Heroes of Might and Magic Community
visiting hero! Register | Today's Posts | Games | Search! | FAQ/Rules | AvatarList | MemberList | Profile


Age of Heroes Headlines:  
5 Oct 2016: Heroes VII development comes to an end.. - read more
6 Aug 2016: Troubled Heroes VII Expansion Release - read more
26 Apr 2016: Heroes VII XPack - Trial by Fire - Coming out in June! - read more
17 Apr 2016: Global Alternative Creatures MOD for H7 after 1.8 Patch! - read more
7 Mar 2016: Romero launches a Piano Sonata Album Kickstarter! - read more
19 Feb 2016: Heroes 5.5 RC6, Heroes VII patch 1.7 are out! - read more
13 Jan 2016: Horn of the Abyss 1.4 Available for Download! - read more
17 Dec 2015: Heroes 5.5 update, 1.6 out for H7 - read more
23 Nov 2015: H7 1.4 & 1.5 patches Released - read more
31 Oct 2015: First H7 patches are out, End of DoC development - read more
5 Oct 2016: Heroes VII development comes to an end.. - read more
[X] Remove Ads
LOGIN:     Username:     Password:         [ Register ]
HOMM1: info forum | HOMM2: info forum | HOMM3: info mods forum | HOMM4: info CTG forum | HOMM5: info mods forum | MMH6: wiki forum | MMH7: wiki forum
Heroes Community > Other Side of the Monitor > Thread: France legalizes gay marriage
Thread: France legalizes gay marriage This thread is 13 pages long: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 · «PREV / NEXT»
Salamandre
Salamandre


Admirable
Omnipresent Hero
Wog refugee
posted July 06, 2013 06:36 PM
Edited by Salamandre at 18:48, 06 Jul 2013.

@Hobbit:

You are misleading by saying that homosexual behavior (as understood by the general public) is commonly observed in other species. Bisexual behavior is observed in other species and is not the same as homosexual behavior (the refusal to have sex with the opposite sex). The only likely advantage of homosexual behavior to the reproductive fitness of an individual is the altruism theory and, as homosexual behavior is not observed in other species, this explanation has little weight behind it at present.  Natural selection is not necessarily an adequate explanation for many of the unusual behaviors displayed by humans. I am all for any non-violent way of reducing human population growth but don't call this uniquely human behavior normal in terms of animal behavior.

Comparing humans to animals that can change genders or who have opposite-gender private parts or have homosexual sexual activities yet still reproduce is ludicrous because what may work for them may not work for us, so therefore it is natural for them but still unnatural for us. All species differentiate.

In biology we are constantly bombarded with evolutionary theories, the most important one being that every species has a primal need to pass down their genetic information, and the only way the human race is able to do so is through a male-to-female interaction.

I also believe that homosexual feelings are desires rooted in some people's heads, but it is still a desire that must be controlled. After all, how could we be civilized if we accepted everyone's desires? We would be hypocritical if we said that loving someone of your own gender is OK but incest, pedophilia or bestiality is wrong. Society labels those as "wrong" and "disgusting" and expect them to curb their desires, but they can make the same points that homosexuals adore to use: "We can love whomever we want," "who are you to tell me that my love is wrong, it is love" and so on.

The general purpose of ALL life, at least according to evolution and the field of biology, is for an organism to pass its genetics to the next generation. This is completely violated when viewing strict homosexuality, they simply cannot reproduce. There have been studies in which homosexuals reported feeling ill at the thought of heterosexual intercourse. This qualifies as a psychological barrier to reproduction equivalent to contemporary accepted disorders.

Now, homosexual behavior is probably natural. Its proven to deepen communal bonding within families and tribes, but even men who have described themselves as heterosexual have often committed homosexual acts. Does this make up to 85% of the population closeted? I think not. This means that so-called "homophobia" (an example of a political label put forward with a false scientific air) is just the general population of the species exhibiting behavior evolutionary regulatory action. To force the homosexual to reproduce so the tribe can be strengthened in numbers, thus increasing everyone's odds of evolutionary success.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
fred79
fred79


Disgraceful
Undefeatable Hero
posted July 06, 2013 07:08 PM

Quote:
Bisexual behavior is observed in other species and is not the same as homosexual behavior (the refusal to have sex with the opposite sex).


i wonder if this means that the panda that refuses to mate at the zoo is homosexual? hah, gay panda.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Drakon-Deus
Drakon-Deus


Undefeatable Hero
Qapla'
posted July 06, 2013 07:40 PM
Edited by Drakon-Deus at 19:42, 06 Jul 2013.

Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery.


- Winston Churchill

I feel the French have forgotten their great philosophers and men of action, the revolution and the great Emperor Napoleon I, and what those people stood for.  - me
____________
Horses don't die on a dog's wish.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
JollyJoker
JollyJoker


Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
posted July 06, 2013 08:28 PM

People, don't be ridiculous. There are people who can't reproduce - so? There are people with all kinds of genetic problems - so? Since when are we social-darwinists? Didn't we explicitely vanquish the forces that argued with "nature"?

Human beings are above nature, as arrogant as it sounds. That's because we can make decisions. We can kill ourselves, we can protect the weak and ill, we can afford sexual "abberant", that is, non-reproducive behaviour. We can take responsibility for the offspring of others, even if our sexual orientation wouldn't lead to offspring naturally.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Drakon-Deus
Drakon-Deus


Undefeatable Hero
Qapla'
posted July 06, 2013 08:31 PM

As for what I think of homosexuality, it is unnatural and a sin, but it is not the fault of a homosexual for being BORN that way, no more than it is the fault of a blind man for being born that way.
____________
Horses don't die on a dog's wish.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Hobbit
Hobbit


Supreme Hero
posted July 06, 2013 08:35 PM
Edited by Hobbit at 21:21, 06 Jul 2013.

Quote:
You are misleading by saying that homosexual behavior (as understood by the general public) is commonly observed in other species. Bisexual behavior is observed in other species and is not the same as homosexual behavior (the refusal to have sex with the opposite sex).

First: where did I say that?

Second: it is commonly observed. Almost one quarter of black swan pairings are of homosexual males. Also there are many mallards, penguins and pigeons that can have same-sex pairs, and there are many apes (including, most popular, Bonobo ones), elephants, sheep, lions and many other species that can actually LIVE in a homosexual - let's say - union (which can last for years).

And no, homosexual behavior is NOT the refusal to have sex with the opposite sex. If what you're saying is right, then almost every person in the world is more or less bisexual while they can have sex with both females and males. In that case, there's no freaking explanation for not legalizing homosexual marriages and thus you proved to yourself that if you're right, then you're wrong.

Quote:
I also believe that homosexual feelings are desires rooted in some people's heads, but it is still a desire that must be controlled. After all, how could we be civilized if we accepted everyone's desires? We would be hypocritical if we said that loving someone of your own gender is OK but incest, pedophilia or bestiality is wrong. Society labels those as "wrong" and "disgusting" and expect them to curb their desires, but they can make the same points that homosexuals adore to use: "We can love whomever we want," "who are you to tell me that my love is wrong, it is love" and so on.

You can believe what you want, but you are actually acting like you're hypocritical if at first you say "I have nothing against homosexuals" and they you're comparing homosexuality to things that are "wrong" and "disgusting". But I digress. Again.

The point is: pedophilia and bestiality are labeled as wrong (which, apparently, I believe is a little bit not right) because when you're having sex with 8 years old girl/boy or with your dog, he/she/it probably doesn't like that at all. Incest, on the other hand, is labeled as wrong (but wasn't always, suprisingly) because reproducing by incestous sex would make children have a greatly increased risk of disabilities and even death. So apparently it's basically the same as if a woman is drinking alcohol while being pregnant. Also, you would be very surprised if you heard how many people apparently had some incest experience - most of them, however, hadn't impregnated themselves by such activities.

Homosexuality, on the other hand, gives as much harm and pain as heterosexuality - mutual love is definitely more common than rape. So homosexuality can't be labeled in the same way the pedophilia or bestiality are because it's considered to be good by both sides of sexual intercourse or union. Of course there are exceptions, but while raping is an exception for both hetero- and homosexuality, sharing love is an exception for both pedophilia or bestiality.

I can't believe I had to explain that.

Quote:
The general purpose of ALL life, at least according to evolution and the field of biology, is for an organism to pass its genetics to the next generation. This is completely violated when viewing strict homosexuality, they simply cannot reproduce.

There are many species with individuals that are not really meant to reproduce even if they can, no matter if they're homosexual, asexual or are just some workers. So no - it's not the general purpose of all organisms, it's the general purpose of all SPECIES. And don't tell me that these 5% of homosexual people are going to kill the whole humanity just because they don't want to have children.

Quote:
To force the homosexual to reproduce so the tribe can be strengthened in numbers, thus increasing everyone's odds of evolutionary success.

Why are there still homosexuals then? Shouldn't evolution just kill them or lower their numbers to make sure everyone will reproduce? If some gene is not good for a specie, then it evaporates or at least tries to be in as low numbers as possible. Somehow homosexual behaviours are pretty common, however. That means that homosexual behaviours are actually pretty good for us - not for every individual, but for the whole specie - or that it doesn't really matter for us. Now, tell me, if there were so many homosexual activities in the history of mankind, how could we be such a powerful specie if we weren't killing them all the time?

That's what "homophobia" means - to think something is more dangerous than it actually is.
____________
Horn of the
Abyss on AcidCave

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Corribus
Corribus

Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
posted July 06, 2013 09:12 PM
Edited by Corribus at 21:13, 06 Jul 2013.

Quote:
we can afford sexual "abberant", that is, non-reproducive behaviour.

Actually, this isn't even unnatural.  Humans are one of the rare species that have actually evolved to have sex for recreation.  It is no wonder we have a sizeable homosexual population.


____________
I'm sick of following my dreams. I'm just going to ask them where they're goin', and hook up with them later. -Mitch Hedberg

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Elodin
Elodin


Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
posted July 07, 2013 01:17 AM

Quote:
Quote:
we can afford sexual "abberant", that is, non-reproducive behaviour.

Actually, this isn't even unnatural.  Humans are one of the rare species that have actually evolved to have sex for recreation.  It is no wonder we have a sizeable homosexual population.




3.4% of Americans Self-Identify as Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual or Transgender according to Gallup. I'd not call that "a sizable homosexual population.

Under your logic bestiality is natural, rape is natural, pedophilia is natural, kidnapping followed by torture and rape is natural, ect. There are lots of thing that bring pleasure to certain people that are not natural or moral.

Male-female sex is the natural human "design." Simple biological fact.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
violent_flower
violent_flower


Promising
Supreme Hero
Almost there.
posted July 07, 2013 01:24 AM

elodin....the catholics have been covering that stuff up for years and it is a sickness covered up by a religion. It may be more to you than a legal contract depending on if your religous or not. Go to a court house and in ten minutes you have a legal document that proclaims your married. No church...no God...
____________
Learn how to duck and weave because I will throw truth at you all day!

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Salamandre
Salamandre


Admirable
Omnipresent Hero
Wog refugee
posted July 07, 2013 01:43 AM

I think JJ had in mind mutual agreed sex activities so this exclude rape, pedophilia and such.

Anyway, my questions still remains: what would be the argument that    bestiality, pedophilia and necrophilia as sexual orientations (not as accomplished acts where they surely are punishable), are considered disgusting  and clearly devilish deviations by both individuals and social laws, while male-male or female-female sexual orientations are considered "natural" and OK lately?
____________
Era II mods and utilities

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
fred79
fred79


Disgraceful
Undefeatable Hero
posted July 07, 2013 03:03 AM

Quote:
I think JJ had in mind mutual agreed sex activities so this exclude rape, pedophilia and such.

Anyway, my questions still remains: what would be the argument that    bestiality, pedophilia and necrophilia as sexual orientations (not as accomplished acts where they surely are punishable), are considered disgusting  and clearly devilish deviations by both individuals and social laws, while male-male or female-female sexual orientations are considered "natural" and OK lately?


there will always be advancements in public opinion, geared towards different kinds of freedoms. and there will always be some group of people that society doesn't like. there has to be a bad guy, for people to loathe. always. without bad guys, people would grow bored, and probably start too much introspection, which would lead to all sorts of horrible discoveries.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Hobbit
Hobbit


Supreme Hero
posted July 07, 2013 03:07 AM
Edited by Hobbit at 03:24, 07 Jul 2013.

Quote:
Under your logic bestiality is natural, rape is natural, pedophilia is natural, kidnapping followed by torture and rape is natural, ect. There are lots of thing that bring pleasure to certain people that are not natural or moral.

Quote:
Anyway, my questions still remains: what would be the argument that    bestiality, pedophilia and necrophilia as sexual orientations (not as accomplished acts where they surely are punishable), are considered disgusting  and clearly devilish deviations by both individuals and social laws, while male-male or female-female sexual orientations are considered "natural" and OK lately?

I answered these already, guys. Also, I said something about "simple biological facts", but hey - it seems like you, Elodin, just know better...

Quote:
3.4% of Americans Self-Identify as Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual or Transgender according to Gallup. I'd not call that "a sizable homosexual population.

11.7 millions of not-heterosexuals in a country where 235.5 millions believe (more or less) that homosexual behaviour is a sin? That's quite a success for something that is supposed to be "unnatural".
____________
Horn of the
Abyss on AcidCave

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Minion
Minion


Legendary Hero
posted July 07, 2013 03:14 AM
Edited by Minion at 03:14, 07 Jul 2013.

@Salamandre. Either you don't know what sexual orientation is or you want to redefine it. In either case it is worthless to respond to that.
____________
"These friends probably started using condoms after having produced the most optimum amount of offsprings. Kudos to them for showing at least some restraint" - Tsar-ivor

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Elodin
Elodin


Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
posted July 07, 2013 03:34 AM
Edited by Elodin at 03:35, 07 Jul 2013.

Quote:
elodin....the catholics have been covering that stuff up for years and it is a sickness covered up by a religion. It may be more to you than a legal contract depending on if your religous or not. Go to a court house and in ten minutes you have a legal document that proclaims your married. No church...no God...


Pedophilia by anyone should be punished of course. But the Catholic church is often smeared with false information. Again, I'm not Catholic. Here are some quotations from them, telling their side, which you ceratainly don't hear on left-wing anti-religion "news" (propaganda.) Journalists stopped being watchdogs and news reporters a long time ago.

Clicky

Quote:

.....
Pedophilia (the sexual abuse of a
prepubescent child) among priests is extremely rare, affecting only 0.3% of the entire population of clergy. This figure, cited in the book Pedophiles and Priests by non-Catholic scholar, Philip Jenkins, is from the most comprehensive study to date, which found that only one out of 2,252 priests considered over a thirty-year period was afflicted with pedophilia. In the recent Boston scandal, only four of the more than eighty priests labeled by the media as "pedophiles" are actually guilty of molesting young children.

Pedophilia is a particular type of compulsive sexual disorder in which an adult (man or woman) abuses prepubescent children. The vast majority of the clerical sex-abuse scandals now coming to light do not involve pedophilia. Rather, they involve ephebophilia -- homosexual attraction to adolescent boys. While the total number of sexual abusers in the priesthood is much higher than those guilty of pedophilia, it still amounts to less than 2 percent -- comparable to the rate among married men (Jenkins, Pedophiles andPriests).
.....

....The seduction of teenage boys by homosexual men is a
well-documented phenomenon. This form of deviant behavior is the most common type of clerical abuse and is directly connected to homosexual behavior.

As Michael Rose shows in his book, Goodbye! Good Men, there´s an
active homosexual sub-culture within the Church. This is due to several factors. The Church´s confusion in the wake of the sexual revolution of the 1960s, the tumult following the Second Vatican Council, and the greater approval of homosexual behavior in the culture at large created an environment in which active homosexual men were admitted to and tolerated in the priesthood. The Church also came to rely more on the psychiatric profession for screening candidates and for treating those priests identified as having problems. In 1973, the American Psychological Association changed its characterization of homosexuality as an objectively disordered orientation and removed it from the Diagnostic and Statistic
Manual IV (Nicolosi, J., 1991, Reparative Therapy of Male Homosexuality, 1991; Diamond, E., et. al., Homosexuality and Hope, unpublished CMA document). The treatment of deviant sexual behaviors followed suit.

While the Church´s approach to those who struggle with homosexual
attractions has been compassionate, she has been consistent in maintaining the view that homosexuality is objectively disordered and that marriage between a man and woman is the proper context for sexual activity.
.....

While we can all agree that the hierarchy hasn´t done enough, .... When the Church´s Code of Canon Law was revised in 1983, an important passage was added: "The cleric who commits any other offense against the sixth precept of the Decalogue, if the offense was committed
with violence or threats, or publicly or with a minor who is under 16 years [now extended to 18 years], must be punished with just punishments, not excluding expulsion from the clerical state" (CIC 1395:2).

But that certainly isn´t the only thing the Church has done. The bishops, beginning with Pope Paul VI in 1967, issued a warning to the Catholic faithful concerning the negative consequences of the sexual revolution. The pope´s encyclical letter, "On the Celibacy of the Priests," addressed the question of a celibate priesthood in the face of a culture crying out for greater sexual "freedom." The pope affirmed celibacy even as he called on bishops to take responsibility for "fellow priests troubled by difficulties which greatly endanger the divine gift they have." He advised the bishops to seek appropriate help for these priests, or, in grave cases, to seek a
dispensation for priests who could not be helped. In addition, he urged them to be more prudent in judging the fitness of candidates for the priesthood.

In 1975, the Church issued another document called "Declaration on Certain Questions Concerning Sexual Ethics" (written by Joseph Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger) that explicitly addressed, among other issues, the problem of homosexuality among priests. Both the 1967 and 1975 documents addressed kinds of sexual deviancy, including pedophilia and ephebophilia, that are is especially prevalent among homosexuals.

In 1994, the Ad Hoc Committee on Sexual Abuse issued guidelines to the
nation´s then 191 dioceses to help them develop policies to deal with the problem of sexual abuse of minors. Almost all dioceses responded and developed their own policies (USCCB document: Guidelines for dealing with Child Sexual Abuse, 1993-1994). By this time, pedophilia was recognized as a disorder that could not be cured, and a problem that was becoming more prevalent due to the increase of pornography. Before 1994, bishops took their cue from experts in the psychiatric profession who believed pedophilia could be successfully treated. Priests guilty of sexual abuse were sent to one of several treatment facilities across the United States. Bishops often relied upon the judgments of experts in determining whether priests were fit for ministry. This doesn´t mitigate the negligence on the part of some in
the hierarchy, but it does offer some insight.

In response to the recent scandals, some dioceses are setting up special commissions on child abuse, as well as victims´ advocacy groups; and they are officially acknowledging that any legitimate allegation of abuse must be dealt with immediately.
....

The Church´s teaching on sexual morality is rooted in the dignity of the
human person and the goodness of human sexuality. This teaching condemns the
sexual abuse of children in all its forms, just as it condemns other
reprehensible sexual crimes such as rape, incest, child pornography, and
child prostitution. In other words, if this teaching were lived out, there´d
be no pedophilia problem at all.

The notion that this teaching somehow leads to pedophilia is based on a misunderstanding or deliberate misrepresentation of Catholic sexual
morality. The Church recognizes that sexual activity without the love and commitment found uniquely in marriage undermines the dignity of the human person and is ultimately destructive. As far as celibacy is concerned, centuries of experience have proven that men and women can abstain from sexual activity while living fulfilling, healthy, and meaningful lives.


____________
Revelation

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
fred79
fred79


Disgraceful
Undefeatable Hero
posted July 07, 2013 03:34 AM

Quote:
@Salamandre. Either you don't know what sexual orientation is or you want to redefine it. In either case it is worthless to respond to that.


no it wasn't. apparently, you didn't understand what he was saying.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Salamandre
Salamandre


Admirable
Omnipresent Hero
Wog refugee
posted July 07, 2013 03:56 AM
Edited by Salamandre at 04:05, 07 Jul 2013.

@Minion (did you know that minion = sweet in french?):

Is simple: sexual orientation is what arouses you. Let's put it like that: the majority of humans are aroused by contacts with the other gender, I think we agree on that. Now, a minority (less or more, doesn't matter) is aroused by different patterns: some like kids (oh, is bad, what a sickness)!), some like dead people (oh, is monstrous, go and heal) and finally some like the same gender (this is ok and natural, from what we read around). All of them present the same characteristic, they are outsiders from what we call "normality" -in a large sense.

Now, why the last is ok and natural and the others considered a terrible sickness, please tell me (please have in mind that homosexuality WAS considered a sickness until a few decades ago). I am not speaking about the act in itself which may be reprehensible when there is a victim but about the simple chemical arousal effect all these people have in common.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
bixie
bixie


Promising
Legendary Hero
my common sense is tingling!
posted July 07, 2013 08:35 AM

Quote:
@Minion (did you know that minion = sweet in french?):

Is simple: sexual orientation is what arouses you. Let's put it like that: the majority of humans are aroused by contacts with the other gender, I think we agree on that. Now, a minority (less or more, doesn't matter) is aroused by different patterns: some like kids (oh, is bad, what a sickness)!), some like dead people (oh, is monstrous, go and heal) and finally some like the same gender (this is ok and natural, from what we read around). All of them present the same characteristic, they are outsiders from what we call "normality" -in a large sense.

Now, why the last is ok and natural and the others considered a terrible sickness, please tell me (please have in mind that homosexuality WAS considered a sickness until a few decades ago). I am not speaking about the act in itself which may be reprehensible when there is a victim but about the simple chemical arousal effect all these people have in common.


Because the last is done between 2 consenting adults of legal age? Just saying.
____________
Love, Laugh, Learn, Live.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Minion
Minion


Legendary Hero
posted July 07, 2013 12:31 PM

Sexual orientation is an enduring personal quality that inclines people to feel romantic or sexual attraction (or a combination of these) to persons of the opposite sex or gender, the same sex or gender, or to both sexes or more than one gender. These attractions are generally subsumed under heterosexuality, homosexuality, and bisexuality, while asexuality (the lack of romantic or sexual attraction to others) is sometimes identified as the fourth category.

Just a quick read of wikipedia would have told you what sexual orientation is.

Now it is your job to explain why parafilias should be included in that description - the rest of the society at this day and age defines consenting adult human relationships normal and that constitutes ones sexual identity and orientation.
____________
"These friends probably started using condoms after having produced the most optimum amount of offsprings. Kudos to them for showing at least some restraint" - Tsar-ivor

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Salamandre
Salamandre


Admirable
Omnipresent Hero
Wog refugee
posted July 07, 2013 12:45 PM

Homosexuality has nothing to do with the mutual consent or the legal age, it is male-male attraction and statistics show that there are 10 times more adult men victims of rape than underage. It is the marriage who fulfills the conditions you aforementioned. I was inquiring about the labels our society recently put on what we call unusual sexual arousals, some are considered compulsory disorders, other totally natural, while the chemical processes have same roots. It puzzles me.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
artu
artu


Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
posted July 07, 2013 12:50 PM

Well, Sal, last I checked a mentally healty person was generally defined as productive at his work, caring and loving in his personal relationships and not harming others. I guess, homosexuality is found compatible with these conditions while pedophilia isn't.

Defining what's normal is always risky business and it's never as simple as it sounds.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Jump To: « Prev Thread . . . Next Thread » This thread is 13 pages long: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 · «PREV / NEXT»
Post New Poll    Post New Topic    Post New Reply

Page compiled in 0.1199 seconds