"Jack Schidt®" > wrote:

> There's no proof that any crime has been committed, not now nor previously.
> Sure Michael Jackson is strange but I think due process will shed light on
> the facts. It is still innocent until proven guilty, right? Or did the
> Patriot Act change all that?

We shall see. With accusations of this nature swirling around MJ for
many years, it would not surprise me if MJ's day in court will not
be triumphant.

On 11/21/2003 1:38 AM, in article
, "Craig Welch"
> opined:

> On Fri, 21 Nov 2003 03:50:06 GMT, The Wolf
> > wrote:
>
>>>>>> So am I a bigot or do you
>>>>>> have a new title.
>>>>>
>>>>> Oi, too easy!
>>>>>
>>>>> The former ...
>>>>
>>>> Now now, you know I don't like being called a bigot.
>>>
>>> Actually, I didn't know that. I thought you would be quite
>>> comfortable with it, after you'd looked it up in the dictionary.
>>
>> Some words have a ugly connotation no matter what the dictionary says.
>
> Indeed they do. But when a word fits, ... hey!

OK, I'm a textbook bigot, you're a textbook lib. Have a nice day and enjoy
life :-)

On 11/21/2003 2:23 AM, in article
, "Jack Schidt®"
> opined:

Start a new thread cocksucker and I'll crush you on this one.
>
> Personally, I'm more outraged that some of my fellow citizens are returning
> with limbs missing because of a war caused by a lying president.
>
> Jack ****ed
>
>

On 11/21/2003 3:17 AM, in article , "Dave
Smith" > opined:

> The Wolf wrote:
>
>>> even told you the key words to use for the Google search. Further research
>>> has
>>> revealed a lot more information on the matter, like the deal in September of
>>> this
>>> year where the the Boston Catholic archdiocese agreed to pay $85 million
>>> dollars to
>>> 553 people who said they had been sexually molested by priests. The
>>> allegations
>>> involved dozens of priests.
>>
>> How to you go from dozens to thousands? In the U.S. I understand the number
>> was/is about 600.
>


The confusion might be this. I said about 600 priests accused of
molestation. There were thousands of victims.

> Well I guess that is because the US is bigger than just the Archdiocese of
> Boston.
> If there were dozens o cases in that one archdiocese, there could well be more
> elsewhere.
>
>
Don't you read the papers? It's huge. St. Louis, NYC, LA, San Diego,
Phoenix.

Federal prosecutors were threatening the RICO statute which is only used to
go after organized crime.

The Wolf wrote:

> Do you ever read what I say?
>
> Let me type slowly so you can follow.
>
> What a consenting adult does in the privacy of his own home is nobody's
> business.

Right.

> What they do in public is,

Wrong. That is, unless you want to submit everythign that *you* do to public
scrutiny, that is, with the possibility that things you do, such as posting
bigotry to Usenet (for an example), being censured if someone *else* finds
it offensive.

> that is my point. What is so
> difficult about that?

I dunno, it's funny how people respond to bigots who, for whatever reason,
are clueless to their own bigotry...

--
Darryl L. Pierce >
Visit the Infobahn Offramp - <http://mypage.org/mcpierce>
"What do you care what other people think, Mr. Feynman?"

The Wolf wrote:

>>> Go **** yourself, you know what I mean.
>>
>> Nice come back. Really adds credibility to your already floundering
>> argument.
>>
>>> I don't go where homos hang out.
>>
>> Then *how* do you see them "swapping spit"?
>
> I said I don't *want* to see them "swapping spit" at the shopping mall
> *you* say they have a right to swap spit at the shopping mall.

Your position is wrong on *several* levels:

1. Shopping malls are *not* public facilities, they are *quasi-public*
facilities. IOW, they are private property made available to the public by
the property owners. You don't have a legal right to enter a mall, you have
been granted permission by the owners for as long as *they* allow.

2. You said that what two consenting adults do in private is not your
concern. How does something occuring outside of the home suddenly *become*
your business? If you're going to claim "because I can see it" then its
occurance in the home is irrelevant; one can see what occurs in the home
through many different means, including open windows, web cams, etc.

3. If what the hypothetical homosexuals are doing in public *is* your
business the, guess what, what *you* are doing in public is *their*
business. Why does your opinion matter any more than theirs? Why should
*they* be subjected to *your* heterosexual displays in public? (assuming
you like the opposite sex and have such opportunities for public displays)
Perhaps *heterosexual* displays of affection should be banned as well?

4. Rights have nothing to do with another person's opinions. If there is
such a thing as a right, then it's inherent and inalienable and the
opinions of one group cannot dissolve that right, nor can that right be
witheld based on some lack of commonality. Do *you* have "a right to swap
spit" in public? If so, then so do the homosexuals that "bother" you. If
they don't have the right to kiss in public, then neither do *you*.

> So once again, go **** yourself.

I'm so impressed by your acumen.

>>> I
>>> don't want homos acting like homos
>>
>> And what do "homos acting like homos" do?

Are you unwilling or unable to describe what *you* were talking about?

>>> hanging out where I go, i.e. Public
>>> places such as shopping malls for example.
>>
>> So you think malls are for heterosexuals only? Where else should they be
>> forbidden from going for fear of offending your delicate senses?

Are you unwilling or unable to answer this question?

>>> If they don't act like homos
>>> how would I know they ARE homos.
>>
>> Perhaps you have ***-dar? You seem to be drawn to their make-out
>> locations.

This must have hit *way* too close to home for you.

>>> Last I knew they didn't tattoo it on
>>> their foreheads.
>>
>> So, how *do* you know they're *** if they don't advertise it? Is it a
>> birds-of-a-feather thing that you're relunctant to 'fess up to? Or, is it
>> something more sinister than that?

We're wondering why you're suddenly so quiet on these points...

--
Darryl L. Pierce >
Visit the Infobahn Offramp - <http://mypage.org/mcpierce>
"What do you care what other people think, Mr. Feynman?"

PENMART01 wrote:

> "Darryl L. Pierce" writes:
>>>>>> No. That your opinion doesn't line up with the facts is a sign of
>>>>>> ignorance. That you choose to embrace your opinions when facts are
>>>>>> presented to is what makes you a bigot.
>>>>>
>>>>> Which one of the founding fathers are you? Jefferson? Washington?
>>>>
>>>> I'm the one who doesn't follow red herrings.
>>>
>>> Go back to the dictionary bozo, I don't think you meant what you typed.
>>
>>No, I know what I wrote. Apparently, *you* don't *understand* it. That's
>>to be expected: it was a slightly abstract, cynical statement and not one
>>that can be easily translated to crayons and construction paper for you...
>
> The Wussy Wolf must think "red herring" means "matjes".

"Red herring? Must be some new fruity drink! Homos! Homos! I have to show my
manhood to them...erm...show them I'm a man! I'll grab one, throw him to
the ground, sit on his chest and...huff...huff...my heart's racing just
*thinking* about it! My head's hurting just *thinking*! I'll be his meat! I
mean his face! His pretty little face..."

--
Darryl L. Pierce >
Visit the Infobahn Offramp - <http://mypage.org/mcpierce>
"What do you care what other people think, Mr. Feynman?"

On 11/21/2003 5:01 AM, in article
, "Darryl L. Pierce"
> opined:

> The Wolf wrote:
>
>> Do you ever read what I say?
>>
>> Let me type slowly so you can follow.
>>
>> What a consenting adult does in the privacy of his own home is nobody's
>> business.
>
> Right.
>
>> What they do in public is,

So according to you, it's OK for me to wear a swastika on my t-shirt in
public even if it offends Jews? Or a t-shirt with a photo of a black man
being lynched in Mississippi? Those two scenarios do not fit within
community standards so they should not be allowed IN PUBLIC. Homos should
not act like homos in public. If they didn't act like homos nobody would
bother them.

I will admit the Confederate Flag has historical significance and I don't
see what the big deal is.
>
> Wrong. That is, unless you want to submit everythign that *you* do to public
> scrutiny, that is, with the possibility that things you do, such as posting
> bigotry to Usenet (for an example), being censured if someone *else* finds
> it offensive.
>
>> that is my point. What is so
>> difficult about that?
>
> I dunno, it's funny how people respond to bigots who, for whatever reason,
> are clueless to their own bigotry...

Dave Smith wrote:

> Well I guess that is because the US is bigger than just the Archdiocese of Boston.
> If there were dozens o cases in that one archdiocese, there could well be more
> elsewhere.

Of course there are. Wasn't all that long ago there was a big
scandal in Italy.

nancy

"The Wolf" > wrote in message
...
> On 11/21/2003 5:01 AM, in article
> , "Darryl L. Pierce"
> > opined:
>
> > The Wolf wrote:
> >
> >> Do you ever read what I say?
> >>
> >> Let me type slowly so you can follow.
> >>
> >> What a consenting adult does in the privacy of his own home is nobody's
> >> business.
> >
> > Right.
> >
> >> What they do in public is,
>
> So according to you, it's OK for me to wear a swastika on my t-shirt in
> public even if it offends Jews? Or a t-shirt with a photo of a black man
> being lynched in Mississippi? Those two scenarios do not fit within
> community standards so they should not be allowed IN PUBLIC. Homos should
> not act like homos in public. If they didn't act like homos nobody would
> bother them.
>
> I will admit the Confederate Flag has historical significance and I don't
> see what the big deal is.
> >

The point is that it doesn't have to be OK with him or anyone else for you
to wear your swastika in public. Jews wearing the Star of David might
offend some skinheads. Should they be barred from doing so to spare the
feelings of some Arian brothers? Some people, maybe many, are offended by
interracial couples holding hands in public -- a man and a woman. Under
your system, since someone found this offensive they should be prohibited
from holding hands outside their home. There are people who think that the
handicapped are gross and have no business out in public. Is that OK, and
who should decide these things?

There are no community standards except when it comes to decency, and people
have pushed the limits there. On any given day you can see heterosexuals
groping each other in public. If community standards don't prohibit groping
or kissing, then your issue lies there, not with a segment of the population
that you find aesthetically bothersome who participate in that same
behavior. Maybe stores should be prohibited from selling spandex garments
over a certain size? Conservative religious people of many faiths are
offended by skimpy bathing suits for woman. Maybe the bikini should be
banned? Dancing is offensive to some people of faith so maybe there should
be no public dancing?

I don't know how old you are, but I heard the same arguments that you make
against gays being made against blacks 40+ years ago. "If only black would
be like whites then they would be just fine. If only blacks would stay in
their place (i.e., segregated ghetto) then there would be no problem." Of
course, the problem was in the eye of the beholder. If a black family moved
into your neighborhood and your life was disrupted, it was your doing, not
theirs. Likewise, if your day is ruined because you see *** people in
public, then it is you who have ruined it, not them. I can think of nothing
that gays could legally do in public that would be different that what
straights could legally do in public. Under our system, separate is not
equal and we all should have equal protection under the law -- all of us,
even people we find gross.

Your statement that "If they didn't act like homos nobody would bother them"
is particularly troubling. Hate crimes against gays, *******s, and
transgender individuals have reached an all-time high. In the last 18
months there have been two drive-by shootings here, one fatal, targeting
patrons of *** bars. It seems that people are not satisfied with a
live-and-let-live situation, but seek out gays for violence simply because
their existence is offensive. Just like you, they don't like to coexist
with people who don't mirror their own image. You seek to dehumanize people
for your own comfort. "If only they would be emotionless robots blending
into the background, stripped of any personality -- then I would be free to
be me" you lament. That's all you are asking, right? All you want is to be
the center of the universe with everyone conceding to you every wish so you
don't get that squeamish feeing when you go to the mall? Should anyone
bother "homos" be it with an aluminum bat, knife, gun, fists, or other means
of violence, shouting ugly words, denying them employment or housing,
withholding benefits, and setting up impediments to the pursuit of
happiness, then it is because they are not in your image and those actions
are completely understandable -- that's what you are saying. Oh, I bet you
don't feel good about that, now do you? That much bigotry is just too much,
at least in a public forum. No, you just want everyone to go into the
closet for your own comfort but you don't want to consider the consequences
to them. Don't kid yourself. Relegating people to some second-class status
for your own comfort leads to an incalculable amount of suffering.

On Wed.,19 Nov 2003 19:23:53 Terry >
wrote:

I am not and have never been a fan of
Jackson's, but I am a huge fan of due
process.


Thank you for a voice of reason and restraint! How refreshing these
days!

On Thu, 20 Nov 2003 02:22:52 GMT, (j.j.)
wrote:

>Hark! I heard Sheryl Rosen > say:
>
><snip>
>> But this incident does beg the question: What parent in their right mind
>> would allow their 12 year old son to go any where NEAR an accused child
>> molester, never mind a freak like Michael Jackson? And to let your kid
>> anywhere near an accused child molester who is the freak we know as Michael
>> Jackson--I'm sorry, but the parents are guilty of neglect for letting their
>> kid within 500 feet of him.
>>
>> Just my humble opinion, of course.
>
>As a parent myself, I agree with your opinion, Sheryl. Heck, I
>wouldn't let my child stay with *any* non-family childless adult,
>let alone someone who's reputation is so, well, spotted...


money.....Money....MONEY !!! $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

According to the evening news,
the last "victim" was paid $25 million to recant his accusation.

Lots of parents have sold their kids for a lot less.


<rj>

"" wrote:
>
> On Thu, 20 Nov 2003 02:22:52 GMT, (j.j.)
> wrote:
>
> >Hark! I heard Sheryl Rosen > say:
> >
> ><snip>
> >> But this incident does beg the question: What parent in their right mind
> >> would allow their 12 year old son to go any where NEAR an accused child
> >> molester, never mind a freak like Michael Jackson? And to let your kid
> >> anywhere near an accused child molester who is the freak we know as Michael
> >> Jackson--I'm sorry, but the parents are guilty of neglect for letting their
> >> kid within 500 feet of him.

From what i heard, the family and he met while he was doing charity
work. He probably seems like a very nice person in public, and
anyone who can give your children the benefits of a wealthy
lifestyle, who doesn't seem hazardous while you're around him, might
have lulled the mother into thinking he'd been slammed the last time.

> >> Just my humble opinion, of course.
> >
> >As a parent myself, I agree with your opinion, Sheryl. Heck, I
> >wouldn't let my child stay with *any* non-family childless adult,
> >let alone someone who's reputation is so, well, spotted...
>
> money.....Money....MONEY !!! $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
>
> According to the evening news,
> the last "victim" was paid $25 million to recant his accusation.
>
> Lots of parents have sold their kids for a lot less.
>
> <rj>

Craig Welch wrote:

> >> Personally, I'm more outraged that some of my fellow citizens are returning
> >> with limbs missing because of a war caused by a lying president.
>
> >Start a new thread cocksucker and I'll crush you on this one.
>
> How do you figure? You have yet to 'crush' *any * poster on *any*
> topic.
>

He posts something stupid and than gives himself a pat on the back and considers
the target of his verbal diarrhoea to have been crushed.

>I wouldn't leave my cat with him unsupervised.
>
>nancy

##############
Don't worry...he won't bother any pussy. BG

"Vox Humana" > wrote in message
...
>

Thank you.

Charlie

in article , BillKirch at
oads wrote on 11/22/03 1:50 AM:

>> I wouldn't leave my cat with him unsupervised.
>>
>> nancy
>
> ##############
> Don't worry...he won't bother any pussy. BG

<rimshot>

The Wolf wrote:

>>> What a consenting adult does in the privacy of his own home is nobody's
>>> business.
>>
>> Right.
>>
>>> What they do in public is,
>
> So according to you, it's OK for me to wear a swastika on my t-shirt in
> public even if it offends Jews? Or a t-shirt with a photo of a black man
> being lynched in Mississippi?

Yes, it's your *right* to do so. That you would want to is a different
story, but you have every right to do that if you so choose.

> Those two scenarios do not fit within
> community standards so they should not be allowed IN PUBLIC.

Where are these "community standards" documented? Or, are you confusing
*opinions* with *rights* again?

> Homos should
> not act like homos in public.

What does "act like homos" mean? And how does it differ from the concept of
"act like heteros"?

> If they didn't act like homos nobody would
> bother them.

Why should anybody bother them at *all*?

> I will admit the Confederate Flag has historical significance and I don't
> see what the big deal is.

So, you don't mind offending, but you do mind being offended? Again, it's
back to you wanting others to act in a manner *you* deem fit...

--
Darryl L. Pierce >
Visit the Infobahn Offramp - <http://mypage.org/mcpierce>
"What do you care what other people think, Mr. Feynman?"

"Vox Humana" > wrote in message >...

> > >> >> >Vox Humana wrote:
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> >> Participating in a sex act does not define one's sexual
> orientation.

All Nastiness aside, you should probably concede the point that
engaging in a homosexual on a repeated basis makes one at least
bisexual.

Engaging in homosexual pedophaelia makes one a particular sort of
pedophile.

No points to Wolf and others for not recognizing the complexity of
human sexuality, of course. But there's no reason for you to not
acknowledge it too.

Greg Zywicki

Greg Zywicki wrote:

>> > >> >> >Vox Humana wrote:
>> > >> >> >
>> > >> >> >> Participating in a sex act does not define one's sexual
>> orientation.
>
> All Nastiness aside, you should probably concede the point that
> engaging in a homosexual on a repeated basis makes one at least
> bisexual.

Participating in a sex act makes one a participant. Heterosexuality
homosexuality is not defined by the participation but by the inclination of
the individual. A previous poster referred to a homosexual who is in a
heterosexual marriage with children. That they had sex does not make them
bisexual, especially if they only participated in order to keep up
appearances. As you say later in the post I'm replying to, there's plenty
to "the complexity of human sexuality"; i.e., participation in an act (even
frequently) doesn't define the sexuality.

--
Darryl L. Pierce >
Visit the Infobahn Offramp - <http://mypage.org/mcpierce>
"What do you care what other people think, Mr. Feynman?"

Darryl L. Pierce wrote:

> Participating in a sex act makes one a participant. Heterosexuality
> homosexuality is not defined by the participation but by the inclination of
> the individual.


ho·mo·sex·u·al·i·ty ( P ) Pronunciation Key (hm-sksh-l-t, -m-)
n.

1. Sexual orientation to persons of the same sex.
2. Sexual *activity* with another of the same sex.


Looks like you're both right...

~john!


http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=homosexuality


--
What was it like to see - the face of your own stability - suddenly look
away...

"Darryl L. Pierce" > wrote in message ws.com>...
> Greg Zywicki wrote:
>
> >> > >> >> >Vox Humana wrote:
> >> > >> >> >
> >> > >> >> >> Participating in a sex act does not define one's sexual
> >> orientation.
> >
> > All Nastiness aside, you should probably concede the point that
> > engaging in a homosexual on a repeated basis makes one at least
> > bisexual.
>
> Participating in a sex act makes one a participant. Heterosexuality
> homosexuality is not defined by the participation but by the inclination of
> the individual. A previous poster referred to a homosexual who is in a
> heterosexual marriage with children. That they had sex does not make them
> bisexual, especially if they only participated in order to keep up
> appearances. As you say later in the post I'm replying to, there's plenty
> to "the complexity of human sexuality"; i.e., participation in an act (even
> frequently) doesn't define the sexuality.

In the case of duty sex, no, probably not. In the case of repeated
pedophaelia for sexual pleasure, yes, it does define one aspect of a
person's sexuality. A person who repeatedly seeks sexual contact with
young boys is a homosexual pedophile. Their sexual contact with
adults is another component of their sexuality and may be completely
different. It may even be the "keep up appearances" sex you mention
(ie Lisa Marie.)

Greg Zywicki

Greg Zywicki wrote:

>> Participating in a sex act makes one a participant. Heterosexuality
>> homosexuality is not defined by the participation but by the inclination
>> of the individual. A previous poster referred to a homosexual who is in a
>> heterosexual marriage with children. That they had sex does not make them
>> bisexual, especially if they only participated in order to keep up
>> appearances. As you say later in the post I'm replying to, there's plenty
>> to "the complexity of human sexuality"; i.e., participation in an act
>> (even frequently) doesn't define the sexuality.
>
> In the case of duty sex, no, probably not. In the case of repeated
> pedophaelia for sexual pleasure, yes, it does define one aspect of a
> person's sexuality.

Indicate, not define. The definition comes from their inclination. If
they're doing it repeatedly because they *want* to, then it's an indication
but not a definition. If they do it repeatedly because they *have* to, then
it's neither an indication nor a definition, it's an act.

> A person who repeatedly seeks sexual contact with
> young boys is a homosexual pedophile.

It's pedophilia, period. It may involve homosexual acts, but TMU pedophiles
do make distinctions in their chosen "partner"'s gender. The target is
usually what's accessible. The reason that you see priests mainly with
altar boys is because priests have *access* to altar boys more frequently
than they do girls (no such thing as an altar girl).

> Their sexual contact with
> adults is another component of their sexuality and may be completely
> different. It may even be the "keep up appearances" sex you mention
> (ie Lisa Marie.)

The point is that homosexuals are no more likely to be pedophiles than
heterosexuals, and the majority of pedophiles are in fact heterosexual when
it comes to adults; the victims of their pedophilia are just what they were
able to get.

--
Darryl L. Pierce >
Visit the Infobahn Offramp - <http://mypage.org/mcpierce>
"What do you care what other people think, Mr. Feynman?"

levelwave wrote:

>> Participating in a sex act makes one a participant. Heterosexuality
>> homosexuality is not defined by the participation but by the inclination
>> of the individual.
>
> ho·mo·sex·u·al·i·ty ( P ) Pronunciation Key (hm-sksh-l-t, -m-)
> n.
>
> 1. Sexual orientation to persons of the same sex.
> 2. Sexual *activity* with another of the same sex.
>
>
> Looks like you're both right...

Careful, dictionaries reflect *usage* as well as *definitions*. That the
dictionary sexs homosexual activity makes one homosexual (i.e., one usage
of the word) does not mean that one who participates in such acts *is*
homosexual. And, BTW, the second definition above isn't describe an
individual. It's saying that homosexuality itself is "sexual activity with
another of the same sex". Is there a definition that claims that one who
participates in homosexuality is a homosexual? There isn't when I checked:

ho·mo·sex·u·al ** *P***Pronunciation Key**(hm-sksh-l, -m-)
adj.

Of, relating to, or having a sexual orientation to persons of the same sex.

It's ones *orientation* that makes one homosexual, not ones activities.

--
Darryl L. Pierce >
Visit the Infobahn Offramp - <http://mypage.org/mcpierce>
"What do you care what other people think, Mr. Feynman?"

"Darryl L. Pierce" > writes:

>The point is that homosexuals are no more likely to be pedophiles than
>heterosexuals,

And no less likely.... hetero or homo has no bearing whatsoever one way or the
other on ones proclivity towards pedophilia. your only point is that of the
configuration of you obviously BIGOTED cranium.


---= BOYCOTT FRENCH--GERMAN (belgium) =---
---= Move UNITED NATIONS To Paris =---
Sheldon
````````````
"Life would be devoid of all meaning were it without tribulation."

"Darryl L. Pierce" > writes:

>levelwave wrote:
>
>>> Participating in a sex act makes one a participant. Heterosexuality
>>> homosexuality is not defined by the participation but by the inclination
>>> of the individual.
>>
>> ho·mo·sex·u·al·i·ty ( P ) Pronunciation Key (hm-sksh-l-t, -m-)
>> n.
>>
>> 1. Sexual orientation to persons of the same sex.
>> 2. Sexual *activity* with another of the same sex.
>>
>>
>> Looks like you're both right...

Actually yoose need a new dictionary (yours doesn't even have a name)... and a
brain transplant.

Merriam Webster

ho·mo·sex·u·al·i·ty

noun

1 : the quality or state of *being* homosexual
2 : erotic *activity* with another of the same sex
---

Oxford

homosexual

adjective

(of a person) sexually attracted to people of one's own sex.

n involving or characterized by sexual attraction between people of the same
sex: homosexual desire.

noun a person who is sexually attracted to people of their own sex.
---

Mere attraction defines ones sexuality, participation is not manditory.

So quit the bull shit rationalizing... it's obvious yoose abhor what you are.


---= BOYCOTT FRENCH--GERMAN (belgium) =---
---= Move UNITED NATIONS To Paris =---
Sheldon
````````````
"Life would be devoid of all meaning were it without tribulation."

PENMART01 wrote:

<snip>

> Mere attraction defines ones sexuality, participation is not manditory.

Quite correct.

> So quit the bull shit rationalizing... it's obvious yoose abhor what you
> are.

I'm at a loss as to who "yoose" refers to here.

--
Darryl L. Pierce >
Visit the Infobahn Offramp - <http://mypage.org/mcpierce>
"What do you care what other people think, Mr. Feynman?"

"Darryl L. Pierce" > wrote in message ws.com>...
> Greg Zywicki wrote:
>
> >> Participating in a sex act makes one a participant. Heterosexuality
> >> homosexuality is not defined by the participation but by the inclination
> >> of the individual. A previous poster referred to a homosexual who is in a
> >> heterosexual marriage with children. That they had sex does not make them
> >> bisexual, especially if they only participated in order to keep up
> >> appearances. As you say later in the post I'm replying to, there's plenty
> >> to "the complexity of human sexuality"; i.e., participation in an act
> >> (even frequently) doesn't define the sexuality.
> >
> > In the case of duty sex, no, probably not. In the case of repeated
> > pedophaelia for sexual pleasure, yes, it does define one aspect of a
> > person's sexuality.
>
> Indicate, not define.

Split the hair finer, why don't you.

> The definition comes from their inclination. If
> they're doing it repeatedly because they *want* to, then it's an indication
> but not a definition. If they do it repeatedly because they *have* to, then
> it's neither an indication nor a definition, it's an act.

Because the "Have" to? I hope you meant "are compelled to"
>

> > A person who repeatedly seeks sexual contact with
> > young boys is a homosexual pedophile.
>
> It's pedophilia, period. It may involve homosexual acts, but TMU pedophiles
> do make distinctions in their chosen "partner"'s gender. The target is
> usually what's accessible. The reason that you see priests mainly with
> altar boys is because priests have *access* to altar boys more frequently
> than they do girls (no such thing as an altar girl).
>

Homo - same, sex - sex. Same Sex. Someone who has only sex with only
boy only children can very completely accurately described as a
homosexual pedophile in exactly the same way that something with
feathers and a green head that quacks can be described as a duck. And
I care as much about the duck's opinion of what it is.

> > Their sexual contact with
> > adults is another component of their sexuality and may be completely
> > different. It may even be the "keep up appearances" sex you mention
> > (ie Lisa Marie.)
>
> The point is that homosexuals are no more likely to be pedophiles than
> heterosexuals,


ABSOLUTELY!!!!!! No argument there.

> and the majority of pedophiles are in fact heterosexual when
> it comes to adults; the victims of their pedophilia are just what they were
> able to get.

Sorry, I don't believe that. I see no reason to believe that people
who choose children as sex partners don't seek out the partners they
desire.

Greg Zywicki

Greg Zywicki wrote:

>> Indicate, not define.
>
> Split the hair finer, why don't you.

Bisect.

>> The definition comes from their inclination. If
>> they're doing it repeatedly because they *want* to, then it's an
>> indication but not a definition. If they do it repeatedly because they
>> *have* to, then it's neither an indication nor a definition, it's an act.
>
> Because the "Have" to? I hope you meant "are compelled to"

"...have to" in the obligatory sense (i.e., marital duties) as well as in
the use-of-force sense (prison sex/rape).

>> > A person who repeatedly seeks sexual contact with
>> > young boys is a homosexual pedophile.
>>
>> It's pedophilia, period. It may involve homosexual acts, but TMU
>> pedophiles do make distinctions in their chosen "partner"'s gender. The
>> target is usually what's accessible. The reason that you see priests
>> mainly with altar boys is because priests have *access* to altar boys
>> more frequently than they do girls (no such thing as an altar girl).
>
> Homo - same, sex - sex. Same Sex.

As in "attracted to those of the same sex". It's not sex-the-act but
sex-the-gender.

> Someone who has only sex with only
> boy only children can very completely accurately described as a
> homosexual pedophile in exactly the same way that something with
> feathers and a green head that quacks can be described as a duck. And
> I care as much about the duck's opinion of what it is.

That you don't care how those you label are labeled is irrelevant. You can
call them homosexual pedophiles, but the problem is that *you* are
incorrectly using the term "homosexual". As has been shown, it's not the
act but the inclination of the person that defines their sexuality. That
someone chooses children makes them a pedophile. If they are attracted to
maleness *and* children, they're homosexual *and* a pedophile. If they only
target boys because of the accessibility of boys in their lives, that does
not make them homosexual. That makes them pedophiles.

You can call a dog a cat as much as you want, even if you don't care for the
dog's opinion, but it will never make the dog into a cat.

>> > Their sexual contact with
>> > adults is another component of their sexuality and may be completely
>> > different. It may even be the "keep up appearances" sex you mention
>> > (ie Lisa Marie.)
>>
>> The point is that homosexuals are no more likely to be pedophiles than
>> heterosexuals,
>
> ABSOLUTELY!!!!!! No argument there.

Glad to hear it.

>> and the majority of pedophiles are in fact heterosexual when
>> it comes to adults; the victims of their pedophilia are just what they
>> were able to get.
>
> Sorry, I don't believe that.

You don't have to believe it. Your lack of belief, however, has little
effect on the reality of the situation.

> I see no reason to believe that people
> who choose children as sex partners don't seek out the partners they
> desire.

You're missing a key part he *availability*. How many people entrust
their young daughters to adult males for extended periods of privacy? Now,
how many do the same for their young sons? What's the ratio? And, does that
ratio match the rates of pedophilia cases? You'll be surprised to find that
they do.

You're also arguing from a fallacious position. That you don't see a reason
for your argument to be wrong doesn't mean that it's right. You're either
ignoring or have not seen the data that shows you're incorrect.

Take some time and read on the subject so you can post with information and
not ignorance:

<http://surge.ods.org/idle/homosexual/hom_chil.htm>

is a good starter parge.

--
Darryl L. Pierce >
Visit the Infobahn Offramp - <http://mypage.org/mcpierce>
"What do you care what other people think, Mr. Feynman?"

"Darryl L. Pierce" > writes:

>Greg Zywicki wrote:
>
>>> Indicate, not define.
>>
>> Split the hair finer, why don't you.

**** hairs are difficult.



---= BOYCOTT FRENCH--GERMAN (belgium) =---
---= Move UNITED NATIONS To Paris =---
Sheldon
````````````
"Life would be devoid of all meaning were it without tribulation."

On Thu, 20 Nov 2003 12:35:44 -0500, maxine in ri >
wrote:

>"Jack Schidt®" wrote:
>>
>> "OhJeeez" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > BAGELS! very constipating on a daily basis. perhaps all child molesters
>> > should be made to eat the national supermarket variety, not the good nyc
>> ones.
>>
>> Michael Jackson aka Jacko should have heeded the calling and become a
>> catholic priest.
>>
>> Jack Snickers
>
>I dunno. Can a JW become a catholic priest?

if so, jocko's the man to do it.

your pal,
blake