Eurovision 2014 Winner

[SanderXpander]

Joe, sorry, but some of those arguments are really dumb. I don't think you are that dumb so perhaps you assume that I will fall for them. If you are seriously equating the gay lifestyle or social position with paedophiles we really should stop this discussion right now.

Nobody is asking you to find gay people attractive either, same as with fat people or any other kind of people. The issue is whether or not you should discriminate against them based solely on the fact that they are gay. I think that's wrong. You don't have to go on holiday with them, you don't even have to talk to them or ever look at them as far as I'm concerned. What you are required to do is let them walk this earth and pursue happiness, same as with anyone else. I feel the same way about fat people, black people, Jewish people, white people, rich people, poor people, whatever. Any healthy society requires a tolerance towards minorities. That is also why we actually do allow neo nazi's and openly racist people to walk around and let them say mostly what they will, unless they are actually harming others or telling people to. I wish they wouldn't exist because they cause a more subtle harm to society as a whole. But silencing them or punishing them somehow would be a far greater harm.

I agree with you that the age laws regarding sex with young people will always be a little strange. Some people are ready sooner than others. You have to have a baseline. Fortunately we have judges who will review each individual potential abuse case, if it comes that far. I will say that if you are hunting in that age group when you're much older, it doesn't look too good. And I don't really see how it has any bearing on this discussion.

[Ojustaboo]

I wouldn't be "happy" taking my kids to a BDSM parade no, sexuality is a very complex subject. I wouldn't make a huge issue out of it either though, that only reinforces the idea that it's a shocking experience. I don't see why I would need to take my kids there at all though.

But that is sort of my point.

The two people I know are normal everyday people, you could meet them at work, in a club, in a bar, wherever and you would not have a clue as to their sexuality.

However, I turn on the TV, doesn't matter what channel I watch, while a few years ago it was the done think to have the token black person on there (something that would have enraged me if I was black) , now it seems to be the done thing to have the token LGBT.

It doesn't matter what I'm watching, a quiz show at 4:30 pm, something that I think dire like the X factor or Britain's got talent which loads of kids watch, or soaps (I don't watch soaps but have seen enough clips for my liking), they all seem to have a gay person who is in my opinion not at all normal and I would say that about them regardless of their sexuality.
Over the top gay camp chat show hosts are part of the norm on a lot of shows

Which brings us back to what this thread quickly turned into. Conchita deliberately chooses to dress like that again trying to flaunt his different sexuality in everyone's face and that is what I don't like. And I still say he only does this due to the reaction it gets and had he done it the first time and no one paid him any attention, he would soon have got bored.

Christians have free speech, the same as anyone else. You are making it seem as if I oppose that, and if I make it come off that way I'm sorry, because I don't. I do reserve the right to vocally disagree with them, because I believe their doctrine makes them unfairly judge another group of people, and in some cases it leads to hateful behaviour and codified discrimination. Those last two can and should be opposed, not Christians themselves.

Ignoring the fanatics, I have seen far far far more hatred and intolerance towards people with Christian beliefs than the other way round.

I have seen non Christians very unfairly judge them and often mock and ridicule them in the progress.

There has been a lot of hate towards Christians for giving their views, no matter how sincere, how gentle they approach it, as per the example quoted earlier when a Christian women was spat on

I would go as far as saying Christianity is one of the most discriminated group of people in the UK at the moment.

If a Christian was on a TV show and refereed to a homosexual as a poofter, a wooly woofter or whatever, there would be uproar, but if a homosexual (or anyone else) went on tv and ridiculed Christians, blasphemed in the progress etc, people would clap them.

That said, there is a real problem between homosexuality and religion. I'm glad that you are in a Christian society where the people don't seem to care much either way. I hope that this opinion will become universally pervasive. But the actual book has some hefty lines on homosexuality and as long as the church as an institution does not take a clear stand on these in favor of gay people, I can understand people like those lesbian couple you met. At the same time I don't see why they'd have to or want to go to that church at all and judge people who don't seem to personally bear them any ill will, I agree with you there. It is important to point out injustice however, and we take a lot for granted that we shouldn't just because it's easier. Segregation could go on for so long not because huge amounts of people were active racists, but because they'd rather not busy themselves with changing the status quo - it might be uncomfortable to evaluate their beliefs.

There's loads of injustices in the Bible. But you are not going to ever get it changed. It is the foundation of the majority of Christians belief, if people don't agree with it, find another religion.

I don't agree with the Muslim religion one little bit (incidentally they are far fare far stricter and intolerant towards women, homosexuality etc but this never gets pulled to pieces on the TV ever, not talking about extremists such as when the poor schoolgirls recently got kidnapped, I'm talking every day in the UK etc.)

At the same time, you wont find me wasting my breath trying to debate with them on public forum,s, trying to get them to change their beliefs in the media etc. I don't agree with it, hence I pay it zero attention and simply let them get on with things.

Whereas some LGBT happily pick on the Christian church and Christians for the simple reason they know it's an easy target and they will get away with it.

Got to be very careful as this is a family forum, trying to find a few quotes from "Jerry springer the opera" that the BBC happily showed even though over 50,000 people complained before it was aired that they found it totally offensive to their beliefs. Very very hard to find any quotes I can print due to it's content.

Basically Jerry gets sent to do a show featuring Satan and Jesus as guests. Most is simply unprintable, but to give yo an idea on how little they cared about offending Christians, censoring where nesessary

Satan: ....Pain Eternal

Jerry: You seem upset, exactly what do you want?

Satan: Want it to be just like old times, with Baby Jesus by my side, I want my old wings back as well, wanna get out of this dump called Hell..

But first and foremost I want a ******** apology

............

Jerry: So lets see if I can get an apology from my next guest,
The hypocrite son of the fascist tyrant of high, Jesus of Nazereth

And again that is a very tiny snippet and is some of the most tame content of the opera.

The BBC summed up what the complaints had been mainly about saying the following

Overall the night was the subject of over 65,000 communications with the BBC.
Around 96% were complaints, and the vast majority concerned the transmission of Jerry Springer - the Opera from 10pm.
Over 84% preceded transmission and the purpose of those was, in general, to persuade the BBC not to transmit the programme

These complaints about blasphemy/disrespect focused on a number of features of
the second half of the performance, principally:

• the portrayal of “Jesus” as a man in nappies who wanted to “poop in his
pants”
• the reference to “Jesus” being “a little bit gay”
• “Eve” attempting to fondle the genitals of “Jesus”
• the description of “Mary” as “raped by an angel, raped by God”
• the portrayal of “Mary” as accusing “Jesus” of neglect
• obscene language put into the mouths of members of the Holy Family
• the portrayal of “Jesus” as offering violence
• irreverent visual and verbal allusions to the crucifixion
• the portrayal of “God” as needing Jerry Springer’s advice

And the complaints committee by a majority of 4 to one did not uphold the complaints.

Even if you are the biggest unbeliever on the planet, you must be able to see how a Christian would find that offensive, or if the word Jesus in the complaints listed above was changed to Mohamed, what a (probably world wide) outrage there would be from our Muslim friends.

As I said earlier, this has been the only time I have ever complained, and the reason I complained was simply due to the double standards, how Christianity has become an easy target, we can offend them all we want.

More and more Christians feel like they are actively being persecuted in the UK e, not by physical violence, but by other means.

And many Christians feel like they are in a sort of spiritual war, with Satan trying to get them silenced. I know that sounds ridiculous to many, I'm trying to simply show how picked on many are.

What is happening is they feel like they need to speak out more and more as they feel they are being totally undermined in their own beliefs.

And then today, I read on the BBC news website, the following.

Complaints over an advert for bookmaker Paddy Power featuring transgender people have been upheld by the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA).

The TV advert shown in February ahead of Ladies' Day at the Cheltenham Festival invited viewers to spot the "stallions" from the "mares".

The ASA investigated 92 complaints that the advert was offensive and condoned harmful discriminatory behaviour.

It ruled that it must not be shown again in its current form.

The advert stated: "...we're going to make Ladies' Day even more exciting by sending in some beautiful transgendered ladies. Spot the stallions from the mares".

The advert showed a series of brief shots of people at the event while the voice-over tried to guess their gender.

92 people complain about transgenda people being made fun of and something is withdrawn, 55000 people complain that whats being broadcast is totally offensive to their beliefs and no one gives a dam, no apology, just tough luck.


(again not meaning to talk religion, don't want to break the rules, I'm not actually discussing my beliefs in anything, just trying to show the double standards of intolerance)

I don't think you understand the point of the Gay Pride Parade. I understand that you find it hard to take people seriously when they're dressed that way. It's a party and people are supposed to dress up silly or over the top. Maybe it's also a tourist thing that makes it hard to see it in the context. Over here, we tend to actually go into town and enjoy the music, the joy and the costumed people and boats. The mere fact that you say you would have more respect for them if they dressed normal shows that we still have a ways to go.
I sincerely doubt that people would have a greater acceptance if there was a silent march of suited people once a year.

There's dressing up and there's looking like they look on many gay pride marches. Do they have to copy one another, who decided that was their uniform?

I've been to many parties, even one fancy dress party.

There was one person that dressed like that as he was pretending to be a gay person

Dressing like that they are in my opinion telling me they are in no way like the average person (regardless of their sexuality) That helps with acceptance?

I don't see the need for a gay pride march at all. I just see it as blatant exhibitionism that simply makes me think those people look a bit perverted (again not saying this about people born homosexual, I'm saying this about the way they choose to dress on those occasions and I would say exactly the same if a heterosexual chose to dress that way)

How people can think dressing like that is in any way representative of a group of peoples sexuality (regardless what their sexuality is) is simply totally beyond me. and if I was homosexual, I would be campaigning very loudly to make the public aware that they in no way shape or form represent me at all.

Yes it's their choice, but dress like a clown, expect to be laughed at,
Dress like a tart, expect the comments that go with it.
Dress how many do at gay pride events, fair enough but don't be surprised when many many people think of you as anything but normal.

[Ojustaboo]

Joe, sorry, but some of those arguments are really dumb. I don't think you are that dumb so perhaps you assume that I will fall for them. If you are seriously equating the gay lifestyle or social position with paedophiles we really should stop this discussion right now.

I think, rather like my examples in an earlier thread of the way our brains can be wired beyond our control, the use of pedos will inevitably get drawn into the conversation.

BUT I want to STRESS that by doing so, I don't believe people are saying a homosexual is comparable with a pedo.

I'm treading on thin ice here, I'll do my best.

As I said in my earlier post, people cant help how their brains are wired, I was born to find pubescent women attractive, others are born to find pubescent men attractive, still others appear to be born with an attraction to prepubescent children.

Therefore, if we are discussing how we are wired when we are born, this comparison will always come up.

Only today I read on BBC news about someone who has been jailed before for possessing child pornography has been found with a camera in public even though he's banned from carrying one.

To quote the BBC

There was nothing to suggest he had taken pictures of children, the court heard.

Michael Clare, mitigating, said there was nothing to suggest he had ever behaved inappropriately towards a child.

He added: "He is very honest about the fact that he has a sexual attraction to young boys and that brings him into conflict with the laws of this country.

"This is a problem he is keen to address."

To me, logic says that people like him have no control over their desires.
I have no control on my desires for women
A homosexual has no control over their desire for men.

So there is a comparison.

The Christian argument I have often heard (well not all Christians obviously) goes as follows.

--------------------
People have a choice. They can choose whether to have sex outside marriage or they can choose to wait until they are married.

Many people choose to wait, many people are simply into gratification and throw all caution to the wind. The person that waits has just as much of a desire as the person that chooses not to. (will continue in a min)
--------------------

I sort of understand that logic, I've been faithful by choice, if I found myself single for whatever reason now, while I could probably seduce a 16 year old and would be lying if I said none of them are attractive, the fact that I could doesn't mean I should, hence would sensibly go for someone more my age.

--------------------
(Some Christians point of view continued) The problem we've had throughout time is people choose their own pleasure over what is right.

No one should stay in an abusive marriage, on the other hand people should't be so quick to jump ship just because there's a bit more pleasure over the fence. and the problem with society is we have been conditioned to put our own pleasure above all else.

It's all about self control, just because you desire something does not mean you should act on it.

If you are born attracted to the same sex, so what. But that doesn't mean you should have sex with them, sex was created by God for one thing only, procreation.
----------------------------

etc etc etc

And using that argument, that is another point where it's easy to use the comparison, If someone is born attracted to prepubescent children, just because they desire it, doesn't mean they should do it, and where children are concerned, I doubt anyone here will say otherwise.

The debate continues along the lines that there are probably 1000s of people born with an attraction to children but because of their self control, they never ever come close to being slightly tempted to give into it and until the day they die, no one is ever aware.

And of course they then turn round and apply the same logic to homosexuals. They are not in any way trying to say a homosexual is the same as a paedophile.

They also apply exactly the same logic to people wanting sex before marriage etc.

Of course there are many flaws in that argument regardless of your beliefs. The obvious one being that two consenting unmarried people whether straight or LGBT are not harming others and aren't abusing children.

It's also very very easy for someone not in a particular position to criticise someone in that position and say what someone in that position should or should not do. Whether they would still feel that way if they were in that position, well I have my suspicions.

You also have the problem of people having different sex drives. Just because you or I might not have given into temptation whether it's sex before marriage, a one night stand or whatever, doesn't not mean we should judge someone else for giving in, they might have different amounts of chemicals rushing through their body, different uncontrollable urges, or might be in a completely different emotional state.


I once said to a fanatical Christian the following.

Me: "How long have you been with your wife?"

Him: "22 years"

Me:"imagine if you weren't a Christian, for some reason got interested, turned up at a church and got told that the relationship you have been in for the last 22 years with your wife that you love dearly. is completely wrong, your committing a sin, and if you want to be part of this church, you must end it now, because that is exactly what you are doing to any gay couple that turn up"

And of course he couldn't understand what I was saying. I've said the same to many other Christians who have agreed with me entirely and said it's for God to convict them of any needed change and not for them to judge. That doesn't stop them sharing what they believe to be true though, which is where things obviously get complicated.

Hope I'm sort of getting my point across, in a sensible and inoffensive way.

Christians are just as fallible as anyone else of course. Two of my best friends divorced about 5 years ago as one had an affair with someone else at their church.

I grew up in a house with zero love between my father and my mother, They stayed together because it was the Christian thing to do, and I and both of my sisters (who both left home the day they legally could) say with 100% certainty that we would have been much happier if they had divorced and remarried or stayed single, than an atmosphere of hate in the name of doing what God wants.

Still, after my mother had an affair with the married AOG Pastor, things soon came to a head and they soon separated (and again I could write volumes on why I hate the church both during my child hood and the present day ones)

One other quick point about what we were talking about earlier as its just spring into my head. I don't know if this makes my feelings any clearer.

When my kids were young, I trusted few people to leave them with, but I couldn't give a dam if the people I knew well were straighjt or gay. That would have zero bearings on whether I trusted them or not.

But had I seen friends at a Gay Pride parade (or a straight Parade if there was such a thing) dressed how they choose to dress in those parades, I would think there's something perverted about them (again it's not about whether they are straight or not) . ANd there is no way I would ever leave my kids in the same room with them as I would think there's something very weird about them.

It is of course their choice to dress how they want, but to me, it doesn't help with acceptance, it helps with making them out to be weirdos.

And of course there's the argument that it's only weird because of how we are conditioned, but we could also just as easily say, people going around naked, getting a bit bored and having a quick love session in front of everyone else while waiting for the bus or at a bar, is only wrong because of how we are conditioned too, kids often see animals having sex, why should we make humans having sex such a secret thing.

And then you get back to where do you draw the line.

If I had never ever seen the stereotypical leather shorted leather capped gay man, to me they would me much more integrated and accepted as normal people than they are by their chosen antics. Still that's just my personal opinion.

[SanderXpander]

I'm not going to do a point by point on that novel you wrote, because in essence for me it boils down to "let people do whatever they want, unless they're actually harming others or interfering unreasonably with someone else's right to do what they want". That means free speech for all, including Christians and gay people. No censorship (who forced you to watch Jerry Springer?), and no codified discrimination against any kind of consensual adult relationship. I don't think Christian churches should be forced to perform gay marriage either. A religious institution should have some freedom to set rules internally or it's a pointless thing. But the separation of church and state (although you don't technically have that) should ensure a more equal situation in society as a whole. I don't know how this came to be about gay marriage to be honest, that's a previously passed station in my mind.

And to briefly touch on the other issue that keeps coming up: pedophiles are likely born predisposed to that kind of thing. That's sad for them but it doesn't make it okay to molest children. I know you don't think so either, I just don't think it's relevant to the discussion at all. It's not a slippery slope because a pedophile "relationship" is fundamentally different from a homosexual relationship. I see no use further discussing that, it only leads to more shouting and it has no bearing on the original topic.

[StephenKay]

And to briefly touch on the other issue that keeps coming up: pedophiles are likely born predisposed to that kind of thing. That's sad for them but it doesn't make it okay to molest children. I know you don't think so either, I just don't think it's relevant to the discussion at all. It's not a slippery slope because a pedophile "relationship" is fundamentally different from a homosexual relationship. I see no use further discussing that, it only leads to more shouting and it has no bearing on the original topic.

You would think. Except, there are groups lobbying for pedophilia to be considered "normal" or "healthy". Look up NAMBLA some time. Next it will be farm animals.

BTW, this whole discussion ignores the fact that: Conchita's song wasn't great. It was overly melodramatic, tinged with faux drama and political overtones, and in my opinion, sounded dated (and I still can't hum it). Oh - and the circus act. Get back to the music, people.

[karmathanever]

If I had never ever seen the stereotypical leather shorted leather capped gay man, to me they would me much more integrated and accepted as normal people than they are by their chosen antics.

...and "...normal people..." are what exactly?

[SanderXpander]

And to briefly touch on the other issue that keeps coming up: pedophiles are likely born predisposed to that kind of thing. That's sad for them but it doesn't make it okay to molest children. I know you don't think so either, I just don't think it's relevant to the discussion at all. It's not a slippery slope because a pedophile "relationship" is fundamentally different from a homosexual relationship. I see no use further discussing that, it only leads to more shouting and it has no bearing on the original topic.

You would think. Except, there are groups lobbying for pedophilia to be considered "normal" or "healthy". Look up NAMBLA some time. Next it will be farm animals.

Ok, so I'm saying a broad acceptance of homosexuality does not lead to acceptance pedophilia, because a pedophile relationship is built on inequality and a list for control. Your argument is "au contraire, not only that, next in the line are farm animals". I'm just going to hope that's not actually what you mean.

[Ojustaboo]

who forced you to watch Jerry Springer

While totally true, it is also true that no one forces people to watch all the other TV shows that many people get up on arms for as they find content offensive.

Sure there's the odd occasion where you could watch something and not realise something offensive was in there, but in the UK anyway, people will complain (and often get action taken) against tv programs, certain celebs/comedians etc when everyone knows what their shows will be like.

If people simply used the off switch every time they found something offensive and didn't watch shows they knew were libel to offend, the complaints would be virtually zero.

Or to put it another way if a tv show seriously offensive to homosexuals came to the medias attention, I can assure you there would be a lot of complaints about it even though as you say, they don't have to watch it. And it wouldn't surprise me if it was pulled from UK TV with 1% of the complaints Jerry Springer had.

However, while no one is of course forced to watch Jerry Springer the Opera, I do think that's a completely different scenario to the odd offensive comment that may be said in a show. The only reason the show existed was that it was a completely offensive thing to the Christian faith, if it was a more normal thing where Satan and Jesus were being interviewed etc, while there are always some complaints, I doubt it would have got the upset that caused. They knew by mocking Jesus and making him out to be what that film made him, it would cause outrage and offence everywhere and that why they did it.

If I went out on the street and deliberately did something I knew would cause a great deal of offence to others, I could and probably would be arrested.

As I said, for me its not that it was shown, its the double standards I have a problem with.


Sadly more often than not, in moist cases where people complain, it's a small group of people that take it upon them selves to complain on another groups behalf when the group being ridiculed (or the group the complainers are sticking up for) doesn't give a dam anyway.

In the UK we have hot cross buns at Easter, a bun with a cross on it to represent the crucifixion .

Time and time again various councils, hospitals etc ban them for fear of upsetting other faiths and time and time again you get Muslims saying things like this one when they were banned just before the Iraq war

The Muslim Council of Britain called the decision "very, very bizarre". A spokesman said: "This is absolutely amazing. At the moment, British Muslims are very concerned about the upcoming war with Iraq and are hardly going to be taken aback by a hot cross bun.

"Unfortunately actions like this can only create a backlash and it is not very thoughtful. I wish they would leave us alone. We are quite capable of articulating our own concerns and if we find something offensive, we will say so. We do not need to rely on other people to do it for us.

"British Muslims have been quite happily eating and digesting hot cross buns for many years and I don't think they are suddenly going to be offended."

As for my novel, yes I do have a problem expressing myself in a short paragraph as my threads when I had problems with the Kronos show.

That said, I deliberately made these threads long winded as if I had kept them short without detailed explanations etc, people would have taken offence and that is what I was trying to avoid.

[Ojustaboo]

BTW, this whole discussion ignores the fact that: Conchita's song wasn't great. It was overly melodramatic, tinged with faux drama and political overtones, and in my opinion, sounded dated (and I still can't hum it). Oh - and the circus act. Get back to the music, people.

My entire point of entering this thread initially is because I think the song was awful and I am convinced 100% he won purely on the media hype surrounding how he chooses to dress.

[Ojustaboo]

If I had never ever seen the stereotypical leather shorted leather capped gay man, to me they would me much more integrated and accepted as normal people than they are by their chosen antics.

...and "...normal people..." are what exactly?

Dictionary definition of Normal

ADJECTIVE

1 Conforming to a standard; usual, typical, or expected:

To be honest I don't really like it when people home in on one single wiord when it's fairly obvious in the overall context, what I was meaning to say.

I've already had it pointed out that I wrote a small novel and the reason I did that is because I felt I had to explain every single little tiny bit to avoid this sotr of comment. I obviously failed

What do you think a normal person is?

A normal person to me is one that is normal as per the dictionary definition.

It doesn't mean I necessarily like what is the norm, I hate the way politics is conducted in the UK (and from what I see, the US looks to be no better), but it's the normal way of doing things.

I hate suits, I don't think they are at all smart, I think they are very very restrictive and uncomfortable etc but they are normal work ware almost globally for office jobs etc.

But part of my comment about the Gay pride dress is that as far as I and many others are concerned, that does seem to be the normal dress for homosexuals when they want to party and express themselves. And I think that sends the wrong message to many other people.

I'm not running LGBT down when I say this, I',m trying to do the exact opposite, simply pointing out how it comes across to the average person (well almost all people I've spoken to from various walks of life).

I couldn't give a dam what people dress like, how they dress, what their views are etc, people are free to do what they want.

But I will judge people (probably often wrongly) as will every other person on this planet, regardless of how unjudgemental they pretend to be, based on our own feelings of what is normal and what isn't.

And certain things ring alarm bells. If I know a friend is into certain things, a friend they will still be, but my opinion might change, or my trust in certain situations might change. And of course it could be completely unfounded on my part, but that#'s the way normal people function.

I just did a quick google, and came across a web site called "Gay and Lesbian Manners. On the page there's an article about coming out.

The very first question asked is, quote:

I’m looking forward to my city’s pride celebration later this month but wondering if you have some suggestions on a dress code for those in attendance.

Here’s why I ask: On a day when our community gets so much attention from the news media, I think it’s a shame that so many of us don’t present a more wholesome face to the country. Why do so many gay men and lesbians need to show up in full drag or leather?

Which is exactly the point I've been trying to make.

[SanderXpander]

People should learn to be offended less easily, in my opinion. No matter how someone else dresses, it has very little real effect on your life or on anyone else's except themselves. Going by your arguments, we could have had very nearly the same discussion about the Jewish keppel. I think it's wrong to be ruled by the prevailing opinion of what is offensive. History has proven this time and time again.

I am all for being considerate and pragmatic, so I do agree that people are stigmatizing themselves by dressing up a certain way. But I also believe that this is a fight worth fighting, as this whole discussion (including Conchita) proves. As much as I dislike the song.

[Joe Gerardi]

Ok, so I'm saying a broad acceptance of homosexuality does not lead to acceptance pedophilia, because a pedophile relationship is built on inequality and a list for control. Your argument is "au contraire, not only that, next in the line are farm animals". I'm just going to hope that's not actually what you mean.

See, now here's where YOU'RE completely wrong and discriminating...

Pedophilia has NOTHING to do with control: it has to do with the attraction to prepubescent children. (Ephebophilia is the attraction to post-pubescent, but still minor, children.) It is their attraction, nothing more. In other words, it's their "natural preference."

What you're writing about - control - is child molestation, child abuse, and child rape. That is not the same thing at all, and is usually not even perpetrated by pedophiles.

It's also NOT built on inequality- that again is child molestation. Does it happen among pedophiles? I have no idea. I'd imagine so, but I don't have enough interest in them to do any kind of research.

But what YOU are quoting here is the same mores we might have about homosexuals, and the same feelings that you are condemning US for. WE don't approve of homosexual relationships, but is we are FORCED to be "tolerant," when why aren't pedophiles and ephebophiles accorded the same entitlements? It's their "natural" attraction, and therefore, because it's "natural," isn't it "normal,' and thus should be embraced by the rest of society?

Okay, that was just to shoot a bunch of holes in your argument. See, I don't really care what ANYONE does, (as long as they stay the hell off my lawn!) and I DON'T approve of pedophilia or ephebophilia. I don't approve of them same as I DON'T approve of homosexuality. Want the fundamental proof that it isn't the norm? Okay: the only REAL reason for sex is procreation. That's it. Can homosexuals procreate? No. Then there's no reason for them to have sex except for pleasure. So what they want is to be legal simply for something for their own pleasure. Where is that written anywhere?

It's easy to take the touchy-feely attitude that
"everyone is special," but the long-range effects are, if everyone is entitled to their feelings, then EVERYONE is entitled to their feelings, regardless of what those predilections are. If you don't discriminate against some, you can't discriminate against ANYONE.

..Joe

[SanderXpander]

A pedophile who never molests a child or hurts them in any way is fine in my book. I feel sad for them because they must have a very difficult life.

I really don't think there are many of these though. At the very least, they will try to find graphic material that is created with harm to the child.

I don't see that you shot any holes in my argument at all and I'm moderately disturbed that you think so.

[Pepperpotty]

BTW, this whole discussion ignores the fact that: Conchita's song wasn't great. It was overly melodramatic, tinged with faux drama and political overtones, and in my opinion, sounded dated (and I still can't hum it). Oh - and the circus act. Get back to the music, people.

That was exactly my point. It makes no difference to me if the person is gay, straight, a transvestite or a giant singing panda. What matters is the music. And you are right, the song was pretty lame and in my opinion it only won because of all the media hype surrounding it.

Now Dana International. That was a worthy winner.

[karmathanever]

Dictionary "Normal" - Conforming to a standard; usual, typical, or expected

I wasn't honing in on one word, just merely asking what you meant by a "normal person"?

OK so I have read your dictionary quotation and now I ask the same question using the dictionary's definitions so, "what is the standard?", "what is usual?" and "what is expected?" (expected by whom? expected by "normal" people?)
If you mean "majority of" rather than "normal" then it is discrimination.
Pointless argument really eh? One can completely get tied up and go round and around ad infinitum.

To the point of this topic, Stephen Kay and Pepperpotty sum it up nicely.

AND Conchita,so far, got 90 "replies" and 1800 "views" in the Korg Forums "Latest News" - not bad eh?