Who didn't see this one coming?

[telling tiger 156]

I think you will be wrong for the distant future . David Duke and Tom Metzger have had numerous articles written about them where they were given free reign to cover what they wanted to cover. Does that signal a greater social movement toward their point of view? There are an estimated over 200,000 printed magazines in the world. Millions upon millions of online blogs and "news sources" cough cough. We are going to be some really busy people if it all really signals social adaptation. When I read some things written and posted , I do wonder about that sometimes, I understand the response though, particularly with regard to people like Duke and Metzger. I consider myself a values voter too. It is simply your claim that there is no right to limit the number of participants. A written law is perfectly capable of that on a wider basis. The number of participants is limited at this VERY MOMENT. To not think that and acknowledge THE WRITTEN LAWS? really, lol.

[AUDub 11,153]

This is by no means an endorsement, but I believe a much more compelling argument could be made for polygamy compared to the topic at hand, assuming all parties are capable of informed consent. As I said earlier in the thread during my misguided diatribe, it's much more morally ambiguous.

[homersapien 11,383]

The original focus of this thread still stands. Who didnt see this coming?

http://www.greeleyga...17#comment-7566

An article from the Greeley CO Gazette. Yes, just as the thread topic suggested, the NAMBLA Bunch are in fact using the same arguments as the Gay Rights crowd used. They are attempting to redefine themselves as just a variation of Gay and therefore acceptable. "It just makes logical sense." i do nor agree with many slippery slope arguments, but this is one case in which it was just inevitable to happen.

Didn't see what coming? Scientific study of pedophilia?

Its not like Nambla didn't exist before the issue of gay marriage came to the fore. It's hardly a surprise they would latch on to that (or any other argument they can dream up) to push their agenda.

Unfortunately, you can't dictate the science. It is what it is. The real question - or "original focus of this thread" is whether or not gay marriage provides any justification for their position. I say it does not. There is clearly a victim in pedophilia.

To suggest it does, is tantamount to saying that heterosexuality justifies rape, or kleptomania justifies stealing.

This is really about homophobia, or at the least, opposing the rights of two homosexual adults to enter into a marriage.

[homersapien 11,383]

It is just one article, even the state where this was so common at one time, for religious purposes I might add (what irony huh?, lol) has long since made it anything but the accepted norm from a legal perspective. HOWEVER, even they often turn a blind eye toward it as long as it isn't done Warren Jeffs child bride style.. It never ceases to amaze me the latest social issues that the far right tries to trumpet to rally the base. The vast majority of the US population has never known anyone who lives that way and likely will not. BUT, just so I can add to the social constant panic, MAYBE THEY DO!!!!!!!!!! In all sincerity, it is beyond reality to imply one study( about acknowledged criminal acts, btw) or one article signals a greater movement toward acceptability.

LOL! Seriously.

I can't wait for the religious right to cite the bible in denouncing polygamy. :-\

[TitanTiger 20,498]

You know what's never discussed in a positive light in Scripture? Polygamy. Oh it's described. Even some biblical heroes participated in it. In every single instance where one of them strayed outside the original intention of one man and one woman in marriage, it is shown to be negative in some way. It always is shown as causing trouble for the man who did it. Whenever marriage is talked about positively, it's always from the frame of reference or standard of one man and one woman in a monogamous relationship. Period. It's how it's modeled from the beginning in creation and it's how all instructions on it are given in the time of Jesus and after in the New Testament.

Polygamy was a reality in the ancient world. It was never endorsed as the right course of action in Scripture though.

[homersapien 11,383]

You know what's never discussed in a positive light in Scripture? Polygamy. Oh it's described. Even some biblical heroes participated in it. In every single instance where one of them strayed outside the original intention of one man and one woman in marriage, it is shown to be negative in some way. It always is shown as causing trouble for the man who did it. Whenever marriage is talked about positively, it's always from the frame of reference or standard of one man and one woman in a monogamous relationship. Period. It's how it's modeled from the beginning in creation and it's how all instructions on it are given in the time of Jesus and after in the New Testament.

Polygamy was a reality in the ancient world. It was never endorsed as the right course of action in Scripture though.

Well, that's hardly surprising!

My first response to the idea of gay marriage is that if they are dumb enough to want it, then it serves them right.

[Weegle777 78]

The original focus of this thread still stands. Who didnt see this coming?

http://www.greeleyga...17#comment-7566

An article from the Greeley CO Gazette. Yes, just as the thread topic suggested, the NAMBLA Bunch are in fact using the same arguments as the Gay Rights crowd used. They are attempting to redefine themselves as just a variation of Gay and therefore acceptable. "It just makes logical sense." i do nor agree with many slippery slope arguments, but this is one case in which it was just inevitable to happen.

Didn't see what coming? Scientific study of pedophilia?

Its not like Nambla didn't exist before the issue of gay marriage came to the fore. It's hardly a surprise they would latch on to that (or any other argument they can dream up) to push their agenda.

Unfortunately, you can't dictate the science. It is what it is. The real question - or "original focus of this thread" is whether or not gay marriage provides any justification for their position. I say it does not. There is clearly a victim in pedophilia.

To suggest it does, is tantamount to saying that heterosexuality justifies rape, or kleptomania justifies stealing.

This is really about homophobia, or at the least, opposing the rights of two homosexual adults to enter into a marriage.

And you are wrong and have missed it again.

[homersapien 11,383]

The original focus of this thread still stands. Who didnt see this coming?

http://www.greeleyga...17#comment-7566

An article from the Greeley CO Gazette. Yes, just as the thread topic suggested, the NAMBLA Bunch are in fact using the same arguments as the Gay Rights crowd used. They are attempting to redefine themselves as just a variation of Gay and therefore acceptable. "It just makes logical sense." i do nor agree with many slippery slope arguments, but this is one case in which it was just inevitable to happen.

Didn't see what coming? Scientific study of pedophilia?

Its not like Nambla didn't exist before the issue of gay marriage came to the fore. It's hardly a surprise they would latch on to that (or any other argument they can dream up) to push their agenda.

Unfortunately, you can't dictate the science. It is what it is. The real question - or "original focus of this thread" is whether or not gay marriage provides any justification for their position. I say it does not. There is clearly a victim in pedophilia.

To suggest it does, is tantamount to saying that heterosexuality justifies rape, or kleptomania justifies stealing.

This is really about homophobia, or at the least, opposing the rights of two homosexual adults to enter into a marriage.

And you are wrong and have missed it again.

There should be a rule against simply telling someone they are wrong without providing the reason. But since there isn't, I guess I will just have to work up an equivalent response:

No, I am absolutely right. Your lack of rebuttal simply proves it.

[Weegle777 78]

The original focus of this thread still stands. Who didnt see this coming?

http://www.greeleyga...17#comment-7566

An article from the Greeley CO Gazette. Yes, just as the thread topic suggested, the NAMBLA Bunch are in fact using the same arguments as the Gay Rights crowd used. They are attempting to redefine themselves as just a variation of Gay and therefore acceptable. "It just makes logical sense." i do nor agree with many slippery slope arguments, but this is one case in which it was just inevitable to happen.

Didn't see what coming? Scientific study of pedophilia?

Its not like Nambla didn't exist before the issue of gay marriage came to the fore. It's hardly a surprise they would latch on to that (or any other argument they can dream up) to push their agenda.

Unfortunately, you can't dictate the science. It is what it is. The real question - or "original focus of this thread" is whether or not gay marriage provides any justification for their position. I say it does not. There is clearly a victim in pedophilia.

To suggest it does, is tantamount to saying that heterosexuality justifies rape, or kleptomania justifies stealing.

This is really about homophobia, or at the least, opposing the rights of two homosexual adults to enter into a marriage.

And you are wrong and have missed it again.

There should be a rule against simply telling someone they are wrong without providing the reason. But since there isn't, I guess I will just have to work up an equivalent response:

No, I am absolutely right. Your lack of rebuttal simply proves it.

Nope. Homophobia implies that there is a fear of homosexuals. I certainly don't fear homosexuals or hate them at all. And no one has said that pedophiles are homosexuals or that homosexuals are pedophiles. The ROUTE that homosexuality took to gain acceptance was compared to the possible ROUTE that pedophilia may use to gain acceptance. WHY CAN'T YOU SEEM TO UNDERSTAND THAT? It's not that hard.

[homersapien 11,383]

The original focus of this thread still stands. Who didnt see this coming?

http://www.greeleyga...17#comment-7566

An article from the Greeley CO Gazette. Yes, just as the thread topic suggested, the NAMBLA Bunch are in fact using the same arguments as the Gay Rights crowd used. They are attempting to redefine themselves as just a variation of Gay and therefore acceptable. "It just makes logical sense." i do nor agree with many slippery slope arguments, but this is one case in which it was just inevitable to happen.

Didn't see what coming? Scientific study of pedophilia?

Its not like Nambla didn't exist before the issue of gay marriage came to the fore. It's hardly a surprise they would latch on to that (or any other argument they can dream up) to push their agenda.

Unfortunately, you can't dictate the science. It is what it is. The real question - or "original focus of this thread" is whether or not gay marriage provides any justification for their position. I say it does not. There is clearly a victim in pedophilia.

To suggest it does, is tantamount to saying that heterosexuality justifies rape, or kleptomania justifies stealing.

This is really about homophobia, or at the least, opposing the rights of two homosexual adults to enter into a marriage.

And you are wrong and have missed it again.

There should be a rule against simply telling someone they are wrong without providing the reason. But since there isn't, I guess I will just have to work up an equivalent response:

No, I am absolutely right. Your lack of rebuttal simply proves it.

Nope. Homophobia implies that there is a fear of homosexuals.

I certainly don't fear homosexuals or hate them at all.

OK, I fixed that for you.

And no one has said that pedophiles are homosexuals or that homosexuals are pedophiles.

You are right. And no one said anyone else did.

The ROUTE that homosexuality took to gain acceptance was compared to the possible ROUTE that pedophilia may use to gain acceptance. WHY CAN'T YOU SEEM TO UNDERSTAND THAT? It's not that hard.

Are you kidding? I DO UNDERSTAND YOUR HYPOTHESIS. The issue is you apparently don't understand my response.

What I have been saying is THAT HYPOTHESIS IS FALSE because, even though they are both naturally occurring sexual orientations, there is an inherent and qualitative difference between pedophilia and homosexuality, Specifically, pedophilia involves a victim (by definition) and homosexuality doesn't.

Acts that involve a victim will never be legal. It doesn't matter that the perpetrator did so because he was a pedophile. One's sexuality - regardless of what it is - does not allow one to victimize another person, especially a child. THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO LOGICAL OR RATIONAL REASON THAT WE WOULD EVEN GRADUALLY ALLOW ONES SEXUALITY TO EXCUSE THEM FROM CRIMINALLY VICTIMIZING A CHILD. IF YOU CAN PRESENT ONE, LET'S HEAR IT.

The acceptance of homosexual marriage has nothing to do with possible acceptance of pedophilia. To imply that accepting homosexual marriage will lead to the acceptance of pedophilia is both illogical and irrational.

To use NAMBLA's position to support the hypothesis is absurd. First, NAMBLA was pushing their agenda way before homosexual marriage. And the fact some of NAMBLA's members feels it helps their chances is totally irrelevant. They are complete idiots for thinking so, as society will never allow the victimization of children simply because the perpetrator is a pedophile. if you have any rational reasons to think we would, let's hear them.

So, WHY CAN'T YOU SEEM TO UNDERSTAND MY ARGUMENT? It's really not that hard.

It seems I often have to repeat the same argument over and over and over to you in slightly different ways and you still don't seem to get it. I don't think my writing is that bad.

Frankly, I don't think you are really paying much attention to what I say. Do you suffer from ADD (seriously)? If anyone here has a trouble with comprehension, it's you.

[alexava 6,973]

[TitanTiger 20,498]

Pornography has victims and is legal. That someone volunteers to be used and viewed as a thing rather than a person doesn't mean they aren't still a victim.

[icanthearyou 4,463]

After 15+ pages, we know where everyone stands on the issue. Am I correct that there are two basic opinions in terms of how the issue relates to politics?

A. People who want the government to block gay marriage because is will give credibility to the pedophile's future argument for rights.

B. Those who are in favor allowing gay marriage and believe that homosexuality and pedophilia have nothing to do with each other.

Seriously. I am trying to understand the political argument. Is my understanding correct?

[Weegle777 78]

The original focus of this thread still stands. Who didnt see this coming?

http://www.greeleyga...17#comment-7566

An article from the Greeley CO Gazette. Yes, just as the thread topic suggested, the NAMBLA Bunch are in fact using the same arguments as the Gay Rights crowd used. They are attempting to redefine themselves as just a variation of Gay and therefore acceptable. "It just makes logical sense." i do nor agree with many slippery slope arguments, but this is one case in which it was just inevitable to happen.

Didn't see what coming? Scientific study of pedophilia?

Its not like Nambla didn't exist before the issue of gay marriage came to the fore. It's hardly a surprise they would latch on to that (or any other argument they can dream up) to push their agenda.

Unfortunately, you can't dictate the science. It is what it is. The real question - or "original focus of this thread" is whether or not gay marriage provides any justification for their position. I say it does not. There is clearly a victim in pedophilia.

To suggest it does, is tantamount to saying that heterosexuality justifies rape, or kleptomania justifies stealing.

This is really about homophobia, or at the least, opposing the rights of two homosexual adults to enter into a marriage.

And you are wrong and have missed it again.

There should be a rule against simply telling someone they are wrong without providing the reason. But since there isn't, I guess I will just have to work up an equivalent response:

No, I am absolutely right. Your lack of rebuttal simply proves it.

Nope. Homophobia implies that there is a fear of homosexuals.

I certainly don't fear homosexuals or hate them at all.

OK, I fixed that for you.

And no one has said that pedophiles are homosexuals or that homosexuals are pedophiles.

You are right. And no one said anyone else did.

The ROUTE that homosexuality took to gain acceptance was compared to the possible ROUTE that pedophilia may use to gain acceptance. WHY CAN'T YOU SEEM TO UNDERSTAND THAT? It's not that hard.

Are you kidding? I DO UNDERSTAND YOUR HYPOTHESIS. The issue is you apparently don't understand my response.

What I have been saying is THAT HYPOTHESIS IS FALSE because, even though they are both naturally occurring sexual orientations, there is an inherent and qualitative difference between pedophilia and homosexuality, Specifically, pedophilia involves a victim (by definition) and homosexuality doesn't.

Acts that involve a victim will never be legal. It doesn't matter that the perpetrator did so because he was a pedophile. One's sexuality - regardless of what it is - does not allow one to victimize another person, especially a child. THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO LOGICAL OR RATIONAL REASON THAT WE WOULD EVEN GRADUALLY ALLOW ONES SEXUALITY TO EXCUSE THEM FROM CRIMINALLY VICTIMIZING A CHILD. IF YOU CAN PRESENT ONE, LET'S HEAR IT.

The acceptance of homosexual marriage has nothing to do with possible acceptance of pedophilia. To imply that accepting homosexual marriage will lead to the acceptance of pedophilia is both illogical and irrational.

To use NAMBLA's position to support the hypothesis is absurd. First, NAMBLA was pushing their agenda way before homosexual marriage. And the fact some of NAMBLA's members feels it helps their chances is totally irrelevant. They are complete idiots for thinking so, as society will never allow the victimization of children simply because the perpetrator is a pedophile. if you have any rational reasons to think we would, let's hear them.

So, WHY CAN'T YOU SEEM TO UNDERSTAND MY ARGUMENT? It's really not that hard.

It seems I often have to repeat the same argument over and over and over to you in slightly different ways and you still don't seem to get it. I don't think my writing is that bad.

Frankly, I don't think you are really paying much attention to what I say. Do you suffer from ADD (seriously)? If anyone here has a trouble with comprehension, it's you.

No one has said anything about homosexual marriage. Can someone please tell me that there is at least one person that gets what I am saying here? Because this guy, in all of his pseudo-intellectual drivel has yet to understand where I am coming from. Am I speaking in a language that you just can't comprehend?

[icanthearyou 4,463]

The original focus of this thread still stands. Who didnt see this coming?

http://www.greeleyga...17#comment-7566

An article from the Greeley CO Gazette. Yes, just as the thread topic suggested, the NAMBLA Bunch are in fact using the same arguments as the Gay Rights crowd used. They are attempting to redefine themselves as just a variation of Gay and therefore acceptable. "It just makes logical sense." i do nor agree with many slippery slope arguments, but this is one case in which it was just inevitable to happen.

Didn't see what coming? Scientific study of pedophilia?

Its not like Nambla didn't exist before the issue of gay marriage came to the fore. It's hardly a surprise they would latch on to that (or any other argument they can dream up) to push their agenda.

Unfortunately, you can't dictate the science. It is what it is. The real question - or "original focus of this thread" is whether or not gay marriage provides any justification for their position. I say it does not. There is clearly a victim in pedophilia.

To suggest it does, is tantamount to saying that heterosexuality justifies rape, or kleptomania justifies stealing.

This is really about homophobia, or at the least, opposing the rights of two homosexual adults to enter into a marriage.

And you are wrong and have missed it again.

There should be a rule against simply telling someone they are wrong without providing the reason. But since there isn't, I guess I will just have to work up an equivalent response:

No, I am absolutely right. Your lack of rebuttal simply proves it.

Nope. Homophobia implies that there is a fear of homosexuals.

I certainly don't fear homosexuals or hate them at all.

OK, I fixed that for you.

And no one has said that pedophiles are homosexuals or that homosexuals are pedophiles.

You are right. And no one said anyone else did.

The ROUTE that homosexuality took to gain acceptance was compared to the possible ROUTE that pedophilia may use to gain acceptance. WHY CAN'T YOU SEEM TO UNDERSTAND THAT? It's not that hard.

Are you kidding? I DO UNDERSTAND YOUR HYPOTHESIS. The issue is you apparently don't understand my response.

What I have been saying is THAT HYPOTHESIS IS FALSE because, even though they are both naturally occurring sexual orientations, there is an inherent and qualitative difference between pedophilia and homosexuality, Specifically, pedophilia involves a victim (by definition) and homosexuality doesn't.

Acts that involve a victim will never be legal. It doesn't matter that the perpetrator did so because he was a pedophile. One's sexuality - regardless of what it is - does not allow one to victimize another person, especially a child. THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO LOGICAL OR RATIONAL REASON THAT WE WOULD EVEN GRADUALLY ALLOW ONES SEXUALITY TO EXCUSE THEM FROM CRIMINALLY VICTIMIZING A CHILD. IF YOU CAN PRESENT ONE, LET'S HEAR IT.

The acceptance of homosexual marriage has nothing to do with possible acceptance of pedophilia. To imply that accepting homosexual marriage will lead to the acceptance of pedophilia is both illogical and irrational.

To use NAMBLA's position to support the hypothesis is absurd. First, NAMBLA was pushing their agenda way before homosexual marriage. And the fact some of NAMBLA's members feels it helps their chances is totally irrelevant. They are complete idiots for thinking so, as society will never allow the victimization of children simply because the perpetrator is a pedophile. if you have any rational reasons to think we would, let's hear them.

So, WHY CAN'T YOU SEEM TO UNDERSTAND MY ARGUMENT? It's really not that hard.

It seems I often have to repeat the same argument over and over and over to you in slightly different ways and you still don't seem to get it. I don't think my writing is that bad.

Frankly, I don't think you are really paying much attention to what I say. Do you suffer from ADD (seriously)? If anyone here has a trouble with comprehension, it's you.

No one has said anything about homosexual marriage. Can someone please tell me that there is at least one person that gets what I am saying here? Because this guy, in all of his pseudo-intellectual drivel has yet to understand where I am coming from. Am I speaking in a language that you just can't comprehend?

I must admit that I do not understand your position in terms of politics. I believe you wish the government to block gay marriage and gay rights for fear that it will ultimately lead to rights for pedophiles. Is this correct?

[TitanTiger 20,498]

Other than being against a redefining of what marriage is, where has anyone said they are against "gay rights" in general? Did I miss the sidebar on how gays shouldn't be allowed to hold a job or rent an apartment because of their sexual orientation?

[Weegle777 78]

The original focus of this thread still stands. Who didnt see this coming?

http://www.greeleyga...17#comment-7566

An article from the Greeley CO Gazette. Yes, just as the thread topic suggested, the NAMBLA Bunch are in fact using the same arguments as the Gay Rights crowd used. They are attempting to redefine themselves as just a variation of Gay and therefore acceptable. "It just makes logical sense." i do nor agree with many slippery slope arguments, but this is one case in which it was just inevitable to happen.

Didn't see what coming? Scientific study of pedophilia?

Its not like Nambla didn't exist before the issue of gay marriage came to the fore. It's hardly a surprise they would latch on to that (or any other argument they can dream up) to push their agenda.

Unfortunately, you can't dictate the science. It is what it is. The real question - or "original focus of this thread" is whether or not gay marriage provides any justification for their position. I say it does not. There is clearly a victim in pedophilia.

To suggest it does, is tantamount to saying that heterosexuality justifies rape, or kleptomania justifies stealing.

This is really about homophobia, or at the least, opposing the rights of two homosexual adults to enter into a marriage.

And you are wrong and have missed it again.

There should be a rule against simply telling someone they are wrong without providing the reason. But since there isn't, I guess I will just have to work up an equivalent response:

No, I am absolutely right. Your lack of rebuttal simply proves it.

Nope. Homophobia implies that there is a fear of homosexuals.

I certainly don't fear homosexuals or hate them at all.

OK, I fixed that for you.

And no one has said that pedophiles are homosexuals or that homosexuals are pedophiles.

You are right. And no one said anyone else did.

The ROUTE that homosexuality took to gain acceptance was compared to the possible ROUTE that pedophilia may use to gain acceptance. WHY CAN'T YOU SEEM TO UNDERSTAND THAT? It's not that hard.

Are you kidding? I DO UNDERSTAND YOUR HYPOTHESIS. The issue is you apparently don't understand my response.

What I have been saying is THAT HYPOTHESIS IS FALSE because, even though they are both naturally occurring sexual orientations, there is an inherent and qualitative difference between pedophilia and homosexuality, Specifically, pedophilia involves a victim (by definition) and homosexuality doesn't.

Acts that involve a victim will never be legal. It doesn't matter that the perpetrator did so because he was a pedophile. One's sexuality - regardless of what it is - does not allow one to victimize another person, especially a child. THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO LOGICAL OR RATIONAL REASON THAT WE WOULD EVEN GRADUALLY ALLOW ONES SEXUALITY TO EXCUSE THEM FROM CRIMINALLY VICTIMIZING A CHILD. IF YOU CAN PRESENT ONE, LET'S HEAR IT.

The acceptance of homosexual marriage has nothing to do with possible acceptance of pedophilia. To imply that accepting homosexual marriage will lead to the acceptance of pedophilia is both illogical and irrational.

To use NAMBLA's position to support the hypothesis is absurd. First, NAMBLA was pushing their agenda way before homosexual marriage. And the fact some of NAMBLA's members feels it helps their chances is totally irrelevant. They are complete idiots for thinking so, as society will never allow the victimization of children simply because the perpetrator is a pedophile. if you have any rational reasons to think we would, let's hear them.

So, WHY CAN'T YOU SEEM TO UNDERSTAND MY ARGUMENT? It's really not that hard.

It seems I often have to repeat the same argument over and over and over to you in slightly different ways and you still don't seem to get it. I don't think my writing is that bad.

Frankly, I don't think you are really paying much attention to what I say. Do you suffer from ADD (seriously)? If anyone here has a trouble with comprehension, it's you.

No one has said anything about homosexual marriage. Can someone please tell me that there is at least one person that gets what I am saying here? Because this guy, in all of his pseudo-intellectual drivel has yet to understand where I am coming from. Am I speaking in a language that you just can't comprehend?

I must admit that I do not understand your position in terms of politics. I believe you wish the government to block gay marriage and gay rights for fear that it will ultimately lead to rights for pedophiles. Is this correct?

Not at all. I have zero fear of anything homosexual. I don't want the government to block gay "marriage" because they can't block an imaginary thing. They can sanction gay "unions", but that is all. Now they can call it marriage, but it will not be marriage. God created "marriage". He created it to be between a man and a woman. Period. He will not bless a union between a man and a man, or a woman and a woman. He can't.

What I was getting at didn't involve politics at all. Homersapien inserted a political slant to my example. My example was meant to compare, not correlate, the route homosexuality took to gain acceptance, with the "possible" route that pedophilia could take.

Homersapien can't see past his dislike of me to understand that I had no agenda in my posts to liken homosexuality to pedophilia, or to say that gay unions were a lead in to pedophilia.

[homersapien 11,383]

After 15+ pages, we know where everyone stands on the issue. Am I correct that there are two basic opinions in terms of how the issue relates to politics?

A. People who want the government to block gay marriage because is will give credibility to the pedophile's future argument for rights.

B. Those who are in favor allowing gay marriage and believe that homosexuality and pedophilia have nothing to do with each other.

Seriously. I am trying to understand the political argument. Is my understanding correct?

That sounds about right to me.

[alexava 6,973]

The original focus of this thread still stands. Who didnt see this coming?

http://www.greeleyga...17#comment-7566

An article from the Greeley CO Gazette. Yes, just as the thread topic suggested, the NAMBLA Bunch are in fact using the same arguments as the Gay Rights crowd used. They are attempting to redefine themselves as just a variation of Gay and therefore acceptable. "It just makes logical sense." i do nor agree with many slippery slope arguments, but this is one case in which it was just inevitable to happen.

Didn't see what coming? Scientific study of pedophilia?

Its not like Nambla didn't exist before the issue of gay marriage came to the fore. It's hardly a surprise they would latch on to that (or any other argument they can dream up) to push their agenda.

Unfortunately, you can't dictate the science. It is what it is. The real question - or "original focus of this thread" is whether or not gay marriage provides any justification for their position. I say it does not. There is clearly a victim in pedophilia.

To suggest it does, is tantamount to saying that heterosexuality justifies rape, or kleptomania justifies stealing.

This is really about homophobia, or at the least, opposing the rights of two homosexual adults to enter into a marriage.

And you are wrong and have missed it again.

There should be a rule against simply telling someone they are wrong without providing the reason. But since there isn't, I guess I will just have to work up an equivalent response:

No, I am absolutely right. Your lack of rebuttal simply proves it.

Nope. Homophobia implies that there is a fear of homosexuals.

I certainly don't fear homosexuals or hate them at all.

OK, I fixed that for you.

And no one has said that pedophiles are homosexuals or that homosexuals are pedophiles.

You are right. And no one said anyone else did.

The ROUTE that homosexuality took to gain acceptance was compared to the possible ROUTE that pedophilia may use to gain acceptance. WHY CAN'T YOU SEEM TO UNDERSTAND THAT? It's not that hard.

Are you kidding? I DO UNDERSTAND YOUR HYPOTHESIS. The issue is you apparently don't understand my response.

What I have been saying is THAT HYPOTHESIS IS FALSE because, even though they are both naturally occurring sexual orientations, there is an inherent and qualitative difference between pedophilia and homosexuality, Specifically, pedophilia involves a victim (by definition) and homosexuality doesn't.

Acts that involve a victim will never be legal. It doesn't matter that the perpetrator did so because he was a pedophile. One's sexuality - regardless of what it is - does not allow one to victimize another person, especially a child. THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO LOGICAL OR RATIONAL REASON THAT WE WOULD EVEN GRADUALLY ALLOW ONES SEXUALITY TO EXCUSE THEM FROM CRIMINALLY VICTIMIZING A CHILD. IF YOU CAN PRESENT ONE, LET'S HEAR IT.

The acceptance of homosexual marriage has nothing to do with possible acceptance of pedophilia. To imply that accepting homosexual marriage will lead to the acceptance of pedophilia is both illogical and irrational.

To use NAMBLA's position to support the hypothesis is absurd. First, NAMBLA was pushing their agenda way before homosexual marriage. And the fact some of NAMBLA's members feels it helps their chances is totally irrelevant. They are complete idiots for thinking so, as society will never allow the victimization of children simply because the perpetrator is a pedophile. if you have any rational reasons to think we would, let's hear them.

So, WHY CAN'T YOU SEEM TO UNDERSTAND MY ARGUMENT? It's really not that hard.

It seems I often have to repeat the same argument over and over and over to you in slightly different ways and you still don't seem to get it. I don't think my writing is that bad.

Frankly, I don't think you are really paying much attention to what I say. Do you suffer from ADD (seriously)? If anyone here has a trouble with comprehension, it's you.

No one has said anything about homosexual marriage. Can someone please tell me that there is at least one person that gets what I am saying here? Because this guy, in all of his pseudo-intellectual drivel has yet to understand where I am coming from. Am I speaking in a language that you just can't comprehend?

I must admit that I do not understand your position in terms of politics. I believe you wish the government to block gay marriage and gay rights for fear that it will ultimately lead to rights for pedophiles. Is this correct?

Not at all. I have zero fear of anything homosexual. I don't want the government to block gay "marriage" because they can't block an imaginary thing. They can sanction gay "unions", but that is all. Now they can call it marriage, but it will not be marriage. God created "marriage". He created it to be between a man and a woman. Period. He will not bless a union between a man and a man, or a woman and a woman. He can't.

What I was getting at didn't involve politics at all. Homersapien inserted a political slant to my example. My example was meant to compare, not correlate, the route homosexuality took to gain acceptance, with the "possible" route that pedophilia could take.

Homersapien can't see past his dislike of me to understand that I had no agenda in my posts to liken homosexuality to pedophilia, or to say that gay unions were a lead in to pedophilia.

that route is called psychology, science, the study of human behavior or tendencies. in other words facts..... the key word here might be "acceptance". people acknowledge these findings are legit and you act like society is going to excuse and legalize child abuse because gays can live without fear of being lynched in the streets.

[homersapien 11,383]

No one has said anything about homosexual marriage. Can someone please tell me that there is at least one person that gets what I am saying here? Because this guy, in all of his pseudo-intellectual drivel has yet to understand where I am coming from. Am I speaking in a language that you just can't comprehend?

Post #2 you said:

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.

So considering that Titan tiger never bothered to explain his OP, you are the one who introduced homosexual marriage to this thread.

You continued this line of thought with your second post (#8):

....if legislation is passed saying that it is now legalized, it very well could lead to other behaviors being classified as "normal".

I will give you the benefit of doubt and not assume you are a complete idiot, but you apparently think we are by lying about something which can be easily checked. (One of the advantages - and disadvantages - of the written word).

[telling tiger 156]

lol.

[homersapien 11,383]

No one has said anything about homosexual marriage. Can someone please tell me that there is at least one person that gets what I am saying here? Because this guy, in all of his pseudo-intellectual drivel has yet to understand where I am coming from. Am I speaking in a language that you just can't comprehend?

Furthermore, simply because someone can frame argument in more intelligent terms that you are capable of doesn't mean they are spouting "pseudo-intellectual drivel".

It may seem that way to you, but only because you are trying to compete out of your class.

[homersapien 11,383]

Other than being against a redefining of what marriage is, where has anyone said they are against "gay rights" in general? Did I miss the sidebar on how gays shouldn't be allowed to hold a job or rent an apartment because of their sexual orientation?

Nowhere and No

And letting homosexuals marry is not "redefining" marriage, anymore than letting black people vote "redefined" civil rights.

[icanthearyou 4,463]

The original focus of this thread still stands. Who didnt see this coming?

http://www.greeleyga...17#comment-7566

An article from the Greeley CO Gazette. Yes, just as the thread topic suggested, the NAMBLA Bunch are in fact using the same arguments as the Gay Rights crowd used. They are attempting to redefine themselves as just a variation of Gay and therefore acceptable. "It just makes logical sense." i do nor agree with many slippery slope arguments, but this is one case in which it was just inevitable to happen.

Didn't see what coming? Scientific study of pedophilia?

Its not like Nambla didn't exist before the issue of gay marriage came to the fore. It's hardly a surprise they would latch on to that (or any other argument they can dream up) to push their agenda.

Unfortunately, you can't dictate the science. It is what it is. The real question - or "original focus of this thread" is whether or not gay marriage provides any justification for their position. I say it does not. There is clearly a victim in pedophilia.

To suggest it does, is tantamount to saying that heterosexuality justifies rape, or kleptomania justifies stealing.

This is really about homophobia, or at the least, opposing the rights of two homosexual adults to enter into a marriage.

And you are wrong and have missed it again.

There should be a rule against simply telling someone they are wrong without providing the reason. But since there isn't, I guess I will just have to work up an equivalent response:

No, I am absolutely right. Your lack of rebuttal simply proves it.

Nope. Homophobia implies that there is a fear of homosexuals.

I certainly don't fear homosexuals or hate them at all.

OK, I fixed that for you.

And no one has said that pedophiles are homosexuals or that homosexuals are pedophiles.

You are right. And no one said anyone else did.

The ROUTE that homosexuality took to gain acceptance was compared to the possible ROUTE that pedophilia may use to gain acceptance. WHY CAN'T YOU SEEM TO UNDERSTAND THAT? It's not that hard.

Are you kidding? I DO UNDERSTAND YOUR HYPOTHESIS. The issue is you apparently don't understand my response.

What I have been saying is THAT HYPOTHESIS IS FALSE because, even though they are both naturally occurring sexual orientations, there is an inherent and qualitative difference between pedophilia and homosexuality, Specifically, pedophilia involves a victim (by definition) and homosexuality doesn't.

Acts that involve a victim will never be legal. It doesn't matter that the perpetrator did so because he was a pedophile. One's sexuality - regardless of what it is - does not allow one to victimize another person, especially a child. THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO LOGICAL OR RATIONAL REASON THAT WE WOULD EVEN GRADUALLY ALLOW ONES SEXUALITY TO EXCUSE THEM FROM CRIMINALLY VICTIMIZING A CHILD. IF YOU CAN PRESENT ONE, LET'S HEAR IT.

The acceptance of homosexual marriage has nothing to do with possible acceptance of pedophilia. To imply that accepting homosexual marriage will lead to the acceptance of pedophilia is both illogical and irrational.

To use NAMBLA's position to support the hypothesis is absurd. First, NAMBLA was pushing their agenda way before homosexual marriage. And the fact some of NAMBLA's members feels it helps their chances is totally irrelevant. They are complete idiots for thinking so, as society will never allow the victimization of children simply because the perpetrator is a pedophile. if you have any rational reasons to think we would, let's hear them.

So, WHY CAN'T YOU SEEM TO UNDERSTAND MY ARGUMENT? It's really not that hard.

It seems I often have to repeat the same argument over and over and over to you in slightly different ways and you still don't seem to get it. I don't think my writing is that bad.

Frankly, I don't think you are really paying much attention to what I say. Do you suffer from ADD (seriously)? If anyone here has a trouble with comprehension, it's you.

No one has said anything about homosexual marriage. Can someone please tell me that there is at least one person that gets what I am saying here? Because this guy, in all of his pseudo-intellectual drivel has yet to understand where I am coming from. Am I speaking in a language that you just can't comprehend?

I must admit that I do not understand your position in terms of politics. I believe you wish the government to block gay marriage and gay rights for fear that it will ultimately lead to rights for pedophiles. Is this correct?

Not at all. I have zero fear of anything homosexual. I don't want the government to block gay "marriage" because they can't block an imaginary thing. They can sanction gay "unions", but that is all. Now they can call it marriage, but it will not be marriage. God created "marriage". He created it to be between a man and a woman. Period. He will not bless a union between a man and a man, or a woman and a woman. He can't.

What I was getting at didn't involve politics at all. Homersapien inserted a political slant to my example. My example was meant to compare, not correlate, the route homosexuality took to gain acceptance, with the "possible" route that pedophilia could take.

Homersapien can't see past his dislike of me to understand that I had no agenda in my posts to liken homosexuality to pedophilia, or to say that gay unions were a lead in to pedophilia.

I see. Thank you for the clarification.

[Weegle777 78]

No one has said anything about homosexual marriage. Can someone please tell me that there is at least one person that gets what I am saying here? Because this guy, in all of his pseudo-intellectual drivel has yet to understand where I am coming from. Am I speaking in a language that you just can't comprehend?

Post #2 you said:

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.

So considering that Titan tiger never bothered to explain his OP, you are the one who introduced homosexual marriage to this thread.

You continued this line of thought with your second post (#8):

....if legislation is passed saying that it is now legalized, it very well could lead to other behaviors being classified as "normal".

I will give you the benefit of doubt and not assume you are a complete idiot, but you apparently think we are by lying about something which can be easily checked. (One of the advantages - and disadvantages - of the written word).

Ok, unlike you, I am man enough to admit when I have made an error. Still it doesn't address the fact that you still can't understand where I am coming from.