NationStates Jolt Archive

Originally Posted by Salishe
Granted..there is no way we could confirm that assertion..then again it can not be disproved..in the absence of any evidence that indicates it traveled to the heterosexual community first I must concur that it originated within the homosexual community via the original bestiality communication.

actually, they think that someone was either bitten by or ate an infected chimp. no one had sex with a chimp.

Yes: those children would suffer tremendously under their homosexual foster parents and the normal reaction of the environment to this "family". So: don´t use poor children as guiny pigs for the gay lobby.First off, apologies because people have already stated what I stated in replies a few times, and I was a bit behind and mis-informed. Ignore most of them.

On to this though. This is ridiculous. Two loving parents, regardless of their sexual orientation are much better than an orphanage setting. I'm not saying that we need to empty out the orphanages and give them all to gay couples, but we should not be putting perfectly adoptable children into these things when people who will love them and raise them well are waiting to embrace them. Orphanages do not help children grow. They do not love, nurture, or in any way better them.

And gay people have been adopting children for a while now. This wouldn't be a new 'experiment'. They've been growing up normal, and functioning fine. Just like children from single parent families, they don't need to have both sexes inputs when growing up. And if you believe those that don't grow up this way are flawed, I'd be a little confused, seeing as you already stated that are from a single parent home, or something like that.

Kybernetia suffers from some kind of wacky logic disease.

In most western democracies (and many other countries), there is clearly-delineated difference between church and state. No one has ever suggested infringing on the religious definition of marriage (except some religious groups, but that can hardly be considered state interference!), but in terms of the secular, legal, state definition of marriage, it is unethical to deny to a segment of the population the rights and priviliges that accompany legal marriage for reasons of sexual orientation, just as it is unethical to deny homosexuals well-payng jobs, university places, or places on teams because of their lifestyle. That's just one reason.

Besides, it's usually the job of the person attempting to curtail certain citizens rights (or in this case, perpertuate a standing curtailment) to justify their position. Not the other way around.

If you are against gay marriage and think it is wrong, well everyone is entitled to their own opinion, naturally...but why should the government be the one to decide whether it should happen or not? Why not let people marry who they want? Will the government be made accountable for these "sins," and should the government be deciding what is right and wrong using the Bible in a country where everyone has the right to worship as they please and not everyone chooses to use the Bible?

Yes: those children would suffer tremendously under their homosexual foster parents and the normal reaction of the environment to this "family". So: don´t use poor children as guiny pigs for the gay lobby.


http://www.wackyweaselworld.com/flameINC/images/FU4.jpg

You're now being ignored. Congratulations on being the first!

If you are against gay marriage and think it is wrong, well everyone is entitled to their own opinion, naturally...but why should the government be the one to decide whether it should happen or not? Why not let people marry who they want? Will the government be made accountable for these "sins," and should the government be deciding what is right and wrong using the Bible in a country where everyone has the right to worship as they please and not everyone chooses to use the Bible?
Sure, in a perfect world.

But, last I checked, this is by no means a perfect world.

Until we can ALL accept the beliefs of others, such ideals will be as far out of our reach as the outer boundaries of the known universe.

Cherokee, huh? Then you MUST know something of the winkte?? And you must know that, in your original culture, before Westerners poisoned it...that transgender people such as myself were actually REVERED...we were the herbalists and healers, the siritual advisers...because we were possessed of the ability to see both sides.

Oh..I've known of "two-spirit" people...but that does not..and had never meant that our people endorsed homosexual marriage....and in my tribe, the Aniwodi or Paint Clan, our sorcerers, healers, and sages it was not necessarily made of homosexuals, but primarily women.

Oh..I've known of "two-spirit" people...but that does not..and had never meant that our people endorsed homosexual marriage....and in my tribe, the Aniwodi or Paint Clan, our sorcerers, healers, and sages it was not necessarily made of homosexuals, but primarily women.
Diversity is a wonderful thing. :D

NO IT DOESN'T. please, morons, read your dictionaries. Homophobia is defined as "the fear OR CONTEMPT FOR homosexuals and/or homosexuality."

if you do not respect homosexuality enough to support equal rights for all citizens then you are showing contempt. you are, thus, a homophobe. PLEASE LEARN ABOUT THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE, AND THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A ROOT WORD AND A CURRENT DEFINITION.


All the stupid people squabble over WORDS. If you don't understand what someone means then it is important to get clarification for high fidelity purposes. If you know what they are saying then fuck off and don't worry. A sign of intelligence is not to be able to point out someone else’s mistakes, but to understand them and discuss anything on the level at which they are capable of. So what you know stupid words like vernacular, or cystitis, fuck you fuck me, we all are one with the world. By the way, the argument is not even an intelligent one, because homophobia is a word that is modified by vernaculars, so which dictionary do you want to use? One from 1923 where ain't ain't a word, or a modern one where it is? Does it matter? If so why? Get a nut get a life and think for a change.
We waste so much crap on useless crap and trying to flex our weak brains to show how brilliant we really are, when you mesa wish you could be losers stop fighting and start learning perhaps we can chat on a truly intellectual level.

I will never understand why people argue over issues that are unimportant, while they sit on their ass and let corporations fuck them in the ass and do nothing about it. Turn off the boob tube and do something to improve your life, read a book, learn something, help your neighbors, volunteer, get a job, whatever floats your boat, but by all means get a life.

Marriage: By the only definition I see as valuable to this debate, a position that two people take to profess their devotion to one another.

The real issue, should gay couples that are already married in spirit be allowed benefits that are given to others. Why the fuck not, we give it to welfare women that don't do anything but sit on their ass, drug dealers that give our children a variety of choices in mental states, confessed murderers are even allowed to be married, so if we really want to claim it is special then why can the worst denizens of humanity get married? Whether you accept gays or not does it fucking matter, fight for a real cause like should drug users be allowed to make legal choices being that they are in altered brain states much of the time. Or should stupid rednecks be allowed to fuck their sheep.

Either the world has gone mad, or I am just delusional.

:fluffle: see even here they got gay smilies making out.... :eek: What you though it was a bald chick, think again!

p.s. I do not have anything against people on wellfare, only those that do not try to improve their situation and just use the system to be lazy. I DO NOT believe that people on wellfare should be allowed to have more children, but thats another topic AIN'T it :D.

Diversity is a wonderful thing. :D


diversity is NOT a wonderfull thing. on paper it looks great but it starts conflict and anger. people don't like things to be different. especially things regarding religion. the bible clearly groups homosexuality with many other evils, and in america (a christian country if you guys are old enough to remember) saying something like "gay mairage is good".... or "adaultry is a beautifull thing" people will get angry with that and anybody that doesn't isn't a christian.

Let's all hold hands, brothers and sisters... We are all the same on the inside. We all bleed red; we all cry; we all laugh. We all have feelings and opinions. Let's just forget what we have learned and just embrace humanity. Our genders are irrelevant; our preferences are just who we are.

:fluffle: :fluffle: :fluffle: :fluffle: :fluffle: :fluffle:

Now, hug the person beside you!

diversity is NOT a wonderfull thing. on paper it looks great but it starts conflict and anger. people don't like things to be different. especially things regarding religion. the bible clearly groups homosexuality with many other evils, and in america (a christian country if you guys are old enough to remember) saying something like "gay mairage is good".... or "adaultry is a beautifull thing" people will get angry with that and anybody that doesn't isn't a christian.
No it doesn't. Ignorance people start conflicts. People who let old hatred blind them; people who let religion dictate their lives; people who don't open up their minds are hearts start conflicts.

Canada, for example, is a rich tapestry of culture and religion. We can live in harmony. Diversity just means we aren't all the same; we don't share the same religious beliefs and we come from other parts of the world. It is a way of sharing something you have that others don't.

"Gay marriage" isn't good; it's a right. And calling it "gay" marriage is just another of alienating a group of people, who are just as hard working as everyone else.

And, I for one am not Christian. I am a secularist. I believe in such strange things as human rights; tax relief for the poor; universal health, free education, equal marriage; equality in the work place and other strange foreign concepts.

:fluffle: :fluffle: :fluffle: :fluffle: :fluffle: :fluffle: :fluffle: :fluffle: :fluffle: see? They don't care! They love each other!! Gender doesn't matter!

My problem with people (and this is from a heterosexuals standpoint) opposing gay marriage is that they have no business doing so. What people do in the privacy in their own home is their own business. When you say that it affects you and your community you are lying. Just because a gay couple lives next door doesn;t mean you are going to be gay as well.

My problem with people (and this is from a heterosexuals standpoint) opposing gay marriage is that they have no business doing so. What people do in the privacy in their own home is their own business. When you say that it affects you and your community you are lying. Just because a gay couple lives next door doesn;t mean you are going to be gay as well.
:eek: I don't believe it! Someone who has common sense!

:eek: I don't believe it! Someone who has common sense!

Thanks. If only people in America could be as open minded as the ones in Canada.

diversity is NOT a wonderfull thing. ... and in america (a christian country ...


Your right, diversity sucks. Lets get rid of it, no one can worship any god, no one can have thoughts, everyone must cut their hair the same, everyone must have the same job. Everyone must eat the same foods for every meal. Lets just make the world a peaceful place where everyone is exactly the same. Ofcourse this means that no one can play baseball because no one can be on a different team and everyone must be pitching at the same time, but thats ok right?
Get a brain fool, diversity is life, without it there is nothing. Even rocks are different from one another.

The US is also not a christian country, France is a country that extends a defined diety but the US does not claim any religion. The US is 75% christian and that is down 10% from 1990 and 4 years old (2000 data), so I would guess in 2010 it will be around 50% at best, so what then, you going to follow the dominant religion?
Secondly, many christians don't read their bible, instead they are lazy and let their minister read it, who skips sections and pursuades you to think the way they want you too. I can do the same thing if I wanted and make it appear that you should kill your first born son as it appears several times in the bible and thus is god's will that you do so. Reading a book by jumping around and taking a sentence out of context is a great way to skew truth. After all human sacrifice is the only way to appease the christian god right?


I really hate christian bashing, or for that matter prejudice, but sometimes you gotta smack em in the face just to get their attention.

As another thought, many of my friends are christians, and we get along wonderfully, many of my friends are gay (I am straight). I even lived with a gay man for 7 years, guess what I am still straight. Amazing eah?

The problem is that Christians try to force their beliefs on other people. In the US, a free and SECULAR country (remember the separation of church and state?) people are free to do what they choose. If you want everyone to conform to your beliefs, move somewhere else.

Kybernetia suffers from some kind of wacky logic disease.
its called i-am-right-itus

I'm not sure if anyone mentioned this earlier, but I want to add this:
A lot of people have said that Christianity forbids homosexuality and same-sex marriage. This brings up a weird question: Which christianity?
There are over 1,000 christian denominations in North America (citing religioustolerance.org) each with their own interpretation of the Bible, and not all of them consider homosexuality a sin. Even some individual congregations within anti-gay churches don't even consider it a sin.
Sure, you can just label those churches "liberal" or you can argue that those churches are not real churches (compared to your conservative churches). Then again, the liberal churches can argue that the conservatives don't know the true spirit of Christ, and then it degenerates into "My-church-is-holier-than-yours" trash. With his matter, it becomes more than just a civil-rights issue; it's also a freedom-of-worship issue. Which Christianity does the government endorse?

The problem is that Christians try to force their beliefs on other people. In the US, a free and SECULAR country (remember the separation of church and state?) people are free to do what they choose. If you want everyone to conform to your beliefs, move somewhere else.

I agree and disagree. I don't think it is christians per se that force their beliefs on others, it is the masses. My grandfather was very high up in a christian religion, he was the only one that accepted me from that side of my family for the longest time. I think it is people that have not gotten out and seen the world.
My advice, join the peace core, military or something and travel, see the world, realize that no matter who you are your in the minority in reguards to something.
Moving somewhere else will just show people that no one conforms to their belief, not even the Amish (Some actually use a little technology, :eek: God forbid).
I think the biggest problem is that there are so many people with simular beliefs that they don't know how to deal when someone sees things differently. With the internet and everything going on this will change for the next few generations but many people still come from sheltered pasts.

My family have all gotten used to my difference and accept that I do not believe in god, it just took them knowing that I was still nice, kind and loving (Usually :D). This is why travel makes people see, as long as they allow themselves to look around.

Thanks. If only people in America could be as open minded as the ones in Canada.

Just as a sarcastic remark, is Canada not in America? Hmmm, interesting.

Btw, since Hawaii is not part of America, can we still call it the United States of America?

Or should we change it to The United States of America and a bunch of Islands.
Perhaps it would be easier to allow Hawaii to seperate from the US?

I agree completely that it is important to experience other cultures and travel, but fron my perspective, in America, a country run by Protestants (think, all our presidents except one have been protestant), especially with Bush who thinks he is doing Gods will by restricting gay rights, that it is partly our religion which keeps us from this. And by no means do I oppose organized religion. I believe in God, and I believe in worship, but sometimes our values are held too strong to let us accept the values of others.

Oh..I've known of "two-spirit" people...but that does not..and had never meant that our people endorsed homosexual marriage....and in my tribe, the Aniwodi or Paint Clan, our sorcerers, healers, and sages it was not necessarily made of homosexuals, but primarily women.

Yes. And the "two-spirit people" who are more commonly known as transgender today. And were known as "winkte" in your culture, I believe.

I am not homosexual, by the way. I'm asexual. I DO NOT WANT SEX WITH ANYONE OR ANYTHING. I have ZERO sex drive. But I AM transgendered.
Yes, I began life, anatomically, anyway, on the other team. I'm on the better team now. I demanded a trade. I got it, thanks to modern medicine, the airplane, and a wonderful place called Bankok, Thailand!

Just as a sarcastic remark, is Canada not in America? Hmmm, interesting.

Btw, since Hawaii is not part of America, can we still call it the United States of America?

Or should we change it to The United States of America and a bunch of Islands.
Perhaps it would be easier to allow Hawaii to seperate from the US?

Dude I dunno. Hawwaii never should have been ours from the first place, we took power from the natives. But at any rate, we should call it the united states of america*

*with friends

[QUOTE=Labrador]
I am not homosexual, by the way. I'm asexual. I DO NOT WANT SEX WITH ANYONE OR ANYTHING. I have ZERO sex drive. QUOTE]

I refuse to believe that. We all have a sex drive, its our basest instinct. If you refuse to accept it thats a shame.

diversity is NOT a wonderfull thing. on paper it looks great but it starts conflict and anger. people don't like things to be different. especially things regarding religion. the bible clearly groups homosexuality with many other evils, and in america (a christian country if you guys are old enough to remember) saying something like "gay mairage is good".... or "adaultry is a beautifull thing" people will get angry with that and anybody that doesn't isn't a christian.

Ten posts, and already you have made my Ignore list. A new record!!

I agree completely that it is important to experience other cultures and travel, but fron my perspective, in America, a country run by Protestants (think, all our presidents except one have been protestant), especially with Bush who thinks he is doing Gods will by restricting gay rights, that it is partly our religion which keeps us from this. And by no means do I oppose organized religion. I believe in God, and I believe in worship, but sometimes our values are held too strong to let us accept the values of others.
Gerald Ford was a Unitarian Universalist!!

Only President to share MY religion!! Wooot!!

[QUOTE=Labrador]
I am not homosexual, by the way. I'm asexual. I DO NOT WANT SEX WITH ANYONE OR ANYTHING. I have ZERO sex drive. QUOTE]

I refuse to believe that. We all have a sex drive, its our basest instinct. If you refuse to accept it thats a shame.

Nope. I have no sex drive. Couldn't care less.

Maybe YOU were never sexually abused as a child as I was. I suspect my asexual nature arises from that. In fact, not only am I asexual...but I AM IN FACT REPULSED by the idea of sex. Again, I suspect this stems from being sexually abused as a child.

I agree completely that it is important to experience other cultures and travel, but fron my perspective, in America, a country run by Protestants (think, all our presidents except one have been protestant), especially with Bush who thinks he is doing Gods will by restricting gay rights, that it is partly our religion which keeps us from this. And by no means do I oppose organized religion. I believe in God, and I believe in worship, but sometimes our values are held too strong to let us accept the values of others.

Well, I can't say that America is based on a religion, though many times through its history religion somehow snuck into politics (way too often). I don't believe in God personally because of several philosophical arguments presented, or at least not the way christians claim him/her/it to be, but I do believe in the right for people to worship who they wish, as long as it does not harm another's rights to do the same or cause physical harm to others. If a bunch of people think mass suicide is the answer, who am I to say no? But if they think sacrificing someone outside their religion, a very important line has been crossed. I truely wish as you do that people would allow others to think differently.

I also wish christians would follow the wisdom in the bible that states not to judge others, yet many feel strongly that it is their responcibility to ensure others do what they think to be right. If god wanted us to be controlled he would not have given us free will. Look at plants, can they choose whether or not they want to be planted in the north wall or the south wall? I truly don't know so claiming they can is fine by me, though my belief is they do not, it doesn't hurt me if you think they can.

I have a personal belief that it is only when people are afraid of their thoughts that they wish to make such laws, perhaps the people so dead set against it are actually trying to hide their gay feelings, perhaps they are afraid they married some closet case homosexual, or perhaps they are afraid because their son plays with barbies.

Tyranny is defined as oppressive power, does anyone else find this odd that so many US laws are made to do just that?

Nope. I have no sex drive. Couldn't care less.

Maybe YOU were never sexually abused as a child as I was. I suspect my asexual nature arises from that. In fact, not only am I asexual...but I AM IN FACT REPULSED by the idea of sex. Again, I suspect this stems from being sexually abused as a child.

Well, in a world full of oddities this I do know. People respond differently to different things. But also to note you are not alone, several people do not have a sex drive for a variety of reasons. I absolutely love pathology, and one thing that has always facinated me is how hormones and glandular deformations effect us. From Giantism to Lactating men. One thing I have always learned was to never claim the absolute or disbelieve people when they state odd sounding statements.

As a note to the person that did not believe you, I strongly suggest reading up on glandular pathologies, you may just find how simple and common a lack of a sex drive can be and thats not taking in things outside of glands, the world of mental pathologies is much more complex, DNA abnormalities, and the list goes on.

Flooding guys sorry.
My last post made me think of something.

Some men are born XX chromosomes. Some women are XY, at what level do we really want to call male/female? If a female is XY (Thus genetically male), should she be allowed to marry an XX woman? What about an XX guy, can they marry an XX woman, or would that be considered gay?

My simple point is are we truely educated enough as a population to say what is right and what is wrong? When our own bodies may claim us to be one thing yet DNA states we are something else? What do we base this on? What about the abnormal people that somehow got caught in the middle, who can they marry?

If someone can give me a scientific explination that is sound in logic, reasoning and follows all laws of the scientific method to define both what sex is and marriage is, then define scientifically why one should be limited on why they choose to marry, I will accept the limit based on the laws of science, but only under ethical scientific research (Meaning scientific methods and truths were followed without random assumptions and skewed statistical data).

Bloody hell! 10 pages of posts in a day. I thought my rabits were prolific!

I'm not going to try to wade through all the posts, so I am going to put up some points that I didn't see. Several I wanted to make have been made (several times in a lot of cases) so I won't bother with them.

As far as homosexuality being unnatural: I would have to say that Nature disagrees with you. There have been many incidences of animals (you know those creatures that God made that are neither good nor evil and thus behave naturally) forming homosexual pairs or engaging in homosexual sex. Now this is not the norm, but the norm is not the all encompasing. Nature does intend for the MAJORITY to be hetrosexual, else the population would eventually fail. But again it does occur in nature.

as far as what is best for the children: Yes studies have shown the the OPTIMUM for children is to be raised by both a male and a female. Preferably the natural mother and father. However, studies have also shown that a vast majority of children raised outside of this model have grown up to be perfectly normal, contributing to society. There is no statistical diffrence between children raised by natural hetrosexual parents and those raised by non natural hetrosexual (this ranges from one being a step parent to adoptive straight parents to single parents to gay couples) going on to be come non productive members of society. Since the optium is not always possible, there is no reason that a child should not be given a chance in another type of home.

No one can say that God or the gods or whatever is a construct of man. Ok you can say it, but there is no proof one way or the other. Thus is the basis of faith. While we can prove it to ourselves, and others in turn might accept that basis, there is no way to present hard evidance for or against the exsistance of Dieties. Especailly with the miryad (sp?) of descriptions of what He/She/They is/are. You may think you're right but face it, you're human and all humans have the capacity to be wrong.

Finally, homosexual marriages have been going on for years! The only thing is they have never been reconized nor even reported to the government (speaking strictly US here and prior to the Mass. bruha). I can go to a judge and get a marriage licence and get married to a woman. The church might not reconize that marriage, some more especially then others. On the flip side, I go to my minister and have him perform the ceramony to marry my lady and myself. But unless I do the paperwork, the government won't reconize the marriage. Thus you must always specifiy which type you are refering to, religious or civil, when discussing marriage. They do not necessarily, although they typically do, go hand in hand.

On to this though. This is ridiculous. Two loving parents, regardless of their sexual orientation are much better than an orphanage setting. I'm not saying that we need to empty out the orphanages and give them all to gay couples, but we should not be putting perfectly adoptable children into these things when people who will love them and raise them well are waiting to embrace them. Orphanages do not help children grow. They do not love, nurture, or in any way better them.
.
I don´t know the quality of orphanages in your country - they may differ. But that would be a reason to improve their quality and not a reason for allowing gays to adopt children. They would suffer tremendously under their normal environment and the other children who wouldn´t understand and accept the child of queers.
So it is in the best interest of the child - and that is the important point - not to be brought in such a situation.

the other children who wouldn´t understand and accept the child of queers.

Wouldn't it be better to educate people so that the 'children of queers' could BE accepted? Rather than say "Oh, society won't like them, so instead of change society, let's bury our heads in the sand"?

Wouldn't it be better to educate people so that the 'children of queers' could BE accepted? Rather than say "Oh, society won't like them, so instead of change society, let's bury our heads in the sand"?

NO! NEVER! GAYS ARE BAAAAD! I think it serves the Religious right's interests better to keep society divided.

Quite simply, as the NationStates issues suggest:

Think of the children!

diversity is NOT a wonderfull thing. on paper it looks great but it starts conflict and anger. people don't like things to be different. especially things regarding religion. the bible clearly groups homosexuality with many other evils, and in america (a christian country if you guys are old enough to remember) saying something like "gay mairage is good".... or "adaultry is a beautifull thing" people will get angry with that and anybody that doesn't isn't a christian.Yup, you got one thing right ... I'm definitely not a Christian.

I will repeat it in the hope of some understanding on your part "DIVERSITY IS INDEED A WONDERFUL THING" ... you want a whole bunch of identical, radical religious drones strolling around all called Jane1, Jane2, Jack1, Jack2? Hell no! Why the hell did your God grant you choice if he wanted everyone to be the same? Everyone to choose to do the same thing, have the same sexual preference, have the same family lifestyle, etc... BECAUSE LIVING IS ABOUT LEARNING, ADAPTING, ACCEPTING AND CHANGE = DIVERSITY! It’s not about finding out how well you can make yourself identical to the "normal person" mould.

Just something I noticed today ...

As I was walking home I passed my local Church. Now, this particular Church has a nice signboard out the front saying what they call "Golden Thoughts". Today I took note of what it said, and I quote, "Golden Thought: God accepts us just as we are". Now, if this is true no one can from this point forward say "God hates Gays" and blah blah blah ... else, I'm gonna have to walk into that Church and demand they take down that sign. And while I'm there, ask them to explain why they have a different fraction of God, because the God of most of the people talking in protest to everything would disagree and say "Golden Thought: God accepts a select group just as they are".

Just thought it was interesting.

Just something I noticed today ...

As I was walking home I passed my local Church. Now, this particular Church has a nice signboard out the front saying what they call "Golden Thoughts". Today I took note of what it said, and I quote, "Golden Thought: God accepts us just as we are". Now, if this is true no one can from this point forward say "God hates Gays" and blah blah blah ... else, I'm gonna have to walk into that Church and demand they take down that sign. And while I'm there, ask them to explain why they have a different fraction of God, because the God of most of the people talking in protest to everything would disagree and say "Golden Thought: God accepts a select group just as they are".

Just thought it was interesting.


Religious hypocricy amongst the church will always happen: they have one book full of hate, death and with a vengeful and spiteful God who gets his kicks from destroying people that disobey him and says "And eye for an eye". The other is about this guy who preaches love, acceptance, stands against judgmental hypocricy and officialdom and teaches "Turn the other cheek".

I don´t know the quality of orphanages in your country - they may differ. But that would be a reason to improve their quality and not a reason for allowing gays to adopt children. They would suffer tremendously under their normal environment and the other children who wouldn´t understand and accept the child of queers.
So it is in the best interest of the child - and that is the important point - not to be brought in such a situation.
this just reenforces my belief stupid intolerant people shouldnt have kids, ie you

you rather have a kid living in an orphanage without parents, without being raised by anyone, jsut living, than have the mraised by a carign set of parents just because they are gay?

join the roy moore fan club, go to the docotr make sure you cant have children and tell adoption agencies to make sure you cant adopt ever

this just reenforces my belief stupid intolerant people shouldnt have kids, ie you

you rather have a kid living in an orphanage without parents, without being raised by anyone, jsut living, than have the mraised by a carign set of parents just because they are gay?

join the roy moore fan club, go to the docotr make sure you cant have children and tell adoption agencies to make sure you cant adopt ever

I think you are right. If lesbians and gays are willing to be loving and responsible parents they should be allowed to have children.

this just reenforces my belief stupid intolerant people shouldnt have kids, ie you
you rather have a kid living in an orphanage without parents, without being raised by anyone, jsut living, than have the mraised by a carign set of parents just because they are gay?
join the roy moore fan club, go to the docotr make sure you cant have children and tell adoption agencies to make sure you cant adopt ever
I reject your personal attacks on me. That is inappropiate and shows your lack of respect to other people and other opinions. You should be ashamed.
I don´t know Roy Moore though, but I think it is better two be raised by a single parent than by homosexuals. I´m against gay adoption.

Wouldn't it be better to educate people so that the 'children of queers' could BE accepted? Rather than say "Oh, society won't like them, so instead of change society, let's bury our heads in the sand"?
That´s like saying we think it is too cold on the antarctis: just not adapt to it, just rather take away the ice.
It isn´t possible and the negative effects would be tremendous. At the end we end up by accepting promiscuity, multi-marriage (polygamy), pedophilia and bestiality. That is a dangerous idea.
Just stick to the way thinks are: they are good the way they are.

Promiscuity, polygamy, pedophilia and bestiality? Aren't we making some insulting assumptions about an oppressed group? Kinda reminiscent of a certain German leader back in the 30's talking about the jews.

That´s like saying we think it is too cold on the antarctis: just not adapt to it, just rather take away the ice.
It isn´t possible and the negative effects would be tremendous. At the end we end up by accepting promiscuity, multi-marriage (polygamy), pedophilia and bestiality. That is a dangerous idea.
Just stick to the way thinks are: they are good the way they are.

1)It is possible. Just stop society being homophobic.
2)We would not end up accepting promiscuity because we already do. As for the others we would not as they are UTTERLY different to homosexuality. Stop comparing kiddie sex and animal sex to adult human sex, they are not the same.
3)Things are good the way they are? Hah, that is what anti-civil rights people said in the 60's you bigot.


I reject your personal attacks on me. That is inappropiate and shows your lack of respect to other people and other opinions. You should be ashamed.
I don´t know Roy Moore though, but I think it is better two be raised by a single parent than by homosexuals. I´m against gay adoption.
.

Hey do not talk about lack of respect, you are the one who wants to ban homosexual sex. Also I do not see a reason for your opinion, what is wrong with gay adoption.

I reject your personal attacks on me. That is inappropiate and shows your lack of respect to other people and other opinions. You should be ashamed.
I don´t know Roy Moore though, but I think it is better two be raised by a single parent than by homosexuals. I´m against gay adoption.
1) i dont respect you and am not ashamed of what i said
2) go to my roy moore topic

That´s like saying we think it is too cold on the antarctis: just not adapt to it, just rather take away the ice.
It isn´t possible and the negative effects would be tremendous. At the end we end up by accepting promiscuity, multi-marriage (polygamy), pedophilia and bestiality. That is a dangerous idea.
Just stick to the way thinks are: they are good the way they are.
whoah man its pretty darn slick in here, i can barely stand

must be that slippery slope fallacy of yours

Promiscuity, polygamy, pedophilia and bestiality? Aren't we making some insulting assumptions about an oppressed group? Kinda reminiscent of a certain German leader back in the 30's talking about the jews.
Thank you: Because I don´t like homosexuality and promiscuity (I have never demand to ban it though) and because I don´t accept gay marriage, pedophilia and bestiality I´m a Nazi???
Shame on you. With that statement you are only judging yourself and your disrespect of other opinion. Things dictators due, regardless what kind they are.

2) go to my roy moore topic
I don´t know Roy Moore and I´m not going to search the entire thread or this entire side for it.

Thank you: Because I don´t like homosexuality and promiscuity (I have never demand to ban it though) and because I don´t accept gay marriage, pedophilia and bestiality I´m a Nazi???
Shame on you. With that statement you are only judging yourself and your disrespect of other opinion. Things dictators due, regardless what kind they are.

Read his fuckin' post. He was pointing out that by grouping homosexuality (two consenting humans), rape (one unconsenting person), bestiality (one human one animal), polygamy (lots of people) and paedophilia (one child one adult) together in that crude way you far-rightists tend to you are very like certain Nazi leaders. He never said you were a nazi at all.

I don´t know Roy Moore and I´m not going to search the entire thread or this entire side for it.
click on my name on the side there to go to profile, view all topics by chess squares, go to roy moore topic

Thank you: Because I don´t like homosexuality and promiscuity (I have never demand to ban it though) and because I don´t accept gay marriage, pedophilia and bestiality I´m a Nazi???
Shame on you. With that statement you are only judging yourself and your disrespect of other opinion. Things dictators due, regardless what kind they are.


All I was saying was that it is a pretty short step from finding excuses to oppress a people and finding an excuse to exterminate them. Might want to give that a thought when you keep trying to restrict homosexual's rights.

1)It is possible. Just stop society being homophobic..
I´m not homophobic I just don´t like gays.
2)We would not end up accepting promiscuity because we already do. As for the others we would not as they are UTTERLY different to homosexuality. Stop comparing kiddie sex and animal sex to adult human sex, they are not the same..
They are not: homosexuality and pedophilia are closely linked.
3)Things are good the way they are? Hah, that is what anti-civil rights people said in the 60's you bigot...
I have nothing to do with the US of the 1960s. And many of the civil right activists among African americans are against gay marriage as well.

Hey do not talk about lack of respect, you are the one who wants to ban homosexual sex. Also I do not see a reason for your opinion, what is wrong with gay adoption.
I disagree with you but I´m not insulting you. If you are unable to respect another opinion I´m not continuing debates with you.
I already gave the reasons why I´m against gay adoption.

All I was saying was that it is a pretty short step from finding excuses to oppress a people and finding an excuse to exterminate them. Might want to give that a thought when you keep trying to restrict homosexual's rights.

So true...I am glad that folks like Ky are not in charge...

I´m not homophobic I just don´t like gays.

I'm sure the feeling is mutal.


They are not: homosexuality and pedophilia are closely linked.

Care to back that up with some credible research? A study? A cite? Anything?

I´m not homophobic I just don´t like gays.

They are not: homosexuality and pedophilia are closely linked.

I have nothing to do with the US of the 1960s. And many of the civil right activists among African americans are against gay marriage as well.

I disagree with you but I´m not insulting you. If you are unable to respect another opinion I´m not continuing debates with you.
I already gave the reasons why I´m against gay adoption.

1)That IS homophobia.
2)They are not at all. Can you please stop pretending they are? There are more hetro pedos than homos.
3)Could you C&P them again please?
4)You are insulting me you are saying homosexuals are linked to paedophiles. I find that VERY insulting.

click on my name on the side there to go to profile, view all topics by chess squares, go to roy moore topic
I took a short look. I´m not American though the name didn´t tell me anything. But I heard about the case about the ten commandments. I´m not religious though and I think state and religion should be seperate. I think there should neither be a cross in public schools (like in some state schools in Bavaria as the only state in Germany) nor a scarf on the teacher.
Fortunately such laws are passed in many states.
France goes even further in banning the scarf for everybody attending public schools (so also for the students). I actually like this French policy of keeping religion and state seperate. Though I wouldn´t go that far since my country has another tradition. But I would like to see a policy in that direction. The ban of the scarf for teachers in many states is a good step.

I´m not homophobic I just don´t like gays.
that was funny, i hope youre kidding, cuz if not thats pretty sad
what do you think homophobia is

They are not: homosexuality and pedophilia are closely linked.
homosexuality and pedophilia arnt even REMOTELY related

I have nothing to do with the US of the 1960s. And many of the civil right activists among African americans are against gay marriage as well.
which doesnt matter, minorities can be intolerant assholes too. they are just ignorant and intolerant klike the rest of you. im sure there were african americans opposing the civil rights movement

I disagree with you but I´m not insulting you. If you are unable to respect another opinion I´m not continuing debates with you.
I already gave the reasons why I´m against gay adoption.
ignorant and intolerant

I took a short look. I´m not American though the name didn´t tell me anything. But I heard about the case about the ten commandments. I´m not religious though and I think state and religion should be seperate. I think there should neither be a cross in public schools (like in some state schools in Bavaria as the only state in Germany) nor a scarf on the teacher.
Fortunately such laws are passed in many states.
France goes even further in banning the scarf for everybody attending public schools (so also for the students). I actually like this French policy of keeping religion and state seperate. Though I wouldn´t go that far since my country has another tradition. But I would like to see a policy in that direction. The ban of the scarf for teachers in many states is a good step.

Ignoring my post?

... homosexuality and pedophilia are closely linked.

That's odd. The definition of either term is markedly different, as is either behavior's psychodymamics though, and this may come as a shock to you, homosexuality is more closely linked to heterosexuality. Both are equally as "closely linked" to pedophilia.

That's odd. The definition of either term is markedly different, as is either behavior's psychodymamics though, and this may come as a shock to you, homosexuality is more closely linked to heterosexuality. Both are equally as "closely linked" to pedophilia.

Bah shut up! Stop using facts you damn bleeding heart hippy!

Bah shut up! Stop using facts you damn bleeding heart hippy!


Aww, can I psychoanalyse him instead?

This could get fun. :D

Aww, can I psychoanalyse him instead?

This could get fun. :D

Fine fine, but remember that any facts that go against his line of argument will be ignored and/or dismissed as liberal lies.

Fine fine, but remember that any facts that go against his line of argument will be ignored and/or dismissed as liberal lies.

Intersting how US style polarized politics becomes a factor in this discussion when it really involves psychology and sociology, not politics.

edit: I have to run along, sigh! :(

Links for the claim of a link between homosexuality and pedophilia

http://www.theinterim.com/2002/sept/02study.html

http://www.us2000.org/cfmc/Pedophilia.pdf


http://www.orthodoxytoday.org/articlesprint/DaileyHomosexualAbuseP.htm

and here even an article of a gay activists condoning pedophilia

http://www.ipce.info/ipceweb/Library/97-119_schmidt.html

Links for the claim of a link between homosexuality and pedophilia

http://www.theinterim.com/2002/sept/02study.html

http://www.us2000.org/cfmc/Pedophilia.pdf


http://www.orthodoxytoday.org/articlesprint/DaileyHomosexualAbuseP.htm

and here even an article of a gay activists condoning pedophilia

http://www.ipce.info/ipceweb/Library/97-119_schmidt.html

I look forward to reading and debunking these 'credible' sites. In the meantime, I have a life to lead and I suggest you get one too.

and here even an article of a gay activists condoning pedophilia

http://www.ipce.info/ipceweb/Library/97-119_schmidt.html

Ok on of your links was to a website named orthodoxytoday. The other two were to do with studies which easily could have been biased and also what "a gay activists[sic]" condones is utterly irrelevent. I have seen more than one christian condoning the stoning of people such as myself.

Ok on of your links was to a website named orthodoxytoday. The other two were to do with studies which easily could have been biased and also what "a gay activists[sic]" condones is utterly irrelevent. I have seen more than one christian condoning the stoning of people such as myself.
So, it is irrelevant that gay activists are condoning pedophilia?? Interesting: You somehow prove my point.

So, it is irrelevant that gay activists are condoning pedophilia?? Interesting: You somehow prove my point.

Yes, it is irrelivent. I have encountered many a right winger who thinks that gays should get the chair. Does this mean all the right wing think that way? Your logic is very wonky.

So, it is irrelevant that gay activists are condoning pedophilia?? Interesting: You somehow prove my point.

Are you saying that a handful of 'gay activists' somehow speak for all homosexuals?

Are you saying that a handful of 'gay activists' somehow speak for all homosexuals?

Only if they say what he wants them to.

Are you saying that a handful of 'gay activists' somehow speak for all homosexuals?
The question is: Is that really only a handful and not more. The studies about the links about pedophilia and homosexuality suggest that this is the case.

The question is: Is that really only a handful and not more. The studies about the links about pedophilia and homosexuality suggest that this is the case.

Well let me just do one of those wonky logic conclusions myself.

Far right members want me dead+much of the right likes the death penalty= ALL of the right wants me dead!!! Ahhhh!!!

The question is: Is that really only a handful and not more. The studies about the links about pedophilia and homosexuality suggest that this is the case.

No homosexual I know is a pedophile. So that suggests it is not linked.

Well let me just do one of those wonky logic conclusions myself.

Far right members want me dead+much of the right likes the death penalty= ALL of the right wants me dead!!! Ahhhh!!!

Or, how about:

Catholic Priests sexually abuse minors.

Catholics follow the examples of their Priests.

Hence, all Catholics are peodphiles.

No homosexual I know is a pedophile. So that suggests it is not linked.
No, it doesn´t. You have to base your conclusion on scientific assumptions and not on subjective opinions.

Links for the claim of a link between homosexuality and pedophilia

http://www.theinterim.com/2002/sept/02study.html

http://www.us2000.org/cfmc/Pedophilia.pdf


http://www.orthodoxytoday.org/articlesprint/DaileyHomosexualAbuseP.htm

and here even an article of a gay activists condoning pedophilia

http://www.ipce.info/ipceweb/Library/97-119_schmidt.html

Oh, that's nice. Now, unless you would like to find an ubiased scientific link, please run along and let the adults play.

In many arguments people ask why not? My return answer is another question Why If You have a reason you should post that too, not just why not so I will retort to the question why not gay marriage, Why? To support a minority group (what about a majority groupand harm a majority group?), to stop discrimination (to discriminate against Christains proving their ideal are stuipd?), because I am gay and want to get married (I don't care that is not true marriage, and please give me a answer that is.)

It's true. I'll gladly discriminate somebody who have built their lives on two ancient books that speaks in opposide directions. One speaks of revenge, the other forgiveness.

I don't hold anything sacred and I allow myself all thoughts, words and ways. Marriages, even "true christian" marriages, fall apart every once in a while (quite often actually). Being married is just being official about your thoughts about one or more individuals.

You call it a false marriage because your god has told you so. You've never made your own oppinion anyway.

Or as Oluf Palme said, "People should act morally because they want to, not because some deity tells them to."
And Einstein, "A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death."

Even dictionaries discriminate atheists with translations of the word as "immoral" and "wicked" and I know many religious people who says they're the only ones who can practicise moral and justice. Especially atheists like myself who's pro most things, even homosexuallity and incest. You have a book that says I'm not to be trusted and homosexuals are to be murdered. No matter how much I show that I'm very capable of being justful, your deity have already told you that I cannot be trusted.

Your god also said that homosexuals can't marry. So why did you post?
We couldn't possibly make you change your oppinion through a word based forum anyway, so why let us try?

What if your best friend turned out to be a homosexual who wished to marry another homosexual? Would that friendship then mean nothing to you?


-Shorttail

No, it doesn´t. You have to base your conclusion on scientific assumptions and not on subjective opinions.

Wow, that's rich coming from you.

No, it doesn´t. You have to base your conclusion on scientific assumptions and not on subjective opinions.

Which is why the people who made the studies you linked are wrong.

Oh, that's nice. Now, unless you would like to find an ubiased scientific link, please run along and let the adults play.
I have posted several links now. But it is useless for me to posts more since you are going to claim everyone with a different opinion than your biased opinion is to be considered biased.
I give you three more links: You can research more yourself:

http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2000/oct/00100603.html

http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewCulture.asp?Page=\Culture\archive\200307\CUL20030710c.html

http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewCulture.asp?Page=\Culture\archive\200306\CUL20030611c.html

[QUOTE=Kybernetia]I have posted several links now. But it is useless for me to posts more since you are going to claim everyone with a different opinion than your biased opinion is to be considered biased.

Pfff...As if you would not do the same. You have already said you do not like homosexuals bigot-boy.

"20 percent of male AIDS victims had sex with an adult male by age 10. "

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! No wait they are serious?

"20 percent of male AIDS victims had sex with an adult male by age 10. "

You shouldn´t laugh. Child abuse is a very serious problem, which was underestimated for decades. Given the spread of Aids there is of course the risks of the victims to get Aids as well.
The victims are also more likely to become themself perpetrators of pedophilia when they are adults. So the existence of this phenomenon is always repeating itself and passed from generation to generation. So you might consider it "natural". So: why don´t you want to allow it like homosexuality between adults???? Where is your age limit???? 18, 16,14, 12, younger?????????????
All the cases in the antique about homosexuality are about pedophilia. So obviously they are closely linked.

Why is this debate a referendum on gayness? Gays are pedophiles, so they shouldn't be married. Gays are promiscuous, so they shouldn't be married. Gays are sinners, so they shouldn't be married. Gays can't procreate, so they shouldn't be married.

This is just silly. I have a newsflash: straight people are pedophiles, promiscuous, often unable to procreate, and definitely sinners. And even if there WERE a higher incidence of these traits in gay people (and it has been statistically proven otherwise with pedophilia), what sense would it make to use that as justification against gay marriage? Those things don't have much bearing on civil rights, I'm afraid. Should we now forbid straight "sinners" from marriage?

The fact is, "activist" judges aren't trying to redefine anything. Straight people have redefined marriage to such an extent that it no longer makes sense to deny gays that right. Marriage was once the method by which family fortunes were united, or families started. If a girl was poor or barren, good luck. Now marriages are about love and taxes. And the idea of a "traditional" family hardly exists. Straight people made those changes.

I was once asked by a conservative friend, "What do you intend to accomplish by campaigning for gay marriage? What kind of America do you envision?" I replied that it's not what I envision. It's what already exists across America: countless families with children whose parents are committed to each other, but are denied many benefits because the state disapproves of their parents' sexuality. And politicians claim they oppose gay marriage for the sake of families. I'd like to hear them say the same to one of those children.

The basic flaw in your assumption and in the assumption of all your research posted is the intentional confusion of homosexual orientation with pedophilia, hebephilia and child sexual abuse or molestation. A homosexual is one who expresses sexual desire for members of their own sex whereas a pedophile is one who expresses sexual desire for children (with a hebephile being one who expresses sexual desire for children of their own sex). Most pedophiles do not qualify as homosexuals because they do not have any sexual desire towards adult members of their own sex with many not displaying any sort of sexual desire towards other adults at all. Even hebephiles do not necessarily categorize as homosexual, even though they fixate on children on their own sex.

http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/facts_molestation.html

http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_chil.htm

I'm for gay marrige, and here's why:

I HAVE NO RESPECT WHATSOEVER FOR THE INSTITUTION OF MARRIGE!

60% of all marriges end in divorce, so I say let them get married, worst that could happen is they get divorced.

I BELIEVE EVERYONE SHOULD BE TREATED FAIRLY

Does "Seperate but Equal" ring a bell. TO me this is no differant than a bunch of Southern White supremeists, the KKK, and the German Socialist Workers Party (Nazi Party) who persecuted people because they were Jews, or Gays, or "Undesireables". (And for those of you thinking I'm African-American, trying to stir old embers, think again, I'm as white as they come, and this is still part of my arguement).

IF you still disagree with those points, take a look at my main one:

MARRIGE IS LEGALLY A STATE ISSUE

Under the law, the federal government has no powers when it comes to marrige. The states that legalize gay marrige should have it done, and be finished with it. Those that don't, they should still have to recognize couples that were married in other states, and are there on vacation or whatever.

Those are my points, and I'm sticking to them.

You shouldn´t laugh. Child abuse is a very serious problem, which was underestimated for decades. Given the spread of Aids there is of course the risks of the victims to get Aids as well.
The victims are also more likely to become themself perpetrators of pedophilia when they are adults. So the existence of this phenomenon is always repeating itself and passed from generation to generation. So you might consider it "natural". So: why don´t you want to allow it like homosexuality between adults???? Where is your age limit???? 18, 16,14, 12, younger?????????????
All the cases in the antique about homosexuality are about pedophilia. So obviously they are closely linked.

I laughed because that stat was obviously pulled out of someones arse. My age limit is 16. Also the references of the antique you refer to must be Greek in which the society had no age of consent and was aimed at male pleasure at any cost. Comparing that and todays is just plain stupid. Also victims being more likely to commit the crime is true but overblown although that is a totaly unrelated issue. I do not allow it like homosexuality between adults...Because...Erm...Children aren't adults? Also not all issues in the antique about homosexuality include paedophilia that is utterly wrong.

http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/facts_molestation.html

http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_chil.htm
Your sources are bious. You have to present other.
I´m coming back to this debate, tomorrow, though. Bye.

Your sources are bious. You have to present other.
I´m coming back to this debate, tomorrow, though. Bye.

Bious?

Your sources are bious. You have to present other.
I´m coming back to this debate, tomorrow, though. Bye.

Come back whenever you want. You're still flat out wrong.

Come back whenever you want. You're still flat out wrong.

You know Berk I found the way he flat out ignored the rest of your post quite amusing but unsuprising...

time to debunk

site 1: http://www.theinterim.com/2002/sept/02study.html
site 3 (same exact thing): http://www.orthodoxytoday.org/artic...exualAbuseP.htm

religious site harassing homosexuals, i wouldl voe to know what dailey has a phd in, im fairly sure its theology

response site: http://www.wctimes.com/0outlines/june19w02/pedolink.html


site 2: http://www.us2000.org/cfmc/Pedophilia.pdf

another religious wing author throwing around logical fallacies and assumptions
they fail to cite any scientific evidence and just quote random information and make assumptions, not only that but they sit around accusing psychiatrists and psychologists of ignoring problems and aiding the homosexuals in some pretend unholy quest

i dare you to actualy cite scientific evidence



site 4: http://www.ipce.info/ipceweb/Library/97-119_schmidt.html

that one at least made sense, you description of the site was inane and proves not even you read it. he has kind of a rose colored if notoutright crazy view of the subject but at least makes a plain stance on it

I have posted several links now. But it is useless for me to posts more since you are going to claim everyone with a different opinion than your biased opinion is to be considered biased.

No, that's your MO. I consider any site dedicated to a single position to be biased. You still have yet to provide a scientific link that is from an unbiased site. Every single site you have provided is either right-winged or Christian fundamentalist. Look at the site you you will see that this is true. If I wanted to, I could find a dozen left-winged sites or a site from a GLBT group that would say there is no link. However,true or not, these sites would be equally biased.

Show me a scientific article, published in a credible journal, that is not 30 years old and does not ignore evidence. Then, I might give you the benefit of the doubt.

Now, here are real scientific journals, both on the first page of a pubmed search:

According to this one, sexuality in pedophiles is determined in a different manner than that in people attracted to adults. There is no correlation between homosexuality and pedophelia (although there may be a correlation to fraternal order)
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=10983250

This one shows that percentage of homosexual pedophiles corresponds to ther percentage of homosexuals in society (thus suggesting that there is no inherent link between the two):
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=8008535

Bious?
rofl i dunno where he got the chutzvah (sp) to call you bias when every single site he quoted were right wing christian sites that pretend they are actually scientists

*waits for Kyb to return and ignore the last three posts utterly*

Your sources are bious. You have to present other.
I´m coming back to this debate, tomorrow, though. Bye.

A psychology website (as in, they actually study these things in a scientific manner) is biased? You're really funny.

You know Berk I found the way he flat out ignored the rest of your post quite amusing but unsuprising...

Eh, I didn't expect anything else. I knew the minute I submitted those links what he would do. They were just the only ones I happened to have handy and I didn't have the time to go searching for others. :)

rofl i dunno where he got the chutzvah (sp) to call you bias when every single site he quoted were right wing christian sites that pretend they are actually scientists

Actualy he called me Bious... I really want to know what that means.
Has anyone else noticed that it is the far-right members that make the most spelling errors? Could this be because they are idiots.

(Oh and by the way paedophile is spelt with that first e in England and pronounced pee-doe-file so do not point that out please.)

Eh, I didn't expect anything else. I knew the minute I submitted those links what he would do. They were just the only ones I happened to have handy and I didn't have the time to go searching for others. :)

It is hardly worth it anyway...Odds of him actualy having read them? I sure as hell wouldn't bet on it...

Is it just me, or is Kybernetia really out of loop?

You shouldn´t laugh. Child abuse is a very serious problem, which was underestimated for decades. Given the spread of Aids there is of course the risks of the victims to get Aids as well.
The victims are also more likely to become themself perpetrators of pedophilia when they are adults. So the existence of this phenomenon is always repeating itself and passed from generation to generation. So you might consider it "natural". So: why don´t you want to allow it like homosexuality between adults???? Where is your age limit???? 18, 16,14, 12, younger?????????????
All the cases in the antique about homosexuality are about pedophilia. So obviously they are closely linked.
technically, homosexual "pedophilia" is a recent concept, in the past it was quite common for young male apprentices to have sexual relations with their masters. having that classified as illegal is fairly recent, im not sure what occured that changed it as i have not reseached the subject

technically, homosexual "pedophilia" is a recent concept, in the past it was quite common for young male apprentices to have sexual relations with their masters. having that classified as illegal is fairly recent, im not sure what occured that changed it as i have not reseached the subject

Do you have some sources for that?

Do you have some sources for that?
basic knowledge of history is all i have

The same can be said for the Con- Gay Marriage side. They have yet to give ONE exapmle of how this will screw up America in any way shape or form.

Gay Marriage isn't wrong. It's the realization that two loving people have toward each other.

People say that Gay marriage goes against the bible, that it goes against religion itself. Go ahead, do everything the bible says. You can't choose to pick what you want to use out of the bible without using the entire thing. Otherwise it's no longer a credible source. So go ahead... sell your daughters into slavery. Kill the men with long hair. Stone the people who eat shellfish. You do all that. Do EVERYTHING THE BIBLE SAYS BECAUSE THE BIBLE ISN'T A COLLECTION OF STORIES MADE UP AS A GUIDE TO LIVE OUR LIVES. OH NO!

Surely it can't be that.... Surely the public concensus can't have changed in the thousands of years that the bible was written in. Surely you jest. My gosh.

But the poeple who really anger me are the poeple who claim that gay people can't get married and cannot get the government to allow gay marriage for the reason that "Church and state should be seperate". Meaning the gov't cannot interfere with religious practices. HERE'S A SHOCKER! MARRIAGE ISN'T A RELIGIOUS CONTRUCT! It's an idea used by religion, sure, but for the sole purpose of definition, it's not a religious idea. for lack of a better term, it's an anthropological term, the idea of marriage or a binding partnership isn't confined to just those with religion.

In hundreds of other cultures, same gender marriages and unions are commonplace.

I am for Gay marriage.

I wait for counter arguments.

references i just looked up

http://www.dennis.floripa.com.br/homosexual.htm

http://www.infopt.demon.co.uk/eighteen.htm

http://semgai.free.fr/doc_et_pdf/africa_A4.pdf

Ok here's a shocker for you anti gay marriage brigade out there:

It's not about being gay

It's not about religion

It's not about marriage

It's about allowing every person in this democracy to choose who they wish to spend their life with and for the state to treat that decision the same without exception.

It's about not being afraid that when you lose your partner that you've been with for many years, that you will lose the home you shared to their family, simply because the state doesnt recognise you as their next of kin.

It's about being able to be there at their bedside at a hospital without worrying that you will be refused entry because you are not recognised as their next of kin.

It's about being able to make legal decisions for your partner's kids, the ones that you have looked after all their lives and couldn't love any more even if they were your own biologically.

It's about being financially secure, having your employer recognise your partner when it comes to health insurance and pensions.

It's about equality in a supposedly advanced first world country

Now you tell me why you oppose it.

:( Stokieland! You've moved me to tears and I'm already in favour of it!

Ok here's a shocker for you anti gay marriage brigade out there:

It's not about being gay

It's not about religion

It's not about marriage

It's about allowing every person in this democracy to choose who they wish to spend their life with and for the state to treat that decision the same without exception.

It's about not being afraid that when you lose your partner that you've been with for many years, that you will lose the home you shared to their family, simply because the state doesnt recognise you as their next of kin.

It's about being able to be there at their bedside at a hospital without worrying that you will be refused entry because you are not recognised as their next of kin.

It's about being able to make legal decisions for your partner's kids, the ones that you have looked after all their lives and couldn't love any more even if they were your own biologically.

It's about being financially secure, having your employer recognise your partner when it comes to health insurance and pensions.

It's about equality in a supposedly advanced first world country

Now you tell me why you oppose it.

::clapclapclap:: Kudos. That's exactly what I've been saying- that marriage is not just a spiritual contract- it's a legal one as well. There are numerous legal benefits for a couple who wish to get married, many of which you've listed. This isn't about religion, it's not about sex, it's not about whether you think homosexuality is normal or natural- it's about a human being getting the civil rights that he or she deserves. I've heard many people talk about how it's just difficult because then we have to explain it to our children- oh god forbid we *teach* our children something. God forbid we do a little goddamn parenting in this country. God forbid we have to have a talk about the horrors of SEX with our kids.

That is rather a demonisation of the political left. And a bit polemic. Well: and it is a demonisation of the Islamists. But they are demons - they are a thread to all of us. I have never said: all Muslims are islamists. Some are though. AND WE NEED TO CRACK DOWN ON THEM.
The fact that you see that as a problem shows that you can´t distinguish between them. I spoke explicitly about a minority group among the muslim group - you can read that I you would look again on it. And yes: I want to crack down on this minority among muslims which spreads islamism and islamists ideology and who pose a thread to the free and open society. Tolerance is good but not towards the intolerant.

I'm not sure what you are refering to by "Islamist"... I would assume you mean someone who wants to spread the word of Islam. Perhaps you mean militant Islam? It is interesting you have such a problem with Islam, but not with, for example, Christianity - which was enforced on the Roman people and their vassal states, which was enforced across Europe by the Holy Roman Empire, which was enforced throughout the middle-east by European crusaders, which was enforced on the Native Americans by colonial Europeans, and on the peoples of South America by more colonials...

Perhaps you have not heard of the Crusades?
Perhaps you have not heard about the 'christians' hanging American Natives in groups of thirteen (to match the number attending the Last Supper), and burning them?
Perhaps you have not heard about Cortez, baptising the Aztec babies, before dashing their heads on the rocks?

Or maybe it's okay when it was 'the good guys' that did it?

I find your politics and your social conscience highly questionable.

All the stupid people squabble over WORDS. If you don't understand what someone means then it is important to get clarification for high fidelity purposes. If you know what they are saying then fuck off and don't worry. A sign of intelligence is not to be able to point out someone else’s mistakes, but to understand them and discuss anything on the level at which they are capable of. So what you know stupid words like vernacular, or cystitis, fuck you fuck me, we all are one with the world. By the way, the argument is not even an intelligent one, because homophobia is a word that is modified by vernaculars, so which dictionary do you want to use? One from 1923 where ain't ain't a word, or a modern one where it is? Does it matter? If so why? Get a nut get a life and think for a change.
We waste so much crap on useless crap and trying to flex our weak brains to show how brilliant we really are, when you mesa wish you could be losers stop fighting and start learning perhaps we can chat on a truly intellectual level.

I will never understand why people argue over issues that are unimportant, while they sit on their ass and let corporations fuck them in the ass and do nothing about it. Turn off the boob tube and do something to improve your life, read a book, learn something, help your neighbors, volunteer, get a job, whatever floats your boat, but by all means get a life.

huh?

hey, I've got some punctuation around here somewhere, if you want some...

How is anyone supposed to respond to this, if they can't even read it?

Promiscuity, polygamy, pedophilia and bestiality? Aren't we making some insulting assumptions about an oppressed group? Kinda reminiscent of a certain German leader back in the 30's talking about the jews.
thank you, Toastyland. But, the truth is...these people DO NOT see us gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transgender people as being HUMAN. therefore, they feel no guilt or shame at the pain and suffering they cause an enemy of their own choosing. They have the invader mentality. an invader does not ascribe the same value on the lives of a chosen enemy as they do themselves, and thus, they feel no guilt for the atrocities they commit against the chosen enemy. No different, really.
This is just Psychology 101.

The question is: Is that really only a handful and not more. The studies about the links about pedophilia and homosexuality suggest that this is the case.

Okay... let me get this straight.... some people are homosexual.... some peole are pedophiles.... therfore all homosexuals are pedophiles?

Let me try one.... some people are Germans.... some people are Nazis... therefore all Germans are Nazis?

Well, I've met some Germans, and they weren't... so they can't ALL be...

You shouldn´t laugh. Child abuse is a very serious problem, which was underestimated for decades. Given the spread of Aids there is of course the risks of the victims to get Aids as well.
The victims are also more likely to become themself perpetrators of pedophilia when they are adults. So the existence of this phenomenon is always repeating itself and passed from generation to generation. So you might consider it "natural". So: why don´t you want to allow it like homosexuality between adults???? Where is your age limit???? 18, 16,14, 12, younger?????????????
All the cases in the antique about homosexuality are about pedophilia. So obviously they are closely linked.

Aren't your statistics missing the important part though?

Most victims of same sex child abuse, are abused by their "straight" parents...

Intersting how US style polarized politics becomes a factor in this discussion when it really involves psychology and sociology, not politics.

edit: I have to run along, sigh! :(

LOL, you must not be an American, then. Fact is, we Americans are polarized about EVERYTHING!! I'm amazed we haven't torn ourselves apart in another Civil War yet!
And this time, it won't be any neat, nice North vs. South thing...it'll be 100 different factions all fighting each other over the rancid bits of what's left of a once-great country!
And I am an American saying this.

Well let me just do one of those wonky logic conclusions myself.

Far right members want me dead+much of the right likes the death penalty= ALL of the right wants me dead!!! Ahhhh!!!

Actually, that isn't too far from the truth!!
Pat Robertson, in his 1988 book, actually suggests and endorses the summary rounding up and execution of all gays. And, by extension, I assume he reserves the same treatment for lesbians and bisexuals...as well as transgenders like me!! Oh, boy...Pat Robertson wants me DEAD!!! Therefore, anyone who agrees with Pat on ANYTHING...or watches or listens to Pat Robertson wants me DEAD....

It's true. I'll gladly discriminate somebody who have built their lives on two ancient books that speaks in opposide directions. One speaks of revenge, the other forgiveness.

I don't hold anything sacred and I allow myself all thoughts, words and ways. Marriages, even "true christian" marriages, fall apart every once in a while (quite often actually). Being married is just being official about your thoughts about one or more individuals.

You call it a false marriage because your god has told you so. You've never made your own oppinion anyway.

Or as Oluf Palme said, "People should act morally because they want to, not because some deity tells them to."
And Einstein, "A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death."

Even dictionaries discriminate atheists with translations of the word as "immoral" and "wicked" and I know many religious people who says they're the only ones who can practicise moral and justice. Especially atheists like myself who's pro most things, even homosexuallity and incest. You have a book that says I'm not to be trusted and homosexuals are to be murdered. No matter how much I show that I'm very capable of being justful, your deity have already told you that I cannot be trusted.

Your god also said that homosexuals can't marry. So why did you post?
We couldn't possibly make you change your oppinion through a word based forum anyway, so why let us try?

What if your best friend turned out to be a homosexual who wished to marry another homosexual? Would that friendship then mean nothing to you?


-Shorttail
He'd turn his back on that friend, and deny that they ever had been friends...just like most "good Christians" would!

anyone think of the fact that allowing all gay marriages would hurt the health insurance companies?

news flash people, the government isnt run by people and their opinions anymore, it is run by big bussiness (like the health insurance companies)

anyone think of the fact that allowing all gay marriages would hurt the health insurance companies?


i would love to see you justify that statement

I'm not sure what you are refering to by "Islamist"... I would assume you mean someone who wants to spread the word of Islam. Perhaps you mean militant Islam? It is interesting you have such a problem with Islam, but not with, for example, Christianity - which was enforced on the Roman people and their vassal states, which was enforced across Europe by the Holy Roman Empire, which was enforced throughout the middle-east by European crusaders, which was enforced on the Native Americans by colonial Europeans, and on the peoples of South America by more colonials...

Perhaps you have not heard of the Crusades?
Perhaps you have not heard about the 'christians' hanging American Natives in groups of thirteen (to match the number attending the Last Supper), and burning them?
Perhaps you have not heard about Cortez, baptising the Aztec babies, before dashing their heads on the rocks?

Or maybe it's okay when it was 'the good guys' that did it?

I find your politics and your social conscience highly questionable.

By "Islamist" I think he is probably referring to the Wahabanists...the extreme radical fundamentalist Muslims who preach killing all Westerners, etc. But this same guy who speaks out against the Wahabanists...sees no problem with extremist "Christian" whacko fundamentalists, who preach killing all enemies of THEIR choosing. Funny, huh?

Extremists of all stripes are bad.

anyone think of the fact that allowing all gay marriages would hurt the health insurance companies?

news flash people, the government isnt run by people and their opinions anymore, it is run by big bussiness (like the health insurance companies)

Yep. Sure would hurt them health insurance companies to be collecting all those extra premiums when all those spouses get covered. Insurance companies have actuary charts that assess a certain risk level to certain people...and they set premiums accordingly, so that, no matter what, they always make a profit, and the patient gets screwed.

Yep. This would really hurt them big insurance companies!!

Even if it would, ask me...WHY AM I SUPPOSED TO GIVE A FUCK IF IT HURTS THEM?? THEIR DECISIONS HURT PATIENTS EVERY DAY, ALL IN THE INTEREST OF THEIR OWN BOTTOM LINE!! FUCK THE HEARTLESS BASTARDS!!

Yep. Sure would hurt them health insurance companies to be collecting all those extra premiums when all those spouses get covered. Insurance companies have actuary charts that assess a certain risk level to certain people...and they set premiums accordingly, so that, no matter what, they always make a profit, and the patient gets screwed.

Yep. This would really hurt them big insurance companies!!

Even if it would, ask me...WHY AM I SUPPOSED TO GIVE A FUCK IF IT HURTS THEM?? THEIR DECISIONS HURT PATIENTS EVERY DAY, ALL IN THE INTEREST OF THEIR OWN BOTTOM LINE!! FUCK THE HEARTLESS BASTARDS!!

Enhance your calm. Why does every post by you involve irresponsible and reckless capitalization sooner or later?

I think the point was less, "Poor insurance companies, this is going to hurt them," and more, "Having to insure same-sex marriages would risk the insurance company's financial gains and, because money talks, it isn't going to happen."

Do you have some sources for that?I have some sources for that. I've studied the subject extensively in Tokugawa era Japan, around 1600s. Basically, some samurai were sworn lovers of other, young men. Young boys were encouraged to often sleep with samurai's or patrons of the art, and eventually even take on a dedicated lover. However, as is often the case in Japanese culture, it can't last, and will always come to an abrupt end. When a boy reaches the right age, he's declared a man, and not allowed to have a relationship with any other man. But he is allowed to have relationships with boys now. Or he can continue on a straight path, as there were prostitutes for that as well.

Of course, that didn't stop some illegal male x male relations from happening, but it perfected the art of boy love. Ths practice was termed wakashu-do, or wakashudo for short. The boys were typically aged from 10 to about 17. And this was considered natural, and typical, and lauded as a normal, and high honored activity. Kind of like the Roman male mentoring system, it was about manly pleasures and the like. Kids grew up faster back then... it wasn't as taboo as it is now.

As for sources... most of mine are books. I think I have a website or two around here...

http://www.androphile.org/preview/Culture/Japan/japan.htm

http://www.usc.edu/isd/archives/oneigla/onepress/reviews/japanhomosexuality.html

http://www.stthomasu.ca/~parkhill/cj01/irepam.htm

And for actual literature, I go to an actual author from the time period.

Saikaku, Ihara. The Great Mirror of Male Love. trans. Paul Gordon Schalow., Stanford, Cali.: Stanford University Press, 1990.

Just want to mention that a majority of Swedes are for gay marriage. And why not if two consenting adults want's a way to show their ever lasting love for eacheter.

Just want to mention that a majority of Swedes are for gay marriage. And why not if two consenting adults want's a way to show their ever lasting love for eacheter.

Agree with you volvo, glad to here the Swedes have some sense. Is there ANYTHING bad about Sweden? Hmm...Maybe Swedish?

Gay marriage is assumed to be wrong, because it's not mentioned in the bible, I think... And I think that because history hasn't shown us so many gay people, or they have been thought as possessed by some demons or something... I heard a story of some kind of gay person in the swedish history... I can't remember the name, but he lived in some mansion somewhere... It was some big guy's son I'd recall... but anyhow... I for one don't really care if to gay people get married... if they do, then good for them!

Basically, we're not accepted because we're not seen and when we are, we are presented as something seperate from the majority. Women's rights took hold at the same time as women breaking gender stereotypes and wearing trousers and such, black rights took off when blacks casually wandered into whites-only areas and refused to leave when told. We need to make our stands and refuse to give back whatever rights we have been given or managed to blag.

These people arguing that if gay people can marry and adopt then their kids might see them and be confused- They or their parents argued the same thing about integrated schools, and the ones who put lithium in the water of all-boys schools until mid-way through last century. We don't trust the logic behind those stances, why should we trust the logic behind this? Can anyone give a specific reason why this discrimination is any different?

1)That IS homophobia.

While I've not necessarily agreed with everything that Ky said, I have to point out that not likeing something is not a phobia. A phobia is a irrational, intense fear. I personally don't like spiders, but I am not archanophobic. The sight of spiders do not cause me to panic or become irrational in my fears. Likewise, simply becasue Ky does not like, or even if Ky hated gays it does not mean Ky is homophobic. A homophobic would, upon learning someone was gay, maybe try to scrub their body raw to prevent "infection" or immediately seek to kill the gay or someother equally irrational action.

We all have likes and dislikes and we voice or opinions about them. It is all rational. Therefore not a phobia

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=homophobia


ho·mo·pho·bi·a P Pronunciation Key (hm-fb-)
n.
Fear of or contempt for lesbians and gay men.
Behavior based on such a feeling.

[homo(sexual) + -phobia.]
homo·phobe n.
homo·phobic adj.

[Download or Buy Now]

Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.


Main Entry: ho·mo·pho·bia
Pronunciation: "hO-m&-'fO-bE-&
Function: noun
: irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals ?ho·mo·phobe /'hO-m&-"fOb/ noun ?ho·mo·pho·bic /"hO-m&-'fO-bik/ adjective

Source: Merriam-Webster Medical Dictionary, © 2002 Merriam-Webster, Inc.


homophobia

n : prejudice against (fear or dislike of) homosexual people and homosexuality


Oops, guess it's not just fear.

Your sources are bious. You have to present other.
I´m coming back to this debate, tomorrow, though. Bye.


While I haven't looked at the sites, yet (too late at night, maybe tomorrow) the one labeled religoustolerance does hold a high probability of being biased, at least by word association. The other however comes from an accredited university and is one of the least likely sources to be biased.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=homophobia


ho·mo·pho·bi·a P Pronunciation Key (hm-fb-)
n.
Fear of or contempt for lesbians and gay men.
Behavior based on such a feeling.

[homo(sexual) + -phobia.]
homo·phobe n.
homo·phobic adj.

[Download or Buy Now]

Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.


Main Entry: ho·mo·pho·bia
Pronunciation: "hO-m&-'fO-bE-&
Function: noun
: irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals ?ho·mo·phobe /'hO-m&-"fOb/ noun ?ho·mo·pho·bic /"hO-m&-'fO-bik/ adjective

Source: Merriam-Webster Medical Dictionary, © 2002 Merriam-Webster, Inc.


homophobia

n : prejudice against (fear or dislike of) homosexual people and homosexuality


Oops, guess it's not just fear.
So dictionary.com doesn't know Latin. Phobia means fear. I could say black means white and publish my own dictionary, that doesn't make it true.

If homophobia isn't a *phobia,* you've got to wonder why the irrational *fixation* people seem to have on trying to 'prevent' it.

Especially bringing up the Bible.

I mean,the Old Testament basically puts homosexual activity *and then going into the temple at Jerusalem* on the same level of 'abomination' as such heinous things as wearing mixed fibers or rotating your crops.

In the New Testament, this guy Jesus *clearly* rails against things like being rich... and a host of other things no one seems to get bashed over or denied civil rights for in the 'name of religion.'

In other words, it's a stretch, at best, even if you accept that book as meaning more than any other book, which, by the way, not all of us do.

In other words, it's *irrational to fixate on this as a religious issue* when the very source being used to rational*ize* the position isn't even very clear on the matter.

It's *irrational to see gay people getting married as a threat to the 'sanctity' an institution that's pretty much been self-destructing all by itself for some time,* if you hadn't noticed. It's irrational to see gays as a big threat to the 'sanctity' of an institution heralded by impulsive twenty-hour *straight* celebrity marriages and 'reality tv' shows that use marriage as a ratings hook...

It's irrational to think some abstract discomfort you may feel about homosexuality outweighs the real rights, liberty, and *lives* of people you've never even *met.*

Sounds like a phobia to me.

Or is it just hypocrisy?

So dictionary.com doesn't know Latin. Phobia means fear. I could say black means white and publish my own dictionary, that doesn't make it true.Doode, he had some pretty accredited dictionaries in there. It wasn't just some lame internet dictionary...

Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.

Source: Merriam-Webster Medical Dictionary, © 2002 Merriam-Webster, Inc.

Notice the *two* other references? From *non*-online dictionaries?

And you know, latin rarely translates directly into English (or any other langauge).

Notice the *two* other references? From *non*-online dictionaries?

And you know, latin rarely translates directly into English (or any other langauge).

Here is the meaning of phobia according to dictionary.com:

"1.A persistent, abnormal, and irrational fear of a specific thing or situation that compels one to avoid it, despite the awareness and reassurance that it is not dangerous.
2.A strong fear, dislike, or aversion. "

Now I would think that #2 pretty much covers Kyb.

I'm not sure what you are refering to by "Islamist"... I would assume you mean someone who wants to spread the word of Islam. Perhaps you mean militant Islam? It is interesting you have such a problem with Islam, but not with, for example, Christianity - which was enforced on the Roman people and their vassal states, which was enforced across Europe by the Holy Roman Empire, which was enforced throughout the middle-east by European crusaders, which was enforced on the Native Americans by colonial Europeans, and on the peoples of South America by more colonials...

Perhaps you have not heard of the Crusades?
Perhaps you have not heard about the 'christians' hanging American Natives in groups of thirteen (to match the number attending the Last Supper), and burning them?
Perhaps you have not heard about Cortez, baptising the Aztec babies, before dashing their heads on the rocks?

Or maybe it's okay when it was 'the good guys' that did it?

I find your politics and your social conscience highly questionable.

Perhaps he never heard of Torquemada, either.

So dictionary.com doesn't know Latin. Phobia means fear. I could say black means white and publish my own dictionary, that doesn't make it true.

Yes, and if silicone is hydrophobic, that means it is afraid of water, except silicone can't have fear, now, can it? You're going to have to realize that the roots don't mean everything in language.

Yes, and if silicone is hydrophobic, that means it is afraid of water, except silicone can't have fear, now, can it? You're going to have to realize that the roots don't mean everything in language.

True, homophobe is an english word not a latin one.

:( Stokieland! You've moved me to tears and I'm already in favour of it!

I'm sorry it brought tears but I'm glad it moved someone

The trouble is, I think, that most people don't realise how much they can take for granted and how hard it is to be in a gay relationship

I didn't choose to be gay but I chose to accept it and chose to be happy with the woman who I love and who loves me. I don't want any special treatment. I just want my relationship to be acknowledged the same way that my brother's marriage is (and he has been with his wife a lot less time than I have been with my partner). I don't think that is being unreasonable or forcing my sexuality on anyone.

So dictionary.com doesn't know Latin. Phobia means fear. I could say black means white and publish my own dictionary, that doesn't make it true.

It's called heterosexism, folks. When a person isn't hateful toward gays or afraid of them, but still maintains stances, vocally or not, that disadvantage non-heterosexuals, it's called heterosexism.

I have posted several links now. But it is useless for me to posts more since you are going to claim everyone with a different opinion than your biased opinion is to be considered biased.
I give you three more links: You can research more yourself:

http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2000/oct/00100603.html

http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewCulture.asp?Page=\Culture\archive\200307\CUL20030710c.html

http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewCulture.asp?Page=\Culture\archive\200306\CUL20030611c.html

Once again, your links are to strongly conservative organizations.

According to a majority of unbiased, non-politically based, scientific studies conducted over years of study (not weeks or months), the VAST MAJORITY of pedophiles are heterosexual.

You cannot simply come on this board and suggest to rational, educated individuals, many with post-bacculareate degrees (or at least a modicum of common sense), that the studies you post are not from a biased source. We either KNOW or can easily determine the sources of your links, and their political and social leanings.

I repeat, until you quote a VALID, long-term study that determines by the proper scientific method, support for your case your argument is ineffectual and weak.

Once again, your links are to strongly conservative organizations.

According to a majority of unbiased, non-politically based, scientific studies conducted over years of study (not weeks or months), the VAST MAJORITY of pedophiles are heterosexual.

You cannot simply come on this board and suggest to rational, educated individuals, many with post-bacculareate degrees (or at least a modicum of common sense), that the studies you post are not from a biased source. We either KNOW or can easily determine the sources of your links, and their political and social leanings.

I repeat, until you quote a VALID, long-term study that determines by the proper scientific method, support for your case your argument is ineffectual and weak.

but don't you know the ONLY studies that back up his position are studies commissioned by "Dr." Paul Cameron..."Dr." Laura, and their ilk? all of whom have their own axe to grind, and whose methodology is questionable at best?

He will not cite other sources, because they do not produce the conclusion he wants to hear.

Useless to argue with someone like that. You cannot argue with someone who just KNOWS they are right....

I never trust ANY study as being unbiased, until I know the background of the researchers and where the funding is coming from...

someone wanna tell me how in the hell this got 60 pages just days after I said that his posting was a drag on General?

Bump

Did you seriously just bump a 60 page thread?

Did you seriously just bump a 60 page thread?

Of all the threads on all the web boards on the Internet, he had to bump this one...

Of all the threads on all the web boards on the Internet, he had to bump this one...Wow, I thought I didn't have to watch this one anymore... ;_;

psst...clicky (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=346756)

i Would like to say that i think it should be legalised but if you are a girl you sleep with the vicour and if you are a manyou have to sleep with the bridesmaid

Sniperco

Yay!
903!
My safe stance on gay marriage: "I don't care"
Seriously, how cool is that?
I'm not gay, but nor do I care that homosexuals exist.
This is not biased. This is acceptance, just like I don't care that people with darker skin than mine exist, or that I don't care that an enourmous amount of people on the internet use it for sexual gratification.

Apathetic?
Yes, but I'm perfectly content with being so.