Re: False Issue

"BillMahoney68" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >: "Jacob Anderse
> >Depends on the way you look at it. They are trying to be with those they
are
> >attracted to. In that they are totally normal.
>
> Well given that bizzarre definition of "normal" I guess pedophiles,
> necrophiliacs and those prone to beastiality are "normal".As long as the
guy
> that digs dogs *tries to be with dogs that hes atracted to*.

I was just pointing out that there are different ways of looking at it. Some
ways present problems, some do not.

> >I could give fuckall about what it's called. They seem to want it to be
> >"marriage" I fail to see how that is a problem so I say, let it be
marriage.
>
> I respect your opinion.I ask only that you understand that I have a
different
> opinion.And it is based on logic and not hate or bias.
> To me "marriage" is a union between a man and a woman.
> If someone wants to call taking a nap by a pond to be a "marriage" then
good
> for him.But it doesnt gel with my definition.
> And I will not be bullied by PC thugs into defining words the way they ask
me
> too.

I don't think your opinion is based on hate nor bias. You have a serious
hard-on for logic. I just find that sometimes you present your opinion as
somewhat more conclusive than it should be. Frankly, I don't think your
logic is taking you in the right direction on this one. Besides, words
evolve all the time, that's not the important part.

> >It doesn't make any sense that they'd go past bisexual.
>
> It does.It can make perfect sense.After seeing his mother have sex in
highheels
> a boy can be turned onto highheels.He associates it with sex.
> A man that is screwd by men for a time(say in prison) and does not have
sex
> with woman can come to associate sex with men.
> Talk with a guy that did hard time.He will tell you.

As I said I don't believe this. I accept that there is a real possibility
that a very open society might lead some confused youngsters to "experiment"
with same sex relations, but basically I just don't think your sexual
attractions are dictated very much by that sort of thing.
I have never seen my mother having nice round tits, yet I still desire these
things.

> >Another thing I simply don't believe. I would see it as two separate
> >perversions paedophilia and homophilia.
>
> Youve been conditioned to see it that way.Ive known gay guys in my
life.They
> all preferred boys to men.

I've known some gay guys as well, all in relationships with people their own
age. Of course,


> Pedophiles go after boys more than girls.
> Certainly 95% of men are hetero.Maybe 99%.
> Propaganda by gay groups has caused you to not think of men that molest
boys as
> gay.They are.

Well, they may be bisexual, but what they also are is pedophiles. By the
very definition of the word, they have to be, otherwise they wouldn't be
attracted to children.


>
> > Sometimes they may cross over but I
> >don't think it does so in "most" or even remotely close to it.
>
> Well all I can say is that I think youre wrong.
> Homosexual men dont like hairy 40 year old men.They like boys.It is as
simple
> as that.
> Talk to an honest homosexual.He will tell you.

Are you actually talking about young men here?

I don't like fat 40-year old women either, young turns me on. Who the hell
has middleaged as their ideal?
Let's just say that I have seen some pretty nasty looking homosexual
couples.

If you are in fact talking about small children then I, once again, think
you are wrong.
And by very definition you are. The sticking point is the amount of
cross-over between the two distinct perversions. You think it's pretty much
a given in most or every homosexual individual that they are also a
pedophile, I think you are wrong and have never seen any evidence that
suggest otherwise.

> >Not really, it's an acknowledgement of their union just like other
couples.
>
> Well said.
> And I will not acknowledge a mental disorder as anything other than what
it is.

Their union is not a mental disorder. It's fine by me if you classify the
actual gayness as a mental disorder, although that's not going to rub a lot
of hairs the right way. But genetic fuckups are all around us. As long as
they are not hurting anyone why punish them for it? The fact that they are
attracted to the same sex and the fact that they want their partnership
approved by the state are two different issues.

> >It should be a natural extension of accepting them.
>
> I accept them.Not their actions.I find those revolting and sick.

The fact that they are revolting to you should be irrelevant, and has no
place in a logical discourse.

> >I agree that homosexuality is a perversion, and a genetic
> >anomaly/disorder/whatever, but I don't agree that that somehow makes it
> >wrong or bad,
>
> I never said wrong or bad either.

You said sick and revolting though. Some might find that to be somewhat akin
to "bad"

> But it is what it is.And what it is is a mental disorder.And what marriage
is,
> is a union between a man and a woman.

Or just a union of two people. Marriage has changed through the years, from
being huge family affairs to being something people do because they want
to - or not. Some places marriage is not between a man and a woman, but
between a man and several woman. The definition of marriage is not as cut
and dry as you make it out to be. Where you are right, of course, is in
suggesting that marriage is an institution that (in one way or another) has
to do with breeding and child care, but why is this so important to you?

> >Many gay couples seem to want to adopt as well. I trust we can agree that
> >that is not a very good idea.
>
> Of course.But be careful.Keep talking like that and you might be called
full of
> hate.

Hey, I'm not in this to make friends. I have nothing against gay people, but
I don't think anybody should be allowed to adopt unless they could present a
father and mother figure to the child. Not single people and not gay people.

> > I simply don't understand all
> >the strong feelings against homosexuality (nor for it, unless you are
> >yourself a homosexual).
>
> I didnt care much about it.Until the homosexual issue was in the paper
every
> morning and on TV half the night.
> It is now impossible to avoid.Like race, it is absurdly
> overplayed.Unfortunatly.

Then throw 'em a frickin bone will ya.

/Jacob (hey waitaminute, are you saying that race is a mental illness as
well?)