Dumbledore's Gay

[guyser]

I'm not really sure what you're babbling about with "time frame". You're basically arguing that pedophelia is okay if it is normalized in a society, right? So basically whatever society deems to be "normal" you'll go along with?

I must have missed this one yesterday.

I am surprised you dont understand "time frame".

Anyhow, if society deems something normal then that is an accepted norm. Slavery was normal at one time. So in that "time frame" it was acceptable.

However now, we would not deem it normal nor acceptable. So in the new "time frame" it is judged unacceptable.

So in your example , relative to the time frame of the day, I said yes.

What you are doing is saying that with your current "time frame" pedophilia is horrible. And I agree. But back then if it was accepted then that is a different frame.

Got it?

[g_bambino]

What you are doing is saying that with your current "time frame" pedophilia is horrible. And I agree. But back then if it was accepted then that is a different frame.

But I think Kengs will argue that pederasty was horrible in any time frame; the cultures that previously practiced it as a norm did so only at the behest of a sinful few and were liberated from required sex with children by the tsunami of Christianity that covered the Ancient World.

In other words, the yardsticks of morality have been absolute and static for the entirety of human existence, and throughout all regions and cultures, since, of course, God set them down at Earth's creation, what is it now? 10,000 years ago? The Ancients were thus deviants from that divine norm, though apparently forced to be such, proven by how they grasped onto Christianity when it came to them, and relished in how it liberated them from the laws that forced them to have sex with not only children, but absolutely those of the same gender. Their starvation for salvation was why Christianity "spread like wildfire" (Kengs' words) throughout the Ancient World.

I can only suppose that because he knows he cannot prove these concrete norms to be cast by anyone other than a god he can't prove exists, especially in the face of contrary evidence, Kengs has simply ceased to answer my questions.

Edited October 31, 2007 by g_bambino

[bk59]

Most of my opinions, however, are not subjective; they are objective and based on fact.

How to say this to perhaps get your attention...

THEN POST A FACT. ANY FACT. JUST ONE. STOP SPOUTING BS AND PRETENDING THAT IT IS PROOF.

You know what Keng you are one sad case. You can't even provide one fact to base your subjective opinions, not one.

I just think it's amazing that kengs333 has gone for so long without making a single post that was worth reading. Lots of assertions and subjective beliefs, but no facts.

Truth is most important to me.

Judging from your posts and treatment of other people here I find that doubtful.

I don't have to post a link because, as I stated, it's fairly common knowledge what effect toxins have of animals. The onus is really on you to disprove what I'm stating, but I don't see any of that happening.

But it's clear what you're up to, so don't waste my time.

It's very clear what you are up to. If it is common knowledge then it will only take you two seconds to provide a link. As for the onus... OK, let's take your approach. I claim that I just found a passage in the Bible that says that homosexuality is not a sin. According to you, I don't have to prove anything. It is now up to you to disprove that. Have fun with that.

[Rue]

No, the "they" refers back to "founded by Jews," ie. the Jews who founded Israel, many of whom were survivors of the holocaust, right? This is about Jews who survived the holocaust and turned around and created a state that commits human rights violations.

I never said they did. I stated that Irgun was a terrorist organization that helped found Israel; then there was war; then people were forced into refugee camps. Three seperate things.

No, that's not what I'm doing at all. Israel is a Jewish state. It was founded by Jews, it is politically Jewish, it is populated largely by Jews. What a democratic state does usually reflects the will of a large segment of its population. What I did is no different than saying Canadians did something because of what Canada does. That said, many Jews in Canada do have a strong tie to Israel, am I not correct? Many support specific political parties in Israel, and send money to help Israel through organizations like UJA, right?

I think maybe you're getting off on it, by the looks of it. MS Word tells me that your reply is 2093 "words". That's some serious writing. Truth be told I have little interest reading that much from you, so if you really want to continue, try toning it down to 200-300 words, okay?

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

[Rue]

What lies?

I don't have to post a link because, as I stated, it's fairly common knowledge what effect toxins have of animals. The onus is really on you to disprove what I'm stating, but I don't see any of that happening.

But it's clear what you're up to, so don't waste my time.

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.

[Rue]

Honestly, what exactly does a position have in common with a lifestyle/orientation? So if children are groomed from infancy to serve as sex partners for adults, and this is commonplace in society and no social stigma attached, and "nobody gets hurt" it would be okay with you, you would consider it moral????

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.

[jazzer]

Truth is most important to me. But I assume because I don't buy into the myths and lies you do I "don't care" for the truth?

But here's the rub. It's YOUR truth Kengs, and many, if not most here don't subscribe to your absolute certainties. The world is much bigger than the organized Christian religions, who base their factualness and truisms totally on the New Testament, an unsubstantiated collection of "books" that are over 2000 years old. And you never anwered my question: Where in the NT does Jesus, the head of the Christian organization, say anything about homosexuality?

Edited November 1, 2007 by jazzer

[Moxie]

The assertion that homosexuality will lead to legal pedophilia is absurb. It's the neocons war cry used to justify discrimination. There is no direct link between pedophiles and homosexuals, and let us not forget women can be pedophiles also.

They are two seperate issues, I find if very offensive to compare two consenting adults to a group that rapes, molest and abuses children for sexual gradification. Science, I believe, will prove one is born a homosexual. Pedophiles know what they desire is wrong, that's why they hang out on the net with their fellow scum bag preditors. Do preditors hang out in organizations that promotes equality for gays, sure they do but they also become teachers, and let us not forget their favorite occupation CATHOLIC PRIEST. Religions need to clean up their own dirty little past regarding pedophiles, the gay community hasn't been link to pedophilia that I'm aware of.

Using religion to persecute homosexuals based on this argument will always fail. One is an evil preditor the other is not.

[cybercoma]

But here's the rub. It's YOUR truth Kengs, and many, if not most here don't subscribe to your absolute certainties. The world is much bigger than the organized Christian religions, who base their factualness and truisms totally on the New Testament, an unsubstantiated collection of "books" that are over 2000 years old. And you never anwered my question: Where in the NT does Jesus, the head of the Christian organization, say anything about homosexuality?

Jesus did say something about homosexuals...

Luke 6:37 Judge not, and ye shall not be judged...

John 15:12 This is my commandment, That ye love one another, as I have loved you

Romans 12:10 Be kindly affectioned one to another with brotherly love; in honour preferring one another

Edited November 2, 2007 by cybercoma

[Rue]

cyberc, so noted and thank you.

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.

Edited November 2, 2007 by Rue

[capricorn]

Lol I noticed in yoru comment you wanted to be set straight! I think there are special retreats you can go to for that.

If the programming includes a session on "the burden of proof", where and when can I sign up?

[Rue]

Jesus did say something about homosexuals...

Luke 6:37 Judge not, and ye shall not be judged...

John 15:12 This is my commandment, That ye love one another, as I have loved you

Romans 12:10 Be kindly affectioned one to another with brotherly love; in honour preferring one another

and this one;

Rube 101: Make sure you have teeth before you advertise yourself as a dentist.

Rube 102: No point buying a comb when you are bald.

Rube 103: If you fat in an empty elevator then the door suddenly opens and people enter there's no point trying to insist you did not fart.

Rube 201: If you don't have teeth there's no point ordering the steak, stick to apple sauce.

Rube 202: The only thing absolute is your own idiocy.

Rube 203: A preacher is nothing more then a man with a confused penis.

Rube 307: Some humans feel the Bible can be used as a guide to probe sexual values-preachers thien accelerate this concept and use it as a dildot. (see 203 above)

Rube 401: Some men when they mature realize digital exams are inevitable so when a preacher offers to do one with a Bible we pass.

Rube 666: Any man who preaches in fact has a leak in his depends.

Rube 727: With age does not necessarily come wisdom just hair not growing in the right places but growing in the wrong places.

Rube 808: Men will tell a woman what we think she wants to hear precisely because our penises tell us to.

I am having a spercial seminar where lesbians will teach straight men how to appreciate Jodie Foster and gay men will attempt to teach straight men how to properly tuck in their shirts with donations going to the GAYS HELPING STRAIGHTS LEARN TO DANCE Committee. The cost is only $2000.00 with part of that going to me. (99.99% but hey its a living and I have to make t-shirts of myself to sell outside the Chinese consultate in Toronto).

For further info call my secretary Dalton McGuinty. You can find his number in the blue book.

[Rue]

If the programming includes a session on "the burden of proof", where and when can I sign up?

Ha!

[Frankie]

What's Rube?

[cybercoma]

Oh man... My sides hurt from laughing so hard at Rue's posts. Nice.

[kengs333]

Jesus did say something about homosexuals...

Luke 6:37 Judge not, and ye shall not be judged...

John 15:12 This is my commandment, That ye love one another, as I have loved you

Romans 12:10 Be kindly affectioned one to another with brotherly love; in honour preferring one another

I guess you missed the parts in the NT that deal with sin. I suppose I could waste my time trying to explain to you being non-judgemental and toleration of sin are not one and the same, but it would clearly be wasted on you. And I just find it so interesting how you do what every anti-Christian complains about Christians: selectively uses verses from the Bible out of context to make a point.

[kengs333]

But here's the rub. It's YOUR truth Kengs, and many, if not most here don't subscribe to your absolute certainties. The world is much bigger than the organized Christian religions, who base their factualness and truisms totally on the New Testament, an unsubstantiated collection of "books" that are over 2000 years old. And you never anwered my question: Where in the NT does Jesus, the head of the Christian organization, say anything about homosexuality?

My truth is based on empirical evidence and the thousands of books that I've read, tens of thousands of articles/essays etc. The Bible is one book, the most important book, but not the only book that I've read. You're sweeping generalization about "unsubstantiated" is flawed; first, you basically are saying that all ancient, early historical texts are either inaccurate or fabricated; second, it ignores the fact that biblical archeology has validated many of the events that are recorded in the Bible.

Maybe you would like to explain at what point written evidence about historical events becomes reliable enough to substantiate their occurence?

[kengs333]

The assertion that homosexuality will lead to legal pedophilia is absurb.

No it's not. Man-boy-love is a common and celebrated occurence in the gay community.

It's the neocons war cry used to justify discrimination.

I'm not a neocon--far from it. And it has nothing to do with "discrimination" rather opposition to a moral wrong. If I have an issue with incest, am I "discriminating" against people who are in incestuous relationships? Nope.

There is no direct link between pedophiles and homosexuals, and let us not forget women can be pedophiles also.

Yes there is, and I've never "forgotten" that women and lesbians can be pedophiles. Is not Oprah's school in South Africa currently dealing with a scandal in which a female staff member is accused of inappropriate sexual conduct with about a DOZEN female students?

They are two seperate issues, I find if very offensive to compare two consenting adults to a group that rapes, molest and abuses children for sexual gradification.

The only people you should be offended by are the homosexuals who engage in pedophelic behaviour. You're trying to deny the fact that homosexuals engage in this kind of behaviour; that in itself is morally reprehensible.

Science, I believe, will prove one is born a homosexual.

Since when?

Pedophiles know what they desire is wrong, that's why they hang out on the net with their fellow scum bag preditors.

So do homosexuals, but instead of overcoming it they "embrace" it and try to normalize it by brainwashing people like you and advocating the homosexual lifestyle.

Do preditors hang out in organizations that promotes equality for gays, sure they do but they also become teachers, and let us not forget their favorite occupation CATHOLIC PRIEST. Religions need to clean up their own dirty little past regarding pedophiles, the gay community hasn't been link to pedophilia that I'm aware of.

"favorite occupation CATHOLIC PRIEST"???? Again, explain to me how a pedophile who assaults children of the SAME SEX is not a homosexual.

Google "pederasty" and start reading...

Using religion to persecute homosexuals based on this argument will always fail. One is an evil preditor the other is not.

Where's the "persecution"? We're talking about saving people from living in sin.

[jazzer]

My truth is based on empirical evidence and the thousands of books that I've read, tens of thousands of articles/essays etc. The Bible is one book, the most important book, but not the only book that I've read. You're sweeping generalization about "unsubstantiated" is flawed; first, you basically are saying that all ancient, early historical texts are either inaccurate or fabricated; second, it ignores the fact that biblical archeology has validated many of the events that are recorded in the Bible.

Maybe you would like to explain at what point written evidence about historical events becomes reliable enough to substantiate their occurence?

I'd settle for some secular sources for NT validation, not rehashed biblical copies. And as far as biblical archeology is concerned, try reading The Bible Unearthed.

[bk59]

No it's not. Man-boy-love is a common and celebrated occurence in the gay community.

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.

Yes there is, and I've never "forgotten" that women and lesbians can be pedophiles.

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

The only people you should be offended by are the homosexuals who engage in pedophelic behaviour. You're trying to deny the fact that homosexuals engage in this kind of behaviour; that in itself is morally reprehensible.

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

[cybercoma]

I guess you missed the parts in the NT that deal with sin. I suppose I could waste my time trying to explain to you being non-judgemental and toleration of sin are not one and the same, but it would clearly be wasted on you. And I just find it so interesting how you do what every anti-Christian complains about Christians: selectively uses verses from the Bible out of context to make a point.

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.

I'm illustrating the point that the Bible is not a very good moral guide, since (Old Testament included) it is VERY contradictory. If the Old Testament was stricken by Christ, Christian Bibles should not included it.

Regardless, go on being judgmental of homosexuals and the people that want to allow them to live their lives in peace, that's your prerogative. Just don't try and claim you're a man of Christ by doing so, because if religious conviction is your thing, you're clearly doing exactly what you just told me not to do.

[cybercoma]

So, kengs -- I don't think you're a bad person, btw, I think you have the best intentions -- your problem is when adults have sex with children, not two same-sex persons that are adults having sex with each other, right? Maybe this thread has been one big misunderstanding.

[Drea]

We're talking about saving people from living in sin.

This line says it all right here.

Kengs would like to "save" people from their so called "sins".

Not all people will be welcoming when you tell them they are sinners. Not all people think homosexual behaviour is a "sin". Heck, not all people believe there is any such thing as "sin".

In my opinion, the word "sin" belongs right there with the word "evil". Words made up by the religious for the purpose of instilling fear.

Only those who believe are bound by god's laws. AND if you believe in one law (do not lie with a man as thou would with woman), why do you not follow the rest of the laws?

I can't imagine, Kengs, that you don't speak to or touch your wife during her menstration, yet the laws state that a man should not converse, touch or sit in the same seat as a menstrating woman.

Why the discrepancy? If your going to follow god's laws and expect everyone else to follow them, why do you only follow the one's that suit you?

Edited November 3, 2007 by Drea

[Moxie]

So, kengs -- I don't think you're a bad person, btw, I think you have the best intentions -- your problem is when adults have sex with children, not two same-sex persons that are adults having sex with each other, right? Maybe this thread has been one big misunderstanding.

I came away with the same thoughts, Kengs is a good man. His personal beliefs are just that, he's debated with good grace and patience. I may not share his views but I respect his right to voice them and believe in them.

There are some pedophiles that hide behind the term "Gay" to get at their prey, but these predators hide behind all lifestyle choices. Pedophilia is a psychologocial disorder, they are not gay or homosexuals they are sick and twisted. It is a seperate issue for me, pedophiles are incurable and they choose to rape, molest and harm children for pleasure. Watching Canada AM awhile back a psychologist reported that a pedophile will molest 150 children during their lifetime. 150 children victimized, Jesus Wept. Pedophiles do light jail time and they are free to molest again. Our legal system is plucked up, if the stats are correct we are exposing our most precious gift (children) to pure evil.

Two consenting adults having sex, is just that "Consenting Adults". There is no victim, no one is harmed including the framework of society.

[Rue]

"I came away with the same thoughts, Kengs is a good man. His personal beliefs are just that, he's debated with good grace and patience. I may not share his views but I respect his right to voice them and believe in them. "

Actually I come away with the exact opposite impressions. It is my ipersonal impression that when I hear the conceptualization used by the Kengs of the world, it to me shows warning signs from a conflicted person who has the potential to be violent.

What disturbs me immensely is not his personal opinions as to religion. That is to me a non-issue. What does disturb me is that Keng has shown he does things deliberately, i.e., fabricate information he poses as scientific basis for his opinions. A person who says he has read tens of thousands of articles and this makes him an expert for example, is a dangerous person. It shows in my personal opinion the person has no ability to limit themselves. The exageration to me is not harmless excess, its a symptom of someone who does not control themselves in situations of perceived conflict with others.

For me Keng has indicated repeatedly he is being deliberate and is fully aware he is smeering and engaging in negative generalizations or entire groups of people.

So sorry I find nothing good or redeeming about that. In fact I find it corupt in the purest philosophical sense. I find it corupt because by its very manifests the beliefs of a man knows his comments arevsubjective opinion but genuinely feels he has the right to force them upon others.

There is zero doubt in my mind keng would if he could foce himself and his opinions on others without their consent precisely because of the words and subjective opinions he repeats. He is to me exactly the kind of person he thinks he is condemning.

So I actually find the comments Keng has demonstrated to be symptomize dangerous anti-social characteristics. The fact that he sounds civil means nothing. His words can not be couched or masked as polite simply because you have not heard him come out and say more blatant expressions of the hatred that has been communicated.

I have sat across from cold blooded killers who are as polite and courteous as it gets. Absolutely decent, polite, soft-spoken and charming. So? Sometimes its not the words, but the content and context of them we must look to is what I am saying.

Now I may sound overly judgemental and harsh but I wish to be crystal clear-I have no problems with someone believing their religion requires them to follow certain rules. That is not what Keng has done. What he has done is to repeat over and over that homo-sexuals are pedophiles and deliberately molest children. He has slurred them as engaging in Nazi tactics. He has accused them of brain-washing non gays. He has tried to justify such thoughts by slurring all Jews.

His repeated insistence on imposing negative generalizations on entire groups of people based on his subjective opinions are done in my opinion precisely because he has contempt for people. He does NOT respect other peoples' right to be who they are. He does not accept them for who they are and that is precisely why he judges them. Those words of judgement are not innocent and civil they are hateful. Suggesting gays brainwash people and engage in Nazi like exercises is hurtful its not innocent nor is it civil. Smeering all Jews as morally culpable, i.e., being victimizers because he feels the Israel government engages in questionable policies or some people of Jewish ancestry may have been int he Soviet Communist Party isn't civil or innocent, its hateful. Its full of hate and contempt for an entire people. That is precisely what negative generalizations do when you engage in them over and over. Negative gernalizatiuons lower social inhibitions, they densitivize the person who engages in them to the point where they have demonized the object of their slurs thereby making it quite easy to kill or hurt them. That is the whole point in the exervise-to rationalize one's hatred. Once you rationalize the hatred-its just a matter of time until its expresed physically.

I say all of the above based on my personal opinions from having clinically worked with others who engage in the same kind of behaviour. I honestly tell you each and everytime I have seen such homo-phobia expressed this way, I have encountered someone with deep confusion as to his own sexual feelings. Nothing good comes from it. A peaceful religious man does not spend their energy making such sweeping condemnation of others. A conflict ridden soul does.

So excuse me for sounding judgemental and harsh but I just don't know any other way to say it. You can be as civil as you want to me, but if the words are saying you hate me, I really don't care if you smile and do not raise your voice. In fact most sociopaths never show emotion when they kill. Does it make them civil? Uh no just sociopathic.

Some feedback to your comments, purely for respectful debate and not to question you;

"There are some pedophiles that hide behind the term "Gay" to get at their prey, but these predators hide behind all lifestyle choices."

Actually many clinical studies on pedophiles show they will make no attempt to describe themselves in sexual terms and its those absence of sexual terms that are noticeable. Its actually unusual when they do when they discuss what they did to children. They usually refrain from referring to what they do as sexual or as a lifestyle choice. True pedophiles don't consider what they are doing sexual. It may seem that way to you or me but to them it is not seen as sex. Sounds kind of absurd, but when you listen to the videos when police or psychiatrics question them you'd be suprised at how they avoid any references to sex.

"Pedophilia is a psychologocial disorder,"

Actually its a psychiatric disorder. Is there a difference? Yes because the clinica reference manual for defining mental illnesses including peophilia is a psychiatric manual.

Psychology is a diverse area of social science and only a portion of it lends itself to the studies of abnormal psychology or forensic psychology studies. Psychiatry on the other hand necessarily focuses on mental illness or behavioural phenomena with an organic (neurological, physiological) connection. So there can be quite a difference in terms and concepts used.

As well psychology does not fully have the tools to define a psychiatric illness as it can not comment on certain neurological, physiological, biological or chemical components of it or prescribe medication for it.

"pedophiles are incurable and they choose to rape, molest and harm children for pleasure. "

Right now most studies would indicate you can't "cure" ANY mental disorder. At best you can try control the impulses or sumptoms associated with them and in this case, pedophilia. Now in regards to your second comment, no not all pedophiles are sadists. Some enjoy hurting as part of the sex act but they are actually a sub-set of pedophiles and a minority of pedophiles and technically are not true pedophiles as they do not prefer children physically like pedophiles-what they crave is hurting people and sex is one way to express it. Sexual sadists are usually pyschopaths or sociopaths who will hurt anything that has life in it, child, animal, adult - the more vulnerable the more they might be attracted to it or they could be acting out a purely compulsive disorder or an elaborate acquired disorder from having been hurt themselves as a child.

The majority of pedophiles would be shocked if they heard you describe them as violent as often their molestation involves passive behaviour.True pedophiles stick to children and do not engage with adults as sexual sadists do.

"Watching Canada AM awhile back a psychologist reported that a pedophile will molest 150 children during their lifetime."

Some psychologists probably say things to deliberately provoke get your attention. There is no way to prove the above comment. All we know is from criminal statistics that rapists when they finally do get caught admit they have raped many others. This is where such comments come from but there are no hard studies to give you an exact number.

The studies I have seen lean to one theory that the pedophiles who get caught subconsciously let themselves get caught. Another theory is the more you get away with anything, the more desensitivized you get as to its negative consequences so you are more likely to let your guard down and get caught.

While I would agree with you its very unlikely a pedophile simply molests one and stops as by nature it is a compulsive disorder that gets stronger in compulsion each time its done, there are no hard statistics. The 150 may be too big or too small. Opportunity and access are the key to pedophile statistics. The more opportunity and access there is to get at children, the higher the rates. That is all we know from studies for sure at this point in time.

"Pedophiles do light jail time and they are free to molest again."

The statistics are clear on that and can prove what you say. To get classified as a dangerous offender and not be released is actually not the normal procedure at all for pedophiles. I am sorry when I say I have to agree with you.

"Our legal system is plucked up, if the stats are correct we are exposing our most precious gift (children) to pure evil. "

I am again sorry truly sorry but I have to admit from what I saw what you say is true. I have seen many walk out scott free and others be released prematurely because of prison or hospiutal over-crowding and lack of proper treatment programs and facilities. I wish I could tell you otherwise but that would be an insult to probation officers, police officers, social workers, psychiatric nurses and doctors not given proper support for the jobs they do.

"Two consenting adults having sex, is just that "Consenting Adults". There is no victim, no one is harmed including the framework of society."

That is of course a legal point let alone a behavioural point Keng has shown he will delibrately and with great thought and premeditation ignore. It is so important you say it again. All classifications our medical and psychological associations use when defining sexual behaviour as well as with our criminal and tort laws flow from whether an action is with an adult and consensual.