Quote:So what? There are many medical and mental health professionals who have different opinions on the issue, and are just as qualified. Most of the those organizations are more about politics than science; see the recent health care debate for examples of medical and psychological organizations stumping for 'causes' that have nothing to do with medicine and everything to do with money and politics.
Propaganda that has been debunked, historically. You are really hitting all the talking points, here.
I don't go by 'talking points', though it's obvious you do. Debunked by who, exactly? People on one side of the debate that tell you want to hear? There is no historical scientific basis established, and certainly you don't know. Do you even know what the vote was, for or against, by the APA in 1973 and 1974? There was pelnty of objections, to the decision; it passed by a narrow margin, and because of politics, not 'scientific agreement' or evidence.
Except their not. Since those things are analogous, when you can prove that any of those things are a genetic defect, you would have a case. Until then, as I said, before, you've got nothing.
More rhetorical handwaving and opinion; still no addressing what I have actually said. For one, I've never said one way or the other whether I
personally think homosexuality is genetic or not, or environmentally induced, or a combination of both, so your reply is yet again just a strawman, so have fun beating that one to death. My statements relate to the issue of whether, if homosexuality is indeed biological, something that has yet to be proven, then there is more than enough sound evidence that homosexuality can be considered a disorder by reasonable people. It helps to address what issues posters are actually saying, rather than inventing your own arguments and rebutting those, usually with nonsense like labeling any variation from the politically correct 'talking points tree' as 'homophobia' and 'hate speech', as is the case here.
Quote:As I said, her opinions can just as likely come from a lot of interaction with homosexual males as not. As an example of politics, I mentioned the ILGA meeting and Bill Clinton's refusal to endorse NGO status for gay organizations until they purged the pedophile gangs. here is the link to the hearings and the vote:
http://www.qrd.org/qrd/orgs/ILGA/199...nutes-06.30.94
This amounts to overwhelming evidence that the main motivation for expelling not just NAMBLA but the other pedophile rings was merely PR imagery. Pedophiles were okay with rights orgs leadership from 1969 to 1994. The ILGA vote is of particular interest, given the percentage of votes opposed to expulsion of NAMBLA.
The obvious fact that NAMBLA was indeed an open member of of many gay rights orgs, including the ILGA, proven by the fact that the ILGA held a referendum on expelling them, Do other rights organizations routinely hold votes to expel groups that aren't members? Gee, I guess there is a special gay loophole of some sort wherein such mysteries are possible.
From the ILGA Minutes I posted a link to, there are a least 4 or 5 NAMBLA members in attendance, from the list of speakers, and 30 all told opposed expelling them out of 241, over 10% of the membership. How many years were they members? ILGA was founded in 1978, about the same time as NAMBLA, so it's safe to assume they were members from the beginning, about 16 years, so obviously there is no evidence of any widespread opposition to their presence, regardless of a few quotes from individuals here and there. They would never have been allowed in at all if that were the case.
This also leads to a strong argument that even a significant percentage of those voting to expel them were only voting that way for reasons other than principle; after all, the organization only held the vote after losing out on UN acceptance because of the open association with pedophiles. I couldn't find a list of voters by name and sex, but it's safe to assume a much larger percentage of those voting to expel were lesbians than gay males. If we assume 28 or 29 of the opposed votes were males, and the percentage of males in the organization reflects the general population, say 45% or so, that would make 108 males, more or less, then 25% of the gay males present voted in support of NAMBLA.
Interesting. I see nothing in your explanation that includes facts or evidence.
Of course you don't, since it establishes that pedophile rings were indeed acceptable as members of Gay Rights organizations, and a significant number of 'activists' endorsed their membership, and that their expulsion was a result of being denied NGO status and the access to money that goes with that, and as result suddenly decided to vote them out in order to 'pass muster'.
Just your own suppositions based on your own presented bias.
Just your own supposition based on your bias.
Again, how many organizations do you know hold special votes to expel members that don't exist within their organizational framework in the first place????
Considering that the IGLA and any other reputable GLT group denounces any type of pedophilia or sex with children, you comments are nothing but anti-gay propaganda.
Considering that the IGLA only banned them
after they lost the first vote for NGO status, your 'argument', as is their sudden 'denouncements', far less than convincing ones, since in fact these 'denunciations' only came around after it finally sunk in to even the most sociopathic 'activist' that, amazingly, most sane people frown on pedophilia and that allowing pedophile rings in their little camp out actually generated bad publicity; they couldn't imagine why, but the loss of money and 'respectability' provided some motivation for vote changes, obviously, that being the primary goal, not anything remotely to do with actual disapproval, except among Lesbians, of course, as I've already pointed out, and do so again with more evidence.
Quote:The idea that opposing 'gay rights' is 'homophobia' is merely dissembling; sane people have a legitimate concern about homosexual males, whether it's in Turkey or anywhere else.
They can have concerns about homosexuals, but those concerns come from a position of ignorance.
Hardly; disagreeing your beliefs and the holy grail of political correctness is not the definition of ignorance, despite your high opinions of yourself.
Quote:If the Republicans allowed NAMBLA floats in their parades and conventions and NAMBLA was a member of the RNC, what would the media do with that? If 10% of the Republican Party 'saw no problem with their participation', you think that might have an effect on elections? Yes, it would, and rightfully so. The problem isn't 'ignorance' of homosexuality, it's actually the very opposite, and 'Political Correctness' isn't an argument here. Unfortunately for the propagandists, many people are very aware of what homosexual activism wants, and it's obvious that a large demographic of homosexuals are sociopaths and/or mentally deranged.
1)You just built a strawman. And an irrelevant one at that.
Actually I just posted an analogy to highlight the hypocrisy of how political correctness distorts the issues. Whether the analogy are relevant to you or not is of no consequence.
2) You keep making suppositions like "it's obvious that a large demographic of homosexuals are sociopaths and/or mentally deranged", yet you offer no proof.
I've pointed out one blind spot, the lack of comprehension on the part of homosexual male rights activists that pedophilia is not considered an acceptable 'lifestyle choice', and tolerating it is not even remotely viewed as 'embracing diversity' by sane people; that isn't a 'supposition', as I've already shown, and I can offer more. I'll do that in another post, as well as address the gibberish about 'debunking' and other unsubstantiated claims here.
Continued ...
