Who didn't see this one coming?

[homersapien 11,352]

Many experts now view pedophilia as a sexual orientation.

We're slowing moving from the "what could it hurt" phase to "how were we supposed to know?"

What exactly does this mean anyway? It's nonsensical without further elaboration.

[AUDub 11,131]

Over the course of the last day, I've taken the time to thoroughly re-read Titan's argument. I realize I've unfairly applied an extreme interpretation and misrepresented it in the process. I misunderstood him because I didn't take the time to grasp his argument before replying.

I've been rude and I was wrong. I apologize, Titan. I'll reign it in from here on and keep things civil.

[TitanTiger 20,469]

I need to apologize too and I appreciate you approaching me via PM about this. I was frustrated and the last thing that was needed here was a megadose of snark. In fact, there was a much better way to start this thread than I managed to do that might have avoided it going down this road to begin with. So I'm sorry and ask forgiveness for how I conducted myself on this thread.

Thanks for the apology, I hope everyone here will accept mine and that we can have a civil conversation from this point forward.

[Weegle777 78]

And I see the pedophile that gets near my children with his or her head cut off with a dull blade and its body hanging from a tree. Just typical of the moral decline of this country. And it will only get worse. Pretty soon, when homosexual government unions are legalized, it will set the stage for these sickos to push for the unions involving children.

But, haven't some of us here already said that this would happen? Thought so.

Are you suggesting homosexuality is a "gateway" sexual orientation?

What? That isn't what I took from his post at all...

I didn't either. I'm just pushing Weegs buttons because I think he is playing the irrational fear card.

Irrational fear? That's exactly what most of you said in a thread a few months ago when some of us said that soon, pedophilia would be an accepted relationship alternative. Looks like we were correct. Maybe you all will listen to reason one day and be able to see the writing on the wall instead of blindly ignoring the signs.

You and Titan tiger have a very strange interpretation of this article. There is nothing in the article that suggests pedophilia should be "accepted" as a "relationship alternative".

Why would you conflate understanding the science of pedophilia with acceptance of pedophilic behavior? And what is the connection to homosexuality?

Why don't you keep reading what I said later in the thread. Guess you missed that post.

[Weegle777 78]

Here you go:

Weegle777

03 Apr 2013

I'll have to say, the title of the article doesn't reflect much of the content of the article.

Quote Edit Delete

[homersapien 11,352]

And I see the pedophile that gets near my children with his or her head cut off with a dull blade and its body hanging from a tree. Just typical of the moral decline of this country. And it will only get worse. Pretty soon, when homosexual government unions are legalized, it will set the stage for these sickos to push for the unions involving children.

But, haven't some of us here already said that this would happen? Thought so.

Are you suggesting homosexuality is a "gateway" sexual orientation?

What? That isn't what I took from his post at all...

I didn't either. I'm just pushing Weegs buttons because I think he is playing the irrational fear card.

Irrational fear? That's exactly what most of you said in a thread a few months ago when some of us said that soon, pedophilia would be an accepted relationship alternative. Looks like we were correct. Maybe you all will listen to reason one day and be able to see the writing on the wall instead of blindly ignoring the signs.

You and Titan tiger have a very strange interpretation of this article. There is nothing in the article that suggests pedophilia should be "accepted" as a "relationship alternative".

Why would you conflate understanding the science of pedophilia with acceptance of pedophilic behavior? And what is the connection to homosexuality?

Why don't you keep reading what I said later in the thread. Guess you missed that post.

Guess so. What was the post #?

[Weegle777 78]

The one before your last.

[homersapien 11,352]

The one before your last.

Presumably you are referring to post # 26? (Please note that each post is numbered in the upper right hand corner.) If so, I still don't get it, so I'll just ask you directly:

1) Do you believe the study of pedophilia equates to acceptance of pedophilia?

2) Do you believe the study of pedophilia has anything at all to do with subject of homosexuality or homosexual rights (to marry)?

[TheBlueVue 177]

This has been a thread filled with passionate arguments that made for entertaining reading. I'm not going to enter the fray on comparing/contrasting/equating pedophilia with homosexuality nor even allude to the differences in the deviation from sexual norms. The problem that continues to trouble me is the continuous attempt by certain parties to change and or edit the definitions of every word. The language we share is at the very bottom of the values morals and laws that govern human behaviors. Continuously changing and/or editing the simple meaning of words is an ongoing affair for those who wish to see "alternative" lifestyles...ie perversions made more palatable, less threatening and eventually normalized.

[Weegle777 78]

The one before your last.

Presumably you are referring to post # 26? (Please note that each post is numbered in the upper right hand corner.) If so, I still don't get it, so I'll just ask you directly:

1) Do you believe the study of pedophilia equates to acceptance of pedophilia?

2) Do you believe the study of pedophilia has anything at all to do with subject of homosexuality or homosexual rights (to marry)?

The post number doesn't appear on the mobile version. What don't you get? I said that the story doesn't appear to mesh with the title. The title is misleading.

1. No.

2. No.

[homersapien 11,352]

The one before your last.

Presumably you are referring to post # 26? (Please note that each post is numbered in the upper right hand corner.) If so, I still don't get it, so I'll just ask you directly:

1) Do you believe the study of pedophilia equates to acceptance of pedophilia?

2) Do you believe the study of pedophilia has anything at all to do with subject of homosexuality or homosexual rights (to marry)?

The post number doesn't appear on the mobile version. What don't you get? I said that the story doesn't appear to mesh with the title. The title is misleading.

1. No.

2. No.

I didn't know the post numbers didn't appear on mobile devices. Interesting - and a shame as that is the best way to refer to previous posts short of quoting them.

But it seems to me that the title of the story perfectly reflects it contents. They are saying that pedophilia is a naturally occurring sexual state (or "orientation") instead of a pathology resulting from some sort of psychological trauma as previously postulated.

Glad to see you changed your position on the other two questions.

[Weegle777 78]

The one before your last.

Presumably you are referring to post # 26? (Please note that each post is numbered in the upper right hand corner.) If so, I still don't get it, so I'll just ask you directly:

1) Do you believe the study of pedophilia equates to acceptance of pedophilia?

2) Do you believe the study of pedophilia has anything at all to do with subject of homosexuality or homosexual rights (to marry)?

The post number doesn't appear on the mobile version. What don't you get? I said that the story doesn't appear to mesh with the title. The title is misleading.

1. No.

2. No.

I didn't know the post numbers didn't appear on mobile devices. Interesting - and a shame as that is the best way to refer to previous posts short of quoting them.

But it seems to me that the title of the story perfectly reflects it contents. They are saying that pedophilia is a naturally occurring sexual state (or "orientation") instead of a pathology resulting from some sort of psychological trauma as previously postulated.

Glad to see you changed your position on the other two questions.

Technically, you may be correct. But I still believe that if the door is opened to governmental sanctioned unions between two people of the same gender, that will pave the way for these other "orientations" to be advocated for by their organizations for acceptance. And listen, I don't hate people that are homosexual. I never have. I do hate the bondage they are under by that sin. People have asked me how my church handles having homosexuals in our congregation. I tell them that no one is ever excluded because of chains that have them bound. Love the person, hate the sin.

[homersapien 11,352]

The one before your last.

Presumably you are referring to post # 26? (Please note that each post is numbered in the upper right hand corner.) If so, I still don't get it, so I'll just ask you directly:

1) Do you believe the study of pedophilia equates to acceptance of pedophilia?

2) Do you believe the study of pedophilia has anything at all to do with subject of homosexuality or homosexual rights (to marry)?

The post number doesn't appear on the mobile version. What don't you get? I said that the story doesn't appear to mesh with the title. The title is misleading.

1. No.

2. No.

I didn't know the post numbers didn't appear on mobile devices. Interesting - and a shame as that is the best way to refer to previous posts short of quoting them.

But it seems to me that the title of the story perfectly reflects it contents. They are saying that pedophilia is a naturally occurring sexual state (or "orientation") instead of a pathology resulting from some sort of psychological trauma as previously postulated.

Glad to see you changed your position on the other two questions.

Technically, you may be correct. But I still believe that if the door is opened to governmental sanctioned unions between two people of the same gender, that will pave the way for these other "orientations" to be advocated for by their organizations for acceptance. And listen, I don't hate people that are homosexual. I never have. I do hate the bondage they are under by that sin. People have asked me how my church handles having homosexuals in our congregation. I tell them that no one is ever excluded because of chains that have them bound. Love the person, hate the sin.

Well, I suppose its possible some pedophiles believe granting homosexuals the right to marry "paves the way" for their obtaining the legal right to abuse children but they are being just as illogical as the people who equate homosexuality to pedophilia.

Frankly, even knowing how much you oppose the rights of homosexuals to marry, I find it hard to believe that you really believe that is a possibility.

And "sin" has nothing to do with the discussion unless you want to switch the topic to religious beliefs. The subject is the right of anyone to have sexual relations with a child, which is, and will remain, illegal regardless of one's sexual orientation.

[AUDub 11,131]

Technically, you may be correct. But I still believe that if the door is opened to governmental sanctioned unions between two people of the same gender, that will pave the way for these other "orientations" to be advocated for by their organizations for acceptance. And listen, I don't hate people that are homosexual. I never have. I do hate the bondage they are under by that sin. People have asked me how my church handles having homosexuals in our congregation. I tell them that no one is ever excluded because of chains that have them bound. Love the person, hate the sin.

Sorry for butting in.

On your point about advocacy. There are already organizations that advocate unacceptable relationships alternatives. NAMBLA for example. There aren't many of those sick individuals. I just don't see how the logical leap could be made that would suggest the acceptance of gay marriage would somehow lead to these kinds of organizations gaining traction. When you start talking about relationship alternatives that include a victim (or any other party incapable of informed consent), that's where I draw the line.

[Weegle777 78]

The one before your last.

Presumably you are referring to post # 26? (Please note that each post is numbered in the upper right hand corner.) If so, I still don't get it, so I'll just ask you directly:

1) Do you believe the study of pedophilia equates to acceptance of pedophilia?

2) Do you believe the study of pedophilia has anything at all to do with subject of homosexuality or homosexual rights (to marry)?

The post number doesn't appear on the mobile version. What don't you get? I said that the story doesn't appear to mesh with the title. The title is misleading.

1. No.

2. No.

I didn't know the post numbers didn't appear on mobile devices. Interesting - and a shame as that is the best way to refer to previous posts short of quoting them.

But it seems to me that the title of the story perfectly reflects it contents. They are saying that pedophilia is a naturally occurring sexual state (or "orientation") instead of a pathology resulting from some sort of psychological trauma as previously postulated.

Glad to see you changed your position on the other two questions.

Technically, you may be correct. But I still believe that if the door is opened to governmental sanctioned unions between two people of the same gender, that will pave the way for these other "orientations" to be advocated for by their organizations for acceptance. And listen, I don't hate people that are homosexual. I never have. I do hate the bondage they are under by that sin. People have asked me how my church handles having homosexuals in our congregation. I tell them that no one is ever excluded because of chains that have them bound. Love the person, hate the sin.

Well, I suppose its possible some pedophiles believe granting homosexuals the right to marry "paves the way" for their obtaining the legal right to abuse children but they are being just as illogical as the people who equate homosexuality to pedophilia.

Frankly, even knowing how much you oppose the rights of homosexuals to marry, I find it hard to believe that you really believe that is a possibility.

And "sin" has nothing to do with the discussion unless you want to switch the topic to religious beliefs. The subject is the right of anyone to have sexual relations with a child, which is, and will remain, illegal regardless of one's sexual orientation.

I never did equate homosexuality with pedophilia. And I will state my beliefs where I see fit. They are a huge part of my life, and if that is a problem for you or anybody else here, then ignore my posts. But never tell me to keep my beliefs out of a discussion. You don't have that right.

[Weegle777 78]

Technically, you may be correct. But I still believe that if the door is opened to governmental sanctioned unions between two people of the same gender, that will pave the way for these other "orientations" to be advocated for by their organizations for acceptance. And listen, I don't hate people that are homosexual. I never have. I do hate the bondage they are under by that sin. People have asked me how my church handles having homosexuals in our congregation. I tell them that no one is ever excluded because of chains that have them bound. Love the person, hate the sin.

Sorry for butting in.

On your point about advocacy. There are already organizations that advocate unacceptable relationships alternatives. NAMBLA for example. There aren't many of those sick individuals. I just don't see how the logical leap could be made that would suggest the acceptance of gay marriage would somehow lead to these kinds of organizations gaining traction. When you start talking about relationship alternatives that include a victim (or any other party incapable of informed consent), that's where I draw the line.

Please read this example with an open mind:

Many moons ago, homosexuality was around, but it was frowned upon to the extent that if you came out, you very well might get hanged by some group of angry villagers. Years went by, through the 60's and 70's homosexuals became bolder about coming out. It was still frowned upon, but those groups that would violently oppose it went away and it became more accepted. Now it is to the point that if you frown upon that lifestyle, you are no longer considered a moral person by society, but a bigot that is a part of a hate group. Do you see where I am going with this? Now, substitute pedophilia in the last paragraph, where homosexuality is. Given many years to pass, that sick lifestyle may very well follow that same path.

If you were to ask people that lived back in the days where homosexuals were violently opposed, I would almost guarantee you that they would have the same shocked opposition to homosexuals that we have toward pedophiles.

[japantiger 4,051]

Technically, you may be correct. But I still believe that if the door is opened to governmental sanctioned unions between two people of the same gender, that will pave the way for these other "orientations" to be advocated for by their organizations for acceptance. And listen, I don't hate people that are homosexual. I never have. I do hate the bondage they are under by that sin. People have asked me how my church handles having homosexuals in our congregation. I tell them that no one is ever excluded because of chains that have them bound. Love the person, hate the sin.

Sorry for butting in.

On your point about advocacy. There are already organizations that advocate unacceptable relationships alternatives. NAMBLA for example. There aren't many of those sick individuals. I just don't see how the logical leap could be made that would suggest the acceptance of gay marriage would somehow lead to these kinds of organizations gaining traction. When you start talking about relationship alternatives that include a victim (or any other party incapable of informed consent), that's where I draw the line.

Please read this example with an open mind:

Many moons ago, homosexuality was around, but it was frowned upon to the extent that if you came out, you very well might get hanged by some group of angry villagers. Years went by, through the 60's and 70's homosexuals became bolder about coming out. It was still frowned upon, but those groups that would violently oppose it went away and it became more accepted. Now it is to the point that if you frown upon that lifestyle, you are no longer considered a moral person by society, but a bigot that is a part of a hate group. Do you see where I am going with this? Now, substitute pedophilia in the last paragraph, where homosexuality is. Given many years to pass, that sick lifestyle may very well follow that same path.

If you were to ask people that lived back in the days where homosexuals were violently opposed, I would almost guarantee you that they would have the same shocked opposition to homosexuals that we have toward pedophiles.

Very simply put and the crux of the discussion...the fact that there is an advocacy group called NAMBLA is prima facia evidence that that is the direction they hope to take this...

[AUDub 11,131]

Please read this example with an open mind:

Many moons ago, homosexuality was around, but it was frowned upon to the extent that if you came out, you very well might get hanged by some group of angry villagers. Years went by, through the 60's and 70's homosexuals became bolder about coming out. It was still frowned upon, but those groups that would violently oppose it went away and it became more accepted. Now it is to the point that if you frown upon that lifestyle, you are no longer considered a moral person by society, but a bigot that is a part of a hate group. Do you see where I am going with this? Now, substitute pedophilia in the last paragraph, where homosexuality is. Given many years to pass, that sick lifestyle may very well follow that same path.

If you were to ask people that lived back in the days where homosexuals were violently opposed, I would almost guarantee you that they would have the same shocked opposition to homosexuals that we have toward pedophiles.

I really do understand your opposition to gay marriage. I'm not saying I agree with it, but it would be unfair of me to judge you by it.

Yet I can't help but feel the association of the acceptance of gay rights with the acceptance child molestation is an unfair association. I guess it depends on whether you consider past opposition to homosexuality as having been fair to homosexuals. From my perspective, it could be considered righting a past wrong.

The same can not be said of child molestation. By its very nature, the act includes a victim.

...the fact that there is an advocacy group called NAMBLA is prima facia evidence that that is the direction they hope to take this...

You've said this twice now. I have to ask, do you take NAMBLA seriously?

That's not to say they aren't serious about their aims. No doubt they believe the garbage they advocate. I'm just looking at it from the perspective that they are pretty much universally reviled.

[Weegle777 78]

Please read this example with an open mind:

Many moons ago, homosexuality was around, but it was frowned upon to the extent that if you came out, you very well might get hanged by some group of angry villagers. Years went by, through the 60's and 70's homosexuals became bolder about coming out. It was still frowned upon, but those groups that would violently oppose it went away and it became more accepted. Now it is to the point that if you frown upon that lifestyle, you are no longer considered a moral person by society, but a bigot that is a part of a hate group. Do you see where I am going with this? Now, substitute pedophilia in the last paragraph, where homosexuality is. Given many years to pass, that sick lifestyle may very well follow that same path.

If you were to ask people that lived back in the days where homosexuals were violently opposed, I would almost guarantee you that they would have the same shocked opposition to homosexuals that we have toward pedophiles.

I really do understand your opposition to gay marriage. I'm not saying I agree with it, but it would be unfair of me to judge you by it.

Yet I can't help but feel the association of the acceptance of gay rights with the acceptance child molestation is an unfair association. I guess it depends on whether you consider past opposition to homosexuality as having been fair to homosexuals. From my perspective, it could be considered righting a past wrong.

The same can not be said of child molestation. By its very nature, the act includes a victim.

...the fact that there is an advocacy group called NAMBLA is prima facia evidence that that is the direction they hope to take this...

You've said this twice now. I have to ask, do you take NAMBLA seriously?

That's not to say they aren't serious about their aims. No doubt they believe the garbage they advocate. I'm just looking at it from the perspective that they are pretty much universally reviled.

There is no gay "marriage", and there never can be gay "marriage". But that has nothing to do with my post at all. I said nothing of opposition to gay unions. My post didnt even mention that.

[AUDub 11,131]

There is no gay "marriage", and there never can be gay "marriage". But that has nothing to do with my post at all. I said nothing of opposition to gay unions. My post didnt even mention that.

I should have phrased it acceptance or tolerance of the gay lifestyle, which you used as an example. That, and "governmental sanctioned unions" were mentioned a few posts prior. I'll refrain from referring to it as "marriage", as it offends you. Sorry for the confusion.

[homersapien 11,352]

The one before your last.

Presumably you are referring to post # 26? (Please note that each post is numbered in the upper right hand corner.) If so, I still don't get it, so I'll just ask you directly:

1) Do you believe the study of pedophilia equates to acceptance of pedophilia?

2) Do you believe the study of pedophilia has anything at all to do with subject of homosexuality or homosexual rights (to marry)?

The post number doesn't appear on the mobile version. What don't you get? I said that the story doesn't appear to mesh with the title. The title is misleading.

1. No.

2. No.

I didn't know the post numbers didn't appear on mobile devices. Interesting - and a shame as that is the best way to refer to previous posts short of quoting them.

But it seems to me that the title of the story perfectly reflects it contents. They are saying that pedophilia is a naturally occurring sexual state (or "orientation") instead of a pathology resulting from some sort of psychological trauma as previously postulated.

Glad to see you changed your position on the other two questions.

Technically, you may be correct. But I still believe that if the door is opened to governmental sanctioned unions between two people of the same gender, that will pave the way for these other "orientations" to be advocated for by their organizations for acceptance. And listen, I don't hate people that are homosexual. I never have. I do hate the bondage they are under by that sin. People have asked me how my church handles having homosexuals in our congregation. I tell them that no one is ever excluded because of chains that have them bound. Love the person, hate the sin.

Well, I suppose its possible some pedophiles believe granting homosexuals the right to marry "paves the way" for their obtaining the legal right to abuse children but they are being just as illogical as the people who equate homosexuality to pedophilia.

Frankly, even knowing how much you oppose the rights of homosexuals to marry, I find it hard to believe that you really believe that is a possibility.

And "sin" has nothing to do with the discussion unless you want to switch the topic to religious beliefs. The subject is the right of anyone to have sexual relations with a child, which is, and will remain, illegal regardless of one's sexual orientation.

I never did equate homosexuality with pedophilia. And I will state my beliefs where I see fit. They are a huge part of my life, and if that is a problem for you or anybody else here, then ignore my posts. But never tell me to keep my beliefs out of a discussion. You don't have that right.

Don't be so paranoid. I never said or implied that. Just the opposite.

Like I said, sin has nothing to do with the issue. Pedophilia is illegal because of obvious moral and fairness problems. The concept of "sin" as applied to pedophilia is quite superfluous (well, unless you are associating pedophilia with the presumed "sin" of homosexuality).

Of course, that's just my take on it.

[homersapien 11,352]

Technically, you may be correct. But I still believe that if the door is opened to governmental sanctioned unions between two people of the same gender, that will pave the way for these other "orientations" to be advocated for by their organizations for acceptance. And listen, I don't hate people that are homosexual. I never have. I do hate the bondage they are under by that sin. People have asked me how my church handles having homosexuals in our congregation. I tell them that no one is ever excluded because of chains that have them bound. Love the person, hate the sin.

Sorry for butting in.

On your point about advocacy. There are already organizations that advocate unacceptable relationships alternatives. NAMBLA for example. There aren't many of those sick individuals. I just don't see how the logical leap could be made that would suggest the acceptance of gay marriage would somehow lead to these kinds of organizations gaining traction. When you start talking about relationship alternatives that include a victim (or any other party incapable of informed consent), that's where I draw the line.

Please read this example with an open mind:

Many moons ago, homosexuality was around, but it was frowned upon to the extent that if you came out, you very well might get hanged by some group of angry villagers. Years went by, through the 60's and 70's homosexuals became bolder about coming out. It was still frowned upon, but those groups that would violently oppose it went away and it became more accepted. Now it is to the point that if you frown upon that lifestyle, you are no longer considered a moral person by society, but a bigot that is a part of a hate group. Do you see where I am going with this? Now, substitute pedophilia in the last paragraph, where homosexuality is. Given many years to pass, that sick lifestyle may very well follow that same path.

If you were to ask people that lived back in the days where homosexuals were violently opposed, I would almost guarantee you that they would have the same shocked opposition to homosexuals that we have toward pedophiles.

Weegle you are an absolute hoot!

You just protested to me that you weren't associating pedophilia with homosexuality as I implied, and then what do you do?

You clearly make an association between pedophilia and homosexuality in your very next post!

[Weegle777 78]

There is no gay "marriage", and there never can be gay "marriage". But that has nothing to do with my post at all. I said nothing of opposition to gay unions. My post didnt even mention that.

I should have phrased it acceptance or tolerance of the gay lifestyle, which you used as an example. That, and "governmental sanctioned unions" were mentioned a few posts prior. I'll refrain from referring to it as "marriage", as it offends you. Sorry for the confusion.

I don't get offended. Calling it gay "marriage" is just incorrect.

[Weegle777 78]

Technically, you may be correct. But I still believe that if the door is opened to governmental sanctioned unions between two people of the same gender, that will pave the way for these other "orientations" to be advocated for by their organizations for acceptance. And listen, I don't hate people that are homosexual. I never have. I do hate the bondage they are under by that sin. People have asked me how my church handles having homosexuals in our congregation. I tell them that no one is ever excluded because of chains that have them bound. Love the person, hate the sin.

Sorry for butting in.

On your point about advocacy. There are already organizations that advocate unacceptable relationships alternatives. NAMBLA for example. There aren't many of those sick individuals. I just don't see how the logical leap could be made that would suggest the acceptance of gay marriage would somehow lead to these kinds of organizations gaining traction. When you start talking about relationship alternatives that include a victim (or any other party incapable of informed consent), that's where I draw the line.

Please read this example with an open mind:

Many moons ago, homosexuality was around, but it was frowned upon to the extent that if you came out, you very well might get hanged by some group of angry villagers. Years went by, through the 60's and 70's homosexuals became bolder about coming out. It was still frowned upon, but those groups that would violently oppose it went away and it became more accepted. Now it is to the point that if you frown upon that lifestyle, you are no longer considered a moral person by society, but a bigot that is a part of a hate group. Do you see where I am going with this? Now, substitute pedophilia in the last paragraph, where homosexuality is. Given many years to pass, that sick lifestyle may very well follow that same path.

If you were to ask people that lived back in the days where homosexuals were violently opposed, I would almost guarantee you that they would have the same shocked opposition to homosexuals that we have toward pedophiles.

Weegle you are an absolute hoot!

You just protested to me that you weren't associating pedophilia with homosexuality as I implied, and then what do you do?

You clearly make an association between pedophilia and homosexuality in your very next post!

No I didn't. It was an example of how things like this can happen. There is no comparison. Think a little harder.

[japantiger 4,051]

Please read this example with an open mind:

Many moons ago, homosexuality was around, but it was frowned upon to the extent that if you came out, you very well might get hanged by some group of angry villagers. Years went by, through the 60's and 70's homosexuals became bolder about coming out. It was still frowned upon, but those groups that would violently oppose it went away and it became more accepted. Now it is to the point that if you frown upon that lifestyle, you are no longer considered a moral person by society, but a bigot that is a part of a hate group. Do you see where I am going with this? Now, substitute pedophilia in the last paragraph, where homosexuality is. Given many years to pass, that sick lifestyle may very well follow that same path.

If you were to ask people that lived back in the days where homosexuals were violently opposed, I would almost guarantee you that they would have the same shocked opposition to homosexuals that we have toward pedophiles.

I really do understand your opposition to gay marriage. I'm not saying I agree with it, but it would be unfair of me to judge you by it.

Yet I can't help but feel the association of the acceptance of gay rights with the acceptance child molestation is an unfair association. I guess it depends on whether you consider past opposition to homosexuality as having been fair to homosexuals. From my perspective, it could be considered righting a past wrong.

The same can not be said of child molestation. By its very nature, the act includes a victim.

...the fact that there is an advocacy group called NAMBLA is prima facia evidence that that is the direction they hope to take this...

You've said this twice now. I have to ask, do you take NAMBLA seriously?

That's not to say they aren't serious about their aims. No doubt they believe the garbage they advocate. I'm just looking at it from the perspective that they are pretty much universally reviled.

I take any organization that at it's foundation evangelizes and promotes child rape seriously. What I don't understand is how it exists in the 1st place...In the same way I take Planned Parenthood seriously; given they believe that a woman can murder her live born child. This too sounds preposterous; but they too exist and that is the policy they promote...should I take them serious? Of course; as they seem to have the ear of the political left and openly promote murder of unborn children (which they have previously deemed not really children); and now live children (which is hard to square with the abortion stance)...