Pedophiles are sexually attracted to children. Gay people are attracted to people of the same sex.

There seems to be a fundamental misunderstanding about this so maybe we could talk it over in a thread here on DU. Why in GD-P? Because Michele Bachmann is running for president and the issue of her husband's (and her) sexuality comes up often, and when it does, sometimes it seems like there might be some confusion about the difference between pedophiles (attracted to children) and gay people (attracted to the same sex). So it seems reasonable to talk over this issue in the forum dedicated to presidential politics.

Let's talk about the differences between being gay and being a pedophile:

Pedophilia is illegal in all 50 states and most of the rest of the world, maybe everywhere. Being gay used to be illegal in some U.S. states but it isn't anymore.

Pedophilia is bad. It's dreadful. It's never ok. It's horrible and nobody who isn't a complete pariah ever defends it. Pedophiles take advantage of children and infants, raping and molesting them. Pedophiles destroy people's lives. They are the scum of the earth. Most pedophiles attack children of the opposite gender (we could call them straight or heterosexual pedophiles but nobody bothers because nobody wants to identify with a pedophile, understandably). Some pedophiles attack children of the same gender (I suppose that they are homosexual pedophiles, but the overriding issue with them is that they are pedophiles). Again, the vast majority of pedophiles attack children of the opposite gender.

"Sexual Orientation describes an individual's enduring physical, romantic and/or emotional attraction to another person." Gay men are attracted to other men, lesbians are attracted to other women, and bisexual people can be attracted to either sex. Transgender people are those whose "gender identity and/or gender expression differs from the sex they were assigned at birth." GLAAD provides handy definitions for these and other terms: http://www.glaad.org/reference/transgender

Note that GLAAD does not talk about pedophiles. That's because being attracted to children is not part of being GLBTQ.

I'm happy to answer questions.

of pedophilia. There are rumors he's gay, but none that he's a pedophile, nor is there even the slightest evidence of that. I think (hope) that most people understand the difference.

Maybe not on DU, but in various parts of the internet I have seen posts that speculate that Marcus and/or Michele are gay and these posts often reference the foster children.

And an assumption that Michele did not want teenage boys around.

The age of consent in Minnesota, by the way, is 16. Absent the foster parent relationship, there is nothing illegal in Minnesota about consensual sex between any two persons over the age of 16.

and/or kicked their butt.

Very clearly and intelligently stated.

Recommended.

Marcus Bachmann?

The shorthand used by the religion reich gets pretty wild, quite often.

:toast:

It's interesting that whenever an adult molests a child of the opposite sex, you never hear anyone blaming it on heterosexuality.

A troll no doubt about it. Right wingers always lump the two together to get people to join in their hate-filled agenda against all gays.

Someone I know recently converted to Catholicism and I'm afraid might believe this particular spin. Anything I can use to explain the truth would be greatly appreciated.

Thank you for helping to educate and fight lies and discrimination!

K&R

Some pedophiles may have a "preference," but in reality, some are simply attracted to prepubescents, sex/gender is often not relevant, which it is one of the reasons it is not a sexual orientation. It is when persons are hebeophiles or ephebophiles, that sexual orientation becomes more relevant.

While I think the "Gay=Pedophile" mindset is abhorrent, I believe completely that Michelle Bachmann has that mindset. I have no problem believing that in her mind she was protecting Marcus from a Young Boy Honey Trap(tm) when she chose to only allow girls into the house.

The Sun newspaper in the UK, owned by Rupert Murdoch published provocative topless photos of 16 year old girls in their Page 3 feature until the SEXUAL OFFENSES ACT 2003 raised the age to 18.

Publishing similar photos today in the UK & USA would result in a long jail sentence as many teen boys have discovered by 'sexting' and have found themselves labelled 'sex offender' for life. Legally these photographs are now labelled 'child pornography".

A US citizen as Murdoch is, cannot commit a sexual offense abroad if it is illegal in the USA.

The statute of limitations for such offenses is 10 years in Delaware where New Ltd is headquartered.

Why have the FBI never investigated this matter or are these laws in the USA just for little people without power ?

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

and his stupid wife.

I wouldn't fuck either one of them :evilgrin:

She was afraid her husband might like the boys. I would imagine in her "mind" gay equates to pedophilia, or maybe she thought being around more girls might change him somehow. And then they prayed, and he got the cure. But as we all can see, he's a flame and probably liked having the girls rather than boys. But I'm not saying he is a pedophile. I'm gay, and I have no interest in children. He seems to know about prom dresses a little too much. And I believe is a gay man.