Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/

Homosexuality as a Sin(off topic from other thread)

24567…22

Comments

  • #32
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    wolfsbane wrote: »
    If you reject the Biblical ban on bestiality, then you need to have a better objection than consent if you wish to condemn sex with animals.

    Not really, just because the person says the animal "consents" doesn't mean they do.

    As far as I know sex with an animals has been shown to cause increased levels of stress and suffering for the animal. This would the clearest indication to me that most don't want it, which makes a lot of sense (even though interspecies attraction has been demonstrated in other animals apart from humans, the odds that the horse or dog you pick would have humans attractive, over say a cat or a chair is rather slim). If you find an animal that seems to enjoy it, then by all means.

    Ultimately it comes down to an act of cruelty towards the animal. The argument that we eat animals has a point, but then most people agree that the animal should not be made to suffer, they should be killed quickly and painlessly.


  • #33
    wolfsbane
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,980 ✭✭✭wolfsbane


    ChocolateSauce said:
    If anyone wants proof that homosexuality is natural, look no further than nature. There have been thousands of documented cases of homosexuality (both gay and lesbian) in the animal kingdom, not only once-off encounters but also life-mating.
    That would make bestiality and paedophilia natural too.

    The Christian use of the term means: that which God intended for man and animals in their pre-Fall state.
    Quote:
    From a Christian perspective, Man was designed sexually as Man to Woman, homosexuality was not part of that design.
    But science has proven (for lack of a better term) that we are not designed, but evolved. This automatically negates that perspective if you tie design into religion. We don't know why homosexuality evolved, but it did and we have to accept that it is a natural and intrinsic part of our society and our species.
    I differ on your belief in what science has 'proved'. But even if it had, that would also establish bestiality and paedophilia as a natural and intrinsic part of our society and our species. And indeed murder, rape and robbery.


  • #34
    AtomicHorror
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,888 ✭✭✭AtomicHorror


    wolfsbane wrote: »
    ChocolateSauce said:

    That would make bestiality and paedophilia natural too.

    They are. But whether they are morally right or wrong cannot rely on their labelling as such. We must base this on how we value the consequences of these actions. Both cause suffering, thus should be rejected.

    Aside from potential divine punishment, which cannot be verified, what suffering does homosexuality or consensual homosexual acts cause?
    wolfsbane wrote: »
    I differ on your belief in what science has 'proved'. But even if it had, that would also establish bestiality and paedophilia as a natural and intrinsic part of our society and our species. And indeed murder, rape and robbery.

    But does accepting that these things are a part of our nature rob us of choice? We can still point to harmful consequence and say "we reject these actions as immoral". We cannot say the same thing for homosexuality, because by and large there are no more harmful consequences to it than there are to heterosexuality.


  • #35
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    wolfsbane wrote: »
    The Christian use of the term means: that which God intended for man and animals in their pre-Fall state.

    Yes but that doesn't make any sense, because homosexuality is not simply a behavior, there is a physical triggers, contained in both the phenotype and in genetics. Some homosexual animals are physically different to heterosexual animals.

    How did the "the Fall" change the physical structure of nature? And how did animals inherit this physical structure from Adam?

    "The Fall" wasn't a person, it was an event. It is like the Superbowl. "The Superbowl" can't do things, the people at the Superbowl can. What was the agent that actually changed things? Satan? Adam? God? Which agent present at the Fall had the power to alter the physical nature of reality against God's original design If frog A was heterosexual before the Fall who change him, physically, to be homosexual after the Fall?

    And if it was God then why did God change things to a way that he didn't intend?


  • #36
    wolfsbane
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,980 ✭✭✭wolfsbane


    Wicknight wrote: »
    Not really, just because the person says the animal "consents" doesn't mean they do.

    As far as I know sex with an animals has been shown to cause increased levels of stress and suffering for the animal. This would the clearest indication to me that most don't want it, which makes a lot of sense (even though interspecies attraction has been demonstrated in other animals apart from humans, the odds that the horse or dog you pick would have humans attractive, over say a cat or a chair is rather slim). If you find an animal that seems to enjoy it, then by all means.

    Ultimately it comes down to an act of cruelty towards the animal. The argument that we eat animals has a point, but then most people agree that the animal should not be made to suffer, they should be killed quickly and painlessly.
    I'd like to see the study that showed that pets are always stressed by bestiality. Seems more likely to me that the cunning human could make sex a pleasant affair for them - treating them gently, speaking kindly to them, caressing them - maybe even being able to sexually stimulate them. The latter would be easy enough for male animals.

    I wonder do all the atheists here agree with your last comment: If you find an animal that seems to enjoy it, then by all means. At least you are honest about it, and it is the logical conclusion given your system of morality.


  • Advertisement
  • #37
    wolfsbane
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,980 ✭✭✭wolfsbane


    AtomicHorror wrote: »
    They are. But whether they are morally right or wrong cannot rely on their labelling as such. We must base this on how we value the consequences of these actions. Both cause suffering, thus should be rejected.

    Aside from potential divine punishment, which cannot be verified, what suffering does homosexuality or consensual homosexual acts cause?



    But does accepting that these things are a part of our nature rob us of choice? We can still point to harmful consequence and say "we reject these actions as immoral". We cannot say the same thing for homosexuality, because by and large there are no more harmful consequences to it than there are to heterosexuality.
    Yes, harmful consequences does not define moral in the Christian system. Moral is that which conforms to God's laws.


  • #38
    AtomicHorror
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,888 ✭✭✭AtomicHorror


    wolfsbane wrote: »
    Yes, harmful consequences does not define moral in the Christian system. Moral is that which conforms to God's laws.

    I understand this, but the issue here is why you are willing to accept a moral system on the basis of authority? If you suspend your reason, does that not leave you open to being manipulated towards immorality? Given the considerable number of evils that are done and justified by a say-so in a holy book (and I am not specifically targeting the bible on this one), wouldn't it be nice if some of the people involved had decided to base their decision making on something other than authority alone?

    Of course I am sure that many evils are also done because that was the desire of the perpetrator and the Word (of whoever) used as a mere excuse. But that excuse seems acceptable to many.

    What use is the free will given to you by your God if your choices are not your own?


  • #39
    AtomicHorror
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,888 ✭✭✭AtomicHorror


    wolfsbane wrote: »
    I wonder do all the atheists here agree with your last comment: If you find an animal that seems to enjoy it, then by all means.

    As a statement of an ideal, it works. But no more than that. Our capacity to judge whether harm is being done is limited. And there may be subtle harm than cannot be detected. Abused children have conflicting feelings regarding their abuse. Given that we cannot easily establish the full extent of feeling in an animal, the benefit of the doubt (and thus rejection of bestiality) seems appropriate.

    Plus, like, ew.


  • #40
    wolfsbane
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,980 ✭✭✭wolfsbane


    Wicknight wrote: »
    Yes but that doesn't make any sense, because homosexuality is not simply a behavior, there is a physical triggers, contained in both the phenotype and in genetics. Some homosexual animals are physically different to heterosexual animals.

    How did the "the Fall" change the physical structure of nature? And how did animals inherit this physical structure from Adam?

    "The Fall" wasn't a person, it was an event. It is like the Superbowl. "The Superbowl" can't do things, the people at the Superbowl can. What was the agent that actually changed things? Satan? Adam? God? Which agent present at the Fall had the power to alter the physical nature of reality against God's original design If frog A was heterosexual before the Fall who change him, physically, to be homosexual after the Fall?

    And if it was God then why did God change things to a way that he didn't intend?
    When Adam fell, all of his dominion lost their original state with him. For animals that meant a purely behavioural and physical fall, rather than spiritual.

    The agent that changed things was God. He brought the sentence of death upon creation, as a response to Adam's sin. Adam was the one who changed the way God intended life to be - God responded to that in judgment.

    BTW, the 'born gay' assertion is open to scientific as well as theological questioning. See:
    http://www.narth.com/docs/animalmyth.html


  • #41
    wolfsbane
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,980 ✭✭✭wolfsbane


    AtomicHorror wrote: »
    I understand this, but the issue here is why you are willing to accept a moral system on the basis of authority? If you suspend your reason, does that not leave you open to being manipulated towards immorality? Given the considerable number of evils that are done and justified by a say-so in a holy book (and I am not specifically targeting the bible on this one), wouldn't it be nice if some of the people involved had decided to base their decision making on something other than authority alone?

    Of course I am sure that many evils are also done because that was the desire of the perpetrator and the Word (of whoever) used as a mere excuse. But that excuse seems acceptable to many.

    What use is the free will given to you by your God if your choices are not your own?
    The choices are my own. I see the reality of God and so rely on His guidance on what is good and what is not. My experience then backs up that belief. I've been an unbeliever and saw how that worked; I'm now a believer and see how much better God's way is.


  • Advertisement
  • #42
    DeVore
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 32,387 ✭✭✭✭DeVore


    God created everything. Homosexuality isnt a "choice" its a fact and has been since as far back as humanity is recorded. It was created by God and demonised by man. I love the arrogance of saying "no no, I'm qualified to explain to you what God wants to communicate and what his plan is and what he wants us to do".

    The arrogance is astounding and mostly why I'm an agnostic. Anyone who tells you they have some sort of "insight" into what God wants (about anything) is an arrogant liar and someone you should walk away from.

    DeV.


  • #43
    AtomicHorror
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,888 ✭✭✭AtomicHorror


    wolfsbane wrote: »
    The choices are my own. I see the reality of God and so rely on His guidance on what is good and what is not. My experience then backs up that belief. I've been an unbeliever and saw how that worked; I'm now a believer and see how much better God's way is.

    And what, in your experience, is harmful about homosexuality?


  • #44
    AtomicHorror
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,888 ✭✭✭AtomicHorror


    DeVore wrote: »
    The arrogance is astounding and mostly why I'm an agnostic. Anyone who tells you they have some sort of "insight" into what God wants (about anything) is an arrogant liar and someone you should walk away from.

    Or perhaps dismantle them for all to see. Some days, if I have a headache or I need a nice coffee, I'll go for the walk away option.


  • #45
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,850 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    wolfsbane wrote: »
    Mark Hamill said:

    No, they can't. The Bible specifically condemns homosexual acts, but commends heterosexual acts carried out within marriage.
    wolfsbane wrote:
    Moral is that which conforms to God's laws.
    The bible, in leviticus 20:13, says that homosexual men should be killed. This is gods law then. So why aren't the christian churches calling for this if its so obviously the moral thing to do.
    wolfsbane wrote:
    Seems more likely to me that the cunning human could make sex a pleasant affair for them - treating them gently, speaking kindly to them, caressing them - maybe even being able to sexually stimulate them. The latter would be easy enough for male animals.

    The same thing could be said for sex with kids though. And it would still be a nonsense argument because there is no full consent in either case as animals and children cannot give full consent, whether or not they agree with act, because animals don't have the brain capacity and children are too young.


  • #46
    AtomicHorror
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,888 ✭✭✭AtomicHorror


    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    The bible, in leviticus 20:13, says that homosexual men should be killed. This is gods law then. So why aren't the christian churches calling for this if its so obviously the moral thing to do.

    Ah, but the absolute and infallible morals of God are curiously fluid. Christ "fulfilled" the old laws and thus they no longer apply.


  • #47
    wolfsbane
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,980 ✭✭✭wolfsbane


    DeVore wrote: »
    God created everything. Homosexuality isnt a "choice" its a fact and has been since as far back as humanity is recorded. It was created by God and demonised by man. I love the arrogance of saying "no no, I'm qualified to explain to you what God wants to communicate and what his plan is and what he wants us to do".

    The arrogance is astounding and mostly why I'm an agnostic. Anyone who tells you they have some sort of "insight" into what God wants (about anything) is an arrogant liar and someone you should walk away from.

    DeV.
    The Christian claim to know what God thinks about homosexuality is based on His word, the Bible. Outside of the Bible we cannot say what God thinks. It clearly says God condemns homosexuality.

    BTW, how do you know God created everything? Or that homosexuality was created by God?


  • #48
    Princess Consuela Bananahammock
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 33,779 ✭✭✭✭Princess Consuela Bananahammock


    wolfsbane wrote: »
    The agent that changed things was God. He brought the sentence of death upon creation, as a response to Adam's sin. Adam was the one who changed the way God intended life to be - God responded to that in judgment.

    BTW, the 'born gay' assertion is open to scientific as well as theological questioning. See:
    http://www.narth.com/docs/animalmyth.html

    I have to say, I think it very unwise to take Christian mythology and apply it to modern day society as if it was unquestionable law. It be said in the Christian bible, but Exodus also tells us to put people to death for working on Sundays.

    wolfsbane wrote: »
    The choices are my own. I see the reality of God and so rely on His guidance on what is good and what is not. My experience then backs up that belief. I've been an unbeliever and saw how that worked; I'm now a believer and see how much better God's way is.

    God's way, or your way? If your choices ARE your own (and NOT based on anything else, i.e. the Bible) then you're sayign that God falls into like with you, which is blatant sarcilege!
    So what is it? Your view first followed be God's, or His followed by yours?

    wolfsbane wrote: »
    The Christian claim to know what God thinks about homosexuality is based on His word, the Bible. Outside of the Bible we cannot say what God thinks. It clearly says God condemns homosexuality.

    BTW, how do you know God created everything? Or that homosexuality was created by God?

    I disagree with your interpretation. And for you to say that God backs you up and not me when we are equal in his eyes is, again, sacriledge.

    Everything I don't like is either woke or fascist - possibly both - pick one.



  • #49
    wolfsbane
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,980 ✭✭✭wolfsbane


    Mark Hamill said:
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by wolfsbane
    No, they can't. The Bible specifically condemns homosexual acts, but commends heterosexual acts carried out within marriage.

    Quote:
    Originally Posted by wolfsbane
    Moral is that which conforms to God's laws.
    The bible, in leviticus 20:13, says that homosexual men should be killed. This is gods law then. So why aren't the christian churches calling for this if its so obviously the moral thing to do.
    Because that law was given to a nation, and a specific nation at that - Israel - and was part of its theocratic institution. The Church is not a physical nation, nor is it to form a nation-state.

    The Church does not have a command from God to beat, imprison or execute moral offenders. The command He gives to the Church is that moral offenders who refuse to repent are to be excluded from fellowship until they do.
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by wolfsbane
    Seems more likely to me that the cunning human could make sex a pleasant affair for them - treating them gently, speaking kindly to them, caressing them - maybe even being able to sexually stimulate them. The latter would be easy enough for male animals.

    The same thing could be said for sex with kids though. And it would still be a nonsense argument because there is no full consent in either case as animals and children cannot give full consent, whether or not they agree with act, because animals don't have the brain capacity and children are too young.
    So you believe dogs should not have sex with other dogs, as neither can give full consent, whether or not they agree with act, because animals don't have the brain capacity?


  • #50
    DeVore
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 32,387 ✭✭✭✭DeVore


    My God doesnt have a publisher.


    DeV.


  • #51
    JimiTime
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,418 ✭✭✭JimiTime


    DeVore wrote: »
    God created everything. Homosexuality isnt a "choice" its a fact and has been since as far back as humanity is recorded. It was created by God and demonised by man. I love the arrogance of saying "no no, I'm qualified to explain to you what God wants to communicate and what his plan is and what he wants us to do".

    The arrogance is astounding and mostly why I'm an agnostic. Anyone who tells you they have some sort of "insight" into what God wants (about anything) is an arrogant liar and someone you should walk away from.

    DeV.

    Hmmm. Person comes onto Christianity forum, and is disgusted at the 'arrogance' of the locals saying they know God. Its a bloomin cheek isn't it.


  • Advertisement
  • #52
    JimiTime
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,418 ✭✭✭JimiTime


    DeVore wrote: »
    My God doesnt have a publisher.


    DeV.

    A clever one liner. Thats the issue solved now. Seeing how you are agnostic, i would think that you don't actually know if 'your god' has a 'publisher' or not, for you don't know him/her.


  • #53
    AtomicHorror
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,888 ✭✭✭AtomicHorror


    wolfsbane wrote: »
    So you believe dogs should not have sex with other dogs, as neither can give full consent, whether or not they agree with act, because animals don't have the brain capacity?

    They have diminished (or no) moral agency. Their actions are not our concern unless they harm us.


  • #54
    AtomicHorror
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,888 ✭✭✭AtomicHorror


    JimiTime wrote: »
    Hmmm. Person comes onto Christianity forum, and is disgusted at the 'arrogance' of the locals saying they know God. Its a bloomin cheek isn't it.

    The wonder of not accepting things on authority is that you can disagree with him.


  • #55
    wolfsbane
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,980 ✭✭✭wolfsbane


    Ikky Poo2 said:
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by wolfsbane
    The agent that changed things was God. He brought the sentence of death upon creation, as a response to Adam's sin. Adam was the one who changed the way God intended life to be - God responded to that in judgment.

    BTW, the 'born gay' assertion is open to scientific as well as theological questioning. See:
    http://www.narth.com/docs/animalmyth.html
    I have to say, I think it very unwise to take Christian mythology and apply it to modern day society as if it was unquestionable law. It be said in the Christian bible, but Exodus also tells us to put people to death for working on Sundays.
    Whether you think it unwise or not, it is the Christian position.

    As to Moses' Law, that was given to a specific people as their national law. Since we are not that nation, its laws may or may not coincide with the law God has us under.
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by wolfsbane
    The choices are my own. I see the reality of God and so rely on His guidance on what is good and what is not. My experience then backs up that belief. I've been an unbeliever and saw how that worked; I'm now a believer and see how much better God's way is.
    God's way, or your way? If your choices ARE your own (and NOT based on anything else, i.e. the Bible) then you're sayign that God falls into like with you, which is blatant sarcilege!
    So what is it? Your view first followed be God's, or His followed by yours?
    His view followed by me - I saw His law was right and I chose to obey it.

    You are arguing for us to make up our own morality without reference to anything or person outside of ourselves. Even the atheists here appeal to more than individual tastes as the basis of their morality - the consensus of society, for example.
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by wolfsbane
    The Christian claim to know what God thinks about homosexuality is based on His word, the Bible. Outside of the Bible we cannot say what God thinks. It clearly says God condemns homosexuality.

    BTW, how do you know God created everything? Or that homosexuality was created by God?
    I disagree with your interpretation. And for you to say that God backs you up and not me when we are equal in his eyes is, again, sacriledge.
    You did not answer the question, so I will repeat it and add your latest assertion to it:
    How do you know God created everything? Or that homosexuality was created by God? Or that we are equal in his eyes ?


  • #56
    wolfsbane
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,980 ✭✭✭wolfsbane


    AtomicHorror wrote: »
    They have diminished (or no) moral agency. Their actions are not our concern unless they harm us.
    We don't get their consent for many things we do with them, at least until we encourage them to cooperate. I take it you have no problem with training dogs to lead the blind, or rescue earthquake victims, etc? I'm sure they would rather initially roam the fields and chase cats.

    But you object to bestiality on the basis that any consent is not as full as that between humans. I don't see how you have one rule for rescue and one rule for sex.

    The Christian objection is based on God's moral system, which you reject.


  • #57
    wolfsbane
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,980 ✭✭✭wolfsbane


    DeVore wrote: »
    My God doesnt have a publisher.


    DeV.

    Please tell us who your God is, and how you came to know him.


  • #58
    Princess Consuela Bananahammock
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 33,779 ✭✭✭✭Princess Consuela Bananahammock


    wolfsbane wrote: »
    Ikky Poo2 said:

    Whether you think it unwise or not, it is the Christian position.

    As to Moses' Law, that was given to a specific people as their national law. Since we are not that nation, its laws may or may not coincide with the law God has us under.


    His view followed by me - I saw His law was right and I chose to obey it.

    You are arguing for us to make up our own morality without reference to anything or person outside of ourselves. Even the atheists here appeal to more than individual tastes as the basis of their morality - the consensus of society, for example.


    You did not answer the question, so I will repeat it and add your latest assertion to it:
    How do you know God created everything? Or that homosexuality was created by God? Or that we are equal in his eyes ?

    Oh, I know it's the Christian position, but when it brings about so much hate and pain, a stepping back is in order.

    I tend to argue that one should base opinions soley on one's experience. It's healthy to be able to disagree with one's teachers, even the Bible.

    I don't remember being asked the question, but doesn't Genesis tell us that God created the Heaven and the Earth and everything on it? And I'm pretty sure religion classes vouched for everyone being equal in his eyes. (I'm open to correction here, provided it's a direct quote and not an interpretation)

    Everything I don't like is either woke or fascist - possibly both - pick one.



  • #59
    wolfsbane
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,980 ✭✭✭wolfsbane


    AtomicHorror wrote: »
    And what, in your experience, is harmful about homosexuality?
    Anal sex is very unsanitary, as is the foreplay involved, and exposes them to faeces-borne disease and loosing/rupture of the anal passage; homosexuality often involves multiple partners and the associated STD risk that goes with that.

    But as I said, my objection is not based on it being 'harmful', but on it being immoral.


  • #60
    wolfsbane
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,980 ✭✭✭wolfsbane


    Ikky Poo2 said:
    Oh, I know it's the Christian position, but when it brings about so much hate and pain, a stepping back is in order.
    Christians do not hate homosexuals, rather they seek ot save them from their sin. Many homosexuals however do seem to be violently opposed to Christians.
    I tend to argue that one should base opinions soley on one's experience. It's healthy to be able to disagree with one's teachers, even the Bible.
    It's never healthy to disagree with God. Something about thinking you are wiser than He, that leads to disaster.
    I don't remember being asked the question,
    No, it was asked in the post to DeVore you replied to.
    but doesn't Genesis tell us that God created the Heaven and the Earth and everything on it?
    Indeed it does.
    And I'm pretty sure religion classes vouched for everyone being equal in his eyes.
    True too.

    But I asked DeVore those questions because he seemed to reject the Bible as the source of morality, claiming he is an agnostic - yet he asserted that God created everything, that homosexuality was created by God , etc.


  • Advertisement
  • #61
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    wolfsbane wrote: »
    The agent that changed things was God. He brought the sentence of death upon creation, as a response to Adam's sin.

    "The sentence of death" ... which is what exactly? Death?

    What does that have to do with homosexuality. Why did God decide to make gay frogs?

    Why did God decide to make gay frogs and then declare homosexuality an abomination?
    wolfsbane wrote: »
    Adam was the one who changed the way God intended life to be - God responded to that in judgment.

    So the state of the universe after the Fall was decided by God

    Why did God create things that he didn't want to exist? Did he have to?
    wolfsbane wrote: »
    BTW, the 'born gay' assertion is open to scientific as well as theological questioning. See:
    http://www.narth.com/docs/animalmyth.html

    You have got to be kidding me. You are quoting from the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality, from a book called "Defending a Higher Law"

    :rolleyes:

    Would you like me to quote you passages from NAMBLA about how children actually love to be molested by 50 year old men ...


Advertisement