Peadophilea is natural too?

[jallman]

Incest occurs in nature to. If you believe in Genesis, who did Caine marry?

However it is shown to have a high incident in causing genetic defects in offspring.

Caine wandered out into the land of Nod and took a wife from the "other people just east of Eden". (Genesis 4:16)

He took a wife and had a son named Enoch. There was never any incest involved.

 

[Ivan The Terrible]

vergiss,

You don't believe there are some absoloute wrongs, regardless of what a society may says? I should think that a woman drowning her 6-year-old, or a man raping a woman, is always unjustifiable and immoral - perhaps even evil.

Now this we can agree on. I just wanted to pose the question thats all. Now are you ready to apologize? :mrgreen:

 

[Unfair]

wait, now that i think of this... Maybe it is genetic in whites. there were laws on books saying brothers could marry sisters and older men could have young young girls who just hit puberty.
this is most definitely evident in white men and their need to "keep it in the family" with incest.

 

[vergiss]

vergiss,

Now this we can agree on. I just wanted to pose the question thats all. Now are you ready to apologize? :mrgreen:

Maybe, if you buy me chocolate. :2razz:

 

[Ivan The Terrible]

vergiss,

Maybe, if you buy me chocolate.

Ok... But just this once.

 

[jimmyjack]

Homosexuality is involved in at least one third and possibly as many as half of all child molestations. This is a significant portion considering the small percentage of the population that are homosexual. (Cameron, P., Coburn, W., Jr., Larson, H., Proctor, K., Forde, N., and Cameron, K., "Child Molestation and Homosexuality," Psychological Reports, 1986, 58, pp. 327-337.)

 

[vergiss]

Homosexuality is involved in at least one third and possibly as many as half of all child molestations. This is a significant portion considering the small percentage of the population that are homosexual. (Cameron, P., Coburn, W., Jr., Larson, H., Proctor, K., Forde, N., and Cameron, K., "Child Molestation and Homosexuality," Psychological Reports, 1986, 58, pp. 327-337.)

As posted by Enola/Alone in another thread:

The phrase "homosexual rape," for instance, which is often used by uninformed persons to designate male-male rape, camouflages the fact that the majority of the rapists are not generally homosexual (Donaldson, 1990).In a well-known study of offenders and victims conducted by Nicholas Groth and Ann Burgess, one-half of the offender population described their consenting sexual encounters to be with women only, while 38 percent had consenting sexual encounters with men and women. Among the offenders studied, the gender of the victim did not appear to be of specific significance to half of the offenders. Instead, they appeared to be relatively indiscriminate with regard to their choice of a victim -- that is, their victims included both males and females, as well as both adults and children (Groth & Burgess, 1980). The
choice of a victim seemed to be more a matter of accessibility than of sexual orientation, gender or age. http://www.ncvc.org/ncvc/main.aspx?d...cumentID=32361

Bolded staements bolded by me for clarity.

So you see, not all men who rape other men are gay. How is this possible? Because rape isn't about sexual attraction, it's about over-powering someone, humiliating them and making yourself feel powerful

 

[Herkilon]

There is a reason why the homosexual extremists here are not promoting pedophilia like most homosexuals do:

"A media campaign to promote the Gay Victim image should make use of symbols which reduce the mainstream's sense of threat, which lower it's guard, and which enhance the plausibility of victimization. In practical terms, this means that jaunty mustachioed musclemen would keep very low profile in gay commercials and other public presentations, while sympathetic figures of nice young people, old people, and attractive women would be featured. (It almost goes without saying that groups on the farthest margin of acceptability such as NAMBLA, [Ed note -- North American Man-Boy Love Association] must play no part at all in such a campaign: suspected child-molesters will never look like victims.)

... First let the camel get his nose inside the tent--only later his unsightly derriere!"

 

[jfuh]

There is a reason why the homosexual extremists here are not promoting pedophilia like most homosexuals do:

"A media campaign to promote the Gay Victim image should make use of symbols which reduce the mainstream's sense of threat, which lower it's guard, and which enhance the plausibility of victimization. In practical terms, this means that jaunty mustachioed musclemen would keep very low profile in gay commercials and other public presentations, while sympathetic figures of nice young people, old people, and attractive women would be featured. (It almost goes without saying that groups on the farthest margin of acceptability such as NAMBLA, [Ed note -- North American Man-Boy Love Association] must play no part at all in such a campaign: suspected child-molesters will never look like victims.)

... First let the camel get his nose inside the tent--only later his unsightly derriere!"

Seems you have a hidden obsessive passion for homosexuality, is this your way of coming out of the closet?

 

[Herkilon]

Seems you have a hidden obsessive passion for homosexuality, is this your way of coming out of the closet?

Here's the above scripted tactic homosexual extremists call "jamming" exposed:

"[5] MAKE THE VICTIMIZERS LOOK BAD.

At a later stage of the media campaign for gay rights-long after other gay ads have become commonplace-it will be time to get tough with remaining opponents. To be blunt, they must be vilified. (This will be all the more necessary because, by that time, the entrenched enemy will have quadrupled its output of vitriol and disinformation.) Our goal is here is twofold. First, we seek to replace the mainstream's self-righteous pride about its homophobia with shame and guilt. Second, we intend to make the antigays look so nasty that average Americans will want to dissociate themselves from such types.

The public should be shown images of ranting homophobes whose secondary traits and beliefs disgust middle America. These images might include: the Ku Klux Klan demanding that gays be burned alive or castrated; bigoted southern ministers drooling with hysterical hatred to a degree that looks both comical and deranged; menacing punks, thugs, and convicts speaking coolly about the "fags" they have killed or would like to kill; a tour of Nazi concentration camps where homosexuals were tortured and gassed.

A campaign to vilify the victimizers is going to enrage our most fervid enemies, of course. But what else can we say? The shoe fits, and we should make them try it on for size, with all of America watching. "


You homosexual political extremists might just want to save typing and just refer to the appropriate section of the homosexual scripted agenda so I don't have to keep referring to sections in the copy I have.

 

[TreeHugger]

Here's the above scripted tactic homosexual extremists call "jamming" exposed:

"[5] MAKE THE VICTIMIZERS LOOK BAD.

At a later stage of the media campaign for gay rights-long after other gay ads have become commonplace-it will be time to get tough with remaining opponents. To be blunt, they must be vilified. (This will be all the more necessary because, by that time, the entrenched enemy will have quadrupled its output of vitriol and disinformation.) Our goal is here is twofold. First, we seek to replace the mainstream's self-righteous pride about its homophobia with shame and guilt. Second, we intend to make the antigays look so nasty that average Americans will want to dissociate themselves from such types.

The public should be shown images of ranting homophobes whose secondary traits and beliefs disgust middle America. These images might include: the Ku Klux Klan demanding that gays be burned alive or castrated; bigoted southern ministers drooling with hysterical hatred to a degree that looks both comical and deranged; menacing punks, thugs, and convicts speaking coolly about the "fags" they have killed or would like to kill; a tour of Nazi concentration camps where homosexuals were tortured and gassed.

A campaign to vilify the victimizers is going to enrage our most fervid enemies, of course. But what else can we say? The shoe fits, and we should make them try it on for size, with all of America watching. "


You homosexual political extremists might just want to save typing and just refer to the appropriate section of the homosexual scripted agenda so I don't have to keep referring to sections in the copy I have.

Yikes. You sure make the rounds, dude. :lol: I'm a moderator on another forum and we banned this guy several times (under several different screennames). He just kept coming back, over and over and over again. Although the screennames are different, it's obviously the same person using the same tiresome, unsubstantiated rhetoric. I see his act hasn't been welcome here, either. Toooo funny! :lol:

 

[Jerry]

Yikes. You sure make the rounds, dude. :lol: I'm a moderator on another forum and we banned this guy several times (under several different screennames). He just kept coming back, over and over and over again. Although the screennames are different, it's obviously the same person using the same tiresome, unsubstantiated rhetoric. I see his act hasn't been welcome here, either. Toooo funny! :lol:

In case anyone cares, Herkilon gets his material from The Homosexual Manual. Just an FYI.

On topic though, and this was a good thread...sorry I missed it earlier....

jallman,
One of the few things we agree on. My only question is this about this statement.

"with some F@cked up judgment pushing the drive past what the brain sees as acceptable."

Are you sure you shouldn't say... Past what society sees as acceptable?

When I was in...I think it was 2nd grade....our class took a field trip out to an old Ca. Indian camp -- rebuilt, of coarse. I recall clearly that one of the instructors there said that girls were considered by the Native 'American tribes to be women/adults at the age of 13, and were generally married off at that age.

So, is our current age limit nothing more than a cultural taboo?

 

[ngdawg]

In case anyone cares, Herkilon gets his material from The Homosexual Manual. Just an FYI.

On topic though, and this was a good thread...sorry I missed it earlier....


When I was in...I think it was 2nd grade....our class took a field trip out to an old Ca. Indian camp -- rebuilt, of coarse. I recall clearly that one of the instructors there said that girls were considered by the Native 'American tribes to be women/adults at the age of 13, and were generally married off at that age.

So, is our current age limit nothing more than a cultural taboo?

Yes and no. Marrying at 13 was more than likely because menses had started, signifying their passage into womanhood. This really hasn't changed much around the world; my grandmother-in-law was married at 16, albeit in the 20's, but anthropologically speaking, not THAT long back. Countries such as India, those in the African continent, etc., still marry off their young girls.
We are obviously better informed of the actual period of growth, the immaturity of mind and body and emotion that today's 13 year olds, even 16 year olds have and laws and opinion reflect that knowledge. We're also aware that marrying off our children does nothing for them and we don't live in a caste system that would necessitate it.

 

[Jerry]

Yes and no. Marrying at 13 was more than likely because menses had started, signifying their passage into womanhood. This really hasn't changed much around the world; my grandmother-in-law was married at 16, albeit in the 20's, but anthropologically speaking, not THAT long back. Countries such as India, those in the African continent, etc., still marry off their young girls.
We are obviously better informed of the actual period of growth, the immaturity of mind and body and emotion that today's 13 year olds, even 16 year olds have and laws and opinion reflect that knowledge. We're also aware that marrying off our children does nothing for them and we don't live in a caste system that would necessitate it.

You’re saying that the population of India, for example, is generally less intelligent than the population of the US?

Could you provide some data on that please? Perhaps a comparison between the GPA's of Indian students -v- US students, or similar.....

In any event, “doing nothing for them” is irrelevant. You would need to show that marrying at 13 is damaging.

 

[ngdawg]

You’re saying that the population of India, for example, is generally less intelligent than the population of the US?

Could you provide some data on that please? Perhaps a comparison between the GPA's of Indian students -v- US students, or similar.....

In any event, “doing nothing for them” is irrelevant. You would need to show that marrying at 13 is damaging.

Did I? Why do people read things that aren't there.....:roll:
I said that we don't have a caste system that marries off our children....that we use the knowledge to form law and opinion. Sheesh.....(better informed than earlier times in case you got lost there although, yes, we are better informed than most 3rd world countries and don't marry off our kids for dowries, etc.)
I would take it you don't know squat about the development of a 13 year old girl....that their breasts and uterus are immature. That their hormonal development is still in full swing. Or that their bones are not solidified yet (they still have growth plates, a spongy bone/connective tissue that slowly grows to bone as they mature) and that one of the effects of pregnancy is the hormonal effect of softening the joints. Or that having a baby robs the body of calcium at a very high rate.
Perhaps you are not aware of the frontal lobe development of adolescents, the last part of the brain to mature. It controls 'civility', reason and behaviors.
Perhaps you're not aware that 13 year olds generally can not hold jobs, acquire housing or transport the resultant children of such marriages nor can they make decisions as minors, both because of law and because, well...have you ever heard a 13 year old make a decision?
Various humanity organizations are trying to change the mindsets of countries that still use the caste system of arranging marriages to young adolescents for these very reasons. These girls, mostly from poorer families are not married out because they're ready, they are married out because their families need the money paid for it. The government of India disapproves but tradition and poverty are not giving in. So, no, I never said a word about their lack of intelligence. Next time, read exactly what is said and if it is not clear, keep the accusations to yourself and ask for a simple clarification.

 

[jfuh]

Did I? Why do people read things that aren't there.....:roll:
I said that we don't have a caste system that marries off our children....that we use the knowledge to form law and opinion. Sheesh.....(better informed than earlier times in case you got lost there although, yes, we are better informed than most 3rd world countries and don't marry off our kids for dowries, etc.)
I would take it you don't know squat about the development of a 13 year old girl....that their breasts and uterus are immature. That their hormonal development is still in full swing. Or that their bones are not solidified yet (they still have growth plates, a spongy bone/connective tissue that slowly grows to bone as they mature) and that one of the effects of pregnancy is the hormonal effect of softening the joints. Or that having a baby robs the body of calcium at a very high rate.
Perhaps you are not aware of the frontal lobe development of adolescents, the last part of the brain to mature. It controls 'civility', reason and behaviors.
Perhaps you're not aware that 13 year olds generally can not hold jobs, acquire housing or transport the resultant children of such marriages nor can they make decisions as minors, both because of law and because, well...have you ever heard a 13 year old make a decision?
Various humanity organizations are trying to change the mindsets of countries that still use the caste system of arranging marriages to young adolescents for these very reasons. These girls, mostly from poorer families are not married out because they're ready, they are married out because their families need the money paid for it. The government of India disapproves but tradition and poverty are not giving in. So, no, I never said a word about their lack of intelligence. Next time, read exactly what is said and if it is not clear, keep the accusations to yourself and ask for a simple clarification.

Frontal lobe development that does not really end until around 23+2. The brain simply is completely immature before that age as is the human body, both men and women. Which is exactly why your insurance rate does not go down until 25.

 

[ngdawg]

Frontal lobe development that does not really end until around 23+2. The brain simply is completely immature before that age as is the human body, both men and women. Which is exactly why your insurance rate does not go down until 25.

exactly.....

 

[Jerry]

....Next time, read exactly what is said and if it is not clear, keep the accusations to yourself and ask for a simple clarification.

But that's exactly what I did.
I made no accusations what so ever -- Only a request for clarification and information....and look how you responded to my request.

Liberals :roll:

 

[Jerry]

Frontal lobe development that does not really end until around 23+2. The brain simply is completely immature before that age as is the human body, both men and women. Which is exactly why your insurance rate does not go down until 25.

That's why I would support raising the legal age of marriage from 16/18 (depending on your state) to 25 or 26.

I have a question for you on this, unless of coarse you also take questions as accusations : Given your post above, would you consider sexual relations with a person under the age of 25 to be a degree of pedophilia?

 

[ngdawg]

But that's exactly what I did.
I made no accusations what so ever -- Only a request for clarification and information....and look how you responded to my request.

Liberals :roll:

Nuh-uh. you completely run to an assumption not made rather than ask for clarifications or read s-l-o-w-l-y.....
Originally Posted by Jerry
You’re saying that the population of India, for example, is generally less intelligent than the population of the US?

Could you provide some data on that please? Perhaps a comparison between the GPA's of Indian students -v- US students, or similar.....
Wanna show me exactly where I said the population of India, for example is generally less intelligent than the US?

 

[jfuh]

That's why I would support raising the legal age of marriage from 16/18 (depending on your state) to 25 or 26.

I have a question for you on this, unless of coarse you also take questions as accusations : Given your post above, would you consider sexual relations with a person under the age of 25 to be a degree of pedophilia?

Depends on what age the couple are.
To me I even consider a 40 year old with a 26 year old to have some degree of pedophillia.
However, relevence?

 

[Jerry]

Nuh-uh. you completely run to an assumption not made rather than ask for clarifications or read s-l-o-w-l-y.....

Whoosha cuut lil liboowal? Yeah, you are!

You are accusing me of what you, yourself, are guilty of. It's a standard liberal tactic.

?[/SIZE]"]
I made no assumptions, hence the "?" and not a ".".
Savvy?

 

[ngdawg]

Whoosha cuut lil liboowal? Yeah, you are!

You are accusing me of what you, yourself, are guilty of. It's a standard liberal tactic.



Note the "?" at the end of my sentence. A "?" signifies a question, not a statement.

I was asking for clearification on your post 63.


Hence my question: You’re saying that the population of India, for example, is generally less intelligent than the population of the US?

I made no assumptions, hence the "?" and not a ".".
Savvy?

BS. Last I checked, asking for any clarification of statement would be something like 'could you clarify that for me cuz it looks like you said the US is smarter'....Not 'You're saying....' That is an assumption regardless of what punctuation you use...Savvy?:roll:

 

[nkgupta80]

Whoosha cuut lil liboowal? Yeah, you are!

You are accusing me of what you, yourself, are guilty of. It's a standard liberal tactic.



Note the "?" at the end of my sentence. A "?" signifies a question, not a statement.

I was asking for clearification on your post 63.


Hence my question: You’re saying that the population of India, for example, is generally less intelligent than the population of the US?

I made no assumptions, hence the "?" and not a ".".
Savvy?

actaully it would have been fine if you had left it with the question. But you go ahead and do this:

Could you provide some data on that please? Perhaps a comparison between the GPA's of Indian students -v- US students, or similar.....

this shows that you had already made up your mind that she had said INdians are less intelligent.

 

[ngdawg]

There's also the assumption I'm a 'liberal'....hardly....from what I've seen they think the government should do hand-outs, pay for everything under the sun and tax everyone from the middle class up. *gag* The so-called liberal representatives we have are, along with the conservatives, the biggest source of air pollution in this country-their hot air is changing our climate!:mrgreen:
So, Jerry, you just keep on making your assumptions....the Sunday comics weren't too funny this week.