Would this guy have his job today, if he had tweeted about a different race?

[atlkvb]

I just described why. It is the attraction to a forced relationship, no prepubescent child is sexually driven....ther fore the attraction is to someone that is NOT attracted to the pedophile and is NOT attracted to sexual activity in any manner.

A hairy ass is also a sign of puberty having been reached isn't it? So you can take that bs attempt and....well you know....

And the point, that you glossed over, was that I see homosexuality as natural partially because these attractions exist in nature, but pedophilia does not (post pubescent sexual relationships do, but NOT prepubescent).

Third what I meant was.....a pedophile attraction couldn't possibly exist at young ages, since it is the attraction to prepubescent children in grown men or women....however homosexual attraction DOES exist in young ages. This is the main element to my identification of homosexuality as natural and pedophilia as unnatural.

We weren't talking about Children being attracted to other children boom...no one thinks kids desire Sex...you just threw that in there to try and make a point which didn't exist in our original comparisons of the simple attraction of one sexually stimulated to children as opposed to their own sex.

You never for one moment thought I was talking about kids attracted to each other. We're talking about Adults, who by definition are aware of and can control their sexuality and how to express it.

I never suggested and in fact insisted just for reasons of our comparison that no sex was ever involved in either case. You're the one who suggested it's not even necessary in order for one to be considered homosexual.

OK, I gave you that assumption, then asked you to compare only sexual desires of that same person (again assuming it's an adult) to another adult who simply has desires for Children. I specifically said there is no sex involved, because that's how you chose to define a homosexual with so called "normal" desires.

Now all of a sudden in your example to compare those two desires or attractions, you're talking about "forced sex" and "control" to prove your point why one attraction is normal and the other is psychological and not normal. Yet, I never said any sex was involved in either comparison boom.

You are trying to justify what you consider normal sexual attraction in the case of non sexually active homosexuality, with what you think is a psychological disturbance in the case of a pedophile attraction...but in order to prove the difference you suggest Sex must be involved to justify your position of one being "psychological" and no sex is needed in your same example in order to be an uncontrollable natural "desire".

Again, you ascribe one definition to one natural attraction and then equate all sorts of sexual activity to it, and then you excuse any sex in the case of the other in order to claim it as normal with no sex needing to be involved.

It's not a logical or even balanced argument because what I claim and still insist which you also disagree with is that BOTH attractions are neither normal or uncontrollable and in fact are perverse whether Sex is involved or not.

 

[atlkvb]

And the point, that you glossed over, was that I see homosexuality as natural partially because these attractions exist in nature, but pedophilia does not (post pubescent sexual relationships do, but NOT prepubescent).

I didn't gloss over it Boom...it's not possible for prepubescent anything to be pedophiles. A pedophile is someone who is attracted to Children. Children not being aware of their sexuality as a stimulative attraction like adults are, are incapable of being pedophiles. Yet you are are suggesting they can be.

Which is another whacky goofy pretzel you've twisted yourself into trying to justify the perversion of homosexuality. Why can't you just admit that BOTH
(pedophilia and homosexuality) are perverse, unnatural, deviant, controllable sexual aberrations among adults who are aware of their own sexuality and how or when and where to express their desires?

You won't admit that, because you will go to any and all lengths to reject the homosexual portion of my statement in order to justify it (homosexuality)

Are you Gay?

 

[Boomboom521]

I didn't gloss over it Boom...it's not possible for prepubescent anything to be pedophiles. A pedophile is some who is attracted to children. Children not being aware of their sexuality as a stimulative attraction like adults are, are incapable of being pedophiles. Yet are are suggesting they can be.

Which is another whacky goofy pretzel you've twisted yourself into trying to justify the perversion of homosexuality. Why can't you just admit that BOTH
(pedophilia and homosexuality) are perverse, unnatural, deviant, controllable sexual aberrations among adults who are aware of their own sexuality and how or when and where to express their desires?

You won't admit that, because you will go to any and all lengths to justify the homosexual portion of my statement.

Are you Gay?

Children can understand they are attracted to people of the same sex (this isn't a purely sexual attraction, but rather a romantic attraction- remember when you liked that girl in the 4th-5th grade? It wasn't a sexual desire, but it was an attraction). However, it is obviously impossible for a child to be a pedophile. The pedophile has a sexual attraction to children (the relationship has everything to do with SEXUAL attraction). My point was that homosexuality exists in children (before a SEXUAL desire exists), and thus, to me, is natural. However, pedophilia has to be developed over time and AFTER development. Thus it is a product OF development (lack there of, trauma, etc,...). Making it a psychological disorder instead of a natural attraction. If you don't understand it now.....I give up.

In addition, I would be proud to tell a bigot like yourself that I am gay.

 

[atlkvb]

remember when you liked that girl in the 4th-5th grade? It wasn't a sexual desire, but it was an attraction It wasn't a sexual desire, but it was an attraction).

That's not pedophilia boom, and not the comparison we were making.

 

[Boomboom521]

that's not pedophilia boom, and not the comparison we were making.

It IS the comparison I'm making. As a child, one can have homosexual attractions.....as a child, it's impossible to have pedophilia. BIGGEST reason that I see it as natural, and pedophillia as unnatural.

 

[atlkvb]

My point was that homosexuality exists in children

How do they know they are "homosexual" boom if they've never had sex?

Now we are back to our original question. How is one homosexual without sex? I'm a kid, and I like Cats. Does that make me one who prefers Sex with animals?

You sound bat sh*t crazy boom, no joke Dude!

 

[atlkvb]

It IS the comparison I'm making. As a child, one can have homosexual attractions.....as a child, it's impossible to have pedophilia. BIGGEST reason that I see it as natural, and pedophilia as unnatural.

You say one (homosexuality) is just a natural attraction. Yet the other (pedophilia) must involve Sex. (a forced relationship) therefore it is unnatural.(or at least a psychological disorder)

Both are still desires. The only difference is Sex, which you insist need not occur in the case of the homosexual, but must occur in the case of the pedophile in order for that attraction to have validity as being a psychological disorder.

Pick and choose your relativistic morals if you insist, but to deny one is not an unnatural perversion and insist the other is, simply suggests to me your lack of any moral construct of either.

You call me a bigot. OK boom guilty. But I'm sure of sexual perversion when I see it. I don't try to excuse it for one perversion, and suddenly become all bothered by it for another.

 

[Boomboom521]

You say one (homosexuality) is just a natural attraction. Yet the other (pedophilia) must involve Sex. (a forced relationship) therefore it is unnatural.(or at least a psychological disorder)

Both are still desires. The only difference is Sex, which you insist need not occur in the case of the homosexual, but must occur in the case of the pedophile in order for that attraction to have validity as being a psychological disorder.

Pick and choose your relativistic morals if you insist, but to deny one is not an unnatural perversion and insist the other is, simply suggests to me your lack of any moral construct of either.

You call me a bigot. OK boom guilty. But I'm sure of sexual perversion when I see it. I don't try to excuse it for one perversion, and suddenly become all bothered by it for another.

I'm not sure you know much of anything at all anymore. You spent all this time arguing that homosexuality is perverse, and that it's a choice. But you know nothing about it at all. Have you ever known a homosexual? Maybe all this fevered passion directed at labeling homosexuals as unnatural is rooted in the fact that you repress your own homosexual desires? How could you be so sure that it's a choice? Maybe cause you made that choice long ago.

 

[atlkvb]

You spent all this time arguing that homosexuality is perverse, and that it's a choice.

It's both boom...you're the one arguing it's neither.

 

[atlkvb]

Maybe all this fevered passion directed at labeling homosexuals as unnatural is rooted in the fact that you repress your own homosexual desires? How could you be so sure that it's a choice? Maybe cause you made that choice long ago.

boomboom my man I am Father to 7 wonderful Children. 3 boys and 4 Girls. I come from a Family of 10. Five boys and five girls. I know Men and I know Women and I know their differences.

Not once my friend in our back and fourth over this question of homosexuality being a choice or a natural condition of birth did I ever suggest that homosexuality is not something that does occur, is also found in nature, that is an activity among consenting adults, or is a fact of Life among consenting adults.

Never.

I've only argued and continue to assert that it is not natural, or normal, and is preferred choice that's not uncontrollable, or simply a matter of one's own birth. I have tried to give you certain examples to prove my point using your own logic and arguments in support of it attempting to get you to realize how asinine those arguments you've chosen to defend it as the opposite of how I choose to characterized it really are.

If at the end of this exchange of ideas all you want to do is accuse me of being that which I've specifically stated is an unnatural perversion, all I can do is offer you my sincere regrets that our dialogue has resulted in so little understanding between us of what it is and what it is not.(homosexuality)

I still respect you, and don't hold your thoughts about homosexuality or even pedophilia against you...let's just say we disagree and understand that as far as this issue is concerned one of us is very wrong about it, and one of us is absolutely correct about it.

So you choose bomboom521 which side you prefer to be on OK? We both can't be right about it. However I can promise you my Man...I am not, have not been, cannot be, nor do I have any latent desire to ever be a homosexual.

The mere thought of it makes me question all of human sexuality itself.

OK my Man...that's all I've got to say about this.