Homosexuality is an anomaly

[Kapitän Rotbart]

@Rue:

Since he is in to demanding quotes, let us ask him, what linguist has defined homo-sexual and pedophile as being synoymous. None has. What Kapitan did was to take a definition and re-invent its context to suit his needs but you will notice at no time could he find me a "linguist" who defined pedophilia and homo-sexuality with the same words.

This is disappointing. You're relating my arguments to irrelevance. I never said anyone claimed that "homosexual" and "pedophile" were synonymous. I'm just saying that there is no reason to believe that a pedophile cannot also be a homosexual and that a homosexual cannot be a pedophile, nothing in their definition states that they cannot be both. They are not antonyms, are they? Are "apple" and "poison" antonyms? No, and there's no reason for a given thing to not be both an apple and poison. For the same reason there's nothing stopping someone from being both a homosexual and a pedophile.

Of course aside from being disingenuine Kapitan with your " I prefer to rely on linguist" response, not only do you not explain how linguists are academic experts on sexual behaviour but you failed to provide any linguist who quoted homo-sexuals have sex with children.

I never claimed linguists (nor anyone else) claim homosexuals have sex with children. Linguists write dictionaries. If you insist on quotes, I'll quote the dictionary:

Homosexual: [noun] "Someone who practices homosexuality; having a sexual attraction to persons of the same sex". Antonyms: Bisexual; Heterosexual; straight

Pedophile: [noun] "An adult who is sexually attracted to children" - WordWeb.

There is no reason to believe that one cannot be the other, nor any reason to believe that one must be the other. See the Venn Driagramme.

By the way the Kapitan would probably have a problem with linguists who speak more then one language. Because then they would be BI-lingual. Can't have that now can we.

Un bilingue ? Ça alors ! Heureusement je ne suis pas bilingue, mais polyglotte; je parle aussi couramment l'espagnol et je me débrouille très bien en allemand. Je m'entend bien avec les bilingues... une langue n'est qu'un code permettant la communication, ayant aucun lien à la bisexualité. MDR, tes bêtises me font rire par contre.

I waited awhile before I responded because I was in fact disappointed that the Kapitan simply chose to

engage in such a response.

Better late than never, however your response did not advance your point.

[guyser]

This is disappointing. You're relating my arguments to irrelevance. I never said anyone claimed that "homosexual" and "pedophile" were synonymous.

You are a slippery little bugger, that much is true,but you did infer it...."Kapitan-Pedophilia is defined by age (I was always aware of that) yet homosexuality is not. A man who has sexual relations with a woman is straight; with a girl is a pedophile, with a man is gay; and with a boy is gay and a pedophile."

A pedophile has sex with kids. A hetero has sex with opposite members of the sex. A pedo who has sex with a child of the same sex is a pedo.There is no such thing , aside from religious institutions as a homo pedo. No more no less. Dont try and bugger this up again.

I'm just saying that there is no reason to believe that a pedophile cannot also be a homosexual and that a homosexual cannot be a pedophile, nothing in their definition states that they cannot be both.

Yes it does. If it is not included , it is therefor excluded. Your own definition says just that. To quote your dictionary a "pedophile : An adult who is sexually attracted to children. "

Funny, your dictionary does not state that a pedo who has sex w same sex children is a pedo homo. But you claim that as true.

. For the same reason there's nothing stopping someone from being both a homosexual and a pedophile.

Hey Kap, book an appointment with your Linguist doctor . He has you confused. Get a prostrate exam while you are at it . No smiling.

Better late than never, however your response did not advance your point.

Of course to you it didnt. Too much of a religious pious smokescreen to see through.

Take off the ridiculous church glasses and see for yourself.

Heterosexual is a choice---- right, we all one day just said, nope no pole smoking for me, gots to gets me some P (or vice vbersa)

Gay sex is abnormal, or rather another quote? " ..... that it would be ridiculous to try to justify homosexuality as anything but abnormal" ---- again, church coloured glasses.

"I don't need society turning towards expecting people to give special treatment to gays like .." ---No of course not, and neither does anyone else. Nobody advocates them getting special rights, well except religious people like you who make up these fallacies,fag rights fag rights OMG the fags want special rights.Pull the bible out of your ears and listen, they want equal rights not extra rights. But go ahead, the church is well known for spreading bullshit. Done it for ages and will do so for another age longer. Keep ignorant if you want.

Enlightenment.....so much freer.

[Kapitän Rotbart]

@Guyser:

A pedophile has sex with kids. A hetero has sex with opposite members of the sex. A pedo who has sex with a child of the same sex is a pedo.There is no such thing , aside from religious institutions as a homo pedo. No more no less. Dont try and bugger this up again.

To my knowledge, no word has yet been conceived to define those who are both homosexual and pedophile. Until then, those who have sex with children of the same sex as themselves are both homosexual and pedophile.

By the way, what would you consider someone who is equally attacted to children as to adults of the same sex? Are they not both homosexual and pedophile? According to those sexperts, they're labelled according to their dominant preference... what if they like adults of the same sex and children equally? Don't you think it just might be possible for someone to be both gay and pedophile?

Funny, your dictionary does not state that a pedo who has sex w same sex children is a pedo homo. But you claim that as true.

Never claimed it as true. Sex (as in gender) is not a component of pedophilia. Someone who has sex with children, regardless of the child's sex, is a pedophile. Being a pedophile does not stop someone from being either heterosexual, homosexual nor bisexual.

Hey Kap, book an appointment with your Linguist doctor . He has you confused. Get a prostrate exam while you are at it . No smiling.

Why don't you do the same with a sex-pert. See how well someone who spent many class hours learning about birth control can help you with your vital organs.

Heterosexual is a choice---- right, we all one day just said, nope no pole smoking for me, gots to gets me some P (or vice vbersa)

Heterosexuality was never forced on anyone. Feel free to choose otherwise; I'd much rather stick to an orientation open to (the true definition of) marriage and to natural procreation.

they want equal rights not extra rights

I'd like to believe that too. I'm going to ask you to back that statement with a citation.

My reason for disagreeing is the fact that gays so often play the victim. If a gay gets attacked and brings the offensor to court, they'll probably state they were a victim of homophobia, whereas the offenor was probably unaware that the victim was gay. It just ads to the sentence (whereas it wouldn't be the same if a victim is a visible minority, because then the offensor would be probably aware of the victim's skin color and visible minorities are not nearly as quick to play the victim). If these victim-playing gays were to grow some balls and not blame everything on homophobia, then I'd be more likely to agree with your statement. Also, if you look at scholorships given away to students, many are for minorities only... it makes sense to encourage Natives and Blacks to achieve academically because they average the lowest education, yet so many scholarships are given to gays exclusively, who average the highest education. They also average the highest income (well, highest disposable income at any rate) yet the CRTC includes gays as minorities towards job quotas for publicly licenced media. They want all the rights they can get, and they've most certainly gained privileges beyond straight people. I'd be in favor of proportional rights, meaning gays would pay more taxes because they are more likely to have a higher disposable income, just like women are often paid less because of the liability (they can become pregnant and men can't). Unfortunately this is not likely to happen any time soon, because of gay activists who make sure gays have privileges exceeding those of the general population.

Enlightenment.....so much freer.

Sounds like an ad. Is anyone paying you to post on this forum?

[Rue]

"I never said anyone claimed that "homosexual" and "pedophile" were synonymous."

" I'm just saying that there is no reason to believe that a pedophile cannot also be a homosexual and that a homosexual cannot be a pedophile, nothing in their definition states that they cannot be both. "

"There is no reason to believe that one cannot be the other,"

Kapitan the above two statements from you in fact state homo-sexuality and pedophilia are the same.

What makes your denial of continuing to slur gays as pedophiles even more ludicrous then your above contradictions is you yourself produced dictionary quotes which at no time suggested homo-sexuality is the sexual attraction to children and you then quote the following definition;

"Pedophile: [noun] "An adult who is sexually attracted to children" - WordWeb."

You demonstrated to everyone your arguement about linguistic definitions is not applicable since the above two definitions even if we ignore medical terminology as you want to do and simply stick to non medical terminology, are not the same.

There is nothing slippery about you. I believe your intentions are clear and blatant. You wish to slur gays as pedophiles, no more, no less.

You have demonstrated to us all in this debate you have not onlyu ignored the non medical dictionary definitions, but you have dismissed the DSVM psychiatric manual, the American Psychological Association clinical definitions... in fact you have dismissed everything presented to you that indicates homo-sexuality and pedophilia are two distinct behaviours and the above contradictions show you are doing it with pre-meditation and deliberate intent.

At no time have you presented any medical evidence or linguistic evidence or for that matter ANY evidence to base your usbjective opinion that same sex with an adult and same sex between a child and an adult should be called the same thing.

At no time have you shown us how a sexual act with a child of the same sex, is the same psychological process as a sex between consenting same sex adults.

In fact your trying to infer one can be both is not and was never the point. No one has ever stated someone can practice homo-sexuality with adults and pedophilia with children. That has never been the issue. The issue has been you deliberately saying the two can be called the same thing when your own information you have quoted makes the differentiation.

You have been shown over and over again with medical documentation that any sex with a child as opposed to an adult is not homo-sexual or hetero-sexual because the sexual pathology and the cognitive processes involved with adult to child sex is completely different then adult to adult sex.

You choose to deliberately ignore the psychiatric and psychological components of these behaviours that make these sexual practices different. You deliberately suggest that the two should simply be called homo-sexual.

That Sir makes you in my opinion deliberately provocative. You are in my opinion not being honest with us in insisting you can call them the same name.

I don't find you slippery. I with due respect find you to be a coward for trying to suggest you have not suggested homo-sexuality is synonomous with pedophilia, but then state it one sentence later. Sorry to me that is cowardly. I find it to be passive-aggressive in nature. You deny something then do it.

Now you want me to be blunt, let us be blunt-I do not believe for a second you can not see the difference in pathology and behaviour between sex with adults and sex with adults and children. I think you deliberately choose to blur them and infer that homo-sexuality is pedophilia.

It is my subjective opinion you have demonstrated religious views that are prejudice against any humans whose sexual practices differ from yours. (although I am not sure if you even engage in sex, please do not assume I meant that, I mean using your style of debate, I cannot say you are not a virgin).

You have expressed your religious views that homo-sexuals are sinful (oh but not evil just sinful) and you don't stop there you suggest anyone who has sex other then to procreate and don't procreate within a marriage are also sinful. That Sir, in my opinion, makes you a person who likes to judge others because you think that is what the Catholic Church has told you to do. Now after reading your comments, I am having a hard time believing you engage in the abiove because the Catholic Church told you to think this way and you have no independent thinking process.

Kapitan, with due respect, tt would be one thing for you to be honest and say, you know what, based on my religion I do not approve of gay life-styles. Fine. But you have not done that. You have in fact played a word game to try suggest homo-sexuals are pedophiles and that is something completely different. It is in my personal opinion hateful and odious.

I can understand someone telling me they are of a religious faith that is against being gay or having sex outside marriage. That is not the issue and never was. I make no judgements as to your religious beliefs or right to have them.

Using any religion as a pretext to say homo-sexuals are pedophiles or sinful, would be my concern.

As for your denial Kapitan, your own words hoisted you on your own petard. You being a Kapitan can understand that term. It is naval in origin which again should not be construed as your belly button as that could be seen as sexual and therefore sinful.

[Kapitän Rotbart]

@Rue:

OMG, I really don't understand how you could possibly misunderstand what I wrote. I thought I made it clear.

Do you want an algorithm? I gave you the Venn Diagramme, apparently that wasn't enough. Here's an algorithm:

Let X be a given person. Let A be people of the opposite sex from X, B people of the same sex as X, C children (of both sexes) and D adults (of both sexes).

X = [Heterosexual;Teleiophile]

IF X is sexually attracted to B approximately as much as X is sexually attacted to A OR IF X willingly engages in intercourse with A AND B, THEN X = [bisexual;]

IF X is dominantly sexually attracted to B OR IF X willingly engages in intercourse with B, THEN X = [Homosexual;]

IF X is dominantly sexually attracted to C OR willingly engages in intercourse with C, THEN X = [;Pedophile]

Possible outcomes:

X = [Heterosexual;Teleiophile]

X = [bisexual; Teleiophile]

X = [Homosexual; Teleiophile]

X = [Heterosexual;Pedophile]

X = [bisexual; Pedophile]

X = [Homosexual; Pedophile]

Denying any of these possible combinations is a sign of ignorance. You'd have to be absent-minded to think that those statements you quote state that homosexuality and pedophilia are the same.

You demonstrated to everyone your arguement about linguistic definitions is not applicable since the above two definitions even if we ignore medical terminology as you want to do and simply stick to non medical terminology, are not the same.

No d'uh. I never suggested that they were the same, I am simply arguing that Homosexual and Pedophile are neither synonyms, nor antonyms.

There is nothing slippery about you. I believe your intentions are clear and blatant. You wish to slur gays as pedophiles, no more, no less.

Since when? I don't wish to slur anyone. Can we just agree that most homosexuals are not pedophiles and get on with this?

At no time have you shown us how a sexual act with a child of the same sex, is the same psychological process as a sex between consenting same sex adults.

Does it have to be the same psychological process?? Since when? The psychological process of pedophiles who have sex with the same sex probably have a different psychological process as those who have sex with children of the opposite sex.

In fact your trying to infer one can be both is not and was never the point. No one has ever stated someone can practice homo-sexuality with adults and pedophilia with children. That has never been the issue. The issue has been you deliberately saying the two can be called the same thing when your own information you have quoted makes the differentiation.

Please quote where I stated they could both be called the same thing.

You have a point here... it never was the point. You were stating earlier about the erroneous myth that homosexuals are accused of being pedophiles. I never heard of this myth. I simply wanted to mention that there is a higher rate of pedophiles amongst adults willing to engage in same sex relations (regardless of age) than those who aren't willing to engage in same sex relations (regardless of age). I am aware that most people willing to engage in same sex relations (regardless of age) are not willing to engage in sexual relations with children, it's just a point I made about proportion.

You choose to deliberately ignore the psychiatric and psychological components of these behaviours that make these sexual practices different. You deliberately suggest that the two should simply be called homo-sexual.

I ignore no components. There are various components that distinguish many teleiophile heterosexuals' behaviors (not all teleiophile heterosexuals share the same fantasies, for instance), however it doesn't motivate me to distinguish teleiophile heterosexuals for the purpose of this thread, just because they don't all share the same psychological development and fantasies. Likewise, I have no interest in distinguishing the behavioral components of the GBLT and of pedophiles for the purpose of this thread. I am no shrink, it's up to the shrink to provide the help an individual needs.

You have been shown over and over again with medical documentation that any sex with a child as opposed to an adult is not homo-sexual or hetero-sexual because the sexual pathology and the cognitive processes involved with adult to child sex is completely different then adult to adult sex.

I'll admit that the psychological patterns will be different, but that doesn't make someone who has sex with a child of the same sex any less of a homosexual. Remember, homosexuality is not limited by age. A shrink will probably need a different approach to help homosexual pedophiles than to help homosexual teleiophiles, but that's irrelevant.

Sorry to me that is cowardly.

Appology accepted. However, I have nothing to hide. I never said that they are the same. I say homosexuality are neither the same, nor opposites. One can be one of the two, the other of the two, both or neither. I'm aware that most gays are not pedophiles, and most pedophiles are not gay. I was simply stating the difference in proportion.

Kapitan, with due respect, tt would be one thing for you to be honest and say, you know what, based on my religion I do not approve of gay life-styles. Fine. But you have not done that. You have in fact played a word game to try suggest homo-sexuals are pedophiles and that is something completely different. It is in my personal opinion hateful and odious.

I'll be honnest with you. I agree with the majority of the world's sizeable religious institutions (not only my own) that homosexual relations and pedophile relations are both immoral and sinful. You don't have to agree, but unless you belong to a religious institution, sins should be irrelevant to you. No word game intented, I'm trying really hard to make this understandable for you.

You have expressed your religious views that homo-sexuals are sinful (oh but not evil just sinful) and you don't stop there you suggest anyone who has sex other then to procreate and don't procreate within a marriage are also sinful. That Sir, in my opinion, makes you a person who likes to judge others because you think that is what the Catholic Church has told you to do. Now after reading your comments, I am having a hard time believing you engage in the abiove because the Catholic Church told you to think this way and you have no independent thinking process.

My beliefs and how I live up to them is my business. This is a personal attack and irrelevant to the topic. I don't spend my time thinking about what others are up to in the bedroom... I have much better things to do to keep busy. I only evaluate myself according to my beliefs. I may pray for others, but judging others and comparing one's self to others is completely pointless. In fact, I have a very independant mind. I question my beliefs often and I've read a lot on other beliefs. If I find beliefs more truthful than mine, I adapt my beliefs accordingly.

Using any religion as a pretext to say homo-sexuals are pedophiles or sinful, would be my concern.

Unless you pertain to a religious institution, "sinful" shouldn't phase you.

I never used any pretext to say homosexuals are pedophiles. I simply used secular definitions to prove that they are neither opposites nor the same, meaning one can be gay, pedophile, neither, or both.

I will however state that homosexuals are gay. (feel free to quote that one)

As for your denial Kapitan, your own words hoisted you on your own petard. You being a Kapitan can understand that term. It is naval in origin which again should not be construed as your belly button as that could be seen as sexual and therefore sinful.

What's that supposed to mean? My s/n is German for "Captain Redbeard". You're welcome to think otherwise, but please at least quote my s/n with the diaeresis (umlaut).

[Rue]

"OMG, I really don't understand how you could possibly misunderstand what I wrote.. X = [Homosexual; Pedophile]"

Why you getting God involved in this Kap? No Kapitan, the above equation is wrong. The fact that someone who has gay sex with an adult also has sex with a child of the same sex does not make them a homosexual pedophile. Stop fusing the categories into one indistinguishable one.

" You'd have to be absent-minded to think that those statements you quote state that homosexuality and pedophilia are the same."

Onstinate maybe but not absent minded and I again challenge your fusing the two distinct categories which you did with the above equation.

"No d'uh. I never suggested that they were the same, I am simply arguing that Homosexual and Pedophile are neither synonyms, nor antonyms."

You just did it again repeating the homosexual and pedophile can be fused into one concept.

"Can we just agree that most homosexuals are not pedophiles and get on with this?"

I have never disagreed that someone who is a homo-sexual with an adult can not be a pedophile with a child of the same sex. What I have said is when he becomes a pedophile with a child of the same sex that does not make him a homo-sexual pedophile, that makes him a pedophile, period.

"I simply wanted to mention that there is a higher rate of pedophiles amongst adults willing to engage in same sex relations (regardless of age) than those who aren't willing to engage in same sex relations (regardless of age)."

And I have pointed out that the above is not true and is a misconception. The vast majority of pedophiles are males who practice hetero-sexuality with adults or in fact no sex with adults. Only a minority are in fact people who have engaged in homo-sexuality with adults.

"I am aware that most people willing to engage in same sex relations (regardless of age) are not willing to engage in sexual relations with children, it's just a point I made about proportion."

Your point about proportion is wrong so I have challenged it and continue to do so.

"I ignore no components."....."however it doesn't motivate me to distinguish teleiophile heterosexuals for the purpose of this thread"...."...."I have no interest in distinguishing the behavioral components of the GBLT and of pedophiles for the purpose of this thread"...."

That is precisely why I am debating you. Because as you can see from your above comments you are being intellectually lazy and refusing to take the time to use psychiatric and psychological terms correctly and then hide behind this " I am not a psychiatrist" comment which is lame. Since when do you have to be a psychiatrist to read? I don't need to be Christian to understand your Christian beliefs do I? Do I need to be a scientist to know what gravity is?

"Appology accepted. However, I have nothing to hide. I never said that they are the same. I say homosexuality are neither the same, nor opposites."

You did it again. On the one hand you state you never said they were the same and then in the next sentence say they are not oppposites. If they are not opposite they necessarily are the same and your exercise of fusing the concept of homo-sexuality and pedophilia continues.

"One can be one of the two, the other of the two, both or neither. "

No you are not both. The notion that someone would engage in a homo-sexual act with an adult at the same time he is having a same sex act with a child in fact is a misnomer. It does not happen. The very reason an adult has sex with a child would make it repulsive for him to do it with another adult present. Gang rapes or group sex between adults and children is very rare, and when it is done the adults do not touch one another or are aroused with one another. There is a reason youd on't see more then one adult with a child in sex tapes. Even when sex rings are exposed the adults molest the children singularily without other adults. So stop fusing the two concepts and behaviour patterns. They are distinct behaviour patterns. You are not a homo-sexual pedophile. You are a homo-sexual with adults and a pedophile with children. There is a huge difference saying that then as you do playing the game of fusing the words and calling them homo-sexual pedophiles.

"I'm aware that most gays are not pedophiles and most pedophiles are not gays."

The above terminology you will notice I am not jumping on.

"I'll be honnest with you. I agree with the majority of the world's sizeable religious institutions (not only my own) that homosexual relations and pedophile relations are both immoral and sinful. " "My beliefs and how I live up to them is my business. This is a personal attack and irrelevant to the topic."

I apologize. It may be a personal attack ibut it is in response to your comments which are in fact a personal attack on gays. You make it personal by using subjective opinion statements. I wish to make clear I am engaging you in a debate not your right to your personal opinions or religious views. I just challenge them when you impose them on others. No more no less. I am the first to say what you do in your church or within your own family or group of people you choose to live with is your right-I only get by drawers knotted when you try impose your comments on gays. I genuinely apologize if you think I am challenging your right to have the beliefs you have. I don't. I am challenging the beliefs themselves, not your right to believe in them or for that matter your spiritual inregrity. Sorry. I should have been much more clearer. I got all fire and brimstone in my responses making me as persecutorial and self-righteous as anything I thrust in your direction. Sorry.

"I don't spend my time thinking about what others are up to in the bedroom... "

Well lol. Be careful if you get the movie channel and stay up late. You might get suprised what is on t.v.

"I have much better things to do to keep busy. I only evaluate myself according to my beliefs. I may pray for others, but judging others and comparing one's self to others is completely pointless. In fact, I have a very independant mind. I question my beliefs often and I've read a lot on other beliefs. If I find beliefs more truthful than mine, I adapt my beliefs accordingly."

I respect the above comment 100% and seriously apologize if the debate appears I am questioning your right to your beliefs or your spiritual integrity. I do not. I am in no position to judge you or anyone else. I meant only to debate the beliefs without in a general sense. I should have been more careful with the words I use. I have forced you to defend your religious beliefs. That is not what I meant at all. I am a huge hippocrate if I complain you are persecuting gays with your beliefs if I turn around and get all in your face for your lifestyle choices. I am sorry about that. I am only debating the use of the terms.

"Unless you pertain to a religious institution, "sinful" shouldn't phase you."

Your above point is absolutely right and it is merely an academic point of debate.

"I never used any pretext to say homosexuals are pedophiles. I simply used secular definitions to prove that they are neither opposites nor the same, meaning one can be gay, pedophile, neither, or both."

To me the above exercise is circular and necessarily leads to the fusion of gay and pedophile lifestyles into one category. All I am saying is don't fuse them.

"I will however state that homosexuals are gay. (feel free to quote that one)"

I never did understand why they were given this term. When the Flintstones theme song used to come on and they said they would have a "gay old time" I wonderred even as a child, did this mean Barney and Fred were gay and Wilma and Betty were lesbians? I also suspect Batman and Robin were gay given their leotards and penchant for sliding down posts and staying out all hours. Plus Bruce Wayne was a confirmed bachelor. Also you may want to question why Superman spent so much time with Jimmy Olson and the fact that Wonder Woman was an amazon.

I personally think the word gay is an interesting choice considering how sad most gay people have to be before they can get to a point in their life where they can feel good about themselves. I would change the word for gays to RockHuds (men) (short for Rock Hudson) or KD's (named after Kadie Lang) for women. I would refer to straight men as BradPitts and straight women as Jalbas (Jessica Alba). I would refer to bis as Jolies (women) and JamesDeans for men. There its all sensical now.

"My s/n is German for "Captain Redbeard". You're welcome to think otherwise, but please at least quote my s/n with the diaeresis (umlaut)."

Lol on the last comment. Pirates are very butch and flamboyant dude. Careful.

I would name myself after an NFL football player like James Brown to be safe. I would say John Wayne but given the way he walked I think he went both ways and no I do not think he walked that way because he rode horses. He never fooled me.

[Kapitän Rotbart]

@Rue:

Appologies accepted. You've gone up a tad in the respect-o-meter. I think we can narrow our disagreements and misunderstandings down a tad

Why you getting God involved in this Kap?

Putting words in my mouth. OMG = Oh, my goodness!

The fact that someone who has gay sex with an adult also has sex with a child of the same sex does not make them a homosexual pedophile. Stop fusing the categories into one indistinguishable one.

Homosexuality is not defined by age. I will agree that the psychological effects/intentions/etc. would be different if a man makes love to another man of his age, a much older man or even a boy... but because this is two males participating in intercourse, it is homosexual. I am not trying to fuse the two; men who have intercourse with girls but not with boys are clearly not gay.

I have never disagreed that someone who is a homo-sexual with an adult can not be a pedophile with a child of the same sex. What I have said is when he becomes a pedophile with a child of the same sex that does not make him a homo-sexual pedophile, that makes him a pedophile, period. ... You did it again. On the one hand you state you never said they were the same and then in the next sentence say they are not oppposites. If they are not opposite they necessarily are the same and your exercise of fusing the concept of homo-sexuality and pedophilia continues.

Not if you use the proper definition of a homosexual, which is not defined by age. Look at it this way, not everything must be either the same or opposites. Using the following words as an example: "input", "output", "result" and "sphere". Input is the opposite of output. Result is the same as output. Sphere is neither the opposite nor the same as output. A sphere can be an input, it can be an output/result, it can be neither, and it can be both. A person can be gay, can be a pedophile, can be neither, or can be both.

Since "bisexuality" has been defined, it has been universally understood that one cannot be both heterosexual and homosexual, because that would make them bisexual. Unless a word comes up to define those who are both gay and pedophile, to those which the labels apply, they are simple gay and pedophile.

I don't recall claiming to be or not to be a shrink. There may be different psychological patterns between men who have intercourse with other men as men who have intercourse with boys, but both cases are included in the definition of homosexuality.

For the purpose of arguing the proportions, let me rephrase. Given men who have intercourse with boys can also be categorized as homosexuals, there is a larger proportion of pedophiles amongst homosexuals as amongst heterosexuals. And that has been proven. The real reason I brought it up was to add to the discussion. You stated that it would be erroneous to say that homosexuals are pedophiles, and I say that one can assume that most homosexuals are not pedophiles, yet given the conditions I have mentioned at the beginning of this paragraph, they present a higher proportion, and if such a rumor is going around (that homosexuals are pedophiles), the difference in proportions would probably explain the root of this "rumor" (that is, if there is such a rumor).

No you are not both.

I'm well aware that I'm not both.

They are distinct behaviour patterns.

I agree. Yellow apples and green apples have different characteristics... yet both are apples.

Well lol. Be careful if you get the movie channel and stay up late. You might get suprised what is on t.v.

I only have one TV station where I'm at, broadcasted on four frequencies (no cable nor bunny ears). All that runs is soaps at bad resolution, so you can imagine that even in the most boring times at night when I'm alone (and if my computer were down) I probably still wouldn't watch it.

It may be a personal attack ibut it is in response to your comments which are in fact a personal attack on gays. You make it personal by using subjective opinion statements.

Personal attack on a general group? How on earth does that make sense?! I'm sure gays reading this would respond "yes we feel collectively personally attacked!"

I personally think the word gay is an interesting choice considering how sad most gay people have to be before they can get to a point in their life where they can feel good about themselves.

Well, if gays can't feel good about themselves as long as they are gay, maybe it's because they chose the dark side (sorry about the pun).

I would change the word for gays to RockHuds (men) (short for Rock Hudson) or...

Yeah, all Canadians, English speakers of the world and everyone else of all cultures will gladly refer to people of a given sexual orientation by a Hollywood star... right, see how far that goes. I'm sorry but unless I have Wikipedia at my fingertips, I may not know who you're refering to when naming some old Hollywood stars (I don't even know all the new ones). Labeling people of a given sexual orientation according to a Hollywood star can be your thing, I think I'll pass though.

A lot of gay activists get upset when people use the expression "that's so gay", whereas I prefer to substitute that expression with "that's so homosexual/homoerotic/homosapian". Makes for a good convo-starter.

Pirates are very butch and flamboyant dude. Careful.

I personally like vikings more than pirates, and I actually have a red beard (not dyed, yet I'm not red headed). Hence the name.

[Mad_Michael]

Homosexuality an anomaly?

Like, go figure.

So is genius, intelligence, good looks, wealth, prosperity, peace, good government, happy marriage, good kids, etc., etc.

As for the argument about the term "gay" - suffice it to say that is a purely American term - and a loaded political term at that. English speaking homosexuals outside of America often reject the term prefering the old Brit term of 'queer'.

[Kapitän Rotbart]

@Mad_Michael:

Homosexuality an anomaly?

Like, go figure.

So is genius, intelligence, good looks, wealth, prosperity, peace, good government, happy marriage, good kids, etc., etc.

When refering to anomalies I was strictly refering to behavior. Being a genius, rich, beautiful etc. may be a rarity, but just because one has a lot of money or a good learning capacity does not mean they will necessarily behave differently. By the way, beauty or "good looks" is in the eye of the beholder, so although we could agree that it's also a rarity, it still depends on the individual. I wouldn't classify ideal kids, marriages, gov't as rarities... it depends on "how good" it has to be to be in this upper category. If you're pretty inclusive, then it's not that rare, if you're very exclusive, it's an impossibility (because no marriage, kids, gov't is perfect, and neither are we, understanding that perfect means doing absolutely no wrong and doing everything that is right).

As for the argument about the term "gay" - suffice it to say that is a purely American term - and a loaded political term at that. English speaking homosexuals outside of America often reject the term prefering the old Brit term of 'queer'.

Indeed. In Britain a fag is a cigarette for instance. Soviet Canuckistan is almost part of America, and we share a lot of slang. If I say that homosexuals are gay, everyone in Canada, USA and American film viewers around the world will understand me (provided they don't watch dubbed versions like the French, the Germans, the Hungarians and a few others). If you want to fight Americanisation (which I write with an S for the purpose of irony), you're more than welcome to do so, but I still state that homosexuals are gay.

[Mad_Michael]

@Mad_Michael:

Homosexuality an anomaly?

Like, go figure.

So is genius, intelligence, good looks, wealth, prosperity, peace, good government, happy marriage, good kids, etc., etc.

When refering to anomalies I was strictly refering to behavior. Being a genius, rich, beautiful etc. may be a rarity, but just because one has a lot of money or a good learning capacity does not mean they will necessarily behave differently. By the way, beauty or "good looks" is in the eye of the beholder, so although we could agree that it's also a rarity, it still depends on the individual. I wouldn't classify ideal kids, marriages, gov't as rarities... it depends on "how good" it has to be to be in this upper category. If you're pretty inclusive, then it's not that rare, if you're very exclusive, it's an impossibility (because no marriage, kids, gov't is perfect, and neither are we, understanding that perfect means doing absolutely no wrong and doing everything that is right).

Your reply fails to address the question. Looks like a rather lame attempt to dodge the question.

How is homosexuality to be considered an 'anomoly' while genius, intelligence, good looks, wealth, prosperity, peace, good government, happy marriage, good kids, are equally 'anomolous'.

Soviet Canuckistan

What is this gibberish?

[Kapitän Rotbart]

Your reply fails to address the question. Looks like a rather lame attempt to dodge the question.

How is homosexuality to be considered an 'anomoly' while genius, intelligence, good looks, wealth, prosperity, peace, good government, happy marriage, good kids, are equally 'anomolous'.

I'll explain the difference. Homosexuality is a behavioral issue.

Genius, intelligence, good looks, wealth, etc. are characteristics and their rarity depends on how you define them. If you define genii by, say those with 120+ IQ, then you're down to say 15% of the general population, which can then be considered a rarity.

If you consider a happy marriage a marriage that doesn't result in divorce, then in certain regions happy marriages are quite normal. If you consider a marriage where the two married to each other never have the slightest conflict of interest, then you're considering an impossibility.

My point is that sexual orientation, which relates to behavior (which can begin and end at free will without external intervention, and can be addressed by a shrink) has no relation whatsoever to other rarities. I'll agree that both homosexuals and, say genii are minorities, but a genius cannot choose to no longer be a genius without external intervention (for instance drugs, etc.), whereas a homosexual can choose to no longer practice homosexuality.

By the way, the questions you have so far posted are:

Homosexuality an anomaly?

What is this gibberish?

I'll answer the first of these questions with "yes" and the second with another question: "where's your sense of humor?"

[guyser]

My point is that sexual orientation, which relates to behavior (which can begin and end at free will without external intervention, and can be addressed by a shrink) has no relation whatsoever to other rarities. I'll agree that both homosexuals and, say genii are minorities, but a genius cannot choose to no longer be a genius without external intervention (for instance drugs, etc.), whereas a homosexual can choose to no longer practice homosexuality.

Oh but a genius can act like a moron , just like a homo can act like a straight guy. Somewhere a clock is missing something.

[runningdog]

I've been ignoring this thread since I saw it, and just read it through. I couldn't help but respond, because the comments have been so typical. Personal attacks, accusations of hate speech and the like. Usually when someone is wrong the motive is to inform them with better information and links. Why do people resort with attacks when someone says something against gayness?

I am not defending attacks since I find logic so much more persuasive, but perhaps it is because the initial comments about gay people are almost always so wildly off base, so incredibly insulting, so narrow in view, so belittling and so angrily expressed that an angry response is pretty much pre-ordained? Dialogue in the conservative realm is based on outrage, anger and moral superiority. It is rarely positive and never inclusive. You can't expect any reaction other than what you get when an initial discussion begins with "[party X] is immoral" or "anyone who disagrees with me is a terrorist-lover".

You reap what you sow.

jees, that fits our good friend Argus to a tee.

[Mad_Michael]

Your reply fails to address the question. Looks like a rather lame attempt to dodge the question.

How is homosexuality to be considered an 'anomoly' while genius, intelligence, good looks, wealth, prosperity, peace, good government, happy marriage, good kids, are equally 'anomolous'.

I'll explain the difference. Homosexuality is a behavioral issue.

But peace, good government, happy marriage and good kids are not 'behaviorial' issues?

They are all anomolies. Perfectly reasonable and in many cases, highly desired anomalies.

So what is wrong with an anomoly anyways? Just curious since your argument appears to hold that there is something wrong with anomolies (notwithstanding, peace, prosperity, good government, etc.).

[Mad_Michael]

My point is that sexual orientation, which relates to behavior (which can begin and end at free will without external intervention, and can be addressed by a shrink) has no relation whatsoever to other rarities. I'll agree that both homosexuals and, say genii are minorities, but a genius cannot choose to no longer be a genius without external intervention (for instance drugs, etc.), whereas a homosexual can choose to no longer practice homosexuality.

Oh but a genius can act like a moron , just like a homo can act like a straight guy. Somewhere a clock is missing something.

Come on, give the guy a break. He's trying to argue that hatemongering ought to be legal and you are confusing the issue with 'facts'. That's just not fair and balanced according to Fox.

[Mad_Michael]

Btw, Kapitän Rotbart, if it is all about behaviour, how do you know about this behaviour? Are you a peeping tom?

If it is all about behaviour, you have no evidence of homosexuality at all unless you observe it. That usually requires you to break the law to do so, so I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you aren't a peeping tom.

That means this label of homosexuality is applied NOT upon behaviour since no one (save homosexuals themselves) ever observe actual homosexual behaviour.

So what is your real point? Is it the public identification of the alleged behaviour that annoys you? Or do you have some other method of 'just knowing' who's homosexual and who is not?

[Kapitän Rotbart]

@guyser:

Oh but a genius can act like a moron , just like a homo can act like a straight guy. Somewhere a clock is missing something.

?? You're making false connections. A genius can act like a moron, I will admit that both genii and non-genii are capable of many behaviors. However, being a genius is not defined by one's behavior, but rather by one's IQ.

A gay "acting like" a straight guy... I'll admit the possibility, but wtf? Do you mean a gay guy acting normal, or a gay guy having heterosexual relations? If it's just an act, the individual is defined by their genuine behavior, which in this case would be homosexual, but if heterosexual intercourse is also part of the individual's behavior, that would make 'em bisexual.

@Mad_Michael:

But peace, good government, happy marriage and good kids are not 'behaviorial' issues?

They are all anomolies. Perfectly reasonable and in many cases, highly desired anomalies.

So what is wrong with an anomoly anyways? Just curious since your argument appears to hold that there is something wrong with anomolies (notwithstanding, peace, prosperity, good government, etc.).

Depends on how you define "good government" for instance... a gov't may be in favor or against casual Fridays, being completely behavioral, yet no impact on its ethics nor efficiency. If a good gov't is any gov't with crime bellow a certain rate, few or no scandals, and supports and enforces laws which are universally accepted, then good governments are not that rare. If a good government is limited to a government where absolutely no money is wasted, then a good government becomes an impossibility. I see your point, but a good government is not defined by behavior, but rather by performance. Same goes for happy marriage and good kids. Their rarity depends on how inclusive or exclusive you are at defining these things. These are determined by quantitative criteria.

Because they are not behavioral, I'm not comparing them to homosexuality. Some jewels are rarities, and quite valued. The value of anomalies (solely defined by behavior, a qualitative criteria, and not by quantitative criteria) depends on society.

If it is all about behaviour, you have no evidence of homosexuality at all unless you observe it. That usually requires you to break the law to do so, so I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you aren't a peeping tom.

That means this label of homosexuality is applied NOT upon behaviour since no one (save homosexuals themselves) ever observe actual homosexual behaviour.

So what is your real point? Is it the public identification of the alleged behaviour that annoys you? Or do you have some other method of 'just knowing' who's homosexual and who is not?

Thanks for the benefit of doubt, but I don't really need it. I'm sure I know enough about homosexual behavior without peeping... the flamboyant gays marching down gay parades reveals more gay behavior than I need. If I really wanted to know more about their behavior, I could read up on their psychological patterns, which don't particularly interest me either.

I don't have to observe it, I can simply read what defines a homosexual, which is same-sex intercourse, which is behavior, a qualitative criteria.

What is my real point? I thought I had made it clear. I should not be expected to cater to homosexuals. I should be able to assume that everyone is heterosexual unless told otherwise. I wish the gov't would do the same and simply assume that everyone is heterosexual. I don't want a government supporting behavior to which I object, because otherwise I am paying taxes to a government who is shoving nonsense down my throat at my expense. I have no interest in personally interfering gay people's lives, I just don't want the gov't recognizing this behavior as equal to heterosexuals. I have no method of knowing who is gay, and I have no interest in knowing either.

In other words, I won't stop someone from being gay, just like I won't stop a smoker from smoking, but I don't want my gov't to cater to (bahavior-based) anomalies using my tax dollar to do so. I also am sick of pro-gay propaganda claiming that homosexuality is normal.

I also don't uderstand why Rue was arguing that men who violate boys are non-homosexual pedophiles unless they have sexual relations with men... it's almost like defending the pedophile, making the pedophile seem slightly more normal.

[guyser]

You are a classic piece of work.

@guyser:

Oh but a genius can act like a moron , just like a homo can act like a straight guy. Somewhere a clock is missing something.

?? You're making false connections. A genius can act like a moron, I will admit that both genii and non-genii are capable of many behaviors. However, being a genius is not defined by one's behavior, but rather by one's IQ.

And a gay man is born that way. So how is it different?

What is my real point? I thought I had made it clear. I should not be expected to cater to homosexuals.

You dont. Dont try and tell us you do. Turn down the catering job then.

I should be able to assume that everyone is heterosexual unless told otherwise.

Why not do what I do, assume everyone is a person. Equal in all ways to me.

I wish the gov't would do the same and simply assume that everyone is heterosexual. I don't want a government supporting behavior to which I object, because otherwise I am paying taxes to a government who is shoving nonsense down my throat at my expense. I have no interest in personally interfering gay people's lives, I just don't want the gov't recognizing this behavior as equal to heterosexuals. I have no method of knowing who is gay, and I have no interest in knowing either.

The govt is not shoving anything down your throat and you are showing your true colours now. Good for you to finally admit it. Next time dont waste 20 pages getting to your true feelings.

The gays of this country are equal to you. Equal to me, equal to all of us. So sad in your little world that you feel they are beneath you.

But hey, thanks to you and your thoughts, this is EXACTLY why the laws were changed. But I dont expect you to see it that way.

Just to repeat for you, you said "I have no interest in personally interfering gay people's lives, "...you realize just how false that is of you ? Of course you personally want to interfere with their lives, you want them relegated to second class status. Sorry honey, they are equal to you. And judging by your moral compass, one could make case stating they are above you . Oh but that wont sit well will it ?

I also am sick of pro-gay propaganda claiming that homosexuality is normal.

I know I know, all those doctors, psychiatrists, studies ad infinitum by respected and knowledgeable people all over the world who know that homosexuality is normal are all full of it. But you....hoo boy....you really know the truth. Thank the stars we have you to show us the truth. Let me guess, you got that from sunday school?

I also don't uderstand why Rue was arguing that men who violate boys are non-homosexual pedophiles unless they have sexual relations with men... it's almost like defending the pedophile, making the pedophile seem slightly more normal.

Nice try on slagging Rue. But you missed that one by a country mile. With that sort of aim you couldnt hit an elephant with a handful of rice.

Go back and read Rue's posts. He clearly states where his definitions came from, learned professors and Doctors who have studied the pedophile community. Rue also works , or worked with pedophiles and had to learn all about them. But noooooo.....go on and discount all the works presented .

Maybe your misguided religious background demands that you misrepresent what someone says to bolster your narrow minded bigoted thoughts.

Figured it would only be a matter of time for you to post your real reasons.

You dont like fags and want them relegated to second class. They may be in some parts of society, but from where you are looking , second class is a long way up for you Sir !

[Kapitän Rotbart]

And a gay man is born that way. So how is it different?

There is still no real proof that people are born gay.

Homosexuality can be measured as qualitative but not quantitative. You can't measure "how gay" someone is, however you can measure "how smart" or "how good" someone/something is.

Turn down the catering job then.

I wish it were that simple. Our government is using my tax dollar to cater to homosexuals by offering the mgay marriage, etc.

Why not do what I do, assume everyone is a person. Equal in all ways to me.

Silly assumption. I know for a fact that everyone is a person, provided everyone includes every person and only people. No two people are equal.

Haven't you read Animal Farm? 'Twas a good book... it was a nice parody on Stalinism, where "everyone is equal, yet some are more equal than others". Even in a communist system trying to treat everyone as equal, there are some who will benefit more from the system. We live in a world which favors some over others, and that in itself is fine. I'm not here to judge anyone, I have no interest in knowing who is gay, but I do not feel the need for a system which tries to make everyone treated equally, because it's bound to fail. I much prefer a system which explicitly admits that some are favored in the existing system over others than the hypocrisy of trying to hide this.

The govt is not shoving anything down your throat and you are showing your true colours now. Good for you to finally admit it. Next time dont waste 20 pages getting to your true feelings.

The gov't shoves its ideals down everyones' throat, at taxpayers' expense. Under whose bias do you think children are instructed at school and in daycares?

The gays of this country are equal to you. Equal to me, equal to all of us. So sad in your little world that you feel they are beneath you.

But hey, thanks to you and your thoughts, this is EXACTLY why the laws were changed. But I dont expect you to see it that way.

Nobody is equal. By the way, I don't see this as "above" or "beneath". Unequal goes beyond "greater" or "lesser". For instance, men are unequal to men. It doesn't mean that one sex is greater or lesser than the other, but they are simply not equal. Women can become pregnant, which is a condition men can never face. We are taught to cater to men and women differently, for intance "ladies first" is courtesy. I would open a door for a woman, young or old, but I'd be less inclined to holding a door open for a young guy. Neither one is greater nor lesser than the other, but society caters to men and women differently. I don't think it's society's responsibility to cater to homosexuals.

I do not see gays as beneath me. I consider the possibility that there could even be gays who are better people than me. However, I still expect them to conform to the society we live in instead of expecting others to treat them differently.

Just to repeat for you, you said "I have no interest in personally interfering gay people's lives, "...you realize just how false that is of you ? Of course you personally want to interfere with their lives, you want them relegated to second class status. Sorry honey, they are equal to you. And judging by your moral compass, one could make case stating they are above you . Oh but that wont sit well will it ?

There's no need in treating gays as second class citizens. There's no need in being less respectful to gays as to others. However, certain things should not be changed, for instance marriage being between man and woman, whether one s gay or straight, the conditions should still apply.

I know I know, all those doctors, psychiatrists, studies ad infinitum by respected and knowledgeable people all over the world who know that homosexuality is normal are all full of it. But you....hoo boy....you really know the truth. Thank the stars we have you to show us the truth. Let me guess, you got that from sunday school?

People who know? Sex-perts learn under heavy bias and most fail to think for themselves.

Sunday school? No, I considered all information given to me, under multiple biases, but I formed my own perception. If I couldn't think for myself, I wouldn't post on fora.

Nice try on slagging Rue. But you missed that one by a country mile. With that sort of aim you couldnt hit an elephant with a handful of rice.

Go back and read Rue's posts. He clearly states where his definitions came from, learned professors and Doctors who have studied the pedophile community. Rue also works , or worked with pedophiles and had to learn all about them. But noooooo.....go on and discount all the works presented .

Maybe your misguided religious background demands that you misrepresent what someone says to bolster your narrow minded bigoted thoughts.

Figured it would only be a matter of time for you to post your real reasons.

You dont like fags and want them relegated to second class. They may be in some parts of society, but from where you are looking , second class is a long way up for you Sir !

No slagging, I was giving my opinion, because I do not advocate opinions other than my own (who does?).

Narrow minded? Coming from the guy who assumes that people are persons.

A lot of irrelevance has been debated on this thread due to misinterpretations. When asked, I'll gladly share my views.

I have nothing against fags (the people), I just object to faggotry (the perversion). The gay fag people can live in the same world, same country, same city as me, but I don't need my gov't to be encouraging their behavior.

[Mad_Michael]

Do people actually think about what they are saying before they post it?

I wish the gov't would do the same and simply assume that everyone is heterosexual. I don't want a government supporting behavior to which I object, because otherwise I am paying taxes to a government who is shoving nonsense down my throat at my expense. I have no interest in personally interfering gay people's lives, I just don't want the gov't recognizing this behavior as equal to heterosexuals. I have no method of knowing who is gay, and I have no interest in knowing either.

If you have "no method of knowing who is gay, and no interest in knowing either", how can you know that gays even exist, let alone have any meaningful objection to their existence?

And if you have no method of knowing who is gay, and no interest, why are you displaying such a strong interest in the topic?

Alternatively, homosexual taxpayers can say exactly the same thing as you. They don't want their tax dollars supporting your abberent heterosexual lifestyle. They have no actual interest in interferring with your chosen aberrent lifestyle, but they don't want it shoved in their face at their own expense. And they most certainly don't want your abberent lifestyle compared favourable with their noble and glorious lifestyle - especially in public, paid for from gay people's taxes.

[Mad_Michael]

I have nothing against fags (the people), I just object to faggotry (the perversion). The gay fag people can live in the same world, same country, same city as me, but I don't need my gov't to be encouraging their behavior.

Right. But by your own admission, you don't know who is a homo and you don't care, the issue doesn't interest you at all.

You lie. You are demonstrating your obsession with homosexuals even as you try to deny it.

Get a life.

And once you have one, you might find that people might respect it.

[guyser]

You are not being honest in your posts.

And a gay man is born that way. So how is it different?

There is still no real proof that people are born gay.

No proof that genuis' are born ......hows that for tit for tat?

I wish it were that simple. Our government is using my tax dollar to cater to homosexuals by offering the mgay marriage, etc.

Again, no they are not. How are they catering to them? Providing Gay only lines at the marriage office? Discounts on the licence? Discounts for the halls?..Churches..?

Let me spell it out . They dont, but you want to think they do, because you have an opinion , as you wrote earlier, and no one can change your opinion. Fine.You will need plenty of Q tips when you pull out of the sand.

. I'm not here to judge anyone, I have no interest in knowing who is gay, but I do not feel the need for a system which tries to make everyone treated equally, because it's bound to fail. I much prefer a system which explicitly admits that some are favored in the existing system over others than the hypocrisy of trying to hide this.

Frankly, no one beleives you. You are here to judge. But you want others to execute that wish. You want no marriage for gays. But you want the govt to enforce it. By your own writings there is no other conclusion .

Nobody is equal. By the way, I don't see this as "above" or "beneath". Unequal goes beyond "greater" or "lesser". For instance, men are unequal to men. It doesn't mean that one sex is greater or lesser than the other, but they are simply not equal. Women can become pregnant, which is a condition men can never face. We are taught to cater to men and women differently, for intance "ladies first" is courtesy. I would open a door for a woman, young or old, but I'd be less inclined to holding a door open for a young guy. Neither one is greater nor lesser than the other, but society caters to men and women differently. I don't think it's society's responsibility to cater to homosexuals.

You have all this smarmy crap about not equal cater this and that. You want to dance, but I dont. We are all born equal , some are stronger some are smarter, but we are all equal.

I do not see gays as beneath me. I consider the possibility that there could even be gays who are better people than me. However, I still expect them to conform to the society we live in instead of expecting others to treat them differently.

Yes you do by posting that they should not have equal rights. Gays conform to society, just not to your micro-society where you sit in judgement of gays all day.

Gays do conform to society. How do they not? What standards are they not living up too? They live up to them in every possible way.

There's no need in treating gays as second class citizens. There's no need in being less respectful to gays as to others. However, certain things should not be changed, for instance marriage being between man and woman, whether one s gay or straight, the conditions should still apply.

Oh my, contradiction city there Francis . First no need to treat gays as second class, then the next sentence is summised by stating we should not change anything, which means explicitly that the status quo, in which gays are denied rights you are, are kept in place.

Here it is again, really really try and lose that religious smarm of yours and read to comprehend. If anyone of any race, colour, creed, or sexual preference is denied any rights that other CDN's enjoy, they are DE FACTO relegated to second class.

People who know? Sex-perts learn under heavy bias and most fail to think for themselves.

Ahh....but you went to a church, maybe stayed in a Holiday Inn and can correct the Professors, Doctors and Scientists who have invested their time, reputation and many years of study. What a smug assertion you make.

Tell us about your studies will you ?

No slagging, I was giving my opinion, because I do not advocate opinions other than my own (who does?).

Sorry, but I will call you on this one and do something I have not said on any forum. You are lying , and you know it.

Here is what you posted

I also don't uderstand why Rue was arguing that men who violate boys are non-homosexual pedophiles unless they have sexual relations with men... it's almost like defending the pedophile, making the pedophile seem slightly more normal

"Rue" was not arguing any of that. He was giving an informed opinion that emanated from learned people on the subject.Rue never said he came to those conclusions, but had studied the findings as part of his job.But you tried to turn it against Rue.

I have nothing against fags (the people), I just object to faggotry (the perversion). The gay fag people can live in the same world, same country, same city as me, but I don't need my gov't to be encouraging their behavior.

Naw.......nothing against them , provided of course they are denied the same rights , not seen nor heard , not sashaying down any boulevard that you are on.

"But oh my lord, I hope they pay the same taxes as me so we can afford to keep the inequality of persons in tact."

Try honesty next time. They did teach you that on Sundays dont they?

[Kapitän Rotbart]

@Mad_Michael:

And if you have no method of knowing who is gay, and no interest, why are you displaying such a strong interest in the topic?

Alternatively, homosexual taxpayers can say exactly the same thing as you. They don't want their tax dollars supporting your abberent heterosexual lifestyle. They have no actual interest in interferring with your chosen aberrent lifestyle, but they don't want it shoved in their face at their own expense. And they most certainly don't want your abberent lifestyle compared favourable with their noble and glorious lifestyle - especially in public, paid for from gay people's taxes.

I know gays exist because there wouldn't be so many pro-gay advocates had no one been gay. Numbers also reveal to us that between one and two percent of the world's population is gay.

I'll agree that the gays may complain that they pay into a gov't which spends most of their tax dollors on heterosexuals. However, that's something they'll have to bite unless they all do like the Jews did and end up living in their own country with their own gov't, which likely wouldn't have a sizeable following generation.

You lie. You are demonstrating your obsession with homosexuals even as you try to deny it.

That's not the issue. I don't have to care about who is gay to be concerned about pro-gay activists' propaganda's impact on society.

@guyser:

No proof that genuis' are born ......hows that for tit for tat?

What's your point?

Look, Mad_Michael argued that genii are anomalies, I argued that no, it's more acurately a rarity, being a genius can be measured quantitatively (how smart one is) and is not behavior-related in itself, whereas homosexuality is measured qualitatively (one cannot measure "how gay" one is) and is in fact behavior related.

I argue that there is no proof that people are born gay, having no relation to the above argument, then you bring back the genius example. I'll respond tp your "tit for tat": it doesn't matter if people are born genius or not, the brain is a muscle, and if one is smart enough, they're considered genius and there's nothing a genius can do without lowering one's intelligence in order to no longer be a genius, and lowering one's IQ can be acheived with drugs and some other things, but nothing solely based on behavior (and when a genuis ends up no longer being a genius, it's even harder to regain the previous level of intelligence). All in all, it's not an issue whether people are born genius or not... it doesn't affect their behavior.

We are all born equal , some are stronger some are smarter, but we are all equal.

Some being smarter and stronger than others prooves inequality. Inequality is not a bad thing in itself.

Here it is again, really really try and lose that religious smarm of yours and read to comprehend. If anyone of any race, colour, creed, or sexual preference is denied any rights that other CDN's enjoy, they are DE FACTO relegated to second class.

Did I ever say that RIGHTS should be denied to certain people? Since when do people have the right to gay marriage?

[Blu-Truth]

This idea that - people are born with strong desires therefore we should accept, condone, and celebrate these desires - is such weak logic but yet has caught on as a rallying cry for the gay movement. By this line of thinking every impulse we have should be celebrated (as long as it doesn't directly harm anyone else). Men fantasizing over enfant children, should we celebrate these desires? Are these men born with these desires? (and they would tell you these are very strong desires) How about Bi-sexuality, are people born this way as well?

What's amusing to me is that liberal minded people regard themselves as progressive and yet purport ideas that sound more like regresive animalistic behavior based upon merely our instinctive nature. Animals act upon their instincts, humans are supposed to rise above that which at times means to fight against one's instincts. Sometimes we have to say no to the girl at the bar and go home to our wife.

[cybercoma]

Blu-Truth, please take a moment to explain the negative impact of homosexuality. I have a hard time understanding how a consensual relationship between two adults is at all comparable to raping children, or disrespecting ones spouse by having an open relationship without his or her consent.

You say certain behaviours are "animalistic," however, human beings are animals, so wouldn't all of our behaviours be animalistic? Ultimately, passing on our genetic code and survival are our primary drives. Everything we do is a result of those two things. To suggest that we are somehow outside the animal kingdom is pretty arrogant and humourous.