I was just watching The Colbert Report and the guest he interviewed had written a book on the biological causes of homosexuality. He claimed that traits such as different hand shape and a counterclockwise whirl in the hair appeared more often in homosexuals than in heterosexuals. These traits might be an indication of homosexuality, meaning that it is indeed something that is caused by genetics and not a life choice.

My question is if this is true, then could the same thing happen with pedophilia or other sexual deviancies? If so, could this entitle some sex offenders to special protection under law because they didn't choose to be that way?

-NS

Homosexuality isn't a sickness or a sexual "deviance."

Pedophelia is.

Though I nearly completely agree with you, that's only our opinions. Some would disagree. Like we believe love can exist between two men, maybe some believe that love can exist between a man and child.

Love can exist between a man and a child.

However, it is only "father-son" love, not "spouse/sex/romance" love.

I'm disappointed that you should come out with such bigoted nonsense.

No one chooses to be a paedophile. Like homosexuality its roots are probably a mix of nuture and nature.

Remember only a few years ago homosexuality was considered a sickness and homosexuals 'treated' , sometimes forcibly, as such.

I'm disappointed that you should come out with such bigoted nonsense.

No one chooses to be a paedophile. Like homosexuality its roots are probably a mix of nuture and nature.

Remember only a few years ago homosexuality was considered a sickness and homosexuals 'treated' , sometimes forcibly, as such.

Lol, I want to know how the "forced" treatments went. I mean seriously, you can't break someone of an impulse, an attraction. Can I explain why I like certain looks on women as opposed to another equally attractive one?

No, its just a chemical process in my brain that learned what I am attracted to through environment. Is homosexuality a disease, is pedophilia? I don't know, just as long as the moral line isn't crossed.

Remember only a few years ago homosexuality was considered a sickness and homosexuals 'treated' , sometimes forcibly, as such.

It still goes on.

No, its just a chemical process in my brain that learned what I am attracted to through environment. Is homosexuality a disease, is pedophilia? I don't know, just as long as the moral line isn't crossed.

But who dictates morality? I guess it used to be the church, but now nobody cares what they think. If it is just popular opinion, then will pedophilia eventually become acceptable just like homosexuality? And if it does, then will it become legal like sodomy?

-NS

I was just watching The Colbert Report and the guest he interviewed had written a book on the biological causes of homosexuality. He claimed that traits such as different hand shape and a counterclockwise whirl in the hair appeared more often in homosexuals than in heterosexuals. These traits might be an indication of homosexuality, meaning that it is indeed something that is caused by genetics and not a life choice.

...there is much better evidence for epi/genetic influences in homosexual orientation... such as the fraternal/identical twin incidences of homosexuality when the other twin is homosexual (20% to 50%, respectively, I believe)...

My question is if this is true, then could the same thing happen with pedophilia or other sexual {orientations}?

A study by Gaffney et al., (1984) appears to suggest that this physiological factor is genetic.... There was a greater prevalence of paraphilics in the families of the pedophilic probands and all were characterized by the probands as pedophiles and as males.

- Kurt Freund, "In search of an etiological model of pedophilia.'

If so, could this entitle some sex offenders to special protection under law because they didn't choose to be that way?

...actually, the movement to equality irrespective of sexual orientation is doing quite well already, and didn't even particularly need to raise the objective fact of the criminality of attempted genetic liquidation, honestly.

Aside from some of the beneficial legal precedent etched in stone, thank God for jurisprudence, the last year or two has seen several organizations spring up (or reform) to combat the rampant witchunting, the movement of the quakers into being more overt with their support, inclusion options with varous existing caucuses of the international green party, the formation of an international militia, the recruitment of several major journalists and news organizations, 'n a few more things here 'n there...

'n think... just a few years ago, all them "peedofiles" had was the international communist party. Haven't seen anything this big - or broad, or global - moving in politics since the feminist bloc crushed the 'satanic panic' mythos... oh, yeah, that reminds me - Eichenwald doesn't have his position with the Times any longer. Oops. Got fired over that shit.

Sooo.... to answer your question, it will happen quite rapidly whether or not the long-known genetic causality ever is discussed. Really, either way, genetics are quite unneccesary. Our main interest in the topic was the "prescreening and execution risk" which was, quite frankly, a matter which held the globe in precarious nuclear balance.

Luckily, genetic liquidation does not appear to be in the rapidly-moving future, so chances seem decent that the world might be safe from mutually assured destruction.

It is knowledge of true history which reveals the direction in which human destiny points, brother. Do you have any more questions to ask?

In b4 flame war.

Oh, BTW um 2 similar threads in same forum? It's a trap.

EDIT: JoePedo, can you post some links with more people agreeing with you?

Not that I myself am for it, but pedo shit has been going on for a VERY long time, and was only frowned upon in the last couple hundred years.


Who says the 14 year old is less ready for sex than the 16 year old?

AND they are going to have sex anyway, whether it be with someone their own age, or an adult.

I really don't have much of a problem with that kind of thing, to each their own.

It's the fuckers that mess with LITTLE kids that piss me off, and there is no need for a genetic test there, you can usually tell them very quickly.

EDIT: JoePedo, can you post some links with more people agreeing with you?

Would you prefer the left wing (http://www.cpgb.org.uk/documents/cpgb/prog_demands.html), the right wing (http://sexoffenderissues.blogspot.com/), perhas a large section of the US government (http://www.nasmhpd.org/general_files/position_statement/sexpred.htm), or the entire intarwebz (http://www.google.com/search?q=%22to+catch+a+predator%22&hl=en&start=10)?

Perhaps you'd like to sign a manifesto (http://www.reformsexoffenderlaws.org/statement.php), or stand up for paederotic youth (http://www.ethicaltreatment.org/)... or maybe just keep up to date (http://www.inquisition21.com/) with current events with the aid of some of the leading alternative media?

Of course, that assumes that the links you were asking for were from the political spectrum. If you're asking about heritability studies... well, Freund's work is actually the most comprehensive review of the data avaliable that I've seen, and carefully references pretty much all the avaliable studies. The only thing it doesn't cover are the demographics and gender ratios... which are pretty freakin' important to a genetics topic, and which nearly the only resource I've found is a severely outdated webpage (http://www.glgarden.org/tlttm/meta.htm) which is a bit less seperated from "them peedofiles," unlike the rest of the links given... though the original studies should be findable with the assistance of a university library, some embarassing questions, and a few dirty looks for researching the "wrong" topics. ;)

...lemme know if I've missed your request entirely, or if there's some subtopic you'd like.

Who says the 14 year old is less ready for sex than the 16 year old?...

...It's the fuckers that mess with LITTLE kids that piss me off, and there is no need for a genetic test there, you can usually tell them very quickly.

I can't recall the exact word, but there are different words for what you are describing. Being attracted to little kids is one thing, but being attracted to young women was another, I believe called pederasty(sp?).

But yeah, statuatory laws are, for the most part, bullshit. Throughout history once a girl began menstruating, she was considered ready to enter the adult world. These were in times when people weren't coddled, and a teenager was given the same responsibilities as anyone else. These days, we don't culturally train young people to be responsible and intelligent, so naturally I don't think the attitude of our forefathers can be adoopted, and it is a damn shame.

But don't start talking about the posibillity that you yourself, and your family and friends, are all responsible enough to not have statuatory laws applied to you. I myself do not doubt it. But as usual, with every other law in society, be it speed limits, social security, food regulation, gun control, etc. it is the small group of irresponsible dumbfucks that fuck shit up for the rest of us, and force us to adopt blanket laws to combat their stupidity.

It's a damn shame, but it's just the way of the world.

Would you prefer the left wing (http://www.cpgb.org.uk/documents/cpgb/prog_demands.html), the right wing (http://sexoffenderissues.blogspot.com/), perhas a large section of the US government (http://www.nasmhpd.org/general_files/position_statement/sexpred.htm), or the entire intarwebz (http://www.google.com/search?q=%22to+catch+a+predator%22&hl=en&start=10)?

Perhaps you'd like to sign a manifesto (http://www.reformsexoffenderlaws.org/statement.php), or stand up for paederotic youth (http://www.ethicaltreatment.org/)... or maybe just keep up to date (http://www.inquisition21.com/) with current events with the aid of some of the leading alternative media?

Of course, that assumes that the links you were asking for were from the political spectrum. If you're asking about heritability studies... well, Freund's work is actually the most comprehensive review of the data avaliable that I've seen, and carefully references pretty much all the avaliable studies. The only thing it doesn't cover are the demographics and gender ratios... which are pretty freakin' important to a genetics topic, and which nearly the only resource I've found is a severely outdated webpage (http://www.glgarden.org/tlttm/meta.htm) which is a bit less seperated from "them peedofiles," unlike the rest of the links given... though the original studies should be findable with the assistance of a university library, some embarassing questions, and a few dirty looks for researching the "wrong" topics. ;)

...lemme know if I've missed your request entirely, or if there's some subtopic you'd like.

um...thank for the info

oh, LOL
http://www.pierretristam.com/Bobst/Archives/C062706.htm

EDIT: and some studies as well, you mentioned?

EDIT: 2: that's okay, the last link was nice...heh

um...thank for the info

oh, LOL
http://www.pierretristam.com/Bobst/Archives/C062706.htm

EDIT: and some studies as well, you mentioned?

EDIT: 2: that's okay, the last link was nice...heh

heh... you edited it between my reading and reply...

...anyways... yeah. I didn't know what links you were asking, so I dropped a few that came to mind.

For additional fun reading on why that crap happened... Carl Sagan's final nonfiction work, the demon-haunted world seems to mix interestingly with what these guys (http://www.protect.org/california/pc1203_066Explanation.html) were doing... some might call the whole regieme a "distraction campaign," existing to make sure that this (http://www.hardlooks.org/faq.html) died twice (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:h.r.03582:)...

...but proving that the "satanic hysteria" against "buddhists, wiccans, and hindus" was simply a distraction campagin by the unChristian Right to promote a few "family values?" Nah. Sadly, you just have to infer it from the mountains of evidence, instead. ;) I, for one, support philanthropists on the topic...

...thanks for the link. It was an interesting and well-written piece.

Lemme know if you need anything more...

Yeah, I think the word is pedarast, BUT the distinction is lost on the majority of people, so in most folks mind, they are one in the same.

Why does it matter whether it's biological or not? If someone is gay or a pedophile, they obviously aren't "normal", but does that make them bad people? If they're a product of their environment, they're still that same product, and obviously can't help what happened to them.

Regardless though, it shouldn't excuse any violent or perverse behavior that violates anothers rights. I mean, then why not start giving serial killers a break because they're fucked in the head (whether as a result of nature OR nurture, it really shouldn't matter)??

And of course, I am not referring to things like so-called "statutory rape", as in my opinion, in most cases, there is absolutely nothing wrong with that.

If a person has reached the age at which their bodies are ready for sex, and they give their own consent to the other person, then I really don't give a fuck what they do... That is none of my business, nor anyone else's for that matter.

The way people are developping, most 25-year-olds arent ready for sex.

heh... you edited it between my reading and reply...

...anyways... yeah. I didn't know what links you were asking, so I dropped a few that came to mind.

For additional fun reading on why that crap happened... Carl Sagan's final nonfiction work, the demon-haunted world seems to mix interestingly with what these guys (http://www.protect.org/california/pc1203_066Explanation.html) were doing... some might call the whole regieme a "distraction campaign," existing to make sure that this (http://www.hardlooks.org/faq.html) died twice (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:h.r.03582:)...

...but proving that the "satanic hysteria" against "buddhists, wiccans, and hindus" was simply a distraction campagin by the unChristian Right to promote a few "family values?" Nah. Sadly, you just have to infer it from the mountains of evidence, instead. ;) I, for one, support philanthropists on the topic...

...thanks for the link. It was an interesting and well-written piece.

Lemme know if you need anything more...

k

(5char)

The way people are developping, most 25-year-olds arent ready for sex.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

EDIT: Fuck Flood Control....or rather, given the thread title fuck Flood Control's Husband and Children

Really. You're sick if you're into younger children. Or children at all. But the same sex? that's hardly able to be compared.


EDIT: I'm not going to even read the rest of the posts. I'm not only defending homosexuality because I'm gay, but because you really CANNOT help who you're attracted to. And thats that. It doesn't matter WHERE the feeling comes from, because you can't change it.

Really. You're sick if you're into younger children. Or children at all. But the same sex? that's hardly able to be compared.

How is it not sick to be into people of the same sex? It's definitely not normal or what comes natural to us...

How is it not sick to be into people of the same sex? It's definitely not normal or what comes natural to us...

to some of us it is? Whats "normal" anyways, what YOURE used to? because to almost everyone else, they all have different ideas of the word, "normal."

to some of us it is? Whats "normal" anyways, what YOURE used to? because to almost everyone else, they all have different ideas of the word, "normal."

That's right.. what is normal? Who are we to say that being attracted to kids is messed up!? Good point!!

That's right.. what is normal? Who are we to say that being attracted to kids is messed up!? Good point!!

Well from right now, will you go to jail for having sex with someone of the same gender? No. But someone a noticably amount younger? yes.

Well from right now, will you go to jail for having sex with someone of the same gender? No. But someone a noticably amount younger? yes.

Well it's definitely wrong to force sex upon anyone. And it is wrong to have sex with someone who is too young to physically be ready for it.

So yes, it is definitely more wrong to force sex upon a young child. But you said that merely being attracted to children is sick. And I said that it isn't that different from being attracted to males, as both are unnatural and are kinda contrary to human evolution.

But now you're changing it to the actual act of having sex with them. Which implies use of force or wrongful manipulation, which is wrong by any normal persons standards in itself.

Well it's definitely wrong to force sex upon anyone. And it is wrong to have sex with someone who is too young to physically be ready for it.

So yes, it is definitely more wrong to force sex upon a young child. But you said that merely being attracted to children is sick. And I said that it isn't that different from being attracted to males, as both are unnatural and are kinda contrary to human evolution.

But now you're changing it to the actual act of having sex with them. Which implies use of force or wrongful manipulation, which is wrong by any normal persons standards in itself.

okay, you're right, i jumped a slightly new boat. So, neither is NORMAL, EVERYDAY things, but they can barely be compared. Pedophelia is MUCH more wrong that homosexuality. Really, I'm human. and not breaking a law by being with my girlfriend. But I'm not forcing anything upon anyone, etc etc.

Pedophelia is MUCH more wrong that homosexuality.

Only because if it is acted on, it could potentially cause more harm. But while it's just a sexual desire still brewing in the mind, it is no different than being gay. Some (probably a lot actually) pedophiles go their entire lives without acting on their impulses, some don't even mention it to anyone (which may skew statistics). So what are they doing that is so wrong? They can't help the way they are, just like gay people...

to some of us it is? Whats "normal" anyways, what YOURE used to? because to almost everyone else, they all have different ideas of the word, "normal."

Society, even humanity, as a whole thinks homosexuality is not right. You cant, therefore, get a fairly rough idea from the whole, and that says homosexuality is wrong.

Only because if it is acted on, it could potentially cause more harm. But while it's just a sexual desire still brewing in the mind, it is no different than being gay. Some (probably a lot actually) pedophiles go their entire lives without acting on their impulses, some don't even mention it to anyone (which may skew statistics). So what are they doing that is so wrong? They can't help the way they are, just like gay people...

So far, we have seen no evidence to support such a claim that pedophiles are genetically prediposed towards their respective desires, even assuming homosexuality is genetic for arguement's sake.

There is no genetic reasoning for attraction to mates that are not able to reproduce. Hell, can you find me even one example of this happening in the animal kingdom?

So far, we have seen no evidence to support such a claim that pedophiles are genetically prediposed towards their respective desires, even assuming homosexuality is genetic for arguement's sake.

There is no genetic reasoning for attraction to mates that are not able to reproduce. Hell, can you find me even one example of this happening in the animal kingdom?

I didn't necessarily mean genetically predisposed. I just meant that they both can't help what they are attracted to, whether it is a result of a birth defect, or some kind of psychological trauma or some other environmental factor.

Regardless of the cause, it becomes a predisposition at some point.

I didn't necessarily mean genetically predisposed. I just meant that they both can't help what they are attracted to, whether it is a result of a birth defect, or some kind of psychological trauma or some other environmental factor.

Regardless of the cause, it becomes a predisposition at some point.

You give psycological treatment so little credit.

You give psycological treatment so little credit.

You really think that it's possible to change what you're attracted to? Do you consider it a possibility that any amount of psychological treatment could convert you to homosexuality?

You really think that it's possible to change what you're attracted to? Do you consider it a possibility that any amount of psychological treatment could convert you to homosexuality?

In short, there is no doubt in my mind.

In short, there is no doubt in my mind.

Really? Well, if you truly believe that psychological treatment has the potential to be that effective, then I can't really say much else.

Personally though, I have my doubts, at least when it comes to any ethical methods. Maybe some brainwashing techniques or some kind of intensive aversion therapy might work, but I wouldn't really consider that psychological treatment. At least not realistically.

lol...weird...I watched the same thing, and I think that guy's got a point with the whole genetics thing. first off, my results: my hand shape said I was straight (true, I have a gf), however, my hair whorl thing was that of a typically gay dude (I think it was counter-clockwise). Anyway.....that's wrong, I'm DEFINATELY not gay, however, it did strike me as being a bit awkward, especially since I'm a delphinic zoophile (a dolphin lover;))....I know this was about pedophiles and homosexuals, but I figured I'd throw a little bit of a wrench in the system and show that it does seem to indicate that other sexual preferences seem to be genetics related as well:D

In short: It's not our fault we're "different", but that still doesn't mean we aren't "normal". Normal is whatever way you live comfortably and others can accept (regardless of whether they agree or not).

lol...weird...I watched the same thing, and I think that guy's got a point with the whole genetics thing. first off, my results: my hand shape said I was straight (true, I have a gf), however, my hair whorl thing was that of a typically gay dude (I think it was counter-clockwise).

If you think any of that has anything to do with your sexuality, you're a moron. Go back to the highschool locker room, kay?

If you think any of that has anything to do with your sexuality, you're a moron. Go back to the highschool locker room, kay?

wtf? do you even know what we're talking about? the whole thread was based on this one issue and you decide to jump at me about it? wtf? and what's that last bit supposed to mean?.....I said I was straight, remember? I have obviously proven that it is you who is in fact the moron......get your facts straight BEFORE posting!

riseofthedarkside is right. The guy who wrote the book said that something like 8% of people have the counterclockwise hair whirl, and something like 50% of that 8% were homosexual. It doesn't determine sexuality, but it seems to make a person more predisposed to homosexuality.

-NS

Though I nearly completely agree with you, that's only our opinions. Some would disagree. Like we believe love can exist between two men, maybe some believe that love can exist between a man and child.

The pedophiles who use this sick, lying excuse as a reason to make a relationship with a child should lose their fucking nuts. The fucking sick twisted pedos convince the child easily due to their higher knowledge, and the child doesn't even comprehend what this will mean to their future later. The fact is, kids cannot "love" as in fall in true love with one of the opposite sex. They are just not mature enough. Fuck even teenagers don't know what love means often, so how the fuck would any child know? They wouldn't! they would be manipulated by the older person into thinking they love them, but really the older person is just a sick fuck who likes kids. There is a huge difference between homosexuality and pedophilia, homosexuality almost always is with people of the same maturity and age in life (both parties understand what exactly is happening) while pedophilia is the manipulating, selfish acts of sickos.

The pedophiles who use this sick, lying excuse as a reason to make a relationship with a child should lose their fucking nuts. The fucking sick twisted pedos convince the child easily due to their higher knowledge, and the child doesn't even comprehend what this will mean to their future later. The fact is, kids cannot "love" as in fall in true love with one of the opposite sex. They are just not mature enough. Fuck even teenagers don't know what love means often, so how the fuck would any child know? They wouldn't! they would be manipulated by the older person into thinking they love them, but really the older person is just a sick fuck who likes kids. There is a huge difference between homosexuality and pedophilia, homosexuality almost always is with people of the same maturity and age in life (both parties understand what exactly is happening) while pedophilia is the manipulating, selfish acts of sickos.

A man in British Columbia, Canada a few years back claimed to a judge that a child who was under 3 years old, gave him signals that it loved him and wanted to be with him sexually. The fact is, children cannot be truly in love with a person who is many years older than them, the muturity difference is too great. Pedophiles willingly choose, to manipulate and often abuse young children because it turns them on to have the power. They are power hungry, twisted motherfuckers and if it is genetics, then I believe they should have all of their balls chopped off. So to prevent any more desires and sickos being born.

If it is genetics, then I believe they should have all of their balls chopped off. So to prevent any more desires and sickos being born.

I have heard of a philosophy like this before. Something about some race being genetically inferior and therefore needing to be exterminated. But where?

http://tinyurl.com/2r5qln

I have heard of a philosophy like this before. Something about some race being genetically inferior and therefore needing to be exterminated. But where?

http://tinyurl.com/2r5qln

He wasn't talking about inferior genetics, I guess you could label it that. Seriously though, how many JoePedos do you want running around on the street?

The guy spends all his time researching his disease and then arguing for his side of the issue. Can't blame him, I would probably spend my life trying to figure out a way to prove I was "normal" as well.

Is it normal to sleep with children? Is it normal to sleep with the same sex? I don't know, I'll look to mother nature to dictate that to me and I don't see many cases of homosexuality exhibited in the wild, and I don't mean one male humping another.

I mean a male refusing to breed with females and only wants to try and fuck males. In nature, those genetics die out because the animal never passes on it's genes. Is it such a crime to then suggest that we do the same?

Okay, I went a bit over the top, but I guess I would change my statement to "all pedophiles who are caught and charged for a crime where they abuse a child should have their balls cut off" I think this a fair and not harsh punishment. Some pedophiles even chose to get their balls cut off so they don't have as strong of urges and desires. The fact is, if you take away the rights of a child through abuse, then you should lose your right for freedom. However, if you are a pedophile and do not manipulate or abuse children but only fantasize, then there would be no reason for any punishment. The punishment comes in when they traumatize innocent children.

In the animal kingdom, homosexuality is different. Humans have conscious thinking and that enables us to create strong, deep and meaningful relationships with others. In the animal kingdom there are MANY cases of homosexual acts, but how many pedophiliac animals do you hear of? NONE. Case and fucking point. Pedophilia is closely related with rape in that both are a power thing. There is rape in the animal kingdom, but this is usually the animals instincts wanting it to reproduce. Animals aren't conscious, moral thinking beings, unlike humans. Humans know that rape and pedophilia is wrong. But they chose to do it because the power brings them to point of extreme pleasure.

Really. You're sick if you're into younger children. Or children at all. But the same sex? that's hardly able to be compared.


EDIT: I'm not going to even read the rest of the posts. I'm not only defending homosexuality because I'm gay, but because you really CANNOT help who you're attracted to. And thats that. It doesn't matter WHERE the feeling comes from, because you can't change it.
Dood I was also defending gay people and saying that pedophiles are sick.

I'm disappointed that you should come out with such bigoted nonsense.

No one chooses to be a paedophile. Like homosexuality its roots are probably a mix of nuture and nature.

Remember only a few years ago homosexuality was considered a sickness and homosexuals 'treated' , sometimes forcibly, as such.

Do you think I was gay bashing in my post? I think some people misread what I was saying and interpreted it that way. I am in no way against homosexuality. I think gay people should be able to get married, adopt children and join the military.

I think active pedophiles should be imprisoned because they are raping children. I'm not talking about a 25 year old sleeping with a 14 year old here...I'm talking about that same 25 year old molesting a 7 or 8 year old.

Dood I was also defending gay people and saying that pedophiles are sick.


I know I was on your side lol.

Homosexuality in the animal kingdom is never exclusive homosexuality, lest that particular critter never reproduce and thus never pass on it's genes. I think homosexuality is a genetic defect, but like many defects it works itself out. Homosexuals can't reproduce, so they can't pass on that defective gene. I have nothing against homosexuals, but that's irrelavent.

Pedophilia on the other hand, I believe has little to do with genetics. Note how huge numbers of pedophiles were abused themselves as children, or came from homes with addicts, sociopathic parents, etc. They become sociopaths themselves, wanting power over others. If they were highly educated and driven these sick individuals would become politicians, but they have little skills and power, so they prey upon those people in our society with the least ability to defend themselves, children.

Homosexuality is a random genetic anomoly, as homosexuals are really no more or less likely to come from abusive homes. Pedophiles on the other hand do often come from abusive homes, just proof it is a learned mental faculty and not genetic.

I can't recall the exact word, but there are different words for what you are describing. Being attracted to little kids is one thing, but being attracted to young women was another, I believe called pederasty(sp?).

But yeah, statuatory laws are, for the most part, bullshit. Throughout history once a girl began menstruating, she was considered ready to enter the adult world. These were in times when people weren't coddled, and a teenager was given the same responsibilities as anyone else. These days, we don't culturally train young people to be responsible and intelligent, so naturally I don't think the attitude of our forefathers can be adoopted, and it is a damn shame.

But don't start talking about the posibillity that you yourself, and your family and friends, are all responsible enough to not have statuatory laws applied to you. I myself do not doubt it. But as usual, with every other law in society, be it speed limits, social security, food regulation, gun control, etc. it is the small group of irresponsible dumbfucks that fuck shit up for the rest of us, and force us to adopt blanket laws to combat their stupidity.

It's a damn shame, but it's just the way of the world.

QFMFT! Best post so far on this thread......great job Byss.

The truth is, for MILLENIA your average 14 year old was just like any other citizen. They could own property, work, marry, have kids....whatever. Then in the 1800's they passed child labor laws and fast forward to today and suddenly that viable citizen is just a "helpless child". BULLSHIT! This would be the first instance in the history of evolution that an organism has gone backwards. People mistakenly believe that a 14 year old is only capable of doing homework, playing video games, and taking out the garbage.....because that is what the lowered expectations are of them.

As for all of you faggots standing on a soap box claiming how you are "normal" and pedos are not......its profoundly comical how you'll sink to any depth to try and legitimatize your lifestyle and its choices. The point is....no matter how twisted it may be for a man to have a desire to mess with an undeveloped 8 year old girl, it sure is a HELLUVA lot more rational/normal than to be chasing after another man. At least its a FEMALE form (albeit not fully matured), but at least that is a NORMAL pursuit in the grand scheme of the universe. And yet the fags think the entire world should stop and change every standard just to legitimatize their nonsense. GIMME A FUCKIN BREAK!

Well from right now, will you go to jail for having sex with someone of the same gender?

Yup. (http://www.sodomy.org/laws/)

I would probably spend my life trying to figure out a way to prove I was "normal" as well.

Pshh. "Normality" is the assimilationism of cowardice. ;) 'n that's, just, like... not as much fun, man!

In the animal kingdom... how many pedophiliac animals do you hear of?

A (http://www.exn.ca/html/templates/htmlpage.cfm?ID=19980515-62&Parent=Science) few (http://www.smithsonianmagazine.com/issues/2006/november/bonobowebsidebar.php).

~sigh~ n00bz...

DaGuru:

Your gay bashing is disturbing...Though not entirely unexpected.

A man lusting after an underdeveloped child is deviant in society and in nature, because he can't reproduce with a child in nature and according to society he is raping her.

While homosexuality might be "unnatural" it doesn't hurt anyone except bigoted assholes who probably also hate "niggers" and "beaners" and everyone else who isn't "white" or whatever.

Not gay bashing, I just find it quite appalling the expectation of the MINORITY of the populace to change the entire standards of a whole society when it is only benefitting them. When we live in a society where everyone has health care, jobs are prevalent, crime is at a minimum.....then and ONLY THEN we might have time/effort/money to give a rats ass about the supposed "oppresion" of gays.

You are right, they aren't hurting anyone....as long as they are keeping their bedroom behavior where it belongs, in the bedroom. But as long as they expect society to change because of their whims, then yes it can become damaging. Hell, if we are going to cowtow to every fringe groups desires, then we might just as well wipe our asses with the Constitution and fall into complete anarchy.

Its not hate, just disgust at the politically correct nonsense we all have to tapdance around in the 21st century. I didn't give a shit at all about gays, lesbians or any other sexual deviance......UNTIL they believed they were entitled to rewrite the rulebook.

For the record, I also don't have a racist bone in my body. But spare me the comparisions of race (something that is an unchangable attribute) to homosexuality (NOT an exterior characteristic, instead a chosen set of behaviors). You are comparing apples to grains of sand....not even in the same universe of context or similarity.

Yup. (http://www.sodomy.org/laws/)That page is from 1998. It is horribly outdated.

Anti-sodomy laws were declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court back in the summer of like 2003, thus repealing all of those laws...

IME gay bashers are usually racist as well./shrug

And how exactly are gay people trying to change all of society's standards?? I mean...They just want the same HUMAN rights as everyone else in the USA. Do you honestly resent that?

Quit putting words into my mouth...I don't resent anything in regard to gays. I do however SCOFF at the notion that they feel entitled to rewrite what societal expectations are in regard what is normal or decent.

Like I said above, if you think the homosexual agenda has ANY relevance in waiving the Constitution around as if it justifies their lifestyle and its choices.....then we should throw out ALL of the laws that govern us. That would be inclusive to speed limits, zoning laws, age laws...and anything else that ALL of society has to live by in order to have some sense of order.

And please stop your usage of the word "bashing" because I don't agree with a certain person's lifestyle or behaviors. Yet more bullshit tricks from the gays trying to switch the onus of the argument on the people living a normal and acceptable lifestyle. "If you don't embrace us 100%, then they are 'bashing' us". GIMME A FUCKING BREAK times ten. Its not just a black and white world Xiao....someone of your intelligence should know that by now.

Well...What is it you specifically object to that they want? And why do you consider their lifestyle more "indecent" than the pedophiles lifestyle? I really find that...Weird.

Aren't you reading fully the first two posts I put up on this thread? They should go back to where they were 20 years ago, and just shut the fuck up already. All of this time/effort/money completely WASTED by lawyers, judges, politicians and legislators. Like I already said above....when the day comes we are living in a nearly utopian society, then maybe we should concern ourselves with what makes the single digit % of the population feel all warm and cozy.

And why do you consider their lifestyle more "indecent" than the pedophiles lifestyle? I really find that...Weird.

I already explained that it is more NORMAL for a pedo to be attracted to a FEMALE form, than it is a gay guy being attracted to another man. Maybe you should slow down when reading my posts.

Speaking of weird......why exactly does a HETEROSEXUAL woman that is married with kids care SO FUCKING MUCH about the legalities of gay people????? Now THAT is weird.......

Oh, gods... missed one...

Note how huge numbers of pedophiles were abused themselves as children...

"The "Abused Abuser" study indicated that a majority of pedophilic sex offenders did not report seduction in childhood."

- Freund, ISEMP.

They become sociopaths themselves, wanting power over others.

Individuals whose sexual orientation is directed toward children manifest the same range of personality, temperamental, and character traits as individuals whose sexual orientation is directed toward adults. A recent Journal article (2) documented that the vast majority of individuals with pedophilia showed no evidence of either antisocial or narcissistic personality disorder.

- Dr. Berlin, American Journal of Psychiatry.

If they were highly educated and driven these sick individuals would become politicians, but they have little skills and power, so they prey upon those people in our society with the least ability to defend themselves, children.

What about Foley? I mean, you're excluding the possibility of doing both, and becoming a child-molesting republican campaigning on a "save teh childrenz" to maintain one's access to supple young pageboys!! Sheesh!

...anyways... as to the rest of your post... "just making shit up at random" doesn't really form a solid - or valid - position... just thought you'd like to keep that in mind.

That page is from 1998. It is horribly outdated.

Anti-sodomy laws were declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court back in the summer of like 2003...

...IF it did not apply the same penalties to heterosexual couples, as memory serves.

...which... leaves several of them as applicable.

Your gay bashing is disturbing...

A man lusting... is deviant in society and in nature, because he can't reproduce...

WHAT?

THE?

FUCK??!?

...can you tell me how you came to write those two contradicting sentences in one single post?

I already explained that it is more NORMAL for a pedo to be attracted to a FEMALE form, than it is a gay guy being attracted to another man. Maybe you should slow down when reading my posts.

Speaking of weird......why exactly does a HETEROSEXUAL woman that is married with kids care SO FUCKING MUCH about the legalities of gay people????? Now THAT is weird.......

I think discrimination against gay people is ignorant and wrong. And how is a man being attracted to an undeveloped female child (no breasts or other mature woman characteristics) any more "noramal" than that same man being attracted to another...Man? Just because I'm not gay myself, it doesn't mean I think they should be considered second class citizens.

I think it's weird that you are so fixated on them NOT having the same rights as straight people.

"The "Abused Abuser" study indicated that a majority of pedophilic sex offenders did not report seduction in childhood."

- Freund, ISEMP.

When did I say that they were seduced as children? I didn't. Nor was that implied.

A recent Journal article (2) documented that the vast majority of individuals with pedophilia showed no evidence of either antisocial or narcissistic personality disorder.[/i]

- Dr. Berlin, American Journal of Psychiatry.

These two particular behaviors/disorders are the only ones that were checked for in the sample group? They expect me to believe the premise reached by their study when they didn't even do a thorough and complete job? Give me a break.

What about Foley? I mean, you're excluding the possibility of doing both, and becoming a child-molesting republican campaigning on a "save teh childrenz" to maintain one's access to supple young pageboys!! Sheesh!

Naturally, there will always be a few deviants to the expected model.

...anyways... as to the rest of your post... "just making shit up at random" doesn't really form a solid - or valid - position... just thought you'd like to keep that in mind.

Would you rather me reference laws that were declared unconstitutional years ago istead?

A man lusting after an underdeveloped child is deviant in society and in nature, because he can't reproduce with a child in nature and according to society he is raping her.

This exact same argument could be used to degrade homosexuals. I'm not saying that pedophilia is a good thing, but if you are going to try and equate homosexuality and pedophilia to different levels of deviance and harm, then you really ought to argue a different paradigm than what is "seen in nature ought to be seen in society".

When did I say that they were seduced as children? I didn't. Nor was that implied.



These two particular behaviors/disorders are the only ones that were checked for in the sample group? They expect me to believe the premise reached by their study when they didn't even do a thorough and complete job? Give me a break.



Naturally, there will always be a few deviants to the expected model.



Would you rather me reference laws that were declared unconstitutional years ago istead?



This exact same argument could be used to degrade homosexuals. I'm not saying that pedophilia is a good thing, but if you are going to try and equate homosexuality and pedophilia to different levels of deviance and harm, then you really ought to argue a different paradigm than what is "seen in nature ought to be seen in society".

You misunderstood my post. I DON'T think that what is "natural" should be used as the only criteria for what is right or wrong. I also don't think homosexuality is deviant or harmful.

I think discrimination against gay people is ignorant and wrong. And how is a man being attracted to an undeveloped female child (no breasts or other mature woman characteristics) any more "noramal" than that same man being attracted to another...Man? Just because I'm not gay myself, it doesn't mean I think they should be considered second class citizens.

I think it's weird that you are so fixated on them NOT having the same rights as straight people.


What is wrong is YOUR description of "descrimination". Its this simple....society has a certain code of expectations that its populace should meet. It is NOT up to the majority of the populace to lay down its values based on the desires of a SLIM minority. I could use the exact same argument that you and the gays use in regard to "descrimination" if I was denied a job working on Wall Street with torn jeans, flip flops and a Metallica t-shirt. There IS an expectation while conducting business in that industry, and that is NOT acceptable behavior. By your logic I should have the same "right" to work how I see fit in whatever attire I choose. And if that "right" is infringed then I should waste everyone's time rewriting the rulebook.

How about a closer analogy? What if 5% of all females suddenly decided they wanted to be allowed to parade around topless? Is it their "right" to buck what has been acceptable/appropriate behavior for millenia? Furthermore, is it REALLY discrimination if certain communities DO make changes to satiate the MINORITY, and some of the populace vocalizes being repulsed having to witness some 70 year old's sagging tits?

And the reason I AM so concerned is because IF the day comes that the homosexual lifestyle is embraced/accepted as mainstream, then it is setting a precedent for any other deviant behavior (sexual or otherwise). This thread is a PERFECT EXAMPLE to that argument. Because then there is no definitive line to what is considered "decent", and the next group to crawl out of a cave could be pedophiles. Or polygamists. Or people wanting to marry their dog. Or their toaster. And they would have COMPLETE LEGITIMACY to use the exact same feeble arguments about "rights", "genetics", and "discrimination" that the homosexual community has used with the exact SAME relevance. See once you twist the rules for just one small sect of the community, then to have TRUE EQUALITY you have to oblige all of the others.

Or perhaps someday you could run for office, win the presidency, throw out democracy, rule with an iron hand of dictatorship, and we can all fall in line to the whims of what YOU define as being "decent".

When did I say that they were seduced as children?

...when you launched a diatribe surrounding "it's all orientational recruitment!" crap re: the debunked "abused abuser" theory of the far right, maybe?



These two particular behaviors/disorders are the only ones that were checked for in the sample group?

...one of which was your specific assertion, and proven false?

Would you rather me reference laws that were declared unconstitutional years ago istead?

::ahem::

This case raises a different issue than Bowers: whether, under the Equal Protection Clause, moral disapproval is a legitimate state interest to justify by itself a statute that bans homosexual sodomy, but not heterosexual sodomy.

Sandra Day O'Connor, "Lawrence vs. Texas," 2003.

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/02pdf/02-102.pdf

Barring all conceivable nonheterosexual practices to heterosexuals as well does not violate the equal protection clause (currently), and such laws are still (legally) constitutional under the Lawrence ruling.

Would you care to try again? Have you met your daily quota of phail, or do you yet have more phail to accomplish? Have you ever considered reading the fucking judicial reading before commenting thereupon? When you were considering it, did you consider reading the recent data surrounding your other assertions before commenting thereupon? SRSLY. It could help.

~shrug~ It's nothing specific against you, personally... I'm just deeply interested in discouraging the tendancy on the internet of not reading a damned thing before issuing random proclamations on the basis of their "useful truthiness." This shit happens too often.

...when you launched a diatribe surrounding "it's all orientational recruitment!" crap re: the debunked "abused abuser" theory of the far right, maybe?

Orientation does not mean that the now current child molestor had to be sexually abused as a child. I in no way implied I was talking about the pedophile having been seduced as a child, I was talking about them being abused. Can you get it through your thick skull that abuse can take many forms other than sexual?

My basic assertion was that pedophiles are inherently sociopathic because of their upbringing, not that this upbringing had to involve premature sexual acts.

...one of which was your specific assertion, and proven false?

My specific assertion was that they are sociopaths. Do you know too little about psychology to know the difference between a narcissist, someone who's anti-social, and a sociopath? If so, you need to shut the fuck up. Them proving they aren't narcissists or anti-social is akin to proving a car isn't blue or red. You seem to think this proves the car can't be white, either.

Really, stop making strawmen, or at least read what is written, not what you expect to hear. According to that link, the Supreme Court did rule sodomy laws unconstitutional, in violation of the Due Process Clause.

Can you get it through your thick skull that abuse can take many forms other than sexual? My basic assertion was that pedophiles are inherently sociopathic because of their upbringing, not that this upbringing had to involve premature sexual acts.

Great! Sooo... we've not only utterly disproven the common repetition of your attempted assertion, but proven something far more interesting - that there exist several forms of abuse, including multispectrum abuse which just happens to include sexual activity, does not increase the frequency of paederotic orientation above the general populace.

That is a very large preponderance against you.

Do you know too little about psychology to know the difference between a narcissist, someone who's anti-social, and a sociopath? If so, you need to shut the fuck up.

...do you know too little about psychology to know the difference between "mildly antisocial" and "antisocial personality disorder," also known as sociopathy?

Really, stop making strawmen, or at least read what is written, not what you expect to hear. According to that link, the Supreme Court did rule sodomy laws unconstitutional, in violation of the Due Process Clause.

At the outset it should be noted that there is no long-standing history in this country of laws directed at homo-sexual conduct as a distinct matter. Beginning in colonial times there were prohibitions of sodomy derived from the English criminal laws passed in the first instance by the Reformation Parliament of 1533. The English prohibition was understood to include relations between men and women as well as relations between men and men.

- Opinion of the Court, Lawrence v. Texas. The due process complaint was explicitly referred to the issue of equal protection, which still allows for equal sodomy laws for heterosexuals.

Got tired of reading other posts.

Growing up on a farm, most animals want sex sometimes whether it be male, female, child, or fencepost, they have it with. Males want to hump til nutting, females nuzzle and rub til out of heat. Not much difference with humans.

It is a fact that you can be raised to be gay (can't remember that tribe of cocksuckers). Women are considered bad there.

Lesibians are considered normal in harems.

Some people fuck thier hands, mothers, dead relatives, pets, kids, etc. One time or another it was considered "NORMAL".

What changes that? People claiming they are "better" or more moral than another.

Some societies in the past consider child molesters as teachers of kids. They saw it as a useful trait. Who else would take in orphans and teach them to be temple priest or preistess. When sex was a religious experience.

The Catholic religion even allowed buggery {young boy anal) at one time. But sex with an unmarried women was a death sentnce.

Hopefully smart people realize sex should be part of a relationship that leads to a loving family with children. You will feel more whole and complete in life.

necrophilia,pedophilia,molestation,and rape all of that is utterly disgusting and wrong plain and simple.

Cool with beastilty? Where do you draw the line? Does a pet sleep in bed with you? Lick you? Naked? Does your dog watch you masterbatuate? Lick the juices when done?

How many old ladies dress thier dogs as children? Is this a manifestation of child molestion through their pets? Maybe no physical but unthought mental sexual processes.

Where do you draw the line? Actions...Thoughts...fantasy..dreams... Hardons at church. MMMMMMMMMMMMMM

Markalon, I don't think anyone here is arguing for making anything but actions illegal.

Says who? The same people who say homosexuality is right? Who the fuck are you to question anyone else?

But then again, what entitles me to question you?

-NS

I am just making a point that I do not agree with many behaviors, but who decides what is imoral. I have very strong religious beliefs, but don,t necessarly want to imprison someone for thier thinking or uncontrolable drives. Many people need help to fit into our society not jail.

Trying to say people have complete choices is not accurate... Why would anyone deviate from aceptable norms? Drives and feelings are not logical but pople still have them. How do we deal with them"

Normal animal behavior shows sexual deviances are normal. Everything wants some form of love/sex [completley different yet the same}.

Why should any deivant behavior be criminal not medical?

Or perhaps someday you could run for office, win the presidency, throw out democracy, rule with an iron hand of dictatorship, and we can all fall in line to the whims of what YOU define as being "decent".

Dood we can only hope.

Says who? The same people who say homosexuality is right? Who the fuck are you to question anyone else?

...in that case, the answer was "says a zoophile incomprehensibly full of phail," but I'm sure somewhere there will come along a case which is much, much, much less full of tragic irony.

OK, I'm lost.....I understand and fully agree with the fact that pedophilia is wrong merely for the fact that it harms children emotionally along with other morality issues on the subject, and I also aknowledge that necrophilia is wrong, because....well damn, have some respect for the deceased, not to mention even more morality issues.......however, the homosexuality and zoophilia and everything else I dont understand. I'm straight, but many friends of mine are bi, and quite frankly it doesn't bother me in the least because they do not impose their beliefs on me nor do they really "harm" anyone else.....it's all isolated to within their own groups. The same is true for zoophilia (I am a delphinic zoo).....we do not force people to like our ways......we just keep to ourselves. However, all you seem so goddamn uptight about everything.....always criticizing and trying to impose YOUR beliefs on us that what we do is wrong, when to us it's perfectly natural. Look, I'll put it this way.....we'll mind our business, and you mind yours, and all will turn out fine, but when you all start insulting us and even going so far as to threaten us, then that's pushing the limits. The lines are set....so long as we do not harm you all or the subject of our affection, we have a right to love whatever we want....and you all had best shut up about it and deal with it because it really doesn't even affect you in the first place. If I so happen to love a dolphin (or for whatever anyone else likes), that's my choice...not yours. I see some things I dont agree with, but I wont voice my opinions because who the hell am I to judge, especially whenever it has no regard to me or my life? That's the way you should treat us, not going and saying "you all are sick and twisted and that you have no reason to live and that I'd kill you if I had the chance and blah blah blah"....then you just look like a wannabe badass that's too weak to take on an issue of his own and fight for it, so you just pick on us. In closing, I'll just say this: we dont want to quarrel, we dont want to impose, we dont want to even argue....we just want our own ways......and you seem to be quite the opposite...always wanting to argue, always willing to insult, always wanting to think you're right. Just leave us alone, we do not affect you......we dont even matter to you.....if you want to fight for something, go after those who hurt people....like pedophiles for instance.

^ Are you serious!? I thought you were joking when you first mentioned in this thread that you were into dolphins, but...

WTF? Are you serious!? I can't tell.....

If you do anything sexual with a dolphin, then OF COURSE it affects more than just yourself!

First of all, how the fuck does a person do anything sexual with a dolphin!? I mean, biologically, HOW!?

And even then, assuming that you somehow perceive the dolphin to be giving consent, how do you distinguish between that and a child who is supposedly giving consent (IE: those that are persuaded out of manipulation, rather than physical force)?

I probably just got trolled, but whatever...

The answers to all your questions are in the "Sex with Dolphins" thread.......

http://www.totse.com/community/showthread.php?t=2013480

and secondly, I doubt a child is gonna turn all pink and get aroused then start humping and rubbing you with a 400 lb body, but then again, thats just my own hunch....;):D

The answers to all your questions are in the "Sex with Dolphins" thread.......

http://www.totse.com/community/showthread.php?t=2013480



Wow... I have just been introduced to a whole new world of weird...

I don't even know what to say right now...

we do not force people to like our ways......we just keep to ourselves. However, all you seem so goddamn uptight about everything.....always criticizing and trying to impose YOUR beliefs on us that what we do is wrong, when to us it's perfectly natural.

pedophilia is wrong... and I also aknowledge that necrophilia is wrong, because....well damn, have some respect for the deceased, not to mention even more morality issues....... if you want to fight for something, go after...pedophiles for instance.

Look, I'll put it this way.....we'll mind our business, and you mind yours, and all will turn out fine, but when you all start insulting us and even going so far as to threaten us, then that's pushing the limits. The lines are set....so long as we do not harm you all or the subject of our affection, we have a right to love whatever we want....

pedophilia is wrong... and I also aknowledge that necrophilia is wrong, because....well damn, have some respect for the deceased, not to mention even more morality issues....... if you want to fight for something, go after...pedophiles for instance.


I see some things I dont agree with, but I wont voice my opinions because who the hell am I to judge, especially whenever it has no regard to me or my life?

pedophilia is wrong... and I also aknowledge that necrophilia is wrong, because....well damn, have some respect for the deceased, not to mention even more morality issues....... if you want to fight for something, go after...pedophiles for instance.

That's the way you should treat us, not going and saying "you all are sick and twisted and that you have no reason to live and that I'd kill you if I had the chance and blah blah blah"....then you just look like a wannabe badass that's too weak to take on an issue of his own and fight for it, so you just pick on us.

pedophilia is wrong... and I also aknowledge that necrophilia is wrong, because....well damn, have some respect for the deceased, not to mention even more morality issues....... if you want to fight for something, go after...pedophiles for instance.

In closing, I'll just say this: we dont want to quarrel, we dont want to impose, we dont want to even argue....we just want our own ways......

pedophilia is wrong... and I also aknowledge that necrophilia is wrong, because....well damn, have some respect for the deceased, not to mention even more morality issues....... if you want to fight for something, go after...pedophiles for instance.

and you seem to be quite the opposite...always wanting to argue, always willing to insult, always wanting to think you're right. Just leave us alone, we do not affect you......we dont even matter to you.....

pedophilia is wrong... and I also aknowledge that necrophilia is wrong, because....well damn, have some respect for the deceased, not to mention even more morality issues....... if you want to fight for something, go after...pedophiles for instance.

http://img519.imageshack.us/img519/6803/n00bs2sl1.jpg

...funny thing is, just a few months ago I was having a conversation with SWF 'n... some other guy... in which I posited the possibility that a revolution of liberation - literally, every revolution of liberation - would not work, simply because of the gross stupidity of the people seeking liberation and their abject willingness to buy into the "divide and conquer" methodology which was used to deprive their freedom... and then, the DZ advocacy crew showed up!!

Just a friendly little tip... think of it like a gang war. Partly, because that's exactly what the fuck politics is. Shooting at colors that aren't shooting at you simply gets you a large handful of wars which you were not prior bogged down with, and prevents you from attaining your goals. As they saying goes, "set tripping is for bitches," and it's a saying with at least a moderate bit of wisdom behind it.

...for that matter, taking your marching orders from people who want you dead is pretty fucking stupid, really. You... might wanna stop, for all I know.

~shrug~ It's your choice. They're your goals, whether you want to move forward, or sit around bashing others and getting nowhere is up to you. In the interim, I've got to run... I have work to complete for a sexual diversity advocacy group for whom you just threatened a wide swath of the constituency to no gain for yourself. If you'd like to see a partial list of factions you successfully offended with your little rant, well, there's a partial list on page two, I believe.

Think about where you want to go, and if you want to get anywhere.

'till then, well... enjoy your stay.

Sincerely,
jp

I'm disappointed that you should come out with such bigoted nonsense.

No one chooses to be a paedophile. Like homosexuality its roots are probably a mix of nuture and nature.

Remember only a few years ago homosexuality was considered a sickness and homosexuals 'treated' , sometimes forcibly, as such.

98756

http://img519.imageshack.us/img519/6803/n00bs2sl1.jpg

...funny thing is, just a few months ago I was having a conversation with SWF 'n... some other guy... in which I posited the possibility that a revolution of liberation - literally, every revolution of liberation - would not work, simply because of the gross stupidity of the people seeking liberation and their abject willingness to buy into the "divide and conquer" methodology which was used to deprive their freedom... and then, the DZ advocacy crew showed up!!

Just a friendly little tip... think of it like a gang war. Partly, because that's exactly what the fuck politics is. Shooting at colors that aren't shooting at you simply gets you a large handful of wars which you were not prior bogged down with, and prevents you from attaining your goals. As they saying goes, "set tripping is for bitches," and it's a saying with at least a moderate bit of wisdom behind it.

...for that matter, taking your marching orders from people who want you dead is pretty fucking stupid, really. You... might wanna stop, for all I know.

~shrug~ It's your choice. They're your goals, whether you want to move forward, or sit around bashing others and getting nowhere is up to you. In the interim, I've got to run... I have work to complete for a sexual diversity advocacy group for whom you just threatened a wide swath of the constituency to no gain for yourself. If you'd like to see a partial list of factions you successfully offended with your little rant, well, there's a partial list on page two, I believe.

Think about where you want to go, and if you want to get anywhere.

'till then, well... enjoy your stay.

Sincerely,
jp
sorry if it offended anybody, as that was not the intent of my post, however, I just felt a need to show other people what I and many like me feel about getting criticized.........I know what I said may have sounded like a slight paradox, but if you noticed I said what I thought without full-on criticizm or name calling and what not....it was supposed to almost be an example of how to poroperly voice an opinion, but I guess it backfired. Well again, my sincere apologies to any who have taken offense.....please note this was not my intent. I'll try to be a little more tactful next time. sorry :D

Wow... I have just been introduced to a whole new world of weird...

I don't even know what to say right now...
Oh yeah, my own experience is on the "Most memorable sex moment" thread btw.....:D enjoy!

I'm pretty sure hitler didn't choose to be a sociopath, but I'd still murder him in front of his mother before I had an afternoon tea wth him.

"Homosexuality is a disease"

http://video.google.com.au/videoplay?docid=1342644952171097956

And the reason I AM so concerned is because IF the day comes that the homosexual lifestyle is embraced/accepted as mainstream, then it is setting a precedent for any other deviant behavior (sexual or otherwise). This thread is a PERFECT EXAMPLE to that argument. Because then there is no definitive line to what is considered "decent", and the next group to crawl out of a cave could be pedophiles. Or polygamists. Or people wanting to marry their dog. Or their toaster. And they would have COMPLETE LEGITIMACY to use the exact same feeble arguments about "rights", "genetics", and "discrimination" that the homosexual community has used with the exact SAME relevance. See once you twist the rules for just one small sect of the community, then to have TRUE EQUALITY you have to oblige all of the others.

Is there anything wrong with that? Society is full of Moralist Bullshit and it must all be destroyed.

The only reason people use that slippery slop argument is to apply and appeal to the bias against the fringe