Conservatives: Do You Give

[RDD_1210]

WTF does NAMBLA have to do with homosexuals being able to legally marry??

I know it may be hard, but try to keep up sparky.

I already pointed out that gays already have the right to get married, nothing outlaws it.

I already pointed out that this whole "gay marriage" debate is really about getting the rest of society to recognize those "gay marriages", to force acceptance upon others.

I already pointed out that this whole "debate" is really about pushing forward the entire gay agenda.

And that includes forcing society to accept, and condone other issues outside of marriage such as gays openly serving in the military, gays adopting children, and gays "recruiting" children. NAMbLA is all about allowing gays adopting children.

Thanks for clearing that up.

I realize now that I'm dealing with an actual uneducated bigot. No use trying to reason with him.

I'm done here.

 

[rdean]

Do you give a flying fuck about homosexuals and how they live their lives?

This is a spin off of Dr House's comment to Jerkbert in the thread on conservative homosexuals.

For some on the right, gays seem to be all they think about.

 

[Liability]

O, health care decisions, inheritance laws, employer benefits, child custody, etc. etc. etc. Yanno....all the benefits you get from your marriage?

Power of attorney for most of that.

Most of society isn't going to be confortable giving children over to be raised by homos when its their standard practice to "recruit" underaged. But that's what this debate really boils down to isn't it? The "rights" that NAMBLA is pushing for.

Do you have any proof of current NAMBLA activities trying to push those "rights"??

NAMBLA only exists a tool to invoke fear by right wingers

Wow. You tend to say lots of stupid and baseless crap, leftwinger, but THAT is pretty damn dumb even by your lowly standards.

NAMBLA is just a tool, eh?

Putting aside your general incoherence, are you actually suggesting that NAMBLA is an illusory group only?

In fact, NAMBLA does exist. It is a group dedicated to pedophile "rights."

While I agree that the hideous group, NAMBLA, is not validly connected to an argument about the nature of homosexual rights, that is different than denying reality. And, sadly, reality is that NAMBLA does exist* and does seek to gain acceptance of pedophile "rights."

____________________
* it has been described as "all but defunct" but there is no verified evidence that it is actually defunct. And, frankly, even if it is actually NOW defunct, the fact that it so recently existed in the open makes it real and not just some right-wing bogeyman.

 

[theHawk]

I will explain, if you are really open to learning.

I have an open mind.

Okay, let's test that theory.

A pedophile is an adult -- of either gender -- who sexually desires children so young, they have no secondary sex characteristics yet. With me so far? These people may have boyfriends or husbands, but those relationships are not satisfying, and many times are merely "covers" so they seem like everyone else and can better access prey.

You can call it evil or psychotic, but by whatever value system you apply, pedophilia is a life killing act against a child that society should and mostly does go to any length to eradicate. The people who pose the greatest risk to children are not strangers and they are certainly not gay men. They are pedophiles posing as straight, married men and women. Usually, they are known to the child's parents as extended family or friends.

A lesbian or gay man has no more sexual desire for a child than any normal straight person does. Many do have the same desire anyone else has to parent, by reproduction or adoption, and these rights should be respected, just as yours are.

"A lesbian or gay man has no more sexual desire for a child than any normal straight person does."
If this was true then the percentage of homosexual pedophiles in prison should reflect the same percentage of homosexuals in society.

For example, if homos make up 3% of all of society then according to you they should only make up 3% of convicted pedophiles.

Of course our government refuses to keep records on people that identify themselves as homosexual via census (even though they keep track of other ethnic and religious groups), and they don't keep good public records on convicted pedophiles. But if you look at independant studies and polls done, you'll easily find that the percentage of convicted homosexual pedophiles is vastly greater than the percentage of homos. Some studies have shown that 30% of convicted child molesters are homosexual. I'm sure you'll argue that there aren't any real accurate numbers do go by, and I would agree. But that is because the pro-homosexual agenda doesn't want us to know the numbers.
But, no matter how you cut it, if homos make up 2-10% of society, yet make up 20-45% of convicted pedophiles, then its quite clear homos are much more likely to molest children.

Do some research on your own, and make up your own mind. That is if you have an open mind on the subject.

 

[theHawk]

WTF does NAMBLA have to do with homosexuals being able to legally marry??

I know it may be hard, but try to keep up sparky.

I already pointed out that gays already have the right to get married, nothing outlaws it.

I already pointed out that this whole "gay marriage" debate is really about getting the rest of society to recognize those "gay marriages", to force acceptance upon others.

I already pointed out that this whole "debate" is really about pushing forward the entire gay agenda.

And that includes forcing society to accept, and condone other issues outside of marriage such as gays openly serving in the military, gays adopting children, and gays "recruiting" children. NAMbLA is all about allowing gays adopting children.

Thanks for clearing that up.

I realize now that I'm dealing with an actual uneducated bigot. No use trying to reason with him.

I'm done here.

If that was true you'd be able to prove me wrong. But all you can do is call me a "bigot" (what a surprise).

The fact is you cannot dispute that NAMbLA is advocating that gays have the right to adopt children, and you cannot deny that same political goal is the agenda of the leftists and Dems in their fight for "gay rights".

 

[Madeline]

I have an open mind.

Okay, let's test that theory.

A pedophile is an adult -- of either gender -- who sexually desires children so young, they have no secondary sex characteristics yet. With me so far? These people may have boyfriends or husbands, but those relationships are not satisfying, and many times are merely "covers" so they seem like everyone else and can better access prey.

You can call it evil or psychotic, but by whatever value system you apply, pedophilia is a life killing act against a child that society should and mostly does go to any length to eradicate. The people who pose the greatest risk to children are not strangers and they are certainly not gay men. They are pedophiles posing as straight, married men and women. Usually, they are known to the child's parents as extended family or friends.

A lesbian or gay man has no more sexual desire for a child than any normal straight person does. Many do have the same desire anyone else has to parent, by reproduction or adoption, and these rights should be respected, just as yours are.

"A lesbian or gay man has no more sexual desire for a child than any normal straight person does."
If this was true then the percentage of homosexual pedophiles in prison should reflect the same percentage of homosexuals in society.

For example, if homos make up 3% of all of society then according to you they should only make up 3% of convicted pedophiles.

Of course our government refuses to keep records on people that identify themselves as homosexual via census (even though they keep track of other ethnic and religious groups), and they don't keep good public records on convicted pedophiles. But if you look at independant studies and polls done, you'll easily find that the percentage of convicted homosexual pedophiles is vastly greater than the percentage of homos. Some studies have shown that 30% of convicted child molesters are homosexual. I'm sure you'll argue that there aren't any real accurate numbers do go by, and I would agree. But that is because the pro-homosexual agenda doesn't want us to know the numbers.
But, no matter how you cut it, if homos make up 2-10% of society, yet make up 20-45% of convicted pedophiles, then its quite clear homos are much more likely to molest children.

Do some research on your own, and make up your own mind. That is if you have an open mind on the subject.

Most pedophiles have only limited gender preferences as to prey, but they can more easily access children of the same sex. The body of a 5 year old boy compared to a girl is not all that different, and you'd be just as likely to find preferences for hair color as gender. What you are not getting here is that any adult who looks at a 5 year old with lust is not later going to glance at any adult with lust too.

This is seriously fucked brain wiring we are talking about, and these sick fucks are NOT (almost ever) openly GLBT. Gay, by definition, means sexual desire for an ADULT same sex partner.

And BTW, pedophilia is not limited to men, but crimes by women are way underreported.

 

[Liability]

It would be a lot like working (which I am busy avoiding for the moment) so I don't feel inclined to go verify this, but my memory is that pedophilia is more common in the heterosexual community than it is in the homosexual community (percentage wise).

But whether you're gay or straight, heed the warning:

LEAVE the children alone.

There is no known "cure" for pedophilia. Thus, many of us are willing to consider the death penalty as an option.

LEAVE the kids alone.

 

[The Rabbi]

That is my stance as well...

What is the difference between "civil union" and "marriage" under that scenario?

Civil union would be a government recognized family pairing for the simple means of easier census, taxation, legal inheritance, etc...

Keeping the government out of any recognition of marriage keeps the government from forcing others to accept behavior they don't believe in... when held in the hands of the religious institutions, it keeps it a personal choice of acceptance, tolerance, or neither... I don't agree with the choice of catholics to pray to saints, nor with the polygamist mormon sects choice to accept men with multiple wives... and I am not forced to accept them no matter what others think or believe... but the moment government gets involved in the aspect of marriage, it does bring forced acceptance of a chosen behavior... not something I am keen on

OK. I still don't see a big difference between civil union and marriage. But under "civil union" any two people, or three or 100 could undertake a union for whatever benefits it confers.
Now, do you want to argue gov't should not confer any benefit? Meaning in a divorce gov't should not decide property divisions or child custody. It should tax people regardless of whether they have 3 children or no children.
I can see an argument for equal taxation. But the idea of marriage as the bedrock of society permeates through our legal code. Getting rid of it will have severe and unforeseen consequences. The cure will be worse than the disease.

 

[The Rabbi]

Okay, let's test that theory.

A pedophile is an adult -- of either gender -- who sexually desires children so young, they have no secondary sex characteristics yet.

No, not at all. You seem to be making baseless generalizations today.
If you have sex with a boy who is 13 or a girl who is 12 you are a pedophile.

 

[Madeline]

Okay, let's test that theory.

A pedophile is an adult -- of either gender -- who sexually desires children so young, they have no secondary sex characteristics yet.

No, not at all. You seem to be making baseless generalizations today.
If you have sex with a boy who is 13 or a girl who is 12 you are a pedophile.

It is a crime, but no, it is not pedophilia.

Pedophilia - children, causes, DSM, functioning, therapy, adults, person, people, used, personality, skills, health, traits, mood, Definition, Description, Causes and symptoms

 

[bodecea]

The only thing I have against the gay movement are those obscene parades they have in San Francisco. Other than that. No. It's their life. They should live it.

How many have you been to?

 

[Liability]

Okay, let's test that theory.

A pedophile is an adult -- of either gender -- who sexually desires children so young, they have no secondary sex characteristics yet.

No, not at all. You seem to be making baseless generalizations today.
If you have sex with a boy who is 13 or a girl who is 12 you are a pedophile.

It is a crime, but no, it is not pedophilia.

Pedophilia - children, causes, DSM, functioning, therapy, adults, person, people, used, personality, skills, health, traits, mood, Definition, Description, Causes and symptoms

No.

Pedophilia has many defintions and some of them come with a subset of problems concerning "definitions."

But whether it is a recurent desire or merely the first overt action, a pedophile is an adult who has sexual contact with children (usually, but not always pre-pubescent children).

Why worry about the exactitude of that difficult definition?

Adults: When it comes to sexuality, leave minors alone.

Simple enough.

 

[Liability]

The only thing I have against the gay movement are those obscene parades they have in San Francisco. Other than that. No. It's their life. They should live it.

How many have you been to?

Irrelevant. What possible difference could the answer to that "question" make?

 

[bodecea]

Do you give a flying fuck about homosexuals and how they live their lives?

This is a spin off of Dr House's comment to Jerkbert in the thread on conservative homosexuals.

Do you support full legal equality between homosexuals and heterosexuals in all spheres of the law?

I have the right to marry someone of the opposite sex along with every other person living in the U.S., including a gay person. So, while I support civil unions, I don't see how 'gay rights' are any different than my rights? They can marry someone of the opposite sex the same as I can, no different rights there. So, the equal rights argument is a bit of a fallacy.

Yes. It's a gender discrimination issue.

 

[bodecea]

The only thing I have against the gay movement are those obscene parades they have in San Francisco. Other than that. No. It's their life. They should live it.

How many have you been to?

Irrelevant. What possible difference could the answer to that "question" make?

Willow has made a judgement that our parades are obscene. How many has she been to to see that they are indeed "obscene"?

 

[bodecea]

If all the cons on this thread dun give a flying fuck about GLBT people, why are you so agitated at the thought they'd have the same rights and dignity that you have?

They already have the same rights, exactly the same, as the rest of us. WHat they want are special rights. And that agitates me. And it should any other person.

What Special Rights are those?

 

[Madeline]

How many have you been to?

Irrelevant. What possible difference could the answer to that "question" make?

Willow has made a judgement that our parades are obscene. How many has she been to to see that they are indeed "obscene"?

Hell, I have $5 says Willow has never set foot in San Fransisco.

 

[bodecea]

Who is keeping gays from getting married?

Most state governments.

Please post any link supporting that. There is no state government that forbids two homosexuals getting married.

Of course they do...and you know it.

 

[bodecea]

Don't give a fuck...

You'll find most conservatives agree with that...

True conservatives.

 

[Liability]

How many have you been to?

Irrelevant. What possible difference could the answer to that "question" make?

Willow has made a judgement that our parades are obscene. How many has she been to to see that they are indeed "obscene"?

That's not exactly what Willow said. She spoke of the ones that WERE (in her estimation) "obscene." Expressing that tells you absolutely NOTHING about whether she judges "all" of "your" parades in SF to be "obscene" or not.

Further, one can "see" "your" parades without EVER going to California at all.

There's this thing called "video" and this other thing called the "internet" and there's also "television."

Word.