The North American Man-Boy Love Association (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NAMBLA) (NAMBLA) thinks it's perfectly normal for grown men to have homosexual-pedophilia relations with young boys.

Homosexuality has been removed from the APA (American Psychiatric Association) list of mental illnesses, so has pedophilia (except when the adult feels "subjective distress"). (United States Congressional Record, June 29, 1989.)

So according to the APA, homosexual child molesters are perfectly healthy normal human beings that don't need psychiatric help. I think child molesters are terrible people. What do you think?

Perhaps you should have set this up as a poll?

i really feel sorry for the humanity of the planet.

any 'man' that comes sniffing around my children is going to get smacked with a ballbat.

Homosexual (Gay-Lesbian-Bi-sexual)

I don’t think there is anything morally inappropriate with homosexual behavior.

Pedophilia (Sex with Children)

Pedophilia is inappropriate, but it depends on your definition of pedophilia. I think it is always inappropriate for an adult to have sex with a prepubescent child, but I don’t believe that it is always inappropriate to for an adult to have sex with a teenager between the ages of 13 and 17. It all depends on the age, sex, and the maturity of the teenager.

Homosexual Pedophilia

Same as above.

Bestiality (Sex with Animals)

I’m not attracted to animals but I think humans should have the right to do whatever they want to do with animals. We kill and torture animals for food and clothing. Why shouldn’t we be able to have sex with animals? I am going to assume that most animal lovers do not abuse their pets. If the human is enjoying it, and the animal is enjoying it, what is the problem?

Necrophilia (Sex with dead people)

Once again, I am not attracted to dead people but I think the living should have the right to have sex with the dead. Most people care about what happens to their bodies or the bodies of their loved ones after they die. I couldn’t care less about what happens to my body after I die. I don't have a problem with my body being used for someone's pleausre after I am dead.

Sado-Masochism

There is nothing wrong with kinky sex.

Homosexual (Gay-Lesbian-Bi-sexual)

I don’t think there is anything morally inappropriate with homosexual behavior.

Pedophilia (Sex with Children)

Pedophilia is inappropriate, but it depends on your definition of pedophilia. I think it is always inappropriate for an adult to have sex with a prepubescent child, but I don’t believe that it is always inappropriate to for an adult to have sex with a teenager between the ages of 13 and 17. It all depends on the age, sex, and the maturity of the teenager.

Homosexual Pedophilia

Same as above.

Bestiality (Sex with Animals)

I’m not attracted to animals but I think humans should have the right to do whatever they want to do with animals. We kill and torture animals for food and clothing. Why shouldn’t we be able to have sex with animals? I am going to assume that most animal lovers do not abuse their pets. If the human is enjoying it, and the animal is enjoying it, what is the problem?

Necrophilia (Sex with dead people)

Once again, I am not attracted to dead people but I think the living should have the right to have sex with the dead. Most people care about what happens to their bodies or the bodies of their loved ones after they die. I couldn’t care less about what happens to my body after I die. I don't have a problem with my body being used for someone's pleausre after I am dead.

Sado-Masochism

There is nothing wrong with kinky sex.

I think you read the poll question wrong.
Poll Options
Which Sexual Behaviors are Morally Appropriate? (check all that apply)


It is what is appropriate not what is inappropriate, thus you voting only that paedophilia and homsexual paedophilia is appropriate rather makes you appear like a supporter of paedophilia.

LOL I misvoted. Actually... disregard the pedo thing. I was thinking 16 year olds... not 5 year olds. Any way I can fix that?

I think you read the poll question wrong.
Poll Options
Which Sexual Behaviors are Morally Appropriate? (check all that apply)


It is what is appropriate not what is inappropriate, thus you voting only that paedophilia and homsexual paedophilia is appropriate rather makes you appear like a supporter of paedophilia.

Yes I did read it wrong. I was multitasking at the time. Anyway people can read my post to know what think. Is there a way for me to change my vote?

"Disease" has come to be a moral term rather than medical. People are born gay, to say that it's not a disease is merely to say that it is not unhealthy. But it's hard to justify saying that pedophilia is not a disease. I suppose people are born that way too and it's not their fault that they're pedophiles, but people are also born with all kinds of bad medical conditions and we're allowed to call them "unhealthy."

Gay people are attracted to people of their own gender regardless of whether they're gay or straight. But fortunately there are enough gay people to keep each other set up with dates. So they don't have any reason to hit on the rest of us except by mistake, and by now they and we have learned to shrug that off with a little nervous laughter and no harm is done. Gay people can have their need for sex with people of their own gender satisfied without harming anyone.

Pedophiles can't do that. Their lives are a constant battle of will power. A lifelong denial of what makes them happy. All it takes is to weaken just once and succumb to the urge, and they become criminals, demons, and the cause of a child's lifelong suffering. I think that sort of qualifies as an "illness." It sure sounds worse than influenza to me.

Necrophilia (Sex with dead people)

Once again, I am not attracted to dead people but I think the living should have the right to have sex with the dead. Most people care about what happens to their bodies or the bodies of their loved ones after they die. I couldn’t care less about what happens to my body after I die. I don't have a problem with my body being used for someone's pleausre after I am dead.

So let's get this straight: you're saying a person that enjoys sex with dead people doesn't have a mental problem. And someone that enjoys sex with animals -- you don't think they have a mental problem either. :confused:

Do you think either of these types would make good marriage material?

I don't have a problem with my body being used for someone's pleausre after I am dead.

Maybe someday, you can get married to a necrophiliac after you are dead.

There are all sorts of strange customs that aren't a result of mental illness.

I would say that none of the above are what you would call mentally ill. Its all about sexual preference, which is put in place by nature and/or nurture. I see nothing really morally wrong with having sex with a corpse or animal as long as they dont object ;), homosexuality is certainly not morally wrong.
None of these are my preferrence but I take no moral highground or impose my own preferences on anyone else. I dont have an instruction book I have to follow before I can even begin to think about the world though.

So let's get this straight: you're saying a person that enjoys sex with dead people doesn't have a mental problem. And someone that enjoys sex with animals -- you don't think they have a mental problem either. :confused:

Do you think either of these types would make good marriage material?

Who am I to say that a person has mental problem because they like to have sex with animals or dead people. I am not a psychiatrist, and even if I was I would still think that bestiality and necrophilia is morally appropriate. These people are not hurting anyone. I will admit that the thought of having sex with an animal or a dead person is disgusting to me, but that doesn’t mean that the people that enjoy these things are mentally ill.

Maybe someday, you can get married to a necrophiliac after you are dead.

Maybe I will, but I won’t be around to experience it because I'll be dead.

I would say that none of the above are what you would call mentally ill. Its all about sexual preference, which is put in place by nature and/or nurture. I see nothing really morally wrong with having sex with a corpse or animal as long as they dont object ;), homosexualality is certainly not morally wrong.
None of these are my preferrence but I take no moral highground or impose my own preferences on anyone else. I dont have an instruction book I have to follow before I can even begin to think about the world though.

You don't see any of it as wrong. Would you be worried if your teenage son or daughter had sex with animals on a regular basis? Would you feel like they needed help if they weren't interested in human companionship?

If your seven year-old son or daughter wanted to have sex with a pedophile, would that be ok? After all somebody's son or daughter is their sex object.

You don't see any of it as wrong. Would you be worried if your son or daughter liked to have sex with animals?
Are you a member of nambla out of curiosity? Is this leading to something like 'its not morally wrong to insert your penis into a child as long as they are smiling'?

If your seven year-old son or daughter wanted to have sex with a pedophile, would that be ok? After all somebody's son or daughter is their sex object.
See above^

Are you a member of nambla out of curiosity? Is this leading to something like 'its not morally wrong to insert your penis into a child as long as they are smiling'?

I'm not a NAMBLAphile. I have a wife and a daughter.

I'd have to agree with leopold99 -- bust the jerk over the head!

I'm not a NAMBLAphile. I have a wife and a daughter.
Sorry I misjudged you. I thought the introduction of the nambla poll and then direction towards childrens sexuality (or lack there of) was indicative of someone who wants to make paedophilia legal.

So according to the APA, homosexual child molesters are perfectly healthy normal human beings that don't need psychiatric help. What do you think?
Ah yeah sorry I skipped over the point.

I would say: What do the figures indicate? Is it actually borne out by statistics that psychiatric intevention does any good? I would say no.

Homosexual
there is nothing wrong with homosexuality as long as all parties consent to it

Pedophilia
true pedophilia is wrong, as even if a child is capable of making the decision to consent, they are physically unfit to have sex.
on the other hand, statutory, often mislabelled as pedophilia is acceptable provided all parties consent.

Bestiality
as the animal is unable to consent due to communication barriers between the species and to a lesser extent because of the animals lower intelligence, this is abuse. so is the torture and murder of animals.

Necrophilia
if a person is dead then they lose all power of consent, you can do what you want with their body. although most societies would pass the decision the noxt of kin, as to how the body must be treated.

Sado-Masochism
as long as its consentual.

Who am I to say that a person has mental problem because they like to have sex with animals or dead people. I am not a psychiatrist, and even if I was I would still think that bestiality and necrophilia is morally appropriate. These people are not hurting anyone. I will admit that the thought of having sex with an animal or a dead person is disgusting to me, but that doesn’t mean that the people that enjoy these things are mentally ill.

Would you you want somebody like that as your soul-mate? Would you be concerned if your teenage son or daughter was turning out that way? Would you be concerned if your spouse was helping them turn out that way?

Homosexual

Sado-Masochism
as long as its consentual.

What about their personality? Would you want to work for someone that is a sado-masochist? How would you like them for a boss or a co-worker?

Let's say you needed marriage or family counseling, Would you go to your local sado-masochist? :eek:

Ah yeah sorry I skipped over the point.

ok, I'll edit my original post. PS, I like your mohammed Icon. The cartoonist that made it got in trouble for it.

Homosexual
there is nothing wrong with homosexuality as long as all parties consent to it

What about the homosexual internet cannibal (http://www.4law.co.il/cann1c.htm)? Both parties consented.

news story (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3075897.stm)

a quote from the news story:

The victim was a 43-year-old Berlin computer technician who had sold his car, written a will and taken the day off work to sort out what he called a "personal" matter.

He then went to Armin M's home, where the pair reportedly agreed to cut off his penis.

The victim was then allegedly stabbed to death - still apparently with his approval - and cut into pieces.

The whole incident was filmed on videotape, and prosecutors say that the whole crime was committed for the purpose of sexual enjoyment

news story 2 (http://www.rense.com/general39/gayca.htm)

http://sg.yimg.com/xp/afp/20060113/00/87917352.jpg

So, do you think this guy might have problems? :bugeye:

I will admit that the thought of having sex with an animal or a dead person is disgusting to me, but that doesn’t mean that the people that enjoy these things are mentally ill.

Maybe someone can open a cannibal diner for unclaimed bodies. On today's menu: q0101.

Maybe, when criminals are executed, we could throw a barbecue with the corpse! A great way to celebrate!

A great way to feed the world's hungry people too -- banglabits anyone?

ok, I'll edit my original post. .
No need it was my fault not yours.


PS, I like your mohammed Icon. The cartoonist that made it got in trouble for it.
Indeed. ;)

Meiwes amputated Brandes' penis and Meiwes and Brandes ate the penis together before Brandes was killed. Brandes had insisted that Meiwes would bite his penis off, but this did not work, so Meiwes used at first a knife that turned out to be too blunt, and then a sharper knife to finally slice the penis off. Brandes apparently tried to eat his share of his own penis rare, but could not because it was too tough and as he put it, "chewy". Meiwes then sautéed the penis in a pan with salt, pepper and garlic.
Brandes had been drinking, taking drugs and was reported to be mentally unsound.
Otherwise, what 2 consenting adults do in the safety of etc..

Meiwes was sentenced to eight and a half years for manslaughter, then retried for murder and sentenced to life imprisonment. Just so you know.

Bestiality
as the animal is unable to consent due to communication barriers between the species and to a lesser extent because of the animals lower intelligence, this is abuse. so is the torture and murder of animals.

I don’t believe that the majority of animals that engage in sexual activities with humans are being abused. Most of the dogs and horses are definitely enjoying it.

Who wants to hear a joke?

Q. Why did the farmer fuck his goat at the edge of a cliff?

A. So the goat would push back. :D

I don’t believe that the majority of animals that engage in sexual activities with humans are being abused. Most of the dogs and horses are definitely enjoying it.

Who wants to hear a joke?

Q. Why did the farmer fuck his goat at the edge of a cliff?

A. So the goat would push back. :D


bullshit
you watch a lot of animal porn do you?

what evidence do you have these animals enjoy sex with each other let alone via human penetration. Are they smiling perhaps? Groaning in ecstacy?

Do you apply this theory to kids being abused? As long as they are 'enjoying it' it's ok?

Maybe someone can open a cannibal diner for unclaimed bodies. On today's menu: q0101.

Maybe, when criminals are executed, we could throw a barbecue with the corpse! A great way to celebrate!

A great way to feed the world's hungry people too -- banglabits anyone?

Get over it. The world is full of people with deviant desires. You probably have your own weird or abnormal desires. I definitely have mine.

You may have heard this song before. The world don’t move to the beat of just one drum. What might be right for you may not be right for some. Different strokes for different folks.

bullshit
you watch a lot of animal porn do you?

what evidence do you have these animals enjoy sex with each other let alone via human penetration. Are they smiling perhaps? Groaning in ecstacy?

Do you apply this theory to kids being abused? As long as they are 'enjoying it' it's ok?

I can’t say that dogs enjoy being penetrated, but from what I’ve seen on the net, the most common form of dog / human sex involves the dogs doing something to a woman. (Oral sex or dog to human penetration) And no, I don’t watch a lot of animal porn.

No, I don’t apply the theory to kids that are being abused.

Always bizarre how ultra-rightists classify homosexuality in with beast fucking and raping kids. Adult Humans fuck eachother. Does loving a member of your own sex equal fucking a dog? Raping a toddler? The people that wish to force their twisted "values" on the rest of us are the truly sincerely sick perverts. You belong in an Islamic fundamentalist society whre you are protected from all the gays you are so terrified of. Get a plane ticket.

Get over it. The world is full of people with deviant desires. You probably have your own weird or abnormal desires. I definitely have mine.

You may have heard this song before. The world don’t move to the beat of just one drum. What might be right for you may not be right for some. Different strokes for different folks.

I thought my remarks were humorous.

No level is too low for human depravity to go. And the drum plays on!!!

Always bizarre how ultra-rightists classify homosexuality in with beast fucking and raping kids. Adult Humans fuck eachother. Does loving a member of your own sex equal fucking a dog? Raping a toddler? The people that wish to force their twisted "values" on the rest of us are the truly sincerely sick perverts. You belong in an Islamic fundamentalist society whre you are protected from all the gays you are so terrified of. Get a plane ticket.


Genji the janitor. Always in total ignorance, hence a rare reponse from me.

You need to follow up on the history of NAMBLA. It seems as it were they were good buddies with the GLB movement, until the GLBs saw them as political baggage. That's YOUR folks that you're so PROUD of. Two peas in a pod NAMBLA and GLB. So why don't you go suck up to your PISSY PISSY faggot child molestor friends. It's all a sin, do you prefer boys or men?

If homosexuals were the majority of the population,

pedophilia would be completly legal.

Genji the janitor. Always in total ignorance, hence a rare reponse from me.

You need to follow up on the history of NAMBLA. It seems as it were they were good buddies with the GLB movement, until the GLBs saw them as political baggage. That's YOUR folks that you're so PROUD of. Two peas in a pod NAMBLA and GLB. So why don't you go suck up to your PISSY PISSY faggot child molestor friends. It's all a sin, do you prefer boys or men?
Spoken like a true Christian. The overwhelming majority of child predators are straight men. I like males 18-25. Love & Homo Hugs! ;)

If homosexuals were the majority of the population,

pedophilia would be completly legal.
So are you aware the vast majority of child predators are STRAIGHT MEN? You outnumber us by millions upon millions. It is illegal and you still do it every day all over the nation. When will you stop straight male predators?

Tell us about what happened to you.

Report: Pedophilia more common among 'gays'

Research purports to reveal 'dark side' of homosexual culture

Child molestation and pedophilia occur far more commonly among homosexuals than among heterosexuals on a per capita basis, according to a new study.

In her thesis – also written for the Regent University Law Review – Reisman cited psychologist Eugene Abel, whose research found that homosexuals "sexually molest young boys with an incidence that is occurring from five times greater than the molestation of girls. …"

Abel also found that non-incarcerated "child molesters admitted from 23.4 to 281.7 acts per offender … whose targets were males."

"The rate of homosexual versus heterosexual child sexual abuse is staggering," said Reisman, who was the principal investigator for an $800,000 Justice Department grant studying child pornography and violence. "Abel’s data of 150.2 boys abused per male homosexual offender finds no equal (yet) in heterosexual violations of 19.8 girls."

The institute, after reviewing more than 19 studies and peer-reviewed reports in a 1985 "Psychological Reports" article, found that homosexuals account for between 25 and 40 percent of all child molestation.

"But this number is low," Baldwin says, "due to the fact that many reporters will not report if a child molester is a homosexual, even if he knows that to be the case."

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=27431

Report: Pedophilia more common among 'gays'

Research purports to reveal 'dark side' of homosexual culture

Child molestation and pedophilia occur far more commonly among homosexuals than among heterosexuals on a per capita basis, according to a new study.

In her thesis – also written for the Regent University Law Review – Reisman cited psychologist Eugene Abel, whose research found that homosexuals "sexually molest young boys with an incidence that is occurring from five times greater than the molestation of girls. …"

Abel also found that non-incarcerated "child molesters admitted from 23.4 to 281.7 acts per offender … whose targets were males."

"The rate of homosexual versus heterosexual child sexual abuse is staggering," said Reisman, who was the principal investigator for an $800,000 Justice Department grant studying child pornography and violence. "Abel’s data of 150.2 boys abused per male homosexual offender finds no equal (yet) in heterosexual violations of 19.8 girls."

The institute, after reviewing more than 19 studies and peer-reviewed reports in a 1985 "Psychological Reports" article, found that homosexuals account for between 25 and 40 percent of all child molestation.

"But this number is low," Baldwin says, "due to the fact that many reporters will not report if a child molester is a homosexual, even if he knows that to be the case."

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=27431
Oh please! :rolleyes: Another IslamoChristian hate group. That is hilarious. More girls are molested by straight perverted men by overwhelming numbers. Grow Up closet queen. :)

We Be Gay and We Here To Stay! Get used to us. You're just jealous girlfren. ;)

We Be Gay and We Here To Stay! Get used to us. You're just jealous girlfren. ;)
I can accept the fact that your homosexual,

can you?

I can accept the fact that your homosexual,

can you?
Absolutely! Why couldn't I?
:confused:

As for NAMBLA; Of course I don't condone sex with with minors. That should remain illegal, but a person or group talking about it or talking/advocating legalizing it is a right of free speech. If a member engages in pedophilia he should be arrested. If he speaks about it he has as much right to say it as neo-Nazis, Klansmen, the Phelps church and religious fundamentalists do with their freak-speech.

As for NAMBLA; Of course I don't condone sex with with minors. That should remain illegal, but a person or group talking about it or talking/advocating legalizing it is a right of free speech. If a member engages in pedophilia he should be arrested. If he speaks about it he has as much right to say it as neo-Nazis, Klansmen, the Phelps church and religious fundamentalists do with their freak-speech.

I don't agree with free speech, some people should well and truly have their mouths sewn up, and fed through a tube in their bellies.

I don't agree with free speech, some people should well and truly have their mouths sewn up, and fed through a tube in their bellies.
I have to partially agree. Nothing would please me more than opening fire on Christian fundies or Klanners at a rally but thought crimes are not crimes. How can they be? If a NAMBLA person thinks about sex with boys he has not broken the law. Advocating legalizing marijuana could be considered a thought crime. THINKING about murder but never committing one is not a crime. Opening the gates to full prosecution of thought crimes is a dangerous and slippery slope. Certainly more of a threat to the population than a lone, drooling NAMBLA member lusting for a boy.

The overwhelming majority of child predators are straight men.


Yeah sure dude, sure. They're all perverts as far as I'm concerned. BTW how many miles-o-weenie have you sucked?

Yeah sure dude, sure. They're all perverts as far as I'm concerned. BTW how many miles-o-weenie have you sucked?
OMG you are really the worst troll I've ever seen online. What a nasty question. My heart goes out to you. You are very bitter and insecure.

I have to partially agree. Nothing would please me more than opening fire on Christian fundies or Klanners at a rally but thought crimes are not crimes. How can they be? If a NAMBLA person thinks about sex with boys he has not broken the law. Advocating legalizing marijuana could be considered a thought crime. THINKING about murder but never committing one is not a crime. Opening the gates to full prosecution of thought crimes is a dangerous and slippery slope. Certainly more of a threat to the population than a lone, drooling NAMBLA member lusting for a boy.

Thought is a crime when it is used to manipulate the masses into 'action' which it is.

Where is my needle and thread?

I have to partially agree. Nothing would please me more than opening fire on Christian fundies or Klanners at a rally but thought crimes are not crimes. How can they be? If a NAMBLA person thinks about sex with boys he has not broken the law. Certainly more of a threat to the population than a lone, drooling NAMBLA member lusting for a boy.Nothing would please you more than opening fire on Christian fundies?
Butt "a lone, drooling NAMBLA member lusting for a boy" is not a big deal to you.

Reading your statement shows your easy acceptance of "man boy love".

How old was the dude that popped your corn?

As for NAMBLA; Of course I don't condone sex with with minors. That should remain illegal, but a person or group talking about it or talking/advocating legalizing it is a right of free speech. If a member engages in pedophilia he should be arrested. If he speaks about it he has as much right to say it as neo-Nazis, Klansmen, the Phelps church and religious fundamentalists do with their freak-speech.

Why should it remain illegal? NAMBLA is one YOURS dude.

from the WIKI (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nambla):

NAMBLA describes itself as a "support group for intergenerational relationships," and uses the slogan "sexual freedom for all." According to the group's web site, its aim is to "support the rights of youth as well as adults to choose the partners with whom they wish to share and enjoy their bodies."

I thought you were for sexual freedom for all.

The North American Man/Boy Love Association calls for the abolition of age-of-consent and all other laws which prevent men and boys from freely enjoying their bodies. (2) We call for the release of all men and boys imprisoned by such laws.

That's freedom ain't it? Some boy wants a man for a sex partner, and they both enjoy it. IF it's ok to be gay then what's wrong with that. They both consent.

NAMBLA emerged from the tumultuous political atmosphere of the 1970s, particularly from the wing of the Gay Liberation movement that followed the 1969 Stonewall riots in New York City.

Both grew off the same tree.

Immediately following the Stonewall riots, some U.S. and Canadian gay rights organizations advocated the abolition of age-of-consent laws, believing that gay liberation for minors implied the permission to engage in sexual relationships.

If you're going to abolish morals, might as well do it right! :rolleyes:

At the conference these approximately 200 activists coalesced to form the National Coalition of Gay Organizations, and drafted and passed a "Gay Rights Platform"[13] which called for the "repeal of all laws governing the age of sexual consent." The Canadian Lesbian and Gay Rights Coalition, also known as the National Gay Rights Coalition (NGRC), supported eliminating age-of-consent laws, as did Gay Alliance Toward Equality (GATE).

Equality without equal.

The relative acceptance or indifference to opposition of the age-of-consent began to change at the same time as accusations that gays were child pornographers and child molesters became common.

OK so the decision to "dump" your pedo-fag friends wasn't based on morals. No surprises here.

Originally, the Gay Youth Caucus had won approval for its proposal demanding "Full Rights for Gay Youth, including revision of the age of consent laws."

Oh well, you gotta be a grown up to be gay, boys.

Thus 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," [16] opting instead to appeal more to the mainstream.

Political baggage as it were, NAMBLA got left out.

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." [17] 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."[15]

Sounds like a good argument to me -- NAMBLA is just as gay as anybody.

Endean, who opposed NAMBLA, said: "What NAMBLA is doing is tearing apart the movement. If you attach it [the man/boy love issue] to gay rights, gay rights will never happen." Gay author and activist Edmund White made a similar statement in his book States of Desire: "That's the politics of self-indulgence. Our movement cannot survive the man-boy issue. It's not a question of who's right, it's a matter of political naivete."

The politics of self-indulgence -- well said by a gay-rights activist.

How rude you are..........

How do you say something "respectable" to a pissy lieing homo that lives for a suck-off? The lies he tells are just about continual. Can he cite any references for any of his claims? **ll no!

You are making gross errors of assumption while making your comparisons wood.
You are making the assumption that a percentage(no matter how small that percentage) of pre-pubescent boys want to come home from school and have a fully grown man bugger them, you are making the assumption that 1 in 100/ 1 in 1000 or even 1 in 1000000 pre-pubescent boys fantasize about having a fully grown man for a lover, you woody are making the assumption that children(equally to adults) are capable of resisting coercion and bribery(be it material or emotional)

You are making gross errors of assumption while making your comparisons wood.
You are making the assumption that a percentage(no matter how small that percentage) of pre-pubescent boys want to come home from school and have a fully grown man bugger them, you are making the assumption that 1 in 100/ 1 in 1000 or even 1 in 1000000 pre-pubescent boys fantasize about having a fully grown man for a lover, you woody are making the assumption that children(equally to adults) are capable of resisting coercion and bribery(be it material or emotional)

The point I'm making is this: What is the basis for morality? What if a kid wants sex with another kid?

According to the research I've read, a sizeable per centage of homosexuals had their first "experience" before puberty. That's what the abolishment of the age-of-consent laws was originally about -- allowing kids to have sex with kids (or adults if NAMBLA had their way). I suggest you read the literature, and answer the question: Is it ok for a child to have sex with another child if they both consent to it?

Where do you draw the line on morality?

By the way, "the" Mohammed married an nine year old girl. Doesn't that make him a pedophile?

From the source (http://www.hyscience.com/archives/2004/12/on_moores_artic.php):

Mr Moore, who opposes new legislation banning incitement to religious hatred, chose the sensitive issue of the Prophet's marriage to a nine-year-old to illustrate his case. "It seems to me that people are perfectly entitled - rude and mistaken as they may be - to say that Mohamed was a paedophile, but if David Blunkett gets his way, they may not be able to," he wrote in his weekly column. (this is what he said)

Mohammed was also a polygamist -- he had 12 wives altogether.

I'm perfectly entititled to call Mohammed a pedophile, How am I mistaken in that assessment? If some guy marries a nine year old girl, and then has sex with her, he goes to jail.

Where do you draw the line on morality?
You draw the line when an adult participates in a pre-pubescents first sexual act, thats where I draw the line in my moral assessment.

Is the second "sexual act" OK?

Is the second "sexual act" OK?
Reread what I said, but this time in the understanding of it's meant context (in rebuttal of woods last post).

Necrophilia (Sex with dead people)
Once again, I am not attracted to dead people but I think the living should have the right to have sex with the dead. Most people care about what happens to their bodies or the bodies of their loved ones after they die. I couldn’t care less about what happens to my body after I die. I don't have a problem with my body being used for someone's pleausre after I am dead.

Has anyone heard Sam Kinnison's bit on homosexual necrophilia? Hillarious.

Is this not just an attempt to link homosexual attraction with other attractions or activities deemed unsavory?

Is this not just an attempt to link homosexual attraction with other attractions or activities deemed unsavory?
No. His bit was in response to news reports of homosexual necrophilia. I believe it was some guys who worked at a morgue. So any linkage of homosexuality with other unsavory activities was in the minds of the morgue workers.

None of them are moraly wrong...necrophllia seems unhealthy and just nasty. I have no logic behind that, just my thoughts.

I like to rape dead, pre-adolescent piglets. I find consent an incredible turn-off.

Woody, give up. You're obsessed, man. It's not healthy and it's not natural.

You draw the line when an adult participates in a pre-pubescents first sexual act, thats where I draw the line in my moral assessment.

the problem with this implanck is that some girls do reach puberty as early as nine, does this make it therfore ok for a full grown man to have sexual intercourse with them?

Myself I knew a girl who menstrauted from age nine, myself I started at 16, does this biological fact protect me from sex with adult males but not her?
Was she emotionally and physiologically more ready for sex at 9 than I was at 16?

Is this not just an attempt to link homosexual attraction with other attractions or activities deemed unsavory?
Have you met Woody?

Why is woody so homophobic?

Clearly he had an unpleasant experince with a homosexual in his past perhaps while in prison.

In this context while we cannot tolerate such bias we can at least endeavour to understand.

Meanwhile woody, try to keep your personal conflicts to yourself or between you and your counsellor.

Counselling is expensive. Typing obsessively on Sciforums is free.

Woody, make a donation.

A large donation.

the problem with this implanck is that some girls do reach puberty as early as nine, does this make it therfore ok for a full grown man to have sexual intercourse with them?

Myself I knew a girl who menstrauted from age nine, myself I started at 16, does this biological fact protect me from sex with adult males but not her?
Was she emotionally and physiologically more ready for sex at 9 than I was at 16?
I am aware of this...... I dont know to be honest. My arguement is in refute to NAMBLA nonces and woody's alike, who both clearly see sex with a PRE-pubescent child as comparable to homosexuality. Would you like to make an arguement as to which point a child becomes mentally such and such?

I am aware of this...... I dont know to be honest. My arguement is in refute to NAMBLA nonces and woody's alike, who both clearly see sex with a PRE-pubescent child as comparable to homosexuality. Would you like to make an arguement as to which point a child becomes mentally such and such?

I think some kids mature faster than others but sex before 14 is a no no, as generally they are not mature enough to handle the kind of manipulation an adult may be very adept at. That said many adults aren't either. I like the 16yr age law.

Meanwhile if an older woman say a 35 yr old has sex with say a 17yr old male
he is essentially ruined for sex with women his own age (that he may be able procreate with unlike the older woman) as young women can never compete sexually with the confidence, and unihibited skill of an older woman. So in some cases age is an issue. However past twenties age should be irreleavnt as informed choices can be made more adeptly.

Why is woody so homophobic?

I'm not the least bit AFRAID of a HOMO. I tell them off for what they are, like when I kicked Genji's lieing pissy butt.

Clearly he had an unpleasant experience with a homosexual in his past perhaps while in prison.

I had many unpleasant experiences with homos right here on sciforums. This is where I actually HEAR what they have to say and it SUCKS. They are ALL compulsive bigoted liars. They'll stoop to any level in order to get their way because they're bigots with no morality. Just pull out a scientific study from someone like the CDC or WHO and listen to them shoot it down -- because it doesn't agree with their political agenda. They can't have their sexual freedom unless AIDS and all its co-infections are free for everyone to receive.

Yeah this place is like a prison alright.

In this context while we cannot tolerate such bias we can at least endeavour to understand.

You aren't even coming close, so step down off yer ivory tower. I am also participating on an EX-GAY forum, so I can understand. The EX-GAYS are such nice people. I'm sorry they have same-sex attraction. The BIG difference is ATTITUDE. They changed theirs, and now they are interested in the OPPOSITE SEX. They're over there laughing about the IMMUTABILITY of sexual orientation. It is a joke, just like the APA. The American Psychiatric Association says pedophilia is just fine. Well yeah, I guess it is if yer a pedophile.

Meanwhile woody, try to keep your personal conflicts to yourself or between you and your counsellor.

OK so sexual perversion is uncomfortable for you to talk about. I think a counsellor needs help if he or she thinks pedophilia is ok (if they agree with the APA opinion).

Let's take a few steps back because I want to hear reasonable answers to the questions I've asked, and NOBODY has tackled them.

Starting with NAMBLA as an example, I asked people if they thought man-boy sex relationships are wrong. The current response from pro-gays, which apparantly includes you, is that CONSENTING adults can do what they want to. This is a POLITICAL view not a MORAL one. So don't confuse them. POLITICAL views change based on the desired result which is mainstream social acceptance of homosexual behavior. NAMBLA isn't a moral issue, it's a political one. So the bottom line is sexual freedom for WHO and WHY?

1) I asked about the INTERNET CANNIBAL HOMOSEXUAL that got together with another apparantly CONSENTING adult homosexual, cut off his penis, which both of them ate. I think this one covers several of the behaviors in question, including homosexuality, sado-masochism, and necrophilia. So I ask you and anyone else, where is the moral line on these behaviors?

a) Do you draw a moral line at all?
b) Was it morally ok to do all of it EXCEPT the consentual murder?
c) If the dead guy commited suicide instead of being killed, would it be morally ok for the other guy to eat him, having his prior consent?
d) Was it morally ok for one guy to cut off the other guy's penis with his consent?
e) Was it ok for both of them to eat his penis with his consent?
f) Was any of this sordid event morally acceptible?

In my opinion, all of it was morally unacceptible.

2) For the people that think it is ok to do whatever sexually, I asked a few questions, which nobody answered. Might I recap them here:

So let's get this straight: you're saying a person that enjoys sex with dead people doesn't have a mental problem. And someone that enjoys sex with animals -- you don't think they have a mental problem either.

Do you think either of these types would make good marriage material?

You don't see any of it as wrong. Would you be worried if your teenage son or daughter had sex with animals on a regular basis? Would you feel like they needed help if they weren't interested in human companionship?

If your seven year-old son or daughter wanted to have sex with a pedophile, would that be ok? After all somebody's son or daughter is their sex object.

What about their personality? Would you want to work for someone that is a sado-masochist? How would you like them for a boss or a co-worker?

Let's say you needed marriage or family counseling, Would you go to your local sado-masochist?

Does anybody have the guts to tackle any of these questions?

No one wants to answer you because you are so crude and vile in your responses. If you posed your questions in a reasonable manner you'd get a more reasonable response.

I do not agree with man boy relationships. I knew a 65 yr old man who was 'married' to a 16yr old boy. The boy used to flirt with me so I always found this relationship of his odd. His family did not know the boys alleged employer was his spouse. I felt torn once about telling hs family as I felt this boy was too young to be involved in such a relationship. I didn't though, it was non of my business and the boy was living as an adult away from home.Though they did not have sex ( I am not 100% certain but the old man was pretty incapacitated, disabled etc) I felt the boy was missing out out on life, not heterosexual life but any life with younger people be it younger homosexual men or not. But again, he was old enough to deicde.

Re the men eating each other. Just as we try to protect people from suicide, drug abuse, alcoholism, self mutilation, and don't allow euthanasia we should protect people from this sort of thing whether they want us to or not.

I am all in favour of brain washing devices to 'cleanse' people of their unhealthy desires, as long as after the probe they feel happy about their new found way of life, hey it's all good ;) I'll leave you to decide whether I say this is jest or not.

re sado masochism, there is nothing wrong with a bit of s&M , pain and pleasure are closely related when having sex and one can heighten the other. As long as you are not doing anything to the extreme and both parties are mutually consenting its fine.

Do not fear so woody.

Ka-ching.

Put another 2 dollars in the pot, Woody.

Your therapist for this session was: Dr. Theoryofrelativity.

re sado masochism, there is nothing wrong with a bit of s&M , pain and pleasure are closely related when having sex and one can heighten the other. As long as you are not doing anything to the extreme and both parties are mutually consenting its fine.

Do not fear so woody.

Sorry, but pain doesn't turn me on. It's my body saying, something is wrong with this, don't do it.

No one wants to answer you because you are so crude and vile in your responses. If you posed your questions in a reasonable manner you'd get a more reasonable response.

I read the original postings again, and I see nothing wrong with the way they were asked. As a matter of fact I think I was rather cordial when I asked the questions. Why don't you read them again and tell me what you thought was wrong with the way they were asked. Be specific.

I can only conclude that it is unreasonable to even ask these questions to start with.

I read the original postings again, and I see nothing wrong with the way they were asked. As a matter of fact I think I was rather cordial when I asked the questions. Why don't you read them again and tell me what you thought was wrong with the way they were asked. Be specific.

I can only conclude that it is unreasonable to even ask these questions to start with.
Actually I did indeed tackle your questions for you, I realize you may have not recognized the rebuttals as they are not in scripture like bullcrap.

Sorry, but pain doesn't turn me on. It's my body saying, something is wrong with this, don't do it.


so you don't do it, but doesn't give you the right to dicate how this sensation translates to others and that they also should not do it.

Myself (and I'm not going into detail here, this is very tame detail!) I am in exctasy when scratched on my back during the act, in a dragging of nails kind of effect. Now this does not appeal to my partner if I do it to him (not hard anyway) thus it really is different strokes for different folks. Literally! I like to bite also, but again partner not so keen, so I lay off a little, just a little ;)

The rest is non of your business.

Sorry, but pain doesn't turn me on. It's my body saying, something is wrong with this, don't do it.
What about oral, Woody? Do you like oral? Sucking? Being sucked?
What about anal? Have you ever done someone up the shitter? Did she like it?
Have you ever used toys, Woody? Do you like to bite? Ever been handcuffed? Ever handcuffed? Did seeing her there, all helpless, turn you on? Do you like to do them from behind?

Or is it strictly 'missionary work' with you?

What about oral, Woody? Do you like oral? Sucking? Being sucked?
What about anal? Have you ever done someone up the shitter? Did she like it?
Have you ever used toys, Woody? Do you like to bite? Ever been handcuffed? Ever handcuffed? Did seeing her there, all helpless, turn you on? Do you like to do them from behind?

Or is it strictly 'missionary work' with you?

I think its most likely strictly ball room and no sex at all.

I think I recall reading him say he's married. Is this right, Woody?

What about oral, Woody? Do you like oral? Sucking? Being sucked?
What about anal? Have you ever done someone up the shitter? Did she like it?
Have you ever used toys, Woody? Do you like to bite? Ever been handcuffed? Ever handcuffed? Did seeing her there, all helpless, turn you on? Do you like to do them from behind?

Or is it strictly 'missionary work' with you?

When you've got the good stuff you don't need the rest. If you need more than that then you haven't learned how to do it. It takes about 5 years of marriage to really figure out how it's done. This is doing it about 5 times a week, like you're really trying hard to make a baby happen, you know -- I'm talking real, real HARD, if u know whut I mean. Never write off the side to side action! Ever wondered why a woman's hips work that way? :cool:

Then it takes another couple of years to really perfect the "tease." You gotta know your partner pretty well and your own endurance limit to pull that one off. When you learn that one you can have 5 or more male orgasims before the grand finale where it itches so bad you could scratch out your own eyeballs. :eek:

Actually I did indeed tackle your questions for you, I realize you may have not recognized the rebuttals as they are not in scripture like bullcrap.

Well, yes you did answer my questions, but those weren't the questions I cited for theory-of-relativity.

When you've got the good stuff you don't need the rest. If you need more than that then you haven't learned how to do it. It takes about 5 years of marriage to really figure out how it's done. This is doing it about 5 times a week, like you're really trying hard to make a baby happen, you know -- I'm talking real, real HARD, if u know whut I mean. Never write off the side to side action! Ever wondered why a woman's hips work that way? :cool:

Then it takes another couple of years to really perfect the "tease." You gotta know your partner pretty well and your own endurance limit to pull that one off. When you learn that one you can have 5 or more male orgasims before the grand finale where it itches so bad you could scratch out your own eyeballs. :eek:

No, it doesn't take 5yrs of marriage to have the good stuff. Marriage is no guarrantee of good sex.

Even though I have poor Woody on ignore I still see his quotes! That sex talk from him is gonna make me puke!! I picture Jim Bakker and a fat wife making stains on their burlap bed in the barn. Pukebucket PLEASE!!!!! I need a shower after reading that. *gag*

Have you met Woody?

Not personally, and I doubt that I would like to either.

Is it seriously even worth talking to him?

Even though I have poor Woody on ignore I still see his quotes! That sex talk from him is gonna make me puke!! I picture Jim Bakker and a fat wife making stains on their burlap bed in the barn. Pukebucket PLEASE!!!!! I need a shower after reading that. *gag*


You're probably puking because, being a sodomite, you're naturally appalled by that which God has declared good, whilst wallowing in filth and eating excrement, and getting AIDS, and molesting children, and trying to undermine marriage, etc... ;)

You're probably puking because, being a sodomite, you're naturally appalled by that which God has declared good, whilst wallowing in filth and eating excrement, and getting AIDS, and molesting children, and trying to undermine marriage, etc... ;)
Oh no. I just prefer a beefy, tan 20something construction worker to slurp on for hours on end. That's all :p The more sweat the better!!

According to the poll, we have at least 3 pedophiles at sciforums. I hope you suffer, suffer and suffer, are tortured by yourselves and then die a horrible death and go to hell ( which in your case will be manifested as being thos children and animals you have molested)!!!
Why does Nambla exist? Why is this organisation allowed to exist?

No. His bit was in response to news reports of homosexual necrophilia. I believe it was some guys who worked at a morgue. So any linkage of homosexuality with other unsavory activities was in the minds of the morgue workers.

Actually, I was referring to Woody, not the late Sam Kinnison.

Putting homosexuality in with other so-called perversions (very obviously to draw a connection between them) is a weak argument, which is, I'm sure, meant to back people into a corner where they have no choice but to admit that homosexuality is the gateway to the slippery slope of moral decay, or more simply, accept one, you have to accept them all.

Likewise, every other conservative/fundamentalist person/preacher/fanatic/bigot who touches the subject of homosexuality will inevitably compare it to alcoholism, stealing, lying, murder, rape, or any other thing deemed a sin (like oral sex, dancing, or wearing a swimsuit) and think that simply by linking homosexuality to these others, they've proved their point.

Stupid.

The more sweat the better!!

Sweat is a natural cologne, in my opinion. I don't know why people (especially in America, I'm assuming) are so anal about covering up their scent.

They are ALL compulsive bigoted liars. They'll stoop to any level in order to get their way because they're bigots with no morality.

ALL is a strong word. Do you have evidence to back up the assertion that ALL homosexual persons are compulsive, bigoted, liars??? Did the WHO do a study on the prevalence of dishonesty and homosexuality? Do you have a graph for that?

According to the poll, we have at least 3 pedophiles at sciforums. I hope you suffer, suffer and suffer, are tortured by yourselves and then die a horrible death and go to hell ( which in your case will be manifested as being thos children and animals you have molested)!!!
Why does Nambla exist? Why is this organisation allowed to exist?

I think they may consider below the age of consent (i.e. 18 years) as pedophilia
(at least I hope so)

According to the poll, we have at least 3 pedophiles at sciforums. I hope you suffer, suffer and suffer, are tortured by yourselves and then die a horrible death and go to hell ( which in your case will be manifested as being thos children and animals you have molested)!!!
Why does Nambla exist? Why is this organisation allowed to exist?
And the Purity Pograms Begin!!!! NAMBLA is repulsive no doubt, but thought crimes are not yet punishable by law, nor do I think thought crimes Should be illegal. If a NAMBLA member acts out then he should be imprisoned. THINKING about illegal activity is freedom of speech.

Sweat is a natural cologne, in my opinion. I don't know why people (especially in America, I'm assuming) are so anal about covering up their scent.
Some people SHOULD cover their stench but if a guy is healthy and has a good diet I prefer the real sweat smell over some tangy, alcohol smelling Lysol smeared under the arms.

Genji, so you THINK all they do is talk. That is wishful thinking if any. They have a purpose for this organisation, they want to make raping children legal, so that they don't have to go to jail. They are not only THINKING...

Genji, so you THINK all they do is talk. That is wishful thinking if any. They have a purpose for this organisation, they want to make raping children legal, so that they don't have to go to jail. They are not only THINKING...
They are a tiny insignificant little wart on the face of a country with bleeding wounds. Sure they are ugly, but a mere blemish in comparison to the real problems sinking this country. (The US at least.) They are routinely infiltrated, baited by local news stations looking for ratings and so out of orbit with reality that only anti-gay activists and churches bring them into the news. Many groups advcate legalizing marijuana. They even have lobbyists! Pit bulls, George Bush and influenza are far more of a threat to kids in the US than a freaky little club of men that admire youth.

No, it doesn't take 5yrs of marriage to have the good stuff. Marriage is no guarrantee of good sex.

It takes at least 5 years of marriage to perfect the art of making love. ok there are no gaurantees with marriage, but if the guy is a pony the job is better than half done on the sex side of it.

I'm sorry if your marriage didn't work out. It happens I've heard.

ALL is a strong word. Do you have evidence to back up the assertion that ALL homosexual persons are compulsive, bigoted, liars??? Did the WHO do a study on the prevalence of dishonesty and homosexuality? Do you have a graph for that?


All of them I've met here at sciforums are that way.

Genji, so you THINK all they do is talk. That is wishful thinking if any.

Genji probably wishes they were all grown up so he could have a shot of 'em.

I like the 16yr age law.

.
Given what you said I would say 16 was a very resonable age. I wouldn't find anything under 16 attractive anyway just for the fact that said object will not shut the fuck up giggling.

Even though I have poor Woody on ignore I still see his quotes! That sex talk from him is gonna make me puke!! I picture Jim Bakker and a fat wife making stains on their burlap bed in the barn. Pukebucket PLEASE!!!!! I need a shower after reading that. *gag*

It was the same thing your mom and dad did to have you -- pretty disgusting isn't it?

Given what you said I would say 16 was a very resonable age. I wouldn't find anything under 16 attractive anyway just for the fact that said object will not shut the fuck up giggling.

i think that it sholud be lowered to about 12/13 for people no more than say 2 years age difference. it would still make it illegal for some dodgy old guy to have sex with a chick who was still in school, but it would mean normal relationships with younger couples could go ahead without the guy having to worry about being arrested if his GFs parents dont like it.

All of them I've met here at sciforums are that way.

Oh, so I'm supposed to believe that your comment was meant ONLY for homosexuals here on sciforums.com???

I had many unpleasant experiences with homos right here on sciforums. This is where I actually HEAR what they have to say and it SUCKS. They are ALL compulsive bigoted liars.

Who's the "they" you're accusing of being compulsive, bigoted liars??? If you only meant "homos" on sciforums, then you probably should have specified as such. But I highly doubt that's what you meant. You mention homos and then say that on this forum, you actually hear what they say. I don't see any delineation between homos and homos on sciforums. Because there wasn't one.

And how typical of you. You accuse so-called gay people of being pissy. And then you accuse Genji of being pissy. The ironic part of it is, YOU are one of the pissiest people on here, with post after post of thinly veiled disgust and biased tirades about gay this and gay that. This NAMBLA thread is just another part of that. If it's not about homosexuality directly, then it's definitely an indirect accusation.

You know, Woody, you'd make a great white supremacist, if only you'd focus on the failures of the black race. It could easily be done.

George Bush and influenza are far more of a threat to kids in the US than a freaky little club of men that admire youth.
How old was the guy who popped your butt cherry?

Oh, so I'm supposed to believe that your comment was meant ONLY for homosexuals here on sciforums.com???

Yep, that's what I said. I already told you about the ones at exgay forums that are as NICE as ANYONE you'd ever want to meet. You've got a commucation problem, dude. You only listen to what YOU want to hear,and it's pretty annoying. It's obvious that you have some kind of agenda.

Here's another excerpt from the exact same post that you have so liberally abused.

I am also participating on an EX-GAY forum, so I can understand. The EX-GAYS are such nice people. I'm sorry they have same-sex attraction. The BIG difference is ATTITUDE. They changed theirs, and now they are interested in the OPPOSITE SEX. They're over there laughing about the IMMUTABILITY of sexual orientation. It is a joke, just like the APA. The American Psychiatric Association says pedophilia is just fine. Well yeah, I guess it is if yer a pedophile.

Woody.

There's no such thing as an ex-gay. They're just pretending. Honest. They are.

So happy with their girlfriends, I bet. When all they can think about is bums and hairy chests.

Woody.

There's no such thing as an ex-gay. They're just pretending. Honest. They are.

How are you so sure?

The one's at ex-gay forums are laughing about the so called fact that "they can't change."

Admittedly the success rate for "total reorientation" where even same sex fantasies dissapear is somewhere between 23% and 27% depending on whose data you go by.

First of all they have to want to change before there is any hope that they can change.

Secondly there are a lot of people that write-off the natural human ability to adapt. It's an adaptation changing from homo to hetero. It could probably work the other way around too, but nobody wants to go in that direction: hetero to homo.

Of course they are. They can't even admit the truth to themselves - not when God is watching.

How are you so sure?

The one's at ex-gay forums are laughing about the so called fact that "they can't change."

Woody are you struggling with gay feelings? You do seem somewhat over preoccupied with gay men, making your way to their forums. How bizarre?

I think you come here to purge yourself of what you see as dirty feelings and think that by being angry at other gays you can somehow purge yourself and remove the guilt of your own gay thoughts.

Of course they are. They can't even admit the truth to themselves - not when God is watching.

In other words you don't believe they are honest with themselves when they are happily married to the opposite sex and wouldn't have it any other way.

Homosexuality is largely a BEHAVIOR that depends on ENVIRONMENT. Example: Is it any surprise that homosexual behavior INCREASES in prison where all people are the same sex? Prision is an environment.

In other words you don't believe they are honest with themselves when they are happily married to the opposite sex and wouldn't have it any other way.


If that was true, they wouldn't be seeking out other 'alleged' exgay men to chat to on the internet, wake up Woody!

If that was true, they wouldn't be seeking out other 'alleged' exgay men to chat to on the internet, wake up Woody!

Oh give me a break, You know nothing of this. There are as many women there as there are men. I talk more with the ex-lesbians. They have an ex-gay dating network too --opposite sex of course.

In other words you don't believe they are honest with themselves when they are happily married to the opposite sex and wouldn't have it any other way.
No I don't. I don't see why someone who previously exhibited homosexual tendencies and engaged in homosexual behaviour should suddenly stop doing this and feel no further compulsion to do so. I think 'ex-gays' are people who, for one reason or another, feel it necessary to repress their homosexual impulses - either because it's inconsistent with their religious beliefs of for another reason which causes them undue stress.

What about their personality? Would you want to work for someone that is a sado-masochist? How would you like them for a boss or a co-worker?

Let's say you needed marriage or family counseling, Would you go to your local sado-masochist? :eek:
Sure. I don't see why not.

Woody are you struggling with gay feelings? You do seem somewhat over preoccupied with gay men, making your way to their forums. How bizarre?

I think you come here to purge yourself of what you see as dirty feelings and think that by being angry at other gays you can somehow purge yourself and remove the guilt of your own gay thoughts.

Yup, he doth protest too much

Yep, that's what I said. I already told you about the ones at exgay forums that are as NICE as ANYONE you'd ever want to meet. You've got a commucation problem, dude.
Dude? Is that "straight" speak you're making there???
Tis you who's got the communication problem, dude.

I had many unpleasant experiences with homos right here on sciforums. This is where I actually HEAR what they have to say and it SUCKS.

The "they" in your accusation there does not pertain merely to "homos" on sciforums. You already specified in the former sentence who the "they" (in the second sentence) is that you are "actually" HEARING. The whole structure of those two sentences is completely misworded, if that's what you were getting at. The "they" that you refer to is "homos" in general. If you had meant merely "homos on sciforums" then you never would have had to mention "homos" in general in the first sentence. Instead, you would have said simply, 'I hear what "homos on sciforums" have to say, and it SUCKS.'

Am I the only one here who is so observant to see the grammatical errors Woody has made if he were in fact only speaking of "homos" on sciforums?


You only listen to what YOU want to hear,and it's pretty annoying. It's obvious that you have some kind of agenda.

Were you looking deep into a mirror when you wrote that?

Here's another excerpt from the exact same post that you have so liberally abused.

I am also participating on an EX-GAY forum, so I can understand. The EX-GAYS are such nice people. I'm sorry they have same-sex attraction. The BIG difference is ATTITUDE. They changed theirs, and now they are interested in the OPPOSITE SEX. They're over there laughing about the IMMUTABILITY of sexual orientation. It is a joke, just like the APA. The American Psychiatric Association says pedophilia is just fine. Well yeah, I guess it is if yer a pedophile.


When did I ever deny that people can change their orientation? What has this whole paragraph above got to do with me? Did I ever deny that people may be unhappy with their attractions, and that they may seek to change them, and that they may actually find the change they're looking for?

No.

Woody.

There's no such thing as an ex-gay. They're just pretending. Honest. They are.

I highly doubt that your statement is true.

Oh give me a break, You know nothing of this. There are as many women there as there are men. I talk more with the ex-lesbians. They have an ex-gay dating network too --opposite sex of course.

And why is that? That you talk with "ex" lesbians more? Are you posing as a prospective suitor, for your own ends?

Secondly there are a lot of people that write-off the natural human ability to adapt. It's an adaptation changing from homo to hetero. It could probably work the other way around too, but nobody wants to go in that direction: hetero to homo.

I have heard that it happens, from time to time.

Here's another excerpt from the exact same post that you have so liberally abused.

This liberal abuse you speak of is mostly of your own vain imagining.

When you reach a certain age all of it starts looking silly.

No I don't. I don't see why someone who previously exhibited homosexual tendencies and engaged in homosexual behaviour should suddenly stop doing this and feel no further compulsion to do so.

It's simple RA. Just look at about anybody that gets out of prison. It's common in prison, but when the opposite sex is around they don't need it (gay sex) anymore.

Sure. I don't see why not.

I laugh. Yeah, sure -- why not? A sado-masochist to help you with depression -- sorta like psycholigical accupuncture, eh?

This liberal abuse you speak of is mostly of your own vain imagining.

Explain why character assassination isn't abuse. Like 3 to 4 posts of perturbations whenever I say anything. Me thinks you're obsessed. :D

I don't see any delineation between homos and homos on sciforums. Because there wasn't one.

And how typical of you. You accuse so-called gay people of being pissy. And then you accuse Genji of being pissy.

Because he is. He's Homo Erectus to the max. Like by brother in law said - if you had a penus up your butt all day, you'd be pissy too. I can understand that.

Prison is a rather special environment Woody. What people do in prison has very little bearing on what they do in the outside world. People who have gay sex in prison aren't necessarily gay. Some may be. Others just crave sex and get it where they can. For others still, it's a power trip - a way of dominating and humiliating people. T compare this to what people do when they're free of all the restrictions that prison imposes is ludicrous.

Prison is a rather special environment Woody. What people do in prison has very little bearing on what they do in the outside world. People who have gay sex in prison aren't necessarily gay. Some may be. Others just crave sex and get it where they can. For others still, it's a power trip - a way of dominating and humiliating people. T compare this to what people do when they're free of all the restrictions that prison imposes is ludicrous.

It isn't ludicrous when you consider the interaction between environment and behavior.

I believe this: if gay sex for some reason became the norn, and opposite sex attraction became taboo, and punishable with death, then there would be more homosexuals on this earth.

You're probably right - but only because lots of people hide or repress their homosexual tendencies for fear of the prejudice they'd encounter. My old friend Buddha1 insisted that the true figure for homosexually-inclined males is 95%. I disagree but accept that the figure would be higher in a homophobia-free environment.

It's a shame you didn't get to meet Buddah. I feel sure that you would've had lots to talk about and become very good friends.

Prison is a rather special environment Woody. What people do in prison has very little bearing on what they do in the outside world. People who have gay sex in prison aren't necessarily gay. Some may be. Others just crave sex and get it where they can. For others still, it's a power trip - a way of dominating and humiliating people. To compare this to what people do when they're free of all the restrictions that prison imposes is ludicrous.Not to mention that the prison population is not a representative sample of the general population. A high proportion of felons are at least psychotic, if not psychopathic. They don't react to things like we do.

Rape of either gender and any age is an act of violence, not necessarily an expression of lust. Passing it on becomes a rite of passage, like a violent gang intitiation.

Not to mention that the prison population is not a representative sample of the general population. A high proportion of felons are at least psychotic, if not psychopathic. They don't react to things like we do.

Rape of either gender and any age is an act of violence, not necessarily an expression of lust. Passing it on becomes a rite of passage, like a violent gang intitiation.

When a guy does this to another guy, how can you look at it and say it's not homosexual?

D'ster has been banned for 3 days.
Woody has been banned for 3 days.

Both have been banned for repeated homophobic comments and for insulting other forum members.