Gay Mass Murder Trend

[fdpatterson]

:idunno:

I guess you might have found an example for PB.

No I didn't have to find one, I simply knew of one from personnel experience. And judging by other posters they also have known of some people who experience was the same.

I with you in that I don't really understand it but that is most likely because I'm not gay and therefore it is not part of my experience of life. However, just because I experience life one way, and someone else experiences it another way doesn't necessarily mean that my experience is correct and there's is wrong. Such assertions would have to be proven, not conjectured.

 

[PlastikBuddha]

If you accept your delusion that people are born as homosexals then I guess this would be difficult to answer.

Nowhere have I claimed that people are born gay, nor does my point require it. An inclination alone also is not enough. Like I said (how many times now?) SELF-IDENTIFICATION!

Luckily your baseless assertions are a crock and people are created hetrosexual so I can answer this with a "Yes" even if it doesn't exactly fit with the series of questions I asked. You might as well have asked, "If a person is inclined to be human is he one in fact?"

This isn't about philosophy...

And again, I notice, you seem singularly incapable of answering even one of the series of questions I give....

You mean I don't anwer them the way you want. What a crying shame.

Clearly not. All you are pointing out is that people are capable of controlling that which requires controlling.


You answered your own question. Congratulations.

How are those cases different than a homosexual who doesn't act on their urges? According to your line of reason there isn't any such animal.

In your mind only.

No, in the dictionary as well.
A noun
1 homosexual, homo, gay

someone who practices homosexuality; having a sexual attraction to persons of the same sex
B adjective
1 homosexual

sexually attracted to members of your own sex


http://www.wordreference.com/definition/homosexual

How are people classified as homosexual, PB?

How many times have I already explained this, Stripe? Not just by action, not just by inclination, but also by self-identification. :mrt::duh:

And given the lack of any means for classification which do you think would be the status quo?

You mean a means of classification that doesn't suit your agenda?

I find it hard to believe that a man who has no sexual history could call himself a homosexual.

-shrug-
And yet they still do... Same as those teenaged heterosexuals there are plenty of young people who realize early on what they are and who they like long before they make any kind of decision to date yet alone have sex.

What would he base that classification on?

Recognition of his or own sexual and romantic attractions... :mrt::duh:

If he were basing it upon his feelings then I would be surprised if he were to then go on to act in contradiction to those feelings.

Like embracing the fallacy of the consequent?

I know it has happened and other things come into play, but the point is that, in every case, a homosexual act is the only thing that can be used to delineate a person as being homosexual.

I know you WANT it to be, but it just isn't. So sorry.

That you are prepared to accept a person's word on the matter in spite of the facts just reveals your ignorance and gullibility.

:squint:
You're really reaching here. It's not a matter of gullibility to allow someone to identify themselves as sexual and romantic beings. Weirdo.

I see. So you have no patience.

Enough to keep this little dog and pony show running for n pages...

I tell you what, PB. You find us a guy who calls himself homosexual who has never had a homosexual encounter and you might have a point ... for that one instance...

I've already explained one type of person who exactly fits that profile. You're reluctance to face the facts really isn't ultimately my problem.

As it stands I might well be out of line with the popular or even dictionary definition of the word, but then words are malleable things. Perhaps one day "homosexual" will refer to a perversion from the norm again.

And perhaps someday monkeys might fly out of my butt. For now you are being willfully dishonest when you promote your agenda with fudged statistics like this. It would be like reversing the meaning for the words "driveway" and "parkway" in your own vocabulary because you think it just makes more sense that way, but neglecting to make this little change known to others when you those terms.

I don't think you've quite understood the problem, PB. Your problem is not that homosexuality is being stygmatised by association with serial killers.

My problem is that homosexually is being unjustifiably linked to a completely different kind of sexual expression.

Your problem is that homosexuality is stigmatised and the abundance of evil that sprouts from them is a big, "I told you so" from God.

Your problem is that you are so eager to demonstrate that God chastises this particular sin above and beyond all others and that it is particularly loathsome that you are willing to lie to do it. :nono:

I understand that Bob feels comfortable expressing that sentiment from God. Hence the radio show and thread.

God has never said anything about gay people being more likely to be serial killers. Fun fact.

This can be easily seen in that it is not only you that defers from defending white males as being over-represented in the sample of serial killers. People automatically defer from that defence because nobody in their right mind believes that being a white male is a perversion. If that factor can then be eliminated then it must be something else that causes men to act at the extremes of violent behaviour. If it is not homosexuality that might be largely responsible then, what, do you believe mass murderers are born such and have a natural inclination?

Who said mass murderers are born? If you look at their histories it is pretty obvious that they are made.

:BRAVO:


So you think that listing people as homosexuals because they engage in homosexual relationships is wrong.

I think selectively ignoring the fact that these people have heterosexual relationships (I wouldn't call murder "a relationship" by the way) in favor of focusing on their criminally insane behaviour as defining their sexual orientation is wrong and dishonest.

You believe this because you think homosexuals are defined by their DNA rather than the choices they make.

Since when is self-identification not a choice they make? The presence of ex-homosexuals should testify that I do not believe this caricature.

Yet you can find no other act based group (truck drivers, murderers or Chinese speakers) that also fall into this category of being defined by DNA.

I don't define them by DNA. But just for kicks, all of humanity and it's various branches from race down to individual are defined by DNA. :mrt::duh:

PB, even if you are right (you're not, but let's just pretend for a second) the only means by which it would be appropriate to conduct a statistical study on the link between homosexuality and mass murder would be to define homosexuality through the sexual history of the perp.

:mrt::duh:
And since the volunteered sexual history isn't likely to include the kind of childhood sexual trauma that usually mold serial killers into the monsters they become, you understand why profiling gays and lesbians is nothing but a red herring from the religious right. Those serial killers were NOT openly gay.

 

[Stripe]

Nowhere have I claimed that people are born gay, nor does my point require it. An inclination alone also is not enough. Like I said (how many times now?) SELF-IDENTIFICATION!

How many times have I already explained this, Stripe? Not just by action, not just by inclination, but also by self-identification.

So, tell us, PB. What percentage of people who identify as homosexual have never had a homosexual encounter? Just guess a number for us. I'd guess it'd be less than one in a thousand.

How many people do you think would be lying about how they identify themselves?

It's still baffling how you put so much emphasis on the word of the person over the action in only this situation. For a man who claimed to not be a murderer their word would mean nothing had you witnessed the opposite. For a man who claimed to be a Chinese speaker their word would mean little to you if they never demonstrated that ability.

 

[PlastikBuddha]

So, tell us, PB. What percentage of people who identify as homosexual have never had a homosexual encounter? Just guess a number for us. I'd guess it'd be less than one in a thousand.

Even if that were true, what difference would it make? A much more interesting question is: what percentage of people who identify as homosexual have NOT murdered anyone or molested any children compared to what percentage of people who identify themselves as straight who have also NOT done these things?

How many people do you think would be lying about how they identify themselves?

Many more under your ideal system than do presently.

It's still baffling how you put so much emphasis on the word of the person over the action in only this situation. For a man who claimed to not be a murderer their word would mean nothing had you witnessed the opposite. For a man who claimed to be a Chinese speaker their word would mean little to you if they never demonstrated that ability.

Are you saying in your coy little way that you want to watch?
:rotfl:

 

[lightbringer]

Are you saying in your coy little way that you want to watch?:rotfl:

:darwinsm::darwinsm:Stripe, watch ? :flamer::jawdrop:

 

[Stripe]

Even if that were true, what difference would it make?

Well, for one, you would have some evidence for your invented reality.

You claim their inclination as the basis for these imaginary homosexual people who have never had a homosexual encounter to determine that they are homosexual.

So in reality your insistence that homosexuality is defined by three things (act, inclination and self-determination) is only two things.

I would say that people can have homosexual inclinations and they can commit homosexual acts, but I would never accept a person's word over the facts.

It's baffling why you do.

A much more interesting question is: what percentage of people who identify as homosexual have NOT murdered anyone or molested any children compared to what percentage of people who identify themselves as straight who have also NOT done these things?

I'm afraid that would be an example of very poor statistical approach. The only way to study the relationship and have it mean anything is to define homosexuality as an act.

 

[PlastikBuddha]

Well, for one, you would have some evidence for your invented reality.

The evidence is right there in the dictionary, Stripe. The definition for "homosexuality" deals with attraction as well as action. You're trying to cloud the issue with hypotheticals. I don't know what percentage of gays haven't had sex and neither do you. Your guess is as essentially meaningless as my own would be, nor does it change the definition of an actual word.

You claim their inclination as the basis for these imaginary homosexual people who have never had a homosexual encounter to determine that they are homosexual.

For them to decide for themselves if they are homosexual. It's not my job to tell them what they are.

So in reality your insistence that homosexuality is defined by three things (act, inclination and self-determination) is only two things.

A person can be inclined towards homosexuality but repress it, identify themselves as heterosexual and not act on it. A person can be inclined to homosexuality, acknowledge it and identify themselves as gay but not act upon their desires, or they can be and do all three things. That's three, not two.

I would say that people can have homosexual inclinations and they can commit homosexual acts, but I would never accept a person's word over the facts.

Not my problem. It's not your business to define someone else's sex life for them. Particularly since these actions are typically done in privacy.

It's baffling why you do.

It's a little thing I like to call "common sense". It's so much easier and more legal than say, spying on someone to see who they are having sex with.

I'm afraid that would be an example of very poor statistical approach. The only way to study the relationship and have it mean anything is to define homosexuality as an act.

Too bad for you that you can't do that, then, eh? If it's just an "act" and not an orientation then the numbers you are using for comparison are meaningless since they are taken from people who identify "homosexuality" as more than just an act. You'd have to know the sexual habits of the entire population in astonishing detail to be able to determine who falls into this new category of "homosexuality".

 

[Zeus]

So in reality your insistence that homosexuality is defined by three things (act, inclination and self-determination) is only two things.

I would say that people can have homosexual inclinations and they can commit homosexual acts, but I would never accept a person's word over the facts.

Stripe made a valid point here. I thought I would draw attention to it as it is so rarely the case that he does on this particular topic.

The most meaningful way to identify who is homosexual is to focus on attractions rather than behavior OR self-identification. So many people have predominantly same-sex attractions, but deny that they are "gay" or "homosexual" through various rationalizations. They no longer have sex, they are heterosexually married, they (males) enjoy sports, etc. and have no wish to be hair dressers. They make the case to themselves that they are not really members of the stigmatized minority.

An interesting question is: of the same-sex oriented serial killers, what percentage denied their true sexuality in the largest more central areas of their life and what percent were well adjusted and accepting of their sexual orientation? I think, we may find that the closet, in the most extreme cases -- creates pathology and when combined with other factors might increase the tendency toward antisocial acts.

 

[Stripe]

The evidence is right there in the dictionary, Stripe. The definition for "homosexuality" deals with attraction as well as action. You're trying to cloud the issue with hypotheticals. I don't know what percentage of gays haven't had sex and neither do you. Your guess is as essentially meaningless as my own would be, nor does it change the definition of an actual word.

I do not deny that a homosexual attraction is a homosexual attraction. But it seems you've defined your third parameter out of existence. What does the dictionary say about self-determination? That is the point upon which your entire opposition rests.

A person can be inclined towards homosexuality but repress it, identify themselves as heterosexual and not act on it.

But you'd still call them a homosexual...?

A person can be inclined to homosexuality, acknowledge it and identify themselves as gay but not act upon their desires

Right. A homosexual might do that.

or they can be and do all three things. That's three, not two.

Only in your mind.

Not my problem. It's not your business to define someone else's sex life for them. Particularly since these actions are typically done in privacy.

You have completely missed the point. If someone claims to be one thing but does another then the action is what should define them.

Too bad for you that you can't do that, then, eh? If it's just an "act" and not an orientation then the numbers you are using for comparison are meaningless since they are taken from people who identify "homosexuality" as more than just an act. You'd have to know the sexual habits of the entire population in astonishing detail to be able to determine who falls into this new category of "homosexuality".

Of course you can do that! That's what this whole thread has been about!

And I already described before that comparison to homosexual rates as determined by self-identification works in favour of the homosexual.

Imagine if it were found that the vast majority of homosexuals were also liars.

 

[PlastikBuddha]

Stripe made a valid point here. I thought I would draw attention to it as it is so rarely the case that he does on this particular topic.

The most meaningful way to identify who is homosexual is to focus on attractions rather than behavior OR self-identification. So many people have predominantly same-sex attractions, but deny that they are "gay" or "homosexual" through various rationalizations. They no longer have sex, they are heterosexually married, they (males) enjoy sports, etc. and have no wish to be hair dressers. They make the case to themselves that they are not really members of the stigmatized minority.

The "down low." Which leads to my original point about the numbers being skewed which has yet to be effectively answered. How can you produce a meaningful statistical comparison between serial killers and the general population when the criteria for determining who is homoseual and who isn't. The serial killers, with the grisly details of their lives sensationalized by a morbid public, would have intimate details of their lives on display and a case can be made, plausible or implausible as each may be, that serial killer A was actually a homosexual. For the population at large it is much trickier. We have to work on the honor system and rely on whatever polls people are taking that the statistics are presumably drawn from. There's just no realistic way to determine people's sexuality without them volunteering it. There is no "gaydar".

An interesting question is: of the same-sex oriented serial killers, what percentage denied their true sexuality in the largest more central areas of their life and what percent were well adjusted and accepting of their sexual orientation? I think, we may find that the closet, in the most extreme cases -- creates pathology and when combined with other factors might increase the tendency toward antisocial acts.

Good point. Don't expect the fundies to ever acknowledge any responsibility for creating a climate that creates closets and the mental stress that goes along with them. When I lived in Texas, where gays were about as popular as gun-control advocates, I used to watch this tension explode on friday nights in frenetic feathered boas and sequins as closeted gay men and women forced by intolerance to live a lie put away their "straight selves" and power-morphed into prancing queens and diesel dykes. It was like a rubber band snapping back and forth between these seperate identities. As a gay frined of mine used to say, "closets are for clothes, honey".

 

[PlastikBuddha]

I do not deny that a homosexual attraction is a homosexual attraction. But it seems you've defined your third parameter out of existence. What does the dictionary say about self-determination? That is the point upon which your entire opposition rests.

A person determiones what they do with their attraction. They can acknowledge it or not. They can act upon it or not. They can allow it determine their sexual identity. Or not.

But you'd still call them a homosexual...?

:squint:
How could I? If they neither acted upon it nor defined themselves by it, how on earth would I know that their attraction even exists?

Right. A homosexual might do that.

Yup.

Only in your mind.

Did you read that in a fortune cookie or something? Does somebody somewhere give you a dollar every time you say that? Or do you just have no imagination?

You have completely missed the point. If someone claims to be one thing but does another then the action is what should define them.

That depends on the things in question, Stripe. If someone say he isn't a rapist but rapes someone anyways then yes- he is a rapist. If someone says he speaks chinese but then goes and says something in english it doesn't mean that he isn't a chinese speaker or even that he is an english speaker- perhaps he is just reading it phonetically. Some things are simple. Sex isn't one of them.

Of course you can do that! That's what this whole thread has been about!

It's been about a bunch of baloney. And it's been out for so long it's starting to stink.

And I already described before that comparison to homosexual rates as determined by self-identification works in favour of the homosexual.

No you didn't. You said some weird stuff that wouldn't convince a kid with a pencil stuck up his nose and dropped the subject. The whole "point" is that the percentage of homosexuals to heterosexuals in the population of serial killers (for a given ham-handed definition of homosexuals...) is significantly larger than the percentage gays to straights in the general population ("non-serial killers" we like to call 'em) . If the split in the sane camp goes up the signifcance goes down. Seriously Stripe, I'm pretty sure you can understand this.

Imagine if it were found that the vast majority of homosexuals were also liars.

The vast majority of all people are liars, Stripe. It's what we call "the human condition."

 

[Jefferson]

PlastikBuddha:

Do you warn your homosexual friends about the consequences of their destructive lifestyle? Or do you not care about them that much?

 

[PlastikBuddha]

PlastikBuddha:

Do you warn your homosexual friends about the consequences of their destructive lifestyle? Or do you not care about them that much?

I try to warn all of my friends about the consequences of their destructive lifestyles. I don't "care" so much that I invent consequences that don't exist, however. "You know, Bob, that gay lifestyle you're leading is probably going to turn you into a bloodthirsty, deranged serial killer one of these days. Cut it out now before you get that sequined hockey mask with the matching chainsaw and start chopping up frisky teens at abandoned summer camps."

 

[asrpcp.org]

You should at least be so kind to inform them that are in a perverted state called "reprobate," will become diseased, die, and go straight to Hell.linger:

 

[PlastikBuddha]

You should at least be so kind to inform them that are in a perverted state called "reprobate," will become diseased, die, and go straight to Hell.linger:

I don't use lies as a scare tactic to try to change behaviour to make homophobes more confortable. That wouldn't put a single person any closer to salvation. Salvation doesn't come from sexual orientation, it comes from Christ. :mrt::duh:

 

[asrpcp.org]

Yes, Salvation comes from Christ, and the SIN of SODOMY is a bondage that those people need SAVED FROM. :hammer:

 

[Rusha]

You should at least be so kind to inform them that are in a perverted state called "reprobate," will become diseased, die, and go straight to Hell.linger:

So sorry, I refuse to lie to other people based on your unsubstantiated opinion ...

 

[asrpcp.org]

I am not about to get back into the vileness practiced by those social vermin; things of which Paul the Apostle wrote were " a shame to even speak of...": but you really ought to look up the health statistics of the previous sort. :sheep:

 

[PlastikBuddha]

Yes, Salvation comes from Christ, and the SIN of SODOMY is a bondage that those people need SAVED FROM. :hammer:

There are a lot of sins in this world, bigot. People don't need to be saved from just of one or two, but all of them. Your prejudice is showing.

 

[Rusha]

I am not about to get back into the vileness practiced by those social vermin; things of which Paul the Apostle wrote were " a shame to even speak of...": but you really ought to look up the health statistics of the previous sort. :sheep:

Since when don't adults have a right to make choices in their lives that unhealthy?