Author Topic: Peter Townsend....wow.... (Read 1488 times)

Wilfrid · « **Reply #15 on:** January 14, 2003, 07:55:56 AM »

So Ripsnort, why bring his sexual orientation into this thread?

Or is it: He's gay, therefore he's a child molester? Or the other way round?

Ripsnort · « **Reply #16 on:** January 14, 2003, 08:10:55 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Wilfrid
So Ripsnort, why bring his sexual orientation into this thread?

Or is it: He's gay, therefore he's a child molester? Or the other way round?

You implied it, not I. I was just wondering if it was the same guy...was a few years back.

GRUNHERZ · « **Reply #17 on:** January 14, 2003, 08:18:14 AM »

Gays and Child molestors... Both have been acceptable forms of sexual conduct depending upon time and culture - lets see how this statement pisses off everyone.

Curval · « **Reply #18 on:** January 14, 2003, 08:27:51 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
Gays and Child molestors... Both have been acceptable forms of sexual conduct depending upon time and culture - lets see how this statement pisses off everyone.

Not going to piss me off...because it is true.

Ancient Greeks had entire regiments of gay soldiers. The logic was that they would fight harder to protect their lovers in a battle.

Also..the ancient Greeks theorised that the purest form of love was between a man and a young boy.

GRUNHERZ · « **Reply #19 on:** January 14, 2003, 08:29:07 AM »

Of course its true, thats why some are bound to pissed off. Imagine the implications of it...

Dowding · « **Reply #20 on:** January 14, 2003, 08:31:58 AM »

Grunherz, what Curval wrote was not what you are now saying. He was not saying that gays are pre-disposed to be paedophiles. Most paedophiles can be described as heterosexual.

You are now spouting bollocks. Carry on.

Wilfrid · « **Reply #21 on:** January 14, 2003, 08:34:07 AM »

No Ripsnort, you implied it by mentioning it twice in this thread.
And now you're doing equivalent of whistling innocently and walking away. "ME? *I* didn't say such a thing...."

GRUNHERZ · « **Reply #22 on:** January 14, 2003, 08:36:56 AM »

Where did I even imply that... No BS explain how am "now saying"?

Or do you assume that because I'm an evil conservative or something?

Dowding · « **Reply #23 on:** January 14, 2003, 08:49:25 AM »

Quote

Imagine the implications of it...

What was this supposed to mean then?

SunKing · « **Reply #24 on:** January 14, 2003, 08:53:59 AM »

"Can you see the real me, preacher"

yes we do now Pete.

sad...

GRUNHERZ · « **Reply #25 on:** January 14, 2003, 09:14:44 AM »

Moral implications about whats considered right and wrong. I doubt any of you who jump so quickly to defend homosexuality would ever defend peadophiles although it's clear that was just another accepted lifestyle choice depending on culture.

Keep in I am not making any value judgement on either practice.

Eagler · « **Reply #26 on:** January 14, 2003, 09:21:26 AM »

Pete is the one on the right ..

shame, it'll color their music created years ago from now on ...

Charon · « **Reply #27 on:** January 14, 2003, 09:22:37 AM »

I think the difference Grunherz is that children are not consenting adults, particularly young children. I see nothing wrong with what consenting adults do behind closed bedroom doors. If two men or two women want to swap bodily fluids I'm fine with that. Doesn't bother me, doesn't impact the future of the world, much less important than the jerk who cuts me off in traffic of tosses a chewing gum wrapper out the window. Perhaps I'm just more comfortable with my hetrosexuality than some

With a child you have a tremendous difference in power, coercion and rape is really the accurate description for a pedophile.

Charon

Dowding · « **Reply #28 on:** January 14, 2003, 09:28:52 AM »

A child cannot give consent - it is therefore statutory rape (below the age of 16 over here anyway).

Curval · « **Reply #29 on:** January 14, 2003, 09:29:25 AM »

Eagler..he's the one in the middle.