Dumbledore's Gay

[M.Dancer]

Just out of curiosity; is it your opinion that homosexuals also engage in pedophelic behaviour?

What? All of them?

Just out of curiosity; is it your opinion that heterosexuals also engage in pedophiliac behavior?

http://www.mercurynews.com/news/ci_7449292?nclick_check=1

[cybercoma]

Just out of curiosity; is it your opinion that homosexuals also engage in pedophelic behaviour?

That statement is wrong, ignorant and biased. The fact of the matter is that some pedophiles also engage in homosexual behaviour, just as over 50% of pedophiles were in heterosexual marriages. There was also a group, that Rue listed, that includes people who are exclusively pedophiles and do not have mature relationships of any kind. If over 50% of pedophiles are married, that means there are much less pedophiles who ALSO have homosexual adult relationships than there are pedophiles who have heterosexual adult relationships.

[cybercoma]

There are, however, a number of well documented cases of man-boy love involving recognized homosexuals, people who are important to the "gay rights" movement. So it really is an aspect of hmosexuality...

Do you care to give credibility to what you're saying by providing an example of a "well documented case" of a "recognized homosexual who's important to the gay rights movement" being a pedophile? It would also be nice to see how you make the leap from the actions of some homosexuals becoming an aspect of homosexuality as a whole.

Over 50% of convicted pedophiles in the United States were married men, does that make pedophilia a celebrated aspect of the institute of marriage?

Using your terribly incorrect logic, it would be. Perhaps your church should stop marrying couples.

[Rue]

Keng asks;

"Okay, so if pedophelia is a "psychological disorder" how is it then that an older adult having sex with children that are say 12-14 and don't fit into the profile of what some would consider pedophelia, is not a psychological disorder?"

Please read Keng's comments. Oh he read the Psychiatric Manual and definition from the American Psychiatric Encyclopedia. His comments later on in his response clearly indicate he did and is disagreeing with them. So ask yourself why would he ask the above question? Its kind of peculiar since the definition clearly states that an older adult having sex with a 12-14 year old could be considered a pedophile. If its him simply not understanding what he read, how was he able to go on and reject it in detail? Go on and read his comments, starting at;

"You clearly still don't get it.'

Does that sound to you like someone who misunderstood what he read or understands it and because he understands it, he deliberately rejects it?

Who does he refer to when he says "you" clearly don't get? Does he mean himself, gays, the medical community, anyone he disagrees with, or all of the above?

I APOLOGIZE TO MODERATOR CHARLES ANTHONY who had to remind me not repeat verbatum wording without appropriate reference or when necessary to avoid the volume and stick to the reference. I did repeat it in a very fullsome manner in this case from the Psychiatric Manual, and American Encyclopedia on Psychiatric Disorders deliberately to provide a basis for this next comment-in my opinion I do not think this is a matter of someone stating a simple opinion and respecting the opinion of others, I believe his words deliberately dismiss the environment around him and in particular the medical community and the very professionals who have the training and expertise he does not to be able to comment on the topic he continues to present with subjective opinions.

Only his opinions are not stated respectfully, they are said to confront and reject anyone who disagrees with him.

If any of you thought Keng would hopefully read the terminology and would concede it is what mainstream medicine now works with, you are mistaken. He's not interested in anything but his feelings expressed as subjective opinions being validated.

Herein lies my problem? he rejects anyone who does not agree with him. He rejects anything as invalid that does not meet his criteria and yet he expects others to concede to him what he won't in them? Why the double standard? Why the imbalance?

Its a classic case once again of someone telling others tthey don't get it, but does he?

It is not like he doesn't read. He can't say he doesn't know what the definitions are. Its not someone saying, I disagree with the definitions, its someone going the next step and dismissing what he's being told by people who have far more training and expertise in the area then he does.

This is no longer a simple exercise in expressing one's religious opinion in case anyone still does not notice.

These are his words not mine;

"If you read any book about the history of homosexuality or the gay rights movement, there will likely be a discussion about pederasty (man-boy love). "

Keng continues to make sweeping generalizations. He stated ANY book. Does anyone believe ALL books on gay and lesbian history discuss the topic? Does anyone believe even if SOME did, this then justifies him then making the leep to assuming a discussion about pederasty advocates pedophilia? Does that sound rational or logical to make such quantum leaps that start out with a sweeping absurd generalization, then jump without cohension or cognitive sequencing from one feeling to another? I can only again look at the words he's used and that is clearly what I see being expressed and evidenced by those words.

I ask you people reading his comments, why do you think he keeps saying what he does? What do you think causes someone to make such sweeping generalizations? Is is inappropriate to ask that question?

When I keep seeing the same negative gernalizations repeated over and over, I am wondering is it deliberate or is it actually innocent because if you ask me to believe its innocent then does that not necessarily mean he is confused about sexuality and basic sexual concepts that differentiate sex between consenting adults and sex between adults and children.

Now if you believe that is innocent then ask....how is that so if he now dismisses what the conventional medical community has to say about how to define the difference between consensual adult sex and sex between adults and children.

This refusal to acknowledge the difference is not innocent, its a deliberate choice he's made.

When you repeatedly engage in concepts that tell the world, there is no difference between adults having consensual sex and adults who have sex with children just what message is that? Does that sound like an innocent religious opinion to you?

Here are the words;

"all through history gay men have fantasized or engaged in sexual acts with boys, male children between the ages of at least 10-14 years-old."

I ask you again, why does he project on all gay men that they fantasize and have sex with boys.

Where does th concept of fantasizing about sexual acts with boys originate from gay men or his mind and something in his mind that causes him to express sexual concepts outward in such a manner?

They are not my words. They are his. I can only comment on them and say the concept that ALL gays fantasize about boys, is the fantasy he constructed or defined and now imposes on them. He keeps doing it over and over. He keeps constructing the fantasy and then saying it belongs to gays but does it? Just who is seeing boys being sexually violated? Am I supposed to simply accept his vision as reality or am I allowed to say, no its his reality-its his creation-is the world he lives in-its the world he has chosen to see and feel and now express and he doesn't just say, please appreciate my world he says-its my world or none. If you don't come into my world, you have no rights, you do not exist, you are invalidated.

Here is someone who told everyone he only speaks scientific facts. When asked to provide them at first he said he didn't want to, then he said he couldn't. Now he says- I dismiss science. So which one is it?

Read his words;

"If you consider this healthy, consentual behaviour, then you need serious help."

Now he not I is prescribing medical treatment. He's not a psychiatrist or psychogist. In fact he has dismissed absolutely psychology and psychiatry and then who does not share his sexual feelings needs help? By the way that is what we are talking about, sexual concepts, sexual terminology, sexual attitudes, all fancy ways of courching the term sexual feelings or what we feel sex should be. Just read his words, they are full of reference of what sexual feelings should be.

Again by telling everyone else they need serious help who is he talking about? The psychiatric and psychological communities? Anyone who accepts gays? Gays? Himself?

Is he asking for help to himself for his confusion with gay and pedophilel feelings and concepts or do you think he is simply defining anyone he does not agree with as sick?

I would contend if I openly state what your motives are, and that you are therefore evil and also argue you are sick and need help, that necessarily allows you to ask me what my credentials are to say that and whether I am healthy enough to say that and what my motives are and whether I am evil.

Edited November 14, 2007 by Rue

[Rue]

Do you care to give credibility to what you're saying by providing an example of a "well documented case" of a "recognized homosexual who's important to the gay rights movement" being a pedophile? It would also be nice to see how you make the leap from the actions of some homosexuals becoming an aspect of homosexuality as a whole.

Over 50% of convicted pedophiles in the United States were married men, does that make pedophilia a celebrated aspect of the institute of marriage?

Using your terribly incorrect logic, it would be. Perhaps your church should stop marrying couples.

Cyber we know pedophiles are either exclusive (only have sex with children) or inclusive (also have sex with adults.

The criminal statistics and sexual deviancy statistics that exist show there are more inclusive then exclusive pedophiles and that the majority of pedohiles in the inclusive category when they do practice adult sex practice hetero-sexual sex or as you say are married. In the exclusive category the vast majority of pedophiles simply molest who is accessible.

We also know that something like 90% of known pedophiles are male.

These constant references to pedophilia being homo-sexual of course is idiotic as the term homo-sexual only applies to consensual adult sex between consenting same sex participants.

These experts you are trying to deal with have decided if you engage in sex with a child of the same sex, that makes you homo-sexual.

Just fo r your curiousity the actual rate of inclusive pedophiles who have same sex with consenting adults is far lower then inclusive pedophiles who have hetero-sexual sex.

Interestingly when tests are done on hetero-sexual men who feel strongly that homo-sexuals lust after boys, they usually are shown to themselves find themselves having problems coping with their own desires for young women or seeing their sexual attraction to younger women as normal.

It sort of works like this. If a straight man say like me at 50, finds Anna Kornikova (whatever that tennis player's name is) sexy, that's normal. But if a 50 year old gay man finds a young man attractive its considered pedophilia. Its the same social standards that have found it acceptable for older men to date young women but when women date younger men, its questioned.

Such perceptions and standards of course are cultural.

In the psychiatric and psychological worlds, sexual behaviour is defined as abnormal or a potential disorder or abnormnality when its between two adults, if either party says they have problems with it, or when there's a power balance causing exploitation, or when someone is making themselves phsyically, emtionally or mentally ill because of their sexual habits or there is violence involved.

The classification of pedophiles is based on a sliding adjustable scale in terms of age gap and power imabalances as well as lack of all ro some sexual characteristics. Technically when you have two adults of large age difference engaged in it, we could when it becomes a problem not be talking about pedohilia but some either paraphilia such as sexual masochism or sexual sadism, or personality disorders where one or more of the parties could be a psychopath, sociopath, have a manipulative personality, be histrionic, or narcissistic or simply someone with low self esteem who looks for people he/she can control.

Interestingly you would find forensic psychiatrists or psychiatrists in general far less likely to toss around these defintiions or assume then lay people (if you excuse the pun).

You know to actually properly diagnose someone can take a long time, not days, sometimes many months or years.

Anyways I am off to sniff a bicycle seat or maybe a tree.

Edited November 14, 2007 by Rue

[kengs333]

I haven't read the thread closely because it's the same thread over over again for the last 10 years. But I will leave it to you to show who and where it was said man boy relationships are not pedophiliac.

I also know from your past posts you get confused easily, so I will give you the benifit of the doubt....

Sorry, I'm not confused at all; but coming from you who comes from "I'm lost" I suppose that's unintentionally a compliment.

Edited November 14, 2007 by kengs333

[kengs333]

Do you care to give credibility to what you're saying by providing an example of a "well documented case" of a "recognized homosexual who's important to the gay rights movement" being a pedophile? It would also be nice to see how you make the leap from the actions of some homosexuals becoming an aspect of homosexuality as a whole.

Over 50% of convicted pedophiles in the United States were married men, does that make pedophilia a celebrated aspect of the institute of marriage?

Using your terribly incorrect logic, it would be. Perhaps your church should stop marrying couples.

The relationship between Rene Schere and Guy Hocquenghem comes to mind; but to be honest I try to read much about gay rights activists, so I'm sure there are tens of thousands of more cases of gay rights activists who were initiated into the lifestyle through pederastic/pedophilic experiences.

Again, I've never made the claim that all homosexuals are pedophiles. But pedophelia is an aspect of the homosexual lifestyle, and it's practice is labelled as "man-boy love" to obfuscate its true nature--as though somehow when gay men victimize 14 year-old boys it constitutes "love," rather than sexual assault/abuse.

Edited November 14, 2007 by kengs333

[M.Dancer]

Sorry, I'm not confused at all; but coming from you who comes from "I'm lost" I suppose that's unintentionally a compliment.

So you concede then that no one here has described man boy relationships as not being pedophile in nature.

Maybe yoiu aren't confued...just not quite honest.

[guyser]

But pedophelia is an aspect of the homosexual lifestyle,

Just like the pedophile preists and ministers are an aspect of christian groups?

[kengs333]

Just like the pedophile preists and ministers are an aspect of christian groups?

So how exactly does a form of sexual deviance that Christianity condemns be an "aspect of christian [sic] groups"? Pedophiles, homosexuals, and other sexual deviants who infiltrate Christian organizations and institutions are not Christian, therefore are not reflective of Christianity. Moreover, it's debatable whether any form of formalized Christianity is reflective of Christianity, since the Bible makes it clear that a Christian is someone who has faith in God and follows the teachings of Christ. That's a whole different issue, though.

[kengs333]

So you concede then that no one here has described man boy relationships as not being pedophile in nature.

Maybe yoiu aren't confued...just not quite honest.

I recall people not accepting the argument that pederasty constitutes pedophelia, even when the boy is 12-14 years old.

[M.Dancer]

I recall people not accepting the argument that pederasty constitutes pedophelia, even when the boy is 12-14 years old.

LNKPLSTHXKBYE

[guyser]

So how exactly does a form of sexual deviance that Christianity condemns be an "aspect of christian [sic] groups"? Pedophiles, homosexuals, and other sexual deviants who infiltrate Christian organizations and institutions are not Christian, therefore are not reflective of Christianity. Moreover, it's debatable whether any form of formalized Christianity is reflective of Christianity, since the Bible makes it clear that a Christian is someone who has faith in God and follows the teachings of Christ. That's a whole different issue, though.

Lets see... christian groups have large contingents of pedophiles abusing young boys.They do virtually nothing to stop it,oh wait, they move the offender to another parish/church/group somewhere else.

They use the gospel to hide behind .They dont really feel it is a sin. They like to preach that so that they have the young 'ens to themselves.

What is so hard to understand?

[M.Dancer]

So how exactly does a form of sexual deviance that Homosexuals condemn be an "aspect of homosexuality. .

[jawapunk]

I have read the entire post up until now and I will not hold my breath getting into an argument with Kengs, it is completely useless. If you use logical flowing arguments, that are well written and concise he ignores them. If you use biblical passages that contradict him, he says you don't understand the bible. If you ask for empirical evidence he professes that he doesn't have to, which in my mind makes him lazy, just as he will not read posts longer than 200 words. I am willing to bet he has not read the Bible or any theological treatise.

It is my contention that Jesus was a homosexual. He did not marry in a time when men were expected to marry quite early. He had a profession that would easily afford a wife and family. He spent much of his time with 12 men, professing love of fellow man.

Jesus was probably killed by the Jews not only because of political dissent but immoral and deviant sexuality as you suggest kengs. The temple in Jerusalem at that time certainly would not condone homosexuality even if it may have still been prevalent in Roman society.

Back to the original contention that Dumbledore being gay may influence children to lead homosexual lifestyles, this is ridiculous. People don't make a conscious choice one day to become gay. "Hmmm, I think I will become what many in society consider aberrant, perhaps costing me friends, family, jobs and even my happiness. I think I would like to really love to lead a lifestyle of secrecy and lies that may even lead me to taking my own life because of depression and a sense of helplessness. WHERE DO I SIGN UP!" People are gay because they have always been gay, they are perfectly normal and natural. The fact that there "seem" to be more gays in these days is that it is more accepted and many feel more confident in coming out instead of bottling it up for their lives and committing suicide etc. Don't be a total moron Kengs

[cybercoma]

Jesus wasn't killed by the Jews, he was killed by the Romans.

I had to throw that out there.

Good post otherwise.

Edited November 15, 2007 by cybercoma

[Rue]

Jawa I don't want to misdirect this lien of topic but remind me to get into a religious exchange with you on the issue as to whether Jews killed Jesus or the Romans, etc. Lets leave that for another time.

I actually have read some interesting theories Jesus may have been gay. I have also read theories he was in fact married and had children.

Certainly his teachings challenged the sexual "norms" of the day because of course he would have not encouraged people to stone anyone simply because they were gay or anything else.

His belief in teekam olam, the Talmudic principle of healing the world through positive actions would never have condoned or supported the kind of hatred we see certain individuals try use Christianity for.

By the way the institutionalized form of homo-sexuakity we see in the church is akin to the kind we see in prisons. Its a different behavioural phenomena that homo-sexuality we talk about between consenting adults. Given the power imbalances and repression of sexuality that goes in in institutions the kind of homo-sexuality you see expressed given the lack of free will and consent is technically a sexual predator type behaviour that can be differentiated from two same sex adults cosnenting. Much different components. Its why I hate it when we use the same words but we really mean different things. Its our limited vocabulary sometimes that does this, othertimes its our limited brains. Lol.

[Rue]

A belated response to Jefferiah. I did not want to highjack the posts earleir on.

In response to my suggesting to Keng he should read what the Dali Lama says about homo-sexuality, Jefferiah assumed I told him to read it because I felt the Dali Lama approves of homosexuality.

No Jefferiah, I told him to read it, precisely because its an example of someone JUST LIKE Keng, or probably you, who feels its legitimate to feel, that ANY sex other than for reproduction is not

considered accpetable.

I wanted you to see an example of someone who basically would h ave the same religious fundamentalist views as Keng BUT expresses it in a way that does NOT necessarily use words that single out gays for negative generalizations.

The point you missed Jefferiah is this;

In the traditional fundamentalist position as to sex only for reproduction as the Dali Lama believes (which by the way is not necessarily the only Nhuddist approach;

Homo-and hetero-sexuality are defined and assigned the same moral references."Sexual misconduct" is defined as coercive sex, sexual harassment, child molestation and adultery.

By the way homosexuality is not explicitly mentioned in any of the Buddha's sayings recorded in the Pali Canon (Tripitaka).

So both hetero-sexuality and homo-sexuality would be judged by the Dali identically. Its not because the sex is gay its being condemned but because its not for reproductive purposes.

So my point Jefferiah is that if this was really Keng's view he would not be continually engaging in comments designed to suggest gays are pedophiles or for that matter they are immoral.

Finally Jefferiah at no time did I say Keng is a pedophile or stalking children and for you to suggest that as you did is bullshit. I could not have been clearer in what I was saying and its interesting because when I clarified it for you, you simply dismissed the clarification and made this assumption.

I will say it again, my comments are directed at his words and the necessary implication that he exhibits confusion as to sexual concepts and therefore sexuality and the feelings that flow from them. Is that simple enough for you?

How about this-if someone repeatedly calls others a pedophile or sexually deviant or immoral, I of course can't help but ask are in fact talking about a part of themselves they are not sure how to deal with? The thoughts come from within them-they certainly don't come from me. I can only question what I am hearing just as you could question my words if I was telling everyone I thought they were pedophiles.

Taking ownership of our feelings and thoughts Jefferiah is not something alleged Christian preachers or their condoners like to do because it would require they use the same judgement they place on others on themselves as well. In case you haven't noticed Jefferiah, this bullshit pretesense that one can use Christianity to judge others, but not expectrf to be judged in return

is nothing more then someone saying do as I say, not as I do. Its bullshit no matter how much you try spin it as innocent religious opinion and me being abusive for challenging it.

If I see someone beating on someone, I am not a bully for stepping in between and pushing the bully off. My pushing the bully off does not make me abusive. The person I am pushing off is not an innocent victim-he's been caught in the act and exposed for it and has openly admitted he knows what he is doing and in fact goes to great measure to justify it.

Using your analogy where does it end? Can we all spew intolerance as long as we insert some references to Jesus now and then?

[Rue]

As long as Keng persists I am here to send back the love;

In regards to his comment;

"The relationship between Rene Schere and Guy Hocquenghem comes to mind; but to be honest I try to read much about gay rights activists, so I'm sure there are tens of thousands of more cases of gay rights activists who were initiated into the lifestyle through pederastic/pedophilic experiences. "

If you read the above you can see he meant to say he tries NOT to read much about gay rights activists. So he admits he is ignorant of what he talks about but does not let that stop him from professing on the topic. It shows someone who knows he does not know what he is talking about but thinks its acceptable to talk about it anyways. That to me speaks for itself. It shows premeditated, deliberate awareness of ignorance as to a subject but showing a head-space that feels nto being aware of something doesn't mean it can stop him from claiming he does.

This is why I send to Jefferiah this is not an innocent opinion. This is one stated by someone who knows it is being created as he goes along. That necessarily is not innocent. It is in fact a classic example of a corupted thought process whether you use the philosophical or psychological definition of coruption.

More to the point he once again trots out two names and then uses that as his arguement to suggest and I quote "there are tens of thousands of mroe cases of gay rights activists who were intiated into their lifestle through perastic/pedophilic experiences".

Once again Keng's words clearly state, by his comments that;

1-he thinks it is rational to believe that because he feels he is aware of two examples of people he thinks describe his conception of what homo-sexuals do, that this then proves tens of thousands of gays are doing the same thing. This is a classic example of someone who shows the world he stereotypes. He creates a category, then provides an example that he thinks establishes the category as true, then with no sequence, leaps to the conclusion tens of thousands of other gays engage in the identical behaviour. That leap or gap between his conception and then pronouncing it on tens of thousands of others, isn't even done with humility or with qualification-its done wth the words; "I'm sure".

The words "I'm sure" again show the smeer, that leap to assign a negative stereotype to tens of thousands, is deliberate, its not done innocently.

Now can Jefferiah please explain to us all how the above is a religious opinion? How is it?

Tom me it simply is the manifestation of someone who keeps repeating images of what he thinks are gay men having sex with children. why? Why the continued reference to gays as pedophiles?

To me keng keeps repeating he is fixated with this vision and keeps repeating it. So you tell me Jefferiah, do you think Christian principles tell you to continually visualize such a concept and project it on gays? Is that what a religious belief is? Or is it a personal conflict being expressed outwards?

Well?

Edited November 17, 2007 by Rue

[Rue]

Another thorough response to Keng's love notes to the world, he says;

"I've never made the claim that all homosexuals are pedophiles."

The the very next sentence just like Kapitan would, after saying the same thing, he states;

"But pedophelia is an aspect of the homosexual lifestyle, and it's practice is labelled as "man-boy love" to obfuscate its true nature--as though somehow when gay men victimize 14 year-old boys it constitutes "love," rather than sexual assault/abuse."

The above denial of suggesting all homosexuals are pedophiles is contradicted in the very next sentence. I ask you, if we are to accept Keng's comment, why in the next sentence did he not state pedophilia is an aspect of the homosexual lifestyle. Those words are deliberate and deliberately ambiguous in reference to suggest pedophelia and homosexuality are necessarily one in the same.

How after that, how after suggesting the two concepts are the same, is it germaine to suggest oh nut I didn't use the word "all"?

Does that denial because keng did not use the word "all" come about because he has no idea his words are generalizations? He has been told over and over again such phraseology is being interperated as negative gernalization of an entire group of people-if for no other reason (and he claims to be Christian) why would he not acknowledge the pain these words cause and qualify his statement now that he has been told they cause pain to people? Why repeat them again and again?

I would contend the decision to deliberately choose words to make negative generalizations of all gays are not religious opinions, but being done repeatedely because at this point Keng knows they are hurtful but he feels compelled to keep hurting. why? Why the compulsion to keep hurting people with words? What compels someone to keep using words you know will hurt someone?

Its interesting but awhile back another poster Kapitan used to engage in the exact same responsez and wording. I asked Keng if he used to be the Kapitan and he did not respond.

Oh by the way the m..o., the precise method of repeatedly engaging in an act that someone knows are hurtful are evidenced by these other words of Keng;

"The two (homo-sexuality, pedophilia) are closely linked. Many pedophile are homosexuals.

Most acts of pedophelia are between men and boys, women and girls; not only is this pedophelia, it's also homosexual behaviour. "

"think of how prevelant pedophilia is, and that it already has a foot in the door because of the widespread public acceptance of homosexuality"

"man-boy love is a celebrated aspect of male gay culture"

"Going to a movie and driving a car are two totally different things. Pedophelia and homosexuality are not. Pedophelia is a celebrated aspect of male gay culture. Ancient Greek men who engaged in sex with boys are pedophiles and homosexuals."

The above words are deliberate not innocent. They are intended to deliberately suggest gays are pedophiles. The semantic defence that Keng has not used the word "all" is laughable because it does not address or excuse his actions nor does it explain why a good Christian like him when being told what he is doing is hurting people would continue to do so deliberately?

[Rue]

Guess what famous Christian theologist made the following remarks;

Invoking the teachings of Christ when you don't really understand what they mean is not only ignorant, it's insulting and disrespectful.

"People who follow the teachings of Christ are the only true Christians, they are the ones who will find everlasting life in Heaven."

(translation: if you have my beliefs you get to go to heaven otherwise you are evil and going to hell)

loving one's neighbour doesn't mean you have to accept their sinfulness

(its o.k. to hate someone and judge them)

"Moreover, one cannot be "intolerant" of sin and sinful people; it is those who are sinful and evil who are intolerant--intolerant of good, intolerant of faith and virtue. "

(hating and judging others is acceptable)

Morality never "advances". It either exists or doesn't, and there is no connection between the passage of time and an "advance" in morality.

(close your mind, do not let it grow and open itself to creativity and new possibilities, remain stagnant and fixed and entrenched-anything other then your own belief should be repressed and blocked out, focus on the hear and now and only on your own beliefs)

"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. "

(its a good thing to be conflicted and make others feel conflicted)

Now I ask what kind of mind takes the alleged Christian religion and uses it to justify the above thoughts? Why would anyone want to justify such thoughts?

Does condemning people to hell who don't agree with you sound socially adjusted? Does telling people having faith ALWAYS leads to division and disord (conflict) sound healthy to you? What mind believes faith necessarily creates conflict?

What kind of mind makes the sweeping statement that morality never advances, i.e., is fixed in time and space and it must be the one the preacher believes in to be said to exist? Does that sound like someone preaching Christianity or does it sound like someone trying to justify blocking out any opinions but his own and denying the constant state of evolution and mutation in all creative life forces? Why? Why the attempt to subdue to on-going evolution of the life essence in all of us? Does that sound healthy? Does a healthy mind stay arrested in development at one fixed point and shut out everything else?

What kind of mind tries to rationalize judging others as being acceptable?

Think about it. Someone who shows you he will deliberately use words he knows hurts others, then tells you anyone who does not think like him is going to hell, and its o.k. to judge people and be intolerant of them-what kind of person is that? Do you think that is someone who is feeling well adjusted within society or with himself or others?

Its the kind of questions that must be asked when someone preaches like this. Dismissing them as innocent religious opinion is to me as dangerous as the person sharing these twisted concepts.

To me the above thoughts expressed are necessarily anti-social and narcissistic, i.e. show a disdain for society and fellow humans as well as the preacher's inabiloty to differentiate his feelings from others and realize other opinions other then his own are equally as valid let alone could teach him something.

[Rue]

Here are words I contend evidence blatantly a deliberate, carefully thought out desire to say gays are evil because they molest children, i.e., the necessary conclusion they ask to you arrive at is that gays are evil and pedophile. What is interesting is Keng would have you believe since he did not use the word "all" the intent of these passages is acceptable.

Just so you know, the choice of the words is crucial. They repeat the exact same feeling over and over. Its expresses a vision of a man having sex with a boy and then a need to be angry at homo-sexuals for it. Its repeated so often and so repeatedly its why another poster early on asked, what was this poster molested by some man and can't get over it? It was another poster who asked the question not me, but I do ask, why the need to hate gays and link them to pedophilia? Why do you think the poster needs not just to link the two, but call anyone who won't agree with him and condone this exercise sick as well? Why?

"To simply dismiss someone's homosexuality as "that's just the way they are" is disingenuous. You're suggesting that people can't change how they think, their attitudes, how they behave; people should simply go with how they feel. This is exact reason why some much is wrong with our society."

"The practice of man-boy love is something that is a celebrated aspect of the homosexual lifestyle; this is something that the gays themselves advocate. Moreover, many incidents of pedophelia occur when a man assaults a boy or a woman assaults a girl. So there is a connection between pedophelia and homosexuality."

"So men who engaged in homosexual acts also readily engaged in pedophelia, as well

means that they've been brainwashed or intimidated into believing that homosexuality is normal. And that's how it works. Always go after the kids. That's what the Nazis did to perfection, this is no different. If you were in Berlin in 1938 and you would have asked children what they thought of Hitler, they all would have said he was a great man. Why? Because they were brainwashed to believe this."

"That's what gay activists have done; they make everyone interpret everything as being gay, even when it's not. "

"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."

"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."

'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."

"Male pedophiles who engage in relationships with young boys are homosexuals. What else can they be?"

"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?"

"....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...? "

"Again, I've never made the claim that all homosexuals are pedophiles. But pedophelia is an aspect of the homosexual lifestyle, and it's practice is labelled as "man-boy love" to obfuscate its true nature--as though somehow when gay men victimize 14 year-old boys it constitutes "love," rather than sexual assault/abuse. "

[Rue]

I have been as crystal clear and careful as possible not to cross the line and to carefully document the words I have looked at from Keng.

I conclude with bring your attention to these words of his;

"there is only one proper way to engage in intimate relations"

"I recognize the truth, I see reality as it was created; I don't subscribe to delusions, etc. in an attempt to legitimize sinfulness."

"....all through history gay men have fantasized or engaged in sexual acts with boys, male children between the ages of at least 10-14 years-old."

It is necessarily delusional when a human says to another, there is only one truth and that they are the one who recognizes it and can see it and everyone else must believe them and use it as he does to hate gays and condemn them as evil and accuse them of being pedophiles.

The vision in his words above that all though history gay men have fantasized or engaged in sex with boys is his vision. He created it. It originates from his mind. Its his sexual feelings he is placing in print and asking you to believe comes from others.

If I gave someone an ink-blot test and they kept telling me they saw a man having sex with a boy in say 20 of the 20 pictures I have him to look at, what should I conclude other then, its preoccupying his mind and to be so preoccuped means something unresolved is flowing from the vision.

That I would suggest is not fancy psychology or anything else, just common sense.

Its time Keng end his attacks on gays and move on. Cuz I aint going anywhere until he does and he's really in trouble when I start coming to him in his visions.

Edited November 16, 2007 by Rue

[jawapunk]

I know the Romans officially crucified Jesus. But it was the Jews in power who backed this crucifixtion and wanted it to occur. I doubt if Pontius Pilate cared one way or the other quite frankly, Jesus wasn't exactly a militant.

[M.Dancer]

At this point I would like to mention that Dumbledore asked Snape to kill him.

......sick