FOr the ignorant - gays vs pedos vs polygamists

[OohPooPahDoo]

I've seen the argument that if gays simply have a different sexual orientation - so do pedophiles, so we should accept them all.

That argument is completely ignorant of the concept of "consent". Minors cannot consent to sex.

I've seen the argument that if we let the gays marry we have to allow polygamy, too.

Straight men who have multiple partners are still straight men - its the same sexual orientation. Disallowing polygamy doesn't discriminate based on sexual orientation or sex - its a restriction on the number of people you may marry at once, without regard to sex or sexual orientation - so the argument is void.

EDIT - laws which restrict you from marrying siblings and cousins - again - that has nothing to do with orientation or gender.

Now shut up you gay haters.

 

[g5000]

It's very simple: If an adult chick is smoking your pole, you're cool. If an adult guy is smoking your pole, you're a pedophile.

Or something.

I don't have the necessary seven pounds of brain damage to quite get how that works.

 

[mal]

I've seen the argument that if gays simply have a different sexual orientation - so do pedophiles, so we should accept them all.

That argument is completely ignorant of the concept of "consent". Minors cannot consent to sex.

I've seen the argument that if we let the gays marry we have to allow polygamy, too.

Straight men who have multiple partners are still straight men - its the same sexual orientation. Disallowing polygamy doesn't discriminate based on sexual orientation or sex - its a restriction on the number of people you may marry at once, without regard to sex or sexual orientation - so the argument is void.



Now shut up you gay haters.

Many Liberals don't believe that the Consent Restrictions are Just...

Gays once had in their National Charter a call for the end of Consent Laws.

Liberals with Tenure @ Respected Institutions of Higher Learning have been Arguing for Years that "Adult/Child" Sex isn't always a bad thing or Harmful.

Liberals in California in recent years attempted to give 1/2 a Vote to 16 year olds and 1/4 a Vote to 14 year olds...

Liberals are always the once who are going Against Parents when it comes to "Kids Rights"... Like Expression... Abortion...

Sorry, but if a 13 year old can get an Abortion and Liberals are Advocating for that as a Right, we aren't talking about Kids are we?...

Or are we.

Would some Liberals Sympathetic the Homosexual Agenda regarding Age of Consent please come on in and Chime in?...

Especially those of you who used to March in Pride Parades before 1994 when NAMBLA was a regular Ally on the Street with you.



peace...

 

[mal]

Homosexuality: The Mental Illness That Went AwayAn alternative perspective on mental disorders | PHILIP HICKEY, PH.D.

According to the American Psychiatric Association, until 1974 homosexuality was a mental illness. Freud had alluded to homosexuality numerous times in his writings, and had concluded that paranoia and homosexuality were inseparable. Other psychiatrists wrote copiously on the subject, and homosexuality was “treated” on a wide basis. There was little or no suggestion within the psychiatric community that homosexuality might be conceptualized as anything other than a mental illness that needed to be treated. And, of course, homosexuality was listed as a mental illness in DSM-II.

Then in 1970 gay activists protested against the APA convention in San Francisco. These scenes were repeated in 1971, and as people came out of the “closet” and felt empowered politically and socially, the APA directorate became increasingly uncomfortable with their stance. In 1973 the APA’s nomenclature task force recommended that homosexuality be declared normal. The trustees were not prepared to go that far, but they did vote to remove homosexuality from the list of mental illnesses by a vote of 13 to 0, with 2 abstentions. This decision was confirmed by a vote of the APA membership, and homosexuality was no longer listed in the seventh edition of DSM-II, which was issued in 1974.

What’s noteworthy about this is that the removal of homosexuality from the list of mental illnesses was not triggered by some scientific breakthrough. There was no new fact or set of facts that stimulated this major change. Rather, it was the simple reality that gay people started to kick up a fuss. They gained a voice and began to make themselves heard. And the APA reacted with truly astonishing speed. And with good reason. They realized intuitively that a protracted battle would have drawn increasing attention to the spurious nature of their entire taxonomy. So they quickly “cut loose” the gay community and forestalled any radical scrutiny of the DSM system generally.

Also noteworthy is the fact that the vote of the membership was by no means unanimous. Only about 55% of the members who voted favored the change.

Of course, the APA put the best spin they could on these events. The fact is that they altered their taxonomy because of intense pressure from the gay community, but they claimed that the change was prompted by research findings.

So all the people who had this terrible “illness” were “cured” overnight – by a vote!
Read MOAR!:

Mental Health Diagnoses Decided by Vote, Not Discovery

And if you don't Believe this Doctor's Claims about the Protests, would you Believe Gays themselves?...

"The May 1971 Scene: A Bad Time for a Conference in Washington DC
The American Psychiatric Association (APA) held its annual convention in Washington DC during the first week of May 1971, amidst the turmoil and congestion of the MayDay antiwar demonstrations and at a time when the Gay MayDay contingent in those demonstrations had drawn large numbers of gay men and lesbians to the city. The convention was held at the Shoreham Hotel which backed up on Rock Creek Park. The scene in the city was chaotic: protestors, estimated at more than 10,000, (the remnants of an initial contingent of nearly 50,000) had spent the mornings of Monday May 3rd and Tuesday May 4th disrupting traffic, blocking roads and bridges, and trying to bring the normal business of government to a halt in protest against the Vietnam War. An even larger federal force, some 13,000, of soldiers (Marines and US Army), National Guardsmen, and police fought off the protestors. More than 10,000 were arrested. Tear gas and smoke were in the air in downtown Washington DC. The streets around the APA convention were patrolled

Following disruption by gay activists at the 1970 convention in San Francisco, the APA offered a conference panel discussion to be organized by Dr. Kameny, who invited Barbara Gittings, Jack Baker and others to participate in a discussion entitled "Lifestyles of Nonpatient Homosexuals", which ensured the panelists admittance to all of the convention's activities including the annual Convocation of Fellows."

1971: Zapping the APA Convention


The best part about this History is that at this time Gay Organizations were Directly in Line with and Marching with NAMBLA... Fact not Fiction.

It wasn't until 1994 that the Gay Community was finally "outed" regarding their Ties to NAMBLA when the ILGA was removed from the World Conference on Population and Disease for it.

Since that year, they have been Smart enough to Avoid their old Friends...

But not always:

University of Minnesota Press book challenges anxiety about pedophilia

Mark O'Keefe Newhouse News Service
Published Mar 26, 2002

Source: StarTribune.com: News, weather, sports from Minneapolis, St. Paul and Minnesota (Link has since been Purged by the Star... Of course... But I have the entire thing here)

Sex between adults and children has been a societal taboo so strong that it's considered one of our few unquestioned moral principles. But arguments have emerged in academic journals, books and online that at least some such sex should be acceptable, especially when children consent to it...

With more research, some scholars say, it may be only a matter of time before modern society accepts adult-child sex, just as it has learned to accept premarital sex and homosexual sex.

"Children are the last bastion of the old sexual morality," wrote one of the trailblazers for this view, Harris Mirkin, an associate professor of political science at the University of Missouri-Kansas City...

Mirkin, whose academic specialty is the politics of sex, wrote in a 1999 article published in The Journal of Homosexuality that society perceives youths as seduced, abused victims and not "partners or initiators or willing participants" in sex with adults, "even if they are hustlers."

In an interview, Mirkin said the outrage surrounding the Roman Catholic Church's pedophilia scandal illustrates how the public views acts of intergenerational contact as "one big blur" of child abuse when it's likely "very, very mild stuff."

"We say if someone touches or molests or diddles or whatever a kid it will ruin the rest of their life. I don't believe it. I think kids are more likely to laugh at it more than anything else -- unless the whole culture says this is the most horrible thing that can happen to you."

Mirkin is not alone in questioning whether children are harmed by sexual contact with adults. The March 2002 American Psychologist devotes its entire issue to the ongoing fallout of a journal article that did just that.

The piece, in the July 1998 issue of Psychological Bulletin, was written by Bruce Rind, then an assistant professor of psychology at Temple University; Robert Bauserman, a lecturer then with the department of psychology at the University of Michigan; and Philip Tromovitch, then pursuing a doctorate at the University of Pennsylvania.

The trio reviewed 59 studies of college students who, as children, had sexual interaction with significantly older people or were coerced into sexual activity with someone of their own age. They concluded that negative effects "were neither pervasive nor typically intense, and that men reacted much less negatively than women." It recommended that a child's "willing encounter with positive reactions" be called "adult-child sex" instead of "abuse."

A soon-to-be-released book, "Harmful to Minors: The Perils of Protecting Children From Sex," is being advertised by its publisher, University of Minnesota Press, as challenging widespread anxieties about pedophilia.

In an interview, the book's author, journalist Judith Levine, praised the Rind study as evidence that "doesn't line up with the ideology that it's always harmful for kids to have sexual relationships with adults."

She said the pedophilia among Roman Catholic priests is complicated to analyze, because it's almost always secret, considered forbidden and involves an authority figure.

She added, however, that, "yes, conceivably, absolutely" a boy's sexual experience with a priest could be positive."...

You can read MOAR at the link under the headline.

Of course I will be Attacked for Observing what is... But what I have Posted is 100% True.

And if you Doubt for a Minute that the Pedo's are the Gays of the 50's and 60's right now to the Gay Community, then you are kidding yourselves.

The ONLY Reason most of them Distances themselves from NAMBLA and the others is because they got Caught and it Harmed their own Agenda.

History is what it is... If you want to be Angry about History then so be it.

I'm just an Observer.



peace...

^For reference.



peace...

 

[mal]

It's very simple: If an adult chick is smoking your pole, you're cool. If an adult guy is smoking your pole, you're a pedophile.

Or something.

I don't have the necessary seven pounds of brain damage to quite get how that works.

Do you Support Laws that Criminalize two Consenting Aged Brothers smoking each other's Poles?...

And if so, why?...



peace...

 

[g5000]

Gays once had in their National Charter a call for the end of Consent Laws.

Gays have a National Charter? Do they have to pay dues to be gay?



How come we heteros don't have a National Charter? Can you even be legally straight if you don't have a Charter?

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Many Liberals don't believe that the Consent Restrictions are Just...

And do they have names?

Gays once had in their National Charter a call for the end of Consent Laws.

OMG you really are an idiot.

Liberals with Tenure @ Respected Institutions of Higher Learning have been Arguing for Years that "Adult/Child" Sex isn't always a bad thing or Harmful.

THey also must not have names.

Liberals in California in recent years attempted to give 1/2 a Vote to 16 year olds and 1/4 a Vote to 14 year olds..

Who gives a shit?

Sorry, but if a 13 year old can get an Abortion and Liberals are Advocating for that as a Right, we aren't talking about Kids are we?...

I'm not really getting your logic.


You're quite obviously intoxicated.

 

[bodecea]

I've seen the argument that if gays simply have a different sexual orientation - so do pedophiles, so we should accept them all.

That argument is completely ignorant of the concept of "consent". Minors cannot consent to sex.

I've seen the argument that if we let the gays marry we have to allow polygamy, too.

Straight men who have multiple partners are still straight men - its the same sexual orientation. Disallowing polygamy doesn't discriminate based on sexual orientation or sex - its a restriction on the number of people you may marry at once, without regard to sex or sexual orientation - so the argument is void.



Now shut up you gay haters.

It is frightening to see posters here who cannot tell the difference between consent between adults and lack of consent with children. Very frightening.

 

[martybegan]

I've seen the argument that if gays simply have a different sexual orientation - so do pedophiles, so we should accept them all.

That argument is completely ignorant of the concept of "consent". Minors cannot consent to sex.

I've seen the argument that if we let the gays marry we have to allow polygamy, too.

Straight men who have multiple partners are still straight men - its the same sexual orientation. Disallowing polygamy doesn't discriminate based on sexual orientation or sex - its a restriction on the number of people you may marry at once, without regard to sex or sexual orientation - so the argument is void.



Now shut up you gay haters.

That is based on the assumption that who you like to bugger somehow makes you a protected class.

 

[g5000]

It's very simple: If an adult chick is smoking your pole, you're cool. If an adult guy is smoking your pole, you're a pedophile.

Or something.

I don't have the necessary seven pounds of brain damage to quite get how that works.

Do you Support Laws that Criminalize two Consenting Aged Brothers smoking each other's Poles?...

And if so, why?...



peace...

I support laws which ban incest. In the aggregate, incest is a provable social harm.

 

[mal]

It's very simple: If an adult chick is smoking your pole, you're cool. If an adult guy is smoking your pole, you're a pedophile.

Or something.

I don't have the necessary seven pounds of brain damage to quite get how that works.

Do you Support Laws that Criminalize two Consenting Aged Brothers smoking each other's Poles?...

And if so, why?...



peace...

I support laws which ban incest. In the aggregate, incest is a provable social harm.

What harm do two same sex consenting adults do in having sex with each other?...

Explain?



peace...

 

[martybegan]

It's very simple: If an adult chick is smoking your pole, you're cool. If an adult guy is smoking your pole, you're a pedophile.

Or something.

I don't have the necessary seven pounds of brain damage to quite get how that works.

Do you Support Laws that Criminalize two Consenting Aged Brothers smoking each other's Poles?...

And if so, why?...



peace...

I support laws which ban incest. In the aggregate, incest is a provable social harm.

So what would you support if, say in 20-30 years, it turns out that allowing same sex couples to raise children results in a provable social harm? If all the kids turn out to be fucking mental?

 

[g5000]

So what would you support if, say in 20-30 years, it turns out that allowing same sex couples to raise children results in a provable social harm? If all the kids turn out to be fucking mental?

Are you wishfully thinking?

Mental how? You mean like believing that being gay is okay? Is that your idea of "fucking mental"?

 

[mal]

Many Liberals don't believe that the Consent Restrictions are Just...

And do they have names?

Gays once had in their National Charter a call for the end of Consent Laws.

OMG you really are an idiot.



THey also must not have names.

Liberals in California in recent years attempted to give 1/2 a Vote to 16 year olds and 1/4 a Vote to 14 year olds..

Who gives a shit?

Sorry, but if a 13 year old can get an Abortion and Liberals are Advocating for that as a Right, we aren't talking about Kids are we?...

I'm not really getting your logic.


You're quite obviously intoxicated.

Scholar's Pedophilia Essay Stirs Outrage and Revenge - NYTimes.com

He said he resented that teachers were leery of hugging children for fear they might be accused of abuse. He imagines, he said, most adolescent males have fantasies similar to his, as a 12-year-old delivery boy, of being seduced by a female customer, and he wondered whether it would have been so bad had it come true.

In the article, an 18-page essay with 38 footnotes published in the Journal of Homosexuality, Dr. Mirkin argued that the notion of the innocent child was a social construct, that all intergenerational sex should not be lumped into one ugly pile and that the panic over pedophilia fit a pattern of public response to female sexuality and homosexuality, both of which were once considered deviant.

"Though Americans consider intergenerational sex to be evil, it has been permissible or obligatory in many cultures and periods of history," he wrote.

^Mirkin was Praised by his Colleagues and his College at the time of his Death.

Dr. Mirkin, the chairman of the political science department at the University of Missouri's Kansas City...



peace...

 

[g5000]

I've seen the argument that if gays simply have a different sexual orientation - so do pedophiles, so we should accept them all.

That argument is completely ignorant of the concept of "consent". Minors cannot consent to sex.

I've seen the argument that if we let the gays marry we have to allow polygamy, too.

Straight men who have multiple partners are still straight men - its the same sexual orientation. Disallowing polygamy doesn't discriminate based on sexual orientation or sex - its a restriction on the number of people you may marry at once, without regard to sex or sexual orientation - so the argument is void.



Now shut up you gay haters.

That is based on the assumption that who you like to bugger somehow makes you a protected class.

It's a belief that the state's issuance of privileges to marriage should not discriminate based on gender. Why are you obsessing over what adult married people do in their bedroom?

 

[Peach]

I have posted academic studies on the issue, gay men are no more, or less, likely to be pedophiles:

Are Children at Risk for Sexual Abuse by Homosexuals?

 

[mal]

There are plenty of other Liberals in the first link I posted in the Tribune's story.



peace...

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

So what would you support if, say in 20-30 years, it turns out that allowing same sex couples to raise children results in a provable social harm? If all the kids turn out to be fucking mental?

What would you support, if say, in 20-30 seconds ,it turns out that allowing total idiots like yourself to post only results in provable social harm?

 

[bodecea]

Do you Support Laws that Criminalize two Consenting Aged Brothers smoking each other's Poles?...

And if so, why?...



peace...

I support laws which ban incest. In the aggregate, incest is a provable social harm.

So what would you support if, say in 20-30 years, it turns out that allowing same sex couples to raise children results in a provable social harm? If all the kids turn out to be fucking mental?

Is that the case with all the children raised by gay parents now?

 

[martybegan]

I've seen the argument that if gays simply have a different sexual orientation - so do pedophiles, so we should accept them all.

That argument is completely ignorant of the concept of "consent". Minors cannot consent to sex.

I've seen the argument that if we let the gays marry we have to allow polygamy, too.

Straight men who have multiple partners are still straight men - its the same sexual orientation. Disallowing polygamy doesn't discriminate based on sexual orientation or sex - its a restriction on the number of people you may marry at once, without regard to sex or sexual orientation - so the argument is void.



Now shut up you gay haters.

That is based on the assumption that who you like to bugger somehow makes you a protected class.

It's a belief that the state's issuance of privileges to marriage should not discriminate based on gender. Why are you obsessing over what adult married people do in their bedroom?

Read "he who must (recently) not be named " original post, that's what I am responding to.

And i always thought what happens in a bedroom isn't at issue here. Its the state and thus the people being forced by judges to accept same sex marriage via fiat, and not via the legislative process. That at least, is my problem with it.