You are presenting these points as if they are from the author of the article.
None of these points are in the article.
In the article the word married is not used. Nothing about home at all. All of these points come from the second link you provided not the first article. The second link has a list of a number of things that are separate and not from the article or a book by the same author. This link is from a website from a born againer. You can tell from her description of herself that the site is rife with bias.
So therefore in the post where you criticized me for expecting you to stand behind your post and you claim this info came from a researcher.
How can I vouch for their accuracy, when I'm not the one who did the research ? However, Philip Jenkins is professor of history and religious studies at Penn State University, he wrote a book about ''The myth of the pedophile priest'' as he calls it.
Now I find out that none of this came from him. These claims are from a Father Dwight Longenecker. There are a number of problems with your post. First of all you present the points as your own. They are not. Yes you post a link to the place where you got them, but you should have put them in a quote box so that readers could see they were not you points. Then you presented info as if it came from university professor and from his book. The good father is being very deceptive in claiming that these points came from Mr. Jenkins book. I would actually call it lying. That is why I questioned your source. I see you have no idea what the original source even said. So how about you go find support for the statements made by Longenecker.
There are 2 references to ephebophilia(notice how it is spelled) in Mr. Jenkins' book. Neither says homosexuals are more prone to it. You should no better than to post crap as some sort of authoritative source.
Oh how do I know what is in the book? I did something called research.
http://www.amazon.com/...sis/dp/0195145976#reader_0195145976You might want to try it before you jump all over someone for asking for you to defend a spurious source you use.
The burden of proof is on you to show any legitimate reason to think his research is bullshit. Until then you are just showing your bias.
Gee it ain't his research you palmed off. Your post clearly showed your bias. I certainly am not showing any. All I want is facts. Go ahead and show me that the statements are backed by factual evidence. That is all I want.
PS.
Cut and pastes not put in a quote box are rarely a good idea.
Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
™ Version 4.2
