betsy

No kidding. And you can add double standard to that! You think nothing wrong about a particular religious group thumping their nose at our way of life and bending our laws....and yet you get all indignant about a church wishing non-believers to at least respect its belief within its walls. The Muslim cabdrivers are ENFORCING their beliefs on you. We Christians are only....preaching. Maybe you'll change your tune when you get harassed sexually on the street by a group of radicals who would taunt you for being a whore...simply because you've got your face uncovered. That kind of incident happened in a neighborhood in England.

No, but you're just plain wrong even though it was your own post. Nowhere in did it mention that they refuse service exclusively to heterosexual Catholics (i.e. discrimination on the basis of religion). Their problem is with a particular product. BTW weren't it one of you guys recently advocating the right of public officials to refuse service to the people of certain sexual orientation? Talk about hypocrisy, but somehow I'm not surprised. Uh-uh. Not the same. No one was trying to bring alcohol into their mosque. This is about public service. If you think what they're doing is right....then obviously you won't find anything wrong if a restaurant refuses to serve a Muslim...or a Black....based on whatever "religious belief" the owner of the establishment may have?

You're scouring the history of this forum for every site related to pedophilia? What's with the obsession? Considering a career in child care? Hi there! What took you so long. I was expecting you'd be the first one to respond with EGALE somewhere here. Getting hot around the collar seeing it resurrected? I wonder why.....

No, it would be like gays having to go back to the closet just to get the cab ride home.

What I am saying is that it is acceptable in our society for an older man to desire a much younger woman. I wasn't using it as a "back up" but as an example of this acceptance. Ok, lets back up shall we? You are saying that the priest are NOT pedophiles, that they are simply homosexuals. I am saying they are NOT homosexual, simply pedophiles. If they were homosexuals they would simply screw each other and leave the boys alone. You are saying that the Pope is NOT protecting pedophiles, while I say he is protecting pedophiles. Pedophile predator priests. How old are choirboys? I don't go to church (gee I wonder why LOL) Are they the age of the majority? Are they men? No, they are boys -- boys who have been predated on by a trusted priest. This is the sickest pedophile of all and yet the church and your precious Pope protect them. I shake my head at the hipocracy. I think you're confused simply because you have not read the exchanges. I suggest YOU back up to get the message straight. I know what I wrote. I suggest you read from the very beginning. Don't just pick and choose!

If they are doing it secretly...how do you know about it? The introductory line of EGALE somehow echoes the policies of the ILGA and NAMBLA. The words had been re-hashed...the agenda seems to have been "re-packaged". I have read EGALE’s submission on Age of Consent to the Department of Justice Canada dated March 30, 2000. However, just reading its introductions, I came across some statements that were rather unsettling. "While EGALE supports the goal of protecting vulnerable persons from sexual abuse, we are concerned about the efficacy of raising the age of consent. In addition, EGALE has serious concerns about adverse impacts, including the impact on the goals of fostering autonomy, empowering youth and providing them with the tools to make informed decisions. The setting of an absolute age of consent is an inevitably imperfect line drawing exercise. No matter where the line is drawn, some otherwise healthy sexual activity will be criminalized and some harmful activity will be permitted. Both effects are of concern, and both should be considered." http://www.egale.ca/index.asp?lang=E&m...37&item=348 "The setting of an absolute age of consent is an inevitably imperfect line drawing exercise. No matter where the line is drawn, some otherwise healthy sexual activity will be criminalized and some harmful activity will be permitted. Both effects are of concern, and both should be considered." Does this paragraph suggests that there should be no absolute age of consent? That this is a subtle way of saying let's abolish the age of consent law? Does "autonomy" means sexual and social self-determination? ILGA's current positions on man/boy love and pedophilia are explicit: -- In 1985, ILGA adopted a position on "Age of Consent/Paedophilia/ Children's Rights" that urged member organizations to "lobby their governments to abolish the age of consent law" so long as there is "adequate protection for youth from being sexually abused without the age of consent law." -- In 1986, ILGA adopted a position that says the group "supports the right of young people to sexual and social self-determination." -- In 1988, ILGA declared "this conference recognizes that existing same-sex age-of-consent laws often operate to oppress and not to protect; that in many countries, existing laws on sexual coercion and rules of evidence also often operate to oppress and not to protect; that therefore member organizations are urged to consider how best children, adolescents, and people of all ages can be empowered and supported against both sexual coercion and sexual oppression and to work towards that end." -- In 1990, ILGA "calls on all members to treat all sexual minorities with respect and to engage in constructive dialogue with them. In another position adopted that year, ILGA declared that it "supports the right of every individual, regardless of age, to explore and develop her or his sexuality." ILGA has also taken strong stands against sexual coercion. NAMBLA helped write these positions, and our delegates supported them in the General ----------------------- Pederasty and Homosexuality by David Thorstad Speech to the Semana Cultural Lesbica-Gay, Mexico City, June 26, 1998. More than 600 people showed up for the talk: standing room only, and many had to be turned away. [This is an English translation of the speech, which was given in Spanish] "Our movement today stresses the liberation and empowerment of young people. Instead of pedagogy, democracy. Rather than a Greek love mentor-relationship, the companionship of independent and autonomous individuals. In place of male supremacy, a vision of sexual, economic, and political liberation for all. Freedom is indivisible. The liberation of children, women, boy-lovers, and homosexuals in general, can occur only as complementary facets of the same dream." http://www.attrition.org/mirror/attrition/...1/pederasty.htm

I would have filled this whole line with guffawing faces if I could! Are you for real? You musta be kidding me...I mean....c'mon! An episode of 'House" as your back-up? I looked it up, it's a medical drama! It's not even a bleedin' pseudo- talk show like Geraldo or Jerry Springer!

That is what you and the others who think like you...want to use as a valid argument...when they cannot back their statements up. I hand it to you though...you're more subtle. Others use the "homophobe-card"...or the "bigot-card". That's when you know they've got nothing substantial to say.

Who sez it's acceptable to society?

What "House?" I don't watch that program...what is it, a sit-com? I hardly watch other shows except the news and MDuffy. Explain about that show please.

I found this online. http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story...201-601,00.html Muslim cabbies refuse to carry booze Geoff Elliott, Washington correspondent October 02, 2006 MUSLIM taxi drivers in Minnesota have declared jihad on duty-free, refusing to carry passengers who are carrying alcohol. The ban has created chaos at Minneapolis-St Paul international airport, where about three-quarters of the 900 taxi drivers are Somali and mostly Muslim. Airport officials have begun working with taxi drivers to install colour-coded lights on taxi roofs to indicate which are alcohol friendly and which are not. The lights are expected to be introduced by the end of the year. Ali Culed, a Somali Muslim who's been driving an airport cab for eight years, said the ban was "a religious issue"..........cont

Double standard? See your post above? Those statements clearly speak for themselves.

You were all for lynching the Pope,who didn't do any actual screwing....and here you are hyperventilating just because the sad reality is pointed out that ,yes....pedophiles are not the only predators that had infiltrated the church. And by your own admission...no problem with a gay screwing the tight body of a 16 year old. But what about the tight body of a 14 year old? You still think it's okay?

And this one as well.

For those of you who are new to the forum and had missed the heated exchanges....I'm resurrecting this old topic rather than start a new one, due to the Foley scandal.

The priest are pedophiles. Period. Why do you want to protect pedophiles? What is a pedophile? (perhaps you don't know) A pedophile is a person who desires children for sex. What is a homosexual? A person who prefers sex with adults of his/her own sex. What is a heterosexual? A person who prefers sex with adults of the opposite sex. Do you get it? The priest are pedophiles, not homosexuals. If they were homosexual they would be having sex with other men, not children. Why do you protect the church when it has clearly covered up the actions of these pedophiles? Are priests above the law? Is it ok for a priest to **ck a child in your mind? Do you have to label him a homo in order to call him a bad guy? Yoo-hoo Drea.....check out the resurrected topic EGALE under Federal. And....the topic "Pedophiles waiting in line...", also under Federal.

If I follow your statement above, you'd actually be supporting my allegations in a very old topic, that EGALE is secretly pushing the agenda for the pedophile group (NAMBLA) that used to be associated with the gay-movement-formerly-known-as-ILGA. It raises a question when trying to get in the pants of a 16 year old (which is the age of consent in Washington) is being insisted upon that it is a pedophile offense....even though the legal terms used for his alleged offense is "criminal activity with a minor"......and yet EGALE is trying to lower the age of consent to 14! So if we think that he is a pedophile for lusting after a 16 year old.....of course, EGALE is then a supporter and advocate of pedophiles! He identified himself as a gay. The Gay community outed him as a gay! He is therefore a gay...and now, according to you, a pedophile as well.

I'd like to think that the most recent proofs (happening in Europe involving the Pope and Germany) that the western world is fighting for the right to preserve their own way of life and democracy had waken up more folks to the reality.

I'm not sure why you raised the crackwhore issue because it just demonstrates your hypocritical double standard. You think people should be free to spew as much hate as they want, even if it hurts other people, but the crackwhore still can't go about her business, even though she's just hurting herself. Please what is the meaning of a "crackwhore?" Is it a person who is a whore in order to support the crack habit?

Isn't there a contradiction between the two statements?

Why should I think there's anything wrong or shameful if I am called a "brown?" Unless I myself think my own skin color is inferior and shameful. I hope for the day when people of all colors be proud of their own races' skin colors!

Me too...all I want is a referendum. With the way Paul Martin rushed this past behind everyone's back, and then claiming this is what Canadians want, I somehow feel cheated. MPs didn't even get to have their say, much more vote on it. I know that some gays are supporting the traditional definition of marriage. A group of gays took out a whole page ad advertising that we should leave the traditional definition of marriage the way it is. So prove that this is truly what Canadians want. REFERENDUM! Then I'll say no more.

But they all share the same thing: abuse of power and authority. Which was what I was saying, is, the real issue with this Foley affair. And with abuse of power and authority...of course, hypocrisy and dishonesty is part of the package. Especially in politics. Just shows that this has nothing to do with either being a Republican or Democrat. As for bringing Clinton in....I was responding about Lewinski.

What he did was wrong, and true...outrageous...considering the crusade he was leading against predators. Pervert priests do the same. They lead the crusade against sinning....against hurting others. Don't they all look so holy? Yet there are the Clintons and Foleys among them...hiding behind those frocks and the bible. Look at the Feminists Movement....who were supposed to be leading the crusades against the abuse of women in whatever way or form. They were noticeably quiet about Clinton. Clinton may not be thumping the bible....but he was supposed to be running his own crusade as the leader of a powerful nation. We've seen and heard of numerous accounts of perversities coming from priests and ministers....that we shouldn't even be looking at the religious factor anymore when someone is running in politics. Especially Politics! We're no longer that naive to think that just because somebody is thumping the bible, that he couldn't be possibly using the bible as a shield! Daycares, Schools, Big brothers, Boy Scout.....they all promote values....but they're not immuned from attracting the perverts who would seek to get in such positions of power to satisfy their sick fantasies.

But both fall under the abuse of power and authority. True that Lewinski and Clinton were adults. Although both had been consenting...it is arguable what led a young woman like Lewinski to indulge in it. Rewards as in patronage by an influential figure could be a possible inducement. Clinton is a married man. Granted that adultery is no longer uncommon...but being the head of the state, couldn't he at least indulged in his sordid affairs outside of the White House, considering his wife was just somewhere in the same building? If he has no respect at all for his wife, he should at least show some respect for the office and his position. And if rumors were true ....don't you find it appalling that Iraq got bombed not for the suspicion of hiding some nuke weapons....but just to distract from the scandal of a blowjob? Then, there was the attempt at minimizing the shock value - oral sex, he said, is not having sex. Just like justifying pot smoking with, "I did not inhale." He could've just owned up to the mistake, after all he's only human. And then there were the other more sordid allegations. Of sexual harrassments from several women. Clinton was the President of the US. A key figure in the free world. A big influence globally. Foley was what, compared to him? At least Foley gave his resignation. Clinton had to be pried and dragged out of there.