Americans are not....

[j2k4]

I'm asking you to explain it, you are the one that is making the link. Make the case. I am genuinely interested.

I'll take the shortcut-

Every movement or ideology (or in this case, lifestyle) legitimizes itself and gains mainstream acceptance by pruning and isolating it's more objectionable factions.

Conservatives have done this by waving a hearty and well-deserved goodbye to the like of the Klan, the Birchers, etc.

The Catholic church, for example, would have lost considerably less gloss had it been seen to be dealing more forthrightly in the matter of defective priests a few years back.

Things such as these, whether they hide under rugs, rocks, or in plain view, need to be severed permanently for a cause to move forward effectively.

The homosexual movement has not done this.

[bigboab]

I wonder if businesses will be required to then hire certain amounts of white people to ensure there is no racism going on. To be fair, and all.

No, certainly not.

We'll be the new Jews, I suppose, likely to be stripped of all our possessions.

I don't have any possessions. Will I just be stripped? I think they will tell me to put my clothes back on.

[devilsadvocate]

That's not a shortcut, that's a bypass and explains nothing.

Before you can convince me that homosexual activist/lobbyist have not distanced themselves from someone or something you have to show how they are connected.
So I ask again what is the connection between lesbians giving birth, what any gay rights lobby might think about it and pedophiles. Because for the life of me all I can think you mean is that you think homosexuals are pedophiles or think it's okay to be a pedophile and are campaigning to get it legalized, or all pedophiles are homosexual.

[j2k4]

That's not a shortcut, that's a bypass and explains nothing.

Before you can convince me that homosexual activist/lobbyist have not distanced themselves from someone or something you have to show how they are connected.
So I ask again what is the connection between lesbians giving birth, what any gay rights lobby might think about it and pedophiles. Because for the life of me all I can think you mean is that you think homosexuals are pedophiles or think it's okay to be a pedophile and are campaigning to get it legalized, or all pedophiles are homosexual.

Well, that's quite a leap.

If more of your vast group-thinking cohort agrees, let them chime in; I don't think anything more is required.

[clocker]

I see gay activists/activism getting largely unacknowledged aid and support (moral or monetary) from quarters which include and advocate for pedophiles, as an example.

Really.
Do tell.

[devilsadvocate]

Well, that's quite a leap.

If more of your vast group-thinking cohort agrees, let them chime in; I don't think anything more is required.

It could only be a leap if I had all the information that points otherwise to go with. As it stands you have made a charge with lots of suggestion, no evidence and no willingness to offer any.

I really am genuinely interested in how this connection goes. It's not a trick question and I'm not playing a game of gotcha.

Perhaps I may not agree with you, I can't say until I hear your evidence.

What is the connection between lesbians giving birth, what any gay rights lobby might think about it and pedophiles?

[bigboab]

Well, that's quite a leap.

If more of your vast group-thinking cohort agrees, let them chime in; I don't think anything more is required.

It could only be a leap if I had all the information that points otherwise to go with. As it stands you have made a charge with lots of suggestion, no evidence and no willingness to offer any.

I really am genuinely interested in how this connection goes. It's not a trick question and I'm not playing a game of gotcha.

Perhaps I may not agree with you, I can't say until I hear your evidence.

What is the connection between lesbians giving birth, what any gay rights lobby might think about it and pedophiles?

Homosexual practices in the UK is at present legal at 16. The gay lobby want it reduced to 14. Peter Tatchell has actually said that it should be OK for a 40 year old man to have sex with a 14 year old boy. At the rate Tatchell is going there wont be any more paedophiles it will be legal.

Surely everyone draws a moral line on this subject. I personally would have left it at 18. Some countries have it as low as 12.

Do you draw a line at a particular age? If it is over 14 then Tatchell would consider you a Homophobe.

[devilsadvocate]

Homosexual practices in the UK is at present legal at 16. The gay lobby want it reduced to 14. Peter Tatchell has actually said that it should be OK for a 40 year old man to have sex with a 14 year old boy. At the rate Tatchell is going there wont be any more paedophiles it will be legal.

Surely everyone draws a moral line on this subject. I personally would have left it at 18. Some countries have it as low as 12.

Do you draw a line at a particular age? If it is over 14 then Tatchell would consider you a Homophobe.

The age of consent should be the same for whatever sexuality, not lower or higher for one than the other. Personally I am happy with 18, but then here we have variable consent ages depending on what is handy. 18 for sex, to fight in the military and to vote, but 21 to be able to drink. One can be charged and tried as an adult even if below the age of majority.

Where your wording stands out and where I'm of the current opinion that j2k4 is lumping unconnected groups together, you said THE gay lobby, not one group and not a pedophile lobby.

Here's the thing.

I'm for genital removal in the slowest and most painful way possible for pedophiles.

I don't have a stake in it or particularly worry about it but I don't see any reason why a gay couple shouldn't enjoy the same legal rights as a heterosexual couple, so let's say I wanted to campaign for it.

How would that be connected to someone that wants to lower the age of consent so they don't go to prison for molesting children?

Let's say I wanted to change a law to allow unwed heterosexual couples to adopt (for this it's illegal) giving them the same right to adopt as married heterosexual couples.

Would anyone be connecting this campaign to pedophiles?

Remember pedophiles aren't just same sex offenders and in quite a lot of cases they are married. We have a television program here called to catch a predator which sets up sting operations with local police to catch pedophiles. The show is filled with older men, often married, going to meet with underage girls. Yet it seems only homosexuals get connected.

[j2k4]

Where your wording stands out and where I'm of the current opinion that j2k4 is lumping unconnected groups together, you said THE gay lobby, not one group and not a pedophile lobby.

So, then.

You are one of those who demands proof-beyond-a-shadow-of-doubt of a connection.

Do you know how a grand jury works?

They judge, according to a standard that is, let us say, somewhat less-than-absolute.

Are you averse to using your own judgement?

Here's the thing.

I'm for genital removal in the slowest and most painful way possible for pedophiles.

If actually true, this weighs in your favor, however, if you make this statement while simultaneously creating conditions which ensure that it will never happen, the statement becomes superfluous.

I don't have a stake in it or particularly worry about it but I don't see any reason why a gay couple shouldn't enjoy the same legal rights as a heterosexual couple, so let's say I wanted to campaign for it.

You want to campaign for it?

Take it all the way to the Supremes; I guarantee you'll meet some people and find out some things that'll make you squirm.

I really hate to keep harking to the Catholic example, but do you think, backing up several years, you could have found a Catholic priest, any Catholic priest at all, who wasn't conversant of the problem, or most probably had first-hand knowledge of, or acquaintance with, pedophiles?

I am speaking of decisions you make as a sentient human being on earth, the type you make when you decide who your kids should or shouldn't hang around with, and don't tell me you've never done that.

Do you think NAMBLA doesn't have a channel to the gay lobby?

Do you think the ACLU isn't a conduit?

Start there, I'll wait.

How would that be connected to someone that wants to lower the age of consent so they don't go to prison for molesting children?

Start by telling me which lobby and which lawyers are leading that particular effort, why don't you.

Such endeavors aren't conducted in a legal vacuum, you see.

Let's say I wanted to change a law to allow unwed heterosexual couples to adopt (for this it's illegal) giving them the same right to adopt as married heterosexual couples.

I would be opposed to that, myself.

Would you actually need to ask why.

Would anyone be connecting this campaign to pedophiles?

I should think anyone taking notice of any involvement by such as the ACLU need not go much further.

Remember pedophiles aren't just same sex offenders and in quite a lot of cases they are married. We have a television program here called to catch a predator which sets up sting operations with local police to catch pedophiles. The show is filled with older men, often married, going to meet with underage girls. Yet it seems only homosexuals get connected.

Quite right, it often does seem that way; problem is, seems is not cause for legal action, unless you advocate marching on the Supreme Court in order for them to write you some laws, absent public referenda.

Your argument fails, though, when one considers pedophelia as only another lifestyle, and only homosexual in characteristic in proportion with statistics.

I guess they'd prefer we think of it as the true third sexual preference.

Anyway, sorry, that's all you get.

[devilsadvocate]

So, then.

You are one of those who demands proof-beyond-a-shadow-of-doubt of a connection.

Do you know how a grand jury works?

They judge, according to a standard that is, let us say, somewhat less-than-absolute.

Are you averse to using your own judgement?

OKay Where to start?

When the seriousness of the accusation is such as this then I would settle for credible evidence to suspect, hard provable evidence to convict. You have however offered no evidence at all other than you saying something is so. You haven't even offered up a tenuous connection.

Here's the thing.

I'm for genital removal in the slowest and most painful way possible for pedophiles.

If actually true, this weighs in your favor, however, if you make this statement while simultaneously creating conditions which ensure that it will never happen, the statement becomes superfluous.

What conditions have I created? I'd be happy to have it applied to the guys that turned up on the dateline show.
As with all crimes it's important that the punishment is only applied to the guilty.

I don't have a stake in it or particularly worry about it but I don't see any reason why a gay couple shouldn't enjoy the same legal rights as a heterosexual couple, so let's say I wanted to campaign for it.

You want to campaign for it?


Take it all the way to the Supremes; I guarantee you'll meet some people and find out some things that'll make you squirm.

Seeing as this hypothetical campaign is about the same legal rights as heterosexual couples, unless someone starts talking about what they do in bed I don't see why? I mean I've been married nearly 30 years and there's nothing squirmish about any of the legal rights we have.

I really hate to keep harking to the Catholic example, but do you think, backing up several years, you could have found a Catholic priest, any Catholic priest at all, who wasn't conversant of the problem, or most probably had first-hand knowledge of, or acquaintance with, pedophiles?

Tell me. Do you link Christianity (or religion in general) with pedophilia or just the catholic church?

I am speaking of decisions you make as a sentient human being on earth, the type you make when you decide who your kids should or shouldn't hang around with, and don't tell me you've never done that.

I did it all the time with my children and still do with my grandchildren. My concern wouldn't be that someone was homosexual, it would be that they were a pedophile. Being homosexual doesn't increase the chances.

Do you think NAMBLA doesn't have a channel to the gay lobby?

Do you think they have no channel to a heterosexual lobby?
Granted they use the term man/boy but they are a pedophile lobby, not a gay rights lobby

The "gay lobby" as you call it isn't a central command affair. Like any other campaign/activist type "lobby" it is made up of many parts working for individual goals and only grouped together by the word homosexual. Granted the end desire may be pretty similar.

Do you think the ACLU isn't a conduit?

Start there, I'll wait.

The ACLU takes on cases to protect the bill of rights, which means my rights, your rights and their rights.

How would that be connected to someone that wants to lower the age of consent so they don't go to prison for molesting children?

Start by telling me which lobby and which lawyers are leading that particular effort, why don't you.

Such endeavors aren't conducted in a legal vacuum, you see.
It's a hypothetical, but obviously the alliance defense funded lawyer would try to connect gays getting married to molesting children, I mean you seem to think the two go hand in hand.

Let's say I wanted to change a law to allow unwed heterosexual couples to adopt (for this it's illegal) giving them the same right to adopt as married heterosexual couples.

I would be opposed to that, myself.

Would you actually need to ask why.

I dare say my guess would be near the mark if not spot on, and if I'm right your reasons would have less to do with child safety and more with your values. I say this because the vetting process would be the same and as the dateline shows, pedophiles are often married.
I know a few unmarried couples that are wonderful parents, I also know a few married ones that could be better. It's the person that matters, not the ring on the finger when it comes to being a good parent.

Would anyone be connecting this campaign to pedophiles?

I should think anyone taking notice of any involvement by such as the ACLU need not go much further.

I get it, you are a conservative and so hate the ACLU.

Remember pedophiles aren't just same sex offenders and in quite a lot of cases they are married. We have a television program here called to catch a predator which sets up sting operations with local police to catch pedophiles. The show is filled with older men, often married, going to meet with underage girls. Yet it seems only homosexuals get connected.

Quite right, it often does seem that way; problem is, seems is not cause for legal action, unless you advocate marching on the Supreme Court in order for them to write you some laws, absent public referenda.

Your argument fails, though, when one considers pedophelia as only another lifestyle, and only homosexual in characteristic in proportion with statistics.

I guess they'd prefer we think of it as the true third sexual preference.

Anyway, sorry, that's all you get.

That's the point. Pedophilia isn't a homosexual or heterosexual problem. It's pedophilia. And even though most pedophiles are heterosexual in adult terms the finger points at homosexuals (who incidentally like adult partners and not children)