Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If they are born that way though, they can't be faulted for the sexual orientation they were born with. Yet their sexual orientation - which they can't choose or change - hurts others. So how do we acknowledge the struggle they have to have a sexual orientation that they can't change and that they didn't choose but that is socially unacceptable, and hurts others. Is it fair to ask someone to suppress their natural sexuality? how do we deal with this?

I agree it is a difficult issue. But I don't see that there is any choice other than to require them to suppress their natural sexuality - including through chemical castration if necessary.

Some people are born with sicknesses that need to be addressed, even if this requires them to change their personality in fundamental ways.

I don't see any comparison with homosexuality.

It is comparable to any sexual orientation. Is it fair to ask someone who is heterosexual or homosexual to suppress their natural sexuality? Are some sexual orientations a sickness and how do we decided which ones? For some acting on your natural sexual attraction is an expression of love and for others it is a crime.

Obviously they can't act on their sexuality as to do so harms others but many would give anything to not be attracted to children - they absolutely hate that that is what they find arousing and that is what they desire and find attractive.

I don't think everyone who molests a child is a pedophile (in terms of sexual orientation). Some abuse out of control/power issues or their own twisted sens of right/wrong based on very dysfunctional lives, others molest while drugged and in an altered state of mind. These to me are very different from men who have always only since an early age (teens) been solely attracted to prepubescent children and only find children arousing. These men were born that way and are tortured by the sexual orientation they have, one they had no choice in.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If they are born that way though, they can't be faulted for the sexual orientation they were born with. Yet their sexual orientation - which they can't choose or change - hurts others. So how do we acknowledge the struggle they have to have a sexual orientation that they can't change and that they didn't choose but that is socially unacceptable, and hurts others. Is it fair to ask someone to suppress their natural sexuality? how do we deal with this?

Pedophiles. Prison. Crime and punishment. Evil. I don't care about their struggle and neither should you -Perv.

You have clearly thought this through. Good to have your intellectual contribution to the debate.

Anonymous wrote:If they are born that way though, they can't be faulted for the sexual orientation they were born with. Yet their sexual orientation - which they can't choose or change - hurts others. So how do we acknowledge the struggle they have to have a sexual orientation that they can't change and that they didn't choose but that is socially unacceptable, and hurts others. Is it fair to ask someone to suppress their natural sexuality? how do we deal with this?

I agree it is a difficult issue. But I don't see that there is any choice other than to require them to suppress their natural sexuality - including through chemical castration if necessary.

Some people are born with sicknesses that need to be addressed, even if this requires them to change their personality in fundamental ways.

I don't see any comparison with homosexuality.

Total logical fallacy since we have age of consent laws.

Anonymous wrote:If they are born that way though, they can't be faulted for the sexual orientation they were born with. Yet their sexual orientation - which they can't choose or change - hurts others. So how do we acknowledge the struggle they have to have a sexual orientation that they can't change and that they didn't choose but that is socially unacceptable, and hurts others. Is it fair to ask someone to suppress their natural sexuality? how do we deal with this?

Pedophiles. Prison. Crime and punishment. Evil. I don't care about their struggle and neither should you -Perv.

If they are born that way though, they can't be faulted for the sexual orientation they were born with. Yet their sexual orientation - which they can't choose or change - hurts others. So how do we acknowledge the struggle they have to have a sexual orientation that they can't change and that they didn't choose but that is socially unacceptable, and hurts others. Is it fair to ask someone to suppress their natural sexuality? how do we deal with this?

Anonymous wrote:It doesn't matter what they want. It hurts kids and can never be condoned or legalized. Being gay hurts no one.

Exactly. Pedos will never be accepted. Inmates won't even accept them.

Anonymous wrote:The two groups overlap a lot

Not as much as straight, married men and pedophiles. Straight men overwhelmingly molest kids. Get your facts straight.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It has begun, soon a goat and 3 men can marry. Thanks gay marriage.

Gay marriage didn't start this trend. Hetrosexuals were the first to start marrying and now look what that has led to. Back in the days when you just had to club a woman and drag her back to your cave by her hair, we didn't have these kinds of problems.

Frankly, I'd like to go back to the days when men were actually not neutered by femi-Nazis - minus the club of course

Most women do... Have you read the misery of women married to beta lib men on DCUM?

Yup, have noticed that. Crazy, isn't it that women value men for being men but feel like it's not 'popular' to discuss it just that way?

That would make a lot better sense if not for the pages upon pages of complaints about men acting like traditional husbands.

Which proves men can't win for losing

Seriously though...

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It has begun, soon a goat and 3 men can marry. Thanks gay marriage.

Gay marriage didn't start this trend. Hetrosexuals were the first to start marrying and now look what that has led to. Back in the days when you just had to club a woman and drag her back to your cave by her hair, we didn't have these kinds of problems.

Frankly, I'd like to go back to the days when men were actually not neutered by femi-Nazis - minus the club of course

Most women do... Have you read the misery of women married to beta lib men on DCUM?

Yup, have noticed that. Crazy, isn't it that women value men for being men but feel like it's not 'popular' to discuss it just that way?

That would make a lot better sense if not for the pages upon pages of complaints about men acting like traditional husbands.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It doesn't matter what they want. It hurts kids and can never be condoned or legalized. Being gay hurts no one.

I'm a conservative and I agree. The issue I had was that it would open the door just enough to idiot psychiatrists, etc. to try and push it wide open.

The psychological side of this is having some impact in the criminal justice system and how we look at incarceration, community supervision, treatment, etc, but I cannot fathom it will ever be legal. Our whole system of law is based on an age of majority for consent to many things, from sex to contracts. Children cannot make these decisions for themselves, and therefore will always be victims.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It has begun, soon a goat and 3 men can marry. Thanks gay marriage.

Gay marriage didn't start this trend. Hetrosexuals were the first to start marrying and now look what that has led to. Back in the days when you just had to club a woman and drag her back to your cave by her hair, we didn't have these kinds of problems.

Frankly, I'd like to go back to the days when men were actually not neutered by femi-Nazis - minus the club of course

Most women do... Have you read the misery of women married to beta lib men on DCUM?

Yup, have noticed that. Crazy, isn't it that women value men for being men but feel like it's not 'popular' to discuss it just that way?

Anonymous wrote:It has begun, soon a goat and 3 men can marry. Thanks gay marriage.

For the OP and this PP, there is the issue of consent. Minors and animals cannot consent. When you can get a goat to say that it is voluntarily entering into a relationship with a human, then we can reconsider the topic of bestiality. And children will never be able to consent. Every local jurisdiction has a legal age of consent below which minors CANNOT consent to sexual activity.

Anonymous wrote:The two groups overlap a lot

Ah yes, someone reacting from their gut rather than from actual statistics. In actuality, there are significantly more heterosexual pederasts than homosexual pederasts. Even by percentages. It's just that homosexual pedophiles draw more media attention. But there are many, many, many more girls sexually exploited than boys.

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It has begun, soon a goat and 3 men can marry. Thanks gay marriage.

Gay marriage didn't start this trend. Hetrosexuals were the first to start marrying and now look what that has led to. Back in the days when you just had to club a woman and drag her back to your cave by her hair, we didn't have these kinds of problems.

Frankly, I'd like to go back to the days when men were actually not neutered by femi-Nazis - minus the club of course

I'd like to go back to the days when conservatives didn't get their thinking from radio pundits.