You complained that he didn't specifically say he thought it was a sexual orientation. Just wanted to be clear that he did. You still complained. What's absurd?

Actually there really is no established definition that defines exactly what "sexual orientation" is. It's still a work in progress.

You can't "define" what something is by using the very terms you are trying to define.

What do you call a vote? Isn't that pretty much a moral judgement? What kinda "science" is that?

It's funny that you would start complaining about topical. Wanna start a new thread? If you would read my original post, it had nothing to do with the vote. You seem to have dragged it to this point. That's why I went back to the original post before I decided to have a bit of fun here.

Yeah you are. Stretching my first post to all this drivel.

But we still have a respected medical professional and specialist in the field that can come into court and present a cogent reason why he feels pedo is a sexual orientation. Since there is no real reason "why" sexual orientation should be limited to those parameters, that sounds like a "moral judgement" to me.

Yes, I think it is. For example, in the countries where homosexuality is illegal, should gay men still be executed for practicing homosexuality? Just because it is illegal? Since gay men are predisposed to be gay.

Define it then. So far you haven't.

But do you indulgences have to be so friggin long though. Couldn't you just type something quick?

My original post was a lot shorter that this one. It's amazing you would complain about diverting.

That's why I went back to my original post.....Because this is out of hand.

It seems more like you can just talk/type LIKE hell. You left my original post long time ago.

That really hurts my feelings....

Actually there is...Maybe the child molester component is activated by child sexual exploitation. You have to find a therapist that can separate the opportunistic molester like incest vs. someone who has a biologic predisposition to be attracted to children.

But to really scare the parents out there...
Any time you see a man in a child oriented settling, he might be a pedophile. Just as a heterosexual man or homosexual woman would be like a child in a candy store as a towel boy at the playboy mansion, a pedophile would be the same at a pool, carnival, or nursery. If that doesn't terrify you. Especially if 4% of people (men) have those tendencies. Scary.

I'm done for tonight.

__________________
Even if you hold the minority opinion, stick to your guns and go against the flow if that's what you truly believe. (CnRedd)

VIOLATING THE RIGHTS OF ANOTHER PERSON.

All else is irrelevant.

Let's get back to the subject.

And who doles out those rights? Are they the rights of the child or the parents. And if that's violating the rights of the child, what are we teaching with proposals like this?

Maine middle school to offer birth control - Kids and parenting - MSNBC.com

If "rights" are always violated, why does the offender have to be 18? You would think the "rights" would be absolute the way you guys are acting. Not to mention raising the age of consent is going against "science"...
Puberty is arriving ever younger in American females -- 8 is no longer considered abnormal.

You guys are acting like I'm condoning raping children. And that's not what I'm saying. What I AM saying is that not all "child molestation" is the same. It it were, there wouldn't be age limits on it. And there wouldn't be proposals to give birth control to 11 year olds?(Something else I'm against). Obviously there is grey area somewhere where "rights" are being crossed up. You can't in one side of your neck say that any sex with a child is rape, and on the other side say that we NEED to medicate children because they might get pregnant. How the hell are they getting pregnant, the water fountain?
Hypocrite much?

A Florida link on the birth control subject.
Many favor public schools providing birth control - News - GainesvilleSun.com

__________________
Even if you hold the minority opinion, stick to your guns and go against the flow if that's what you truly believe. (CnRedd)

While you were computer sleuthing out MY sites, did you sleuth out the family of Jessica and what they've been up to since her murder?
Lunsford's brother charged with a sex crime - USATODAY.com
The son of a man who became a national crusader for tougher sex-offender laws after his 9-year-old daughter was kidnapped, raped and killed has been accused of sexual conduct with a minor, authorities said.

and her father?
Will Mark Lunsford head to Washington with his computer that had CHILD PORN ON IT

Does that creep you out as well?

Remember there was a study that says that 25% of normal everyday men are excited by pedophilic images...
Is Pedophilia a Mental Disorder?
I bet that REALLY creeps you out!!!!!

__________________
Even if you hold the minority opinion, stick to your guns and go against the flow if that's what you truly believe. (CnRedd)

LOL!

The first link is about his SON...Not him. Sad, but his son's actions don't necessarily reflect it as his actions...If anything, the law he got going, will punish them harshly if they commit such a crime. Unless you're insinuating that he would those people he knows slide? Hmmm, prove it. And I don't mean using someone's blog as an argument.

The second link is to a blog...Someone's personal opinion and assumptions about him...

Sorry FX...That still doesn't address your using information from a site designed to paint a slanted viewpoint to support their arguments for pedophilia.

It didn't take 'sleuthing' on my part about the links you provided earlier...All I had to do was delete backwards to the site home of the link you provided, to find out what that site was about and it's goals...

So darling, rather then cry about spilt milk...And to avoid your links being questioned as to their intent/purpose? Just link directly to the home links of the articles (from John Hopskins) to base your argument from?

Cause any source other then the original source, will slant the story to reflect their argument. Period.


By the way...What CREEPS ME OUT isn't that someone thinks about pedophilia...What CREEPS ME OUT is those that act out on it, and those that try to justify acting out on those impulses.

Thoughts aren't what's creepy...It's actions put to those thoughts that are creepy. And your links are people justifying why they should be allowed to act out on those impulses. And that dear is creepy as heck.

If you had read my post, obviously you didn't, I specifically said "the family". Her brother, the fathers son, is charged with a "sex crime" and her father is supected of having child porn on his computer. I find it absolutely astounding that just linking to information that happens to be on a pedo site, (I don't have a "pedo site" filter on my google)creeps you out, but the man who is responsible for the bill in the OT has child porn doesn't and you still are trying to attack "me". Laughable at best. Why don't you attack the blog owner if you doubt the veracity of his information. Which, by the way included a transcript where he did admit it being there but not that "he" did it. Yeah sure.
I'm not concerned about you questioning the sources...because it just shows you have nothing of substance to say about the information within. Darling. Or considering your culinary exploits...Sugar.

Oh yeah, and while she was missing, her grandfather's history was dredged up as well. Creepy. All I did was link to a pro-pedo oriented web site, you must be absolutely beside yourself with creepiscious feeling right now.

__________________
Even if you hold the minority opinion, stick to your guns and go against the flow if that's what you truly believe. (CnRedd)

ROTFLMAOL!!! Attack you? Please point to where I supposedly attacked you. I simply commented on the link you provided.

Sorry that I happen to find your link sources distateful and bent...But saying so isn't an 'attack' of any sort towards you. If you are going to be that sensitive...I think I should give you a bit of your own advice? Grow a thicker skin or stay out of the debate.

Oh...and about the porn on the father's computer? Hmmm...just my guess here...But considering his son is suspect, then it makes sense that the stuff on the father's computer was put there by the son...

Just my guess...Just like you're trying to guess that it was the father who put it up.

Your sources are suspect. I know you are more capable of providing sources that AREN'T questionable...You're just too lazy to do so because you want the easy way of providing sources that support your stance...

And until you can provide sources that aren't biased either way, then expect those sites you do use to be questioned by myself and others. And if you can't handle that? Then take your own advice that I stated above....Grow a thicker skin or get out of the debate.

Couple of things....
You didn't clarify yourself in that my "links" were creepy. Your post sounded like you were calling "me" creepy for using those links. Which I would consider an "attack" on me.

The son doesn't live with the father...The father lives in Fla and the son in Ohio. Do you even read the links other than to try and come up with some inane BS?

Again, if the sources aren't credible, then the information would be easily proven incorrect. But just complaining about the sources is petty if you can't dispute the information therein.

__________________
Even if you hold the minority opinion, stick to your guns and go against the flow if that's what you truly believe. (CnRedd)

I said no such thing FX...You need to go back and re-read what I actually said that was creepy. I said what I found creepy was the links you used.

Of course, you're free to read more into it then what I actually said, just so you can play 'victim' and continue your whine about your links being questionable...But that's all you're doing...Playing victim when you're not.

And hmmm....Are you saying now that the son hasn't visited his father? If so, please provide the documentation showing that he hasn't visited or used the computer at his father's house...

There's also the possibility that the father was researching predators and trying to ensnare some...Cause I know of a group of people that actually do that...Go onto the child porn sites, get to know the enemy, then entrap them by posing as a kid to get the predetor's intrest...Basically going on a crusade of sorts, doing the battling through internet means.

20/20 did a special about that...Of parents of children who have been molested going on their own little investigative digs on the internet...And have had some interesting results, to say the least.

The fact is, neither you or I know what's up in the situation. It is guess work at best, and opinion only to say either way. Since the article itself is focused about the son's activities, then you can pretty much figure out that what's on the computer has to do with him. But until more is known, saying that the father is guilty of something is opinion and assumption only...

I'm sure you'd like it to be the father guilty as well...

But reason would dictate that for someone to put that much effort into getting that law passed wouldn't be committing that crime themselves. That anything pertaining to said subject of the law was either research or investigative in nature on the father's part...or was criminal actions on the son's part using his father's computer at any given time he was there.

And until there's more UNBIASED information available, from a throughal investigation by authorities? All you're trying to do is gossip about the situation and providing other's opinions, not facts.

What creeps me out is he's using materials gained from pedophilia sites? Actually it was "my actions" that creeped you out. Maybe you ought to check on your sentence structuring skills.

And you are free to feign innocence. I'm not playing victim. I'm just pointing out how the whole premise of your post was based on BS. You would have done better to just check the "thank" button like everybody else.

That's not my job. Nor was there any indication in any news reports that I read that that was a case. You got any? The grandfather was charged with rape, the father has been suspected of child porn, and the son has been charged with fondling a 14 year old. My whole point was, since you are the queen of as you say "deleting back", maybe you ought to "delete back" on this as well.

He didn't say anything of the sort in the transcript. Or did you not read that part of the blog post?

Got a link?

I never said the father was guilty. I said that porn was found on "his" computer. Which in most cases, results in jail time. Just as the blog owner was pointing out.

I wouldn't like anything. I'm just doing the same thing you did to my link. Just checking the background and seeing what comes up.

Really? But don't homosexual people claim that anyone who pushes for legislation against homosexuals is a closet homosexual themselves? Why can't that be the case here? Just saying....

Where is the bias? The blog owner used a transcript a news story and a quote from the FBI. If you are creeped out by me merely using a link, it seems you are going to great lengths here to hide from this much more compelling information than just a link. Hypocrite much?
Another blog..
THE LUNSFORD PARADOX

__________________
Even if you hold the minority opinion, stick to your guns and go against the flow if that's what you truly believe. (CnRedd)