Rue

Lol I noticed in yoru comment you wanted to be set straight! I think there are special retreats you can go to for that. I hear they play Amy Grant music over and over while you are strapepd to a table with your eyes braced open while you watch Jerry Falwell in a g-string play with his nipples and repeat over and over-I am not sexually attractive to you I am not sexually attractive to you and then Tammy Fae Baker is flashed on the screen and she says-its me you want baby, me. Eventually after two weeks of this, your penis falls off anyways..so I am not sure what the point is. Sorry couldn't resist.

Now Sir you are projecting your own sexual feelings. Take ownership of them. You speak of your feelings. You may be grooming children from infancy to serve as your sex partners but don't project that on gays or anyone else. Keep your sick perverted thoughts to yourself.

If I said tts faiurly common knowledge you are a nut case and I don't have to prove it what would you say? I am trying to keep this brief since you've told us you can't read too much at once.

Its obvious you can't and do not read. Thanks for sharing a "fact".

They must shave now! (the men too) That was a joke. Tongue in cheek. All this has become is a couched way of discussing why people are not comfortable with Muslims.

OOops is write in your statement of what Hezbollah did you seemed to have skipped over some things that would distinguish what it did from what the IDF did. But hey who cares right? According to your arguement two wrongs make a right. Since Israel in your opinion is terrorist what Hezbollah does is valid. Brilliant. I guess you are next up for the Nobel Peace Prize.

I appreciate your arguement for consistency based on a moral principle. I do. I just think its unrealistic givenm the doctrine of sovereignty. I appreciate your aguement to maintain consistency. It is based on logic. Mine is not. I concede that. I just think its one thing to say make a statenment, but I am not sure how much further you go and morally it is possible to make relative arguements as to when to apply it. I appreciate your idealism on this one. I am afraid I am a cynic on this one. I defer to your idealism. Its harder to be an idealist when debating this issue.

Simple its called the sovereignty doctrine.

The problem with telling another country they need to send back Canadians who murder their citizens so we can place them in our jails and presumably let them free since we do that sort of thing after 2,5 to 5 years for good behaviour since our prisons are jam packed and we have no space for anyone is that its a tad preumptious telling other countries what to do. Put it in reverse do you want China demanding we send back the Dalai Lama now that he's Canadian? Where do you draw the line lecturing other countries? If you lecture them they are going to expect repciprocity-that is how the real world works, you gimmee mine back I have to exchange yours. The problem is some of us genuinely believe they think there is one ideal standard-the Canadian one, and everyone else is a savage who should aspire to follow our moral standards and so assume we can impose our beliefs on others like the idiot missionaries we used to be in the past before we ran out of savages to save. Do I favour capital punishment? Not necessarily but what I am willing to concede is from a practical point of view all Harper has done is acknowledge reality not do anything new. I mean if it will make the next government happy to go back to lecturing and acting upset and caring, bully for them but nothing will change. Its called sovereignty. Unless a country decides for itself whether it will or will not deport all we can do is ask and I think asking say to send back less serious criminals is one thing, murderers, major drug traffickers, pedophiles, terrorists,welll it gets a tad complicated. I appreciate some of you want to take an active role but there's limits to where that goes and noty everyone out there shares this view. As for the terrorist whose rights were violated I appreciate rules of law. I do. Its just I also am realistic-no American will ever send the terrorist back and quite frankly what would we do with him? Put him in jail for life? Besides Bernardo have we ever done that? Oh Wait Clifford Olson is he still there? Anyone think Mr. Bernardo won't be released later on? Never you say. Don't bet on it.Some day someone will assure us they can put an implant in his brain and its easier to watch him from his home and we can zap him through the implant if he gets a boner. Think I am cazy? Wait for it. The implant advocates are furiously working away at it. They will present it as the new panacea for controlling bad guys. Just a matter of time. Then we can blur the definition of bad guy and get to the point where we all get zapped all in the name of humanity of course. After all it was the right thing to do. It was the moral thing to do. We didn't want to use undue force.

Well now. Is it not possible to make hospitals welcoming to all and provide qual access for all but also provide user friendly features if it has lots of people from a certain group? Can it not be both? Its just a matter of balancing everything. I don't think what's being asked for is EXTREME as its being presented. Hospitals always accommodate people's religions and cultures. There's no reason such accommodation should exclude others sim;ly because it acknowledges certain minorities. Its all in how you present it. Look certain communities who will use a hospital will be very active getting their interests met. Instead of complaining show the same interest as them to get your own represented I say. I am also not sure if the contribution in funding to this hospital is as small as its been presented nor is the population base of South East Asians who will use the hospital as small as its being presented either. I agree since its not a private hospital, and its a public one, it has to guard against discrimination but I am not sure how simply accommodating one group necessarily means that discriminates against another. It may not at all. It could be the reaction to the accommodation is simply someone who doesn't like who is being accommodated, no more no less and so subjectively perceive it as unfair. The idea a hospital should provide food to accommodate people's beliefs, I am not sure how that disciminates. If you don't want any curry don't eat it. Somehow I think by the time this hospital tries to cook with curry it will end up smelling and looking like green jello anyways.

Read your words I put in quotationKeng and understand their mean spiritedness and despite your constant denials of their consequences as you repeat them they remain constant in their hatred; "I made these points to illustrate the fact that people who experience suffering and persecution can themselves become persecuters and victimizers." But your words did not establish this point. You assume that because certain people suffered, then went on to victimize others-that you can take everyone else who has the same ethnicity or lifestyle as they do, and hold those other people morally responsible for their actions. read your words Keng. They make no sense at all. If a Jew commits an act of evil, does that make me morally responsible simply because I am also a Jew. That is precisely what you are saying and that is why its anti-semitic just as its wrong to do that with anyone what-ever group you perceive them to be in. Stop and think Keng. Read your words. If Israel as you say has questionable human rights policies or practices, how does that make ALL Jews victimizers or enable you to make an arguement that Jews who suffered from Nazis are now victimizers? What kind of mind makes such conclusions Keng. What gives you the ability to say ALL Jews or ALL gays are victimizers. That is what you are saying Keng and its absurd. "Israel is a state that was founded by Jews, many of who survived the holocaust; yet the best way in which they can accomplish this is through terrorism" Read your above words. You always revert to the word "THEY". Who is they Keng? Read your words Keng. They is not specific to those particular Jews who are Israeli who were part of the process of formulating what you feel is questionable policy-it is a general word you use for ALL JEWS worldwide not just specific Israelis and that Sir makes you a raving bigot and anti-semite because your mind can not distinguish between the category you construct and then assign a general negative quality to and the fact that each person in that group is different Keng. More to the point you make a sweeping generalization that Israel engages in terrorism just as you do that all Jews are victimziers or all male gays celebrate pedophilia. You do this Keng because you are lazy. Its easier for you to make sweeping subjective opinions that make negative generalizations rather then give specific examples to prove your point-and that Sir is why I strip the layers of your words like skin on an onion to expose the rotted inner corps. " (Irgun, etc), war, and displacing and forcing millions of people into refugee camps. " Keng the above is an example of how you fabricate and make statements that are patently false. Irgunnever forced millions into any refugee camps. Anyone who knows the history of what happened knows Irgun may have done certain things, but the decision to place Palestinians in refugee camps was done by the Arab League. Once again Keng you present a comment that has nothing to do with anything other then what you have fabricated in your own mind. Why don't you make an attempt to try read what it is you think you are talking about? Tell you what Keng show me where you found information to indicate Irgun placed millions in refugee camps. Show me. Here is what I have to say Keng-you won't for the same reason you won't find any information about pollutants making animals gay -you make these things up keng and for me I find it sad you have to do that. "Of course any criticism of Jews or Israel get's automatic "anti-semite" accusation--that's always the way it is." We are talking about you Keng and how you do not distinguish between Israelis and Jews, and make subjective opinions about Israel's alleged policies, then use it to suggest its acceptable to make negative generalizations about all Jews. We are talking about you Keng no one else. The above response tries to make you sound like you are part of a greater whole that engages in the same exercise. Well if they do Keng of course its anti-semitic just as it is is homo-phobic to do the same with gays. Keng we are talking about YOU and how YOU make negative generalizations of an entire people or perceived group of people and how those negative generalizations are not based on substantiated facts you provide but simply your subjective feelings. Trying to portray yourself not just as a victim but a group of victims is cowardly. Take responsibility for what you do. Don't try hide in a bigger group and suggest this membership gives you legitimacy. It doesn't. "But I talk about Israel no different than I do about the USA and Americans, China and Chinese, or any other country/people that I have issues with--regardless of race or religion (yes, even "Christians"). " That is the point Keng. You make sweeping hateful negative generalizations not just about Jews and Gays but anyone else you care to. Does the fact that you hate everyone equally or engage in your negative generalizations to more then one or two groups make it morally acceptable or honourable of course not. Wrong is not made right because you choose to commit the wrong oevr and over. Hate does not cease to be hate because you hate many people not just one or two. It is a product of a diseased soul to think if one's hatred or anger or wrong is compounded it makes it acceptable and legitimate. No Keng negative thoughts of course multiply and spead like any infection, like any cancer or virus or bacteria. " Would it have made you happy had I chosen some other country?" Think how absurd that question is. Would I prefer you to rape and beat a black woman instead of a white woman? Would I prefer you to beat up a gay instead of a Jew? Would I prefer you to have lung cancer or liver cancer? What kind of question is that Keng? What kind of soul asks a question that tells us all you think hurting someone can be excused and rationalized provided I hate the person as well. Is that how you see things Keng that its o.k. to hurt and victimize people as long as we agree on who the victim should be? Think of the question Keng. Think why you asked it. "How about the Netherlands who all those years had to suffer under Nazi occupation (except the 60,000 who enlisted in the Wehrmacht and Waffen SS) and once freed--by the Canadians no less--went off and started a war in southeast Asia that resulted in c. 250,000 deaths, I believe. Is that better??? Or is this me just being "typical anti-dutchite-using"...???" The above comment is incoherent Keng and I ask you again why do you think you state such words? Can you see the anger and hatred in them and how they are designed to ask me to engage in the same hurtful exercises you engage in. Think Keng. Challenge your mind to stop screaming out judgements and say something that does not scream. Think. Use basic reasoning. If the Dutch government went out and engaged in genocide of a people based on a government policy, it would be wrong. The fact that Holland was occupied by Nazi Germany in world war two is irelevant to that. Morality is defined by the consequence of our present actions. If you do something you know is wrong, it can't be turned into a right by what happened in the past. Think Keng. If Holland is able to take over Europe and establish an eleborate and extensive network of civilian collaboration to commit its genocide, then yes many people must be held responsible. On the other hand, if I do not like a policy of the Dutch government, does this give me the right to hate all Dutch people and blame them all and hold them all responsible for that policy? Think Keng. Can your mind operate on a level other then extremes? Is is possible for you to see grey and not just black and white? Is it possible Keng there are degrees to things and that they are not all ABSOLUTE but sometimes a bit of this, a bit of that, and can not be so easily defined as you define them? Thing Keng. Think. Challenge your mind. Resist the urge to scream out. Think. In Holland in World War Two, certain Dutch collaborated with the Nazis, while others did not. Those who did one way or the other will whether in their life during their death process, be forced to deal with the implications of that collaboration. But for those Dutch that resisted, and the many Dutch who had no food and were hungry and were victimized by Nazis, do you think you have the right to speak to them as you do? See I know something about the Dutch because I made a point to visit Ann Frank's home. Perhaps if you would dare force yourself to read her book you might just see what I am saying. The Dutch have never tried to hide the fact that some of their civilians collaborated. They do not repress that. It is part of their history just as was their resistance. The Dutch never forget the Canadian efforts in their country-ever. They stand by us in Afghanistan and their history never forgets us precisely because they are not afraid to express themselves and do so positively not just negatively. The Dutch did something no other country did in Europe back when their were world oil boycotts to try pressure the West into turning against Israel. The Dutch people refused to turn their backs on Israel and give in-why? Because the Dutch are decent people and this is how they express their understanding of the holocaust. The Dutch do not need you to take their name in vain like some sort of twisted joke. The Dutch like the Danish also chose to place themselves in danger to save Jews and defend them against Nazis. Are the Dutch perfect? They will be the first to tell you they have had problems with Mollucans (Indonesians) and now with Muslims. The point is they will tell you. They don't hide it. They don't hide the colonial part of their history that may have hurt or victimized people when they were in Indonesia, etc. They are upfront about it. If you want to make generalizations about them Keng try positive ones. I will say something else Keng, Dutch culture is very tolerant. It does not go around deeming gays immoral like you do. Dutch people have not been overwhelmed by brain-washing because they are this way. Its who they are-tolerant people. They don't repress the reality of prostitution or gays or drug use. They try deal with such issues openly by discussing them openly and finding ways to manage them without judging people. Keng are you capable of walking up to a gay man and trying to listen to him? Are you capable of trying to speak with a Jew or a Dutch person? Would they scare you? Would you immediately interupt them and shout them down and tell them they are immoral? How about in your own Christian world. Do you think its possible you would be able to talk to a Christian who very much loves their religion but does not think gays are immoral or that Jews are collectively responsible for killing Christ or that to be Christian means it gives you the right to hate people and make judgements against them in the name of Jesus? Keng I do enjoy this. Keep bringing it. What you may hear is a very loud laugh. It is a laugh of sheer joy watching you struggle to hold onto your words because I really do believe you doubt them and that is good because we all doubt things Keng-its just some of us don't try hide our feelings of doubt by trying to sound like if we judge others, we are not doubtful. Man you should try read some of the Dali Lama's stuff. Just might make you laugh instead of calling people Nazis or brainwashers. He was just in Canada. You think he hates gays? You think he is brainswashed since he does not hate them?

Lol. This reminds me of a saying from Confucious- some things are self-evident, such as a mean spirit.

All of it. Look I do not doubt for some of us, we bring fat on by poor lifestyle and eating choices and so we are individually responsible for the messes we make-I accept Geoffrey's comment but to an extent. On the other hand, there are people with chronic illnesses or specific medical conditions and so they do not choose to be fat and have no control over it and some people have severe mental illnesses that manifest with over or under eating and have to be distinguished from those of us who have choice and choose to be gluttons. We need some perspective when deciding what is revolting. Now for me I find all humans disgusting. Think about it- we come into the world leaking fluid and we depart doing the same. In between are gross. We burp, phart, grow things we do not want to, emit horrible odours and smells and substances, and our orificies are full of strange substances. Human bodies are by nature yechy. I mean please try write a romantic poem about snot or eye crust or pus or tooth decay oh never mind. So I find all humans gross equally. Never met a human that doesn't leak something and have some sort of offensive smell. So with that in mind when my wife asks me if she is fat, of course my answer is, "uh um uh well I mean Paris Hilton is dumb." (and please do not tell me she has eye crust its not possible stop)

Keng in you defence of stating that gays are involved in a social conspiracy to brain-wash people you responded with the above comment: "Gay rights movement." How does that prove your contention? Are you lazy or simply someone who states subjective opinions but has no clue how he arrives at them? Which one is it Keng. According to your reasoning, ANYONE who forms an organize to express a political idea engages in brain-washing. Is that what you are saying or do you think you can simply suggest because gays have a movement that defends their interests it must brainwash people. What kind of idiotic statement is that. Has it brainwashed you and your kind? Well? Think when you smeer Keng. Do you even know where the concept of brainwashing comes from and why there is in fact no such a concept and that its used by people like you because they do not understand the psychological phenomena associated with coercion and trauma? Have you a clue what causes trauma and what coercion is? In response to your comment that male gays celebrate pedophilia you of course provided no proof and then ask the following question; "What are people who have sex with people of the same sex?" Tell us Keng. How does having sex with someone of the same sex mean its pedophilia. You did not respond and make any attempt to challenge the psychological and medical statements I made to you as to what pedophilia is. Why? why do you ignore the DSM V Psychiatric Manual? Why you simply repeat the above comment and avoid debating? Keng what is it you can not understand about the following comment-when a pedophile has sex with a child, it doesn't make him a hetero-sexual when its a child of the opposite sex and it does not make him a homo-sexual if its a child of the same sex. Sex with children is neither homo or hetero-sexuality. If you want to pretend this is not the case, or ignore this and persist with the nonsense that sex with a child is to be defined with the same terms as sex with adults, then I am telling you, not only are you wrong, but you are a coward for refusing to admit you are single out gays as pedophiles but do not do the same with hetero-sexuals. Using your reasoning, not mine, all hetero-sexual males celebrate pedophilia because certain pedophiles have sex with children of the opposite sex. Or are you saying it only applies to gays? Well speak up Keng or stop hiding behind subjective opinions or do us all a favour and admit you have no idea how to defend what you are saying other than repeating your subjective opinions. "The spread and acceptance of the two movements have similarities." No Keng simply repeating the above subjective opinion with no factual reference and no explanation as to how they are similiar is dishonest and cowardly-are you even capable of showing what is similiar? Do you know anything about what you think you are talking about? Come on Keng spit it out, show us where its similiar. "Why can't they be "victimizers". Who is THEY Keng. Tell me. How do you arrive at your conclusion you can take all gays and simply lump them in one category called "they" and then refer to them ALL as victimizers? Do you think that is rational thought? DO you mean to tell us you know every single gay and what goes on in all their minds and its the same and more importantly they all go around victimizing hetero-sexuals because they were born gay? Are you nuts? "That's correct. Animals aren't homos." Prove it or shut up already. No it is not correct. It is absolutely incorrect and so incorrect it makes you sound like some madman who stands there stamping his feet and insisting he won't get sick if he runs around outside in minus 30 degree weather without clothes on. Tell us gang how is your subjective opinion that animals aren't gay a fact? Come on show us the documentation. You have been asked 4 times and all you have done is keep repeating your subjective opinion. Why? I again ask is that because you simply do not know how to? If that is the case admit that otherwise Sir I say to you to your face, you are absurd for making such statements because you know they have zero factual basis. "Something can't be "not widespread" that doesn't exist." Keng now you engage in a pathetic exercise. You refuse to provide facts to base your opinion that there is no homo-sexuality in the animal kingdom, now you repeat the opinion and say because you repeated your subjective opinion that makes it true. Again I ask you are you nuts? DO you think you can establish fact by stating a subjective opinion then stating-well its true because you said so? How do you know it does not exist? Put up or shut up. "Same sex attraction in animals is proven scientifically to be caused by pollutants." So provide the source for the above. You said its proven scientifically. You were asked to show the scientific evidence many times. Are we to conclude Sir you haven't because; a-you simply made it up; b-think if you repeat something unsubstantiated people will simply get tired of you and assume its true, c-have cognitive impairment that prevents you from understanding the difference between your opinions and what a fact is; d-are deliberately dishonest with people and simply like to bait them. which one is it? "Homosexuality is immoral." But so are you so what is the point? The fact that you think it is immoral means what? Next you will tell us you are God. You have already told us you speak for him. "Immorality is detrimental to society." People who say other people are immoral and make moral judgements on them are detrimental to society as well-your point? "And "gay rights activists" don't?" Don't what Keng? Once again you create this stereotype of "gay right activist" but don't explain what it consists of, then suggest all of them engage in immorality. You are quick to create groups, then assignment them common negative characteristics. Why? Did you ever stop and think why you do that and what that means? "Most of my opinions, however, are not subjective; they are objective and based on fact." So where are the facts Keng? Where? Show any of us ONE fact, one. You know what Keng you are one sad case. You can't even provide one fact to base your subjective opinions, not one.

And mine were blatant, i.e., deliberate and open to prove that point.

1. You have provided no factual statements about pedophilia at all. What you have continued to do is state subjective feelings or opinions and then claim they are factual. Where are your facts for them Keng? 2. Personal attack? You come on this forum and claim gays engage in the same tactics as Nazis and male gays celebrate pedophilia and you dare complain about personal attacks? That is a good one. 3. I referred to you as an anti-semite and as a homophobe NOT because you stated that in your opinion Israel has a poor human rights record. That was not the reason you were called an anti-semite or homophobe by me. You now hide behind the statement of Israel having a bad human rights record to try make yourself a victim? HAH! I called you an anti-semite because of your exercise of assuming that because you question Israeli policies, you can then assign negative culpability to Jews for it. That Sir is typical anti-semitism-using your criticism of Israel to attach negative characteristics to all Jews and that is what you did just as you try suggest because some Society communists were of Jewish origin you can assign that to all Jews and make the sweeping generalization that all Jews are victimizers because of that. That Sir makes you a raving anti-semite. It also Sir is the same exercise you engage in against gays. You state subjective opinions that make negative assumptions of all gays and then you keep repeating your negative assumptions as to all gays are based on facts but present one. Don't play victim with me. Either defend your subjective opinions with factual basis or admit you have none and are just expressing your own personal hatred for yourself which you think you see in gays. More to the point before you lecture any Jew or gay on being a victimizer look at your own words and take responsibility for them and what they mean. The fact you would smeer gays with deliberately hateful words then come on this post and act the victim is of no suprise to me.

Keng you have expressed the following comments; 1- gays are brainwashing people 2-the male gay community celebrates pedophilia 3-pedophiles are homo-sexuals when they engage in sex with a child of the same sex 4-gays engage in the same tactics as Nazis 5-gays and Jews are victimizers because in the case of gays they engage in a social conspiracy to make people think being gay is acceptable and in the case of Jews, because some of them may have joined the Soviet Communist party and because you consider certain Israeli policies to be human rights violations 6-homo-sexuality in animals is disputed 7-homo-sexuality in animals is not widespead 8-homo-sexuality in animals is caused by pollutants 9-homo-sexuals are immoral 10-what is wrong with society is that homo-sexuals (and non homo-sexuals) won't repress their true selves and sexual feelings. You have not provided one fact to base any of these 10 comments. What you continue to do is repeat your subjective opinions including the above comments to defend these subjective opinions.

So do tell us, how do you define what a Canadian is. Because before you can protect your culture and who you are, wouldn't it be a good idea to know who you are? Let me give you a hint, there's been considerable difficuly defining the Canadian identity and it continues to be reflected in many constitutional conflicts. Good luck. Like I said can't wait to read your statute. You may want to borrow from Quebec. Trois Rivieres set up a code of behaviour and of course the Parti Quebecois wants to solidy what the Quebec Charter of Rights wil define as acceptable Quebec culture. Apparently they got upset with Muslims who asked for pea soup without pork in it and now the Quebec government muses out loud whether civil servants should wear religious things such as hajib or yamachas (or as they say in Canada, Jewish beenie caps). Yes the Quebecers can show you the way on this issue. Of course when it comes to asking them just what makes their culture distinct and unique other then language it tends to get quite confused after that. When I have asked Quebecers what makes them unique other then their language or roots to France, I usually get a puzzled look. Sometimes I get references to the kitchen in the front of the house, a fondness for certain foods, but remarkably I don't hear what I would expect to hear (references to music, literature) I get references to being purelains (inbred). Being a non purelains from Quebec who came to Ontario I would describe Quebec culture with the fact that we Jews taught them how to make a proper bagel and how to smoke brisket properly. For now the only thing I can think makes Quebec distinct other then language is its steamed hot dogs and square hot dog buns. The maple syrup and smoked beans are niot specific to Quebec. Maybe the pea soup is and meat pies. Other then that I can only think of the Habs, but they have a glorious multi-cultural make up. To me a real Quebecer must come from Montreal anyways and our cultural contribution to the rest of Canada has always been our sueprior sense of attire and ability to look good in the winter.

I am of the red haired people and in my case I have always known I am a Neanderthal especially in the morning. (I thought all men were anyways) You may want to hold off telling Lindsay Lohan this. She's been sober 46 days. Give her a break.

Perfected huh. Then what the hell did they circumciize me for then?

Exactly. Now from what I can understand though the natural Kurd border transgresses into Turkey and I doubt either Turkey or Iraq are intersted in allowing a Kurdish nation to be carved from either. Lets face it Iraq is 3 parts, l kurd, 1 shiite, both with oil, and the middle Sunni with nothing in it. The Shiite component wants to join Iran, the Kurds want their own country and the middle aint worth spit. On it goes. More innocent civilians will die. Fuck I hate borders.

Aren't you glad its not you! AHahah I am sure Buffy is hiding.

By breathing then writing what you did. You made ridiculous negative generalizations about Jews. But then this comes from a guy who feels gay animals are the result of pollutants.

Yoh Bambi, I am similiar to Hitler. I am a man with a bad hair cut and attitude and I am wearing a brown shirt today.

No I am not finished with you. You engaged in anti-semitic babble and I addressed that issue but I now come back to your attack on gays which you say is not hateful. I will specifically delineate your hateful comments and explain why they are hateful since you engage in denial as to the consequences of your words; "Pedophelia is a celebrated aspect of male gay culture." The above comment suggests the male gay community advocates and celebrates the sexual molestation of children and so not only is it hateful but it is deliberately stated because you know it smeers innocent male gay men. You smeer their good name and suggest they are engaging in celebration of molesting children and that Sir is as odious as it gets. Interestingly Sir you stated and I quote; "never said homosexuality is pedophelia--" then in the exact same passage go on to state and I quote; "Moreover, man-boy love is a celebrated aspect of male gay culture. " You want to deny this as well? Your words Sir speak for themselves. They are not being twisted. They show you contradict yourself precisely because you are expressing a confusion from within you. People who are not confused don't deny then repeat in the same sentence, and quite frankly Sir your communication is almost identical to the writing style of Kapitan. May I ask are you one and the same person because not long ago he also came on this forum and stated homo-sexuals were pedophiles as you do and then denied it but kept repeating it so I ask are you Kapitan? Here are some more hateful words directly written by you... "So men who engaged in homosexual acts also readily engaged in pedophelia, as well." You Sir repeated on at least 7 references I found that pedophiles are homo-sexuals. Your comment is deliberate and is intended to blur the line to suggest gays and pedophiles are the same and you made that clear when you claimed the male gay community celebrates pedophilia. I could Sir point out to you that according to the DSM V Psychiatric Manual, the American and Canadian Medical, Psychological and Psychiatric Associations and the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons as well as every Western medical association that pedophilia is not homo-sexual behaviour and that homo-sexuality is not classified as either an illness or deviation or abonormality but then we aren't engaged in truth Sir are we-what we are engaged in is you stating your personal hatred for gays by suggesting since you do not like the idea they have sex with one another and so since you find it unacceptable then it must be sick. Pedophilia is classified as sex by an adult with EITHER a boy or a girl. If you tried to read what you profess about you would understand when a pedophilia engages in sex he does not do so because the child is a boy or girl, he does so because the child has no sexual characteristics, in fact whether they are a boy or a girl, they are physically underdeveloped and therefore look the same. There are ample criminal and medical case statistics to indicate over 85% of pedophiles in fact when they do have adult sex, do so with someone of the opposite sex and that 90% or more of pedophiles are men and the reason they pick out a child is not because they are a boy or a girl but because of access and opportunity. Its not because the child is a boy or a girl they molest them-it is Sir because they are available. Now I am telling you-I have had to work and get in the minds of pedophiles as a family mediator and defender of children. I know what makes them tick, how they operate. You do not know what you talk about. In fact Sir, homo-sexual adults precisely because they are under the gun for being gay in the first place, are far more careful when they are with children then straight people. That Sir is something you would know if you took the time to understand that gay men as children are molested no different then straight men and they did not become gay because they were molested nor were they molested because they are gay. Your reasoning Sir suggests among other things that not only is pedophilia and homo-sexual behaviour the same but that necessarily a gay person molested by a pedophile since they are gay have engaged in homo-sexual sex. What absolute nonsense. Homo-sexual or hetero-sexual sex is with adults, i.e., people fully formed sexually and its based on consent and mutual capacity. This Sir brings me to the next point. Why Sir do you think you find it so necessary to call gays immoral? Well let's look at your words shall we? "To simply dismiss someone's homosexuality as "that's just the way they are" is disingenuous. You're suggesting that people can't change how they think, their attitudes, how they behave; people should simply go with how they feel. This is exact reason why some much is wrong with our society." Read your own words. They are the words of a man who says people should repress their sexual feelings and their true feelings because if they don't its wrong. So are you talking about yourself Sir? Is this what you do? Is this why you lash out at gays because you feel since you have to repress your trye feelings they should to? Am I twisting your words Sir? Just what then did you mean by saying society is wrong if people do not repress their true sexual feelings? Are you saying you repress your true feelings so others should to? Are you saying it is mentally healthy to repress who one is? I ask you Sir because you seem terrified of the consequence of people who will not repress their true sex feelings-to the point where you present unsubstantiated social conspiracy theories that gays are going around brainwashing people into thinking they are normal and that what they do causes them to have sex with children. Do you think that is what happens when gays do not repress their feelings-brainwashing and child molestation? Or Sir do you think if you don't repress yourself you might do something unacceptable? Which is it? I ask Sir because as I said before when you impugn the motives of gays, you also open yourself to the same exercise-if you can question then assign motive to gays can they not do the same with you? Can they also not say you engage in Nazi tactics, try brain-wash people, and in fact may simply hate your own inner feelings that you repress. Tell me Sir, in your alleged religion, do you think Jesus preached that loving one's fellow man means hating them like you do? I note you claim to be Christian but when it comes to trying to justify hating gays, you fall back on the Old Testament? Why? Are you not the same person who stated to me that Jews are victimizers just like Nazis, gays and Soviet communists? Why would you quote from their Bible? Could it be Sir there is no passage in the New Testament that condones hating anyone? Could it also be Sir that you quote a Bible written during a time and place by men reflecting their biases of that day and their preoccupation that if Jews did not procreate they would be assimilated and cease to exist? Tell me Sir, when would you have us engage in the stonings? I would suggest Keng you understand that your comments are not only hateful but simply ypur subjective feelings and Sir they evidence you simply make things up. Let me give you one last example; "First of all, the evidence for "homosexuality" among animals is extremely questionable. There is some evidence that that kind of behaviour occurs among animals that have become severely contaminated by pollutants." I would suggest Sir you fabricated this response-you simply made it up in the heat of response.Am I wrong? Tell us then why you did not provide the information from which to show animals do not engage in homo-sexuality. Its idiotic. The evidence of homo-sexuality in animals is so abundant and easily found even by people who do not approve of homo-sexuality to make me ask the next question-do you also question whether the world is round? Your nonsensical statement that animals become gay because of pollutants is sheer fabrication. You never read that did you or are you suggesting Elton John is gay because he breathed in too much smog? Homo-sexuality Sir as any scientist can yell you is a way nature randomly builds into life forms, a regulating mechacnism for population growth. If there is no war, and optimally there is no disease, its a way to naturally control population growth. It is one of nature's many ways of regulating itself. Your project upon it your moral feelings or demonizing it as pedophilia to justify your hatred of it does not change that fact. And one last thing and hear me loud and clear to the following comments that you keep repeating; "Because they were brainwashed to believe this. That's because that's what you've been conditioned to believe by persistant propagandization by the "gay rights" movement." Don't you dare tell me how I arrive at my thoughts and beliefs and suggest because you disagree with them I must be brainwashed. This is sheer ignorance and intolerance on your part and is used as a device by you to demonize and dismiss anyone who will not agree with you. No Sir we are not all brainwashed. No gay person brainwashed me. I am proud to be their friends and associate with them and I respect them and their right to be gay. Yes Sir its possible to be straight and believe gays are NORMAL and decent and no different then me simply because they have a different sexual preference. If there were only two humans left on this planet and one of them was gay and the other one was you-guess who I would pick-hint; Jodie Foster.