Dumbledore's Gay

[cybercoma]

I wasn't very clear in what I said. By, saying I'm sure kengs has the best intentions, I wasn't actually complimenting him. Like the maniacs who murder abortion doctors to save lives, good intentions built on faith rather than reason can leave to some terribl.y horrific things.

When kengs turned the issue to pedophilia, I just wanted to clarify that he is against the molestation of children, not necessarily homosexual behaviour.

Abusing children is terrible, obviously no one is going to argue against that.

I want to know if kengs is using that to protect is hatred for all of homosexuality, or if he's truly only concerned about the children's rights.

If two consenting same-sex adults have sex with one another, is that still a bad thing?

[kengs333]

You're picking and choosing different verses to suit your opinion than the verses that I chose, which clearly show that it is our responsibility to love one another, be non-judgmental and leave the punishing of sins to God.

No, you still don't get it. Not condoning sin is not being "judgemental" as you claim it is. When the NT talks about sin, it defines what it is so Christians can recognize what it is and not engage in that behaviour. When the NT further states that there are consequences for one's sinful behaviour, this is not "judgemental" either. So when a Christian states that a non-Christian--or a person who claims to be Christian--is behaving sinfully, this does not constitute being "judgemental". Stating that a person who engages in sinful behaviour is condemning themselves to eternal damnation is not being "judgemental" either. A true Christian, in my opinion, always approaches sin and sinful behaviour from the perspective of 1) we all sin, and 2) that most sinners can change their ways. Since we all sin, Jesus states that we should not judge because on God decides who will be rewarded with eternal life; but it does not mean that the Christian cannot inform and warn sinners about the error of their ways. But Jesus also states that many who hear the word will stray and lose interest, and turn their backs on God. I think for many Christians this is difficult to accept and there is always this need to get everyone on side, since it is a very human desire to live in the comfort of a community that is supportive and like-minded, where one can feel that it is safe to go about one's life and raise one's children. But as the NT also teaches, one's faith will always lead to division and discord, both within the family and society, and ultimately one can only try to live one's own life with as much faith and Christian resolve as possible. I will always continue to voice my concern about sin and sinful people, but ultimately if the sinner chooses not to abide by the word of God, then that is a path that they have chosen and will suffer the consequences.

[kengs333]

Repeating the same statement over and over again does not prove anything. Certainly not the ridiculous statement that homosexuality somehow leads to pedophilia. Try having some proof next time instead of just copying & pasting your previous posts.

So children who are victims of pederasty/pedophelia are not likely to engage in deviant sexual behaviour???

There is no direct link. Again, try to show any shred of proof that there is a link.

You're saying that lesbians and women can't be pedophiles?

But heterosexuals who engage in pedophilia are OK? Maybe next time you should include them in your list.

That's utterly ridiculous. I've stated on a number of occasions that pedophelia is a sin, as is ALL sexual deviance. I don't distinuish between heteros and homos who commit pedophelic acts, but the discussion here is about the connection between pedophelia and homosexuality, and the greater tendancy for acts of pedophelia to be homosexual--ie., this is in response the fallacious assertion that homosexuality and pedophelia are two totally different things, a myth that the gay rights movememnt spreads for their own political gain.

[jazzer]

Rue, great summation in post #300. It's too bad Kengs is in so much in denial that your post will not likely make a dent in his/her christian amour.

Edited November 4, 2007 by jazzer

[jefferiah]

You're picking and choosing different verses to suit your opinion than the verses that I chose, which clearly show that it is our responsibility to love one another, be non-judgmental and leave the punishing of sins to God.

Calling sin sin is not a punishment. You have made a huge leap Cybercoma. He is not punishing anyone is he?

When someone loves someone they have concern for them. If someone believes that drinking poison is bad for those they love they will voice their concern. Likewise if someone believes that homosexuality is a deviance and is unhealthy they will voice their concern. But it is important to not take pride in this position as if you are saving them, necessarily. Because we cannot even save ourselves. Nonetheless calling a sin a sin should be no problem to anyone here, even if you do not believe that it is a sin.

[jefferiah]

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.

Very original Rue. Isn't this tactic getting old?

By this logic you could say that if a girl says no she secretly means yes. Or that you perhaps secretly long to be a PLO member. See where you are going, SIR!

Edited November 5, 2007 by jefferiah

[cybercoma]

No, you still don't get it. Not condoning sin is not being "judgemental" as you claim it is. When the NT talks about sin, it defines what it is so Christians can recognize what it is and not engage in that behaviour. When the NT further states that there are consequences for one's sinful behaviour, this is not "judgemental" either. So when a Christian states that a non-Christian--or a person who claims to be Christian--is behaving sinfully, this does not constitute being "judgemental". Stating that a person who engages in sinful behaviour is condemning themselves to eternal damnation is not being "judgemental" either. A true Christian, in my opinion, always approaches sin and sinful behaviour from the perspective of 1) we all sin, and 2) that most sinners can change their ways. Since we all sin, Jesus states that we should not judge because on God decides who will be rewarded with eternal life; but it does not mean that the Christian cannot inform and warn sinners about the error of their ways. But Jesus also states that many who hear the word will stray and lose interest, and turn their backs on God. I think for many Christians this is difficult to accept and there is always this need to get everyone on side, since it is a very human desire to live in the comfort of a community that is supportive and like-minded, where one can feel that it is safe to go about one's life and raise one's children. But as the NT also teaches, one's faith will always lead to division and discord, both within the family and society, and ultimately one can only try to live one's own life with as much faith and Christian resolve as possible. I will always continue to voice my concern about sin and sinful people, but ultimately if the sinner chooses not to abide by the word of God, then that is a path that they have chosen and will suffer the consequences.

When you insist that homosexuals are pedophiles in the face of evidence that complete disproves that, you're being judgmental. When you say same-sex consenting adult partners are morally bereft without any evidence otherwise, you're being judgmental.

I don't see how homosexuals existing is a detriment to your children. As, presumably, a straight parent, do you feel you could be swayed to become homosexual? Were you swayed to become a heterosexual at one point in time? I don't think any rational person thinks you can change someone's sexuality, nor should anyone have to force themselves to have sex with a person of the gender they're not attracted to, especially based on man-made biblical texts written hundreds of years after the fact. Also considering, Christianity is not the only religion, in fact, all other religions combined vastly outnumber Christianity.

So, what makes you so certain you are right? Faith. I know. Which has nothing to do with reasoning.

[g_bambino]

As, presumably, a straight parent, do you feel you could be swayed to become homosexual?

Now, there's an interesting question that raises a point: perhaps the releasing of certain sexual acts from the religious shackles of deviance and shame does indeed cause a fear in the minds of the devoutly pious; not a fear for the deviant's eternal afterlife, not a fear of being drawn to the "gay lifestyle," but a fear of an increasing assault on their own biblically- or koranically-sanctioned, inherent homophobia. The more homosexual behaviour becomes accepted as normal, the more the spiritual may have to challenge their own restrictions on themselves acting or thinking homosexually.

I'm not saying this definitively; it's just a theory. But, it does raise in my mind the example of the right-wing reaction to the release of Brokeback Mountain. Yes, films and shows with homosexual themes are generally frowned upon by these same people (hence, the whole Dumbledor reaction), but Brokeback seemed to cause a particular stink. Why? Because the "deviant" characters, explicitly shown engaging in homosexual relations, weren't preening fairies who ate Asian salads after a day of shopping at Dolce Gabana. They were two mid-western ranch hands who each married women, had sex with those women, raised children, fought, drank, and cussed. I think that movie made a lot of straight-identified people uncomfortable, but especially the religiously devout, as it showed that anyone just might be capable of being at least a little bit gay, including themselves.

Were you swayed to become a heterosexual at one point in time?

Of course he was; the Bible told him he had to be. Which is precicely why the above might just be really frightening to him.

Edited November 5, 2007 by g_bambino

[Rue]

Very original Rue. Isn't this tactic getting old?

By this logic you could say that if a girl says no she secretly means yes. Or that you perhaps secretly long to be a PLO member. See where you are going, SIR!

Actually its not original at all, its quite repetitive because with due respect Jeffriah I do not say it to be self-righteous but to be dead on serious when I see such comments presented in the context they are. They are my personal opinion just as the poster has his about gays. They are repetitive because the exercise of gay bashing is not original and most times the person spewing it uses the same words and exhibits the same anxiety about gay sex or any kind of sexual feelings. I respond to the words and then engage in the exact same exercise Keng does to gays to him deliberately. I doubt he gets it but do you?

Do you really think this is a debate about someone's religious beliefs? I never thought that for a moment and that is why I said what I said if for no other reason I believe gay people should be supported by straight people against such attacks. You demonize gays where does it end? I mean this is the exact same crap that was used against Jews by Christians in Europe for centuries slurring us all for killing Jesus and being evil and engaging in social conspiracies and it is the exact same cognitive process dominant groups have used to persecute and massacre minority groups for millenium-the name of the targeted group for hatred may change but the tactics remain very much the same and so my comments, usually the same.

There is nothing creative about hating. Its stunted, one dimensional, rigid, inflexible,trite and oh so predictable...yah like me. Lol.

[Rue]

I wasn't very clear in what I said. By, saying I'm sure kengs has the best intentions, I wasn't actually complimenting him.

I respect your comment Cyber and why you said it and in a way admire you for saying it. I have a genuine difference of opinion on it that's all. I actually respect your intentions. They are honourable.

[Rue]

Very original Rue. Isn't this tactic getting old?

By this logic you could say that if a girl says no she secretly means yes. Or that you perhaps secretly long to be a PLO member. See where you are going, SIR!

I will try explain it for you so there is no misunderstanding. I do not use reasoning that would suggest a "girl " meant secretly yes when she gets raped. Why? Because if you did follow what I was saying, then if you followed the reasoning, it would hold even if a young woman gave a mixed signal or acted conflicted, it does not for one second justify someone engaging in violence or forcing themselves on her.

Your analogy suggests Keng is akin to a rape victim who was misunderstood. A person who sends mixed signals can do so for many reasons and I would suggest you consider the context and implications of each situation and not try lump all people who send mixed signals as being powerless. That makes no sense.

Look at Keng's words and ask yourself do his mixed signals ask people to accept him as you are suggesting they do by equating him to a confused woman who gets raped? Do you really think his words seek love from you? Do you think the words he uses are no different then someone seeking affection? Sorry I do not. More importantly, the young woman who sends off her conflicting signals does have responsibility for her actions just not the rape itself.

Your analogy suggests Keng is a victim who does not need to take responsibility for his actions. What nonsense. In the case of the woman whose mixed signals get her raped-she was victimizing no one and the consequence she must take control of is the feelings of being judgemental of herself after the rape and learning not to blame herself.

In the case of Keng, the mixed signals do not victimize himself in any way-in fact they make him feel pretty good about himself and unlike the woman they weren't sent to get affection they were sent to incite hatred. In his exercise he feels actualized by degrading others. In the case of the young woman, unlike Keng, she desperately sought the affirmation of others-she did not set out to actualize herself based on a negative experience against others but a positive one-that Sir is the huge difference and why your analogy to me just does not hold.

So you tell me. Do the generalizations he engages in appear to you the same kind of conflicted messages a young woman might send out saying she wants to be accepted or needed or loved?

Do you really believe Keng is seeking affection and is an innocent? Is that your analogy?

I state again the choice of words he uses are deliberate and repeat a pattern of describing gay people as demons so he can then justify his hatred for them. If they are demons, then of course he can proclaim God and Jesus approve of his hatred and negative generalizations.

So I say again, if you, me, or anyone makes a point of pointing our finger at anyone and saying they are demons and since they are demons it is acceptable we hate them and assign even more negative characteristics on to them, then I contend we all have the right to and should ask why. We have the right to ask the person pointing the finger of hatred what gives him that right and why he does it.

We have the right to look at the choice of words he uses as weapons particularly the words he used to suggest what is wrong with society is that people do not repress their sexual feelings.

Where do you think his concept that one needs to repress sexual desires comes from? Of course it begins within him. So does the vision he repeats of gays celebrating sex with children and his need to associate homo-sexuality with pedophilia.

Make such statements people have the right to say-are you talking about yourself or others?

Tell me, do you think it is rational to suggest what is wrong with people is that they won't repress who they are? You think that sounds like words that would emanate from someone feeling at ease with himself or do you think it sounds like the words of someone who is frightened or feeling threatened?

Do you think I am the only one who asks why he is so frightened of gays? You think for most of us when we hear someone be so openly condemning of a group we can't decipher its because he is afraid of that group?

Tell me, do you think fear and hatred are not attached or do you see them as completely distinct?

Read his words. I did not write them, he did and I have a right to ask where they originate. I ask because for me I do not accept such hatred. If I did I would simply accept the holocaust as normal or people hating othes as acceptable.

Sorry it annoys you but I can't. For me personally the challenge is to confront hatred head on and defuse it and pop its bubble by asking questions. The Devil to me is nothing more then the symbol we use for being afraid to face something that bothers us and resolve it.

You sit in the chair I have for so long and I admit you do see things keep repeating their themes after awhile-for example, you soon notice the person across from you who says he hates gays may be telling you he hasn't come to terms with sexual feelings inside himself with people of the same sex.

See for me I do not see humans as dettached from one another-I see each and every feeling they have and each and every perception they have intricately linked in space and time to others both in consequence, effect and in cause. I personally do not believe our perceptions of others simply happen. I believe there is a complicated series of cause and effects leading up to the perception that flows from our interactions with those around us and how we deal with our own feelings.

Am I trying to psycho-analyze him-no- I do no more then what he does when he assigns motives to all gays. Fair is far. He can't assign motive to others without expecting it in return during debate. Who he is and what his real motives are I do not know and would not want to know. My comments are limited to the implications of his words.

What I am saying though is, if he wishes to describe others as immoral and needing to repress themselves he makes it evident to some of us he may really be talking about himself and his struggles to repress who he is.

Hate I would contend begins and ends within us as individuals. A person who is at peace with himself I would contend has no need to project negative feelings outwards.

I would contend a peaceful soul would not engage in such exercises and if you think that is unfair to say-that's fine but understand in my world, a peaceful soul has no need to hate gay people or anyone else let alone think he is in the position to tell others what is right or wrong.

You want to assign motive to me. Be my guest. I would say it is fair to say I engage in debate because part of me needs to prove to myself I am capable of asserting myself. Fair is fair. You could say I am insecure otherwise I would not bother to debate I would just remain completely silent. That is true. I am insecure. People like Keng make me anxious and I prefer to deal with the source of my anxiety head on. Maybe one day I will be so enlightened I will not. I hope so. For now though I debate.

I do not presume however to tell Keng how he should think or feel as he does with gays and everyone else. I could care less in fact.

What I do care about however is when he or anyone else tries to take his Bible and use it as a weapon or tool to molest others.

I also find it ironic someone so against gays is so preoccupied forcing the Bible up peoples' butts.

IAt least proctologists have a good reason to do what they do.

Edited November 5, 2007 by Rue

[kengs333]

When you insist that homosexuals are pedophiles in the face of evidence that complete disproves that, you're being judgmental.

Google "pederasty"--ie. man-boy love--and see what you get. Is this not overwhelming evidence that there is a connection between homosexuality and pedophelia? I'm not saying that pedophiles are exclusively homosexuals, but male pedophiles who engage in relationships with young boys are homosexuals. What else can they be? The "gay rights" movement has long advocated that the age of consent for sodomy should be reduced to 14 years old (and some want it younger).

When you say same-sex consenting adult partners are morally bereft without any evidence otherwise, you're being judgmental.

Well, it's sexual deviance; it's a "sin of the flesh" and that's just the way it is. Stating this is not judgemental, just as it isn't "judgemental" to state that incest is sexual deviance and a "sin of the flesh." This misues of the concept of "judgementalism" is really old and tired.

I don't see how homosexuals existing is a detriment to your children.

I do, it creates a false concept of normalcy that it inherently psychologically self-destructive. As a heterosexual, I know that my body was created in such a way that there is only one proper way to engage in intimate relations. I have no doubts or insecurities about this, and I don't need the Bible to tell me this. God made it so that it should be readily apparent to any rational and faithful person what constitutes normal as opposed to deviant sexuality. People can, however, be manipulated, deceived, or forced into thinking otherwise, and as we all know people are always subject to pressure from peers; many give in; homosexuals know this, and if they can advocate strongly enough to convince a large proportion of people in a society to accept and/or engage in sexual deviant behaviour, then they can create a society that accepts their sexual deviance as normal, as well as all of the applicable psychological issues as well.

I don't think any rational person thinks you can change someone's sexuality, nor should anyone have to force themselves to have sex with a person of the gender they're not attracted to, especially based on man-made biblical texts written hundreds of years after the fact.

1) People can change their sexual lifestyle; ie., people who are homosexuals can and do free themselves from that deviance and go on to lead normal lives.

2) The Bible is devinely inspired, and the Gospels for instance were written within the lifetimes of those who witnessed the events.

Also considering, Christianity is not the only religion, in fact, all other religions combined vastly outnumber Christianity.

It is the only true religion, as anyone who has read the Bible should know. However, all major religions also recognize the destructiveness of sexual deviance.

So, what makes you so certain you are right? Faith. I know. Which has nothing to do with reasoning.

I recognize the truth, I see reality as it was created; I don't subscribe to delusions, etc. in an attempt to legitimize sinfulness. People who engage in sexual deviant lifestyles are always manipulating, deceiving, subverting and lying. I'm not saying that I'm not without my faults, but not engaging in sexual deviant lifestyles frees me from many bad things. I'll never claim that I'm 100% right, but I know I'm on the right path, and I know that I am right when it comes to this issue.

[Moxie]

Now, there's an interesting question that raises a point: perhaps the releasing of certain sexual acts from the religious shackles of deviance and shame does indeed cause a fear in the minds of the devoutly pious; not a fear for the deviant's eternal afterlife, not a fear of being drawn to the "gay lifestyle," but a fear of an increasing assault on their own biblically- or koranically-sanctioned, inherent homophobia. The more homosexual behaviour becomes accepted as normal, the more the spiritual may have to challenge their own restrictions on themselves acting or thinking homosexually.

I'm not saying this definitively; it's just a theory. But, it does raise in my mind the example of the right-wing reaction to the release of Brokeback Mountain. Yes, films and shows with homosexual themes are generally frowned upon by these same people (hence, the whole Dumbledor reaction), but Brokeback seemed to cause a particular stink. Why? Because the "deviant" characters, explicitly shown engaging in homosexual relations, weren't preening fairies who ate Asian salads after a day of shopping at Dolce Gabana. They were two mid-western ranch hands who each married women, had sex with those women, raised children, fought, drank, and cussed. I think that movie made a lot of straight-identified people uncomfortable, but especially the religiously devout, as it showed that anyone just might be capable of being at least a little bit gay, including themselves.

Of course he was; the Bible told him he had to be. Which is precicely why the above might just be really frightening to him.

An interesting rebuttal and very well articulated.

I'm curious regarding homosexuals living as married men, they hide behind religion home and family. Yet they hit the local gay park and have sex with prostitutes on their Lunch Hours daily. Can you imagine finding out your husband has been gay for you entire marrage but lacks the moral fortitude to accept his homosexuality so he lives a lie and as a result of that lie he can distroy and even kill to protect a IMAGE. This type of behavior is far more distructive to society than individuals who are in a same sex relationship. The odd thing about closet homosexuals is they are usually prominent members of society, they are regular church goers. These are men society looks up to, yet they lack the moral fortitude to live as openly gay males. It's usually the most vocal opponent of homosexuality that is a closet homosexual.

[guyser]

Google "pederasty"--ie. man-boy love--and see what you get. Is this not overwhelming evidence that there is a connection between homosexuality and pedophelia?

Umm...how about no? Guess you never read what you preach. Maybe it is you that should read about pederasty.

I'll never claim that I'm 100% right, but I know I'm on the right path, and I know that I am right when it comes to this issue.

Of course you are right, in your own delusional mind of course, since you never offered one shred of evidence to back you up.

In this case, ignorance is blind.

[jazzer]

2) The Bible is devinely inspired, and the Gospels for instance were written within the lifetimes of those who witnessed the events.

It is the only true religion, as anyone who has read the Bible should know.

I don't want to turn this into a religious argument but please, you can't use the Bible as proof against itself. Bring on the secular sources. And you've yet to answer where Christ said homosexuality is bad.

[guyser]

I don't want to turn this into a religious argument but please, you can't use the Bible as proof against itself. Bring on the secular sources. And you've yet to answer where Christ said homosexuality is bad.

..psst...he wont...cuz he cant. No cite, no peer reviewed data , no nuthin but the bible told him so.

[kengs333]

Umm...how about no? Guess you never read what you preach. Maybe it is you that should read about pederasty.

Of course you are right, in your own delusional mind of course, since you never offered one shred of evidence to back you up.

In this case, ignorance is blind.

This is a perfect example. You ask for proof, I offer proof. Your response is "Umm...how about no?" In other words, you refuse to acknowledge evidence that you continually insist should be provided, which I won't waste my time to provide because I know that it won't be acknowledged anyway.

The evidence is there, if you don't want to acknowledge it, that's your problem; it wont change the fact that homosexuality is deviant, that homosexuals engage in pedophelic behaviour. I know you won't acknowledge this either, or just make evasive answers, but I would like to know whether you think it is moral for much older men to lust after 12, 13 or 14 year old boys, fantasize about them, and engage in sex acts with them?

[jefferiah]

Do you think I am the only one who asks why he is so frightened of gays? You think for most of us when we hear someone be so openly condemning of a group we can't decipher its because he is afraid of that group?

Rue, why do you need to write reams and reams and reams to explain yourself. Here is what you did. No matter how many thousand words you use to explain it, you said in response to Kengs mad rant on pedophilia, that these were his own sexual feelings and he must take charge of them. You basically accused him of being a pedophile. That he projected this idea about grooming youngsters on gays because they are his feelings. And it was probably jokingly, but nonetheless, don't try to skip your way out of it, Rue. This is a dumb argument. The fact that someone is dead set against something may in some situations mean they are repressing something, but not always, and certainly not most of the time. That is completely ridiculous, SIR.

[guyser]

This is a perfect example. You ask for proof, I offer proof. Your response is "Umm...how about no?" In other words, you refuse to acknowledge evidence that you continually insist should be provided, which I won't waste my time to provide because I know that it won't be acknowledged anyway.

Your evidence consisted of asking one to google pederasty. Wow....that really sucks and you know it.

But anyway, I did do such as you asked. And frankly, I have no idea how it can be used to bolster any point you made. In fact it says that pederasty and homosexuality are different. Ouch that !

The evidence is there, if you don't want to acknowledge it, that's your problem; it wont change the fact that homosexuality is deviant, that homosexuals engage in pedophelic behaviour. I know you won't acknowledge this either, or just make evasive answers, but I would like to know whether you think it is moral for much older men to lust after 12, 13 or 14 year old boys, fantasize about them, and engage in sex acts with them?

Did you know all churches are covers for homosexual liasons? It is true, " the evidence is there, if you don't want to acknowledge it , that's your problem:it wont change the fact that churches and priests are deviant, that priests and church going people engage in pedophilic behaviour."

Hmm...sounds kind of dumb, or as dumb as the original doesnt it?

You have not offered any proof whatsoever to your continued ignorant diatribe of "that homosexuals engage in pedophelic behaviour. "

To answer your question , no I do not think it moral for any adult to lust after any child, male or female, 12 13 14 years old. Nothing I have posted would ever lead any sane person to think otherwise. But then again, you are grasping at straws.

[kengs333]

To answer your question , no I do not think it moral for any adult to lust after any child, male or female, 12 13 14 years old. Nothing I have posted would ever lead any sane person to think otherwise. But then again, you are grasping at straws.

I just wanted to be clear on it; I can't read everything you write. It is a legitimate question, though, given your staunch defense of homosexuality; many people who engage in sexually deviant behaviour view the "gay rights" movement as a sort of model for advancing their own cause. In other words, it is a kind of foot in the door for them, and naturally they want to see it succeed.

When you google "pederasty" is many references to what pederasty is, namely "relationships" between "boys" or "young boys" and older men. Boys is a term that refers to males when they are young, right? So older men having "relationships" with children of the same sex. That's not homosexual behaviour? And if not, then why is it viewed as one of the three main divisions of homosexuality? I suppose with pederasty, the argument could be made that there is a certain amount of consent from the child victim, in that the older man will subtly try to court the boy and entice them into making advances, or what the older man believes are advances. But let's face it, how many 12, 13, or 14 year old kids really understand sexuality, have the capacity to make responsible judgements about engaging in sexual behaviour, and aren't intimidated by adults to some degree? The motive behind and ultimate purpose of pederastry is no different than pedophelia, but the methods used by the older man might be a little more subtle. In the end, the child is introduced to behaviour that they shouldn't be, and for many this leads to further sexual deviance.

[guyser]

When you google "pederasty" is many references to what pederasty is, namely "relationships" between "boys" or "young boys" and older men. Boys is a term that refers to males when they are young, right? So older men having "relationships" with children of the same sex. That's not homosexual behaviour?

And what about the pederasty that in many cases did not include sex?

[bk59]

So children who are victims of pederasty/pedophelia are not likely to engage in deviant sexual behaviour???

Who said that? Not me. I said that continually repeating the phrase "Man-boy-love is a common and celebrated occurence in the gay community" does not make that phrase true. You have yet to show any proof to support that statement.

You're saying that lesbians and women can't be pedophiles?

I did not say that. Not even close.

Moxie said in post #283, "There is no direct link between pedophiles and homosexuals". You said in post #293, "Yes there is". I said in my last post (#295), "There is no direct link. Again, try to show any shred of proof that there is a link."

By the way, please feel free to produce that proof.

That's utterly ridiculous. I've stated on a number of occasions that pedophelia is a sin, as is ALL sexual deviance. I don't distinuish between heteros and homos who commit pedophelic acts, but the discussion here is about the connection between pedophelia and homosexuality, and the greater tendancy for acts of pedophelia to be homosexual--ie., this is in response the fallacious assertion that homosexuality and pedophelia are two totally different things, a myth that the gay rights movememnt spreads for their own political gain.

You said, "The only people you should be offended by are the homosexuals who engage in pedophelic behaviour." I was just pointing out that maybe you should also be offended by the heterosexuals who engage in that behaviour.

There is no connection between pedophilia and homosexuality. There is no greater tendency of homosexuals to engage in that behaviour. This was proven in a link earlier in this topic. You have yet to provide anything that would prove otherwise. Simply repeating that the assertion is fallacious does not make it so.

[SVTman]

How does one properly perform sex?

sexual intercourse

–noun genital contact, esp. the insertion of the penis into the vagina followed by orgasm; coitus; copulation.

this is sex. if you wish to have sex you must have two different thing a penis and a vagina that is how it works. other then that it is just rubbing against eachother until you orgasom. i know that is a very straight forward answer and if i broke some rule then please let me know and delete it but i think that for this discusion we needed to atleast get that out of the way. Now if you wish to change the dictionary well i don't know who you would talk to about that but i am sure there are several people out there trying.

[M.Dancer]

sexual intercourse

–noun genital contact, esp. the insertion of the penis into the vagina followed by orgasm; coitus; copulation.

this is sex. if you wish to have sex you must have two different thing a penis and a vagina that is how it works. other then that it is just rubbing against eachother until you orgasom. i know that is a very straight forward answer and if i broke some rule then please let me know and delete it but i think that for this discusion we needed to atleast get that out of the way. Now if you wish to change the dictionary well i don't know who you would talk to about that but i am sure there are several people out there trying.

HINT: esp doesn't mean exclusively and sexual intercourse doesn't encompass all acts of sex. Fellatio is sex. Cunninglingus is not an Irish Airline either.

Definition of Anal intercourse

1. Noun. Intercourse via the anus, committed by a man with a man or woman.

That's sex too....

[JerrySeinfeld]

First of all it's only your opinion that it's not "normal". Many would disagree with you. And one character is hardly "assaulting kids".

Didn't two gay Ontario politicians just get married? Are we supposed to keep that from kids?

Let's not confuse legality with legitimacy. There are a lot of things that are legal that some people object to - abortion, birth control, divorce, tobacco, alcohol, homosexuality. But we can't hide from them. They are real.

I looked up the word 'normal' on dictionary.com

adjective

1. conforming with or constituting a norm or standard or level or type or social norm; not abnormal; "serve wine at normal room temperature"; "normal diplomatic relations"; "normal working hours"; "normal word order"; "normal curiosity"; "the normal course of events"

So basically, yes homosexuality isn't "normal" per se.

But the real issue here is that this is gratuitous and an intentional attempt at progressiveness for the sake of progressiveness - and therefore typical of the artsy types.

No surprise here. Maybe Harry can give dumbledore a blow job in the redoux. Wouldn't that be marvelously progressive and a bit controversial too? Perrrfect.