Defeating Gay Arguments with Simple Logic

Abiding Truth Ministries ^ | 2002 | Scott Douglas Lively

[rocknotsand]

madg: intellectual dishonesty flame

 

 

[gobsmacking hypocrisy alert]

[Bryan]

Notice how the homosexual apologist used certain tactics, such as chopping her comments out of context, then accused me of using those tactics.

Notice also how one homosexual apologist drew heavily from the websites of several others, relying on research that was proven to be methodologically unsound. And how, even after this had been proven, she still posted the flawed conclusion from one of the methodologically unsound studies:

"...the adult heterosexual male constitutes a greater risk to the underage child than does the adult homosexual male."

And when her own tactics started closing around her neck like a hangman's noose, notice how the homosexual apologist took her ball and went home.

[Bryan]

Correction: chopping my comments out of context.

[Clint N. Suhks]

… And how, even after this had been proven, she still posted the flawed conclusion from one of the methodologically unsound studies: "...the adult heterosexual male constitutes a greater risk to the underage child than does the adult homosexual male."

You mean like Jenny et al and Freund/Watson presuppose same-sex attraction doesn’t apply to pedophilia like it’s its OWN UNIQUE GENDER? So where is the line…at age 12 from the AMA or age 13 from the APA? So at 12 ½ or 13 ½ it’s same-sex attraction and at 12 or 13 it’s NOT? Not to mention Jenny wasn’t a random sample study and Freund doesn’t define the age range for his sample. To consider a bisexual [homosexual] man who has same-sex relations with youth and but “identifies” as a heterosexual is absent of homosexual pathology is laughable; common sense has left the soft sciences in place of a political agenda.