kengs333

I never said homosexuality is pedophelia--I said that it's two forms of deviant sexual behaviour. Moreover, many pedophiles are homosexuals. The majority of sexual assault committed by female teachers is on female students, for instance. Moreover, man-boy love is a celebrated aspect of male gay culture. You have to keep in mind, this "oppression" that you feel that gays have experienced is not really oppression. They want to undermine and corrupt goodness and morality in society; the attempts to stop this from happening were a legitimate attempt to protect society. That's never oppression. What we have now, though, is truly oppression--forcing good, moral and decent people to accept sexual deviancy as "normal" and threatening them with economic and social sanctions if they don't submit. I think living in a moral good society where people can live free of sexual deviance of every kind is "a good thing". I'm never blinded by "my religion"--I'm quite able to see the problems that sexual deviance causes to society. All forms of sexual deviance cause harm. There are many who are trapped and manipulated into the gay lifestyle--sadly I saw it happen to one person, and I've seen it tried on others--and the end result is detrimental to them and society. That's something that you brought about on yourself. There is always the possibility of changing your ways.

This kind of rhetoric is most unfortunate; you're inflaming a situation that doesn't need this kind of nensense, and you're essentially admitting that the Indians would be willing to result to armed insurgeancy if they don't get there way (we've all seen how they already resort to violence and other illegal activities to try to get there way.) If it ever did come to an armed conflict, don't expect things to go the way of Iraq. First of all, the Iraqi insurgents are much more organized and have access to large amounts of explosives; shells, bombs, etc. that were left over from the Iraqi army and which the US didn't secure--that situation doesn't exist in Canada. The only kind of bombs you people could make are like those used in Oklahoma City, pipe bombs and the like. Face it, though, if you people try to set one of those off, it's pretty much going to be the end of the Indian race in Canada. It will just be a green light for anyone who has any issues with Indians to pick up a gun and start taking pots shots and the numbers speak for themselves. The Six Nations reserve has 20,000 people on and off--if you subtract the number that are in jail, that are elderly, are young children, you've probably got about 8,000 in total against about 8 million Ontarians who meet the same criteria. Armed violence is something that will never work out in your favour; to even speculate on such a thing just proves further that you people have gone off the deep end.

So how exactly are women voting and sexual deviance the same? It's you're "argument" that's flawed. Pedophilia and homosexuality are two forms of sexual deviance. Both were illegal. Now homosexuality is legal, while pedophilia is not. Why? Because of pressure from special interest groups, maybe because some of the people behind the change engaged in that kind of behaviour, as well. Now, when you think of how prevelant pedophilia is, and that it already has a foot in the door because of the widespread public acceptance of homosexuality, it really is only a matter of time. Let's not forget that pedophelia was a "normal" aspect of many societies, including the ancient Romans and Greeks, and there's apprently nothing to stop it from happening here. Heaven help us if it does.

Heterosexuality is normal, if sex is not performed in a proper way then it is deviant. That means homosexuality, pedophelia, incest, rape, bestiality are all deviant behaviour. Most acts of pedophelia are between men and boys, women and girls; not only is this pedophelia, it's also homosexual behaviour. That's not the issue; it's the fact that it is being imposed on people who are expected to accept it as "normal". Why does JKR have to make the character "gay"--there's no reason other than the fact that she's pushing an agenda, just like she's trying to push "witchcraft" as being not evil? The point has already been made that pedophelia and other forms of sexual deviance are "a fact of life"--by your logic that makes them "normal". If you don;t think that things like this influence children, then you are sadly out of touch. Why do children read books? To learn. If things they read can't influence them, then how do they learn by reading books? I'm talking about protecting children's innocence, not protecting them from hardship or the fact that people die. Forcing children to make decisions about sexuality at the ages of 7-10 is pretty disgusting. You wouldn't expose them to pictures of sex acts at this age, but expecting them to think about this behaviour is perfectly okay.

...

...

...

That's because that's what you've been conditioned to believe by persistant propagandization by the "gay rights" movement. Homosexuality used to be a crime, but that was changed because of pressure from gay rights groups, among other things. That's the one sure way of reducing crime rates; if too many people become involved in a form of crime, make the laws more lenient or get rid of them altogether. It's the same approach that the people who want to decriminalize marijuana take, and likely will be the same one that pedophiles will take eventually as well.

Oh, I see, is that how it's supposed to be? So when someone is a sexual deviant it's just "who cares" or just "accept it". There's no right or wrong in you opinion anymore? It isn't? Normalizing homosexual behaviour hasn't led to its increased frequency? I suppose it is easier to give into something than to stand up for what is right. You're a perfect example. Because it's sexually deviant behaviour and has perfect relevance to the discussion. The two are closely linked. Many pedophile are homosexuals.

One character still infuses the who story with a pro-sexual deviance undertone, is enough to misguide and corrupt children. As for "many would disagree with you," well, let's say when it comes to sexual deviance it doesn't come down to what the majority thinks, but what is right and wrong. What's right and wrong is absolute, whether you care to admit it or not. If a large percentage or even the majority of people in Canada felt that pedophelia is normal, would you therefore feel that there no reason whay it can't be considered normal? The reality is--as sick and disgusting as it is--that many people in Canada do feel that it is normal. It was common place in the ancient world, ancient Greece and Rome, the foundations of our modern democracy, is practiced in many countries throughout the world. By your criteria this mankes it normal. But morally, of course, it is not.

Oh, is that what it leads to? Children posing thoughful questions to their parents? Hardly. Instilling children with negative, self-destructive, morally corrupt attitudes at a young age is what evil is all about. The Nazis used it effectively, and sexual deviance rights groups have done so as well. Can we not have a society where children can grow up INNOCENT????

For what, disliking immorality and sexual deviance????

This is so sad and disturbing. So basically JKR creates a series of books that gets children hooked and then in then end slams them with a revelation that one of the characters is gay, thus forcing young--some very young--children to accept notions of sexual deviance that they shouldn't have to. http://news.bbc.co.uk/cbbcnews/hi/newsid_7...000/7054074.stm

You provide no link to the study or no information about the organization. They don't seem to be very important as it takes a while to find them on google. And they don't seem to be that forthcoming about who they are on their website. But based on their publications, they're quite clearly radical feminists and, needless to say, they're "findings" are quite useless as a result.

Again, reading comprehension... reduce household chores so they can deal with "other issues," not reduce household chores so they can deal with other household chores? Are you intentionally trying to be dense? I think men are biologically predisposed to certain roles, too. This is implied in my statement. But apparently I have to spell everything out to you everytime I make a post, because you are just going to assume that I'm biased towards men. Where did I say that? I said that sexual deviance has always existed. Since the sexual revolution, sexual deviance has become more normalized. Chances are that incest will become "normal" given the way things are going. I don't like it, but evidently you feel that the rights of sexual deviants are more important to having a moral society. It's not nasty; it's something that you have forced others to think about you based on your conduct. The blame is on you and you alone. Nope, read the Bible. God created man, not sinful pleasure. That's something that mankind brought upon itself. So you view parts of your body as "a toy"? I haven't insulted you, just made factual statements. You on the other hand have made direct insulting remarks, and you have not apologized for calling me a misogynist. The fact of the matter is that if you don't like the topic being discussed or what another member says, then no one is you--a supposedly autonomous woman--to continue in the discussion. Threatening to go to a mod is pretty pathetic. Stop posting if you don't want to discuss the matter anymore I have a rounded opinion on what it means to be a good person; you think that because I happen to be discussing just a few aspects as it relates to women, that I only view women in a negative light, and not men. Like every other feminist, you just can't stand the fact that a man has opinions about women, that a man does not view women as faultless perfection. Sorry, that's not how it is. I don't recall any discussion about people being "dismissed". Moreover, we're not talking about antiquated beliefs--people being good is never antiquated--rather allowing society to function based on the natural difference between men and women. Many women for instance are now starting to find that feminism has brainwashed them into thinking that they have to shirk their femininity and enter the corporate world, and they now prefer to stay at home and raise children. Sure you are.

I could see this minority government going on for awhile, but I hope not. I want an election because I think the Greens will finally get elected, although it remains to be seen if I will vote for them. The Liberals are no more arrogant than the Conservatives--I think Mulroney and his new book trumps anything Chretien can dictate. As weak as the Liberals are, anything can happen in an election.

...

Here's an interesting link: http://www.prairienet.org/prairienations/race.htm I wonder how many of these terms are still used, despite the fact that they no longer apply to Europeans or mischaracterize them. Also, I wonder how many of these terms referring to physical features had derogatory connotations.

It means that if the affordability of "a house" increases, then the market adjusts to that fact. If someone is selling "a house" that is in a middle class residential area, and the average middle class income is $50,000, there best bet would be to sell the house at a price that would attract people of that income; not a household that has an income of $500,000, or one that has $5,000. If, for instance, the $50,000 figure reflected a society that had 25% of women in the workplace, and the next year this changed to 30% thus causing the average household income to increase to $55,000, the price of 'a house' would adjust. Men have made life better for women, reduced the strain of household chores in order to free them up to deal with other issues; feminism was the product of daughters of wealthy men who were influenced by subversive and radical ideologies. Is that the best you can do? You're comparing two totally different things. Bearing and raising children is not a sport, and playing hockey is not a biological predisposition. If you're asking these kinds of questions, you really don't get it. Sexual deviance has always existed; that it is becoming normalized once again, in our society is the result of the feminism and the sexual revolution. Of course, you're his mother, you overlook his faults in some cases, and will only learn the true extent of your influence when he reaches his adulthood. I'm curious, though, what your opinion is about how he pursues his sex life, sleeping with multiple partners, being the victim of one-night-stands with women who behave just like you did (or still do...), possibly siring illegitimate children with multiple partners, etc. Do you even know who his father was? It has nothing to do with control, rather people--both men and women--behaving in a manner that is proven to be the most functional, least self-destructive, and productive to society. You're trying to twist it into an issue of oppression, and that's not what it is at all. If there are people in my society that behave in a manner that lowers its level of morality, and in general makes it a worse place than it should be, I have every right to express my opinions on the matter. Read the Bible before you consider it to be "God given" in the sense that you believe it to be "given". Wrong on all counts. I'm not resentful of it at all, just how you've admitted that you misuse it. Moreover, my supposed "resentment" has to do with the ideology of feminism, not women in general. I don't know how to make it any more simple for you; is reading comprehension really that much of an issue for you? Maybe you should consider attending night school--oh, wait, that's not when you work, is it...?

I think we've gotten to the point where women are "equal" enough that they can start, run, and build up their own businesses, hire and fire whomever they want--all it takes is brains, money and an idea. There are women who have managed to do this--I've seen many who employee mostly women--and there's nothing out there stopping others from doing so as well. As far as I'm concerned, "equal" representation in executive positions is a non-issue. Why should anyone be forced to hire certain people to meet criterias on "equality" when it could undermine their ability to develop the team they want and which they believe will lead them to succeed? Having worked in a variety of work environments in which the ratio of male-to-female was either dominated by females, about equally mixed, and dominated by men, I found the latter to be the most efficient and productive. In one industry that I worked at, my line was near one that was ALL female, and despite the din of the machinery, you could ALWAYS hear them complaining. And they were doing work that was less strenuous and higher paid than mine. Regardless of at what level in the workforce, I think men work best in a male dominated environment. Forcing that to change will I think have negative consequences for both the economy and our society.

...

There seems to be a sort of a pattern to governance in Canada in the post-war era. A lengthy stint by the Liberals, during which they become increasingly complacent and detached from the electorate; an enthusiastic jump to the Conservatives, who eventually become mired in controversy and only hang on for 8-9 years; then back to the Liberals for longer than necessary. It would seem that Harper is set for the time being. Nobody really wants and election, and so he can go about acting like he has a majority government; in two or three more years, people will start getting sick of the arrogance, and the party will begin to slide into oblivion again. I can see the underlying issue in the the party's decline being Harper's excessive control of his MPs--we've already seen a couple jump ship. The only thing that may cause him to buck the trend is his vocal support for the military and the war in Afghanistan; so there's obviously a political side to his wanting to extend the mission, sadly. I find this most unfortunate since he claims to be a Christian; when Canada finally gets a Protestant PM again, he turns out to be a war-monger.

...

This is the thing that gets me; how exactly does having concerns with the ideology of feminism equate to wanting women to not work or vote? Basically what feminists wants is for men to not question feminist ideologies and what feminists say. Does that strike you as the kind of attitude one would expect from people who claim to believe in equality?

...