Dumbledore's Gay

[SVTman]

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....

no that is what you just called it anal intercourse not sexual intercourse there is a difference. at least there is to most people that now what there stuff if for. and as for the definition i am sorry that it wasn't perfect i guess you learn something new everyday.

[guyser]

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.

Your definition did absolutely nothing to bolster your own interpretations.

There is nothing not normal about gays. Perhaps better fashion sense and an innate ability to dance, but those are hardly reasons for so many to get a hate on.

[jefferiah]

Your definition did absolutely nothing to bolster your own interpretations.

There is nothing not normal about gays. Perhaps better fashion sense and an innate ability to dance, but those are hardly reasons for so many to get a hate on.

Who said they hated gays, Guyser?

I know there a lot of people who have moral objections to things I do. I don't take it as meaning that they hate me. That is outlandish.

[guyser]

Who said they hated gays, Guyser?

I know there a lot of people who have moral objections to things I do. I don't take it as meaning that they hate me. That is outlandish.

No one did, including me.

"Hate on" is merely an expression for those so opposed . It was collective not specific.

[kengs333]

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.

It's not a matter of my repeating the phrase that makes it true, rather that fact that this is the case makes what I write in my phrase true. One could argue that just because you deny it doesn't mean that it is true. Sorry, but pederasty is something that is openly advocated by the gay community.

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."

Yes there is a link: pederastry. Pederasty is "love" between boys as young as 12 and older men. Is this not pedophelia, in your opinion?

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.

I never said I wasn't. I don't make excuses or condone deviant sexual behaviour perpetrated by heterosexuals, especially when the victims are children. My point is, though, this is not the case with homosexuals; everybody here seems to be defending or denying such behaviour by homosexuals. It's bad enough that arguments are made that they aren't sexual deviants in the first place, but to defend them when they engage in other forms of sexual deviance...?

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.

Well, again, yes there is a direct link.

[g_bambino]

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

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

Isn't it? Or, do you mean that the homosexual "lifestyle" isn't normal, per se?

[cybercoma]

no that is what you just called it anal intercourse not sexual intercourse there is a difference. at least there is to most people that now what there stuff if for. and as for the definition i am sorry that it wasn't perfect i guess you learn something new everyday.

The definition you gave of sexual intercourse simply stated, "genital contact". The especially part doesn't mean "exclusively", as was previously stated. In other words, when two women rub their genitals together, or two men rub their genitals together, they're engaging in "sexual intercourse" according to the definition YOU provided.

Actually, it doesn't even necessarily state that both parties' genitals need to come into contact with each other. So any contact with the genitals, by that definition, would be sexual intercourse. This means contact with the genitals by manual, oral or anal stimulation still counts as sex.

Edited November 11, 2007 by cybercoma

[bk59]

Sorry, but pederasty is something that is openly advocated by the gay community.

Well, no, it's not. But feel free to continue writing that it is. Your opinion that it is does not mean that it is in fact reality.

I never said I wasn't. I don't make excuses or condone deviant sexual behaviour perpetrated by heterosexuals, especially when the victims are children. My point is, though, this is not the case with homosexuals; everybody here seems to be defending or denying such behaviour by homosexuals. It's bad enough that arguments are made that they aren't sexual deviants in the first place, but to defend them when they engage in other forms of sexual deviance...?

People on here are saying that pedophilia is something different from both heterosexuality and homosexuality. There has been evidence provided to back up this position. Your opinions do not change the evidence.

Well, again, yes there is a direct link.

Well, again, no there is no direct link. The difference between you and I is that I have give evidence to show that there is no direct link. You have not given anything to support your position.

[ScottSA]

People on here are saying that pedophilia is something different from both heterosexuality and homosexuality. There has been evidence provided to back up this position. Your opinions do not change the evidence.

I cannot, for the life of me, understand this sophistry. I suppose, if a great majority, or even most, pedophiles swung back and forth from boys to girls indiscriminantly, then one might make a case that the sex of the victim is irrelevant, and it is the age of the child that is the overriding factor. The trouble is that most, if not all pedophiles seem to go after the same sex of victim. This fact, it seems to me, makes it quite clear that while age is a factor of attraction, so is the sex. Given that, the statistical relationship between homosexual pedophilia and heterosexual pedophilia is relevant, leading to the very uncomfortable fact that 33% -+ of pedophiles are homosexual. That is a huge elephant in the living room, and one that cannot simply be brushed under the rug.

[M.Dancer]

The trouble is that most, if not all pedophiles seem to go after the same sex of victim.

lnkplsthxkbye

[g_bambino]

Given that, the statistical relationship between homosexual pedophilia and heterosexual pedophilia is relevant, leading to the very uncomfortable fact that 33% -+ of pedophiles are homosexual.

How do you quantify sexual identity?

[Rue]

Scott why don't you actually go and look at the studies on who pedophiles are and how they operate. There are actually statistics to show that a pedophile does not as you say have a preference for one of the sexes.

Pedophiles are governed by a sexual impulse that is not attracted to male or female characteristics and that is precisely why they are pedophiles. They are not sexually attracted to male sexual characteristics or female ones. They are attracted to an asexual body type one that is neither male or female. Even if they fuck a boy Scott, its not a male to them-its the fact the boy has no prounced sexual features that they are attracted.

That said, it is absolute bullshit to suggest pedophiles have preference for one gender over the other. What the statistics show is pedophiles fuck ANY child if they have opportunity or access. This concept you have if they have a choice of a boy or a girl, some of them will only fuck boys is bull.

If pedophilia happens in a same sex institution its not because the pedophile is gay its because that is where we has access and opportunity.

In fact statistics kept on pedophiles and who they molest shows no difference in rate as to who they pick and at one point with another person I responded on this forum with studies and statistics as to that point and I am not going to repeat them to you again.

What I am going to do is tell you, if you want to come on this forum and make comments that pedophiles have a preference for one gender then put up or shut up. That is an absolute myth by people who will not take the time and effort to research what pedophilia is.

I will say it again, pedophiles choose their victims not because of their gender but because of access and opportunity. They choose children not because they are boys or girls but precisely because they have no pronounced sexual organs or features which threatens pedophiles.

Stop and think. If a pedophile got off on sexual characteristics why fuck children then? There cna you understand it if I put it in such simple terms?

They fuck children precisely because their lack of sexual features is what turns them on.

Some of us have gotten into their heads Scott. We know how they tick and operate and what they look for and when and why they look for it. They are no more gay or straught then you are a liberal.

[Rue]

In response to Jefferiah;

".. 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."

Exactly.

"And it was probably jokingly..."

No it was stated as seriously as I could possibly say it.

"This is a dumb argument."

You call it dumb because you have not understood what I have said and why I have said it.

"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. "

What makes you able to make such a generalization? What do you base your assumption? See before you call me dumb and reject what I have said, be careful, because you too are engaging in what you think you are accusing me of.

Now let me explain what I said because I did not at any time make a generalization as you did.

I am commenting specifically as to what Keng has said. I comment specifically as to the words he has used.

His words, specifically conceive homo-sexuality and pedophilia as the same act. He does not distinguish. He believes any sexual act by a gay person is the same as pedophilia. Its his words not mine. His inability to distinguish between the two is evidenced by his own words.

His comment that the problem with society is that people in society won't repress their sexual feelings come from his words not mine.

And now I will state it again, a person who says to others-your problem is you won't repress yourself sexually and you are evil for having sexual feelings, is NOT I repeat not talking about someone else. He is talking about himself.

Why do I say that? Because I simply read his words. They are referring to himself. His words refer back to himself in each and every remark.

I am not the one who feels gays are threatening he does. A person who feels threatened by another adult simply because that adult engages in an act that makes him feel threatened is in fact talking about his own feelings when he says gays are evil and Nazi like and pedophiles. These are all words to rationalize his subjective feelings precisely so someone like you will say, its just an opinion.

Its not just an opinion. Its an opinion based on an internal subjective feeling being turned outwords and imposed on us all and so its capable of being questioned by those of us who feel it is directed at.

If you in your world want to define it as a simple opinion do so. But you arenop different then Keng when you call be dumb simply because you can't understand something I am saying or because you don't agree with it.

I did not come on this forum and express any sexual feelings of disgust, Keng did. So I have the wrte to say to him, take ownership of them and I am deadly serious, in my opinion someone who uses the references Keng does is not an innocent.

At no time did I call him gay or a pedophile. What I said and I repeat is that his words show he has conflicted sexual feelings, he is sexually confused and that is why he can't differentiate hetero hom and pedophile sexual concepts and definitions. What he actually is I suspect but would never come out and say precisely because its not my intention nor quite frankly do I care other then to say to him to his face-he is a bully, a hateful man, and his using religious references do not change the content of his hatred or confusion he expects everyone else to condone. You can, I won't.

"That is completely ridiculous, SIR."

So in my opinion is suggesting what Keng has stated is a simple opinion or you trying to pretend it is such. Trying to say the smell does not reak to me is ridiculous. However please be my guest, try sell it as perfume. It does have attractive qualities to many. I do not doubt that for a second.

Edited November 11, 2007 by Rue

[Rue]

There are some people who are absolutely and utterly convinced Michael Jackson is not a pedophile. So my question is, if anyone but Michael, any 50 year old man, wanted to have a pajama party with your children who were 7 and 8 and sleep in the same bed as them when you are not there to see what is going on, would you agree?

Why do I use the above anaology. Because I believe that with certain topics, its fair to ask the person calling others pedophiles whether they are.

In my case for those of you who think I am being unfair to Michael Jackson, ask me, would I have a pajama party and sleep in bed with your children and ask you to leave? No.

Fair question. I have no problem answering it. That is the point. Anything I have said, applies to me as well. I welcome the same standard. I have no moral standard I hide behind. I have never claimed to be moral just contemptuous of those who say they are.

[cybercoma]

Rue, serving up heaping spoonfuls of pwnage.

[Isobel]

I have spent a lot of time reading the posts on this thread.

It is a very sad society that looks at expressions of love and sees deviance and evil (and just to make it clear I am not referring to child abuse here..... homosexuality does not equal child abuse, just as heterosexual behavior does not equal rape). If you enjoyed the Harry Potter series prior to the author's statements, I cannot understand any justification for changing your mind now. Shouting or ranting about evil and immorality, is not a valid argument.

I do have a suggestion for people who disapprove of the books..... um don't read them. Personally I am more disturbed by narrow minded bigots than I am by gay wizards.

Isobel

[jefferiah]

Rue once again, a thousand word essay doesn't change it. You made the accusation that Kengs was grooming youngsters, and now you say you were not joking. He should have reported you.

You were way out of line with that post.

Edited November 12, 2007 by jefferiah

[bk59]

I cannot, for the life of me, understand this sophistry. I suppose, if a great majority, or even most, pedophiles swung back and forth from boys to girls indiscriminantly, then one might make a case that the sex of the victim is irrelevant, and it is the age of the child that is the overriding factor. The trouble is that most, if not all pedophiles seem to go after the same sex of victim. This fact, it seems to me, makes it quite clear that while age is a factor of attraction, so is the sex. Given that, the statistical relationship between homosexual pedophilia and heterosexual pedophilia is relevant, leading to the very uncomfortable fact that 33% -+ of pedophiles are homosexual. That is a huge elephant in the living room, and one that cannot simply be brushed under the rug.

This has been answered, but I will attempt a shorter reply. Go back and find the link in this thread regarding homosexuality and pedophilia. Pedophiles go after children because they are children, not because of the child's sex. Pedophiles, whether they go after a child of the same sex or not, are not attracted to adults of either sex. Heterosexuals and homosexuals have no interest in children whatsoever. On the face of it, I can see where you are coming from: "hey, that's a man with a boy". But sexuality is not that cut and dry. Pedophiles have no interest in heterosexual sex or homosexual sex. They are something different than either heterosexuals or homosexuals.

[kengs333]

This has been answered, but I will attempt a shorter reply. Go back and find the link in this thread regarding homosexuality and pedophilia. Pedophiles go after children because they are children, not because of the child's sex. Pedophiles, whether they go after a child of the same sex or not, are not attracted to adults of either sex. Heterosexuals and homosexuals have no interest in children whatsoever. On the face of it, I can see where you are coming from: "hey, that's a man with a boy". But sexuality is not that cut and dry. Pedophiles have no interest in heterosexual sex or homosexual sex. They are something different than either heterosexuals or homosexuals.

If it's not "cut and dry" then why are you making such statements? Any researcher will tell you that the majority of people who engage in pedophelic behaviour do not view childdren as their sole or primary interest. If you're so keen on having proof provided every time someone makes a statement you don't agree with, then let's see you provide some for your ludicrous assertions.

[kengs333]

Rue once again, a thousand word essay doesn't change it. You made the accusation that Kengs was grooming youngsters, and now you say you were not joking. He should have reported you.

You were way out of line with that post.

I don't bother reading his ramblings, so I don't care what he says. He's governed by other motivations.

[kengs333]

I have spent a lot of time reading the posts on this thread.

It is a very sad society that looks at expressions of love and sees deviance and evil (and just to make it clear I am not referring to child abuse here..... homosexuality does not equal child abuse, just as heterosexual behavior does not equal rape). If you enjoyed the Harry Potter series prior to the author's statements, I cannot understand any justification for changing your mind now. Shouting or ranting about evil and immorality, is not a valid argument.

I do have a suggestion for people who disapprove of the books..... um don't read them. Personally I am more disturbed by narrow minded bigots than I am by gay wizards.

Isobel

How quick you are to label someone you don't agree with. I don't see it as being either narrow minded nor bigoted to not wish abnormal sexual behaviour to exist in society to any great extent. Personally, I think people who engage in these practices are narrow minded because they allow themselves to be primarily driven by the urge to satisfy base sexual desires, engage in irrational, hedonistic activities. What's really sad is a society that has lost all sense of right and wrong and cloaks base and immoral behaviour in the guide of being good, "open-minded" and and "expression of love" rather than corrupting, self-destructive and destructive to society as is really the case.

[Isobel]

I was pretty sure you wouldn't see it.

[Drea]

I was pretty sure you wouldn't see it.

Welcome to MLW Isobel!

In the mind of Kengs333, everything is deviant. Sex is only allowable if it is between a man and a woman who have never had sex with anyone else, the lights are off, the woman is not enjoying it, and the man get's off in less than 5 seconds.

"Whew! Done the dastardly deed, let's hope there's a baby this time, cause I don't want to have to do that again!"

He believes that all people should follow the rules from some book written over 2000 years ago. But only those rules that specifically mention sex. All other rules don't matter to Kengs333, he just wants people to be as sexually miserable as he is.

Edited November 12, 2007 by Drea

[guyser]

He's governed by other motivations.

Yes...the truth.

Some , on the other hand continue with the opinions absent of facts.......

Sigh

[kengs333]

Yes...the truth.

Some , on the other hand continue with the opinions absent of facts.......

Sigh

Sorry, but if you seriously think that's he's governed by "the truth" after reading any of his ramblings, then all I can think of are bannable phrases about your state of mind.