The bottom line is that like 99.9% of the population are not gay, homosexuals are a very tiny group despite how much noise they make. Nobody is concerned gay media will turn them gay, so much as they find it disgusting not being wired that way. People do not want to be grossed out in order to play a video game, watch a movie, or experience any kind of normal romantic stuff due to the requirement this also be present.
Got a number for that percentage? The one I usually hear is around 10%, which is considerable more than what you've allotted.
Ultimatly a lot of the opposition over Bioware inserting male homosexuality into these products is because it's being done out of demands of entitlement (as opposed to being intended to be there to begin with), and because while a lot of the gamers might not care what people do on their own time, they really don't want to have people waving homosexuality in their face during their escapism. It doesn't have to be intense gay porno, simply having homosexuals make passes at them and sit around pining and making it clear the option is there is enough.
Ah. So in other words, you're okay with the idea of gays...just as long as they're locked away in a closet somewhere.
That said, when it comes to the numbers, I've looked into this more than most people would be comfortable with. Both as a victim of child molestation (when I was six) myself and things I leaned during Code Adam training, etc... I've spent a lot of time looking into it and my position has waffled between a few axises over the years before settling on gays and lesbians being differant issues, and being solidly anti-gay men (which I won't go into at length here). Your correct that statistics can be made to lie, and I've made that arguement myself on certain kinds of propaganda from other sides, but when it comes to things like overall numbers you can figure out where they tend to fall pretty easily.
*sigh* So that's it, then.
Right, ask yourself a simple question: how physically different is a six year old boy and a six year old girl? Because pedophiles don't tend to pick and choose. That's the definition of pedophilia: they go after children. Gender isn't the deciding factor.
The current gay claims that like 20% to 30% of people are homosexual are bunk, even if they make for good liberal propaganda, and they go through a lot of work to make it seem like these numbers could be true.
I'd say it's a pretty terrible source of propaganda, mostly because I've never heard it before.
Even 1% would be pushing it because that's 1 out of every 100 people, which would still represent a minority too numberous to keep down this way.
Wow. You think that a 1% minority is too big to oppress?
In the Confederate States of America, the population was approximately 9 million. And around 3.5 million of those people were black slaves. Still think that 1% of a population is "too numberous to keep down"?
To put things into perspectives Jews have typically had tiny populations within the nations they have inhabited, and even being hated, they have wound up representing a substantial force within society that couldn't just be ignored, while forced into hiding at specific times, they always returned in force.
Except that Jews rose to prominence in financial areas disproportionately to their population size because they were literally forbidden (for a considerable period of time) from holding most jobs except for usury, which was "immoral," but highly profitable, and they were the only game in town.
The point is 1% is too many for things to have been "forced into the closet through fear". The Nazis made an active effort to hunt down homosexuals, and while they got bunches of them culumatively, the numbers just weren't that big compared to other minorities they were hunting down, despite some attempts nowadys to inflate it.
Yeah. It's almost as if society at the time made being openly gay a social taboo, and that homosexuality wasn't a glaringly obvious physical trait for the Nazis to identify.
Nice argument, though. Nothing quite like "If there were that many of you, the Nazis would have killed more" to spice up your argument.
One out of a thousand or ten thousand is more accurate as a ballpark because that's enough to be forced totally underground by society, even when drawing together in small groups due to similar interests. It's also fairly representitive of the numbers collected during the more effective gay purges that have been attempted. The Nazis aren't the boogie men of humanity because they sucked at hunting their targets down for example.
Do you really think that it's just as easy to identify a Jew in 1930s Europe as a homosexual in the same era? Did the idea of being a 'closeted Jew' even exist? And yes, the Nazis kind of did suck at their job as human-hunters. They assumed that all of their targets would be massive stereotypes of their demographic, and discounted the idea that a Jew could possibly appear Aryan.
Now of course, there are points that can be made in response about the amount of homosexuality recorded at specific times, such as during the twilight years of the Roman Empire. However homosexuality *IS* a medical condition tied to chemicals (as is sexual attraction in general) and the human biological system. We don't understand everything about sexuality, but we do know the basics, and why things like castration work (by removing organs that help receive and process chemical signals). Some people can be born reacting to transmissions of their own gender, or perhaps processing chemicals wrong in their brain due to other problems, and others might wind up there due to outside stimulus such as injury, enviroment, diet, etc...
I don't suppose you have an example of, for instance, someone getting concussed to the point of becoming gay? Or accidentally adopting a diet that turned them gay?
not everything is understood perfectly, but it's likely that something about the enviroment of some of these more decadent nations at the time whether it be food, some kind of disease that altered the biology, but didn't persist into modern times, or whatever could have lead to the increase in that condition to a higher point than other periods of history.
Or alternatively, when a society is openly accepting of a condition that isn't physically visible unless acted upon, a lot more people act on said condition because they have no fear of reprisal. That seems a lot more likely than ancient Romans being infected with the gay virus.
The point is there is an effort made to make it LOOK like gays are everywhere, but that's hardly the case. It's not hard to find gay people if you seek them out (given that it's no longer forced underground) but at the same time it's possible to go to pretty large gatherings of people and not have one present at all, simply by the numbers, not due to any active attempt to keep them out.
And how do you identify them, pray tell? Do you look for the people wearing neon hotpants and roller skates?
Or, possibly, did you forget that being gay doesn't add some sort of physical deformity for easy identification?
As far as Mass Effect goes, what you are talking about IS entitlement though. See if your saying that they have all of these othr sexual behaviors (hetero, alien, lesbian) they need to have gay men too, that's entitlement by definition... when you say they HAVE or NEED to be represented. What's more, by that logic your argueing that every sexual deviation NEEDS to be covered if any are going to be. In this case "deviation" is anything other than the norm, which is homosexuality of either flavor. See, to a gay man what he is, is normal, but the same can be said of someone into say scat, extreme bondage, or a furry or whatever. Saying that the gay man should be able to find appropriate content that stimulates him is like saying that there should be an option to have Kelly ride Shepard around his quarters with a riding crop for those submissives out there who can't get it off any other way, or scat play as an option added into the romantic dialogues, or getting Miranda to enter the bedroom in a Girrafe themed fursuit, or whatever.... it never ends, which is why a minority should never be considered entitled to anything, if the writers put something there so be it, if not then just let it go, leave it to them, not political demands.
Except that those aren't orientations. Those are fetishes. If you're a heterosexual male, you find women attractive. If you're a homosexual male, you find men attractive. If you're bisexual, you find both genders attractive. You don't have heterosexual men who have 'male fetishes.'
I've written some detailed posts on it with mixed responses, no need to start a fight about it. In short we don't have a "cure" for homosexuality that's viable right now, though ideally that will happen with time, and more akin to what I've posted in commentary on science fiction (ie have the condition elimited in the process of simply making people perfectly healthy) as opposed to some kind of witch hunt with people being run down and dragging off to surgey clinics or having needles stuck in their arm or anything.
...well, that's already a problem: you think that homosexuality is a condition that needs curing. That's quite the doozy to start things with.
In the short term I think gay men and lesbians need to be considered seperate issues. Men and women are differant both physically and psychologically, and this applies to homosexuals as well. Despite liberal assurances that it's not the case, the reality is that gay men ARE more likely to attack children than just about any other group.
You mean pedophiles? Because that's a separate category from homosexual. And yes, for the same reason that most rapists are male, most child molesters are also male.
Even with the statistics put out by the left wing you see you'll notice a trend to use stats compiled from all homosexuals and then applied to the arguements, once you remove the lesbians you wind up with gays being twice as likely to attack children as straight guys which kind of destroys a lot of the point. Not to mention that such statistics are compiled with an agenda and you'd only see the left wing promoting statistics that reinforced what they wanted to say.
As implied a moment earlier, heterosexual men are 9~ times more likely to commit rape than women. And unlike your example, there's no pedophilia distinction to make.
Most importantly though I've had a lot of experience with such things, both having been trained to deal with sexual predators, and having looked into it being a sex abuse victim myself (which does not invalidate anything I say).
Look, mate, if that's true, you have my condolences. Nobody should be subjected to that. But to be frank, it does color your claim that "homosexuals and pedophiles are part of the same group."
One thing you'll notice is that you just don't see lesbians attacking little girls, I mean sure, I'm sure there are exceptions where it's happened, but very rarely. When you hear about homosexual assault, who is it that does it? Gay men. That's not just bad press,
That's right: it's just hearsay.
in about a decade of working as casino security where morons leave their kids unattended off the gaming floor and don't want to pay for daycare or whatever, I have literally dealt with dozens if not hundreds of gay men trying to lure little boys, more than I've seen straight guys with little girls (and that does happen with some frequency).
So far, all I'm getting is that you can't tell that 'pedophilia' is something that goes past gender attraction.
And food for thought: how often do you see young boys wandering around unmonitored compared to young girls? Is the former higher than the latter?
I have not run into a single lesbian trying to pick up little girls... so really it's not bad press, that's how it is "on the street" so to speak from someone who was paid to look out for things like this.
Okay, let me be frank: men and women approach sex differently, especially from a physical perspective. Just keep that in mind when you're thinking about why pedophiles attack children.
Of course due to concerns over NAMBLA we had to treat the gay pedos with kid gloves, but that's a whole differant story.
I'm sorry, what? You're giving special treatment to would-be rapists because you're worried about how goddamn NAMBLA will react?
Now don't get me wrong, I don't think gay men should be arbitrarly lined up, executed, castrated, or anything else. We're not dealing with a situation where this is the case for every gay man or anything of the sort. I do however think gay men should be registered, much like sex offenders, but without the active tracking. They should be prohibited from going places around children as a matter of policy, and probably given twice the penelties as normal for violations or if they are caught trying to actually go after children. By a lack of active tracking I mean I don't think an entire neighborhood needs to be informed that so and so is gay, but I do think schools should be basically informed, and it should be attached to IDs so if say some gay guy comes into a casino and gives his ID to be allowed to gamble casino security is aware, and can also inform the guy where to stay away from (arcades, day care, etc..) to prevent accidental tresspass and similar things.
So, in the same paragraph in which you claim that you don't think that gay men should be arbitrarily punished for being gay, you propose that they be A) monitored in exactly the same way as sex offenders B) forbidden from interaction with children "as a matter of policy" C) generally forced into the public spotlight.
Hang on, so you don't plan to tell "an entire neighborhood" that someone is gay...but you'll apparently be equipping them with gay-specific IDs that are immediately detectable by schools and casinos? Wow. I hate invoking Godwin's Law, but you've taken the yellow stars into the 21st century. Your idea of not punishing gay men "arbitrarily" is by treating each and every one of them as if they were convicted sex offenders. In fact, you're treating them worse than most states treat sex offenders.
Overall while many people would object out of hand, this is an attitude that has come from long experience, and I've gone through periods where I've been more or less extreme. This seems like a pretty middle ground compromise as it presents few limitations.
I mean no hyperbole when I say that you are the worst kind of bigot imaginable, because you actually think that you're doing something morally and socially acceptable.
To be honest as a straight guy I don't hang around schools, playgrounds, arcades, etc... unless I have a good reason (like being paid security) so really being told you can't go there isn't something that is going to hamper most people unless they are up to something to begin with. It's very much one of the cases where I actually think the maxim "only the guilty should be concerned" kind of applies. Some would talk about railing against any kind of limitation, but at the same time I'd ask WTF would an adult man with allegedly no interest in kids fight for the right to go hang around a playground or children's arcade? I mean seriously.
Can't think of any reasons, hm? Let me rattle off a few:
-He could be a teacher
-He could be a maintenance worker (janitors, contractor, etc)
-He could be a volunteer worker (for afterschool programs, cafeterias, etc)
-He could be an arcade employee
-He could be a goddamn parent
But I guess I forgot: in your world, no gay man would ever have a child, even if it was from a previous relationship before coming to terms with their identity.
... and trust me, from experience, if you see some solitary guy hanging out in an arcade watching the kids there is very rarely a good reason for it. Sadly you can't do anything out of hand, but trust me, after about 10 minutes you can almost guarantee your going to have to at least step in and make your prescence known at some point (at which point the guy will almost universally go scurrying like a cockroach).
Unless he's, for instance, somebody's parent. You know, the sort of person who would be around to watch over their kid(s)?
Part of it is what they called "colored glasses" when I took Criminal Justice. Basically people remain optimistic and liberal because they never really see the world properly the way how someone who does law enforcement, "high end" security work, or receives the proper training does. See, you take the right training, watch people through cameras when they don't think they are being observed, and respond to incident after incident and write (or read) report after report, you see things as they actually are, and can recognize behaviors you once wouldn't have been alarmed by for what they are.
Oh, and I suppose you're one of the enlightened few? If you'd actually taken a criminal justice course, you'd know what 'inadmissible as evidence' means. And guess what? Hearsay falls under that category.
Criminals an predators survive because they seem normal, your child molester, shoplifter, pickpocket, stairwell rapist, mugger, or whatever doesn't look like some dude from America's most wanted. He looks like your ordinary person, and can talk a good game about being harmless. Most homosexual predators for example are EXACTLY the guy who looks like the poster child for "we're unfairly maligned, and don't attack children" they don't go walking around covered in tattoos and looking like prison rapist nightmares, or dirty old men.
...so the less a homosexual looks/acts like a pedophile, the more dangerous a pedophile he is?
Wow. You're just going off the deep end at this point.
While I'm rambling in a long post, I might as well explain how this kind of thing works as well. See, little boys are braver than girls and have immortal action and adventure fantasies in their head, they are warned, and take warnings less seriously than girls who tend to be a bit more aware of people being after them probably because people teach them more seriously.
I need a bigger facepalm for this.
Alright, let me get this straight: you're admitting, outright, that not only are young boys easier targets for pedophiles, they're more inclined to put themselves in situations where they could become targets? And you think that this has nothing to do with why pedophiles make them their targets more than they do young girls?
Your typical gay pedo is going to be some normal looking guy in his 20s or 30s, maybe even good looking, who hangs around an arcade or similar place,
So you're forbidden from entering an arcade once you exit your teenage years? Last I checked, they've got more than just Pacman in those places, and I don't think House of the Dead is aimed at preteen kids.
to see who has been left without parents or a sibling, and hasn't fallen in with another pack of kids. Or more indidiously for those carrying books,
Of course. Books! The sign of a truly ingenious pedophile! Only a child-molester would think of playing arcade games and reading within the same stretch of time!
because kids have homework and a lot of your casino parents will have the kids their kids bring the homework to the casino. Basically the pedo will probably play a few video games, offer the kid some extra quarters or something, and then when the kid runs out offer to help him with his homework. The kid probably wants to go somewhere quiet to concentrate with a flat surface so it's pretty easy to gert the kid to enter a stairwell, where the cameras tend to be aimed at the landings. The pedo gets the kid into the stairwell and then goes to do homework with him in the middle of the landing where they can sit, or the kid can *ahem* turn around and use the steps as a flat surface. In that position it's where the pedo can do his thing and unless a security officer comes by on a patrol, at the right moment your going to find the traumatized lad crying with the guy long gone. Even if you find him, because it happened between landings there won't be a great video record since the act itself took place between landings. This is assuming the guy didn't mess with the cameras and security wasn't too busy to notice (given that there are tons of them). Now granted this rarely goes down, because well. there are procedures that make it harder to get away with, but really you'd be shocked how many normal looking dudes have tried to carry out that basic plan.
Jesus tapdancing Christ, man. This reads like OJ Simpson's book that he wrote bragging about having gotten away with murder. This isn't informing the public of danger: this is issuing a 'How-To' guide for beginner pedophiles. Nice job, genius.