The Homosexual Dilemma

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

You just said that the age of consent is a social overlay, so who's to say our culture is right and the culture in Saudi Arabia is wrong? What if children are ready for sex by the age of 12? Who are you to stand in the way of their love and their civil rights?

I'm arguing from a scientific viewpoint that recognizes that sexual exploitation of prebuscent children is very damaging to the child. In addition, child marriages in areas that do allow it are often very damaging to the girl - physically (because she is not mature enough for child birth), educationally (because her education stops) and she is frequently a victim of abuse. "Age of consent" is cultural in that it spans an age from 12-18 (a few have no minimum) but child advocate groups are trying to make it at least 16.

But why aren't we letting HER decide when she's mature enough? If she's old enough to have a constitutional right to an abortion without her parents' permission, isn't she old enough to decide when she's ready for sex with a 30 year old man?

Because by legal definition she isn't.

The other is an attempt to side track this into another argument.

Ah, right. The "social overlay" again.

No, this one is the legal overlay since we are, after all, arguing law

Isn't that subjective and therefore an insufficient reason to deny that 12 year old girl her 14th Amendment rights to sex with an adult?

Nope. Children have never had the same rights as adults.

And there was a time when women and blacks didn't have the same rights as men and white people. Amazing how all the Leftist arguments are backfiring. Maybe children and their adult lovers are the new Selma and Alice Paul that you're oppressing. Why are you to say their love is wrong? Why aren't their constitutional rights to asymmetrical sex being respected?

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

A tiny group does. A minority does not a slippery slope make. Westboro Baptists anyone?

It literally does... because the minority is pushing the agenda.

There is no Christian acceptance of Westboro, unanimously the Christian community rejects them OVERTLY.

Such is not the case with the mouthy, would-be minority of the Militant sect of the Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality cult.

In thread after thread, I have set forth the the request for the professed homosexuals participating in such, IF they rejected the Adult pursuit of children for sexual gratification... to this moment, I have not had a single one stand up against it.

You included...

But I sense that you're desirous to separate yourself from the pack...

Do you accept or reject the adult pursuit of children for sexual gratification?

If no, why not?

If so, on what basis do you reject it?

 

[bodecea]

I'm arguing from a scientific viewpoint that recognizes that sexual exploitation of prebuscent children is very damaging to the child. In addition, child marriages in areas that do allow it are often very damaging to the girl - physically (because she is not mature enough for child birth), educationally (because her education stops) and she is frequently a victim of abuse. "Age of consent" is cultural in that it spans an age from 12-18 (a few have no minimum) but child advocate groups are trying to make it at least 16.

But why aren't we letting HER decide when she's mature enough? If she's old enough to have a constitutional right to an abortion without her parents' permission, isn't she old enough to decide when she's ready for sex with a 30 year old man?

Because by legal definition she isn't.

The other is an attempt to side track this into another argument.

Ah, right. The "social overlay" again.

No, this one is the legal overlay since we are, after all, arguing law

Isn't that subjective and therefore an insufficient reason to deny that 12 year old girl her 14th Amendment rights to sex with an adult?

Nope. Children have never had the same rights as adults.

And there was a time when women and blacks didn't have the same rights as men and white people. Amazing how all the Leftist arguments are backfiring. Maybe children and their adult lovers are the new Selma and Alice Paul that you're oppressing. Why are you to say their love is wrong? Why aren't their constitutional rights to asymmetrical sex being respected?

Are you another one of those posters who cannot tell the difference between adult consent and minors not having that ability to legally consent?

 

[GreenBean]

..... the great majority of homosexual men also deplore Sandusky’s alleged acts. At the same time, there is a very large pedophile elephant that is hiding in the gay activist closet. Dare we expose it?

Let’s start with our children’s schools, where GLSEN, the Gay, Lesbian, and Straight, Education Network, has long advocated for the celebration of homosexual history, using tools like “North American History Game Cards,” where elementary school children learn that famous Americans like Allen Ginsberg and Walt Whitman were gay.

What the children don’t learn is that if Whitman was a homosexual, he was also a pederast, that Ginsberg was a defender of NAMBLA, the notorious North American Man Boy Love Association, and that he (in)famously said, “Attacks on NAMBLA stink of politics, witchhunting for profit, humorlessness, vanity, anger and ignorance. . . . I’m a member of NAMBLA because I love boys too — everybody does, who has a little humanity.” ..................................

From 2001-2006, Yale University’s LGBT program was greatly helped by the Larry Kramer Initiative for Lesbian and Gay Studies, named after the famous gay activist and author. Kramer too was a NAMBLA supporter, and in a 2004 speech in New York City, he spoke of a “sweet young boy who didn’t know anything and was in awe of me. I was the first man who [had sex with] him. I think I murdered him” (meaning, by infecting him with AIDS). Where is the gay outcry over this? ..............................

....gay activist attempts to reduce (or repeal!) the age of consent in different countries, including America (see, for example, the 1972 Gay Rights Platform), but the inescapable truth is clear: The gay activist closet has been opened, and the pedophile elephant is there.

Let gay activists demonstrate their categorical rejection of all forms of pedophilia and pederasty by denouncing its very obvious presence in gay history (from the ancient Greeks to Harvey Milk), by renouncing all gay attempts to lower (or eliminate) the age of consent, and by agreeing not to sexualize our children’s education.

Will they do that, or will they attack the messenger? We shall see.

The Pedophile Elephant in the Gay Activist Closet - Voice of Revolution

None of his anything to do with same sex marriage. Nice red herring though.

Yeah it does -but that's not the entire content of the last dozen posts -which dealt with NAMBLA and "Shagging a Child" and slippery slopes etc.... Nice try at deflecting though -somehow I thought you were above that .

It really doesn't. It's that slippery slope fallacy attempting to tie in gay rights with pedophihlia. NAMBLA, in case you haven't realized it, is not an "elephant" but a tiny organization that at most consisted of a few thousand. Gay actovists don't have to demonstrate a "categorical rejection" of pedophilia any more than heterosexuals do.

I wonder if the first pro gay organizations were "but a tiny organization that at most consisted of a few thousand". I'm inspired to recall the famous saying, "Don't despise small beginnings."

NAMBLA is not new, yet it remains a few thousand, at most, marginalized and unsupported by the mainstream movement. The movement for gay rights and same sex marriage has grown exponentially into the mainstream over the past 30 or more years. NAMBLA has not.

NAMBLA is just one small group , and the most well known one, and the most outspoken - there are others who engage in kiddie porn and varying phases of child molestation - all proponents of gay marriage - all who applaud your defense of them . Pederasty and homosexuality are different aspects of the same class of dementia / sexual dysphoria and pederasts are predominantly prone to homosexuality just as a disproportionate amount of homos are prone to pederasty - so why not let them get their hands on the kids - I mean wtf even pederasts have rights .

 

[hipeter924]

When you can find an infant that can actually have sex with an adult and consent to it, let me know.

But what if a child did consent to it? Who are you to tell that child their love is wrong?

It isn't love, it is taking advantage of a child below the age of consent (which is 16-18 in most states). Children below that age have underdeveloped brains, and can easily be taken advantage of or abused by adults - children can be conditioned to view their abusers behavior as normal or even acceptable but that doesn't make it right.

Then there is always Stockholm syndrome: Stockholm syndrome - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Stockholm syndrome is named after the Norrmalmstorg robbery of Kreditbanken at Norrmalmstorg in Stockholm, Sweden, in which several bank employees were held hostage in a bank vault from August 23 to 28, 1973, while their captors negotiated with police. During this standoff, the victims became emotionally attached to their captors, rejected assistance from government officials at one point, and even defended their captors after they were freed from their six-day ordeal.[6] The term was coined by the criminologist and psychiatrist Nils Bejerot as "Norrmalmstorgssyndromet" (Swedish), directly translated as The Norrmalmstorg Syndrome, but then later became known abroad as the Stockholm syndrome.[7] It was originally defined by psychiatrist Frank Ochberg to aid the management of hostage situations.[8]

So are you saying that children wanting to have sex with an adult is a mental disorder? Do you think that NAMBLA might succeed in getting that reference dropped by the APA like you guys did?

Not all child molesters are pedophiles, and even if they are pedophiles they can still be attracted to other adults.

So what are you saying..that if there's dual sexualities that's good reason to deny someone their rights?

Child abuse isn't a human right, even if the child 'likes it'.

 

[GreenBean]

None of his anything to do with same sex marriage. Nice red herring though.

Yeah it does -but that's not the entire content of the last dozen posts -which dealt with NAMBLA and "Shagging a Child" and slippery slopes etc.... Nice try at deflecting though -somehow I thought you were above that .

It really doesn't. It's that slippery slope fallacy attempting to tie in gay rights with pedophihlia. NAMBLA, in case you haven't realized it, is not an "elephant" but a tiny organization that at most consisted of a few thousand. Gay actovists don't have to demonstrate a "categorical rejection" of pedophilia any more than heterosexuals do.

I wonder if the first pro gay organizations were "but a tiny organization that at most consisted of a few thousand". I'm inspired to recall the famous saying, "Don't despise small beginnings."

NAMBLA is not new, yet it remains a few thousand, at most, marginalized and unsupported by the mainstream movement. The movement for gay rights and same sex marriage has grown exponentially into the mainstream over the past 30 or more years. NAMBLA has not.

It seems we have to go to our hetero "anti-gay marriage" members to find out info about NAMBLA. I sure as hell don't look up anything about that group.

Bodecea - long time no see - How ya been ya slimy little shitsack ?

 

[Coyote]

I'm arguing from a scientific viewpoint that recognizes that sexual exploitation of prebuscent children is very damaging to the child. In addition, child marriages in areas that do allow it are often very damaging to the girl - physically (because she is not mature enough for child birth), educationally (because her education stops) and she is frequently a victim of abuse. "Age of consent" is cultural in that it spans an age from 12-18 (a few have no minimum) but child advocate groups are trying to make it at least 16.

But why aren't we letting HER decide when she's mature enough? If she's old enough to have a constitutional right to an abortion without her parents' permission, isn't she old enough to decide when she's ready for sex with a 30 year old man?

Because by legal definition she isn't.

The other is an attempt to side track this into another argument.

Ah, right. The "social overlay" again.

No, this one is the legal overlay since we are, after all, arguing law

Isn't that subjective and therefore an insufficient reason to deny that 12 year old girl her 14th Amendment rights to sex with an adult?

Nope. Children have never had the same rights as adults.

And there was a time when women and blacks didn't have the same rights as men and white people. Amazing how all the Leftist arguments are backfiring. Maybe children and their adult lovers are the new Selma and Alice Paul that you're oppressing. Why are you to say their love is wrong? Why aren't their constitutional rights to asymmetrical sex being respected?

Children have never constitutionally had the same rights as adults. Why is that?

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

..... the great majority of homosexual men also deplore Sandusky’s alleged acts. At the same time, there is a very large pedophile elephant that is hiding in the gay activist closet. Dare we expose it?

Let’s start with our children’s schools, where GLSEN, the Gay, Lesbian, and Straight, Education Network, has long advocated for the celebration of homosexual history, using tools like “North American History Game Cards,” where elementary school children learn that famous Americans like Allen Ginsberg and Walt Whitman were gay.

What the children don’t learn is that if Whitman was a homosexual, he was also a pederast, that Ginsberg was a defender of NAMBLA, the notorious North American Man Boy Love Association, and that he (in)famously said, “Attacks on NAMBLA stink of politics, witchhunting for profit, humorlessness, vanity, anger and ignorance. . . . I’m a member of NAMBLA because I love boys too — everybody does, who has a little humanity.” ..................................

From 2001-2006, Yale University’s LGBT program was greatly helped by the Larry Kramer Initiative for Lesbian and Gay Studies, named after the famous gay activist and author. Kramer too was a NAMBLA supporter, and in a 2004 speech in New York City, he spoke of a “sweet young boy who didn’t know anything and was in awe of me. I was the first man who [had sex with] him. I think I murdered him” (meaning, by infecting him with AIDS). Where is the gay outcry over this? ..............................

....gay activist attempts to reduce (or repeal!) the age of consent in different countries, including America (see, for example, the 1972 Gay Rights Platform), but the inescapable truth is clear: The gay activist closet has been opened, and the pedophile elephant is there.

Let gay activists demonstrate their categorical rejection of all forms of pedophilia and pederasty by denouncing its very obvious presence in gay history (from the ancient Greeks to Harvey Milk), by renouncing all gay attempts to lower (or eliminate) the age of consent, and by agreeing not to sexualize our children’s education.

Will they do that, or will they attack the messenger? We shall see.

The Pedophile Elephant in the Gay Activist Closet - Voice of Revolution

None of his anything to do with same sex marriage. Nice red herring though.

Yeah it does -but that's not the entire content of the last dozen posts -which dealt with NAMBLA and "Shagging a Child" and slippery slopes etc.... Nice try at deflecting though -somehow I thought you were above that .

It really doesn't. It's that slippery slope fallacy attempting to tie in gay rights with pedophihlia. NAMBLA, in case you haven't realized it, is not an "elephant" but a tiny organization that at most consisted of a few thousand. Gay actovists don't have to demonstrate a "categorical rejection" of pedophilia any more than heterosexuals do.

I wonder if the first pro gay organizations were "but a tiny organization that at most consisted of a few thousand". I'm inspired to recall the famous saying, "Don't despise small beginnings."

NAMBLA is not new, yet it remains a few thousand, at most, marginalized and unsupported by the mainstream movement. The movement for gay rights and same sex marriage has grown exponentially into the mainstream over the past 30 or more years. NAMBLA has not.

So they're not the popular movement right now and have to wait their turn in line. Who's to say they can't use the same convoluted arguments the Left has used to find gay marriage "rights" in the Constitution? Why is their love so wrong? Maybe someday pedophobes will be the new haters, people like you who want to decide who can love who and who can marry who. What puritanical bigotry is it that drives your hate and your narrow view of morality?

 

[Carib Gyal]

There is no argument for gay marriage that doesn't apply to global plural marriage. What would be the limit on plural marriage, 20, 100, 2,000? That's as blatantly discriminatory as 2. If the government can limit marriage to mean between 2 people, it can also limit it to 2 people of the same race, and we're back to where we started.

 

[Coyote]

None of his anything to do with same sex marriage. Nice red herring though.

Yeah it does -but that's not the entire content of the last dozen posts -which dealt with NAMBLA and "Shagging a Child" and slippery slopes etc.... Nice try at deflecting though -somehow I thought you were above that .

It really doesn't. It's that slippery slope fallacy attempting to tie in gay rights with pedophihlia. NAMBLA, in case you haven't realized it, is not an "elephant" but a tiny organization that at most consisted of a few thousand. Gay actovists don't have to demonstrate a "categorical rejection" of pedophilia any more than heterosexuals do.

I wonder if the first pro gay organizations were "but a tiny organization that at most consisted of a few thousand". I'm inspired to recall the famous saying, "Don't despise small beginnings."

NAMBLA is not new, yet it remains a few thousand, at most, marginalized and unsupported by the mainstream movement. The movement for gay rights and same sex marriage has grown exponentially into the mainstream over the past 30 or more years. NAMBLA has not.

NAMBLA is just one small group , and the most well known one, and the most outspoken - there are others who engage in kiddie porn and varying phases of child molestation - all proponents of gay marriage - all who applaud your defense of them . Pederasty and homosexuality are different aspects of the same class of dementia / sexual dysphoria and pederasts are predominantly prone to homosexuality just as a disproportionate amount of homos are prone to pederasty - so why not let them get their hands on the kids - I mean wtf even pederasts have rights .

Sure. Pederasts have rights. But as another pointed out - child abuse is not one of those rights.

Homosexuality is not classified as dementia.

A "disproportionate" number of homos are prone to pederasty yet a disproportionate number of "heteros" are prone to pedophilia (far more girls are victims then boys)...is child abuse a fundamental right in your view?

 

[bodecea]

But what if a child did consent to it? Who are you to tell that child their love is wrong?

It isn't love, it is taking advantage of a child below the age of consent (which is 16-18 in most states). Children below that age have underdeveloped brains, and can easily be taken advantage of or abused by adults - children can be conditioned to view their abusers behavior as normal or even acceptable but that doesn't make it right.

Then there is always Stockholm syndrome: Stockholm syndrome - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Stockholm syndrome is named after the Norrmalmstorg robbery of Kreditbanken at Norrmalmstorg in Stockholm, Sweden, in which several bank employees were held hostage in a bank vault from August 23 to 28, 1973, while their captors negotiated with police. During this standoff, the victims became emotionally attached to their captors, rejected assistance from government officials at one point, and even defended their captors after they were freed from their six-day ordeal.[6] The term was coined by the criminologist and psychiatrist Nils Bejerot as "Norrmalmstorgssyndromet" (Swedish), directly translated as The Norrmalmstorg Syndrome, but then later became known abroad as the Stockholm syndrome.[7] It was originally defined by psychiatrist Frank Ochberg to aid the management of hostage situations.[8]

So are you saying that children wanting to have sex with an adult is a mental disorder? Do you think that NAMBLA might succeed in getting that reference dropped by the APA like you guys did?

Not all child molesters are pedophiles, and even if they are pedophiles they can still be attracted to other adults.

So what are you saying..that if there's dual sexualities that's good reason to deny someone their rights?

Child abuse isn't a human right, even if the child 'likes it'.

Exactly....that's what statutory rape is about. And I'm glad to see the age of consent going UP, not down.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

But what if a child did consent to it? Who are you to tell that child their love is wrong?

It isn't love, it is taking advantage of a child below the age of consent (which is 16-18 in most states). Children below that age have underdeveloped brains, and can easily be taken advantage of or abused by adults - children can be conditioned to view their abusers behavior as normal or even acceptable but that doesn't make it right.

Then there is always Stockholm syndrome: Stockholm syndrome - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Stockholm syndrome is named after the Norrmalmstorg robbery of Kreditbanken at Norrmalmstorg in Stockholm, Sweden, in which several bank employees were held hostage in a bank vault from August 23 to 28, 1973, while their captors negotiated with police. During this standoff, the victims became emotionally attached to their captors, rejected assistance from government officials at one point, and even defended their captors after they were freed from their six-day ordeal.[6] The term was coined by the criminologist and psychiatrist Nils Bejerot as "Norrmalmstorgssyndromet" (Swedish), directly translated as The Norrmalmstorg Syndrome, but then later became known abroad as the Stockholm syndrome.[7] It was originally defined by psychiatrist Frank Ochberg to aid the management of hostage situations.[8]

So are you saying that children wanting to have sex with an adult is a mental disorder? Do you think that NAMBLA might succeed in getting that reference dropped by the APA like you guys did?

Not all child molesters are pedophiles, and even if they are pedophiles they can still be attracted to other adults.

So what are you saying..that if there's dual sexualities that's good reason to deny someone their rights?

Child abuse isn't a human right, even if the child 'likes it'.

Your backward, narrow, religiously dogmatic views of morality will have to give way to love. Who are you to decide their love is wrong? Aren't you the guys telling us that there are different kinds of love and they're all equal? What happened that you became such a repressed pedophobe?

 

[bodecea]

Yeah it does -but that's not the entire content of the last dozen posts -which dealt with NAMBLA and "Shagging a Child" and slippery slopes etc.... Nice try at deflecting though -somehow I thought you were above that .

It really doesn't. It's that slippery slope fallacy attempting to tie in gay rights with pedophihlia. NAMBLA, in case you haven't realized it, is not an "elephant" but a tiny organization that at most consisted of a few thousand. Gay actovists don't have to demonstrate a "categorical rejection" of pedophilia any more than heterosexuals do.

I wonder if the first pro gay organizations were "but a tiny organization that at most consisted of a few thousand". I'm inspired to recall the famous saying, "Don't despise small beginnings."

NAMBLA is not new, yet it remains a few thousand, at most, marginalized and unsupported by the mainstream movement. The movement for gay rights and same sex marriage has grown exponentially into the mainstream over the past 30 or more years. NAMBLA has not.

It seems we have to go to our hetero "anti-gay marriage" members to find out info about NAMBLA. I sure as hell don't look up anything about that group.

Bodecea - long time no see - How ya been ya slimy little shitsack ?

I'm doing just fine. My wife, daughter and I had a lovely holiday.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

But why aren't we letting HER decide when she's mature enough? If she's old enough to have a constitutional right to an abortion without her parents' permission, isn't she old enough to decide when she's ready for sex with a 30 year old man?

Because by legal definition she isn't.

The other is an attempt to side track this into another argument.

Ah, right. The "social overlay" again.

No, this one is the legal overlay since we are, after all, arguing law

Isn't that subjective and therefore an insufficient reason to deny that 12 year old girl her 14th Amendment rights to sex with an adult?

Nope. Children have never had the same rights as adults.

And there was a time when women and blacks didn't have the same rights as men and white people. Amazing how all the Leftist arguments are backfiring. Maybe children and their adult lovers are the new Selma and Alice Paul that you're oppressing. Why are you to say their love is wrong? Why aren't their constitutional rights to asymmetrical sex being respected?

Are you another one of those posters who cannot tell the difference between adult consent and minors not having that ability to legally consent?

He's one of those demagogues who attempts to cloud the issue as a consequence of having lost the argument.

 

[Coyote]

None of his anything to do with same sex marriage. Nice red herring though.

Yeah it does -but that's not the entire content of the last dozen posts -which dealt with NAMBLA and "Shagging a Child" and slippery slopes etc.... Nice try at deflecting though -somehow I thought you were above that .

It really doesn't. It's that slippery slope fallacy attempting to tie in gay rights with pedophihlia. NAMBLA, in case you haven't realized it, is not an "elephant" but a tiny organization that at most consisted of a few thousand. Gay actovists don't have to demonstrate a "categorical rejection" of pedophilia any more than heterosexuals do.

I wonder if the first pro gay organizations were "but a tiny organization that at most consisted of a few thousand". I'm inspired to recall the famous saying, "Don't despise small beginnings."

NAMBLA is not new, yet it remains a few thousand, at most, marginalized and unsupported by the mainstream movement. The movement for gay rights and same sex marriage has grown exponentially into the mainstream over the past 30 or more years. NAMBLA has not.

So they're not the popular movement right now and have to wait their turn in line. Who's to say they can't use the same convoluted arguments the Left has used to find gay marriage "rights" in the Constitution? Why is their love so wrong? Maybe someday pedophobes will be the new haters, people like you who want to decide who can love who and who can marry who. What puritanical bigotry is it that drives your hate and your narrow view of morality?

Actually, NAMBLA is apparently defunct now. It couldn't even maintain it's thousand.

 

[bodecea]

It isn't love, it is taking advantage of a child below the age of consent (which is 16-18 in most states). Children below that age have underdeveloped brains, and can easily be taken advantage of or abused by adults - children can be conditioned to view their abusers behavior as normal or even acceptable but that doesn't make it right.

Then there is always Stockholm syndrome: Stockholm syndrome - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

So are you saying that children wanting to have sex with an adult is a mental disorder? Do you think that NAMBLA might succeed in getting that reference dropped by the APA like you guys did?

Not all child molesters are pedophiles, and even if they are pedophiles they can still be attracted to other adults.

So what are you saying..that if there's dual sexualities that's good reason to deny someone their rights?

Child abuse isn't a human right, even if the child 'likes it'.

Your backward, narrow, religiously dogmatic views of morality will have to give way to love. Who are you to decide their love is wrong? Aren't you the guys telling us that there are different kinds of love and they're all equal? What happened that you became such a repressed pedophobe?

Well now. Now we know.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

A tiny group does. A minority does not a slippery slope make. Westboro Baptists anyone?

It literally does... because the minority is pushing the agenda.

There is no Christian acceptance of Westboro, unanimously the Christian community rejects them OVERTLY.

Such is not the case with the mouthy, would-be minority of the Militant sect of the Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality cult.

In thread after thread, I have set forth the the request for the professed homosexuals participating in such, IF they rejected the Adult pursuit of children for sexual gratification... to this moment, I have not had a single one stand up against it.

You included...

But I sense that you're desirous to separate yourself from the pack...

Do you accept or reject the adult pursuit of children for sexual gratification?

If no, why not?

If so, on what basis do you reject it?

 

[80zephyr]

And there is no question that homosexuality is replicated in every generation. It is part of Nature and has never threatened the continuation of mankind.

Now that depends. Every other generation didn't celebrate it.

Mark

And yet here it is. Now the question you have to ask yourself is.....so what?

There are certain things that are wrong because they cause genuine harm (rape, murder, theft) and certain things that are wrong because someone believes the are (pork, gays, cheeseburgers, working on sunday). We're rational enough in this day and age to glean that homosexuality is clearly in that latter camp.

Which begs the question, why should we give a fuck? They're just people. Treat them like people and be done with it. Generally speaking, how a person gets their nut is about the least interesting thing about them.

I posted this before. The left has cheapened marriage and family by the relaxation of societal rules concerning divorce, welfare, and single motherhood. In fact, the left HAS HARMED the family unit. Will gay marriage add another nail to the coffin? I don't know, but based on the past history of change, you have no basis to state that is will cause no harm. And again, based on past history, it is highly likely that homosexual marriage will fall in the former camp of your post.

Mark

 

[GreenBean]

..... the great majority of homosexual men also deplore Sandusky’s alleged acts. At the same time, there is a very large pedophile elephant that is hiding in the gay activist closet. Dare we expose it?

Let’s start with our children’s schools, where GLSEN, the Gay, Lesbian, and Straight, Education Network, has long advocated for the celebration of homosexual history, using tools like “North American History Game Cards,” where elementary school children learn that famous Americans like Allen Ginsberg and Walt Whitman were gay.

What the children don’t learn is that if Whitman was a homosexual, he was also a pederast, that Ginsberg was a defender of NAMBLA, the notorious North American Man Boy Love Association, and that he (in)famously said, “Attacks on NAMBLA stink of politics, witchhunting for profit, humorlessness, vanity, anger and ignorance. . . . I’m a member of NAMBLA because I love boys too — everybody does, who has a little humanity.” ..................................

From 2001-2006, Yale University’s LGBT program was greatly helped by the Larry Kramer Initiative for Lesbian and Gay Studies, named after the famous gay activist and author. Kramer too was a NAMBLA supporter, and in a 2004 speech in New York City, he spoke of a “sweet young boy who didn’t know anything and was in awe of me. I was the first man who [had sex with] him. I think I murdered him” (meaning, by infecting him with AIDS). Where is the gay outcry over this? ..............................

....gay activist attempts to reduce (or repeal!) the age of consent in different countries, including America (see, for example, the 1972 Gay Rights Platform), but the inescapable truth is clear: The gay activist closet has been opened, and the pedophile elephant is there.

Let gay activists demonstrate their categorical rejection of all forms of pedophilia and pederasty by denouncing its very obvious presence in gay history (from the ancient Greeks to Harvey Milk), by renouncing all gay attempts to lower (or eliminate) the age of consent, and by agreeing not to sexualize our children’s education.

Will they do that, or will they attack the messenger? We shall see.

The Pedophile Elephant in the Gay Activist Closet - Voice of Revolution

None of his anything to do with same sex marriage. Nice red herring though.

They actually do, because they demonstrate the Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality as a movement, thus demonstrating the nature of the slippery slope, as well as how the slope more closely resembles a cliff.

Fathers, step-fathers, and family friends in heterosexual relationships are the biggest danger to children sexually. And girls are victims way more....shall you blame that on gays too?

Furthermore, children are in much greater danger of being either physically or sexually assaulted by a hetero male family member or friend than any stranger.

Those damn heteros....

Here's something interesting: List of pedophile activist organizations - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

USA

• [1]
• Childhood Sesuality Circle (CSC). Founded in 1971 in San Diego (California) by a student of Wilhelm Reich.[3] CSC closed down in the mid-1980s, when Valida Davila became too frail to continue with it.
• North American Man/Boy Love Association (NAMBLA). 1978–present. Largely defunct.
• Pedophile Information Society. Defunct?
• Project Truth. One of the organizations which was expulsed from ILGA in 1994 as a pedophile organization.[14] Defunct.
• B4U-ACT Established in 2003 as a 501(c)(3) organization in Westminster, MD. Co-founder and Board Chair, Russell A. Dick. Website, B4U-ACT

But why aren't we letting HER decide when she's mature enough? If she's old enough to have a constitutional right to an abortion without her parents' permission, isn't she old enough to decide when she's ready for sex with a 30 year old man?

Because by legal definition she isn't.

The other is an attempt to side track this into another argument.

Ah, right. The "social overlay" again.

No, this one is the legal overlay since we are, after all, arguing law

Isn't that subjective and therefore an insufficient reason to deny that 12 year old girl her 14th Amendment rights to sex with an adult?

Nope. Children have never had the same rights as adults.

And there was a time when women and blacks didn't have the same rights as men and white people. Amazing how all the Leftist arguments are backfiring. Maybe children and their adult lovers are the new Selma and Alice Paul that you're oppressing. Why are you to say their love is wrong? Why aren't their constitutional rights to asymmetrical sex being respected?

Children have never constitutionally had the same rights as adults. Why is that?

You forgot all the groups who don't advertise the fact that they are pro-pedophile. Such as GLSEN for starters

You may also recall that Mr. Obama appointed Kevin Jennings, founder of the “Gay Lesbian and Straight Education Network,” or GLSEN, to the post of “safe schools czar.” The position is now defunct, ostensibly due to national outrage over Jennings’ appointment.

In keeping with the thinly veiled goals of B4U-ACT, GLSEN seems to be “running interference” for pedophiles, having tacitly advocated adult-child sex through its “recommended reading list” for kids.


Ref: The homosexual Left 8217 s new crusade Normalizing adult-child sex Opinion LifeSite

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

So are you saying that children wanting to have sex with an adult is a mental disorder? Do you think that NAMBLA might succeed in getting that reference dropped by the APA like you guys did?

Not all child molesters are pedophiles, and even if they are pedophiles they can still be attracted to other adults.

So what are you saying..that if there's dual sexualities that's good reason to deny someone their rights?

Child abuse isn't a human right, even if the child 'likes it'.

Your backward, narrow, religiously dogmatic views of morality will have to give way to love. Who are you to decide their love is wrong? Aren't you the guys telling us that there are different kinds of love and they're all equal? What happened that you became such a repressed pedophobe?

Well now. Now we know.

That homosexuality is inextricably linked to pederasty? Yes, that's been known for many centuries.