Skip to comments.Pedophiles Seek Online Support, Societal Acceptance
Posted on 06/13/2003 8:17:51 AM PDT by kattracks
click here to read article
Same-sex Attraction Disorder IS the mental illness. You simply refuse to acknowledge this because you are afflicted with it.
"These attractions must be cured for the health of the sufferer and of society."
What if the "sufferer" isn't suffering? Why should it be society's business?
Go back and read scripter's (or was it edreform's) links on the medical consequences of what 'homosexuals' do. It's an unhealthy lifestyle to the practitioner, resulting in increased medical and social costs to the rest of us. (AIDS would not exist in this country if not for homosexual behavior).
Likewise, since our future depends on our children we cannot let the children become infected with this mental disease.
Now if the 'sufferer' volunteers to be quarentined away from the rest of society then I have no problem with how they choose to kill themselves. However, if they expect to live, work and play around normal people than they had better keep their perversion to themselves. The moment they demonstrate homosexual behavior in public they are breaking the society's mores and should be shunned. Consider it social leprosy.
Any exposure of children to homosexual behavior is child abuse
On whether people who think homosexual thoughts are homosexual
Maybe you should ask around, find out how many of your straight male friends fantasize about sex with men. Get back to me.
Heterosexuals tend to not talk about their fantasies because, for the healthy ones, sex is not the central part of their lives. That's why they don't define themselves according to the kind of sex they like. Similarly, healthy people don't pry into such issues. I wouldn't care if you were a lesbian if you weren't so interested in talking about it.
On whether fisting is sex
Me: "Fisting isn't sex. It can never in any conceivable understanding lead to reproduction."
You: So you feel that there are reasons other than sexual gratification that people engage in fisting?
I don't care why they do it. If they feel sexual gratification from fisting it is an example of their mental illness. Some people feel gratified having intercourse with animals. Some people feel gratified having their skin carved up. Some people feel gratified penetrating a corpse. Just because they feel gratified doesn't make the activity sex. It's a sign of a deranged mind.
Me: "I would have a problem with a conference about sex containing information about peeing on your partner."
You: You have a problem with private conferences where they would discuss something like that? Why? You don't have to attend.
OK, context. The conference was about education, geared toward education. It was funded by GLSEN, which receives a lot of tax dollars, and was intended to impact public school cirricula. The only way it can be considered "private" is because that is the only defense against telling the world what went on. What went on was sick, and needed to be stopped.
If the children who attended had parents who all knew that fisting (or golden showers) was going to be discussed and their parents still allowed them to go, I would have to defer to the parents, but I would have a problem with those parents.
People don't need to be taught how to be sickos. They can usually figure it out for themselves.
Me: "And obviously a lot of people agree with me, because the best defense GLSEN can mount was, "Hey! Nobody was supposed to know what we were talking about."
You: Yeah.. a lot of people agree with you who didn't attend the conference, don't agree with the premise of it, and WOULDN'T attend such a conference.. except for the guys there who only attended to make a stink about it.
And if there were no problem with what went on in the conference, then there would be no reason to sue the people who published the information. Fact is, most people recognized it was sick and GLSEN had no defense, which is why they went on the offensive.
Good people need not fear the truth.
On your own life
I'm taking full responsibility for my behavior. If I could change, I wouldn't. I don't want to change, I enjoy my life the way it is. I feel no guilt, and don't believe I should. Why would I desire change?
I'm glad you are happy, but you should still explore the other side and meet with some ex-gays. They were not all miserable, but they all realized the relative emptiness of their choice. I am an adult child of an alcoholic. I had never heard that term until I was over 30 years old. One day someone overheard me talking about my alcoholic mother and asked me some questions. I was a happy man, husband and father, coping well with life. After this friend spoke to me, I realized that there may be more. I looked into it and realized that I had adopted some coping mechanisms that made sense in my alcoholic home, but did not make sense in my life outside that home.
Realize I was not unhappy. I simply became happier. I had no motivation to change other than the desire to be all that I could be.
If you have the desire to be all you can be, have the courage to talk to Exodus International or other ex-gays. Contact Clay McLean (you can find him here). The worst that will happen is you will be vindicated.
On what homosexuality is
What sort of destruction do you think homosexuality leads to?
Homoerotic attraction is a denial of what you are. It is a middle step, not a first step. You are a sexual being which is as opposed to an asexual being. That means you have sex with someone of the opposite sex to reproduce. If you were an animal, homoerotic activity would be against your nature because it denies you the opportunity to reproduce. If you are a materialist, that is all the explanation you need.
If you believe in G-d, as I do, you know you are not an animal, you are a person, created uniquely by G-d with some unique traits. One of these is the need to be bonded with a man. This is described in Genesis 3. You can have strong relationships with women, but you can never be made "one flesh" with a woman. That is reserved for a sexual relationship with a man. You are less than you can be until you have such a bond, for G-d created this bond after declaring, "It is not good for man to be alone."
You say you love your "partner." That's good (although it is possible you don't mean the same thing by love that I mean). Would you love your partner less if she became paralized from the neck down and you could never have sex with her again? Would you love her less if you both turned straight and agreed never to have sex again?
If you are healthy, you can love her as fully (as straight men love other men and straight women love other women) without having sex with her. You can free yourself to create this bond with a man without giving up anything with your partner.
Destruction? If you define love as sex, you have dehumanized yourself. If you define yourself according to the kind of sex you have (straights don't, they only claim to be straight if someone asks them if they are gay) you have dehumanized yourself. And if society allows those definitions to stand, it is dehumanized as well.
I don't blame gays for the ills of society - I blame society for the ills of gays. I want society to stop its complicity.
Of course - and that context is a moral nation. Otherwise you have all the legal restrictions on "the pursuit of happiness" that we now have, because you can't pursue happiness at the expense of others.
One didn't have to say that when Jefferson penned the DoI. One has to say that now because we've lost our moral foundation.
Both homosexuals and pedophiles are sick, regardless of who they like to share their sickness with.
I might agree with you that they have the right to be sick and leave it at that, if there weren't such an intense lobby to have their behavior declared normal. And, if the new pedophile lobby weren't learning from their example.
I'm sure you will note that the bloodlines of ancient Persia, Babylon, and Rome still exist. But Babylonia, Persia, and Rome don't exist and never will because their culture is gone.
Israel is there not because the Jewish bloodline endured, but because the Jewish culture endured. The Jewish culture endured because, as Tevye said, of their traditions, which were given to them by G-d.
I would like to emulate Rome, but up until the point that it became a savage tribute to the worst in men. Surprisingly, that happened about the same time it began to accept homosexuality.
I can't blame homosexuality for Rome's turning savage. I think both have the same root cause.
Within the context that I don't think a discussion of oral sex belongs in a sex education classroom, he was right.
But it did violate his Marriage and was adultery. In that context it was sex and he should have been impeached.
Not because he had oral sex in the oval office (well maybe so) but because of his perjury.
You remember his perjury, don't you? Or are you a Dim troll who is still trying to convince the public it was all about sex.
Right now, there is more evidence that the G-d of the Bible exists than that Jeff Gordon exists. You ignore the proof because you prefer to say out of the light, not because you lack the evidence. You mock the holy because you prefer the profane.
G-d is patient, but His patience does not endure forever. Look up the Genesis account where G-d explained to Abraham why Abraham's descendents would have to suffer in Egypt for 400 years. Then ask yourself what it means for "iniquity to be complete."
How and why do you know they did not?
Abortion is no comparison. When a woman aborts her child, she alone makes the decision to abort based on selfishness or fear.
G-d sent the angel of death to take the firstborn of Egypt. He based His decision on knowledge, a knowledge that He alone can have.
You should study these things to understand rather than to twist. They are far more profitable that way.
Truth bump. I got there a little later.
Excellently written and thought out. Good work.
(When I grow up I want to write just like you (although I'm possibly already older than you))
In other words, G-d would allow His own chosen to suffer to give the people in Caanan every chance possible to repent of their sins and turn to Him. Only when they were so steeped in their evil that there was no longer any hope for them would He allow them to be driven from Caanan.
G-d allowed His chosen to suffer so that the sinful might have an opportunity to be redeemed?
Both the fact and the pointer to Christ give me goosebumps.