The Next Politically Correct Topic That You Must Support. [Archive] - Glock Talk

PDA

View Full Version : The Next Politically Correct Topic That You Must Support.


JBnTX
07-06-2012, 09:41
...After all you don't want to be labeled a bigot, do you?

Society will soon demand that you accept yet another "alternate lifestyle"
as equal to your own.

I wonder if Obama will endorse this like he did same sex marriage?



Pedophiles Demand Social Acceptance Gays Got
http://www.henrymakow.com/left_jerry_sandusky_pedophiles.html

"They hope the APA will redefine the clinical definition of pedophilia as a natural condition, something people are born into, and not a result of prior abuse or lack of parental connection."

"We are about to witness a repeat of what the APA had done for homosexuality, back in the 70s, resulting in the bullying of people who dare speak up against it."


They want to be called "minor attracted persons".
http://communities.washingtontimes.com/neighborhood/middle-class-guy/2011/aug/17/b4uact-seek-acceptance-minor-attracted-pedophiles/

"B4U-ACT is a Maryland-based group of mental health professionals, psychiatrists and pedophiles who want to normalize pedophilia."

"Instead of pejoratively calling them "pedophiles," "fiends," "deviants," "freaks," "perverts," "degenerates," "predators" or "pedophiles," they would prefer that society refer to them by the sensitive and socially-accepting term: minor attracted persons."

..

eracer
07-06-2012, 09:55
Excellent!

Once we can finally eliminate the idea that they can be treated with therapy (in order to 'fix' them) we can begin permanently removing them from society.

Therapy does not 'fix' homosexuality, and it doesn't 'fix' pedophilia.

Good luck removing gays from the population, though.

nmk
07-06-2012, 10:08
Pedophiles Demand Social Acceptance Gays Got



So? Why are you so sure they will get it? Most rational people can see the difference.

2@low8
07-06-2012, 10:15
So? Why are you so sure they will get it? Most rational people can see the difference.

You think Gays got social acceptance 50 years ago? In the 50's most folks actually didn't see the difference. The slippery slope y'all....

nmk
07-06-2012, 10:17
You think Gays got social acceptance 50 years ago? In the 50's most folks actually didn't see the difference. The slippery slope y'all....

And some people still don't understand the idea of consenting adults. Luckily those people are a minority.

2@low8
07-06-2012, 10:19
And some people still don't understand the idea of consenting adults. Luckily those people are a minority.

All you gotta do is lower the age of consent. Make it 12, or 9 or 6.

Cavalry Doc
07-06-2012, 10:33
Excellent!

Once we can finally eliminate the idea that they can be treated with therapy (in order to 'fix' them) we can begin permanently removing them from society.

Therapy does not 'fix' homosexuality, and it doesn't 'fix' pedophilia.

Good luck removing gays from the population, though.

Pedophilia can be cured. But there is that pesky cruel and unusual punishment thing that we would have to get an exception too.

At some point, you have to draw a line in the sand, I don't mind homosexuality, but when you start letting adults take sexual advantage of children, it's time for drastic action.

nmk
07-06-2012, 10:43
All you gotta do is lower the age of consent. Make it 12, or 9 or 6.

Which states are trying to do this? The lowest age of consent I could find was 16.

2@low8
07-06-2012, 10:47
Which states are trying to do this? The lowest age of consent I could find was 16.

50 years ago you would be asking "Which states are trying to legalize gay marriage?" And your answer would be the same, none (right now).

Society will find a way to lower itself to the lowest common denominator.

nmk
07-06-2012, 10:51
50 years ago you would be asking "Which states are trying to legalize gay marriage?" And your answer would be the same, none (right now).

Society will find a way to lower itself to the lowest common denominator.

What do two consenting adults have to do with pedophiles?

JBnTX
07-06-2012, 11:02
So? Why are you so sure they will get it? Most rational people can see the difference.


Most people are NOT rational.

What is the difference between society's acceptance of gays and society's acceptance of pedophiles?

Name one difference that can't be done away with at the whim of public opinion.

Laws can be changed. Society's attitudes can be changed.
Standards of decency and morality can, and do, change.

First it was same sex marriage. Is marriage between an adult and a child next?

All it will take is just a little tweaking or adjustment of society's attitude and a few legal changes, and it's a done deal.

2@low8
07-06-2012, 11:03
What do two consenting adults have to do with pedophiles?


You appear a little slow on the deep sarcasm with which I speak. Let me make my personal opinion clear:

If and when society (more specifically, those in political power) deems something to be an acceptable activity, they will stop at nothing until they achieve their goal of total acceptance.

50 (just picking a number) years ago, gay marriage was not on the radar of those in political power, in fact, I would bet that it was the third rail, just don't talk about it. Fast forward to today and you have the President of the USA espousing Gay marriage.

The right set of circumstances come into play and the right people get elected and I can easliy see how "minor attracted persons" could become a protected class of people.

This country is becoming a sewer of depravity right before our eyes and I fear that it is too far gone to be reclaimed.

JBnTX
07-06-2012, 11:04
What do two consenting adults have to do with pedophiles?

Everything!

It's the moral and ethical basis for the legalization of homosexuality, and it will soon be the basis for the legalization of pedophilia.

callihan_44
07-06-2012, 11:06
I knew this was coming, reminds me of a local wanting to marry his horse

JBnTX
07-06-2012, 11:07
... I can easliy see how "minor attracted persons" could become a protected class of people.
....



Especially if they vote democrat.

Sam Spade
07-06-2012, 11:09
Wow. Who could have possibly predicted this?


I'm only surprised that the zoophiles didn't act first.

RC-RAMIE
07-06-2012, 11:34
We do understand that Homosexuality and pedophiles, are two different things?

Sam Spade
07-06-2012, 11:37
We do understand that Homosexuality and pedophiles, are two different things?

I do. Yet certain similarities combined to ensure that this would inevitably be a follow-on issue once homosexual relationships were normalized.

JBnTX
07-06-2012, 11:43
We do understand that Homosexuality and pedophiles, are two different things?



What Sam Spade said!

It's only the next step in the natural evolution of society's acceptance
of "alternate lifestyles".

Society itself sets the limits and boundaries.

..

2@low8
07-06-2012, 11:50
Marriage and homosexuality are not the same either.... regardless what the gov't says.


Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

RC-RAMIE
07-06-2012, 12:31
I do. Yet certain similarities combined to ensure that this would inevitably be a follow-on issue once homosexual relationships were normalized.

Homosexual relationships where is the victims at?

eracer
07-06-2012, 12:34
Pedophilia can be cured. But there is that pesky cruel and unusual punishment thing that we would have to get an exception too.

At some point, you have to draw a line in the sand, I don't mind homosexuality, but when you start letting adults take sexual advantage of children, it's time for drastic action.Everything can be cured by death.

Does castration cure pedophilia? Are there statistically sound studies to prove that? I'm genuinely curious.

eracer
07-06-2012, 12:38
50 (just picking a number) years ago, gay marriage was not on the radar of those in political power, in fact, I would bet that it was the third rail, just don't talk about it. Fast forward to today and you have the President of the USA espousing Gay marriage. 50 years ago anyone who dared admit they were gay was beaten, jailed, or exiled, because of narrow-minded bigots who believed it was their right to stick there soiled little noses into the private affairs of consenting adult(s).

The pendulum of acceptance has swung hard to the side of demands, but only in response to the oppression of the past.

JFrame
07-06-2012, 12:41
Everything can be cured by death.

Does castration cure pedophilia? Are there statistically sound studies to prove that? I'm genuinely curious.


I've heard suggestions that chemical castration might -- not sure about the more direct kind.

I recall a case some years ago of a convicted pedophile who was volunteering (actually, petitioning) for such treatment. He ostensibly hated the person that he was, and wanted to undergo the means that he thought would cure him. I don't know whatever came of all that...


.

2@low8
07-06-2012, 12:52
50 years ago anyone who dared admit they were gay was beaten, jailed, or exiled, because of narrow-minded bigots who believed it was their right to stick there soiled little noses into the private affairs of consenting adult(s).

The pendulum of acceptance has swung hard to the side of demands, but only in response to the oppression of the past.


I think you are proving my point.

Sam Spade
07-06-2012, 12:54
Homosexual relationships where is the victims at?

Not one of the similarities I was thinking of.

But the pedophiles will argue that the age of consent is an artificial construct, and that individuals are capable of choice on their own schedule. And, the variance in ages chosen in different jurisdictions proves that there is no sound scientific basis for them--how can your partner turn legal just by stepping across a line? Further, we charge these same children and try them as adults when it suits us; surely anyone who has the maturity to be held criminally responsible can also make decisions about his sexuality. And they'll trot out examples of juvenile sexual contact who're fine as adults.

IOW, there are no real victims, except in the repressive minds of the same people who persecuted inter-racial marriage, and then gay marriage, and now them.

That's the start of the argument. If you haven't dealt with these guys, you probably wouldn't think of it; I have.





AND DON'T ANYONE DARE CONFUSE MY REPORTING OF THE **** I'VE HAD TO DEAL WITH FOR ADVOCACY OF THAT ****.

eracer
07-06-2012, 13:13
I think you are proving my point.I'm not proving anything. Merely pointing out that not much has really changed from 50 years ago.

Except that bigotry in the name of moral superiority is being forced further and further underground - where it belongs.

Drjones
07-06-2012, 13:42
JbTX, you're a liar....see.... Theres a bill proposed RIGHT NOW in California to allow a kid to have more than two parents. I said that the next things to follow will be bestiality and/or pedophilia.

The commie trolls that, for some unknown reason love to lurk on a conservative gun forum, called me a homophobe and opened my eyes to the truth.

:upeyes:

Phaze5ive
07-06-2012, 13:48
A thread comparing homosexuality to pedophilia...

Stay classy GT!

:wavey:

JBnTX
07-06-2012, 14:07
JbTX, you're a liar....see.... Theres a bill proposed RIGHT NOW in California to allow a kid to have more than two parents. I said that the next things to follow will be bestiality and/or pedophilia.

The commie trolls that, for some unknown reason love to lurk on a conservative gun forum, called me a homophobe and opened my eyes to the truth.

:upeyes:


How am I a liar?:dunno:

JBnTX
07-06-2012, 14:12
A thread comparing homosexuality to pedophilia...




The purpose of this thread is to show that the pedophiles are now following the same pathway to social acceptance that the homosexuals did.

In that regard, certain similarities between the two parties does exist.

...and that's what's being discussed here.

maxsnafu
07-06-2012, 14:38
We do understand that Homosexuality and pedophiles, are two different things?

Not in the case of Jerry Sandusky. Males were his only target.

RC-RAMIE
07-06-2012, 15:00
Not in the case of Jerry Sandusky. Males were his only target.

Pedophiles target kids sometimes of the same sex that is not the same as consenting adults having homosexual activities.

Sam Spade
07-06-2012, 16:03
Pedophiles target kids sometimes of the same sex that is not the same as consenting adults having homosexual activities.

Why? The gay community has disallowed any condemnation based on a sexual relationship being non-productive. Likewise, any suggestion that choice is involved is off the table---who would choose to be gay and face all the hate and discrimination? So your sexuality is something you're born with. And the quaint notion of "deviancy"...gays labored mightily to have homosexuality removed from the DSM, something that only came to pass in 1986. A mere listing there has shown to be a simple cultural condemnation of how you were created. Of course, any argument based on "sin" is summarily ridiculed.

And as to children...if gays make worthy parents, unable to change their child's (adoptive or other) sexuality, why worry about pedophiles effects on kids? Plenty of Greek boys grew up well thanks to their mentors.

So what if it's not identical. Why are the similarities insufficient to be tolerant of those who were made a bit differently than us?

Though I generally dislike it, this is one topic where the slippery slope argument holds.

Cavalry Doc
07-06-2012, 16:07
Everything can be cured by death.

Does castration cure pedophilia? Are there statistically sound studies to prove that? I'm genuinely curious.

Castration doesn't work. A bolus of potassium chloride, in the right amounts works pretty well. Cure rate approaches 100%.

HexHead
07-06-2012, 16:12
I say we push for polygamy.

madbaumer
07-06-2012, 16:16
Castration doesn't work. A bolus of potassium chloride, in the right amounts works pretty well. Cure rate approaches 100%.

Would a 30-06 be cheaper? :supergrin:

Cavalry Doc
07-06-2012, 16:23
Would a 30-06 be cheaper? :supergrin:

I'm sure we could use a smaller caliber, and that there would be plenty of people willing to donate, or reload to keep costs down.

I'm usually a very tolerant and compassionate person, but if there is a group of people that need to be removed from society more than pedophiles, I can't think of them at the moment.

madbaumer
07-06-2012, 17:21
I'm sure we could use a smaller caliber, and that there would be plenty of people willing to donate, or reload to keep costs down.

I'm usually a very tolerant and compassionate person, but if there is a group of people that need to be removed from society more than pedophiles, I can't think of them at the moment.

When it comes to rapist and pedophiles, I have no remorse in having them removed aka DRT.

RC-RAMIE
07-06-2012, 17:27
Why? The gay community has disallowed any condemnation based on a sexual relationship being non-productive. Likewise, any suggestion that choice is involved is off the table---who would choose to be gay and face all the hate and discrimination? So your sexuality is something you're born with. And the quaint notion of "deviancy"...gays labored mightily to have homosexuality removed from the DSM, something that only came to pass in 1986. A mere listing there has shown to be a simple cultural condemnation of how you were created. Of course, any argument based on "sin" is summarily ridiculed.

And as to children...if gays make worthy parents, unable to change their child's (adoptive or other) sexuality, why worry about pedophiles effects on kids? Plenty of Greek boys grew up well thanks to their mentors.

So what if it's not identical. Why are the similarities insufficient to be tolerant of those who were made a bit differently than us?

Though I generally dislike it, this is one topic where the slippery slope argument holds.

All that does not make much sense or change the fact a kid can't consent a adult can.




....

madbaumer
07-06-2012, 17:29
Double.

Sam Spade
07-06-2012, 17:33
All that does not make much sense or change the fact a kid can't consent a adult can.




....

And the pedos will tell you with a straight face that the only reason a kid can't consent is that repressive bigots like you say so. The state put the age of consent where it is, the state can put the age of consent back where it used to be...which was in the neighborhood of 10 yoa when the country was founded.


Bad things happen when you reject morality as a legitimate basis for legislation and conduct.

JBnTX
07-06-2012, 18:25
All that does not make much sense or change the fact a kid can't consent a adult can.

....


If the legal age of consent was lowered to, let's say 12 years old, would you have any problem with a 45 year old man marrying a 12 year old boy?

Isn't that just another same sex marriage?

A simple law change can make it all legal, just like it did for the gays.

beforeobamabans
07-06-2012, 18:26
The purpose of this thread is to show that the pedophiles are now following the same pathway to social acceptance that the homosexuals did.

In that regard, certain similarities between the two parties does exist.

...and that's what's being discussed here.

Looking for acceptance?

JBnTX
07-06-2012, 18:40
Looking for acceptance?


Is it that obvious?:rofl:

countrygun
07-06-2012, 18:41
I knew this was coming, reminds me of a local wanting to marry his horse


Was it a female horse or was he some kind of pervert?

ChuteTheMall
07-06-2012, 19:41
Sounds like the Libertarian Platform to me, and their efforts to support child prostitution. Any child, of any age, is free run away and engage in any contractual behavior under the Libertarian Platform from the so-called Party of Principle:


In particular, we advocate:
d. the repeal of all laws regarding consensual sexual relations, including prostitution and solicitation, and the cessation of state oppression and harassment of homosexual men and women, that they, at last, be accorded their full rights as individuals;

e. the repeal of all laws regulating or prohibiting the possession, use, sale, production, or distribution of sexually explicit material, independent of "socially redeeming value" or compliance with "community standards"http://www.dehnbase.org/lpus/library/platform/vc.html



No Age Of Consent Laws.
children always have the right to establish their maturity by assuming administration and protection of their own rights, ending dependency upon their parents or other guardians, and assuming all responsibilities of adulthood. ...We oppose laws infringing on children's rights to work or learn, such as child labor laws and compulsory education laws. We also oppose the use of curfews based on age. http://www.dehnbase.org/lpus/library/platform/fac.html


We oppose any government attempt to dictate, prohibit, control, or encourage any private lifestyle, living arrangement or contractual relationship.

We support repeal of existing laws and policies which are intended to condemn, affirm, encourage, or deny sexual lifestyles or any set of attitudes about such lifestyles.
http://www.dehnbase.org/lpus/library/platform/sr.html

Libertarians support the rights of children to run away and work anywhere in the sex trade.

Jerry
07-06-2012, 20:06
50 years ago anyone who dared admit they were gay was beaten, jailed, or exiled, because of narrow-minded bigots who believed it was their right to stick there soiled little noses into the private affairs of consenting adult(s).

The pendulum of acceptance has swung hard to the side of demands, but only in response to the oppression of the past.

If they would keep their "private affairs" private it wouldn't be anyone's business what goes on between two consenting adults. When they flaunt their "private business" in public it's no longer private. It isn't excepted anymore today amongst moral people than it was 50 years ago. Only difference is we have more perverts holding public office and trying to force it down our throats.

I wonder how many pedophiles are holding public office and how long before they start marching in the streets and holding pedophilia pride day. I'll bet Disney World will be first to host pedophile pride week. :upeyes:

Blast
07-06-2012, 21:18
If they would keep their "private affairs" private it wouldn't be anyone's business what goes on between two consenting adults. When they flaunt their "private business" in public it's no longer private. It isn't excepted anymore today amongst moral people than it was 50 years ago. Only difference is we have more perverts holding public office and trying to force it down our throats.

I wonder how many pedophiles are holding public office and how long before they start marching in the streets and holding pedophilia pride day. I'll bet Disney World will be first to host pedophile pride week. :upeyes:
Agree.
What amazes me is the gays and now peds think their way of life is natural and normal.:upeyes:
It is not.

janice6
07-06-2012, 21:59
And the pedos will tell you with a straight face that the only reason a kid can't consent is that repressive bigots like you say so. The state put the age of consent where it is, the state can put the age of consent back where it used to be...which was in the neighborhood of 10 yoa when the country was founded.


Bad things happen when you reject morality as a legitimate basis for legislation and conduct.



That was when many people died of old age at 40.

(Gravestones at Colonial Williamsburg)


Nowadays, at 25% of expected life span consent would be around 20 YO.

certifiedfunds
07-06-2012, 22:28
Would a 30-06 be cheaper? :supergrin:

KCl is very cheap.

30-06 is getting pricey.

Both could be reloaded so.....go with whatever you have handy.

GAFinch
07-06-2012, 23:41
There's a reason that left wing activists push for sex ed in middle schools and elementary schools...to encourage sexual activity among kids and eventually get it socially acceptable since it's so commonplace.

NAMBLA-type groups have had several close ties with gay advocacy groups over the decades. The money and power of the gay agenda machine can easily be thrown into polygamy and pedophilia causes.

nmk
07-07-2012, 00:18
Smells like dinosaurs.


Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

Gunhaver
07-07-2012, 00:35
Most people are NOT rational.

What is the difference between society's acceptance of gays and society's acceptance of pedophiles?

Name one difference that can't be done away with at the whim of public opinion.

Laws can be changed. Society's attitudes can be changed.
Standards of decency and morality can, and do, change.

First it was same sex marriage. Is marriage between an adult and a child next?

All it will take is just a little tweaking or adjustment of society's attitude and a few legal changes, and it's a done deal.

Most people are smart enough to understand that when two consenting adults have sex it's none of their business. Try to convince them that their child should also be allowed to freely go off in the creepy van with the stranger they just met and I bet you can expect some serious resistance.

You guys have really gone off the deep end with this one.

G29Reload
07-07-2012, 00:39
And some people still don't understand the idea of consenting adults. Luckily those people are a minority.

Two adults can consent to molest a kid. Or rob a bank together.
Hopefully those are a minority, but I wouldn't get my hopes up.

Homosexuality was considered a mental illness and only political pressure changed that. Not facts on the ground.
There's a reason why every major religion on the planet condemns it.

Even prisoners know what to do with child molesters. Some things are just understood.

G29Reload
07-07-2012, 00:44
A thread comparing homosexuality to pedophilia...

Stay classy GT!

:wavey:

Its not much a of a stretch and an awful lot of people reach the same conclusion.

Used to be, if you were found to be gay you were barred by law from teaching in the classroom. Probably isnt' now.

It still should be that way. I wouldn't want my kids around that mindset or behavior. Deviants wanting to be around kids are really disturbing.

happyguy
07-07-2012, 05:26
All that does not make much sense or change the fact a kid can't consent a adult can.




....


But what if the child really really really wants to have sex with the pedophile?

What gives you the right to stand between them and their pursuit of happiness?



Regards,
Happyguy :)

JBnTX
07-07-2012, 06:35
You guys have really gone off the deep end with this one.


Get back to us in about 10 years when states are lowering the legal age of consent, there's pedophile "pride" marches in major US cities, and the democrat party is supporting this new found block of liberal voters.

eracer
07-07-2012, 06:47
If the legal age of consent was lowered to, let's say 12 years old, would you have any problem with a 45 year old man marrying a 12 year old boy?

Isn't that just another same sex marriage?

A simple law change can make it all legal, just like it did for the gays.If the legal age of consent was lowered to, let's say 12 years old, would you have any problem with a 45 year old man marrying a 12 year old GIRL?

Isn't that just another MARRIAGE?

A simple law change can make it all legal, just like it did for the gays.

That wouldn't be acceptable in this country either.

I love how you haters are ignoring the fact that there is far more heterosexual child abuse than homosexual child abuse. Ban uncles, and swim coaches, and priests if you want to try stop deviant individuals.

Equating gays with pedophiles is - like gunhaver said - WAY off deep end.

RC-RAMIE
07-07-2012, 06:52
The mindset of the modern conservative, government should control and ban what I find offensive but not what liberals find offensive.

If people really can't tell the difference between what two adults consent to do and rape of a child. To think they are equal or that homosexuality marriage should be stopped to save the kids from pedophiles and then to argue for smaller government in a different post is simply amazing.


....

2@low8
07-07-2012, 07:56
Real simple and real straight-forward: I think that in my lifetime, our government will LOWER the age of consent and make crap like this legal. Then all of your arguments about age of consent go away and then it is boiled down to a moral issue where decent folk find it reprehensible and liberal people find it an "alternative lifestyle."

Sam Spade
07-07-2012, 09:08
Equating gays with pedophiles is - like gunhaver said - WAY off deep end.

NOT doing that.

Instead, I am pointing out that the arguments used to lobby for normalization of gay rights are fully functional in the normalization of pedophile rights.

You're shortsighted if you think they're not, and won't be used. And your attempt to argue against pedos will hold the same weight as "gays have the same right to marry a member of the opposite sex as straight people do".

Ruble Noon
07-07-2012, 09:12
If the legal age of consent was lowered to, let's say 12 years old, would you have any problem with a 45 year old man marrying a 12 year old GIRL?

Isn't that just another MARRIAGE?

A simple law change can make it all legal, just like it did for the gays.

That wouldn't be acceptable in this country either.

I love how you haters are ignoring the fact that there is far more heterosexual child abuse than homosexual child abuse. Ban uncles, and swim coaches, and priests if you want to try stop deviant individuals.

Equating gays with pedophiles is - like gunhaver said - WAY off deep end.

You are overlooking the fact that one faction is trying to legitimize/ legalize their pedophilia.

PawDog
07-07-2012, 09:13
How soon some forget the issues related to Michael Jackson. The entire world knew he was an unconvicted pedophile, yet he was deified and cherished as a saint by his fan base, before and after death.

I've never understood how society can simply over look a celebrities illegal fetishes, as too often occurs.

Cavalry Doc
07-07-2012, 09:22
If the legal age of consent was lowered to, let's say 12 years old, would you have any problem with a 45 year old man marrying a 12 year old GIRL?

Isn't that just another MARRIAGE?

A simple law change can make it all legal, just like it did for the gays.

That wouldn't be acceptable in this country either.

I love how you haters are ignoring the fact that there is far more heterosexual child abuse than homosexual child abuse. Ban uncles, and swim coaches, and priests if you want to try stop deviant individuals.

Equating gays with pedophiles is - like gunhaver said - WAY off deep end.

Pedophiles are both gay and straight. And whatever it takes, children should be protected from them. No different than shooting coyote's and whacking rattlesnakes that hang around pre-school playgrounds to me.


As the pedophiles don't have much support in the straight community, some of them have latched on and even infiltrated the gay community supporting organizations to try to get their own agenda married to the gay agenda, not a lot unlike libertarians becoming republicans.

No offense meant to the libertarians, it's just a good comparison, of a group that is more extreme, joining one that they have a few things in common with. Oh, and I agree with the libertarians that the Republican party needs to be drug kicking and screaming back to the right.

JFrame
07-07-2012, 09:28
Pedophiles are both gay and straight. And whatever it takes, children should be protected from them. No different than shooting coyote's and whacking rattlesnakes that hang around pre-school playgrounds to me.


As the pedophiles don't have much support in the straight community, some of them have latched on and even infiltrated the gay community supporting organizations to try to get their own agenda married to the gay agenda, not a lot unlike libertarians becoming republicans.

No offense meant to the libertarians, it's just a good comparison, of a group that is more extreme, joining one that they have a few things in common with. Oh, and I agree with the libertarians that the Republican party needs to be drug kicking and screaming back to the right.


Interesting points, Doc...It also brings to mind the gay rights movement latching on to the civil rights movement of the 60's -- which offends many African-Americans no end...


.

JBnTX
07-07-2012, 09:30
I love how you haters are ignoring the fact that there is far more heterosexual child abuse than homosexual child abuse...


That's about to change in this country as homosexuals gain more and more access to children.

Next, the pedophiles will have their turn.
It's starting already.

Ruble Noon
07-07-2012, 11:13
As the pedophiles don't have much support in the straight community, some of them have latched on and even infiltrated the gay community supporting organizations to try to get their own agenda married to the gay agenda, not a lot unlike libertarians becoming republicans.

No offense meant to the libertarians, it's just a good comparison, of a group that is more extreme, joining one that they have a few things in common with. Oh, and I agree with the libertarians that the Republican party needs to be drug kicking and screaming back to the right.


:shame:

Cavalry Doc
07-07-2012, 11:38
:shame:

What? :dunno:


Read a bit......

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?382398-Why-are-we-Republicans

Skyhook
07-07-2012, 11:50
You appear a little slow on the deep sarcasm with which I speak. Let me make my personal opinion clear:

If and when society (more specifically, those in political power) deems something to be an acceptable activity, they will stop at nothing until they achieve their goal of total acceptance.

50 (just picking a number) years ago, gay marriage was not on the radar of those in political power, in fact, I would bet that it was the third rail, just don't talk about it. Fast forward to today and you have the President of the USA espousing Gay marriage.

The right set of circumstances come into play and the right people get elected and I can easliy see how "minor attracted persons" could become a protected class of people.

This country is becoming a sewer of depravity right before our eyes and I fear that it is too far gone to be reclaimed.

"If and when society (more specifically, those in political power) deems something to be an acceptable activity, they will stop at nothing until they achieve their goal of total acceptance."

Didn't the present commander (kommander) in chief just order all military groups to actively celebrate- celebrate! Gay Pride month?

:upeyes:

G29Reload
07-07-2012, 11:54
The mindset of the modern conservative, government should control and ban what I find offensive but not what liberals find offensive.

Because liberals are only offended by that which is not perverse or anything else normal, but just love deviancy. Sucks to be them.



If people really can't tell the difference between what two adults consent to do and rape of a child.

....

If what? You didn't finish your sentence. If they can't tell, WHAT?

To think they are equal or that homosexuality marriage should be stopped to save the kids from pedophiles and then to argue for smaller government in a different post is simply amazing.


Nothing amazing about it, and your premise is wrong.

Does NOT require larger government. A few more jail cells, maybe. Just keep some degree of morality in our laws.

Marriage is between one man and one woman.
Keep your hands off the kids.

Pretty simple, unless you are a liberal. In which case you're screaming for an election, an attorney and a lawsuit and the ability to shove your freak down everyone elses throat and make them endure your deviance. Don't want you handling my food, teaching my kids, standing in line with you at the bank, on my tv programs, anchoring news programs, influencing anything that matters. Just go the F away. Preferably to a mental institution where you can deal with your self loathing narcissism.

And for the simple minded who don't get that, its the way our country and society have operated for OUR ENTIRE EXISTENCE UP TO A COUPLE OF YEARS AGO.

My goodness, how did we ever survive without pride parades, perverts, every third character on tv being gay, men marrying men, people demanding recognition of perversion, and the slippery slope now screaming for legalization of pedophila because its their "right" to do "whatever we want".

No, its not.

countrygun
07-07-2012, 12:11
I'm not proving anything. Merely pointing out that not much has really changed from 50 years ago.

Except that bigotry in the name of moral superiority is being forced further and further underground - where it belongs.


FAIL!

50 years ago, or earlier, do you think NAMBLA could have been so public? That alone is a good reason to return to and earlier time when they could have been stomped well and proper withiout a lot of questions being asked.

50 years ago was a better place than today.

Moral superiority and belief in it is actually a good thing, unless of course you have no morals, or you just make them up on the spot.

Cavalry Doc
07-07-2012, 12:19
I'm not proving anything. Merely pointing out that not much has really changed from 50 years ago.

Except that bigotry in the name of moral superiority is being forced further and further underground - where it belongs.

So, answer me this.....

Should the adult pedophiles win, and gain the right to seduce prepubescent children, and engage in sexual activity with them?

Next question, do you have children or grandchildren?

RC-RAMIE
07-07-2012, 12:42
Because liberals are only offended by that which is not perverse or anything else normal, but just love deviancy. Sucks to be them.



If what? You didn't finish your sentence. If they can't tell, WHAT?



Nothing amazing about it, and your premise is wrong.

Does NOT require larger government. A few more jail cells, maybe. Just keep some degree of morality in our laws.

Marriage is between one man and one woman.
Keep your hands off the kids.

.

Government shouldn't be envolved in marriage in the first place to use government to define marriage between one man and woman is wanting for a bigger government.





....

Cavalry Doc
07-07-2012, 12:53
Government shouldn't be envolved in marriage in the first place to use government to define marriage between one man and woman is wanting for a bigger government.





....

Go for the civil unions with all the same benefits. It'll be better in the short and long term.

PawDog
07-07-2012, 13:38
Originally Posted by eracer

I love how you haters are ignoring the fact that there is far more heterosexual child abuse than homosexual child abuse...

This is completely and factually untrue, another propaganda piece put out by the gay agenda supporters that has zero facts to support it.

There are MORE unreported homosexual assaults by pedophiles than heterosexual assaults reported. the recent Sandusky case is evidence of this, as there are many victims of the pervert over the years who did not report the rapes out of fear and embarrassment.

G29Reload
07-07-2012, 13:42
Government shouldn't be envolved in marriage in the first place to use government to define marriage between one man and woman is wanting for a bigger government.



Utterly wrong and a failed premise. Government need not enlarge. We're talking about rules that have existed for the life of the nation. Doesn't require another building. Not a one.

Marriage is between one man and one woman
Keep your hands off the kids.

I don't see any extra government here at all. You don't know what youre' talking about.

JFrame
07-07-2012, 13:45
Go for the civil unions with all the same benefits. It'll be better in the short and long term.


I wish I had a recording of an interview that Chris Plant had a few years ago with a spokesman for GOProud. This spokesman articulated intelligently and effectively the points as to why the interests of the gay community aligned much more with the Republican platform than the opposition -- all based on economic reality and pragmatism.


.

maxsnafu
07-07-2012, 14:10
We do understand that Homosexuality and pedophiles, are two different things?

This makes me wonder what the rate of child abuse is among homosexual men vs. the rate in a similar sized group of straight men. Anybody know?

Gunhaver
07-07-2012, 14:21
Everybody that's all hysterical about pedophiles gaining public acceptance seems to be happily overlooking one very big point. People hate pedophiles. As somebody pointed out, even prisoners know what to do with a pedophile.

The gay community found acceptance because there were enough intelligent people that weren't gay that looked at the situation and realized that if a person wanted to be gay then they weren't affected at all so why not? If it were only the gay people themselves that were pushing for it then the sodomy laws would have never been overturned, let alone states legalizing gay marriage.

But who sympathizes with the child molesters? Who talks about the plight of the pedophile and compares it to the civil rights movement? Nobody except them. Everyone you know has the same reaction to finding out that some weirdo has touched a kid.

Gay consenting adults= no victim. Adult molesting a child= obvious victim. That's not going to change and this hysteria over it is more about the lost battle against gays and the losers desire to continue to ineffectively equate gays with pedophiles than it is about any real danger.

UtahGlocker
07-07-2012, 14:32
This is completely and factually untrue, another propaganda piece put out by the gay agenda supporters that has zero facts to support it.

There are MORE unreported homosexual assaults by pedophiles than heterosexual assaults reported. the recent Sandusky case is evidence of this, as there are many victims of the pervert over the years who did not report the rapes out of fear and embarrassment.

Stop spreading misinformation and lies. Obviously you don't have any references to studies for unreported homosexual assaults compared to heterosexual assaults because they are "unreported" or in other words "unknown". This makes your statement complete hogwash and an indication of your bigotry against homosexuals.

Facts About Homosexuality and Child Molestation (http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/facts_molestation.html)

countrygun
07-07-2012, 14:34
Everybody that's all hysterical about pedophiles gaining public acceptance seems to be happily overlooking one very big point. People hate pedophiles. As somebody pointed out, even prisoners know what to do with a pedophile.

The gay community found acceptance because there were enough intelligent people that weren't gay that looked at the situation and realized that if a person wanted to be gay then they weren't affected at all so why not? If it were only the gay people themselves that were pushing for it then the sodomy laws would have never been overturned, let alone states legalizing gay marriage.

But who sympathizes with the child molesters? Who talks about the plight of the pedophile and compares it to the civil rights movement? Nobody except them. Everyone you know has the same reaction to finding out that some weirdo has touched a kid.

Gay consenting adults= no victim. Adult molesting a child= obvious victim. That's not going to change and this hysteria over it is more about the lost battle against gays and the losers desire to continue to ineffectively equate gays with pedophiles than it is about any real danger.

Would you kindly explain how NAMBLA isn't promoting homosexual child abuse? (you, know, the whole "Man-Boy" thing)

That pretty much puts the "leading" or "most prominent" group pushing for "normalizing" pedophilia in the "homosexual" camp.

It makes it very difficult to remain neutral on this issue when supporters of gay rights deny this fact.

UtahGlocker
07-07-2012, 14:46
Utterly wrong and a failed premise. Government need not enlarge. We're talking about rules that have existed for the life of the nation. Doesn't require another building. Not a one.

Marriage is between one man and one woman
Keep your hands off the kids.

I don't see any extra government here at all. You don't know what youre' talking about.

Laws restricting homosexuals from marriage is government control over homosexuals (i.e. bigger government) and many laws have been passed recently and were not in effect since the country's origin as you claim. Homosexuals are law abiding, tax paying citizens just like their heterosexual counterparts. Restrictions over a group of citizens by the government is bigger government. Laws have been passed to enforce marriage restrictions, not laws rescinded. I would have thought this to be obvious.

Let me put it as simply as I can:

More freedom and fewer laws = smaller government
Less freedom and more laws = bigger government

People asking for smaller government while at the same time asking their government to restrict marriage to heterosexuals are hypocrits, IMHO.

maxsnafu
07-07-2012, 14:49
Facts About Homosexuality and Child Molestation (http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/facts_molestation.html)

This reads like biased, Leftwing agitprop.

UtahGlocker
07-07-2012, 14:59
Would you kindly explain how NAMBLA isn't promoting homosexual child abuse? (you, know, the whole "Man-Boy" thing)

That pretty much puts the "leading" or "most prominent" group pushing for "normalizing" pedophilia in the "homosexual" camp.

It makes it very difficult to remain neutral on this issue when supporters of gay rights deny this fact.

Are you suggesting most homosexual people don't despise and denounce NAMBLA? NAMBLA is not allowed to participate in Gay Pride events. Your comparison of NAMBLA to the gay community is like comparing Christianity to the Westboro Baptist Church known for it's extreme hatred. Both comparisons are inappropriate for drawing conclusions for typical members of each group and should not be made unless trying to be inflamatory.

UtahGlocker
07-07-2012, 15:01
This reads like biased, Leftwing agitprop.

Feel free to send the university Bible quotes to prove them wrong. :upeyes:

UtahGlocker
07-07-2012, 15:05
Everybody that's all hysterical about pedophiles gaining public acceptance seems to be happily overlooking one very big point. People hate pedophiles. As somebody pointed out, even prisoners know what to do with a pedophile.

The gay community found acceptance because there were enough intelligent people that weren't gay that looked at the situation and realized that if a person wanted to be gay then they weren't affected at all so why not? If it were only the gay people themselves that were pushing for it then the sodomy laws would have never been overturned, let alone states legalizing gay marriage.

But who sympathizes with the child molesters? Who talks about the plight of the pedophile and compares it to the civil rights movement? Nobody except them. Everyone you know has the same reaction to finding out that some weirdo has touched a kid.

Gay consenting adults= no victim. Adult molesting a child= obvious victim. That's not going to change and this hysteria over it is more about the lost battle against gays and the losers desire to continue to ineffectively equate gays with pedophiles than it is about any real danger.

Well said. +1

countrygun
07-07-2012, 16:08
Are you suggesting most homosexual people don't despise and denounce NAMBLA? NAMBLA is not allowed to participate in Gay Pride events. Your comparison of NAMBLA to the gay community is like comparing Christianity to the Westboro Baptist Church known for it's extreme hatred. Both comparisons are inappropriate for drawing conclusions for typical members of each group and should not be made unless trying to be inflamatory.

I have a long history of not giving a **** what other adults do as long as they keep it to themselves. But the "Ignore the man behind the curtain" smokescreen rhetoric is getting very close to starting to give a ****.


Well, is it or is it not, by far, the most highly visible pro-pediphilia group?

and is it or is it not, encouraging homosexual pedophilia?


Don't try and throw the Westboro bone out there. They have been actively "counter-demonstrated" by many Christians.

How many "gay" organizations have openly protested or counter-demonstrated AGAINST NAMBLA?

Typical liberal tactic on your part.

"It disagrees with our agenda, therefore it is inflamatory"

or

"Racist"

or

"Hate speech"

Label what you don't want to hear it, to silence it.

PawDog
07-07-2012, 16:25
Stop spreading misinformation and lies. Obviously you don't have any references to studies for unreported homosexual assaults compared to heterosexual assaults because they are "unreported" or in other words "unknown". This makes your statement complete hogwash and an indication of your bigotry against homosexuals.

Facts About Homosexuality and Child Molestation (http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/facts_molestation.html)

Prove it. Without linking to more biased "rainbow" propaganda.

After more than 30 years working in LE and corrections, I noted there is a much higher rate of homosexual pedophiles than hetero.

And, your comments here are simply more of the obvious brainwashed mentality that perpetuates and supports the actions of twisted, sick groups like NAMBLA.

This makes your statement complete hogwash and an indication of your bigotry against heterosexuals.

Cavalry Doc
07-07-2012, 16:36
I do believe that most homosexuals are repulsed by pedophiles, but there have been connections in the past, and there probably still are, but the pedophiles are likely keeping a low profile.


NAMBLA
Relations with LGBT organizations

The first documented opposition from LGBT organizations to NAMBLA occurred in the conference that organized the first gay march on Washington in 1979.[22]

In 1980 a group called the "Lesbian Caucus – Lesbian & Gay Pride March Committee" distributed a hand-out urging women to split from the annual New York City Gay Pride March because the organizing committee had supposedly been dominated by NAMBLA and its supporters.[22] The next year, after some lesbians threatened to picket, the Cornell University gay group Gay PAC (Gay People at Cornell) rescinded its invitation to NAMBLA founder David Thorstad to be the keynote speaker at the annual May Gay Festival.[22] In the following years, gay rights groups attempted to block NAMBLA’s participation in gay pride parades, prompting leading gay rights figure Harry Hay to wear a sign proclaiming "NAMBLA walks with me" as he participated in a 1986 gay pride march in Los Angeles.[23]

By the mid-1980s, NAMBLA was virtually alone in its positions and found itself politically isolated. Gay rights organizations, burdened by accusations of child recruitment and child abuse, had abandoned the radicalism of their early years and had "retreat[ed] from the idea of a more inclusive politics,"[24] opting instead to appeal more to the mainstream. Support for "groups perceived as being on the fringe of the gay community," such as NAMBLA, vanished in the process.[24]

In 1994 the Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD) adopted a "Position Statement Regarding NAMBLA" saying GLAAD "deplores the North American Man Boy Love Association's (NAMBLA) goals, which include advocacy for sex between adult men and boys and the removal of legal protections for children. These goals constitute a form of child abuse and are repugnant to GLAAD." Also in 1994 the Board of Directors of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force (NGLTF) adopted a resolution on NAMBLA that said: "NGLTF condemns all abuse of minors, both sexual and any other kind, perpetrated by adults. Accordingly, NGLTF condemns the organizational goals of NAMBLA and any other such organization."

In 1994 NAMBLA, along with many members of the Gay Liberation Front participated in the "The Spirit of Stonewall" march which commenorated the 1969 Stonewall Riots.[25]

In 1994, Pat Califia[26] argued that politics played an important role in the gay community's rejection of NAMBLA, however, Califia has since completely repudiated his earlier support for NAMBLA.[27]
The International Lesbian and Gay Association controversy

In 1993, the International Lesbian and Gay Association achieved United Nations consultative status. NAMBLA's membership in ILGA drew heavy criticism and caused the suspension of ILGA. Many gay organizations called for the ILGA to dissolve ties with NAMBLA. Republican Senator Jesse Helms proposed a bill to withhold $119 million in U.N. contributions until U.S. President Bill Clinton could certify that "no UN agency grants any official status, accreditation, or recognition to any organization which promotes, condones, or seeks the legalization of pedophilia, that is, the sexual abuse of children". The bill was unanimously approved by Congress and signed into law by Clinton in April 1994.

IN 1994, ILGA expelled NAMBLA and two other groups (MARTIJN and Project Truth) because they were judged to be "groups whose predominant aim is to support or promote pedophilia." Although ILGA removed NAMBLA, the U.N. reversed its decision to grant ILGA special consultative status. Repeated attempts by ILGA to reacquire special status with the U.N. were finally successful in 2006.[28]

Gregory King of the Human Rights Campaign later said that "NAMBLA is not a gay organization ... They are not part of our community and we thoroughly reject their efforts to insinuate that pedophilia is an issue related to gay and lesbian civil rights."[29] NAMBLA responded by claiming that "man/boy love is by definition homosexual," that "man/boy lovers are part of the gay movement and central to gay history and culture," and that "homosexuals denying that it is 'not gay' to be attracted to adolescent boys are just as ludicrous as heterosexuals saying it's 'not heterosexual' to be attracted to adolescent girls."[29]

JBnTX
07-07-2012, 18:03
If you think there's no link between homosexuality and pedophilia, then you'd better think again.


Study shows link between homosexuality and pedophilia
http://www.theinterim.com/2002/sept/02study.html

A new study by Dr. Timothy J. Dailey and the Washington D.C.-based Family Research Council recently confirmed what police and psychiatrists have known for decades: a definitive link exists between male homosexuality and pedophilia.

The FRC study also demonstrates, with a wealth of anecdotal evidence, that pedophile themes can be found throughout "mainstream" gay literature,

According to Homosexuality and Child Sexual Abuse, pedophiles have long existed as a subculture within the gay rights movement.


"There's a distinct quality about male homosexuality that gay men tend to be attracted to young, good-looking guys. Another part of pedophilia's appeal is the power the pedophile feels in manipulating the boy. It's a combination of things."

DustyJacket
07-07-2012, 18:06
... socially-accepting term: minor attracted persons."

..

How about "lead attracting persons" ?

DustyJacket
07-07-2012, 18:15
I have been working with abused children since late 2005.
I even go to court with them an hear the whole story. (Yuck)

About 14 out of each 15 cases my group has been involved with, involved hetero perps.

The others were Bi.
( I did not count the purely non-sexual violence abuse cases).
Anecdotal evidence, sure. But accurate for the Kansas City area.

UtahGlocker
07-07-2012, 18:17
Prove it. Without linking to more biased "rainbow" propaganda.

After more than 30 years working in LE and corrections, I noted there is a much higher rate of homosexual pedophiles than hetero.

And, your comments here are simply more of the obvious brainwashed mentality that perpetuates and supports the actions of twisted, sick groups like NAMBLA.

This makes your statement complete hogwash and an indication of your bigotry against heterosexuals.

Call findings posted by an acredited university what you will, but I'm not promoting statements that are by definition unknowable or believe that my own unscientific observations amount to anything but biased observation. You, sir, are doing that.

DustyJacket
07-07-2012, 18:18
I do believe that most homosexuals are repulsed by pedophiles,...

One of my brothers is gay.
He has had the same partner for over 20 years.
They don't swing. They are monogamous.

And they detest pedophilia as much as I do.

UtahGlocker
07-07-2012, 18:26
I have a long history of not giving a **** what other adults do as long as they keep it to themselves. But the "Ignore the man behind the curtain" smokescreen rhetoric is getting very close to starting to give a ****.


Well, is it or is it not, by far, the most highly visible pro-pediphilia group?

and is it or is it not, encouraging homosexual pedophilia?


Don't try and throw the Westboro bone out there. They have been actively "counter-demonstrated" by many Christians.

How many "gay" organizations have openly protested or counter-demonstrated AGAINST NAMBLA?

Typical liberal tactic on your part.

"It disagrees with our agenda, therefore it is inflamatory"

or

"Racist"

or

"Hate speech"

Label what you don't want to hear it, to silence it.

Cavalry Doc posted some of the cases where the LGBT community has actively opposed NAMBLA and as I stated previously NAMBLA has not been permitted to participate in Gay Pride activities to my knowledge which indicates wide spread rejection of NAMBLA by the LGBT community in my opinion.

Furthermore, the use of Westboro to make my point is an apt comparison. You have not demonstrated wide acceptance by the homosexual community for NAMBLA and others have demonstrated the opposite. Trying to tie the LGBT community to NAMBLA is like trying to tie Westboro to the rest of Christianity.

Gunhaver
07-07-2012, 18:30
Would you kindly explain how NAMBLA isn't promoting homosexual child abuse? (you, know, the whole "Man-Boy" thing)

That pretty much puts the "leading" or "most prominent" group pushing for "normalizing" pedophilia in the "homosexual" camp.

It makes it very difficult to remain neutral on this issue when supporters of gay rights deny this fact.

I don't think anybody said that NAMBLA wasn't homosexual. So some people want to take a legal activity and push it to the point of actually harming people to their own selfish ends. How is that ammo against all gay people?

How will that logic work out for you when a group of gun owners start talking about their legal right to shoot kids because the hunters are allowed to shoot animals? Should that count as a strike against all gun owners and hunters or does society just universally agree it's a bad idea and put the nut jobs back in their place?

UtahGlocker
07-07-2012, 18:38
If you think there's no link between homosexuality and pedophilia, then you'd better think again.


Study shows link between homosexuality and pedophilia
http://www.theinterim.com/2002/sept/02study.html

A new study by Dr. Timothy J. Dailey and the Washington D.C.-based Family Research Council recently confirmed what police and psychiatrists have known for decades: a definitive link exists between male homosexuality and pedophilia.

The FRC study also demonstrates, with a wealth of anecdotal evidence, that pedophile themes can be found throughout "mainstream" gay literature,

According to Homosexuality and Child Sexual Abuse, pedophiles have long existed as a subculture within the gay rights movement.


"There's a distinct quality about male homosexuality that gay men tend to be attracted to young, good-looking guys. Another part of pedophilia's appeal is the power the pedophile feels in manipulating the boy. It's a combination of things."

Earlier I posted a link (http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/facts_molestation.html) to a page at an accredited university that includes debunking the garbage findings of this study by the FRC hate group. Perhaps you missed it?

Gunhaver
07-07-2012, 18:42
If you think there's no link between homosexuality and pedophilia, then you'd better think again.


Study shows link between homosexuality and pedophilia
http://www.theinterim.com/2002/sept/02study.html

A new study by Dr. Timothy J. Dailey and the Washington D.C.-based Family Research Council recently confirmed what police and psychiatrists have known for decades: a definitive link exists between male homosexuality and pedophilia.

The FRC study also demonstrates, with a wealth of anecdotal evidence, that pedophile themes can be found throughout "mainstream" gay literature,

According to Homosexuality and Child Sexual Abuse, pedophiles have long existed as a subculture within the gay rights movement.


"There's a distinct quality about male homosexuality that gay men tend to be attracted to young, good-looking guys. Another part of pedophilia's appeal is the power the pedophile feels in manipulating the boy. It's a combination of things."

Guns are very prevalent among the thug mindset. Thugs like guns and the perceived power it gives them. Therefore the gun community with their endless support of gun rights, pushing to keep background checks out of private sales, advocating unlimited magazine capacities and constantly talking on forums and gun shops and shooting ranges about how "Cool" and "Baddass" their guns look are encouraging the thugs and must be stopped.

Somebody takes something harmless and legal that you like to a harmful and illegal extreme and it's all your fault?

countrygun
07-07-2012, 18:47
I don't think anybody said that NAMBLA wasn't homosexual. So some people want to take a legal activity and push it to the point of actually harming people to their own selfish ends. How is that ammo against all gay people?

How will that logic work out for you when a group of gun owners start talking about their legal right to shoot kids because the hunters are allowed to shoot animals? Should that count as a strike against all gun owners and hunters or does society just universally agree it's a bad idea and put the nut jobs back in their place?

It wasn't "ammo" against anyone, except those that deny it is homosexual, just as other forms are hetrosexual.

There is a great cry from certain folks "that isn't homosexual, it's another category" .

As to you little gun owners example, I suppose when the City of San Francisco recognizes the right of kiddie shooters to meet in public buildings, then I'll worry.

Cavalry Doc
07-07-2012, 19:23
One of my brothers is gay.
He has had the same partner for over 20 years.
They don't swing. They are monogamous.

And they detest pedophilia as much as I do.

Good for him. It's hard to find a soul mate. I'm lucky I found Mrs. Cavalry Doc, and wish everyone could be lucky enough to find someone they could share their life with.

Cavalry Doc
07-07-2012, 19:27
I don't think anybody said that NAMBLA wasn't homosexual. So some people want to take a legal activity and push it to the point of actually harming people to their own selfish ends. How is that ammo against all gay people?

How will that logic work out for you when a group of gun owners start talking about their legal right to shoot kids because the hunters are allowed to shoot animals? Should that count as a strike against all gun owners and hunters or does society just universally agree it's a bad idea and put the nut jobs back in their place?

WTF?? Where do you come up with some of this stuff. NAMBLA exists, I haven't heard of any hunters that want to hunt children. Show me an organization with a website and a charter. Now there might be a group of hunters willing to declare open season on child predators, gay and straight. No limit, no season sounds cool.

Cavalry Doc
07-07-2012, 19:30
Guns are very prevalent among the thug mindset. Thugs like guns and the perceived power it gives them. Therefore the gun community with their endless support of gun rights, pushing to keep background checks out of private sales, advocating unlimited magazine capacities and constantly talking on forums and gun shops and shooting ranges about how "Cool" and "Baddass" their guns look are encouraging the thugs and must be stopped.

Somebody takes something harmless and legal that you like to a harmful and illegal extreme and it's all your fault?

Uhhhh. Do you get your American Rifleman every month? Ever read it? There already is a background check, the gun rights folks wanted to make it instant, and they did. That makes it nice and fast.

You are showing some new colors here, are they the base coat?

countrygun
07-07-2012, 19:40
Uhhhh. Do you get your American Rifleman every month? Ever read it? There already is a background check, the gun rights folks wanted to make it instant, and they did. That makes it nice and fast.

You are showing some new colors here, are they the base coat?


He put up such a weak analogy (comparing firearms to homosexuality? I could fill a page on that stupidity) that I wonder if defending homosexuality was really his purpose, or,...maybe....that is an excuse to make silly references to gun ownership.

Cavalry Doc
07-07-2012, 19:47
He put up such a weak analogy (comparing firearms to homosexuality? I could fill a page on that stupidity) that I wonder if defending homosexuality was really his purpose, or,...maybe....that is an excuse to make silly references to gun ownership.

Meh, I don't have a problem with him defending homosexuality. Among consenting adults, that's a persons private business to me. But there are links, and I fully support the gay community rooting out and exposing the pedophiles hiding in their ranks. Same goes for the hetero community.

countrygun
07-07-2012, 19:51
Meh, I don't have a problem with him defending homosexuality. Among consenting adults, that's a persons private business to me. But there are links, and I fully support the gay community rooting out and exposing the pedophiles hiding in their ranks. Same goes for the hetero community.

I agree, but try to use gun ownership as an analogy was pretty lame. So lame that it stands out it a way

Gunhaver
07-07-2012, 20:18
It wasn't "ammo" against anyone, except those that deny it is homosexual, just as other forms are hetrosexual.

There is a great cry from certain folks "that isn't homosexual, it's another category" .

As to you little gun owners example, I suppose when the City of San Francisco recognizes the right of kiddie shooters to meet in public buildings, then I'll worry.

If NAMBLA members are molesting children during their meetings then they will be arrested when found out. Just like drugs are illegal but you really can't arrest people for meeting to work towards legalizing drugs unless you catch them in possession, you know, actually breaking the law. Until then they have a right to discuss whatever they like aside from flat out terrorism or plotting murder. I'd even say that even catching them plotting to find some kids to molest rather than just discussing how to get their agenda legal would be grounds for arrest.

The same is true for gun owners. They can meet and talk about it and do whatever they like within the confines of the law even if some people find gun ownership so appalling and dangerous that they can't believe those wacky gun people aren't all just rounded up and locked away. Once they start planning to use their guns in criminal activity they cross the line.

Gunhaver
07-07-2012, 20:22
He put up such a weak analogy (comparing firearms to homosexuality? I could fill a page on that stupidity) that I wonder if defending homosexuality was really his purpose, or,...maybe....that is an excuse to make silly references to gun ownership.

Go ahead and fill your page. Both are things that adults can do and if you don't like it then too bad. If they aren't hurting you then you can STFU. Take that analogy apart if you like.

Was my agenda to defend homosexuality or bring down gun ownership? Well, you can find me all over this forum defending both.

Gunhaver
07-07-2012, 20:28
Uhhhh. Do you get your American Rifleman every month? Ever read it? There already is a background check, the gun rights folks wanted to make it instant, and they did. That makes it nice and fast.

You are showing some new colors here, are they the base coat?

What new colors? Is there no more private FTF sales without a background check? Did most gum owners not fight against that?

Gunhaver
07-07-2012, 20:35
WTF?? Where do you come up with some of this stuff. NAMBLA exists, I haven't heard of any hunters that want to hunt children. Show me an organization with a website and a charter. Now there might be a group of hunters willing to declare open season on child predators, gay and straight. No limit, no season sounds cool.

It doesn't frickin, matter what exists and what doesn't. This whole topic is based on a wacky slippery slope argument so why not push it one further to show how stupid it all is? My whole point is that when folks start seriously talking about hurting children then society takes notice. This is a non-issue. Nobody is taking them seriously or even beginning to consider hearing them out on their "right" to have sex with kids. NAMBLA isn't even on anybody's radar except for nuts that keep insisting that they're relevant in the war on homosexuality.

I think you're just a tad to used to arguing with me in RI so you want to jump my case here.

countrygun
07-07-2012, 20:37
Go ahead and fill your page. Both are things that adults can do and if you don't like it then too bad. If they aren't hurting you then you can STFU. Take that analogy apart if you like.

Was my agenda to defend homosexuality or bring down gun ownership? Well, you can find me all over this forum defending both.


You must then know the obvious differences between gun ownership and homosexuality, but I'll pretend you are ignorant and point out some differences.


Gun owning is definitely a choice, are you saying that homosexuality is too?

Need I point out that the Founders thought the right to keep and bear arms was so crucial to America that they gave it an amendment in the Bill of Rights, homosexuality? not so much.

I could point out other more humorous examples. But all in all, you analogy was lame and just because this is a firearms related forum doesn't mean that you can rrelate every Progressive pr liberal goal to gun ownership.

But, of course I could turn your example around.

Maybe we should consider Federal Regulation and registration and fingerprinting for homosexuals?

If we can place limits on gun ownership, read the FFL form, can we apply them as well?

A bad analogy is always a bad idea.

Cavalry Doc
07-07-2012, 20:48
What new colors? Is there no more private FTF sales without a background check? Did most gum owners not fight against that?

Most gum owners didn't. Private sales are legal. As they should be. I would not make a private sale without going through a dealer. When a gun is gone from me, I want documentation. Funny thing is, I don't have a single one i'd consider selling.

Cavalry Doc
07-07-2012, 20:57
It doesn't frickin, matter what exists and what doesn't. This whole topic is based on a wacky slippery slope argument so why not push it one further to show how stupid it all is? My whole point is that when folks start seriously talking about hurting children then society takes notice. This is a non-issue. Nobody is taking them seriously or even beginning to consider hearing them out on their "right" to have sex with kids. NAMBLA isn't even on anybody's radar except for nuts that keep insisting that they're relevant in the war on homosexuality.

I think you're just a tad to used to arguing with me in RI so you want to jump my case here.


Mind if I quote you on the bold part?

I'm busting your chops because it is ludicrous to protray hunters in that way, as if it were remotely possible. At least try to find a group that is similar, although, with NAMBLA, that may be very difficult.

If you'll look around a bit, you'll notice that I support whatever consenting adults want to do behind closed doors, including homosexuals. Pedophiles have, evidently, started calling for the same pathway to acceptance as the homosexuals have taken. Not their fault. Both homos and heteros need to discover and identify the pedophiles in their midst.

I don't hold grudges, or dislike people that I don't agree with on simple matters. Our conversations in RI have nothing to do with this one, in which for the most part, if you'll notice, I've been agreeing with you.

Jerry
07-07-2012, 20:58
Now there might be a group of hunters willing to declare open season on child predators, gay and straight. No limit, no season sounds cool.

Are we allowed to use bait? :rofl:

No no, bad joke. :embarassed:

Cavalry Doc
07-07-2012, 21:02
Are we allowed to use bate? :rofl:

No no, bad joke. :embarassed:

No live bait, but artificial decoys are OK.

[/sarcasm].

Hunting them is a nice fantasy, but in our system, that's not going to work. I'd be OK with chemical castration and a nice looooonnnngggg prison sentence after the first conviction, and close monitoring. Second problem, even an attempt to be alone with a child, and life in prison is reasonable.

Jerry
07-07-2012, 21:08
Meh, I don't have a problem with him defending homosexuality. Among consenting adults, that's a persons private business to me. But there are links, and I fully support the gay community rooting out and exposing the pedophiles hiding in their ranks. Same goes for the hetero community.

I have no problem with what two "adults" do in private. Problem is they / homosexuals can't seem to keep it private. The flaunting and demanding approval is what I find disgusting.

Cavalry Doc
07-07-2012, 21:14
I have no problem with what two "adults" do in private. Problem is they / homosexuals can't seem to keep it private. The flaunting and demanding approval is what I find disgusting.

Not disgusting, but rude and stupid I could go with. :wavey:

countrygun
07-07-2012, 21:16
Mind if I quote you on the bold part?

I'm busting your chops because it is ludicrous to protray hunters in that way, as if it were remotely possible. At least try to find a group that is similar, although, with NAMBLA, that may be very difficult.

If you'll look around a bit, you'll notice that I support whatever consenting adults want to do behind closed doors, including homosexuals. Pedophiles have, evidently, started calling for the same pathway to acceptance as the homosexuals have taken. Not their fault. Both homos and heteros need to discover and identify the pedophiles in their midst.

I don't hold grudges, or dislike people that I don't agree with on simple matters. Our conversations in RI have nothing to do with this one, in which for the most part, if you'll notice, I've been agreeing with you.


I really didn't see you arguing with him that much at all, he must be a touchy thing.

I am just woefully tired of liberal coming on to gun forums and starting with liberal sentiments and then saying "But what if it was your guns?" and then drawing a ridiculous analogy.
It is just a pattern, and I am sure it is just coincidence....maybe.
Just annoying when they are so bad the poster must be underestimating the reader's intelligence.

countrygun
07-07-2012, 21:18
Are we allowed to use bate? :rofl:

No no, bad joke. :embarassed:


"go away, I'm' bate'in"

Cavalry Doc
07-07-2012, 21:25
What new colors? Is there no more private FTF sales without a background check? Did most gum owners not fight against that?

Forgot to check up again, are you a member of the NRA?

Do you pay dues to any other organizations?

Blast
07-07-2012, 23:50
Now y'all don't offend.:shame:

Hilary Duff - Think Before You Speak ("That's So Gay") Official (HQ) - YouTube



That's so "ghey":whistling:

Jerry
07-08-2012, 00:18
Now y'all don't offend.:shame:

Hilary Duff - Think Before You Speak ("That's So Gay") Official (HQ) - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TVicCD8FmMs)



That's so "ghey":whistling:

Wow! That's so butch. :tongueout: :rofl:

Jerry
07-08-2012, 00:22
Not disgusting, but rude and stupid I could go with. :wavey:

Actually :puking: is pretty much how seeing :aodnsb: in public makes feel. :dunno:

Cavalry Doc
07-08-2012, 00:52
Actually :puking: is pretty much how seeing :aodnsb: in public makes feel. :dunno:

And that's the reason they do it. They know that people that don't want to see that kind of stuff won't like it. Yeah, I'll admit I cringe a little bit seeing two guys kiss, but I was born that way, and I have a right to be accepted for who I am.

I think what they do behind closed doors is none of my business. I'm not against people being gay. But I don't necessarily like seeing heterosexuals swapping spit in public either.

Skyhook
07-08-2012, 07:16
Government shouldn't be envolved in marriage in the first place to use government to define marriage between one man and woman is wanting for a bigger government.





....

Governments have a duty to attempt to provide a secure existence for all members of society and since traditional marriage (mom, dad, kids) is unquestionably the best and most secure environment within which to raise children, governments, as I said, have a DUTY to be involved.

I know that will cause heartburn, angst, and sleepless nights for our progressive membership, but nonetheless, there it is.

NOTE: Traditional marriage (for our progressive folks who do not know) does NOT include crackhead single moms or sperm donor long legged mack-daddies both of whom pop out innocent children and expect Hilary's 'village' to raise them.
Traditional marriage would center about intelligent, loving, responsible, adults unafraid of commitment and who can admit something is bigger than themselves.

JBnTX
07-08-2012, 08:37
Governments have a duty to attempt to provide a secure existence for all members of society and since traditional marriage (mom, dad, kids) is unquestionably the best and most secure environment within which to raise children, governments, as I said, have a DUTY to be involved.

I know that will cause heartburn, angst, and sleepless nights for our progressive membership, but nonetheless, there it is.

NOTE: Traditional marriage (for our progressive folks who do not know) does NOT include crackhead single moms or sperm donor long legged mack-daddies both of whom pop out innocent children and expect Hilary's 'village' to raise them.
Traditional marriage would center about intelligent, loving, responsible, adults unafraid of commitment and who can admit something is bigger than themselves.


Well said and spot on!!!.....:thumbsup::thumbsup:

certifiedfunds
07-08-2012, 09:04
Governments have a duty to attempt to provide a secure existence for all members of society and since traditional marriage (mom, dad, kids) is unquestionably the best and most secure environment within which to raise children, governments, as I said, have a DUTY to be involved.

I know that will cause heartburn, angst, and sleepless nights for our progressive membership, but nonetheless, there it is.

NOTE: Traditional marriage (for our progressive folks who do not know) does NOT include crackhead single moms or sperm donor long legged mack-daddies both of whom pop out innocent children and expect Hilary's 'village' to raise them.
Traditional marriage would center about intelligent, loving, responsible, adults unafraid of commitment and who can admit something is bigger than themselves.

Actually, your view here that government has a "duty" to be involved, is the Progressive one.

I see JB already hit the "like" button. That's confirmation for sure.

Jerry
07-08-2012, 11:01
And that's the reason they do it. They know that people that don't want to see that kind of stuff won't like it. Yeah, I'll admit I cringe a little bit seeing two guys kiss, but I was born that way, and I have a right to be accepted for who I am.

I think what they do behind closed doors is none of my business. I'm not against people being gay. But I don't necessarily like seeing heterosexuals swapping spit in public either.

Yes, that's about it. It also ticks me off because I know that's exactly what they are doing. My father always kissed me goodbye and hello. My brother and I kiss hello and goodbye and my son and I do also. But there’s just something about seeing two guys shoving their tongues down each other throat and playing grabarss that make me want to :honkie: :nutcheck:

G29Reload
07-08-2012, 11:10
Governments have a duty to attempt to provide a secure existence for all members of society and since traditional marriage (mom, dad, kids) is unquestionably the best and most secure environment within which to raise children, governments, as I said, have a DUTY to be involved.

I know that will cause heartburn, angst, and sleepless nights for our progressive membership, but nonetheless, there it is.

NOTE: Traditional marriage (for our progressive folks who do not know) does NOT include crackhead single moms or sperm donor long legged mack-daddies both of whom pop out innocent children and expect Hilary's 'village' to raise them.
Traditional marriage would center about intelligent, loving, responsible, adults unafraid of commitment and who can admit something is bigger than themselves.


This.

Bren
07-08-2012, 11:13
So? Why are you so sure they will get it? Most rational people can see the difference.

If they can, I wonder why they have such a hard time explaining it? I've prediucted this for years, since it has been pretty obviously on the horizon.

Cavalry Doc posted some of the cases where the LGBT community has actively opposed NAMBLA and as I stated previously NAMBLA has not been permitted to participate in Gay Pride activities to my knowledge which indicates wide spread rejection of NAMBLA by the LGBT community in my opinion.

Furthermore, the use of Westboro to make my point is an apt comparison. You have not demonstrated wide acceptance by the homosexual community for NAMBLA and others have demonstrated the opposite. Trying to tie the LGBT community to NAMBLA is like trying to tie Westboro to the rest of Christianity.

Pretty much the same problem I have with Open Carry, but I don't think I'm allowed to make the fairly clear analogy here.

In the example here, the gays have been joined by "transgendered" and other groups and they have put forth the argument that, "we were born this way." The pedophiles said, "wait a minute. that sounds good to us too...we were born this way and we want to join in like the B and T of LBGT (or whatever)." Keep in mind, both groups started with no medical/psychiatric acceptane of that claim and they built the acceptance through social pressure, rather than medical dscoveries, so why can't the other group do the same? Problem is, people are a lot more scared of or disgusted by pedophiles than gays, so it is counterproductive the gay rights movement to let them be seen as part of it.

Bren
07-08-2012, 11:22
And some people still don't understand the idea of consenting adults. Luckily those people are a minority.

That's not the real problem here.

It isn't really about whether one group involves "consenting adults" and the other does not. The issue is that gays have insisted on being considered "born that way" and therefore it's "perfectly natural" and they are entitled to "minority status" with things like anti-discrimination laws.

That opens the gate - if people can be born with genetically caused specific behaviors like the choice of same-sex partners, then it leads to 2 places:

1. If specific sexual preferences can be genetic, then pedophiles have a good argument that they were born that way and are being discriminated against and need protection. I don't forsee protection that lets them do what they want, but I could see it coming up as a defense to many child sex/porn crimes.

2. If specific behaviors like homosexuality can be genetic, then why not other behaviors like stealing and violence, etc., etc. That could lead to a lot of places but, if accepted, it validates everything that has been called "racist" for the last 75-100 years - the belief that behaviors and qualities of character can be passed on genetically..

nmk
07-08-2012, 12:05
Two adults can consent to molest a kid. Or rob a bank together.
Hopefully those are a minority, but I wouldn't get my hopes up.



And then you would have a non-consenting person again....

I'm not sure what point you were trying to make. :dunno:

UtahGlocker
07-08-2012, 12:28
That's not the real problem here.

It isn't really about whether one group involves "consenting adults" and the other does not. The issue is that gays have insisted on being considered "born that way" and therefore it's "perfectly natural" and they are entitled to "minority status" with things like anti-discrimination laws.
...

The "consenting adults" portion of the homosexual argument is an important part of their acceptance and should not be so easily dismissed, IMHO. There is no "victim" involved with homosexuality as there is in pedophilia, stealing, rape, etc. Everyone is born needing to eat, but you don't get to take food from others without their consent. The same goes for any other attribute of a person that requires interaction with another person. In other words, your rights end where mine begin. You cannot satisfy your needs by undermining mine.

G29Reload
07-08-2012, 12:35
And then you would have a non-consenting person again....

I'm not sure what point you were trying to make. :dunno:

I expected it go right over your head.

countrygun
07-08-2012, 12:56
That's not the real problem here.

It isn't really about whether one group involves "consenting adults" and the other does not. The issue is that gays have insisted on being considered "born that way" and therefore it's "perfectly natural" and they are entitled to "minority status" with things like anti-discrimination laws.

That opens the gate - if people can be born with genetically caused specific behaviors like the choice of same-sex partners, then it leads to 2 places:

1. If specific sexual preferences can be genetic, then pedophiles have a good argument that they were born that way and are being discriminated against and need protection. I don't forsee protection that lets them do what they want, but I could see it coming up as a defense to many child sex/porn crimes.

2. If specific behaviors like homosexuality can be genetic, then why not other behaviors like stealing and violence, etc., etc. That could lead to a lot of places but, if accepted, it validates everything that has been called "racist" for the last 75-100 years - the belief that behaviors and qualities of character can be passed on genetically..


Good post, but oh so "Politically Incorrect" Good, it should be. We, as a society, have been "hushed up" in a manner every bit as stifling as the Victorian era (not that things weren't wild then,but the stereotype...)

The amount of things we "aren't allowed to say in polite company" is staggering.

I would venture to say that most of us, and indeed our species exists because of heterosexual activity. The biology just works that way. Sorry folks but it's a hetero world.

If you take the genetics route you could compare homsexuality to the occurance of left-handedness in the population. Great, lefties learn to adapt in a right handed world. Tools for instance are most efficiently designed to work for right-handed people because most of the population is right handed. I don't see a lot of "left-handed pride parades" Frankly it is a crock to be told that "homosexuals are just like anyone else" and then be told "By the way we are having a "special pride day and parade" next month" WTF???

Bear in mind homosexuality was considered deviant behavior (whether that was right or wrong) for a long time in this Country, how can anyone expect society to now give it a green light without concerns about what behavior will be up for a vote next? some of us remember Aesop's fable about the camel getting it's nose in the tent. It IS playing out in thei issue. First it was "All we want is to not be discriminated against. what happens behind closed doors is no one elses business" OK most could go along with that. But that wasn't good enough, despite the promises of "thats all we want" it has grown and grown, Basically that promise, which I heard a lot in the 70's, was a lie, it was the camel and the tent.

So why shouldn't we be concerned about the rest of the moral fabric of society?

Gunhaver
07-08-2012, 13:09
You must then know the obvious differences between gun ownership and homosexuality, but I'll pretend you are ignorant and point out some differences.


Gun owning is definitely a choice, are you saying that homosexuality is too?

Need I point out that the Founders thought the right to keep and bear arms was so crucial to America that they gave it an amendment in the Bill of Rights, homosexuality? not so much.

I could point out other more humorous examples. But all in all, you analogy was lame and just because this is a firearms related forum doesn't mean that you can rrelate every Progressive pr liberal goal to gun ownership.

But, of course I could turn your example around.

Maybe we should consider Federal Regulation and registration and fingerprinting for homosexuals?

If we can place limits on gun ownership, read the FFL form, can we apply them as well?

A bad analogy is always a bad idea.

Maybe being gay is a choice. If so that would put it on equal footing with gun ownership since they are both activities that don't hurt anyone at all as long as they are both done responsibly. Do you think the opinions of a bunch of old guys in wigs that lived hundreds of years ago are the source of your rights? If they didn't put it in the bill of rights then it's not a right?

Or maybe it's a genetic predisposition. In that case, still a right and even less subject to your opinion. You're right to decide you like blonds more than redheads isn't "crucial to America" but that's not the litmus test for what we're free to do. The founding fathers couldn't even get slavery right. Why would one expect them to have the right stance on homosexuality?

Yeah, gun ownership is a very good analogy. If you don't like guns then don't shoot one. If you don't like ***** then leave them alone. You know that attitude you have towards people that freak out when they find out you're a gun owner? They gays feel the same way about you. They may even feel inclined to discuss mass and velocity in your presence just to piss you off. Deal with it.

Cavalry Doc
07-08-2012, 13:19
Maybe being gay is a choice. If so that would put it on equal footing with gun ownership since they are both activities that don't hurt anyone at all as long as they are both done responsibly. Do you think the opinions of a bunch of old guys in wigs that lived hundreds of years ago are the source of your rights? If they didn't put it in the bill of rights then it's not a right?

Or maybe it's a genetic predisposition. In that case, still a right and even less subject to your opinion. You're right to decide you like blonds more than redheads isn't "crucial to America" but that's not the litmus test for what we're free to do. The founding fathers couldn't even get slavery right. Why would one expect them to have the right stance on homosexuality?

Yeah, gun ownership is a very good analogy. If you don't like guns then don't shoot one. If you don't like ***** then leave them alone. You know that attitude you have towards people that freak out when they find out you're a gun owner? They gays feel the same way about you. They may even feel inclined to discuss mass and velocity in your presence just to piss you off. Deal with it.

If not them, then who?

happyguy
07-08-2012, 13:31
Or maybe it's a genetic predisposition. In that case, still a right and even less subject to your opinion.


If it's a genetic predisposition and they develop a test for it, just wait for all the aborted fetus's that have that predisposition. Not to mention, with the way you "progressives" want to give government more and more power, it might just be a matter of time until we have a government that requires the abortion of children predisposed to be gay. What a wonderful thought! Be careful what you wish for and never forget the law of unintended consequences.

Regards,
Happyguy :)

countrygun
07-08-2012, 13:47
Maybe being gay is a choice. If so that would put it on equal footing with gun ownership since they are both activities that don't hurt anyone at all as long as they are both done responsibly. Do you think the opinions of a bunch of old guys in wigs that lived hundreds of years ago are the source of your rights? If they didn't put it in the bill of rights then it's not a right?

Or maybe it's a genetic predisposition. In that case, still a right and even less subject to your opinion. You're right to decide you like blonds more than redheads isn't "crucial to America" but that's not the litmus test for what we're free to do. The founding fathers couldn't even get slavery right. Why would one expect them to have the right stance on homosexuality?

Yeah, gun ownership is a very good analogy. If you don't like guns then don't shoot one. If you don't like ***** then leave them alone. You know that attitude you have towards people that freak out when they find out you're a gun owner? They gays feel the same way about you. They may even feel inclined to discuss mass and velocity in your presence just to piss you off. Deal with it.


You are playing both sides of the gentic predisposition argument just to troll.

You can't have it both ways. The greatest argument put forward by the gay community for "tolerance" was, that it was a genetic predisposition.

Suppose pedophilia is a genetic predisposition? serial killing? Doesn't society have a right to have an opinion about those things?

Comparing the Founding Fathers issues with slavery and homosexuality is another one of your ludicrous analogies. You might as well argue that they were wrong about the internet. It wasn't an issue in their day.

"If they didn't put it in the bill of rights then it's not a right?"

That is a crock and you knew it when you typed it. YOU are the one who compared a right, that the Founding Fathers though important enough to have it's own Amendment, to something you can't decide is a choice or a matter of genetics. Again it proves that it wasn't an issue in the day.

On YOUR other hand, if homosexuality is equivelant to gun ownership because it is a choice rather than a predisposition, then society, by your analogy, would have the right to regulate it as they do with gun ownership. and it could still be considered a crime.

You are just throwing things against the wall to see what sticks. You can't even even take a stand on "genetic or choice".

Skyhook
07-08-2012, 14:19
Actually, your view here that government has a "duty" to be involved, is the Progressive one.

I see JB already hit the "like" button. That's confirmation for sure.


You could have a reasonable point IF- big IF- we were discussing government of some alien country, but this is the USA and we have 'government of, for, and by, the people', remember? And since the 'government' is us, that simply means we are our brother's keeper and that, in turn, means we are the keepers of the children.
Nothing 'progressive' in that.

G29Reload
07-08-2012, 14:25
If not them, then who?

careful, he's not exactly an intellectual or a COTUS scholar, so don't expect a coherent explanation.

Skyhook
07-08-2012, 14:26
If not them, then who?

:headscratch:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

Skyhook
07-08-2012, 14:31
Well said and spot on!!!.....:thumbsup::thumbsup:

:cheers:

When did right and wrong become something only ancient ancestors could understand??

:dunno:


I am absolutely convinced people do not really change. Ideas change, interpretations change, fashions change, but those are all frivolous veneer things... people and those things which matter do not change.

countrygun
07-08-2012, 14:33
:headscratch:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."


Gets sticky when you deal with progressive atheists. Since they don't believe they were endowed by their creator with rights, but that their rights were established by men, then men can "unestablish" rights for progressives.

G29Reload
07-08-2012, 14:43
:headscratch:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

The pursuit of Happiness, not Deviance.

Some people get their Happiness murdering others. I would dare say that does not comply with Original Intent.

Cavalry Doc
07-08-2012, 15:19
:headscratch:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

Well, see, not really part of this thread, but he is an atheist, and I was wondering what he thought.

RC-RAMIE
07-08-2012, 15:27
Well, see, not really part of this thread, but he is an atheist, and I was wondering what he thought.

Most likely same thing most atheist think our rights come from our humanity.


....

Cavalry Doc
07-08-2012, 15:43
Most likely same thing most atheist think our rights come from our humanity.


....


Organically, or culturally?

GAFinch
07-08-2012, 21:57
Laws restricting homosexuals from marriage is government control over homosexuals (i.e. bigger government) and many laws have been passed recently and were not in effect since the country's origin as you claim. Homosexuals are law abiding, tax paying citizens just like their heterosexual counterparts. Restrictions over a group of citizens by the government is bigger government. Laws have been passed to enforce marriage restrictions, not laws rescinded. I would have thought this to be obvious.

Let me put it as simply as I can:

More freedom and fewer laws = smaller government
Less freedom and more laws = bigger government

People asking for smaller government while at the same time asking their government to restrict marriage to heterosexuals are hypocrits, IMHO.

How does being morally opposed to same sex "marriage" equal big government? There were anti-sodomy laws on the books in states before and immediately after the US Constitution was written. Before the judicial activism in the 1960's, sodomy was a felony in every state. Prohibitions against same sex "marriage" are less intrusive than previous prohibitions against sodomy.

GAFinch
07-08-2012, 22:01
The "consenting adults" portion of the homosexual argument is an important part of their acceptance and should not be so easily dismissed, IMHO. There is no "victim" involved with homosexuality as there is in pedophilia, stealing, rape, etc. Everyone is born needing to eat, but you don't get to take food from others without their consent. The same goes for any other attribute of a person that requires interaction with another person. In other words, your rights end where mine begin. You cannot satisfy your needs by undermining mine.

Problem is, age of consent is a legal construct that varies among different states over different times. For liberal activists, laws are written only to be later overturn by the Ninth Circus of Appeals during multimillion dollar lawsuits.

countrygun
07-08-2012, 22:42
Originally Posted by UtahGlockerhttp://www.glocktalk.com/forums/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://glocktalk.com/forums/showthread.php?p=19172073#post19172073)
Laws restricting homosexuals from marriage is government control over homosexuals (i.e. bigger government) and many laws have been passed recently and were not in effect since the country's origin as you claim. Homosexuals are law abiding, tax paying citizens just like their heterosexual counterparts. Restrictions over a group of citizens by the government is bigger government. Laws have been passed to enforce marriage restrictions, not laws rescinded. I would have thought this to be obvious.

Let me put it as simply as I can:

More freedom and fewer laws = smaller government
Less freedom and more laws = bigger government

People asking for smaller government while at the same time asking their government to restrict marriage to heterosexuals are hypocrits, IMHO.



How does being morally opposed to same sex "marriage" equal big government? There were anti-sodomy laws on the books in states before and immediately after the US Constitution was written. Before the judicial activism in the 1960's, sodomy was a felony in every state. Prohibitions against same sex "marriage" are less intrusive than previous prohibitions against sodomy.


His thread was such a mess of misinterpretations, misinformation, assumptions I don't know why I should bother with it but I will try.

"Laws restricting homosexuals from marriage is government control over homosexuals (i.e. bigger government) and many laws have been passed recently and were not in effect since the country's origin as you claim."

GAFinch pretty much handled it, but a doubting Thomas might want to look at the laws of the individual States before the Constitution and between the Constitution and Bill of Rights to see how many of them outlawed sodomy.
The other problem here is, the fact that it isn't an issue of gays being forbidden to marry, it is about legal recognition of those marriages. That is a different thing and, speaking as a fan of smaller Government and States Rights, it should be left to the States, given that the laws against sodomy were State laws. Only a fam og big Government wants to see the big Federal Government be involved in such things.


" Homosexuals are law abiding, tax paying citizens just like their heterosexual counterparts. "

Just to be picky, and being a stickler for honesty, I do not, nor would I ever make claim that heterosexuals are ALL law abiding and taxpaying. I don't think we should assume homosexuals are.


"More freedom and fewer laws = smaller government
Less freedom and more laws = bigger government

People asking for smaller government while at the same time asking their government to restrict marriage to heterosexuals are hypocrits,"


Again, GAFinch handled this, but it seems as if you are saying that anyone wanting any laws is a "hypocrit" if they are for smaller Government. ANYBODY can come along and make that claim about any law.

The "pseudo-clever" trick of reversing the situation did not go unnoticed. Nobody is "asking their Government to restrict marriage to heterosexuals". That tactic won't work. There is no "Restricting" to do. Just upholding existing laws. That does not require an affirmative act as the poster implies.

Legal recognition of gay marriage is frought with many problems and has no practical purpose other than to make some folks feel warm and fuzzy.

Again, 40 years ago it started out with "We just want to be left alone and not harrassed". OK, fine, laws were passed and the Camel's nose entered the tent, Now it's"'Gay Marriage"

What's next?

UtahGlocker
07-09-2012, 14:09
How does being morally opposed to same sex "marriage" equal big government? There were anti-sodomy laws on the books in states before and immediately after the US Constitution was written. Before the judicial activism in the 1960's, sodomy was a felony in every state. Prohibitions against same sex "marriage" are less intrusive than previous prohibitions against sodomy.

The anti-sodomy laws were found to be unconstitutional, so why bring them up? I did not say that being morally opposed to same sex "marriage" equals big goverment, but imposing laws to restrict a lawful minority is big government.

UtahGlocker
07-09-2012, 14:14
Problem is, age of consent is a legal construct that varies among different states over different times. For liberal activists, laws are written only to be later overturn by the Ninth Circus of Appeals during multimillion dollar lawsuits.

It's true that the age of consent has changed and varies by state, but this affects all marriage applicants, not just the pedophiles. The possibility that the age of consent would be lowered to a point prefered by pedophiles seems so remote in my opinion as to not waste anytime worrying about.

nmk
07-09-2012, 14:15
I expected it go right over your head.

Please explain it to me.

nmk
07-09-2012, 14:18
Two adults can consent to molest a kid. Or rob a bank together.
Hopefully those are a minority, but I wouldn't get my hopes up.

Homosexuality was considered a mental illness and only political pressure changed that. Not facts on the ground.
There's a reason why every major religion on the planet condemns it.

Even prisoners know what to do with child molesters. Some things are just understood.

How is a situation involving two consenting adults comparable to a situation involving two consenting adults molesting a non-consenting child?

ETA: I'd use the multiquote feature, but that's over my head as well at this point. My apologies.

certifiedfunds
07-09-2012, 14:18
Lot of folks here sure seem preoccupied with what another adult does with his or her genitals.

Jes sayin

Wonder if there are some angry closet types on this thread....

G29Reload
07-09-2012, 14:27
Lot of folks here sure seem preoccupied with what another adult does with his or her genitals.

Jes sayin



How much money does government have to squander on AIDS and other diseases preventable by controlling said deviant behavior?

Sam Spade
07-09-2012, 14:28
It's true that the age of consent has changed and varies by state, but this affects all marriage applicants, not just the pedophiles. The possibility that the age of consent would be lowered to a point prefered by pedophiles seems so remote in my opinion as to not waste anytime worrying about.

Strike "age of consent" and replace with "same sex marriage" and you have just the situation that existed within some readers' lifetime.

Since the "Party of Principle" has had just such rot in its platform, recently, I'm curious as to what you're basing your opinion on.

certifiedfunds
07-09-2012, 14:33
How much money does government have to squander on AIDS and other diseases preventable by controlling said deviant behavior?

Where did I advocate for spending government money on the AIDS?:dunno:

UtahGlocker
07-09-2012, 14:34
Originally Posted by UtahGlockerhttp://www.glocktalk.com/forums/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://glocktalk.com/forums/showthread.php?p=19172073#post19172073)
...
His thread was such a mess of misinterpretations, misinformation, assumptions I don't know why I should bother with it but I will try.

Don't blame me if you can't understand my posts.


"Laws restricting homosexuals from marriage is government control over homosexuals (i.e. bigger government) and many laws have been passed recently and were not in effect since the country's origin as you claim."

GAFinch pretty much handled it, but a doubting Thomas might want to look at the laws of the individual States before the Constitution and between the Constitution and Bill of Rights to see how many of them outlawed sodomy.

This is a non-point as sodomy laws were found to be unconstitutional and struck down by the Supreme Court.


The other problem here is, the fact that it isn't an issue of gays being forbidden to marry, it is about legal recognition of those marriages. That is a different thing and, speaking as a fan of smaller Government and States Rights, it should be left to the States, given that the laws against sodomy were State laws. Only a fam og big Government wants to see the big Federal Government be involved in such things.

The Federal Goverment needs to be involved when a minority is discriminated against without cause. Do you really believe that civil rights should be voted on? That's like three wolves and one sheep deciding on what to have for dinner. Hint, the sheep will always lose which is one of the reasons we have a Constitution so that the rights of the minority are protected. Also, who said big governement can't apply to State government?


" Homosexuals are law abiding, tax paying citizens just like their heterosexual counterparts. "

Just to be picky, and being a stickler for honesty, I do not, nor would I ever make claim that heterosexuals are ALL law abiding and taxpaying. I don't think we should assume homosexuals are.

My statement is in context of sexual orientation only. Other attributes of the individual, heterosexual or homosexual, may, of course, make them not law abiding. However, the fact that a homosexual is a homosexual doesn't make them a criminal.


"More freedom and fewer laws = smaller government
Less freedom and more laws = bigger government

People asking for smaller government while at the same time asking their government to restrict marriage to heterosexuals are hypocrits,"


Again, GAFinch handled this, but it seems as if you are saying that anyone wanting any laws is a "hypocrit" if they are for smaller Government. ANYBODY can come along and make that claim about any law.

The arguments to restrict marriage to heterosexuals rely solely on religious beliefs or bigotry. Trying to impose restrictions on a lawful minority just because you disagree with them for rights that you enjoy is hypocritical, IMHO.



The "pseudo-clever" trick of reversing the situation did not go unnoticed. Nobody is "asking their Government to restrict marriage to heterosexuals". That tactic won't work. There is no "Restricting" to do. Just upholding existing laws. That does not require an affirmative act as the poster implies.

Legal recognition of gay marriage is frought with many problems and has no practical purpose other than to make some folks feel warm and fuzzy.

Again, 40 years ago it started out with "We just want to be left alone and not harrassed". OK, fine, laws were passed and the Camel's nose entered the tent, Now it's"'Gay Marriage"

What's next?

I guess all those State laws and Constituional amendments and DOMA with the sole intent of defining marriage for the purpose of excluding homosexuals are all figments of my imagination? If it was already existing law, then why spend millions of dollars passing those laws?

RC-RAMIE
07-09-2012, 14:35
How much money does government have to squander on AIDS and other diseases preventable by controlling said deviant behavior?

Straight people get AIDS to.

countrygun
07-09-2012, 14:35
The anti-sodomy laws were found to be unconstitutional, so why bring them up? I did not say that being morally opposed to same sex "marriage" equals big goverment, but imposing laws to restrict a lawful minority is big government.


Once again you are using an active verb "imposing" very cleverly. It takes no action since the laws are on the books. repealing them or redefining marriage would be active and be "imposing" a new definition of marriage on society.

It might seem a small difference, but when one is talking about perceptions and opinions every slanted word counts.

G29Reload
07-09-2012, 14:36
Where did I advocate for spending government money on the AIDS?:dunno:

I was citing a demonstrable burden of not opposing deviant behavior. Its not a matter of just wondering what other people do with their junk.

jes sayin.

nmk
07-09-2012, 14:38
Straight people get AIDS to.

The transmission rate is very different, but I don't think $ is the true source of his objection.

Please correct me if I'm wrong, G29.

G29Reload
07-09-2012, 14:38
Straight people get AIDS to.

they don't cause it.

RC-RAMIE
07-09-2012, 14:41
they don't cause it.

Homosexuality causes AIDS? Straight people get AIDS from gay people? There is straight people that have AIDS and have never slept with a gay person before.

nmk
07-09-2012, 14:43
they don't cause it.

There was a weak fiscal argument to be made about federal expenditures, but you blew it.

certifiedfunds
07-09-2012, 14:43
they don't cause it.

Just an FYI. If you haven't read Gladwell's "The Tipping Point" it is very interesting. Some research strongly suggests that HIV has been in the human population since at least WWI.

UtahGlocker
07-09-2012, 14:44
Once again you are using an active verb "imposing" very cleverly. It takes no action since the laws are on the books. repealing them or redefining marriage would be active and be "imposing" a new definition of marriage on society.

It might seem a small difference, but when one is talking about perceptions and opinions every slanted word counts.

You ignore all of the laws and Constitutional amendments and DOMA that have defined marriage for the purpose of excluding homosexuals. Those laws were passed recently. If they were already law and Constitutional, then why spend millions of dollars to pass them?

certifiedfunds
07-09-2012, 14:45
There was a weak fiscal argument to be made about federal expenditures, but you blew it.

Its a good point that is lost on the left.

Once you start socializing things, others get to have an opinion since they're paying for it.

countrygun
07-09-2012, 15:04
You ignore all of the laws and Constitutional amendments and DOMA that have defined marriage for the purpose of excluding homosexuals. Those laws were passed recently. If they were already law and Constitutional, then why spend millions of dollars to pass them?


True, but they are re affirming the principles behind the definition of "Marriage". Since most Americans, it seems according to polls, oppose gay marriage and see it as between a man and a woman, any attempt to change that is both flying against the common majority definition and, more importantly, is a minority dictating to the majority. There is a point at which, for any minority in any society, where "good enough is enough". As I said before, it started in the 70's with a lot of "all we want" promises. they were met and that proved to be NOT "all they wanted".

Maybe most of America is just tired of "special groups" "entitlements", "Affirmative Action" all kinds of "pride parades". Just maybe, there is a swing back towards being "Americans" is good enough.

Another group wanting laws changed is just too much. We have all kinds of protections for everyone (except white, straight, possibly Christian males). We have an economy to fix, terrorism to face, decisions to make about the course of the Country, and trying to shoehorn new definitions of marriage (which will add more burden in many levels of social services and divorce courts, social security etc) into the mix is just an annoying destraction that people do not have the temperment to deal with at the moment.

Gunhaver
07-09-2012, 15:18
they don't cause it.

So two homosexual men without AIDS or HIV get together and have sex and AIDS is magically created. Is that how you think it works?

Maybe wanna come back to the discussion after your parents have had 'the talk' with you?

Gunhaver
07-09-2012, 15:31
And that's the reason they do it. They know that people that don't want to see that kind of stuff won't like it. Yeah, I'll admit I cringe a little bit seeing two guys kiss, but I was born that way, and I have a right to be accepted for who I am.

I think what they do behind closed doors is none of my business. I'm not against people being gay. But I don't necessarily like seeing heterosexuals swapping spit in public either.

But you don't have the same reaction to seeing heterosexual couples kissing. On TV, in movies, in public, even when you do it yourself. You don't look around to make sure nobody can see you hold hands with or kiss a woman out of concern for upsetting somebody else that can't handle something that doesn't involve them.

They're not flaunting it or sticking it in your face. They're just doing what they want to do with an attitude that you can get bent if you don't like it same as you've done all your life.

How many gay couples do you think get up in the morning and say to each other, "Well, I'm really sick of kissing you while we play grabass but we have to get out there and piss off the homophobes. After all, it's THE AGENDA."?

nmk
07-09-2012, 15:32
Its a good point that is lost on the left.

Once you start socializing things, others get to have an opinion since they're paying for it.

I used to think you were crazy, and then I started reading your posts. I'm sorry. Keep up the good fight. We need people as articulate as you are.

certifiedfunds
07-09-2012, 16:08
I used to think you were crazy, and then I started reading your posts. I'm sorry. Keep up the good fight. We need people as articulate as you are.

I appreciate that.


Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

Gunhaver
07-09-2012, 16:24
You are playing both sides of the gentic predisposition argument just to troll.

You can't have it both ways. The greatest argument put forward by the gay community for "tolerance" was, that it was a genetic predisposition.

Suppose pedophilia is a genetic predisposition? serial killing? Doesn't society have a right to have an opinion about those things?

Comparing the Founding Fathers issues with slavery and homosexuality is another one of your ludicrous analogies. You might as well argue that they were wrong about the internet. It wasn't an issue in their day.

"If they didn't put it in the bill of rights then it's not a right?"

That is a crock and you knew it when you typed it. YOU are the one who compared a right, that the Founding Fathers though important enough to have it's own Amendment, to something you can't decide is a choice or a matter of genetics. Again it proves that it wasn't an issue in the day.

On YOUR other hand, if homosexuality is equivelant to gun ownership because it is a choice rather than a predisposition, then society, by your analogy, would have the right to regulate it as they do with gun ownership. and it could still be considered a crime.

You are just throwing things against the wall to see what sticks. You can't even even take a stand on "genetic or choice".

So now the simple qualifier of "It's a choice" is what subjects something to government regulation? Sounds awful big gov of you. Do we consider something a crime simply because it's a choice that enough of us wouldn't make?

Gun ownership is actually a bad analogy for me to make to homosexuality. Irresponsible gun owners can cause great harm to themselves but also other innocent bystanders whereas homosexuality, just like heterosexuality, only has the potential to harm the participants and only if they act irresponsibly so there's more grounds to regulate guns than people's genitals.

Laws against homosexuality are more like seat belt or helmet laws that only protect the one individual. But given that the slight increase in AIDS cases are far offset by absolutely no pregnancies or any of the medical or social complications that come from them we should regulate in order of potential harm to society,

1. Guns
2. Heterosexual sex
3. Seat belts and helmets
4. Homosexual sex

I'm not saying that being gay is a choice or it isn't. Nobody really knows that for sure. I'm just pointing out that, if it is a choice it's not your choice for someone else. Nobody came along and assigned you only large black women because that's what they were most comfortable with and then started electing politicians that would fight that ridiculous fight for them rather than deal with important issues.

If it isn't a choice then you still have to point out how it's more harmful than hetero sex before you start complaining about it.

Gunhaver
07-09-2012, 16:38
The pursuit of Happiness, not Deviance.

Some people get their Happiness murdering others. I would dare say that does not comply with Original Intent.


Are homosexuals harming anybody? Other than the general ickyness that it makes you feel and a slightly elevated number of AIDS cases (far offset by a complete lack of pregnancies and all the societal problems that come from that) they really aren't causing a problem for anyone.

Deviance. I think it's funny when the homophobes trot out that word.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deviance_(sociology)

A violation of social norms. Just like when we all rode around on horses and then some people started building cars and people deviated from social norms by riding in cars. Tragic.

Kids used to tight roll their pants legs in junior high but I always thought it looked stupid so I never did. Oh, the horror of my social deviance. They should have passed a law, added a constitutional amendment even.

certifiedfunds
07-09-2012, 17:16
Are homosexuals harming anybody? Other than the general ickyness that it makes you feel and a slightly elevated number of AIDS cases (far offset by a complete lack of pregnancies and all the societal problems that come from that) they really aren't causing a problem for anyone.

Deviance. I think it's funny when the homophobes trot out that word.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deviance_(sociology)

A violation of social norms. Just like when we all rode around on horses and then some people started building cars and people deviated from social norms by riding in cars. Tragic.

Kids used to tight roll their pants legs in junior high but I always thought it looked stupid so I never did. Oh, the horror of my social deviance. They should have passed a law, added a constitutional amendment even.

"Icky"? Understatement of the year.

Except for the lipstick chicks. That's pretty cool anyway you slice it.


Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

Sam Spade
07-09-2012, 18:28
An interesting amount of redirection coming from the left on this thread.

Cavalry Doc
07-10-2012, 04:26
they don't cause it.

A virus causes it, promiscuity and certain practices just allowed it to spread more.

Cpl_Siggy
07-10-2012, 05:21
This argument reminds me of antigun laws. If we allow 15 round mags one day the people who want 500 round mags will have to be allowed to have them. No one likes pedofiles. I have some really close gay friends.

countrygun
07-10-2012, 06:06
So now the simple qualifier of "It's a choice" is what subjects something to government regulation? Sounds awful big gov of you. Do we consider something a crime simply because it's a choice that enough of us wouldn't make?

Gun ownership is actually a bad analogy for me to make to homosexuality. Irresponsible gun owners can cause great harm to themselves but also other innocent bystanders whereas homosexuality, just like heterosexuality, only has the potential to harm the participants and only if they act irresponsibly so there's more grounds to regulate guns than people's genitals.

Laws against homosexuality are more like seat belt or helmet laws that only protect the one individual. But given that the slight increase in AIDS cases are far offset by absolutely no pregnancies or any of the medical or social complications that come from them we should regulate in order of potential harm to society,

1. Guns
2. Heterosexual sex
3. Seat belts and helmets
4. Homosexual sex

I'm not saying that being gay is a choice or it isn't. Nobody really knows that for sure. I'm just pointing out that, if it is a choice it's not your choice for someone else. Nobody came along and assigned you only large black women because that's what they were most comfortable with and then started electing politicians that would fight that ridiculous fight for them rather than deal with important issues.

If it isn't a choice then you still have to point out how it's more harmful than hetero sex before you start complaining about it.

I really don't care about the issue of two consenting adults, but frankly speaking, except for lawyers and liberal politicians most of us arrived on this earth as a result of heterosexual sex. It is therefroe possible to infer that heterosexual sex is the "natural order" and that even if it is not done for procreation certainly the natural order is and indication of "nornal and therefore anything else is abnormal. I don't like making that argument per say however, your ludicrous equation of honosexuality with gun ownership is a very good reason, I find, to become even more conservative in my position since your arguments come from such a far left position. Your whole line of thinking and the thought that somehow the Founders forgot to write an Amendment to protect homosexuals, or because they didn't then the Constitution is invalid, or that somehow we should amend it everytime someone says "hey what about us?", is an example of the left-wing uber liberal agenda. bear in mind that, in the Founders time, sodomy was a crime. We have loosened those laws and limits about far enough. Anything further is an attack on the morals and the fabric of our society and we have had enough of that.

I do not speak from a concern about homosexuals, per say. My only living relative, other than by marriage, is my Uncle who is gay. I have known what that meant since my age was measured in single digits. He is also a conservative, capitalist, Very well educated, a genius level IQ and has been with the same partner since just after I was born. He has never marched in a parade, protested anything (except to complain about low interest on his investments) and really doesn't "identify" with the gay community. He is a happy American and that is good enough for him.

I speak for my concern about every inch of ground demanded by liberal agendists in every issue. There is no future in a Country with no traditions and traditional values. We are seeing that played out in peopke staying "on the dole" rather than take jobs that don't instantly make all of their dreams come true. If it means that I don't support extra-constitutional rights, or that I have to support the DOMA to draw the line somewhere, then so be it. As long as you and your ilk are on the other side of that line I am comfortable with that. And don't hand me any sophistry about the 2nd Amendment, you could not have made the cockeyed comparison you did, if the 2nd and the Constitution was anything to you other than something to try and strangle this Country with.

Don't try and trade you lip service to gun owners for acceptance of a poisonous moral-less liberal agenda. It just makes your positions all that more disgusting.

Gunhaver
07-10-2012, 18:17
I really don't care about the issue of two consenting adults, but frankly speaking, except for lawyers and liberal politicians most of us arrived on this earth as a result of heterosexual sex. It is therefroe possible to infer that heterosexual sex is the "natural order" and that even if it is not done for procreation certainly the natural order is and indication of "nornal and therefore anything else is abnormal. I don't like making that argument per say

Because it's a lame argument? We're flying through space, smashing sub-atomic particles and making human organs on a computer printer. How many things can you find that aren't "natural"? The issue clearly isn't what's natural and what isn't, it's what affects you adversely and what you need to mind your own business about.

however, your ludicrous equation of honosexuality with gun ownership is a very good reason, I find, to become even more conservative in my position since your arguments come from such a far left position. Your whole line of thinking and the thought that somehow the Founders forgot to write an Amendment to protect homosexuals, or because they didn't then the Constitution is invalid, or that somehow we should amend it everytime someone says "hey what about us?", is an example of the left-wing uber liberal agenda.

No, it's an example of, "If you're going to hold these founding fathers up as the granters of our rights then let's look at the obvious issues that they missed. If you can't even get the question of slavery right you show some serious judgment issues. Slavery was just fine in their time (for the non-slaves) and homosexuality wasn't. Now slavery isn't acceptable in out society and homosexuality is. It's a move that has resulted in greater freedom for everyone except those that would like to keep slaves or oppress homosexuals and just like the pedophiles, **** those people.

bear in mind that, in the Founders time, sodomy was a crime. We have loosened those laws and limits about far enough. Anything further is an attack on the morals and the fabric of our society and we have had enough of that.

We? Meaning you and all the other guys here doing a poor job of explaining exactly why the gays are like pedophiles? http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/public-acceptance-of-same-sex-marriage-at-all-time-high/

Those numbers are what they are because people argue about the gay thing constantly and the pathetic arguments always seem to come from the nay side. People have started to realize this.

You can take the number of people on this conservative gun board that aren't ranting about gays and trying to equate them to pedophiles and even sticking up for their rights, possibly because they believe in actual freedom for everyone instead of just people like them, as a pretty good indicator of whether that trend will continue.

I do not speak from a concern about homosexuals, per say.

You don't say?

My only living relative, other than by marriage, is my Uncle who is gay. I have known what that meant since my age was measured in single digits. He is also a conservative, capitalist, Very well educated, a genius level IQ and has been with the same partner since just after I was born. He has never marched in a parade, protested anything (except to complain about low interest on his investments) and really doesn't "identify" with the gay community. He is a happy American and that is good enough for him.

Ask your uncle if he would like to be seen in public with his partner without having to be ever vigilant that they don't show too much affection for fear that somebody might think he's "sticking it in their face". Ask him if he thinks he and his partner are freaks that should be hidden away from the easily offended or if they have exactly the same rights as everyone else. Then tell him you think of him as only slightly more than a pedophile and see if he still has a high enough IQ to ***** slap you.

I speak for my concern about every inch of ground demanded by liberal agendists in every issue. There is no future in a Country with no traditions and traditional values. We are seeing that played out in peopke staying "on the dole" rather than take jobs that don't instantly make all of their dreams come true. If it means that I don't support extra-constitutional rights, or that I have to support the DOMA to draw the line somewhere, then so be it. As long as you and your ilk are on the other side of that line I am comfortable with that. And don't hand me any sophistry about the 2nd Amendment, you could not have made the cockeyed comparison you did, if the 2nd and the Constitution was anything to you other than something to try and strangle this Country with.

Don't try and trade you lip service to gun owners for acceptance of a poisonous moral-less liberal agenda. It just makes your positions all that more disgusting.

Sounds like you have your head inserted firmly up the GOP's butt. The GOP tells you you have to oppose "THE GAY AGENDA" and you wholeheartedly agree. Way to think critically. How about explaining exactly how a class of people that don't reproduce, are statistically one of the fewest "on the dole" because they are statistically very good earners and want in many cases to adopt and raise children that have no families are detrimental to the security or prosperity of this country? Morals? Please. You have to point out what's wrong with it before you can call it immoral. The mantra doesn't work anymore without some good data to back it up.

You don't like my 2nd amendment comparison because R2BA is something you hold dear that's constantly under attack. You're right to be equal is not under attack because you're straight. Some people hold the right to be treated equal dear because they don't have it and you support a constitutional amendment that denies them that right while whining out of the other side of your mouth about how they attack the 2nd amendment. There's a reason your side is sliding.

certifiedfunds
07-10-2012, 20:31
<-------thinks lesbians should be federally-subsidized

Gunhaver
07-10-2012, 20:57
<-------thinks lesbians should be federally-subsidized

NSFW!!!

http://images4.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20090805235703/wikiality/images/6/6a/Lesbians-theory-practice.jpg

Cavalry Doc
07-11-2012, 06:04
This argument reminds me of antigun laws. If we allow 15 round mags one day the people who want 500 round mags will have to be allowed to have them. No one likes pedofiles. I have some really close gay friends.

What's wrong with 500 round mags??? :Dunno:

GAFinch
07-11-2012, 08:52
When people find it morally acceptable to kill 1.3 million non-consenting unborn babies per year (1 in 4 healthy pregnancies), we have to assume that no other moral prohibition is off-limits to them in the long run.

nmk
07-11-2012, 10:04
When people find it morally acceptable to kill 1.3 million non-consenting unborn babies per year (1 in 4 healthy pregnancies), we have to assume that no other moral prohibition is off-limits to them in the long run.

Just what this thread needed...

:faint:

Paul7
07-11-2012, 11:05
Pedophilia can be cured.

Yet some think gays can never change.

RC-RAMIE
07-11-2012, 11:22
Pedophilia can be cured. But there is that pesky cruel and unusual punishment thing that we would have to get an exception too.


Yet some think gays can never change.

You left a important part out of that quote he didn't mean "cure" like in the gay to straight camps.

The Maggy
07-11-2012, 12:53
Three words... Consent Between Adults. Why is there any other question about it? The APA will not redefine pedophilia because it relies upon taking advantage of someone that is unable to make decisions for themselves.

JBnTX
07-11-2012, 13:06
Just what this thread needed...

:faint:

He has a valid point!

JBnTX
07-11-2012, 13:15
Three words... Consent Between Adults. Why is there any other question about it? The APA will not redefine pedophilia because it relies upon taking advantage of someone that is unable to make decisions for themselves.


Why can't they make decisions for themselves?

At what age does a person acquire the ability to make decisions for themselves?

The law determines that age and laws can be changed to suit the morality of society.

Didn't they just change the definition of marriage to suit the morality of society?

Why can't they change the legal age of consent to suit the morality of society?

Do you think they'd never do such a thing?
I thought they'd never change the definition of marriage, and look what happened.

Sam Spade
07-11-2012, 13:55
Why can't they make decisions for themselves?

At what age does a person acquire the ability to make decisions for themselves?

The law determines that age and laws can be changed to suit the morality of society.

Didn't they just change the definition of marriage to suit the morality of society?

Why can't they change the legal age of consent to suit the morality of society?

Do you think they'd never do such a thing?
I thought they'd never change the definition of marriage, and look what happened.

Hey, if we can convict them of criminal charges and lock them up for decades, surely they have the ability to consent to how they use their own bodies. Remember, the age of consent was 10 yoa or lower when the US launched, so there's precedent for letting "children" make these choices.

Gunhaver
07-11-2012, 14:31
Why can't they make decisions for themselves?
Because they're kids.
At what age does a person acquire the ability to make decisions for themselves?
That depends. Most can't handle it at 20 but you have to draw the line somewhere. Idaho and Hawaii are at 14 years old and most would say that was too young so I doubt society would agree to go lower than that.
The law determines that age and laws can be changed to suit the morality of society.
Laws against murder can be changed if society agrees but then everyone opens themselves up to being murdered so that's not likely. If an organization of murderers started whining about their right to murder we can just call then stupid, ignore their complaints and carry on. No need for silly threads about how this is "the next politically correct topic that you must support".
Didn't they just change the definition of marriage to suit the morality of society?
They tried and half the country flipped their wig over it. What do you think the reaction to telling people they should let their kids be screwed by grownups would be?
Why can't they change the legal age of consent to suit the morality of society?
Because there aren't nearly enough of them to be taken seriously except by fearful idiots trying to draw a flawed correlation.
Do you think they'd never do such a thing?
I thought they'd never change the definition of marriage, and look what happened.

How have you been adversely affected by the few states that allow gay marriage? You're in Texas which will be the last state to redefine marriage if they ever do. Does it affect your life in the least?

countrygun
07-11-2012, 15:20
Sounds like you have your head inserted firmly up the GOP's butt. The GOP tells you you have to oppose "THE GAY AGENDA" and you wholeheartedly agree. Way to think critically. How about explaining exactly how a class of people that don't reproduce, are statistically one of the fewest "on the dole" because they are statistically very good earners and want in many cases to adopt and raise children that have no families are detrimental to the security or prosperity of this country? Morals? Please. You have to point out what's wrong with it before you can call it immoral. The mantra doesn't work anymore without some good data to back it up.

You don't like my 2nd amendment comparison because R2BA is something you hold dear that's constantly under attack. You're right to be equal is not under attack because you're straight. Some people hold the right to be treated equal dear because they don't have it and you support a constitutional amendment that denies them that right while whining out of the other side of your mouth about how they attack the 2nd amendment. There's a reason your side is sliding.



The Founding Fathers were not comfortable with slavery but in order to create a Federation of States that would stand they had to leave it as a States Rights issue to be decided later, Many of them knew that a "Civil War" was likely to be the result but it was best stalled off until America had gotten it feet on the ground and other issues worked out. A war over slavery between the Statespre-1800 at the earliest would have brought the British right back in. It is the usual tactic of the leftist liberals to try and gloss over the serious debate on the topic tha was waged by the Founders in an effort to discredit them so liberals can tear away at the Consitution.


It is also completely asnine (much as the 2nd Amendment argument) to try and ride on the coattails of slavery. another example of liberal "bundling" to sneak the agenda in. "If slavery, and denying blacks their rights was wrong, then we will just bundle homosexuality in there too"
For rightor wrong, laws against a sexual behavior, and more importantly not even that,

Not recognizing gay marriage is NOT on the same footing as taking people in chains from their home and selling them like property to spend the rest of their lives in chains laboring 12 hours a day under a whip.


The Second Ammendment was recognized not only as an individual right but as a means of defending the Country as well. Sodomy does not have the same benefit.

Funny thing about mentioning my Uncle, I thought even you could have grasp the obvious, but no not hardly. He and his partner have been together for around 50 years and as I've said he is still a conservative and has never taken part in any protests, and they are happy. Did you miss adding the pieces together? They adapted. I have known several successful mechanics who were left handed and never threw a fit because most of their tools are designed for right-handed people.

I don't know, and I don't think anyone, given a certain lack of reporting and unclear definitions and data gathering standards, the percentage of homosexual pedophilia vs "straight" pedophilia, but I do know that before we started loosening our traditional morals nobody would have admitted publically to being a member of NAMBLA. We have gone too far in accomodating various things and everybody is coming out of the woodwork yelling "Me too, me too".

At best it is a States Rights issue and should have root at the State level. But Liberals, when they get trounced at the State level go running to the Federal Government, like a child running to the teacher, screaming "They won't let me, it;s not fair, we need a Federal law because the stupid voters in the States don't understand and they are meanies"

I have no problem with States deciding the issue for themselves, however they decide. The Founders intended it hat way in most things. They created a "Federal Government" not a "National Government" and as such the set forth certain things the Federal Government could not bw involved in, it DIDN'T mean that the Federal Government SHOULD get involved in everything else it could.

Since you can't seem to decide if it's genetic or choice lets call it choice. Then it is also a choice like gambling, or hunting, or prostitution. Those things are left to the States to regulate, the same as alcohol laws. Just because we repealled National Prohibition did not mean local laws were invalid. Liberals actually hate States Rights because they want their agenda to be "Law of the Land" Gay marriage is one of the planks in their agenda.

Gunhaver
07-11-2012, 20:29
When people find it morally acceptable to kill 1.3 million non-consenting unborn babies per year (1 in 4 healthy pregnancies), we have to assume that no other moral prohibition is off-limits to them in the long run.

Again, the key here is that it doesn't affect you. If you don't like the idea of abortions then don't have one and if you're a man then be happy that you'll never have to make that decision. It affects the person having the abortion and so long as that life is dependent on their body they get to make that choice. Yeah, I know, if they don't want to be faced with that choice then they shouldn't have sex. What a perfect opportunity for you to force your morals on somebody else using flawed logic.

Gunhaver
07-11-2012, 20:49
The Founding Fathers were not comfortable with slavery but in order to create a Federation of States that would stand they had to leave it as a States Rights issue to be decided later, Many of them knew that a "Civil War" was likely to be the result but it was best stalled off until America had gotten it feet on the ground and other issues worked out. A war over slavery between the Statespre-1800 at the earliest would have brought the British right back in. It is the usual tactic of the leftist liberals to try and gloss over the serious debate on the topic tha was waged by the Founders in an effort to discredit them so liberals can tear away at the Consitution.


It is also completely asnine (much as the 2nd Amendment argument) to try and ride on the coattails of slavery. another example of liberal "bundling" to sneak the agenda in. "If slavery, and denying blacks their rights was wrong, then we will just bundle homosexuality in there too"
For rightor wrong, laws against a sexual behavior, and more importantly not even that,

Not recognizing gay marriage is NOT on the same footing as taking people in chains from their home and selling them like property to spend the rest of their lives in chains laboring 12 hours a day under a whip.


The Second Ammendment was recognized not only as an individual right but as a means of defending the Country as well. Sodomy does not have the same benefit.

Funny thing about mentioning my Uncle, I thought even you could have grasp the obvious, but no not hardly. He and his partner have been together for around 50 years and as I've said he is still a conservative and has never taken part in any protests, and they are happy. Did you miss adding the pieces together? They adapted. I have known several successful mechanics who were left handed and never threw a fit because most of their tools are designed for right-handed people.

I don't know, and I don't think anyone, given a certain lack of reporting and unclear definitions and data gathering standards, the percentage of homosexual pedophilia vs "straight" pedophilia, but I do know that before we started loosening our traditional morals nobody would have admitted publically to being a member of NAMBLA. We have gone too far in accomodating various things and everybody is coming out of the woodwork yelling "Me too, me too".

At best it is a States Rights issue and should have root at the State level. But Liberals, when they get trounced at the State level go running to the Federal Government, like a child running to the teacher, screaming "They won't let me, it;s not fair, we need a Federal law because the stupid voters in the States don't understand and they are meanies"

I have no problem with States deciding the issue for themselves, however they decide. The Founders intended it hat way in most things. They created a "Federal Government" not a "National Government" and as such the set forth certain things the Federal Government could not bw involved in, it DIDN'T mean that the Federal Government SHOULD get involved in everything else it could.

Since you can't seem to decide if it's genetic or choice lets call it choice. Then it is also a choice like gambling, or hunting, or prostitution. Those things are left to the States to regulate, the same as alcohol laws. Just because we repealled National Prohibition did not mean local laws were invalid. Liberals actually hate States Rights because they want their agenda to be "Law of the Land" Gay marriage is one of the planks in their agenda.

You didn't really address any of my post that you quoted but I suspect you subconsciously quoted it because you knew it was the most important part.

What the founding fathers thought about slavery or guns or gays is really quite irrelevant. The point I'm making with what you quoted,

"Sounds like you have your head inserted firmly up the GOP's butt. The GOP tells you you have to oppose "THE GAY AGENDA" and you wholeheartedly agree. Way to think critically. How about explaining exactly how a class of people that don't reproduce, are statistically one of the fewest "on the dole" because they are statistically very good earners and want in many cases to adopt and raise children that have no families are detrimental to the security or prosperity of this country? Morals? Please. You have to point out what's wrong with it before you can call it immoral. The mantra doesn't work anymore without some good data to back it up."

is that you can't demonstrate that homosexuality is detrimental to society in any way. Just as liberal gun grabbers can't show that gun ownership is detrimental to society in any way. The best you can do is point to homosexual pedophiles, who again are BREAKING THE LAW, and try to draw a correlation to all homosexuals just like those gun grabbers point to criminal gun use by people who again are BREAKING THE LAW and try to draw a correlation to all gun owners. They do it with gun ownership because it's something they find abhorrent and they have no interest in it but they suck at making the case that gun owners are any real harm to society if they are responsible. Same goes for anyone that wants to claim that homosexuals should be treated any differently.

Sam Spade
07-11-2012, 20:55
Again, the key here is that it doesn't affect you. If you don't like the idea of abortions then don't have one and if you're a man then be happy that you'll never have to make that decision. It affects the person having the abortion and so long as that life is dependent on their body they get to make that choice. Yeah, I know, if they don't want to be faced with that choice then they shouldn't have sex. What a perfect opportunity for you to force your morals on somebody else using flawed logic.

And so to pedophilia...if it bothers you, don't do it. As the Libertarian platform previously posted says, you have no right to prevent anyone from freely entering a contract or relationship.

Once you abandon recognition that society has a say or that morals beyond the "anything I want" exist, things get *very* messy.

ETA: All of which goes for post 198, too. Pedos not reproducing, earn good money, otherwise productive, attraction they didn't choose...

Walt_NC
07-11-2012, 21:31
Hi, all. Just wandered in for my weekly dose of derp.

I wanted to point out that the those of you seeking similar manufactured outrage through additional completely rational, supported and well-reasoned blog articles should read the other stuff that Mr. Makow is posting. Like...oh, I dunno...the first "article" posted on his blogs homepage.

If you are anything like me, you will be shocked to learn that the "shwoosh-shaped" logos of Quiznos Subs, Nike, The Denver International Airport, and Head and Shoulders (among many others) indicated that they are controlled by the Illuminati. Apparently in the age of secured cell phones and encrypted emails, this omnipotent and all-controlling super secret international organization has decided to forgo normal methods of secure communication and is instead relying upon using these logos to send secretive messages to........ itself. Thankfully Henry Makow and his readers have the necessary intelligence to recognize this sinister plot, and the temerity to expose it to the world.

http://www.henrymakow.com/more_swooshes.html

With that, I will leave you to resume your quest for truth and academic discourse.

GAFinch
07-11-2012, 21:39
Again, the key here is that it doesn't affect you. If you don't like the idea of abortions then don't have one and if you're a man then be happy that you'll never have to make that decision. It affects the person having the abortion and so long as that life is dependent on their body they get to make that choice. Yeah, I know, if they don't want to be faced with that choice then they shouldn't have sex. What a perfect opportunity for you to force your morals on somebody else using flawed logic.

So it's okay to kill your child, but not okay to have sex with it?

Gunhaver
07-11-2012, 22:55
So it's okay to kill your child, but not okay to have sex with it?

Once the child is born it's not OK to kill it because it's no longer dependent on another human being's body to survive. You guys all understand the concept of not having one person be forced to have another survive off of them when the issue is tax dollars used for health care. You'd have one person's right to elect to have a medical procedure prohibited by the government to save a life but cry about having to give up a penny of your tax dollars to provide life saving medical care to somebody that can't afford it.

Now we come to the personal responsibility part of the argument. Obviously you think your personal responsibility extends to having your emotional response to the idea of abortions passed as law and your morality imposed on others. You don't have to do anything except pass your judgment at the ballot box and pay additional taxes for additional entitlements for additional unwanted children, which you will also ***** about. But let someone raise the issue of taxing you to save other lives by subsidizing their medical care and you reverse your position completely and say that those lives aren't worth enough to you to have to pay more taxes. How very inconsistent of you. It's almost as if you don't really think your beliefs through at all.

Gunhaver
07-11-2012, 23:30
And so to pedophilia...if it bothers you, don't do it. As the Libertarian platform previously posted says, you have no right to prevent anyone from freely entering a contract or relationship.

Once you abandon recognition that society has a say or that morals beyond the "anything I want" exist, things get *very* messy.

ETA: All of which goes for post 198, too. Pedos not reproducing, earn good money, otherwise productive, attraction they didn't choose...

So you're on the pedophile's side now?

Funny, I googled "libertarians support pedophilia" and nothing much came up. Seems that this is not a concern for anybody except the select few GT wackaloonies that are harping about it. I'd say that we're currently under the libertarian stance on pedophiles since each state sets it's own age of consent and the lowest it goes is 14 and only in 2 states. The vast majority have it set at 18 and many in the 15-17 range have restrictions that the older partner can only be a few years older. Do we need a federally mandated age of consent?



As for post 198, you're ignoring that pesky consenting adult concept again. Not surprising since it negates your entire argument.

hogfish
07-12-2012, 05:34
I figured this was another of those silly threads where someone makes a bunch of stuff up and creates a horrible, world threatening issue, so I hadn't clicked on it. I looked at the first page, then the last page. I think it might be worth coming back and reading through the whole thing.

Unbelievable! :shocked:

Not so shocked, really. :wow:

:faint:

happyguy
07-12-2012, 05:42
Once the child is born it's not OK to kill it because it's no longer dependent on another human being's body to survive.

Damn parasites.

Regards,
Happyguy :)

Skyhook
07-12-2012, 05:50
Again, the key here is that it doesn't affect you. If you don't like the idea of abortions then don't have one and if you're a man then be happy that you'll never have to make that decision. It affects the person having the abortion and so long as that life is dependent on their body they get to make that choice. Yeah, I know, if they don't want to be faced with that choice then they shouldn't have sex. What a perfect opportunity for you to force your morals on somebody else using flawed logic.


After reading Walt's excellent and illuminating contribution, I was going to walk away from This statement, above, as one must from errant dog droppings in the park, but have you ever---EVER!-- seen a more arrogant, narcissistic comment in your entire life of reading?!? "Again, the key here is that it doesn't affect you. "


:faint:

JBnTX
07-12-2012, 06:33
After reading Walt's excellent and illuminating contribution, I was going to walk away from This statement, above, as one must from errant dog droppings in the park, but have you ever---EVER!-- seen a more arrogant, narcissistic comment in your entire life of reading?!? "Again, the key here is that it doesn't affect you. "


:faint:


Way too many Americans have their heads buried in the sand, and fail to see the rampant moral and ethical decline that this country is in.

If it doesn't directly affect them, then they don't care.

Statements like "two consenting adults" and "what people do in their own bedrooms" are just another way of saying "I don't want to know about it, leave me alone".

Those people had better wake up and see that all of this is aimed directly at our children.

And that affects ALL of us.

..

John Rambo
07-12-2012, 06:44
...After all you don't want to be labeled a bigot, do you?

Society will soon demand that you accept yet another "alternate lifestyle"
as equal to your own.

I wonder if Obama will endorse this like he did same sex marriage?



Pedophiles Demand Social Acceptance Gays Got
http://www.henrymakow.com/left_jerry_sandusky_pedophiles.html

"They hope the APA will redefine the clinical definition of pedophilia as a natural condition, something people are born into, and not a result of prior abuse or lack of parental connection."

"We are about to witness a repeat of what the APA had done for homosexuality, back in the 70s, resulting in the bullying of people who dare speak up against it."


They want to be called "minor attracted persons".
http://communities.washingtontimes.com/neighborhood/middle-class-guy/2011/aug/17/b4uact-seek-acceptance-minor-attracted-pedophiles/

"B4U-ACT is a Maryland-based group of mental health professionals, psychiatrists and pedophiles who want to normalize pedophilia."

"Instead of pejoratively calling them "pedophiles," "fiends," "deviants," "freaks," "perverts," "degenerates," "predators" or "pedophiles," they would prefer that society refer to them by the sensitive and socially-accepting term: minor attracted persons."

..

You realize that while pedophilia isn't something people are born with, it IS a medical condition, right? These peoples' heads are seriously screwed up, and the problems go way beyond the superficial "wanting to tag underage ass" crap. The root of their condition is pretty severe. If I had some screwed up mental problem like that I wouldn't want to be labelled as some kind of deviant. But then again, I'd seek immediate help to try and get better. If they actually end up messing around with a kid, they deserve absolutely every derogatory remark they get.


Aw, hell. I didn't notice who I was replying to. Of course you don't realize any of that.

JBnTX
07-12-2012, 06:52
....


Aw, hell. I didn't notice who I was replying to. Of course you don't realize any of that.

You are correct.

I do not realize any of that, because I have absolutely zero tolerance for anyone who forces sex on a child.

I don't give a hoot in hell if it's medical condition that they're born with, or anything else.

No excuses and no mercy to them.

John Rambo
07-12-2012, 06:58
You are correct.

I do not realize any of that, because I have absolutely zero tolerance for anyone who forces sex on a child.

I don't give a hoot in hell if it's medical condition that they're born with, or anything else.

No excuses and no mercy to them.

Nobody has any tolerance for that. But having some very deep-seated mental issues which attract people to children (hint: its not about the sex) and acting on those urges are two completely different things. The former is not that persons' fault, and usually the result of bad things that happened to them as a child. The latter, of course, is a zero-tolerance offense. Are you even capable of comprehending that?

JBnTX
07-12-2012, 07:11
Nobody has any tolerance for that. But having some very deep-seated mental issues which attract people to children (hint: its not about the sex) and acting on those urges are two completely different things. The former is not that persons' fault, and usually the result of bad things that happened to them as a child. The latter, of course, is a zero-tolerance offense. Are you even capable of comprehending that?


No!

I don't buy that "my mommy and daddy beat me and that's why I killed all those people" crap.

It's just an excuse used by evil people, and accepted by people who don't want to face the fact that we have two legged monsters walking around and preying on our children.

Sam Spade
07-12-2012, 07:19
So you're on the pedophile's side now?

Funny, I googled "libertarians support pedophilia" and nothing much came up. Seems that this is not a concern for anybody except the select few GT wackaloonies that are harping about it. I'd say that we're currently under the libertarian stance on pedophiles since each state sets it's own age of consent and the lowest it goes is 14 and only in 2 states. The vast majority have it set at 18 and many in the 15-17 range have restrictions that the older partner can only be a few years older. Do we need a federally mandated age of consent?



As for post 198, you're ignoring that pesky consenting adult concept again. Not surprising since it negates your entire argument.

I posted what side I'm on back in Post 26. Used bold and red just so people couldn't miss it. Do NOT continue down this path.

Sorry that your google skills are so weak. Fortunately, Chute's are better and he's done the work for you in Post 47, complete with links.

Finally, "consenting adults" is a purely legal and social construct. Erected at whim, it can be changed at whim, just as "one man, one woman" is being changed. *That's* the point, and you've done nothing to even address it.

series1811
07-12-2012, 07:53
Hi, all. Just wandered in for my weekly dose of derp.

I wanted to point out that the those of you seeking similar manufactured outrage through additional completely rational, supported and well-reasoned blog articles should read the other stuff that Mr. Makow is posting. Like...oh, I dunno...the first "article" posted on his blogs homepage.

If you are anything like me, you will be shocked to learn that the "shwoosh-shaped" logos of Quiznos Subs, Nike, The Denver International Airport, and Head and Shoulders (among many others) indicated that they are controlled by the Illuminati. Apparently in the age of secured cell phones and encrypted emails, this omnipotent and all-controlling super secret international organization has decided to forgo normal methods of secure communication and is instead relying upon using these logos to send secretive messages to........ itself. Thankfully Henry Makow and his readers have the necessary intelligence to recognize this sinister plot, and the temerity to expose it to the world.

http://www.henrymakow.com/more_swooshes.html

With that, I will leave you to resume your quest for truth and academic discourse.

Yeah, it is a conservative myth that there are pedophiles out there, demanding to be treated as normal.

http://www.nambla.org/

Or google "Age of Consent Reform" or "René Guyon Society".

So, do you just not know, or just not care?

certifiedfunds
07-12-2012, 08:20
Once the child is born it's not OK to kill it because it's no longer dependent on another human being's body to survive. You guys all understand the concept of not having one person be forced to have another survive off of them when the issue is tax dollars used for health care. You'd have one person's right to elect to have a medical procedure prohibited by the government to save a life but cry about having to give up a penny of your tax dollars to provide life saving medical care to somebody that can't afford it.

Now we come to the personal responsibility part of the argument. Obviously you think your personal responsibility extends to having your emotional response to the idea of abortions passed as law and your morality imposed on others. You don't have to do anything except pass your judgment at the ballot box and pay additional taxes for additional entitlements for additional unwanted children, which you will also ***** about. But let someone raise the issue of taxing you to save other lives by subsidizing their medical care and you reverse your position completely and say that those lives aren't worth enough to you to have to pay more taxes. How very inconsistent of you. It's almost as if you don't really think your beliefs through at all.

You have just made a series of the most illogical arguments I've ever seen.

Drjones
07-12-2012, 09:36
The "it doesn't affect you so who cares" 'logic' is the dumbest crap I've ever heard.

By that reasoning, rapes & murders that happen hundreds of miles away from you don't affect you in the least, so we may as well legalize rape & murder, right?

Yeah, that's the ticket.... :upeyes:

nmk
07-12-2012, 10:52
The "it doesn't affect you so who cares" 'logic' is the dumbest crap I've ever heard.

By that reasoning, rapes & murders that happen hundreds of miles away from you don't affect you in the least, so we may as well legalize rape & murder, right?

Yeah, that's the ticket.... :upeyes:

You're better than this.

Walt_NC
07-12-2012, 11:20
Yeah, it is a conservative myth that there are pedophiles out there, demanding to be treated as normal.

http://www.nambla.org/

Or google "Age of Consent Reform" or "René Guyon Society".

So, do you just not know, or just not care?

Normal? But the premise of this article (and the subsequent hilarious thread) is that pedophiles want the same social acceptance as homosexuals. Mother of God. You think homosexuality is normal! Derpers! Attack!

----------------------------------------

To answer your question, 24 hours ago I would have responded; "I just don't care". But that was 24 hours ago when I was still relying on rational thought. There's no denying that there are, most definitely, pedophiles out there who want social acceptance. But from that premise, I would have put on my big boy thinking hat and attempted to apply reason to the situation by taking stock of the current social climate. I would have concluded that pedophiles are one of the smallest, most reviled and repulsive groups in society and have less sway with the general public than other fringe groups like white supremacists and flat earth groups. After having rubbed two brain cells together, I would have concluded that the threat of pedophilia actually becoming normalized is infinitesimally small and not worth getting worked up about. Even though there are some who have real websites and everything!

But now? I am terrified that pedophilia will become normalized and socially accepted by society, just like homosexuality. If there is anything that I have learned from this thread and Mr. Makow, its that the rape of a child is no different than two consenting adults having a physical relationship.

There is one thing that confuses me, though. Where do the Illuminati fit in to all of this?

countrygun
07-12-2012, 11:25
You're better than this.


No, the "It doesn't affect you" argument is just that bad.

series1811
07-12-2012, 12:02
Normal? But the premise of this article (and the subsequent hilarious thread) is that pedophiles want the same social acceptance as homosexuals. Mother of God. You think homosexuality is normal! Derpers! Attack!

----------------------------------------

To answer your question, 24 hours ago I would have responded; "I just don't care". But that was 24 hours ago when I was still relying on rational thought. There's no denying that there are, most definitely, pedophiles out there who want social acceptance. But from that premise, I would have put on my big boy thinking hat and attempted to apply reason to the situation by taking stock of the current social climate. I would have concluded that pedophiles are one of the smallest, most reviled and repulsive groups in society and have less sway with the general public than other fringe groups like white supremacists and flat earth groups. After having rubbed two brain cells together, I would have concluded that the threat of pedophilia actually becoming normalized is infinitesimally small and not worth getting worked up about. Even though there are some who have real websites and everything!

But now? I am terrified that pedophilia will become normalized and socially accepted by society, just like homosexuality. If there is anything that I have learned from this thread and Mr. Makow, its that the rape of a child is no different than two consenting adults having a physical relationship.

There is one thing that confuses me, though. Where do the Illuminati fit in to all of this?

The mind of a person who voted for Obama, laid open bare.

You just don't know what you don't know and there is no fixing that for you, is there?

nmk
07-12-2012, 13:39
No, the "It doesn't affect you" argument is just that bad.

The "it doesn't affect you" argument is the sloppy way of saying "it doesn't affect any non-consenting individuals".

ETA: But I could have missed someone here defending rape, murder, child molestation, etc...

The Maggy
07-12-2012, 14:19
Way too many Americans have their heads buried in the sand, and fail to see the rampant moral and ethical decline that this country is in.

If it doesn't directly affect them, then they don't care.

Statements like "two consenting adults" and "what people do in their own bedrooms" are just another way of saying "I don't want to know about it, leave me alone".

Those people had better wake up and see that all of this is aimed directly at our children.

And that affects ALL of us.

..

Those statements say nothing about "I don't want to know about it, leave me alone." Those statements do imply that it is no one's business except those parties involved, assuming that both parties are of legal consenting age.

We have a very well defined definition of what a minor is, and what a minor can and cannot do, legally. There is no movement, that is taken seriously, to lower the age of consent or to otherwise change the laws to be more beneficial towards pedophiles.

I am assuming that you heard something on the radio, perhaps Savage's show(?), and you allowed yourself to get worked up into a tizzy over nothing.

2@low8
07-12-2012, 14:35
We have a very well defined definition of what a minor is, and what a minor can and cannot do, legally. There is no movement, that is taken seriously, to lower the age of consent or to otherwise change the laws to be more beneficial towards pedophiles.
g.

Not too many years ago we had a very specific definition of what marriage was, today, not so much. Not too many years ago there was no movement that was taken seriously, to change the definition of marriage or to otherwise change the laws to be more beneficial towards homosexuals, et.al.

See how this works???

nmk
07-12-2012, 14:41
Not too many years ago we had a very specific definition of what marriage was, today, not so much. Not too many years ago there was no movement that was taken seriously, to change the definition of marriage or to otherwise change the laws to be more beneficial towards homosexuals, et.al.

See how this works???

We shouldn't let women vote either. Not too many years ago...

I do see how this works. It's fun.

nmk
07-12-2012, 14:50
Those statements say nothing about "I don't want to know about it, leave me alone." Those statements do imply that it is no one's business except those parties involved, assuming that both parties are of legal consenting age.

We have a very well defined definition of what a minor is, and what a minor can and cannot do, legally. There is no movement, that is taken seriously, to lower the age of consent or to otherwise change the laws to be more beneficial towards pedophiles.

I am assuming that you heard something on the radio, perhaps Savage's show(?), and you allowed yourself to get worked up into a tizzy over nothing.

They continue to make a slippery slope argument. Unfortunately for them, they can't successfully argue that pedophilia comes after homosexuality.

Gunhaver
07-12-2012, 16:07
No!

I don't buy that "my mommy and daddy beat me and that's why I killed all those people" crap.

It's just an excuse used by evil people, and accepted by people who don't want to face the fact that we have two legged monsters walking around and preying on our children.

For once I agree with you. I don't care why the dog is rabid, I just want to shoot it before it gets to the kids. No mercy and no excuses for people like that.

But when you turn that into wanting to shoot everybody's dog because you've made the brilliant deduction that a lot of rabid animals have been dogs (because you've always had it in for dogs) then you're out of line.

Walt_NC
07-12-2012, 16:13
The mind of a person who voted for Obama, laid open bare.

You just don't know what you don't know and there is no fixing that for you, is there?

So...you're saying that there is more to this than meets the eye? One can only assume that you're trying to suggest that the Autobots are in league with NAMBLA and the Illuminati, to push the pedophile agenda? This IS serious business! I am going to go work myself up into a frothy rage. You get the word out and keep doing God's work here!

Gunhaver
07-12-2012, 16:27
You have just made a series of the most illogical arguments I've ever seen.

Then I'm sure you'll have no problem pointing that out. Have at it.

Gunhaver
07-12-2012, 16:36
I posted what side I'm on back in Post 26. Used bold and red just so people couldn't miss it. Do NOT continue down this path.

Sorry that your google skills are so weak. Fortunately, Chute's are better and he's done the work for you in Post 47, complete with links.

Finally, "consenting adults" is a purely legal and social construct. Erected at whim, it can be changed at whim, just as "one man, one woman" is being changed. *That's* the point, and you've done nothing to even address it.

"Rape" and "Murder" and "Theft" are also purely legal and social constructs. They are actions that society universally agrees, aside from the few crazies, are very bad things and should be punished. What's your point about the "purely legal constructs"? What more could you hope for? An objective morality? A voice booming down from the heavens dictating right and wrong? Good luck with that. All signs say we're on our own.

There, I've addressed it.

JBnTX
07-12-2012, 17:02
... All signs say we're on our own.

.

Can you post some of these signs?

All the signs I've seen indicate that we're not on our own.
In fact there's even a book that contains all the signs.

..

2@low8
07-12-2012, 18:01
Can you post some of these signs?

All the signs I've seen indicate that we're not on our own.
In fact there's even a book that contains all the signs.

..

:thumbsup: Amen.

RC-RAMIE
07-12-2012, 18:19
Can you post some of these signs?

All the signs I've seen indicate that we're not on our own.
In fact there's even a book that contains all the signs.

..

A couple different books from what I hear but they all don't agree on the facts or the signs.


....

LASTRESORT20
07-12-2012, 19:05
You appear a little slow on the deep sarcasm with which I speak. Let me make my personal opinion clear:

If and when society (more specifically, those in political power) deems something to be an acceptable activity, they will stop at nothing until they achieve their goal of total acceptance.

50 (just picking a number) years ago, gay marriage was not on the radar of those in political power, in fact, I would bet that it was the third rail, just don't talk about it. Fast forward to today and you have the President of the USA espousing Gay marriage.

The right set of circumstances come into play and the right people get elected and I can easliy see how "minor attracted persons" could become a protected class of people.

This country is becoming a sewer of depravity right before our eyes and I fear that it is too far gone to be reclaimed.


Well said!

Gunhaver
07-12-2012, 19:17
Can you post some of these signs?

All the signs I've seen indicate that we're not on our own.
In fact there's even a book that contains all the signs.

..

You should come over to the religious forum if you want to discuss your book and it's place in determining public policy. We'd have a lot of fun with you over there.

GAFinch
07-12-2012, 19:25
They continue to make a slippery slope argument. Unfortunately for them, they can't successfully argue that pedophilia comes after homosexuality.

No, polygamy is likely first. Don't forget about the oppressed bisexuals who are forced by society to deny half of who they are.

Gay activists started with basic tolerance (not getting beat up, etc). Society adapts, then Clinton solidifies it with hate laws. Once that's concluded, then the bar is raised to acceptance. Society adapts and many conservatives wind up with gay friends. Full-blown acceptance gets solidified as gay characters make it onto multiple network tv shows, daytime and and later primetime, DADT is repealed, and Gay Pride Month is passed. Not Day, not Week, but an entire Month. Do you guys accept the win? Not a chance. The bar is now raised to adoption of gay marriage. What started out as pleas for basic legal rights has moved to civil unions and then to full-blown gay marriage. Opposed to gay marriage? Hate-filled, closeted homophobe. What of people who have adopted tolerance or acceptance and have gay friends but object to gay marriage? Doesn't matter, they're also hate-filled, closeted homophobes.

The line of modern morality is constantly being moved by activists, so there's absolutely no reason to believe it will stop moving if gay marriage is adopted. We've been fooled twice now and are on full alert now, carefully looking two or more steps ahead. Not hard to do given our constant exposure to your propaganda in schools and media.

GAFinch
07-12-2012, 19:28
Once the child is born it's not OK to kill it because it's no longer dependent on another human being's body to survive. You guys all understand the concept of not having one person be forced to have another survive off of them when the issue is tax dollars used for health care. You'd have one person's right to elect to have a medical procedure prohibited by the government to save a life but cry about having to give up a penny of your tax dollars to provide life saving medical care to somebody that can't afford it.

Now we come to the personal responsibility part of the argument. Obviously you think your personal responsibility extends to having your emotional response to the idea of abortions passed as law and your morality imposed on others. You don't have to do anything except pass your judgment at the ballot box and pay additional taxes for additional entitlements for additional unwanted children, which you will also ***** about. But let someone raise the issue of taxing you to save other lives by subsidizing their medical care and you reverse your position completely and say that those lives aren't worth enough to you to have to pay more taxes. How very inconsistent of you. It's almost as if you don't really think your beliefs through at all.

Infanticide aka partial birth abortion aka late term abortion aka euthanizing failed abortions, supported by Obama, Clinton, Pelosi, and most other Democrats, was narrowly outlawed by Republicans before Pelosi and Reid took over.

Gunhaver
07-12-2012, 19:34
This country is becoming a sewer of depravity right before our eyes and I fear that it is too far gone to be reclaimed.

One man's sewer of depravity is another man's helluva good Saturday night.

2@low8
07-13-2012, 06:36
We shouldn't let women vote either. Not too many years ago...

I do see how this works. It's fun.

So you agree, once the ball gets rolling, there's no stopping it.

Gunhaver
07-13-2012, 07:50
Infanticide aka partial birth abortion aka late term abortion aka euthanizing failed abortions, supported by Obama, Clinton, Pelosi, and most other Democrats, was narrowly outlawed by Republicans before Pelosi and Reid took over.

I don't like partial birth abortions, not one bit. Once it gets that far along the argument that it's dependent on another human being for life doesn't stand anymore and you've had plenty of time to decide which way to go before it got that far along.

But you still have the problem of an unwanted child being brought into an already overpopulated society by a parent that has no desire and probably no means to raise that child. So I invite anyone that's opposed to it to put their money where their mouth is and adopt as many of those unwanted children as they can possibly afford to raise.

I was recently descended upon by the GT conservative derp squad because I commented that I wasn't opposed to the ACA. Not that I voted for Obama or that I supported Obama, just that now that the SCOTUS has said that "Obamacare" was good to go I didn't think it was such a bad thing because I had a sick friend that I thought might be helped by it. They lined right up to tell me how wrong it was to expect someone else to foot her medical bills and how I should go get another job to help her pay for meds. It wasn't their problem because she wasn't their friend and they didn't care about her. Where's that mentality with regards to the abortion issue? If you all care so much about these human lives then why aren't you doing anything to help raise them?

2@low8
07-13-2012, 08:37
[QUOTE=Gunhaver;19191654] So I invite anyone that's opposed to it to put their money where their mouth is and adopt as many of those unwanted children as they can possibly afford to raise.

QUOTE]

Been there, done that.

Cavalry Doc
07-13-2012, 08:56
I don't like partial birth abortions, not one bit. Once it gets that far along the argument that it's dependent on another human being for life doesn't stand anymore and you've had plenty of time to decide which way to go before it got that far along.

But you still have the problem of an unwanted child being brought into an already overpopulated society by a parent that has no desire and probably no means to raise that child. So I invite anyone that's opposed to it to put their money where their mouth is and adopt as many of those unwanted children as they can possibly afford to raise.

I was recently descended upon by the GT conservative derp squad because I commented that I wasn't opposed to the ACA. Not that I voted for Obama or that I supported Obama, just that now that the SCOTUS has said that "Obamacare" was good to go I didn't think it was such a bad thing because I had a sick friend that I thought might be helped by it. They lined right up to tell me how wrong it was to expect someone else to foot her medical bills and how I should go get another job to help her pay for meds. It wasn't their problem because she wasn't their friend and they didn't care about her. Where's that mentality with regards to the abortion issue? If you all care so much about these human lives then why aren't you doing anything to help raise them?

I have an aunt that was raised in an orphanage. She's a real nice person, and a very loving and attentive mother to my cousins. :dunno:


Guess with your logic, her, my uncle and my cousins would have been better off if she had never been born.

You can't avoid the fact that the right of the mother's convenience, outweighs the right of the unborn to live. There are of course times when even I agree with abortion in extreme cases, but for the most part, it's used to avoid the consequences and responsibility for bad choices.

Sam Spade
07-13-2012, 09:40
Yeah, we're just delusional about the pattern used by "progressives":


B4U-ACT is a Maryland-based group of mental health professionals, psychiatrists and pedophiles who want to normalize pedophilia. Instead of pejoratively calling them "pedophiles," "fiends," "deviants," "freaks," "perverts," "degenerates," "predators" or "pedophiles," they would prefer that society refer to them by the sensitive and socially-accepting term: minor attracted persons. *
http://c.washingtontimes.com/neighborhood/middle-class-guy/2011/aug/17/b4uact-seek-acceptance-minor-attracted-pedophiles/

countrygun
07-13-2012, 11:42
Yeah, we're just delusional about the pattern used by "progressives":


http://c.washingtontimes.com/neighborhood/middle-class-guy/2011/aug/17/b4uact-seek-acceptance-minor-attracted-pedophiles/


Noooo, that isn't amost the exact same wording and logic used in the early 70's about homsexuality and "alternative lifestyles" no, not at all:upeyes:

No the gay community isn't on the cutting edge of making all sorts of formerly unacceptable behavior a part of America's daily life, noo not at all.

Hey, look at San Francisco, a city that led the way in embracing the developing culture, who wouldn't want their town to be just like that?