betsy

I watched Harper's press conference and he called the journalists attention about the reported statement made by the US Ambassador. Harper said regarding the arctic: The US will protect their sovereignty, and Canada will protect its own sovereignty. Some journalists are terming that as a "barbed" message towards the US? I don't see it that way. Do you?

Friday, September 30, 2005 Columnist Section Uncle Wally, Aunt Sally, Huck Finn, Puppies and a BC pervert Written by Anthony Oluwatoyin Friday, September 30, 2005 Nina Grewal’s Bill C-313, went down in flames, 169 to 100. The Conservative MP’s private member’s bill would have raised the age of sexual consent from 14 to 16. But she knew, even when her bill started life as private member’s motion M-221 back in the Spring, it had all of a snowball’s chance in hell. Les Liberanos, our federal Liberals, those masters of perverse pleasures, were as gleeful in reminding critics that it was Mulroney’s Conservatives, in 1987, who lowered the age to 14, as Chrétien used to be in pointing to the same source for the GST. Leading the charge against the age raise, Justice Minister Cotler said he did not want to criminalize teenage “puppy love.” But normal Canadians worry about much older predators taking advantage of youth. Cotler’s move is plain deception, so much so as to make people wonder if the liberal understanding of puppy love involves actual puppies. Don’t blame these Twisted non-Sisters for knowing how to reap from recklessness. The Liberal agenda in maintaining the lowest age of consent in most of the civilized world is a testament to the bankruptcy of diversity. Just go back to the submission five years ago to the federal Justice Dept. on the matter of age of consent by EGALE (Equality for Gays and Lesbians Everywhere). Beginning with the observation that gay and lesbian youth are “likely to encounter people who are more than two years older than them,” in youth and support groups, EGALE goes on to the outrageous and, of course, illogical, conclusion that age of consent limits would mean “cutting off access to this vital resource,” causing “substantial harm.” Is EGALE actually saying that so-called “youth” groups for gays and lesbians are nothing but a front for sex? Otherwise, why would age be such a central concern? As long as it’s a “youth” group, its focus would be on opportunities for discussion, group activities, support programs. So a few years age difference, here and there, older or younger, would be nothing to the purpose. It is EGALE that is reducing gay-lesbian youth connections to mere sex in exactly the manner it would otherwise refer to as a right-wing homophobic stereotype. What is worse, EGALE wants to make it easier for older participants to have this “access.” What a switch! When conservatives accuse gay-lesbian groups of being co-opted by out and out pedophiles like the satanic NAMBLA (North American Man/Boy Love Association), liberals cry foul. But not a beep out of them when so-called support groups seem to be fronting for plain sexual exploitation. And there is no wiggle room here. EGALE points directly at the “close-in-age” exception in Canadian law. That would be the infamous section 150, Part V of our Criminal Code: “in respect of a complainant who is twelve years of age or more but under the age of fourteen years, it is not a defence that the complainant consented… unless the accused (a) is twelve years of age or more but under the age of sixteen years; ( is less than two years older than the complainant....” EGALE says it flat out:"Whatever the age of consent is, the Government may wish to consider increasing the window for the “close-in-age” exception.” In other words, worry less and less about that darn age gap. And we ain’t talking Demi Moore/Ashton Kutcher here. Get offa that! So-called right-wing bias is a buffer, it turns out, between kids and EGALE’s liberal Namblarism. If any kid needs to be protected from older associates, by age gap limits, surely it would be the kid who would be the most ashamed or afraid to complain to the police in the first place. Just two weeks or so ago, Joel Johannesen posted one of his best biting blogs on all this (see September 16; partially repeated on Wednesday, 28 Sept.). With reference to US magazine editor, Tim McDarrah, busted for trying to pick up a 13 year-old girl on the Internet for sex, Joel reminded us of Canada’s “progressive” tolerance of sexual contact with those younger than 14. As he said: “[A]t the rate of “progress” we’re making in Canada under the liberal-left, the age of consent might well keep getting lower and lower.” Indeed, we would be providing the world with a model defense to consent in the growing industry of pedophile-tourism. What with the internet: You don’t even have to worry about leaving home without it. Take the case, right here in British Columbia, of ex-teacher, George Kraus involving possession of child porn. The 60 year-old pervert who taught elementary school in Surrey/White Rock was caught last Spring with over 25,000 images, including ones of child rape and bondage. He is to be sentenced in late November. Believe it or not, that is not the ugliest aspect of this unspeakable story. Here’s what Kraus said of the images, to a reporter no less, on being caught back in March: it’s not hurting anybody...they’re all overseas.” So, quite naturally, at Kraus’ recent Court hearing, Crown prosecutor Winston Sayson did not recommend jail time for the predator. That’s the prosecutor, mind you. Not the odious creature’s defense attorney. Rather, the attorney for the Crown, which Crown, of course, represents the people. The peoples’ attorney. Doubling for the defense, apparently. New B.C. Attorney General, Wally Oppal, in a letter to the editor in The Province (September 23), defended prosecutor Sayson, claiming that the Crown in fact did seek jail time for Kraus but settled for a conditional sentence based on case law (previous rulings in such matters). Oppal, who is also our “Minister responsible for multiculturalism,” said not one word about the “overseas” comment. We still don’t know where “overseas.” We do know that Haitian children have featured in recent molestation allegations involving BC pervs. Oppal, who was musing a few weeks ago about tougher sentences for property crime in BC, is apparently not so worried about pedophiles making property of kids. We let our pervs get off easy with the overseas kids then we allow the overseas pervs to sample our tolerant “access” to kids here. It’s quite a New Age ethnic exchange, if you think about it. For now, the law allows for a maximum five year sentence in the Kraus case. Case law does not prevent the Crown from seeking tougher sentences reflecting growing community disgust and righteous anger regarding such unconscionable violations of innocence. It’s called precedent and it is the bloodline of the law. Following precedent does not stand in the way of setting new precedent. It cuts both ways. Otherwise, how did old precedent get to be precedent in the first place? Indeed, why have judges? Simply program computers with past rulings and they will spit out new ones quicker than those one in a trillion DNA calculations. But never mind all that. Back to: it’s not hurting anybody...they’re all overseas. I am driven to recall Aunt Sally in Huckleberry Finn on being told of a steamboat explosion. Asking if anybody was hurt, and on being told, “No Ma’am. Killed a Nigger,” Aunt Sally replied, “Well, it’s lucky; because sometimes people do get hurt.” Liberals who can’t wait to exploit black civil rights experiences to push for gay marriage and every other “alternative lifestyle,” don’t want anyone to see the real analogy in terms of saving our kids. Ain’t it somethin’. As Joel says (in that more recent Sept. 28 blog), come election time, Conservatives will be able to say, beyond lefty cliché, it really is for the kids. Anthony Oluwatoyin, a columnist for The Afro News, writes on community issues and religion. Originally from Nigeria in West Africa, he attended Universities in Canada and the US. http://www.proudtobecanadian.ca/columnists...nd_a_bc_pervert

YankAbroad, I think getting personal is not a progressive way to discuss an issue. It's understandable that sometimes debates can become heated to the point of getting out of hand. I suggest you and me have a little break from one another. C'mon....let's both take deep breaths. <Group Hug>

Quite an opinion you've got there. But sorry, personal opinions don't count. Your own words, remember? fair is fair. Same rules apply to everyone. Including you. Back it up!

Again YankAbroad....back up your claim! Remember, personal opinions don't count. So far, I have been backing up all my claims with links and substantiations. Whether where my source came from is not the issue. The fact is that they are there, openly available to the public so anyone can, including ILGA, can freely dispute them. Now, you say they are not true. So prove it. Why should I even consider taking your word for it especially when you've already proved yourself quite wrong when you deny the link between NAMBLA and ILGA. You say: "I think it's safe to say that this "debate" is pretty much over, and it's not betsy and co. who have won! " Funny that I never thought of this in terms of whether "I win or I lose" debate. Although we are debating on this particular thing....I'm sure that you'll agree with me that in the end, this is about the welfare of children and the legitimate concern of some, or if not all parents. Child crimes are the most horrible nightmares any parents can think of. Sorry, but this issue is more than just a silly little game for me.

Newspaper Coverage Shows Anti-Homosexual Bias, Study AllegesBy Lawrence Morahan CNSNews.com Senior Staff Writer September 16, 2003 (CNSNews.com) - An examination of more than 1,300 newspaper reports on the sexual abuse scandal in the Catholic Church has revealed the coverage reinforced inaccurate and misleading stereotypes of homosexual men as child abusers, a new study by a homosexual advocacy group says. The linking of homosexuality and child sexual abuse in stories by Boston Globe reporters during 2002 was not necessarily intentional, said psychologists Dr. Glenda Russell and Nancy Kelly, authors of "Subtle Stereotyping: The Media, Homosexuality and the Priest Sexual Abuse Scandal." However, "Linkages don't have to be intentional to be harmful. The stereotype of gay-man-as-pedophile gets used in many policy contexts to justify discrimination and violence against gay people," Russell, a senior researcher with the Institute for Gay and Lesbian Strategic Studies (IGLSS), said in a release. Independent social science research is quite clear that male homosexuals are not more likely to commit child sexual abuse than non-homosexual men, Russell asserted. Russell's findings, however, are sharply at odds with the views of Robert Knight, director of the Culture and Family Institute with Concerned Women for America. "Since one-third to one-half of all child molestations are committed by men against boys, and homosexual men comprise less than 2 percent of the population, this means that the ratio of child molesters among homosexuals is far, far higher than among the rest of the population," Knight said. "This doesn't mean all homosexuals molest children, but it means that the problem is far greater within the homosexual community, and the Catholic scandal only underlines that point. More than 80 percent of the victims were teenage boys molested by homosexual priests," Knight added. The IGLSS report also criticized the news media's placement of stories related to the priest sex abuse scandal alongside descriptions of other inappropriate behaviors. The frequent emphasis of the victim's gender also helped create a misleading association between homosexuality and abuse, the report stated. The IGLSS did not return calls seeking comment. In their report, however, the authors urged journalists to exercise greater vigilance to eliminate stereotyping and to consult with communication specialists when appropriate. Knight also disputed the authors' findings of media bias in reporting on homosexuals and crime as "an example of wishing something would go away that is glaringly obvious. "They're heavily into damage control because they know that the dark underside of the Catholic sex scandal is the uncovering of the network of gay priests in the seminaries and in the churches. "As the Church cleans up its act, we hope people will realize this was a homosexual problem, not a pedophile problem. After all, most of the victims were teenagers, not small children," Knight said. http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewCulture.asp?Pag...L20030916a.html

WHY AREN'T PRIESTS IDENTIFIED AS HOMOSEXUALS? Fallen Roman Catholic Priests are identified as pedophiles, sex abusers or just nasty perverts. Though they do what homosexuals do, the popular liberated social status of “homosexual” is denied them, both by their own church, and by the homosexual at large. http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Evils%20in%...ual_priests.htm The articles have come from church-related sites....but that is understandable since this is a major problem for the Church.

Study shows scope of US sex-abuse scandal Washington, Feb. 27, 2004 (CWNews.com) - Over 4,000 American Catholic priests have been charges with the sexual abuse of children in the past 50 years, according to a report to be released today by US bishops' conference. At a Friday press conference in Washington, the US Conference of Catholic Bishops will formally release two studies on the sex-abuse scandal: a statistic analysis prepared by the John Jay College of Criminal Justice, and an analysis of those findings by the National Review Board commissioned by the US bishops. As he presented the findings of the National Review Board, at the February 27 press conference, Washington attorney Robert Bennett said that there was "absolutely no excuse" for the failure of bishops to control priests who molested children. He argued that the scandal must be seen not as a personnel issue, but as an "age-old question fo right and wrong, good and evil." The report found that 80 percent of the abuse involved male victims. That percentage climbed steadily from the 1950s through the 1980s, while the number of incidents also increased. Sex-abuse charges were most commonly brought against priests ordained in the 1960s and 1970s, and among the priests ordained in 1970, one out of ten has been accused of molesting children. http://www.cwnews.com/news/viewstory.cfm?recnum=27941

I am pained...and disillusioned by the sex scandal and findings that rocked the Church recently. Of course if we want to fix something, we have to understand the problem. So in answer to your suggestions, let me present these to you. Like I said before, it is hard to read and it may cause some pain to others. How Many Priests and Bishops are Homosexual? 11 2 Richard Sipe, a psychotherapist and former priest, has studied celibacy and sexuality in the priesthood for four decades. He has authored three books on the topic. He once estimated that 30% of the priesthood is homosexually oriented. Elsewhere, he is quoted as estimating that between 25% and 45% of American priests are homosexual in orientation. He told the Boston Globe: "If they were to eliminate all those who were homosexually oriented, the number would be so staggering that it would be like an atomic bomb; it would do the same damage to the church's operation...It would mean the resignation of at least a third of the bishops of the world. And it's very much against the tradition of the church; many saints had a gay orientation, and many popes had gay orientations. Discriminating against orientation is not going to solve the problem." http://www.catholicintl.com/epologetics/ar...al-priests1.htm How Many Priests and Bishops are Homosexual? 21 2 Robert Sungenis: Sex, Lies and Video Tape: During a press conference in Rome on April 24, 2002, the president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, Bishop Wilton Gregory, was interviewed regarding the homosexual problem in the Catholic Church. In his own words he said: "...it is an ongoing struggle to make sure that the Catholic priesthood is not dominated by homosexual men" (Newsweek, May 6, 2002, p. 23). The implications of this statement are obvious. Since "struggles" implies victories and defeats, then not only have homosexuals established themselves in the Catholic priesthood, but they have, at one time or another, "dominated" the priesthood. Not surprisingly, the statistics reported by Newsweek bear out the allusion to "dominated," since "between 35 and 50 percent of Roman Catholic priests are homosexual" (ibid). "The facts show that there is 20 times as much homosexuality as there is pedophilia, and the whole structure of many seminaries and many chancery offices promotes and protects it" (The Wanderer, May 2, 2002).

If you don't read...how can you understand where I'm coming from? It's hard enough trying to have my point reach those who had read...and yet still just dismiss my concern as just another right-wing propaganda. Right wing propagandas exists...the same way that left-wing propagandas also do exists. But mine, is a concern. Yes I am a Christian...and God, I pray that there never comes the day when I'll be afraid to admit that openly. But being a Christian does not mean that my concern is not warranted. I feel that I have a legitimate concern for our children and our youth. I feel bound to come out and speak...if not as a Christian....then, as a concerned citizen.

I've posted my point somewhere in the topic, BubberMiley.

But in fairness, I had also read in the past that majority of the gay members of ILGA did not know anything about NAMBLA and three other pedophile groups that had joined ILGA. Only high level officials knew of it. I've read it somewhere that ILGA tried to comply with UN's demands and rejected the three pedophile groups. However ILGA secretly tried to keep NAMBLA.

This is a good summary of every half-assed, facile and totally fallacious point you've clung to throughout this thread, regardless of any evidence presented. 1. ILGA is one part of the gay rights movement (you know, the one you keep talking about, yet are so frightfully ignorant of) that consists of hundreds of organizations around the world. Even if one presupposses that NAMBLA was ever a serious prescence within ILGA, the latter is not necessarily representative of the "movement" as a whole any more than, say, Stormfront is representative of conservative groups. "Even if one presupposses that NAMBLA was ever a serious prescence within ILGA," You know why we are stuck on this one particular issue? Ironically, it is because of you guys continuously trying to deny that at some time in the past, NAMBLA was associated with ILGA. It is because of your kind of reactions and handling of this issue that makes me all the more wonder: Is there something to fear? Is there something to hide? You make it sound that ILGA is just a small drop in the bucket for an organization, quite insignificant. If so, how did they ever have the clout to even be included in the UN? This excerpt was taken from the site of Gay and Lesbian Activists Alliance, another gay group I presume. "The current controversy over the membership of the North American Man/Boy Love Association (NAMBLA) in the International Lesbian and Gay Association (ILGA) raises in sharp relief the question of what boundaries, if any, should be drawn around the Gay and Lesbian civil rights movement. The predicament is prompted by the Clinton Administration's threat to seek the revocation of ILGA's consultative status in the United Nations Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) if ILGA does not oust NAMBLA at ILGA's 16th World Conference in New York next June. ILGA's leadership has stated its intention to seek NAMBLA's ouster, which under ILGA voting rules requires an 80% supermajority." That statement states the fact that NAMBLA was a member of ILGA. It states the fact that ILGA is not just one of the many gay groups scattered all over the world. It probably is THE MOTHER of all gay groups...if not, at least one of the most important, for it had achieved a recognized status,a consutative status in the United Nations. So you say..."Even if one presupposses that NAMBLA was ever a serious prescence within ILGA," Like as if there's even any doubt about it. NAMBLA sounds more than just a "serious" presence infact....if it managed to prompt the Clinton Administration to get involved...threatening to seek the revocation of ILGA's place in the UN. At least no one can ever accuse Clinton of being a right-winger. He's on your side, for crying out loud! http://www.glaa.org/archive/1994/namblaoutofbounds.shtml

Nope. That is not debate. YOU need to provide credible evidence for your claims, which are then refuted by the other "side" by providing supporting evidence for their argument. We are anxiously awaiting for credible resources to be supplied! Opinions do not count I gave you what I consider credible evidences. The ball just landed in your court. You're refuting it. Well, back it up.

None of this is relevant. Sources are credible when they are free of bias, are reporting studies, are held in high esteem through peer review, etc. Citing an opinion piece in an online "Chrisitan" news source, is NOT proof. And citing a fox news article is just .....well....funny Please cite some scientific journals or studies based on research. Opinion pieces don't count! [ Yes, I definitely agree with your last sentence. Opinion pieces don't count. I'm still waiting for your scientific journals and studies based on research that negates the ones that have been provided. I'm still waiting for credible evidences backing up your claims. Need more time?

My statement above about your admission to working for a gay rights grou....I neglected to put a question mark on the part "and still working." I'm not sure if you are still involved.

If you want to "protect our young boys," and making the age of consent for same-sex relations the same as opposite sex relations doesn't do so, doesn't that say that the age of consent for heterosexual relations is too low and should be increased? Or are you trying to argue that homosexuals are uniquely inclined to victimise children? Actually, it's a rather well-documented phenomenon. For all your accusations about "FBI-conspiracy" theories which are really....really way to the top..... at least humor us and provide a link backing up your claims. For something that you claim is "well-documented"...and a "phenomenon" at that, I'm sure you will not have a hard time finding credible materials to substantiate your claims. And for all your sweeping and automatic dismissal and indifference to what I think is a legitimate concern for some, show some substantiations that ALL THE SITES used for our arguments are without credibility......back your claims. Your attempts at denials...even when faced with different accounts from all sources that yes, NAMBLA had a history with ILGA, and yes, Gay Rights Movement had pushed for the lowering of AoC in Lithuania, highly questions your credibility in your arguments and reasoning. This is like the extreme right-wing looney denying the holocaust ever existed. Please, let's not try to twist facts and change history. This is a debate. Back up your claims so we can have a better understanding. You cannot expect me or those who questions like me to just accept your word as it is...even if you do it on scout's honor. Otherwise, your arguments are just hot air coming from someone who, by your very own voluntary admission.....had worked for a gay rights group (and still working), and thus obviously, and understandably, your very biased tirade is shining like a beacon.

Actually, it has consistently GONE UP So Sri Lanka decided to go back down. Darn!

Actually, I never stated that there was "never any history between NAMBLA and IGLA." I did state that NAMBLA has no significant link to the "gay rights movement" (your words in quotes). IGLA is not a significant organization, and if you had any experience in the gay rights movement, you'd be keenly aware of this fact. 2) You haven't yet mentioned a significant gay group or cited a significant gay group in your entire discussion of the "Gay Rights Movement." It's a bit like proving "all cars are unsafe" by citing the crash test ratings of Yugoslavian steam buggies built in 1918, but ignoring GM, Ford, Toyota, FIAT, Peugeot, Nissan, Honda, and even Studebaker and Deusenberg. As for the relationship between ILGA and NAMBLA...please refer to your own posts #64 and #67 on page 5. I must've misunderstood your statements. As for mentioning any specific groups by name, as you can see I have no personal experience in the gay rights movement....besides why do I need to memorize any specific group by name? I thought saying Gay Rights MOvement meant just that. Maybe by a different name...but the agenda's still the same, right?

Homosexuals aren't lobbying to lower the age of consent either -- a point you've ignored for the SIXTH time now. Repeating your lie over and over doesn't make it true, you know. In every case you've cited, the age of consent law was moved for gay sexual intercourse to the SAME place where it ALREADY WAS for straight sexual intercourse -- in other words, people didn't have to be older in order to legally have homosexual relations with others. The one case you cited about Sri Lanka lowering its opposite-sex age of consent had no gay involvement at all -- in fact, Sri Lanka is a very homophobic country where sexual relations with members of the same sex is punishable by prison time. Your argument that the "Gay Rights Movement" has anything to do with decisions in that country is dishonest in the extreme. Just have to correct you on this one. I did not say the Sri Lanka case was lobbied by the Gay Rights Movement. I posted that to show that age is getting lowered...thus my comment, "pedophilia is winning." It is Lithuania that was lobbied by the Lesbian and Gay Association. And they succeeded. The link for the news report is somewhere in this topic.

D'oh! Doesn't seem like NAMBLA has received any endorsement or co-operation even from this tiny GLAA group you're linking to in this twelve-year-old article. Try again. D'oh? Hang in there buddy, we're making painful progress here. Boy, I feel like a dentist extracting tooth from you. So now, finally, we've both established that you were wrong in saying there was never any history between NAMBLA and ILGA. In fact, NAMBLA was a member of ILGA! Oh well...I mean you now harm. Although I'm afraid it will fall on deaf ears....my point in all these is the fact that: The changing of the traditional definition of marriage had opened the gates. And I'm only questioning the fact....that with the Gay Rights Movement PAST involvement with NAMBLA...and for all the declared disassociation with the pedophile group, why is the Gay Rights Movement still pushing for lowering the age of consent? I have voiced out my concern. Well...I guess I'll have to distance myself from this discussion. Or at least I'll try.

Except that the organization doesn't exist, except when right-wingers need a bogeyman to tie to "the gays." Notice how it's more or less disappeared as people have come to understand that gays aren't interested in raping their kids? Funny how that works. It's also funny how for such an allegedly big and powerful well funded group which is allegedly so central to the gay rights movement, they don't have an official web site, leadership, full time office, or anything else other than a couple dozen "members" (half under the employ of the FBI) and a "membership list" which often included the names of J Edgar Hoover's enemies in an effort to smear them. The whole thing is a smokescreen. Nobody but psychos (and right-wing extremists, but I repeat myself) supports the alleged aims of the group or believes that it has any significant following whatsoever. It's not that I've made up my mind, it's that you are Blanche, you are! Let's see. . . You've linked to WorldNet Daily -- a right-wing anti-gay site. Seems reasonable they'd smear gays. You've linked to FOX News -- a right-wing anti-gay site. Seems reasonable they'd smear gays. You've linked to "LifeSite" -- a religious right-wing anti-gay site. Seems reasonable they'd smear gays. Oh, and you've linked to an "art history club" web site as an authoritative source on this history of gay rights. What site will you link to next to support your view? Perhaps a web site for classic car enthusiasts? http://www.glaa.org/archive/1994/namblaoutofbounds.shtml will this do? Boy, you're hard to please.... I'm going through all this various sites. YIKES! Uh-oh....now I done it. I did not realize the source for the latest link until I clicked the home page. http://www.glaa.org/index.shtml Tell me this is not a right-wing group....please?

Except that the organization doesn't exist, except when right-wingers need a bogeyman to tie to "the gays." Notice how it's more or less disappeared as people have come to understand that gays aren't interested in raping their kids? Funny how that works. It's also funny how for such an allegedly big and powerful well funded group which is allegedly so central to the gay rights movement, they don't have an official web site, leadership, full time office, or anything else other than a couple dozen "members" (half under the employ of the FBI) and a "membership list" which often included the names of J Edgar Hoover's enemies in an effort to smear them. The whole thing is a smokescreen. Nobody but psychos (and right-wing extremists, but I repeat myself) supports the alleged aims of the group or believes that it has any significant following whatsoever. It's not that I've made up my mind, it's that you are Blanche, you are! Let's see. . . You've linked to WorldNet Daily -- a right-wing anti-gay site. Seems reasonable they'd smear gays. You've linked to FOX News -- a right-wing anti-gay site. Seems reasonable they'd smear gays. You've linked to "LifeSite" -- a religious right-wing anti-gay site. Seems reasonable they'd smear gays. Oh, and you've linked to an "art history club" web site as an authoritative source on this history of gay rights. What site will you link to next to support your view? Perhaps a web site for classic car enthusiasts? http://www.glaa.org/archive/1994/namblaoutofbounds.shtml will this do? Boy, you're hard to please.... I'm going through all this various sites.

Why, are heterosexuals lobbying to lower the age of consent? Never heard of that one.

Well, obviously you've already made up your mind that I am simply smearing...so no matter what substantiations I present to you, you'll just automatically trash it. I find it hard to believe that all these sites, including the news report about Lithuania lowering the age of consent....are all out there to smear. Aren't they afraid of being sued for slander, defamation and false reporting?