’tis good for immoral wenches…. but a real all round great guy none the less! A they say here, Keith is the new Skinner/Pepa/Rich (delete lunatic as applicable)

            And a disturbing classic example of how depraved and damaged a human an get when deprived of mental health medical attention and edcuation.

        2. Morgan Johnson 4 Sep 2011, 9:54pm

          I notice my post has been removed… so much for freedom of speech pink news….

      2. de Villiers 5 Sep 2011, 8:45am

        Freedom of speech is the ability to engage in conversation without state censorship. This board is provided privately, not by the state. Any person who chooses to use this private service can be expected to abide by any rules that PN states regulate its use. One of those is that messages not be offensive on grounds of sexuality.

        Your conflation of state censorship, freedom of speech and abiding by the rules of privately run services is, itself, unsophisticated.

        What is further unsophisticated is not to understand that this board is primarily a space for gay individuals to discuss amongst themselves their differing opinions without having to justify the starting position of homosexuality itself.

        If you are unhappy with abiding by the commonly understood norms of this board then I would invite you not to move to Uganda, which would be an argument reductio ad absurdem, but to go and discuss your views elsewhere.

        1. de Villiers 5 Sep 2011, 8:46am

          - Message to Keith

          1. I’ve been trying to tell him this for a while now but he doesn’t seem to listen.

        2. Thanks for the unsolicited critique. I will continue posting as I see fit and within the rules.
          You must be the other 1% …wink!

          1. Jock S. Trap 8 Sep 2011, 11:25am

            The LGBTQI are Not up for debate on this site.

          2. Not anymore you won’t you’ve been kicked off :P

      3. Jock S. Trap 8 Sep 2011, 11:25am

        Again irrelevent to the Story.

    3. David Myers 6 Sep 2011, 12:49am

      I totally agree.

  17. A child as young as four? Well. that tells us that most of it is coming from the home diesn’t it? What does that say about parents?

    1. To me it says a lot about the tone of voice heard by the child when an abusive word is spoken by adults.

      Maybe the child is expressing the emotion of contempt without actually knowing the meaning of the word.

      1. Eddy - from 2007 4 Sep 2011, 6:09pm

        Robert and Jonpol, yes, it IS coming from home, and, yes, the emotions of contempt are adopted from the demonstrations shown by adults.

  18. It simply will not do to say that young children ‘don’t know what the words mean’. They have already learned in the home and the playground that these words refer to people they have been given social permission to devalue and despise and so can be used as insults. The fact that they may not know much yet about sexuality per se is irrelevant. Challenging the abusive use of the words needs to start as early as possible.

    1. Spot on! Agree 100%

      The BPS say that this kind of discriminatory language needs to be challenged as soon as possible – that means Key Stage 1 in schools

  19. martyn notman 4 Sep 2011, 2:25pm

    theres a school (primary) about 300m from my house and there was an incident last year where three lads cornered another one and were shouting homophobic insults at him. Whether they understood what they were doing or not its not acceptable behaviour and if its not stamped on hard now its only going to get worse.

    1. How often is ‘gay’ used in a positive context on kids’ TV?

      These days, almost never.

      So taken together with attitudes in society it’s hardly surprising children think ‘gay’ is not a good thing to be.

  20. It begs the question, what is “Keith” doing trolling a gay site in the first place? To agitate is one thing, but there is far more to it than that. Obviously, he has a lot of issues, one of them has a lot to do with that dark closet he’s been living in all his life. Self-loathers are the most vocal opponents when it comes to matters gay and more than transparent where they’re coming from.

    1. The fact that he kicked everything off by refering to NARTH tells me everything I need to know.
      When even NARTH therapists are found hiring rentboys off gay escort sites which require a full subscription to help “lift their luggage”, it speaks volumes.

    2. Michaelangelo 4 Sep 2011, 4:47pm

      Do you fear different opinions so much? Is this a news site, open to all, or just another artificial corner of the bizarre “gay scene”, which is usually totally cut off from reality and too scared to face home truths?

      Maybe you’d like to make opinions that contradict your feelings illegal, or send those who have their own take on things for re-education lessons to the nearest gulag?

      1. We hear those opinions all the time outside pink news anyhow. Doesn’t mean we have to endorse them or nod in agreement as we shuffle back to the closet now does it?
        If homophobes want to pitch up on a site where they don’t get short shrift, the KKK, Christian Voice and the BNP would be only too happy to hear from you.

        1. The mode of reply I have been subjected to is person attack , death wishes, swearing, personal abuse , false accusations and name calling.
          I have kept my comments on a generic level so as to target homosexuality and not individuals. Check any of my comments and you wuill see that personal abuse follows soon after. I state my views only yet my disgust for homosexuality evokes irrational personal abuse.
          Personally, I couldn’t care less if the posters on here are disgusted by herterosexuality and decide to post their disgust.. I certainly could not drum up the hatred and personal abuse toward an individual merely on account of their differing views.

          1. “I have kept my comments on a generic level so as to target homosexuality and not individuals.”

            More lies.

            Here’s some terms used by you on this thread directed towards specific individuals: http://www.pinknews.co.uk/?comments_popup=25295

            “Hi Nurse Guthrie. Is there a point to your post?” directed to DOCTOR Robin Guthrie

            “Go take your clozapine, you drooling, mentally challenged imbecile.”

            “Obviously a masochist, possibly a self harmer. Definitely a candidate for HPV!”

            “offensive amoral slug!”

            Are lies and denial now the recourse of your diseased mind, Keith?

          2. Keith, just admit it, you can dish out the ad-hominems with the best of them but you can’t take them.
            Your faux innocent act isn’t fooling anyone.

          3. Where the hell is the *LIKE* button for Will’s comment!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Talk about being shot in the face with your own lying! HA IN YOUR FACE BITCH-KEITH!

          4. David Myers 6 Sep 2011, 12:53am

            Blah Blah Blah. Church of Keith, etc. me me me -ego bigot and Troll. Please people ignore, nothing pisses him off more.

          5. Jock S. Trap 8 Sep 2011, 11:27am

            Irrelevent to this debate. LGBTQI people are Not up for debate on this site.

      2. “Maybe you’d like to make opinions that contradict your feelings illegal, or send those who have their own take on things for re-education lessons to the nearest gulag?”

        Oh, grow up. Keith is entitled to his “opinions”, but not entitled to impunity to have them challenged. And offensive the nonsense he comes out with are not “opinions”. If you thinking calling all gay people paedophiles and disease spreaders, then it begs the question what are you doing here too, and what you own IQ must be.

        1. Hear hear. The issue is the same with the schoolchildren – their opinions are not the issue – their use of abusive and denigrating language or their verbal association of stigmatised groups with things they hate or devalue is the issue, and should not be tolerated.

        2. What a liar you are. I did not say all gay persons were paedophiles and I challenge you to produce a link to such a statement. I said that Most paedophiles are gay and produced a report that you dismissd. I am certainly open to debate the issue but not under a false pretense.

          1. You have been proven a hypocrite and a liar many times Keith.

            “I said that Most paedophiles are gay and produced a report that you dismissd”

            Indeed, and it easily is. Most paedophiles are not gay.This is another of your lies. Not too dissimilar to Jews in the Middle Ages were accused of murdering Christian babies in ritual sacrifices.

            “One study involved 175 male adults who had been convicted in Massachusetts of child sexual assault. They found that none of them were homosexuals; all of them would fit the description of a fixated child molester. They were sexually attracted only to children and not to other adults. Another researcher studied sexually abused children seen in a hospital. Only 2 perpetrators (less than 1% of the total) were homosexuals. ” – http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/

            If you don’t like the truth, do not ask come here advertising your hypocrisy.

          2. Jock S. Trap 8 Sep 2011, 11:27am

            LGBTQI people are Not up for debate on this site.

  21. Anthony Thomas 4 Sep 2011, 5:18pm

    No Jock T Strap today then, we are blessed.

    1. Yep, looks like you’ve got this gay news website all to yourself.

  22. @Will
    You said I have been “calling all gay people paedophiles” (something I would never accept as fact)..I said this is a lie and challenged you to produce a link to the post where I said this. You have not done so, why not?

    1. Oh, but you said “I have kept my comments on a generic level so as to target homosexuality and not individuals”, when we have clearly seen that as a lie.

      Maybe YOU need to produce the comment where you said gay people are NOT all paedophiles, or that most paedophiles are gay (which is also a lie).

      Go on now, go do your digging, we’ll wait for you…. no more lying along the way, lies makes baby jesus cry.

      1. Rather than admit your lie, you atttempt to shift the burden of proof to me. I will do no such thing. You are the claimant so the burden of proof is with you to show that I said that all homosexuals are paedophiles.
        I considered the possibility that it was a genuine error on your part but now I see you are actually willing to lie out of desparation!
        I am reporting the offending post as a malicious lie.but the challenge remains for you to produce a link to the apparent post.

        1. “I will do no such thing.”

          What a surprise, lair.

          “I am reporting the offending post as a malicious lie”

          LOL! If you’re allowed to peddle filth and lies by way of “freedom of expression”, you have zero chance of getting me removed, liar.

          “but now I see you are actually willing to lie out of desperation!”

          Seems to work for you, liar.

          1. I have lied about any of your posts so i have nothing to prove. You however falsely cklaimed that I stated that “all homosexuals are paedophiles”!. This was a wilful lie in which I challenged you to link to the offending post. You declined the challenge, diverted the issue and proved yourself to be a deceitful individual of low character.
            for this reaosn, you now effectively lose your right of reply to my posts in that any replies will be ignored.
            End of correspondence

          2. Hush now liar.

          3. “you now effectively lose your right of reply to my posts in that any replies will be ignored.”

            How convenient…. given I have shown you up every time as a fool, a fraud, a sufferer of mental health issue and a lair…. I ain’t going any where! This is way too much easy fun!

            LOL!

          4. You’ve already ignored most replies when challenged Keith, so why would Will or anyone else think you are acting any differently. And the post above about your “innocence”, I can see clearly you are deluded if you think you have not insulted anyone. In a sense, you are the liar you protect about.

          5. Funny how keith enjoys the right of expression but refuses to take responsibility for the things he says.

            Must have something to do with ‘bible standards’ and abstract morals.

          6. Jonpol, exactly.
            A constant assertion of the right to free expression, and a constant refusal to take responsibility for his rhetoric.

          7. . . . or your local HIV clinic?

          8. NB!!! – Above post – posted on the wrong discussion!!!

        2. Jock S. Trap 8 Sep 2011, 11:28am

          LGBTQI people are Not up for debate on this site. Deal with it!

    2. Jock S. Trap 8 Sep 2011, 11:28am

      Again, LGBTQI people are Not up for debate on this site.

  23. Flapjack, everything NARTH does has been debunked by the American Psychological Assocation. It has never produced one controlled study and had it replicated by an independent authority, has not had anything published. What it has done has tampered with several scientific articles by qualified experts on social behaviour and distorted, even changed wording to support NARTH’s claims. Three I believe (one was in hte UK) have taken NARTH to task for falsely misrepresenting what they had written. NARTH has not had anything published in the legitimate scientific or medical journals either. Even the American Psychiatric Association has called NARTH”s practices “dangerous” and unproven. It’s nothing more than a scam to bilk vulnerable people of their money and in some cases drives them to take their lives. Similar to what Marcus Bachmann is doing in Minnesota using religion to “pray” away the gay. Religion is a chosen lifestyle, nobosexual orientation isn’t. As immutable as eye colour

    1. Robert – that was kind of the point I was making ;)
      Did I give you the eroneous impression I was pro-NARTH back there?
      The very fact that Geoge Rekers who co-founded NARTH and provided the lion’s share of the cod-psychology which forms the backbone of it was caught on camera at an airport with a rentboy he hired off a gay escort site to assist with “lifting his luggage” should be enough to bury NARTH in the dustbin of quack therapies by itself.
      For a laugh, you may want to check the cover of Reker’s book “Shaping your Child’s sexual identity”.
      The cover photo is pitched somewhere between Monty Python’s Lumberjack song and Tom of Finland.

  24. ….sexual orientation isn’t….I meant to have said in my previous post.

  25. Being homophobic isnt a crime, and its not illegal…

    1. …a mental illness, is all…

      1. It is not mental illness to find unclean easily preventable disease spreading perversions that kill even innocent babies loathsome.

        1. Keith if that is the case? – Why are you not protesting outside your local GUM clinic

          1. Dumb post of the week award for that one!
            At least you didn’t lie though like Will who falsely claimed that I had said that all homosexiuals are paedophiles.

          2. Of course you didn’t say it, and you are going to prove it, aren’t you?

          3. Jock S. Trap 8 Sep 2011, 11:30am

            Another irrelevent comment! We are not up for debate.

        2. Keith why are you not protesting outside your local HIV clinic?

        3. Schizophrenia is. When were you diagnosed?

        4. Jock S. Trap 8 Sep 2011, 11:29am

          Irrelevent comment to the story. LGBTQI people are Not up for debate on this site.

  26. You’ve already ignored most replies when challenged Keith,

    Saying it does not make it so. I have replied to all non abusive questions. Which point are you saying I have ignored. Do you wish to be gross liar number two?

    1. Keith why do you ignore challenges?
      .
      Your argument that you do not respond to abusive comments does not wash, especially you your resort to name calling your self.
      .

      1. I have not ignored any reasonable challenge. please state which challenge/s you refer to? Incidentally, whilst iIhave not ignored challenges, I reserve the right to merely post my opinions without a single reply since this is a comments board and not a debating platform. However, for the time being i will respond to any polite challenge that does not include lies or personal insult.. Such posters I view in contempt.

        1. So if you only respond to polite challenges, why should you be allowed to call people on this site names, whilst expect them to respond to you with respect?

          1. I challenge you now to link to one such post where I initiated any personal name calling orpersonal abuse

          2. More lies.

            Here’s some terms used by you on this thread directed towards specific individuals: http://www.pinknews.co.uk/?comments_popup=25295

            “Hi Nurse Guthrie. Is there a point to your post?” directed to DOCTOR Robin Guthrie

            “Go take your clozapine, you drooling, mentally challenged imbecile.”

            “Obviously a masochist, possibly a self harmer. Definitely a candidate for HPV!”

            “offensive amoral slug!”

        2. http://www.pinknews.co.uk/?comments_popup=25178 – I have regularly challenged you on a lot of your arguments with proof and evidence including reference’s from your bible to which you just ignore and then use the same debunked arguments later on.

  27. Josef Kirchner 4 Sep 2011, 10:22pm

    What the nay sayers do not understand is that the wee ones parroting things they don’t know about becomes a part of them. Hate is learned and this is the small beginnings of hatred. Why allow it to go any further is possible. Nip it in the bud early on so they will know better. I know I was bullied from pre-school. Kids sense easier than adults when someone is different. If we want this world to be a better place of equality for all you have start at the beginning so I give a big thumbs up to this approach!

  28. @JohnK
    “A constant assertion of the right to free expression, and a constant refusal to take responsibility for his rhetoric.”

    Please explain how this taking of responsibility would manifest itself and please give details as to which actions you have taken inorder to take responsibilitty for YOUR posts?

    1. @Keith
      .
      Thats right!!!, we are discussing why you scream freedom of speech, but refuse to take responsibility for what you post on these threads.

      1. There is no responsibility to take though since my posts can only serve to show people why morality benefits society.. Exactly what do you mean by ‘take responsibility’ and hpw have YOU been taking responsibility for YOUR posts?

        1. So your argument is that freedom of speech does not carry an ethical responsibility?

          1. According to you, humanism means that persons decide for themselves what is ethical. I have decided that my posts are ethical and will actually the wider society and introduce shared values that will promote healthy and clean relations.It is my gift to you!

          2. the UN has beat you to it, and you know it.

            Does this mean you are giving up the bible as your one and only moral guide, and that you accept the authority of signed documents?

        2. hasn’t anyone ever explained responsibilities that go with Human Rights to you?

          wow…that explains a lot… :P

        3. Jock S. Trap 8 Sep 2011, 11:31am

          LGBTQI people are Not up for debate on this site. Your comments are irrelevent.

  29. @ Jonopol
    “Of course you didn’t say it, and you are going to prove it, aren’t you?”
    So that you understand the concepts of natural justice (innocent till proven guilty) and the burden of proof (the burden being on the claimant) I will tell an outright lie about you and you have to prove otherwise.according to your false understanding.
    I contend that you confesed to being a child abuser. It is now for you to prove that you did not make this confession. I await the proof!

    1. well I’ll stand with you, Keith, because I heard Jonopol make that confession too.

      tea with lemon???

    2. you said: “I will tell an outright lie about you and you have to prove otherwise.”

      well thanks for the insight.. that’s exactly what you did when you barged onto this site by saying that gays were pedophiles, remember?

      and we did prove otherwise.

      That’s exactly what you’ve been doing all along… lying….

      what religion would have you?

      I’m disappointed in you.

      1. Lying is all that reptile can do, its the recourse of a damaged mind. The fact he has the intelligence of a stone, but knows about Clozapine speaks volumes. I would put money he’s been diagnosed with schizophrenia at some stage.

        All the symptoms are there: grandiose ego-centric language (such as “It is my gift to you!” above), persecution complex and hypersensitivity to criticism/insults, sudden irritability, lack of insight, and refusal to accept anything that damages the fragile world view he has, including lying profusely to remove any obstacles to that damaged world view.

        And most importantly, religious delusions.

        All demonstrated by Keith, all classic schizophrenia symptoms.

        1. Having checked up on the clinical definition of Paranoid Schitzophrenia I’m inclined to agree.
          From Wikipedia: Paranoid type[Schitzophenia] : Delusions or auditory hallucinations are present, but thought disorder, disorganized behavior, or affective flattening are not. Delusions are persecutory and/or grandiose, but in addition to these, other themes such as jealousy, religiosity, or somatization may also be present.

          1. What ever it is, there is defo something severely wrong with him. Follows a definite MO: insult, make up some fanciful stuff about gay sex kills ‘innocent babies’ as he puts it, and then have a little tantrum that everyone should take his opinion seriously and stop persecuting him. Ccccrrrrrraaaazzzzyyyyyy!

          2. Well lets check the list
            Delusions are persecutory: He conveniently forgets all the times he’s personally insulted us and feels we’re all gratuitously picking on him.
            Grandiose: He claims he’s here to provide “accelerated moral lessons” to other mature adults on a gay news website, amongst other traits.
            Religiosity: Quotes the bible incessantly, but claims not to be a part of any religion (see grandiosity).
            Plus knows all about clozapine, a schizophrenic medication unknown to most people who haven’t had cause to look it up.
            I could add projection to that list but that’s really by the by.

          3. Flapjack, I certainly agree he ticks all the box. As you said the clozapine comment is too obscure for anyone who is not a sufferer.

            And I’d say he knows about it too, hence his lack of response to it.

    3. Jock S. Trap 8 Sep 2011, 11:31am

      LGBTQI people are Not up for debate on this site. Again, irrelevent comment.

  30. @Jonpol
    “Does this mean you are giving up the bible as your one and only moral guide, and that you accept the authority of signed documents?”

    No, it means that you should not be imposing your own values on me if you believe that ethics are a personal thing.

    1. Please provide link…

    2. “No, it means that you should not be imposing your own values on me if you believe that ethics are a personal thing.”

      Ah, the absurd hypocrisy in full effect again! Beautiful example of it here.

      So, don’t push you’re morals on him, but he’s allowed to push his morals on you!

      Is there any more evidence needed that this man needs to be locked up?

    3. Jock S. Trap 8 Sep 2011, 11:32am

      Again.. LGBTQI people are Not up for debate on this site.

  31. Even if that is what you actually wrote it is quite wrong. There is absolutely no evidence that paedophilia is more prevalent amongst gay people than amongst straight people. Certainly fewer than five percent of all people, and more than likely fewer than three percent, are paedophiles. Criminal statistics indicate that most assaults on children are by members of the child’s own family and that there is a statistically significant lower figure for paedophile offences committed by gay people than by straight people. Cohen and Galyinker (2002 – “Psychopathology and personality traits of pedophiles” in the ‘Psychiatric Times’) found absolutely no evidence that paedophilia was linked to sexual orientation and instead identified some very telling psychopathology of the condition which identifies it as a disease in a way that homosexuality is not and has no psychopathological markers for.

    1. John, Keith is not interested in facts, his sole reference point is some ridiculous paranoid conspiracy site called Heterosexuals Organized for a Moral Environment, which contains nothing but a bunch of mentally damaged bible bashers selectively picking facts and joining them together to make ridiculous conclusions…. rather like our schizophrenic pal Keith does (if you leave out his pathological lying)

      Fatcs and truth are the anathema of the schizophrenic, after all.

    2. The link between [aedophilia and homosexuality something I am not particularly interested in debating though there is evidence if I am required to produce it.
      . I think more importantly that a poster (Will) wilfully lying about me, saying I had wrote that all homosexuals were paedophiles, should be condened for his action, yet none has. I challenged him rto produce a link to the alleged post and he has been unable. I urge everyone to ignore this lying slug.

      1. “lying slug”!?! Oh sorry, I must be confusing you with the other Keith who doesn’t resort to personal insults and name calling.

        1. The aggressive response. How fascinating. Hit a raw nerve, I think.

      2. “The link between [aedophilia and homosexuality something I am not particularly interested in debating though there is evidence if I am required to produce it.”

        Oh, and thank you for validating your belief that homosexuals are paedophiles, saves me looking for the post now, doesn’t it. By all means, back up for repulsive views with “evidence” I would love to read the source…

      3. Oh, and here’s the post, you lying pathetic excuse for a human being:-

        keith 17 Aug 2011, 2:40pm (http://www.pinknews.co.uk/?comments_popup=25179)

        “Thay is because there are far more heterosexuals. There is a disproportianate amount of child abuse amongst homosexuals.”

        1. Well, I think we have a case here for Keith being a suffer of “Pseudologia Fantastica”

      4. Jock S. Trap 8 Sep 2011, 11:32am

        Irrelevent Comment. LGBTQI people are Not up for debate on this site.

  32. Keith/
    There is a vast quantity of evidence supporting this position including Seto et al in the Journal of Abnormal Psychology in 2006, Feelgood and Hoyer in the Journal of Sexual Aggression in 2008 and Okami and Goldberg in the Journal of Sex Research in 1992 – and that’s just to name a very, very few from the hundreds of reputable academics who have researched this topic and come to conclusions that are the exact opposite of your’s and actually go some way to properly explaining the problem.

  33. de Villiers 5 Sep 2011, 8:48am

    Freedom of speech is the ability to engage in conversation without state censorship. This board is provided privately, not by the state. Any person who chooses to use this private service can be expected to abide by any rules that PN states regulate its use. One of those is that messages not be offensive on grounds of sexuality.

    Your conflation of state censorship, freedom of speech and abiding by the rules of privately run services is, itself, unsophisticated.

    What is further unsophisticated is not to understand that this board is primarily a space for gay individuals to discuss amongst themselves their differing opinions without having to justify the starting position of homosexuality itself.

    If you are unhappy with abiding by the commonly understood norms of this board then I would invite you not to move to Uganda, which would be an argument reductio ad absurdem, but to go and discuss your views elsewhere.

    1. de Villiers 5 Sep 2011, 8:52am

      Your discussions on this board are entirely unhelpful in that they have distorted absolutely the discussion from being one about children and schooling to the basis homosexuality itself.

      This board cannot work on the basis that the starting point, the existence and acceptance of homosexuality are themselves discussion points. Otherwise, each and every story will collapse into the same circularity with the same, tired arguments about homosexuality itself being deployed, thereby ignoring the particular story to which the comment is supposed to relate.

      Insofar as you are unhelpfully and unhappily interfering with proper discussions, you would do well to leave the board and argue the finer points of homosexuality itself on another board which is set up for that purpose. This board is for the discussion of events in the news from a gay perspective and cannot bear the weight of your deliberately provocative and unnecessarily antagonistic interventions.

      1. Have a look at my forst post on here which was on topic. Then look at the off topic perdsonal abuse that follows. You will realize that it is others that disrupt topics.I post within the rules, on topic and from my point of view.
        Ps Same story every thread with these disruptive, abusive replies.

        1. Oh, poor Keith, the persecuted and the maligned… you expected a civilised response to your comment that homosexuals are distasteful and baby killers?

          Please. You need to up the Clozapine meds….

        2. Lets have a recap of the pathological lying and delusional state of poor victimised Keith:

          “I have kept my comments on a generic level so as to target homosexuality and not individuals.”

          Here’s some terms used by Keith on this thread directed towards specific individuals: http://www.pinknews.co.uk/?comments_popup=25295

          “Hi Nurse Guthrie. Is there a point to your post?” directed to DOCTOR Robin Guthrie

          “Go take your clozapine, you drooling, mentally challenged imbecile.”

          “Obviously a masochist, possibly a self harmer. Definitely a candidate for HPV!”

          “offensive amoral slug!”

          and now “lying slug”

          Hypocrisy is all its glory.

          1. LOL @ Will. Nice one mate.

        3. Keith –

          I was among the first to see you appear on PN, and I am here to remind you that bulldozed your way in here, disrupted the comments on the ‘Gay birds…’ thread (August 11) by proclaiming that homosexuals were DISGUSTING, child abusers, and killers of innocent babies by spreading the AIDS virus.

          You repeated the word ‘disgusting’ many, many times without provocation, often adding the word ‘dirty’, and your overall attitude was far from friendly. In fact, you made it clear that you believe God has ordained you to hate gays, and that you think of yourself as a philosopher and an enlightened teacher.

          What kind of reaction did you expect from us?

          And now you are squirming like a fool, grasping at straws, and I am still waiting for an explanation about why a good God would have created the AIDS virus in the first place, not to mention killing innocent babies in earthquakes, floods and hurricanes.

          1. Jock S. Trap 8 Sep 2011, 11:34am

            Exactly, Jonpol.

        4. Jock S. Trap 8 Sep 2011, 11:33am

          Thats because your comments are irrelevent as you try to make us the topic of debate.

          LGBTQI people are Not up for debate on this site.

  34. The likes of Keith and Pink News’s complete refusal to deal with him makes this website ever more unappealing.

    Plus the fact that Pink News takes so many of their storiesm almost word for word from other websites.

    1. Jock S. Trap 8 Sep 2011, 11:35am

      Couldn’t agree more. It’s why I stayed away for a few days. But it does seem PinkNews are trying to sort. Late but hey ho!

  35. Message to the sane –
    Just ignore Keith! He is obsessed by men having sex together and rationalises this by spouting emotive disgust and false and slanderous generalisations about it, and giving his feelings spurious moral status by selective appeal to ancient texts supposedly inspired by an invisible spirit. It is surely telling that lesbianism doesn’t even seem to be on his radar. It’s the boys getting it on that does it for him. Shame he’s not honest about it. Stop giving him attention.

    1. “It is surely telling that lesbianism doesn’t even seem to be on his radar”

      Sadly it does…. they’re all going to get cancer it seems. This is his erudite line “I must correct you since HPV is a threat to all monogamous practicing homosexuals. Oral cancer is also a threat.to female homosexuals”

      Granted, he is disturbingly obsessed with the old men on men action, but he likes to get a few digs in at lesbians….

      1. Thanks, Will – never noticed that.
        Another interesting point – I may have missed this too, of course, but he never seems to respond to serious unpacking of his ‘cut-and-paste/it all speaks with one voice’ view of the Bible.

    2. Tim Chapman 5 Sep 2011, 8:31pm

      I’ve seen the odd post by Keith now and then, but seeing so many from him in this thread, I’ve taken the trouble to read them properly today. I am 53 years old, so I’ve been gay for 53 years. With all that experience, my ‘gaydar’ is quite reliable. I am sure Keith is gay. I am sorry he thinks his god has told him to hate himself.

  36. As I said before, being homophobic or having homophobic thoughts is not ilegal and being Homophobic is not arrestable .

    1. True, but neither does it give you a free pass, as we’ve said before.
      You can be as homophobic as you like short of causing harm, but remember we can also call you out on it and tell you you’re a bigot. Freedom cuts both ways.

      1. But you homosexuals are equally bifgotted, not to mention, religiophobic and Christaianophobic. hence we are ALL phobics and bigots!
        However,the homosexual community has acriminal element that the Christian community does not. Homosexuals routinely break the law in the many lands where homosexuality is a criminal offence. Also, on this very site, criminal hacking of websites belonging to ‘Christian businesses’ has been encouraged by homosexuals.

        1. Here we go again with the persecution complex.
          According to you there’s no such thing as criminal Christians now? Remind me… what has the Pope only just got round to apologising for after covering it up for decades? Something to do with priests was it? All over the world wasn’t it? What religion are priests a subset of again?

          1. Are you talking about homosexual rape. Yes. most child abuse is of a homosexual nature and ‘professed’ Christians are not actually Christians if they are not living by standards. Those Christians that live by bible standards do not rape children. I always condemn religion and have no part of it. It is all false and does not produce true Christians.
            Do you accept there is a large criminal elemant of homosexuals that consider themselves above the law in the many lands where homosexual practices are a criminal offence?

          2. “Do you accept there is a large criminal elemant of homosexuals that consider themselves above the law in the many lands where homosexual practices are a criminal offence?”

            And do you accept in countries where this happens under Islamic Law or Sharia rape victims are typically accused of “fornication,” or “adultery” and lashed, if not stoned?

            So you think a rape victim is now criminal, do you?

          3. Keith: “At least you didn’t lie though like Will who falsely claimed that I had said that all homosexiuals are paedophiles.”

            Keith: “Yes. most child abuse is of a homosexual nature”

            Split personality disorder? Selective amnesia? On top of schizophrenia?

          4. LOL!!!

          5. Jock S. Trap 8 Sep 2011, 11:36am

            rrelevent. LGBTQI people are Not up for debate on this site.

        2. Oh, look, more boo-hoo stuff wrapped up in baseless paranoid delusions. Now we’re criminals too?

          Is there any end to the utter s**t this man comes out with?

          In a word: schizophrenia.

          1. Keith/
            Most child abuse is NOT of a homosexual nature and to say so indicates quite plainly that you have absolutely no understanding whatsoever of exactly what paedophilia is – despite my having provided above some references that you could have used to gain such an understanding. The research is vast and has produced complex results but these results completely refute your statement about paedophilia (and one presumes that you would have said the same thing about nepiophilia and hebephilia) Ryan . Please read C. W. Hall, MD and Richard C. W. Hall, MD, PA, ‘A Profile of Pedophilia’ in the Mayo Clinic Proceedings and Kenneth Lanning (2001). “Child Molesters: A Behavioral Analysis” (Third Edition) published by the National Center for Missing & Exploited Children before continuing to spout your own particular unsubstantiated brand of what can only be described as arrant nonsense about paedophilia and its related diseases. You are an ill-read charlatan seeking to deceive not an expert.

        3. Jock S. Trap 8 Sep 2011, 11:35am

          What a surprise.

          LGBTQI people are Not up for debate on this site.

      2. It gives as much free pass as an indivual wants to spout about thier homophobic thoughts, we are all allowed an opinion and the when we are out of Europe, we can make out own rules, bring back the early 60s.

        1. Ah one of those UKIP guys says alot. Well good luck with your anti-revolutionary mission but funnily enough I’ll start to worry when the majority of the opinion in the country is that its acceptable to discriminate based on sexual orientation rather than a few nut-jobs that troll on gay news websites.

          1. I’m glad you were able to read what he wrote, Hamish… I couldn’t understand what the hell he was talking about most of the time. Something about being a homophobe with a time machine, and going back to the 1960’s after his holiday somewhere outside Europe…?

            Seems a good standard of learning is not usually found in the bigoted.

  37. While I don’t think children (under the age of, say, ten) should be harshly punished… to be frank, they often know what they’re doing and should get a talking-to.

    If you believe that kids don’t know what they’re talking about by the time they hit about five or six, either you don’t remember being a kid or you were one of the lucky kids that didn’t get taunted for your sexuality in primary school.

    So honestly, I am glad teachers and schools are stepping up. They need to crack down and say “that sort of speech is wrong, and here is why”.

    1. Absolutely right, Will. Explaining why such insults are wrong is key as many children just parrot the latest thing without stopping to think about what it means.

      Every time I look at this story, it annoys me – children aren’t being reported, incidents are being recorded. While the Daily mail might like to spin it in the ‘children being reported’ way, I wish PN wouldn’t.

      1. Good point Iris. I daresay it’s no different to the way racist abuse is monitored and dealt with.

  38. Will, American government paedophile statistics indicate that the majority of perpetrators in that society are heterosexual!

    Right wing religious nutters love to rewrite history and in fact doctor facts to make us look bad to score points and promote discrimination. The Roman cult espoused the homosexuality = paedophilia mantra, yet the John Jay Institute of Criminal Justice earlier this year in New York wrote a report for the Catholic Bishops Conference in which it dismissed the preconceived notion that paedophilia is an overhwelmingly gay phenomenon. If anyone knows the facts and the science, its the John Jay Institute.

  39. Homosexuals are overrepresented in child sex offenses: Individuals from the 1 to 3 percent of the population that is sexually attracted to the same sex are committing up to one-third of the sex crimes against children.

    http://downloads.frc.org/EF/EF08L46.pdf

    1. LOL! Utter rubbish. This uses reference s to the Family Research Council’s Family Policy on “Homosexuality and Children”

      Proven to be biased, unscientific and without any merit:- http://theprogressiveplaybook.com/tag/family-research-institute/

      Try a science paper next, moron. Or just stick to the lying, you’re good at that it seems…. its ALL your good at.

    2. The ‘study’ you cite has been completely discredited by the academic establishment in both Europe, the USA, China and India. It is a rant using made up statistics to support its preconceived ideas and its methodology and sources are highly suspect. Read, instead, PJ Fagan with TN Wise and CW Schmidt, Berlin FS (November 2002), “Pedophilia”, JAMA 288 (19): 2458-65; and David Finkelhor with Araji Sharon, “A Sourcebook on Child Sexual Abuse: Sourcebook on Child Sexual Abuse”. Sage Publications, 1986, before citing non-academic pieces of non-researched rubbish produced by people such as the Family Research Council (who produced the rubbish you cite) whose opinions were already set before writing and who cannot, by any stretch of the imagination, be called academically reputable or impartial. Most of what is written in the document that you cite is either utter rubbish unsubstantiated by reputable academic research, mere opinion, or biblical literalism (which I have debunked elsewhere).

    3. Dr Robin Guthrie 5 Sep 2011, 3:28pm

      When are you going to bar this KEITH character from these forums.

      I do not expect to come to an LGBT web site only to be told that I am a dirty pedophile and will burn in hell.

      And your editorial lack of commitment is appalling.

      I have no issue with logical reasoned arguments, but this chaps hatred is evident for ALL to see.

      LGBT life is difficult enough with coming to this site only to have more hate spat in your face.

      Just deal with it, will you.

      1. @Nurse Guthrie
        This place is full of liars. I have never mantioned burning in hell about anuyone nor do I subscribe to that view. Please retract your statement or show where i have said this.
        Heterosexual life is difficult enough without having to deal with bigotry , hate and lies from the gay brigade.

        1. “This place is full of liars”

          Of which none match you here for the level of your insidious lies. You’ve been proven a repeated and pathological liar with no remorse. Its quite pathetic.

          A sign of your sickness, no doubt.

        2. “Keith: “At least you didn’t lie though like Will who falsely claimed that I had said that all homosexiuals are paedophiles.”

          Keith: “Yes. most child abuse is of a homosexual nature”

          Ergo:- Liar. Hypocrite. Basket case.

      2. Junir Nurse Guthrie said…
        “LGBT life is difficult enough”

        You are Lesbian, gay, bi and tranny? No wonder life is stressful!!!
        While you are here nurse. What is the best way to prevent anal prolapse?

        1. Dr Robin Guthrie 5 Sep 2011, 4:42pm

          Keep your mouth shut. That would fix it in your case.

          1. mmmm…touché, Doctor Guthrie.

          2. What is the best way to prevent anal prolapse? Keep your mouth shut. That would fix it in your case.

            LOL! Classic response! Its funny coz its true….

          3. Brilliant, Dr Robin! :D

        2. Keith wrote
          “While you are here nurse. What is the best way to prevent anal prolapse?”
          .
          Keith in your case I can see that an enema would not suffice, perhaps a stick of dynamite lodged right up up there is the only way you will get an orgasm.
          .
          Alternatively why not try a rocket and launch yourself into outer orbit
          .
          You mindless moronic muppet!!!

      3. David Myers 6 Sep 2011, 1:02am

        Good on you Dr. Guthrie. We should demand that Pink News moderate rather than let trolls like Keith, Rich, Pepa, etc. highjack this sight and threaten to quit subscribing en-mass if they don’t.!

    4. If the number of homosexuals in the population were really as low as you suggest (1 to 3 percent) then the businesses that cater for the gay community simply would not be able to survive on the minute percentage of such a small gay population that uses them. This is yet another figure made up by the Family Research Council which has absolutely no basis in reality and is used by them in spurious attempts to marginalise gay people and the gay community’s view points. The real figure is unknown and probably unknowable for a huge number of reasons – not the least of which is the very existence of people such as those who believe the rubbish spouted by the FRC makes gay people distrust surveyors motives – but is likely to be closer to six to ten percent according to British Government figures (Department of Trade and Industry with the Government Actuary’s Department (2005). A New Zealand study in 2006 suggested that the real figure was far more likely to be between ten and twenty percent.

      1. The article was posted in order to support the claim that paedophilia is disproportionate amongst homosexuals. the percentage of homosexuals in the population is irrelevant to the issue though you may or may not be correct. You are quoting UK figures, the FRC is quoting US figures. The true figure is probably unknowable as you say.

        1. “The article was posted in order to support the claim that paedophilia is disproportionate amongst homosexuals.”

          Claim being the operative word here given its as scientific as “creation day”…. i.e. as nonsensical as your lies, Keith.

          1. Keith/
            On your second point, the FRC is not quoting USA figures, it is simply making the figures up – plucking them out of thin air in order to justify its own, and your, prejudices. It is generally accepted by the government of the USA that the quantity of gay people in the USA is above five percent and that it is probably close to twelve percent of the population and that under reporting due to a fear of people like you has led to a statistically significant number of gay people refusing to tell the truth in surveys. In the last three elections in the USA the Voter News Service Poll consistently recorded that five percent of voters were gay and considering that over most of the USA gay people are much less likely to vote than straight people then one must conclude that the figure for number of gay people in the USA is significantly greater than five percent.
            Your spurious point that I was quoting non-USA figures simply indicates that you have no understanding of human biology.

        2. The article you cite has been debunked by me and Will and all the reputable scientists who work in the field – as you would know if you were widely and properly read. I have also debunked (above) your claim from that article that paedophilia is disproportionate amongst homosexuals (above). The crime statistics in the USA, as well as elsewhere in the world, simply do not support that assertion and the WHO (World Health Organisation) in its ‘International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems: ICD-10 Section F65.4: Paedophilia’ does not find such a correlation anywhere in the world.

      2. Thanks for your excellent comments, JohnMJ. :)

        1. Thank-you for your kind words.

          1. Anytime!

          2. “Keith: “At least you didn’t lie though like Will who falsely claimed that I had said that all homosexiuals are paedophiles.”

            Keith: “Yes. most child abuse is of a homosexual nature”

            Ergo:- Liar. Hypocrite. Basket case. Nut.

    5. @Keith
      .
      Who was the author of this Chapter “Getting it Straght”?
      .
      The lack of author was conspicous by its absence!!!
      .
      Do I detect a note of shame behind this ommision?

      1. I don’t believe it makes a difference who the author is.

        1. So the author is not a reputable academic!!!

          1. Moroever, since the author is not a reputable academic, therefore the article adds zero credibility to your argument!!!
            .
            So why bother?

        2. “I don’t believe it makes a difference who the author is.”

          Haw…try telling that to a Lit Prof. !!!

    6. @Keith
      .
      In the article you have posted called “Getting it Straight” the name of the author is conspicous by his or her absence.
      .
      Why is that ?

    7. Jock S. Trap 8 Sep 2011, 11:36am

      Totally irrelvent comment.

      LGBTQI people are Not up for debate on this site.

  40. “Keith: “At least you didn’t lie though like Will who falsely claimed that I had said that all homosexiuals are paedophiles.”

    Keith: “Yes. most child abuse is of a homosexual nature”

    Ergo:- Liar. Hypocrite. Basket case.

  41. Johm MJ.
    You have misunderstood my point. You stated “but is likely to be closer to six to ten percent according to British Government figures” I correctly pointed out that the figures quoted by the FRC were pertaining to the US and not the UK population, therefore US figures or as you would view it they purport to be quoting US figures. The DTI UK figures are a strawman.

    1. Shut up, liar.

    2. you said:

      “I will tell an outright lie about you and you have to prove otherwise.according to your false understanding.
      I contend that you confesed to being a child abuser. It is now for you to prove that you did not make this confession. I await the proof!”

      What a hateful tactic. it can’t possibly be a “bible standard” if God is good.

      It looks to me like you have misunderstood God’s point and have failed to use your brains while reading scripture.

      1. Yes. Lying about people is hateful isn’t it, only, I admitted it was a lie. You seem to get my point though.

        Here is a re-cap.
        Poster Will told a wilful lie about me when he stated that I claimed on here that all homosexuals are paedophiles. I challenged him to produce the post. And educated him about the burden of proof being on the claimant (in this case him)He could not and still has not. he is an individual of low character.
        You however concured with the amoral poster ‘Will’ and his fallacious argument so I chose to demonstrate to you the absurdity of making false claims and expecting the ‘victim’ of the false claim to prove otherwise. Imagine if life were such that anyone can accuse you of anything and you are guilty until you prove your innocence.
        At any rate, I am happy to provide more accelerated moral education, including a minor venture into the realms of natural law, a first for you I am sure!

        1. Basically Natural Law, which pre-date scriptures, would have us treat others as we would like to be treated.

          It is a wise survival skill as well as a foundation for civilized living.

          Natural Law became Natural Rights after the French Revolution of 1789; and Natural Rights became Human Rights when the UN accepted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

          Your misconceptions about Natural Law give off more heat than light; sadly, the light of knowledge has escaped you.

          You DID say that pedophiles are homosexuals, and you know very well that you did; moreover, you referred to a misrepresentation of scientific statistics to enforce your hatred and support your absurd claim.

          Distorting statistics is a willful lie.

          By digging up those stats and adding the names of the scientists who complain about fundamentalist christians like you (NARTH) who are misrepresenting their research to suit their twisted view of the world, we proved that you did lie.

          Now you squirm.

          1. …and cry on someone else’s shoulder when Will shows you up for what you are.

          2. Please show where I said that” ALL homosexuals are paedophiles ,” as you claimed. Of course homosexauals are paedophiles as are heterossexuals, bisexuals etc etc but you appear to have edited your claim now “removing the word ‘ALL’. So I repeat, you are a wilful liar and an individual of low character. Why have you not linked to the alleged post where I apparently said “ALL homosexuals are paedophiles?”
            You are an evasive coward. that’s why!

          3. Keith –

            Over the last week, you have avoided answering so many of my questions that I really do not feel obliged to answer any of yours, that’s all.

            If for some reason you feel the sting of injustice, well, try imagining how the gay community lives with the injustices committed against us, not only today, but historically as well. And we haven’t always been able to whine about it like you are doing, nor walk away from it alive.

          4. …oh, and you’re welcome for the lesson in Natural Law… :)

        2. Keith wrote
          .
          “Poster Will told a wilful lie about me when he stated that I claimed on here that all homosexuals are paedophiles”
          .
          Keith . . . your many comments concerning this are for everyone to see on the GayZebra finches thread.
          .
          The fact that you protest, shows that your are begnning to develop a concern for morality, allbeit driven my your shame!!!

          1. yes…the ‘Gay birds…”, dated August 16, by Jessica Gren.

            …but I have just noticed that the last 120 comments have been cut because the quantity of comments exceeded the limit of 500…

            Keith, you bragged about having stimulated 620 comments….

            gotta watch that hubris…

            you have just been enlightened…flash!

          2. You are also a liar. I challenge you to link//direct me to a single one of these posts

          3. Ha. No, you’re the liar. A proven one.

            JonPol treats you with more grace then a foul idiot like you deserves.

        3. “Yes. Lying about people is hateful isn’t it, only, I admitted it was a lie..”

          Well duh. We KNOW you’re a liar.

          “I challenged him to produce the post.”

          I did. Here it is again:

          “Keith: “At least you didn’t lie though like Will who falsely claimed that I had said that all homosexiuals are paedophiles.”

          Keith: “Yes. most child abuse is of a homosexual nature”

          “I am happy to provide more accelerated moral education”

          Schizophrenia.

        4. Keith wrote
          “Yes. Lying about people is hateful isn’t it, only, I admitted it was a lie. You seem to get my point though.”
          .
          Keith thats a bit rich, you have developed lies and deceit into an art form . . . Haven’t you!!!!

        5. Jock S. Trap 8 Sep 2011, 11:38am

          LGBTQI people are Not up for debate on this site. Get used to it!

    3. The idea which you are attempting to foist on people that the percentage of gay people in the USA population is likely to be radically smaller than the percentage in any other national population is, to say the least, completely risible. The figures I quoted are extremely likely to apply to the USA, or, indeed, to any other country, because humans are humans are humans and those in the USA are no different from those humans anywhere else. The National Survey of Family Growth (USA) found that it is possible that some eleven percent, or more, of Americans are gay whereas other surveys have found that adult Americans think that up to twenty percent of Americans are homosexual. Yet other surveys place the figure anywhere between one and twenty-five percent. It is most likely that the percentage of those Americans in the population who are gay is roughly the same as the percentage in any other national population (as found so far) – i.e. around five to twelve percent.

      1. That is not the idea I am trying to convey at all and it bears no relevance to my main assertion which I repeat is that paedophilia is disproportionate amongst homosexuals, whether homosexuals are 50% or 1 % of the population.

        1. @Keith
          .
          When will you be writing to “Elton John” and David Furnish concern their son?

          1. I addressed a letter to the Queen recently. That should get to Elton.
            What about their adopted son?

          2. Elton is too busy ‘rearing’ his newly purchased boy to reply to mail!

          3. I see decorum and class is also missing from your schizophrenic mind. Quel surprise. What a pity your parents were so poor and degenerate that they couldn’t be bothered sending you to school, eh?

        2. Keith –

          You have been given some reading recommendations by a man who is obviously a good-natured scholar, JohnMJ.

          His criticism is constructive, surely you can see that.

        3. “…which I repeat is that paedophilia is disproportionate amongst homosexuals, whether homosexuals are 50% or 1 % of the population.”

          That is precisely what I have shown to be untrue several times on this board had you taken the trouble to read my posts. No reputable academic, and no survey with trustworthy methodology, has ever, anywhere in the world, asserted that. It is, simply put, a load of bunkum without a shred of reputable evidence to support it. I have cited for you some of the most reputable authors in this field and I think you should read them for such study will pay dividends.
          As it stands, simply restating this ridiculous assertion as often as you can speaks to me, and others, more about your ignorance of what precisely paedophilia is and about your lack of scientific rigour and your inability to absorb scientific knowledge which conflicts with your preconceived ideas and prejudices than it does about anything else.
          Let me now restate: that assertion is provably untrue.

          1. “That is precisely what I have shown to be untrue several times on this board had you taken the trouble to read my posts.”

            Your source for your figures, the ‘Voter News Service Poll’ , was discredited and disbanded years ago.
            “Dr. Jenny and her colleagues reviewed 269 medical records of Denver-area children who were sexually abused by adults. Of the 50 male children (disregarding the 219 females) in the study, 37 (74%) were molested by men who had been in a heterosexual relationship with the child’s relative”
            50 pupils is far too small a figure to apply proportional representation and I dount that was ever the intent.

            “your ignorance of what precisely paedophilia is”
            I have to ascribe that ignorance to you since it is you that is defending my charge that paedophilia, is disproprtionate amongst homosexuals by actually citing child sexual assault cases, whilst paedophilia is not sexual assault.

          2. Your source is seriously flawed and debunked many times, hence so are your conclusions.

            Suffice to say that, as you’re incapable of listening, and when you do, you tend to lie. Similar to a child about the age of 6.

          3. “I have cited for you some of the most reputable authors”

            You got the figure regarding the amount of homosexuals in the USA from the Voter News Service Poll , a discredited organization which was disbanded years ago!!
            As for Denver’s Children’s Hospital. Dr. Jenny…50 children is hardly proportional representation and the aim of the studies was not to provide a representation of homosexual chilsdd abuse. Further, it did not mention how many of the abusers were bisexual, a group which would be counted among homosexuals. 74 percent of the male children were wre molested by MEN. The molestation therefore was of a homosexual nature. Worse than I thought!!

            “your ignorance of what precisely paedophilia is ”
            I know what paedophilia is but you seem to have it confused with sexual assault of a minor. Paedophilia is annattraction to prepubescent children and is not a crime.
            Back to the drawing board for you!
            Finally

          4. Keith –

            Put aside your laptop for a few days and do some serious reading about the topic.

            I don’t know why you came to a gay news site, but your first comments told us how disgusting you thought we are.

            Because we have listened to you, we now know more about you than you do about us.

            You do not listen, and a closed mind does not work.

            In my opinion, you have more reason to criticize those who taught you to hate than to criticize us.

          5. Voter News Service Poll was not disbanded for being disreputable but for, like most exit polls of its type, not being a very good indicator of who had actually won an election and for not being able to make its computer work at the 2002 election. The other stats that it gathered were treated with caution as all such polls have to be, but the finding about the number of gay people who turn out to vote and their proportion in the total number of electors voting has been consistently replicated by all the other polls since then, including the Los Angeles Times Poll and the National Election Pool Poll which are generally regarded as having made some attempt to have a sound methodology.

        4. Jock S. Trap 8 Sep 2011, 11:38am

          LGBTQI people are Not up for debate on this site. Move on.

    4. Keith . . . Yeah Yeah Yeah

      1. Chester36 6 Sep 2011, 9:36am

        pedophiles is a grouping of it’s own and not do do with gays, lesbians, bi or even heteros

        1. So what do you conclude from that? It does not mean you cannot have a homosexual paedophile or a paedophile that commits homosexual acts . think of your local, Priest for instance!!

          1. Pedophilia is a mental illness; homosexuality is a legitimate sexual orientation.

            If you could only get that into your head, you would see things more clearly.

          2. Jock S. Trap 8 Sep 2011, 11:39am

            Irrelevent to this story. LGBTQI people are Not up for debate on this site.

    5. Jock S. Trap 8 Sep 2011, 11:37am

      Yawn – LGBTQI people are Not up for debate on this site.

  42. Ben Foster 5 Sep 2011, 8:28pm

    h, just shut up. You’re very boring.

  43. Spanner1960 6 Sep 2011, 12:54am

    It looks like a bolt from the heavens has eliminated Keith for now.

    Maybe there is a God after all.

    1. If there was a god, it would have stopped the red-neck brother and sister duo that were his parents fumbling in their swamp shed to make a twisted degenerate like Keith….

    2. Let me asure you that if I disappear from here, it will not be on account of any line of questioning put forward.

      1. The above was for Spanner and not the wilful liar Will who has not yet produce the post where I allegaedly said that ALL homosexuals are paedophiles.

        1. Keith – Still spinning your invidious web of lies and deceit then
          .
          You old arachnid you!!!

          1. Which lie?

          2. For starters . . . Presenting tinpot articles, by tinpot writers, and claiming it is reputable research.

        2. Did already. Stupid.

        3. if you would just listen instead of obsessing and accusing people…

          why exactly did you enter PN? Seriously, why??

        4. Who cares if you said that all homosexuals are pedophiles or that all pedophiles are homosexuals?

          Who cares??

          The fact that you irrationally equate the two in any percentage is a lie.

          Homosexuality is a legitimate sexual orientation; pedophilia is a mental illness.

          Now stop this nonsense and tell us why you entered this site knowing it is a gay news site.

      2. Yeah, it’ll be becuase the doctors found you under an intersection shouting abuse at passing cars….

  44. Keith/
    Finally, let us look at the experience of Dr. Carole Jenny, the director of the Child Advocacy and Protection Team at Denver’s Children’s Hospital. Dr. Jenny and her colleagues reviewed 269 medical records of Denver-area children who were sexually abused by adults. Of the 50 male children (disregarding the 219 females) in the study, 37 (74%) were molested by men who had been in a heterosexual relationship with the child’s relative. Three were molested by women, five were molested by both parents, and three others were molested by non-relatives. Only one perpetrator could be identified as being possibly homosexual in his adult behavior. Dr. Jenny and her associates concluded that even if you use the worst case possibilities in their sample, no more than 3.1% of child sexual abuse cases reported to the Denver clinic were abused by someone who could be identified as possibly being gay.
    This type of study has been repeated all over the world with exactly the same results.

    1. they were certainly homosexual in their behaviour toward the male children. I guess it is a little harder to get an adult to consent.
      Regarding sexual orientation, there are only two choices. Homosexual or heterosexual. Some people chose boith of the two choices (bisexuals). However. However, you seem to be suggesting that paedophilia is a separate sexual orientation apart from homosexuality and heterosexuality.. this is not the case and you will not see ‘paedophile’ on any forms requiring you to disclose your sexual orientation.
      The sex acts on 74% (37 male children ) were sexual acts of a homosexual nature, perpetrated on children.
      It is worrying that you consider ppaedophilia a sexual orientation since this morally legitimizes it in that homosexuals hold that they are ‘born this way’ with regard to sexual orientation.

      1. @Keith
        .
        1.The author of your tin pot article is discredited, and not some one the serious academic world can take seriously.
        .
        2. The reputable research that the author twists to suit a homophobic agenda is clear for all to see.
        .
        3. Keith, I can see that you like to go round and round in circles, like a dog chasing his own tail.
        .
        How banal !!!

        1. “3. Keith, I can see that you like to go round and round in circles, like a dog chasing his own tail.”

          Is actually another trait of schizophrenia or similar mental health issue.

          The obsession with the act of sex is very revealing.

          Definition: Sexual obsessions involve intrusive thoughts or images of “kissing, touching, fondling, oral sex, anal sex, intercourse, and rape” with “strangers, acquaintances, parents, children, family members, friends, coworkers, animals and religious figures”, involving “heterosexual or homosexual content” with persons of any age [Osgood-Hynes, Deborah. “Thinking Bad Thoughts” MGH/McLean OCD Institute, Belmont, MA. OCD Foundation, Milford, CT.)

          Keith clearly fits the bill. He’s mentioned almost all the above, and is quite fixated.

          1. I think you will find it is the gay brigade that are obsessed with sex. thney cannot separate their sex ual preferences (a private matter) from their every day lives or from things that are not even related to sex, hence
            Gay Pride Marches
            Gay Pilots association
            Gay Builders association
            Gay Villages
            Gay Pubs
            Gay Hotels
            Gay Lawyers association
            Gay Rodeo Association

            For crying out loud, what is a Gay rodeo? Do they sodomize the cattle?

          2. “Do they sodomize the cattle?”

            Probably where you come from, yeah. Then again, given you love of incest, you “good folks” probably do a lot of “fun”s stuff.

          3. Jock S. Trap 8 Sep 2011, 11:40am

            Another irrelevent comment.

            LGBTQI people are Not up for debate on this site.

        2. So you think that 37 out of 50 (74%) male on male molestations is not an indicator of a homosexual paedophile problem..
          I will file you under ‘filthy apologists’

          1. Keith
            .
            I can see that you are having a homophobic tantrum
            .
            Is that really good for your blood pressure?

          2. Actually, Keith, had you taken the trouble to read my post carefully then you would have seen that it was 37 out of 269 molestations – 219 were molested female children and fifty were molested male children. 37 male children were abused by MEN AND WOMEN who were HETEROSEXUAL – only one male abuser could be identified as gay. I keep asking you to read up about paedophilia: it is not about sexual orientation – study after study by reputable doctors and academics proves that – but about power and control over helpless children and it is usually done by inadequate and disfunctional heterosexual men and women who take pleasure in sexual and violent power plays, as Dr. Jenny’s survey found. Please, please read some of the documents that I have cited and stop quoting junk science and opinion masquerading as science – you will gain a much better understanding of the disease if you do and you won’t then make such silly comments.

          3. Jock S. Trap 8 Sep 2011, 11:41am

            Guess what? Irrelevent for this thread.

            LGBTQI people are Not up for debate on this site.

      2. “Regarding sexual orientation, there are only two choices. Homosexual or heterosexual.” From Keith (above).

        I doubt that assertion very much, Keith. Scientists working in the field, such as Anthony Bogaert in his study “Asexuality: Prevalence and Associated Factors In a National Probability Sample”. Journal of Sex Research 41(3):281; 2004, found that sexual orientation had at least four manifestations, ‘videre licet': heterosexuality, homosexuality, bisexuality (in varying degrees), and asexuality. In agreement are such well-respected scientists as Meredith L. Chivers with J. Michael Bailey in “A sex difference in features that elicit genital response”. Biological Psychology, Volume 70, Issue 2, October 2005, Pages 115-120; and Alicia Garcia-Falgueras with Dick F Swaab in “Sexual Hormones and the Brain: An Essential Alliance for Sexual Identity and Sexual Orientation, in Endocrine Development”, vol. 17, pp. 22-35; 2010. Hundreds of other reputable scientists agree, also.

        1. There are only 2 familys of sexual orientation. Homosexual or heterosexual. Any order such as bisexual is an amalgamation of the these two. Every human on the planet that has a sexual orientation either likes males, femals or both. There is only male and female to choose from, that is my point. Certainly paedophilia is not a sexual orientation so which sexual orientation were the 37 men that molested the boys?

          1. too simplistic, Keith… these are your opinions, not scientific evidence…

            you are being offered an accelerated sexual education … we are really pampering you.

          2. Jock S. Trap 8 Sep 2011, 11:41am

            Completely Irrelevent.

            LGBTQI people are Not up for debate on this site.

      3. Pedophilia is a mental illness, not a sexual orientation.

        1. You mean like homosexuality is a mental illness?
          Are paedophiles lying when they say they were born that way then?

          1. Homosexuality is not a mental illness.

            Homophobia is a mental illness, and so is pedophilia.

            I am not aware of any pedophiles saying that they were born that way.

          2. Jock S. Trap 8 Sep 2011, 11:42am

            Irelevent.

            LGBTQI people are Not up for debate on this site.

      4. There are 4 legitimate sexual orientations… four, not two, four.

        You’re welcome for the accelerated sexual education.

      5. Spanner1960 7 Sep 2011, 3:40pm

        Keith: You have this bizarre notion that being gay is all about sex. It isn’t, It’s about lifestyles and people and commonalities. Sex is only one aspect of being gay. I for one don’t have sex at all, but I would be the first to say I am a gay man and proud of it.

      6. Jock S. Trap 8 Sep 2011, 11:39am

        Again with the irrelevent comments.

        LGBTQI people are Not up for debate on this site.

  45. @John MJ
    Since the 219 females were disregarded from the study, we cannot extrapolate information as to the 219. Wh did you post a report that is not fit for the purpose of calculating the proportion of homosexual paedophilia. Especially as the report undermines your own position with regard to the 50 males?

    1. Also, if the 37 male children were molested by men, they were homosexual molestations whether the men were identified as gay or not. Not all homosexuals are identified as gay…obviously!

      1. “Also, if the 37 male children were molested by men, they were homosexual molestations whether the men were identified as gay or not.” From Keith (above).

        No, that is a scientifically untrue assertion and demonstrates exactly what I suspected about your state of knowledge about paedophilia – nil. What studies have found, all over the world, is that the gender of the child is irrelevant in all but a tiny number of cases, for paedophilia is not about male or female children but about children generally and exercising power, domination and violent, rapine control over them. A paedophile male is just as likely to molest male children as he is to molest female children and the same goes for female molesters, also – it’s almost as if they are blind to the child’s gender; the important thing for them is that it is a helpless child that they molest. The science does not support the labelling of any molestation of a child as either hetero- or homo- sexual since offenders don’t care about that.

        1. I know that that is a difficult concept to get one’s brain around when one has decided that some other scenario is the case but if you would but take the time to read the scientific studies about paedophilia and its related diseases then you would gain an immeasurably valuable insight into the workings of the minds of those people and you would understand that your simplistic views are utterly wrong. I have cited a number of reputable, mainstream scientific studies in my posts and you could do a great deal worse than read some of them. I know that you will find them dry and heavy-going but gaining new knowledge has never been easy. Have fun.

        2. “The science does not support the labelling of any molestation of a child as either hetero- or homo- sexual since offenders don’t care about that.”
          You certainly made that one up in order to support your claims.
          If the abuse is male on male , by definition it is homosexual. It cannot be avoided. to explain, if a man favours sex with fat people only and rapes and sodomizes only fat men, does this mean they cannot be defined as homosexual rapes on account of his preference for fat people? Tthat would be preposterous!. If the same person rapes both sexes, equally, half would be homosexual rapes and the other half heterosexual rapes. The rapist would be defined as a bisexual.
          A mhomosexual that rapes male children is a homosexual and a paedophile. A bisexual that molests male children exclusively is a bisexual and a paedophile, though the molestation of the children would be classed as homosexual molestation.

          1. You are babbling, Keith.

            Get a grip.

            Pedophilia is a mental illness, not a sexual orientation.

          2. Jock S. Trap 8 Sep 2011, 11:48am

            No barring or relevence to this thread.

            LGBTQI people are Not up for debate on this site.

      2. Jock S. Trap 8 Sep 2011, 11:48am

        No relevence to this thread.

        LGBTQI people are Not up for debate on this site.

    2. 219 females were not disregarded from the study – I DISREGARDED THEM FROM MY INITIAL COMMENT, I, ME MYSELF NOT DR. JENNY, in order to get to the interesting bit as I saw it, as you would know if you had been down to your local library and referenced the study. Dr. Jenny and her colleagues did NOT disregard the molested females for that would have been unscientific and unprofessional as you well know, I’m sure. I merely used a literary device in order to get to the meat of the story, as it were and you must not take MY leaving out of these word limited posts what I consider to be the non-relevant bit of Dr. Jenny’s study as, in any way, a reflection on Dr. Jenny or her colleagues or the study. Please stop clutching at straws and do some reading on this subject. There is a great deal of interest in Dr. Jenny’s study about female children but the only conclusion GERMANE TO THIS DISCUSSION that one can draw from it is that it is far more prevalent than the molestation of male children.

      1. I am not a mind reader. You wrote…
        “Of the 50 male children (disregarding the 219 females) in the study, 37 (74%) were molested by men”.
        Why would anyone assume it was YOU that disregarded them if you did not say so and why did you disregard the females? How can anyone possibly draw conclusions without the whole picture and why do you persist in bringing up sexual assault when I was referring to paedophilia, ironiocally, a subject you said ‘I’ obviously don’t know about.
        I notice you persist in your implication that paedophilia is a sexual orientation. which it certainly is not. Are you denying that the 37 male children were subject to homosexual abuse?

        1. Keith
          .
          Still going round and round in circles, how are you able to hold down a job?

        2. No, I did not say, nor do I, or did I, imply, that Paedophilia is a sexual orientation. In my very first post on this board I said: “…Cohen and Galyinker (2002 – “Psychopathology and personality traits of pedophiles” in the ‘Psychiatric Times’) found absolutely no evidence that paedophilia was linked to sexual orientation and instead identified some very telling psychopathology of the condition which identifies it as a disease…” and I agree with their findings on the basis that other reputable scientists which I have cited for you in many of my other posts agree with them. Paedophilia has all the psychpathological markers of a disease, as I said. I ALSO SAID that it is NOT a sexual orientation. Please read my post more carefully.

          1. I distinctly remember reading that, John.

            Keith, why are you deliberately misrepresenting what John wrote ?

        3. Yes, I deny that 37 male children were subject to homosexual abuse because the term ‘homosexual abuse’ in relation to Paedophilia is meaningless. The correct term is androphiliac abuse and, as I explained to you (above) this may be perpetrated by males or females on males or females indiscriminately. Abusers appear not to require the abused child to be of any particular gender – it is sufficient that it is a child. I know that that is a difficult concept to understand but there is absolutely no scientific evidence that heterosexual males who abuse young boys are gay and you are assuming that the way that the penis is used in some of these attacks gives away the sexual orientation of the attacker. It does not. This is the use of the penis as a weapon to violate, control and hurt a child and that is more often done by heterosexual males than by gay males. However, the psychopathological markers indicate quite clearly that Paedophilia is a disease, as I said, NOT a sexual orientation.

          1. In a directly analagous way, and to try to explain this point more clearly consider that soldiers in warfare, high on victory or angry at losing, have, in the past, used their penises in the same way – as weapons. They have indiscriminately buggered males and raped females and frequently followed up either action by maiming or killing the victim.
            There is some evidence that a tiny minority of soldiers in some armies still try to behave that way today and it is impossible to draw any inference about their sexual orientations from the acts that they commit in the theatre of war.
            Paedophilia is, in some sense, analagous to this behaviour but one should not stretch the comparison too far because the tendency to battlefield rape and buggery is not a permanent condition it seems, whereas Paedophilia is a permanent, and as yet incurable, disease condition.

          2. Quite informative, John…and a good analogy within limits, as you say..

        4. Jock S. Trap 8 Sep 2011, 11:49am

          Nothing to do with this thread. Irrelevent.

          LGBTQI people are Not up for debate on this site.

    3. Jock S. Trap 8 Sep 2011, 11:47am

      Not Relevent.

      LGBTQI people are Not up for debate on this site.

  46. @John MJ
    Out of curiousity. Which sexual orientation/s are you saying the 37 men that molested the 37 male children were?

    1. For all we know they were asexual.

      Have you not understood anything???

      1. Regardless of how they label themselves, the abuse is defined by the genders. male on male abuse is homosexual abuse. Please stop being an apologist for homosexual paedophiles.
        .

        1. No, as I have explained at length and often (above) you are quite wrong. Adult male on male child abuse is NOT homosexual abuse. No matter what your opinion may be, the science does not support your contention. You are, as I have attempted to explain (above) being mislead by the use that the penis is put to in some cases of abuse. That use is no indicator of the sexual orientation of the abuser. Please try to grasp that fact and abandon your simplistic and incorrect analysis of Paedophilia. I assure you, the real world is far more complex than anything you can imagine.

          1. The abuse is NOT defined by genders as I have tried to explain to you. You wish it to be defined by genders but there is no science that supports your contention. This is not a question of how paedophiles label themselves but of how science has discovered them to be. I have cited for you study after study by reputable scientists – please read them before continuing with your gross, and useless, over-simplifications of what is a very complex subject.

          2. @JohnMJ
            “science does not support your contention.”
            Of course it does. homosexuality is defined as sexual attraction to the same sex regardless of penis usage. The male children were the same sex. The paedophiles were therefore homosexual…simples!
            If the abusers were atracted exclusively to fat males that would not detrat from the fact that the attraction was a homosexual attraction so why would you think that the paedophile aspect negates the homosexual aspect and where is the scientific evidence you say exists for this?
            Also,again, you have failed to explain which sexual orientation YOU believe the abusers were. This is the third attempt to get ananswer.

          3. Keith/Gumbo –

            You may as well be asking if it JohnMJ believes it was raining in China on this date 1,000 years ago.

            We are talking about empirical facts, not beliefs, and John’s explanations are crystal clear to anyone with an average intelligence….and an open mind.

          4. Jock S. Trap 8 Sep 2011, 11:51am

            Completely irrelevent to this thread.

            LGBTQI people are Not up for debate on this site.

        2. Jock S. Trap 8 Sep 2011, 11:50am

          Absolutely irrelevent.

          LGBTQI people are Not up for debate on this site.

    2. All bar one, according to Dr. Jenny and her colleagues (supported by many, many other studies), were heterosexual. I have explained at length for you in my previous posts why that finding is valid. I know that this is a difficult subject to grasp the science of but do try, for it ties in with other psychopathological conditions which also lead to different types of assaults being perpetrated by criminals other than child molesters. It is a very important field of scientific study with a huge literature and well worth the research – unless, that is, you think that Science in general is rubbish and that your opinions are more valid than years and years, decades, of painstaking research and study.

      1. You have ignored each point in my post which explains why the molestation was homosexual..Also, for the fourth time I now ask you which sexual orientation you believe the perpetrators were? I will persist with this question as it goes to the heart of my point about homosexual abuse

        1. “Also, for the fourth time I now ask you which sexual orientation you believe the perpetrators were?”
          .
          Keith this is not about “beliefs”, this is about emprical facts.

        2. Keith, we are not concerned with beliefs at the moment, we are talking about empirical facts.

          1. …and you are too immature to understand JohnMJ’s very clear explanations…

            …like a sorcerer’s apprentice… or Mickey Mouse.

        3. As I have just said (immediately above) all bar one were heterosexual. Please read my replies as it gets a little tedious when one has to repeat oneself ‘ad nauseam’.

        4. Jock S. Trap 8 Sep 2011, 11:52am

          Your irrelevence is boring.

          LGBTQI people are Not up for debate on this site.

    3. Jock S. Trap 8 Sep 2011, 11:50am

      No relevence to this site.

      LGBTQI people are Not up for debate on this site.

  47. Also, Asexuals lack sexual attraction so the label would be a false definition.

    1. So you are an expert on Asexuality as well?
      .

      1. More so than you it would appear!

    2. So now you have learned that there exists a sexual orientation known as ‘asexuality’, whereas you previously believed there were only two sexual orientations.

      Also, you are no longer using words like ‘disgusting’ and ‘filthy’ in reference to us.

      You are receiving an accelerated sexual education, and being enlightened by contemporary scientific discoveries.

      1. I said if you care to check back, there are only two families of sexual orientation. Hetero and homo. All orders trace bachk to one or both of these. therefore there every person is one or boh of two families of sexual orientation.
        Always happy to aducate an ignorant fool!

        1. Keith, you keep changing your profile picture nearly everyday?
          .
          For some one who is so certain about sexuality, you appear very uncertain about your profile picture?

        2. “I said if you care to check back, there are only two families of sexual orientation.”

          I know what you said, and saying it does not make it so.

          That is your opinion, that’s all, but thanks for attempting to ‘aducate’ me, Gumbo.

          1. Grow up, Gumbo.

            You’re in way over your head.

        3. Jock S. Trap 8 Sep 2011, 11:53am

          Irrelvent again.

          LGBTQI people are Not up for debate on this site.

    3. Jock S. Trap 8 Sep 2011, 11:52am

      Don’t see the relevence.

      LGBTQI people are Not up for debate on this site.

  48. @John MJ
    “I have cited for you study after study by reputable scientists”
    Nowhere have you provided scientific evidence that supports your claim that man on boy molestation is not homosexual. Science actually supports my claim since science defines homosexuality as sexual attraction to the same sex. The male paedophiles were sexually attracted to boys (and possibly girls). Therefore they are by definition homosexual, possibly bisexual and certainly paedophiles.
    See, it is not as difficult and complex as you claim.and you have yet to state which sexual orientation you believe the perpetrators were.

    1. @John MJ
      I notice you are still labouring under the illusion that sexual orientation need not heterosexuality, homosexuality, bisexuality or asexuality. and have bizzarely introduce adrophilia which is merely a facet of sexual orientation.the androphile, paedophile, ephebophile and the gerontophiles all reside under the order of the 4 sexual orientations Homosexual, Bisexual, heterosexual and asexual. This is scientific fact.since According to Karen Franklin, Magnus Hirschfeld considered ephebophilia “common and nonpathological, with ephebophiles and androphiles each making up about 45% of the homosexual population. they are part of the HOMOSEXUAL population. Therefore , the e men were homosexual paedophiles..
      Scientific source
      ^ Franklin K (2010). Hebephilia: quintessence of diagnostic pretextuality. Behavioral Sciences & the Law Volume 28, Issue 6, pages 751–768, doi: 10.1002/bsl.934

      1. good grief… Magnus Hirschfeld…. are you for real?

        Not exactly cutting edge is it?

      2. Androphilia (or androsexuality) describes sexual attraction to men or masculinity – and gynephilia (or gynesexuality) describes sexual attraction to women or femininity, REGARDLESS OF SEXUAL ORIENTATION. These terms to not exist under other descriptions but stand alone as descriptors in their own right. The terms are used for identifying a PERSON’S object of attraction without attributing a sex assignment or gender identity to the person.
        There is no scientific evidence to back up your personal assertion that 45% of the homosexual population are ephebophiles – that is a typical slur cast at the gay community which is not supported by trustworthy scientific surveys.
        Of course homosexuals are androphiles. You obviously don’t quite understand the actual meaning of the term so read the first few sentences of this post again, carefully.

        1. For the life of me I don’t know why you chose to cite the reference you did for the Franklin article is about terminology – that’s all. Prior to the advent of contemporary sexually violent predator laws, the term, hebephilia, was not found in any dictionary or formal diagnostic system. This article traces the sudden emergence and popularity of the term ‘hebephilia’ in order to pressure the legal arena and, specifically, to attempt to give legal mandate to, an alleged serious mental abnormality in order to aid civil commitment of supposed sex offenders. Hebephilia is proposed as a quintessential example of pretextuality, in which SPECIAL INTERESTS PROMOTE A PSEUDOSCIENTIFIC CONSTRUCT in order to further an implicit, instrumental goal. Inherent problems with the construct’s reliability and validity are discussed. A warning is issued about unintended consequences if hebephilia or its relative, pedohebephilia, make their way into the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders.

          1. In fact, the Franklin article specifically warns against people just like you and your cohort – when you are thwarted in one direction you immediately invent something else to target your perceived enemy, gay people, with. What Franklin is warning about is that thwarted in the scientifically unjustified (as I have shown) attempt to pin the Paedophile label on gay people, people like you have immediately coined another term (in this case a term which usually refers to adolescents between 15 and 19 years of age) and are pressuring to have this notional behaviour criminalised and at the same time asserting without reputable evidence that gay people are the,once again in your opinion, the prime offenders. Researchers like Franklin, however, are on to this tactic and have sounded the alarm early enough to put a stop to this nonsense.
            I am at a loss to understand why you cited this article since doesn’t support your views at all.

      3. Jock S. Trap 8 Sep 2011, 11:54am

        Again, no relevence.

        LGBTQI people are Not up for debate on this site.

    2. Jock S. Trap 8 Sep 2011, 11:53am

      No relevence.

      LGBTQI people are Not up for debate on this site.

  49. Gay Daily Mail Reader 6 Sep 2011, 9:26pm

    We all say nasty things when we are kids, whether it is racist, homophobic or about disability. Remember when we either called kids with NHS glasses ‘speccy four-eyes’ or got called that ourselves? Kids are probably the worst bigots in the world but most of us will grow out of it and playground spats should not destroy a child’s future prospects.

  50. Keith, you keep changing your profile picture nearly everyday?
    .
    For some one who is so certain about sexuality, you appear very uncertain about your online idenity?
    .
    Domestos – AZT – Boys
    .
    Is this how you signal to other paedophiles?

    1. “Is this how you signal to other paedophiles?”

      Given his intense and disturbing obsession with homosexuality, graphic sexual images, and child abuse, makes you wonder if he has a past record and now if “cured by jesus”….

      1. Will
        .
        Exactly!!!
        .
        Sick obessive pervert Alert – no doubt!

        1. Dave North 7 Sep 2011, 10:32am

          Keith.

          I would suggest you read the following because action has been taken against this paper regarding your libellous actionable comments.

          http://www.law.ed.ac.uk/it&law/c10_main.htm

          1. mmm….astounding!

          2. @Dave North
            .
            Thanks for the link about the internet and the law
            .
            Very interesting

  51. I see that basket case Keith is still ranting on, and going in the usual circular arguments…. like a monkey on a unicycle. Repetition is akin to banality.

    1. Love the monkey on a unicycle imagery.
      .
      Repetitive banality beyond banality perhaps. Although since Keith tends to sexualise so much of the debate (if you can call it that), I am inclined to argue that this is one big “Masturbatory Rant” for Keith.
      .

      1. “Keith tends to sexualise so much of the debate”

        You said it John. Very disturbing how he constantly obsesses to the exclusion of all else, of sex and disease. And his unusually disturbing sexual preferences, like his obsession with child molestation and paedophilia.

        No doubt a substantial risk to others, if not already guilty of such.

  52. It seems to me the comments on this thread on no longer in chronological or logical order…

    Why is that?

  53. It seems to me that comments on this thread are no longer in logical order…

    Why is that??

  54. I see PN have finally decided to get rid of the offensive comments of that twisted fool. Good for them. And not a moment too soon….

  55. Pink News are on notice regarding any future unwarranted and unexplained bans.and unwelcome action that will follow

  56. I see that 2 sided arguments are not welcome here.> I hope for the sake of the future of the board, PN considers replacing my removed posts.
    that is all

    1. Anti sodomy, but somehow repeatedly quoting “the Devil Wears Prada” at us, like it’s his all time favourite movie. That’s a movie with a certain demographic. Not many straight men watching that one, that would be my guess.
      Someone is sending out mixed messages.
      https://my.psychologytoday.com/files/u47/Henry_et_al.pdf

    2. Jock S. Trap 8 Sep 2011, 11:55am

      Your about as irrelevent as your comments.

      LGBTQI people are Not up for debate on this site.

    3. “I hope for the sake of the future of the board, PN considers replacing my removed posts.”

      LOL! Yeah, the place will fall apart without your particular brand of tantrums and idiotic statements! Go back to school, you moron.

  57. - Men who engage in sodomy are 860% more likely to contract a sexually transmitted disease (STD), increasing up to 500% their risk of contracting HIV/AIDS. Men who commit acts of sodomy with men that have large numbers of anonymous partners, which can result in rapid, extensive transmission of STDs. Control of STDs is a central component of HIV infection prevention in the United States; resurgence of bacterial STDs threatens national HIV infection prevention efforts.5

    1. Jock S. Trap 8 Sep 2011, 11:55am

      Your hatred is irrelevent.

      LGBTQI people are Not up for debate on this site.

    2. Still making up ridiculous and meaningless figures, eh, Keith! Tell me, 860% more likely than what, precisely: 500% increasing over what baseline, exactly? STDs, of which HIV/AIDS is merely one, are on the rise all over the world but the primary cause of that rise is the upsurge in drug resistant strains of diseases due to idiots who don’t know how to take courses of drugs correctly. By the way, STDs are rising fastest of all amongst young heterosexual males and females – the rates of infaction in that demographic is truly startling.

  58. Jock S. Trap 8 Sep 2011, 11:22am

    This is why it is important to teach young the importance of relationships.

    Not sex, relationships!

    So that we can teach them that being stable in a loving, committed relationship no matter what the gender, it is normal, accepting part of life.

    Only that way will they learn that abusive language and behavior is wrong.

  59. As long as you are using references of any sort for a change, perhaps you could enlighten us as to what the bible, your ‘only moral guide’ remember, says about pedophilia.

    …and no monkey business…exactly what does the bible say about pedophilia..understand??

  60. Exactly what I said. Regardless of sexual orientation androphilia or gynephilia describes the attractee, as does gerontophilia for example. Please read what I wrote carefully.

  61. Magnus Hirschfeld’s divisions are not generally accepted by the reputable scientific community nowadays, nor are there any reputable surveys to back him up. Since he died in 1935 it is hardly surprising that the science has moved on since his day. Much of what he believed to be true is, today, contradicted by modern science, although it has to be admitted that he was, for his day and age, quite forward looking.

  62. Keith/Gumbo-

    You said:

    “Every person has a sexual orientaion and it is either Homosexual, heterosexual, bisexual or Asexual.”

    Yes.

    Hold that thought. That is something you did not know when you entered this site.

    You are receiving a sexual education from the readers of PinkNews.

  63. @JohnMJ –

    Magnus Hirschfeld is a giant and a respected pioneer of the Gay Liberation Movement. :)

  64. No, The science clearly shows, as I have repeatedly shown, that abusing and sexually molesting children is not about sex ‘per se’ but about power, violence and control. Ha dyou taken the time to read my previous posts you would now understand that your view of paedophilia is arrant and simplistic nonsense unsupported by the academic community. You are, as I said earlier, fixated on the penile action and you assume, unjustifiably, that because a man has sex with a male child that that is ‘prima facie’ evidence that he must be gay. That is simply not true, and I did try to simplify the point by drawing an analogy with soldiers in battlefield conditions so that you could understand much more clearly that Paedophilia is a disease and that your naive ideas about it are oversimplifying a complex problem. The gender of the abused child does not matter to either male or female abusers – it is the fact that it is a child that matters. You do not seem able to grasp that subtle point.

  65. Nor do you seem able to understand that that means that heterosexual males can sexually abuse male children and that heterosexual females can abuse female children. The gender of the child abused is no indicator of the abusers sexual orientation. The problem is much, much more complex than your overly simple assertions make out. This is modern, hard science backed up by innumerable surveys and studies by reputable and world-acknowledged scientists and the conclusion is that sexual orientation matters not one whit when an abuser selects a child for sexual purposes. The gender of the child, also does not matter. Paedophilia is about controlling, violent, rapine abuse of children. It is not about sex much as some abusers give that as an excuse for their diseased behaviour. Decades of careful study indicate that Paedophilia is disease with pronounced psychopathological markers.

    Science stands firmly against your viewpoint in every respect. What you assert is your belief – it is not fact.

  66. No, I didn’t cite Hirschfeld at all in any of my posts. You have accused me of doing so, but i didn’t.

    The point with the sexual abuse of children is that it is not about attraction to one sex or another is, as all reputable studies show, about controlling children with rapine violence, it is about power and domination and it perpetrated by people who are profoundly disfunctional in many areas. Your viewpoint has been comprehensively ruled out of court by modern science and is, anyway, simplistic and charmingly redoloent of an earlier and more ignorant age in the way it approaches the problem of Paedophilia.

  67. “i will check back Thursday out of curiousity!”
    .
    Keith, you know what happened to cats and curiosity!!!

  68. I thought it unlikely that you would have quoted Hirschfeld, John, although he certainly had courage and ingenuity, as well as a facility with the scientific method.

    This is a good moment to remember the countless thousands of gay men who were persecuted and finally executed in Europe because of some insane ignorance and arrogance.

  69. Indeed it is, Jonpol. It is only by our vigilance both here and in our everyday lives that we will enable future generations to live in freedom and without fear. People like Keith must be challenged and proved wrong on every conceivable occassion – not just for us but also for the newly ‘out’ who may arrive at this site and need to know that much of what is said about us is unsubstantiated rubbish.

    I’ve added to my post about his use of the Franklin article – scroll up a little way if you want to read it – and corrected his statements about the Voter News Survey exit Polls, which were, of course, inaccurate as you would expect! I think that I have said everything that can possibly be said to such a close minded person as Keith – I wonder what he is so afraid of that makes him believe such weird things about us despite science proving the opposite?

    Yes, I agree: Hirschfeld was a visionary and ahead of his time in many respects. Bless his memory.

  70. By the way, Jonpol, thank-you for your support throughout this marathon. I have gratefully noticed your very supportive posts and it’s good to feel that there is someone else out there who understands what one has written.

    Thank-you.

  71. You’re welcome, John.

    Today, there are more positive people and events in favour of the LGBT equality than ever before.

    Also, we have access to so much information now, a pro-LGBT international organization has recently been accredited by the UN, and in the States, DADT will effectively end in a few days (Sept 20).

    And yes, Keith’s irrational fear … I do wonder what that is all about. He claims that God ordains the killing of homosexuals, yet he has a problem with the ethics of killing with regards to war….which is why he avoids ‘religions’, so he says. There’s no rhyme or rhythm to the guy…

  72. Oh, look, the fool is back early. Can’t get enough of the gay sites and the self-titillation at the suggestion of him cruising a toilet. More sexual obsession from our paedophile loving Keith.

  73. I’m having difficulty posting a comment here, and the comments seems to be out of sync somehow…

    What’s happening?

  74. They’re in the process of deleting Keith’s messages…. its messes up the forum order a little, but a small price to pay to rid ourselves of that dull schizophrenic.

  75. Will –

    I suppose I shouldn’t be so concerned about guys like Keith… or the guys who have just executed 3 gay men in Iran.

    …turns my stomach..

  76. Dave North 7 Sep 2011, 7:00pm

    Given the opportunity, Keith would be placing the noose.

  77. …ugh …

These comments are un-moderated and do not necessarily represent the views of PinkNews.co.uk. If you believe that a comment is inappropriate or libellous, please contact us.

Top commenters this week

Latest stories

See all