South Carolina is so gay!

Originally Posted by HoreTore

Why the hell are you opposed to sexual promiscuity...?

Sex is healthy and good for you. And I like to taste all the different candy available instead of sticking with just one

I am - I believe that it is a bad thing and causes alot of unnecessary problems in relationships. I am guilty of it like the others, but I don't want to hear about my town being labeled as the heterosex capital of the world either.

"Homosexuals" are people defined by their sexual perversions. I am against swingers and sado-masochists as well. Oh - I'm sorry, were they born like that too? I'd better be careful what I say about them, wouldn't want to be called a bigot by people who use the term every chance they get.

Come to Long Island Dungeons, its just unbearable for sado-masochists!

Originally Posted by Caledonian Rhyfelwyr

Come to Long Island Dungeons, its just unbearable for sado-masochists!

hehe. Careful, wouldn't want anyone to condemn you as a bigot for making fun of the bad choices of individuals.

Oh, fer Pete's sake. What a lot of fuzz over nothing. Gah!

For 150 years, we've been advertising ourselves as Gay Paris and nobody ever complains about it either.

Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff

I fundamentally disagree with what you are saying here. This is the mainstream opinion of homosexuality.

This is because you are willing to overlook pretty much all of the relevant research and evidence related to the issue.

I don't believe that there have always been "homosexual" people. There have always been "homosexual" acts, but people were less rigidly defined by "sexuality". I also believe that you are not born "gay", therefore you become "gay" at some point in your life. Look at the ratio of identical Twins who are not both gay - same womb, same genes; different sexual identity? Someone is lying about there sexuality there according to propoenents of genetic homosexuality. God forbid it was the twin who believed that he was a homosexual!

Probably not solely genetic, yet definitely natural, as it is attested throughout human history and observable in numerous other species, and environmental factors likely take effect at a young enough age and work through means we so insufficiently understand that PJ's claim that you cannot 'become' homosexual is still essentially true, even if environmental factors play a part.

To me, homosexual acts are simply actions taken that I believe can and should be condemned by moral opinion, if not by law - In line with theft, sexual promiscuity, public masturbation, etc. We are able to come to conclusions about those things even though "they don't hurt anyone". It is one thing to do those things on your own time, but if you start advertising spots as "great places to masturbate" or "take a crap in the bushes" - people would probably get offended about that, too.

This is an argument against public displays of homosexual behavior, rather than homosexuality itself. As such, it is valid.

Opposition to homosexuality is only an "egregious humanitarian injustice" if is biologically determined. As it stands it is just a sexual perversion in my book.

False. Opposition to homosexuality is only an "egregious humanitarian injustice" if is involuntarily determined. The choice doesn't have to be made genetically for it not to be a sin. It just has to be made by something other than the individual. The evidence suggests that same-sex sexual preference is not primarily a matter of choice. It is wrong to hold homosexuals morally accountable for their sexual predisposition, and foolish to argue that they should be provided no morally acceptable sexual outlet.

Ajax

Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff

It is one thing to do those things on your own time, but if you start advertising spots as "great places to masturbate" or "take a crap in the bushes" - people would probably get offended about that, too.

Man oh man, are you out of your depth in this thread. Your Neanderthal views and vulgar imagery say more about your prejudice and inexperience than about homosexuals. As English Assassin said earlier in this thread, you obviously have some growing-up to do. And some reading in History, too.

Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff

I fundamentally disagree with what you are saying here. This is the mainstream opinion of homosexuality.

I don't believe that there have always been "homosexual" people. There have always been "homosexual" acts, but people were less rigidly defined by "sexuality". I also believe that you are not born "gay", therefore you become "gay" at some point in your life. Look at the ratio of identical Twins who are not both gay - same womb, same genes; different sexual identity? Someone is lying about there sexuality there according to propoenents of genetic homosexuality. God forbid it was the twin who believed that he was a homosexual!

To me, homosexual acts are simply actions taken that I believe can and should be condemned by moral opinion, if not by law - In line with theft, sexual promiscuity, public masturbation, etc. We are able to come to conclusions about those things even though "they don't hurt anyone". It is one thing to do those things on your own time, but if you start advertising spots as "great places to masturbate" or "take a crap in the bushes" - people would probably get offended about that, too.

Opposition to homosexuality is only an "egregious humanitarian injustice" if is biologically determined. As it stands it is just a sexual perversion in my book. Sexual perversions should be frowned upon, particularly when they are being used to advertise a state as a den of sexual perversion.

It is good to see that I fundamentally disagree with PJ on this issue. I thought that we were reading out of the same book. Younger generations are buying these arguments and others like them in droves. It bodes well for the movement to make homosexuals a minority group in the future.

Next up from TSMG:

You are not born hetero; sanity and proper morals will lead you down that path.

Originally Posted by Adrian II

Man oh man, are you out of your depth in this thread. Your Neanderthal views and vulgar imagery say more about your prejudice and inexperience than about homosexuals. As English Assassin said earlier in this thread, you obviously have some growing-up to do. And some reading in History, too.

Homosexual acts would seem similarly vulgar to the majority of people. And it is this vulgarity that the "prejudice" is against, not the people themselves.

And considering TuffStuff's "Neanderthal" comments were made regarding public acts or the advertising of these acts, I don't see what's wrong with the comparisons. Yes they're unpleasant, but is this whole issue not unpleasant?

I'm not preaching hate and I'm not saying homosexuals are defined by their sexuality. Despite the apparent reversal of roles on either side of the argument in this respect, still it is the same side that remains "Neanderthals" in the eyes of the other.

What If they called it the private masturbation capital of the world? I'm sure that people would be irritated by that as well.

I need to get back to my cave, Adrian. Us Neanderthals need our beauty sleep.

I don't remeber us slavery loving bigots ever claiming that blacks wern't born black, but were defined by their black actions.

Originally Posted by Caledonian Rhyfelwyr

Homosexual acts would seem similarly vulgar to the majority of people. And it is this vulgarity that the "prejudice" is against, not the people themselves.

And considering TuffStuff's "Neanderthal" comments were made regarding public acts or the advertising of these acts, I don't see what's wrong with the comparisons. Yes they're unpleasant, but is this whole issue not unpleasant?

I'm not preaching hate and I'm not saying homosexuals are defined by their sexuality. Despite the apparent reversal of roles on either side of the argument in this respect, still it is the same side that remains "Neanderthals" in the eyes of the other.

Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff

What If they called it the private masturbation capital of the world? I'm sure that people would be irritated by that as well.

I need to get back to my cave, Adrian. Us Neanderthals need our beauty sleep.

I don't remeber us slavery loving bigots ever claiming that blacks wern't born black, but were defined by their black actions.

But there is a major flaw in Tuff's logic here; Tuff's talking about sexual activity, but sexuality does not equal sex or sexual activity. The ad didn't say anything about sexual activity.

Originally Posted by Caledonian Rhyfelwyr

Homosexual acts would seem similarly vulgar to the majority of people. And it is this vulgarity that the "prejudice" is against, not the people themselves.

And considering TuffStuff's "Neanderthal" comments were made regarding public acts or the advertising of these acts, I don't see what's wrong with the comparisons. Yes they're unpleasant, but is this whole issue not unpleasant?

I'm not preaching hate and I'm not saying homosexuals are defined by their sexuality. Despite the apparent reversal of roles on either side of the argument in this respect, still it is the same side that remains "Neanderthals" in the eyes of the other.

If I read the ad that is shown in the article correctly, it does not say anything along the lines of "South Carolina is a great place to have wild gay sex" - it just promotes SC as a great place for gay tourists to visit. So comparing the ad to imaginary ads that promote "vulgar" acts is not really valid
Perhaps an ad that says "SC is a great place for single travelers" is the same as "SC is a great place for masturbating"? or "Niagara Falls are a great destination for honeymooners" is the same as "Niagara Falls are a great place for young couples to have sex like rabbits"?

I have the feeling that "vulgar" rather is the term that fits the ideas that come to the mind of some people when reading this ad...

EDIT: Viking kind of beat me to it...

Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff

What If they called it the private masturbation capital of the world? I'm sure that people would be irritated by that as well.

Don't talk horrible! You have taken a thread about nice, innocent homosexual acts and turned it into something disgusting...

Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff

I need to get back to my cave, Adrian. Us Neanderthals need our beauty sleep.

Go rot in your den of morality!

Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff

I don't remeber us slavery loving bigots ever claiming that blacks wern't born black, but were defined by their black actions.

I think I'll go back to my own cave and sit out the oncoming storm...

Originally Posted by Viking

But there is a major flaw in Tuff's logic here; Tuff's talking about sexual activity, but sexuality does not equal sex or sexual activity. The ad didn't say anything about sexual activity.

Exactly. So now who is saying these people are defined by their sexuality? Used to be if people on my side of the argument said anything along those lines they would be narrow-minded bigots.

Originally Posted by Ser Clegane

[...]

Perhaps an ad that says "SC is a great place for single travelers" is the same as "SC is a great place for masturbating"? or "Niagara Falls are a great destination for honeymooners" is the same as "Niagara Falls are a great place for young couples to have sex like rabbits"?

I have the feeling that "vulgar" rather is the term that fits the ideas that come to the mind of some people when reading this ad...

Closing in on the reductio ad absurdum.

Originally Posted by Caledonian Rhyfelwyr

Exactly. So now who is saying these people are defined by their sexuality? Used to be if people on my side of the argument said anything along those lines they would be narrow-minded bigots.

I'll point back to PJ's post:

Unfortunately, when making vacation plans they have to factor in things such as whether the population of their destination will question their normalness. Who wants to go somewhere to relax in a hostile environment?

Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff

"Homosexuals" are people defined by their sexual perversions. I am against swingers and sado-masochists as well. Oh - I'm sorry, were they born like that too? I'd better be careful what I say about them, wouldn't want to be called a bigot by people who use the term every chance they get.

Well.... Let's take the swingers first; We're all born with the desire to procreate, right? And as much as possible... Isn't that what swingers are doing?

As for the S/M-stuff, well, that's the most commonly found sexual fantasy. Handcuffs are a blast

And no, there's nothing wrong with it either. It makes people happy.

Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff

I don't believe that there have always been "homosexual" people. There have always been "homosexual" acts, but people were less rigidly defined by "sexuality". I also believe that you are not born "gay", therefore you become "gay" at some point in your life. Look at the ratio of identical Twins who are not both gay - same womb, same genes; different sexual identity? Someone is lying about there sexuality there according to propoenents of genetic homosexuality. God forbid it was the twin who believed that he was a homosexual!

Genes can be quite complicated, take left- and righthandedness for example. Identical twins can prefer different hands, 2 lefthanded parents gets more than 50% of thier children righthanded, but the lefthanded ratio is considerble higher.
The most sensible explaination (that also explains the population ratio) is that there's 2 genes where one always gives righthandedness, while the other gives a random (aka about 50-50) dominant hand. Those genes are expressed equally strong (or only one is used, randomly chosen).

And that is only the primary gene, it seems to more complicated than that, proven by ambidextricy for example (they still got a prefered hand though).

Short version, things can still be genetically based, but have a chance of variation that's decided very early, most likely before birth.

Originally Posted by HoreTore

Btw PJ, have you reconsidered your stance on gays lately? I seem to remember you saying in some "iran hangs another gay guy"-thread that "while gay people should be discriminated, killing them is just too much" or something to that effect...

I have never been particularly against homosexuality. It has always been rather obvious to me that physical attraction is not a conscious choice, regardless of whether one falls into the nature or nurture camps.

I used to be far more vocally against the Pride movement, especially the sexually charged atmosphere it produces, but lately I’ve come to view it as more of an unfortunate reaction. People who are treated with such contempt often act out. I don’t think the majority of gay people are out to destroy religion or family values. In fact, I think there are probably a good number of homosexuals who believe in a less regulated economy, lower taxes, a strong national defense, and the preservation of basic rights such as bearing arms who have been driven to the left.

I’ve come to the conclusion that the whole thing is a complete non-issue drummed up by people for three fundamentally flawed reasons: a)they just think its gross and want to legislate their own tastes, b)they believe its against their religion, or c)they have an innate fear that either they or their children could “catch” it.

In America, the Supreme Court line up has actually given us a realistic shot at overturning Roe Vs. Wade. That’s the social issue that should be our number one priority. Children are being killed every day in America while infertile couples desperately seek them, and it seems some on the Right want to waste limited time and resources on defining the virtually nonexistent differences between marriages and civil unions in the constitution, keeping gay support groups out of schools, and making sure not one “gay” cent makes it into their state coffers. Priorities!

Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger

I used to be far more vocally against the Pride movement, especially the sexually charged atmosphere it produces, but lately I’ve come to view it as more of an unfortunate reaction. People who are treated with such contempt often act out. I don’t think the majority of gay people are out to destroy religion or family values. In fact, I think there are probably a good number of homosexuals who believe in a less regulated economy, lower taxes, a strong national defense, and the preservation of basic rights such as bearing arms who have been driven to the left.

So homosexuals are now left-wing? Well you can take them back and make them part of your glorious fascist state.

Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger

I’ve come to the conclusion that the whole thing is a complete non-issue drummed up by people for three fundamentally flawed reasons: a)they just think its gross and want to legislate their own tastes, b)they believe its against their religion, or c)they have an innate fear that either they or their children could “catch” it.

In Health Education classes they tell people that it is completely normal to be attracted to the same sex. And they do this to children from under 10 years old, when some of them will still have no inclinations at all. And condsidering the ridiculously disproportionate time they spend on homosexuality I wouldn't be surprised if these children do think its completely normal and common. And now there is talk they will be teaching children these things from 6 years old, to help them with relationships apparently. Any sex education for children that age is a sickening thought. Gah! I just finished these classes a few years ago at school myself, why do I sound like a pensioner!

Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger

In America, the Supreme Court line up has actually given us a realistic shot at overturning Roe Vs. Wade. That’s the social issue that should be our number one priority. Children are being killed every day in America while infertile couples desperately seek them, and it seems some on the Right want to waste limited time and resources on defining the virtually nonexistent differences between marriages and civil unions in the constitution, keeping gay support groups out of schools, and making sure not one “gay” cent makes it into their state coffers. Priorities!

What child would want to live with homosexual parents? Its human nature to know that is not normal. I was, em, pretty innocent compared to other children my age at school, but even when I was young there was a gay (as in the stereotype) pupil a few years above me who creeped the hell out of me, so much so I would hold my breath walking by him. And its not like I was the only one, some of us used to avoid him like the plague.

Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff

I fundamentally disagree with what you are saying here. This is the mainstream opinion of homosexuality.

I don't believe that there have always been "homosexual" people. There have always been "homosexual" acts, but people were less rigidly defined by "sexuality". I also believe that you are not born "gay", therefore you become "gay" at some point in your life. Look at the ratio of identical Twins who are not both gay - same womb, same genes; different sexual identity? Someone is lying about there sexuality there according to propoenents of genetic homosexuality. God forbid it was the twin who believed that he was a homosexual!

To me, homosexual acts are simply actions taken that I believe can and should be condemned by moral opinion, if not by law - In line with theft, sexual promiscuity, public masturbation, etc. We are able to come to conclusions about those things even though "they don't hurt anyone". It is one thing to do those things on your own time, but if you start advertising spots as "great places to masturbate" or "take a crap in the bushes" - people would probably get offended about that, too.

Opposition to homosexuality is only an "egregious humanitarian injustice" if is biologically determined. As it stands it is just a sexual perversion in my book. Sexual perversions should be frowned upon, particularly when they are being used to advertise a state as a den of sexual perversion.

It is good to see that I fundamentally disagree with PJ on this issue. I thought that we were reading out of the same book. Younger generations are buying these arguments and others like them in droves. It bodes well for the movement to make homosexuals a minority group in the future.

Regardless of nature versus nurture, it isn't a concious choice. By the time you start to become attracted to other people, the writing is on the wall. If you can honestly say that you could have gone either way and chose to be attracted to your amazing girlfriend, I've got some news for you. You're bisexual!

Trying to link homosexuality to things such as theft and public masturbation and all sorts of other genuinely harmful activities is a common tactic that just doesn't logically work, IMO. Taken on its own, there is really no reason to condemn same sex couples. If we start down the path of legislating our own tastes without justification, we begin to risk some of the things we truly value that may not be popular - hunting for instance.

We're not in complete disagreement though. I'm firmly with you on keeping them off Affirmative Action lists.

Originally Posted by Caledonian Rhyfelwyr

What child would want to live with homosexual parents? Its human nature to know that is not normal. I was, em, pretty innocent compared to other children my age at school, but even when I was young there was a gay (as in the stereotype) pupil a few years above me who creeped the hell out of me, so much so I would hold my breath walking by him. And its not like I was the only one, some of us used to avoid him like the plague.

A) nobody cares what kids want

B) kids won't start wondering about it until they've met other kids who think it's not normal, who think so because their parents think so

C) gayness isn't transmitted through the respiratory system, no point in holding your breath

Kids can be somewhat forgiven for being bigotted because they're stupid and don't stop to wonder why they're disgusted by the mere presence of homosexuals. It's the post-puberty people who never wonder about the reason for it who are responsible for this bigotry because they pass it down to their own kids.

Originally Posted by Fenring

A) nobody cares what kids want

Finding a suitable home for kids who need them is relevant to what is being discussed, so you shouldn't just dismiss it jokingly.

Originally Posted by Fenring

B) kids won't start wondering about it until they've met other kids who think it's not normal, who think so because their parents think so

So people are straight because of peer pressure? Amazing how despite a child's enviroment being irrelevant when it comes to homosexuals, other environments contribute to the masses of straight people.

Originally Posted by Fenring

C) gayness isn't transmitted through the respiratory system, no point in holding your breath

Yes but the point is that children can sense that it is not natural. And you can't blame it on my upbrinding, my parent's aren't religious and they have never mentioned anything to do with sex to me in my life. Which I am thankful of since it is disturbing when you hear of people being given "The Talk".

Originally Posted by Fenring

Kids can be somewhat forgiven for being bigotted because they're stupid and don't stop to wonder why they're disgusted by the mere presence of homosexuals. It's the post-puberty people who never wonder about the reason for it who are responsible for this bigotry because they pass it down to their own kids.

I am disgusted by homosexual people because they do disgusting things. The same way people are digusted by paedophiles and other perverted people. Speaking of which, I wonder when we will start accepting them?

So people are straight because of peer pressure? Amazing how despite a child's enviroment being irrelevant when it comes to homosexuals, other environments contribute to the masses of straight people.

That's not what I said. Kids start thinking gay kids are weird because of their peers (not actual "pressure" as it happens mostly on the subconscious level)

If you've been around kids enough you'll now that they start using phrases like "this is gay!" and calling eachother "fag" long before they seriously think about sexuality and when some of them still act as if girls are the fifth collumn in society. Why's that?

Originally Posted by Caledonian Rhyfelwyr

So homosexuals are now left-wing? Well you can take them back and make them part of your glorious fascist state.

I'm speaking from an American perspective. Your hostility has been noted.

In Health Education classes they tell people that it is completely normal to be attracted to the same sex. And they do this to children from under 10 years old, when some of them will still have no inclinations at all. And condsidering the ridiculously disproportionate time they spend on homosexuality I wouldn't be surprised if these children do think its completely normal and common. And now there is talk they will be teaching children these things from 6 years old, to help them with relationships apparently. Any sex education for children that age is a sickening thought. Gah! I just finished these classes a few years ago at school myself, why do I sound like a pensioner!

I don’t think sex education for 10 year olds, much less 6 year olds, is appropriate at all. Blaming that on gay people is a false argument, though.

Unless your goal is to continue to make life miserable for gay people and keep them on the margins of society, I’m not sure what your issue is with telling children it is ok to be gay, though. Surely you have more of an understanding of human sexuality than to think that would have any bearing on basic attraction in the slightest.

What child would want to live with homosexual parents? Its human nature to know that is not normal. I was, em, pretty innocent compared to other children my age at school, but even when I was young there was a gay (as in the stereotype) pupil a few years above me who creeped the hell out of me, so much so I would hold my breath walking by him. And its not like I was the only one, some of us used to avoid him like the plague.

Wow. Just wow. I'm not sure who I feel more sorry for, you or that poor guy. One day, hopefully, you're going to feel very bad about that...

Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff

I fundamentally disagree with what you are saying here. This is the mainstream opinion of homosexuality.

I don't believe that there have always been "homosexual" people. There have always been "homosexual" acts, but people were less rigidly defined by "sexuality". I also believe that you are not born "gay", therefore you become "gay" at some point in your life. Look at the ratio of identical Twins who are not both gay - same womb, same genes; different sexual identity? Someone is lying about there sexuality there according to propoenents of genetic homosexuality. God forbid it was the twin who believed that he was a homosexual!

To me, homosexual acts are simply actions taken that I believe can and should be condemned by moral opinion, if not by law - In line with theft, sexual promiscuity, public masturbation, etc. We are able to come to conclusions about those things even though "they don't hurt anyone". It is one thing to do those things on your own time, but if you start advertising spots as "great places to masturbate" or "take a crap in the bushes" - people would probably get offended about that, too.

Many places advertise themselves as great places to come and sneak through the woods, waiting to obliterate wildlife with high powered rifles. That is a much more disturbing activity than gay sex, and offends probably just as many people, if not more, than seeing a gay couple holding hands while they walk down the street.

And I can't believe you can say with a straight face that homosexuality should be illegal.

Good God man.

I thought you were a small government conservative who basically thought the less governmental interferance in peoples' lives the better. Now you want the government in peoples' bedrooms?

Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff

Opposition to homosexuality is only an "egregious humanitarian injustice" if is biologically determined. As it stands it is just a sexual perversion in my book. Sexual perversions should be frowned upon, particularly when they are being used to advertise a state as a den of sexual perversion.

That's not what was being advertized. SC was being advertized as a place where gay couples could see the sights and enjoy themselves in a discrimination free atmosphere.

Quite obviously false advertising.

Originally Posted by Caledonian Rhyfelwyr

I am disgusted by homosexual people because they do disgusting things.

Every kink is disgusting except for the one that turns you on. Trust me, if you weren't into women the things men do in bed with them would seem silly, strange and possibly harmful. You're going to stick what in where and do what? For how long? Even oral sex is foul and disgusting if you look at it from the right angle.

Here's a crazy thought — why not let other people do what they want, so long as they're not hurting anyone? And don't throw the red herring of pedophilia into the mix, that's a cheap line of rhetoric that doesn't even make sense if you think about it.

Originally Posted by Caledonian Rhyfelwyr

I am disgusted by homosexual people because they do disgusting things. The same way people are digusted by paedophiles and other perverted people. Speaking of which, I wonder when we will start accepting them?

Homosexuals don't do disgusting things. The do things that you find disgusting. There is a very big difference.

At any rate, as soon as somebody pulls out the old gem of comparing homosexuality and pedophilia, I know that there is no longer any point in carrying on the discussion, as their ignorance has at that point shown itself to be beyond my ability to penetrate.

Lemur and Goof need some time together in private.

Might I suggest South Carolina?

Originally Posted by Caledonian Rhyfelwyr

Which I am thankful of since it is disturbing when you hear of people being given "The Talk".

Nah nah, it wasn't all that when I got mine... My dad picked me up at a chicks house, asked who she was. I told him a little about her, and he said "Well, I sure hope you're using condoms, don't make the same mistake I did!" That was it.

Originally Posted by Caledonian Rhyfelwyr

I am disgusted by homosexual people because they do disgusting things. The same way people are digusted by paedophiles and other perverted people. Speaking of which, I wonder when we will start accepting them?

Now, homosexuals deal damage to nought, while paedophiles, they....guess what? Harm children.

I'm no "fan" of homosexuality (notably, minus lesbians), but what consenting adults do to each other in the bedroom is more or less none of my business; particularly something as harmless as sex between two people of the same gender.

Wow. Just wow. I'm not sure who I feel more sorry for, you or that poor guy.

Wow, Panzer
I must say you have surprised me throughout this topic .
I would myself add a few comments about that post you quoted , but a few convey my thoughts just as well , but then as he is apparently being serious it needs a to finish

Originally Posted by Caledonian Rhyfelwyr

I am disgusted by homosexual people because they do disgusting things. The same way people are digusted by paedophiles and other perverted people. Speaking of which, I wonder when we will start accepting them?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Informed_consent
You sound like you could afford a few more sex ed courses to straighten things out for you (no pun intended). It shouldn't take more than a few minutes of reading to understand how homosexuality and pedophilia are entirely unrelated.

Ajax