daswig

I'd disagree with this. They're not a christian organization, they allow people of whatever religion to belong, as long as they believe in a God. We had both muslim and jewish kids in our troop way back when, and the "God" in question wasn't relevant in any way.

Coppertop

Maybe you cannot, but Michael Jackson sure did.

alansmithee

BA-ZING!

Totally off-topic, but I love a good zing.

shakran

You say this, and your next sentence is your opinion of what homosexuality is, with NO evidence to back it up, NO scientific data in your corner and absolutely NO basis in logic.



Least of all the ones who are turned on by leather. I have yet to speak to someone who's turned on by leather or any other fetish who said "Yeah, I have no choice, I was born this way, I came out of the womb needing leather in my sex life."

On the other hand, I also have yet to speak to a homosexual who has said "I'm gay because I decided one day it would be really neat."



You're just full of winners today aren't you. You seem to have a burning need to press your morality on everyone else. What the hell do you care if the leather is "controlled?" How do you control leather anyway? By the same token, who the hell are you to say that homosexuals should change, even assuming they could? Even if it IS their choice, what business is it of yours? Have you forgotten that this country is supposed to be about freedom of choice? Or do you interpret that concept as "freedom of choice as long as I like all your choices."




Wrong again. That's where YOU would like the burden of proof to lie. But the homosexuals aren't running around trying to convert the heterosexuals. It's the ignorant heterosexual bigots who are busy trying to convert the homosexuals. That places the burden on the bigots to prove that 1) homosexuality is a choice, 2) it's a bad choice and 3) it's a choice that homosexuals should not be allowed to make.



And I have yet to see you offer any evidence, other than "gee I think it should be this way, and therefore it is," that homosexuality is a choice.


If you want evidence, look at all the gay animals running around. They've found chimps, orangutans, even penguins, who have homosexual partnerships. Hell San Fran's Central Park Zoo is having a hell of a time right now because all their male penguins are gay, and won't mate with the females, which means the zoo's penguin population is not self sustaining.




But really, you shouldn't need evidence. Even if it is their choice, it has no effect on your life. They aren't going to turn you gay. They aren't going to take over the world. They aren't going to rape your children. They aren't going to harm you in any way, yet you still persist on persecuting them.

The argument that homosexuality is a conscious choice is asinine. In the first place, there's no evidence that there is. In the second place, there are plenty of homosexuals who say "that's just the way I am, I didn't choose to be gay." Are you calling all homosexuals liars?

Thirdly, it would be a pretty stupid choice wouldn't it? Why would someone make the conscious choice to be ostracized, persecuted, and harassed by people like you, who can't tolerate anyone that's too different from themselves? Sure, maybe there would be a few nuts out there that would, but why would so many of them make the choice? It simply doesn't make sense.

This is the kind of ignorance that prevents our society from growing.

sob

So if I'm interpreting you correctly, the ACLU should come to my aid if I, as a grown man, am denied the opportunity to be a Girl Scout master?

And the parents are bigots if they don't want me going on overnight camping trips with their daughters?

Willravel

Sounds absurd, right? Well guess what..it's not the same. If we were trying to equate this situation with a hypothetical situation with the girlscouts, it'd be better to say there should be lesbian girlscout leaders. BUT, if a man wanted to be a girlscout leader, I wouldn't have a problem with it. The only problem I would have is if that man happened to be a pedaphile. I am officially coming out against pedaphiles being scoutleaders, and I won't budge on that.

alansmithee

Again, the burden of proof isn't on me. YOu want proof? Look at any of the people who live a perfectly heterosexual life, then sometime down the road suddenly decide "yup, I'm gay". Take the former New Jersey Governor for one.

Where did I say that they should change? That's YOU putting your ideas on me. There's no basis for what you said. And I hoped you checked for polyps while you were pulling "this country is about freedom of choice" out off your ass. That's the first i've heard of that.

I've already said I don't care if people want to be gay. It has very little bearing on my life. What I do oppose is calling people bigots who might disapprove of someone else's actions. It's ridiculous to think that people shouldn't be judged by their actions. And every time the term bigot is used in that way, it lessens it's value for the TRUE bigots.


I guess if animals do it, it's ok? So the next time some mother kills her kid, we can give her a pass too.

And I haven't heard of animals having homosexual partnerships at all. Usualy animals only form partnerships while rearing kids, which it's biologically impossible for homosexual couples to produce.

Where's all the persecution? It seems the only persecution is people like you persecuting others for holding beliefs that don't fit into how you thing things should be.

Have you conducted some poll? You seem to speak with quite a certainty about how all gays feel. Maybe you should publish your results and put the debate to rest. Unless the "plenty" is just a couple you know. Cause that isn't quite a representative sample. And as for calling all homosexuals liars because of how you say some feel, I don't know if that is more humorous or sad. I'm leaning toward humorous, becasue it gave me quite a laugh.

I've already said why people might want to gain instant access to minority status that they can turn off at will. Look in the "Paul Martin on Gay Rights" thread.

It's shameful that you feel it's ignorant for other people to be judged by their actions. It's that kind of misguided thinking that diverts people's attention away from society's true ills.

Willravel

There is enough "burden of proof" for both sides. If neither side has proof, then neither side can be correct. We have to rely on morality, if science isn't going to back us up. If there are two moralities going head to head, there can't be a winner as there is no "correct morality" that we can measure our moralities to.

Lebell

__________________
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." – C. S. Lewis

The ONLY sponsors we have are YOU!

Please Donate!

Superbelt

He didn't just become gay. He was always gay. He tried to conform to a homophobic worlds view and marry a woman. It didn't work for him. He couldn't continue to hold back who he was and his choice destroyed a marriage.
He was ALWAYS Gay. There are plenty of examples of men who married women because they thought the had to to stop being gay, to try to fit in, because their family/church pressured them into it.

Homosexuality is not having gay sex. Homosexuality is an orientation from birth.

Could you feel attracted to a man? Can you imagine doing anything sexual with a man? No? Well the negative feelings you have in relation to men and the positive ones you have for women is the EXACT opposite feelings that homosexuals have.
If you can't imagine being gay, THEY can't imagine being straight

Maybe you should pay attention then. And look it up instead of "not heard of it"
In the Paul Martin thread I posted a link to a book from an author that studied homosexual relationships in animals, maybe you should check it out.
That is, if you aren't afraid to learn.

Lebell

__________________
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." – C. S. Lewis

The ONLY sponsors we have are YOU!

Please Donate!

NCB

When has the natural order of humanity (the man, woman, and child family) become a bigoted, homophobic lifestyle?

__________________

Superbelt

No, Leb.
You were crystal clear. I didn't make a personal post. I responded to what he already said.

I see nothing wrong with my post. My comment of not being afraid to learn was a comment made to someone who made admitted to having no information to back up his position... A position that is clearly untrue. I made a challenge for him to educate himself.

Superbelt

When you are a gay man who marries a woman to try to fit into a world that is unaccepting to your kind.

NCB

A gay man in the Tri-State area is hardly unaccepted.

__________________

Gilda

I would imagine they would, as men are allowed to be Girl Scout masters, just as women are allowed to be Boy Scout masters. In fact, the majority of BSA leaders at the younger levels are women.

I fail to see why this is even an issue. Boys and girls both need adult role models of both sexes, and what the leaders do in the privacy of their own homes has no impact whatsoever on their ability to teach young people responsibility, leadership, honor, etc.

Gilda

You've switched topics in the middle of your sentence here. Yes, there are homosexual animals. The point being made here is that homosexuality exists in nature, and is therefore, by definition, natural.

Your second point is irrelevant. Homosexual couples all across the US are rearing children, in many case the biological offspring of one of the partners.

This would depend upon what actions are being disapproved of, and whether those same actions meet with the same disapproval when engaged in by heterosexuals. If the actions are objectionable regardless of who does them, then it is the actions that should be condemmed, and not the sexuality of the people. If the actions are objectionable only when performed by homosexuals, but not by heterosexuals, then those objecting on that basis are engaging in bigotry.

What specific actions do you disapprove of that are engaged in by homosexuals, but not heterosexuals? I honestly can't think of anything I do that heterosexuals don't also do.

Willravel

Until there is biological proof from one side (homosexuals are born gay) or the other (no they aren't!), I don't see a simple resolution to this. Yes, there are gay couples in nature. I was at the San Francisco Zoo recently with my daughter, and my wife and I were talking about the penguins. Maybe there's something in the water in San Fran....oh well. I wondered if it was possible that homosexuality is some kind of social defence mechanism to prevent both genders from behaving too much like one another...therefore it could be natural and it could have nothing to do with morality. I dunno, it's just another theory to add to the bucket. And that's kinda the point. Until we have science backing one side or the other, we simply can't know with total certianty. I know many of my friends who are gay were always attracted to the same sex, from the time they became sexually aware at a young age. At the same time heterosexuals started to notice the opposite sex, many homosexuals started noticing the same sex. So why do a lot of them pretend to be heterosexual? Well, that's obvious. Being gay still isn't easy. When the BSA fires someone for being gay, it sends a message to other gay people that they are still going to be segegated and treated as a lower class of humans. And that’s the point. If you are going to treat a group with disrespect just because that group might be a social group...you are a bigot. The burden of proof should not fall on those who are already being treated unfairly despite the lack of proof. Even if being homosexual isn’t genetic, does that really make it okay to treat them this way?

Let’s go into one last hypothetical scenereo. Let’s say that someone is born with a totally normal genome, with no mental or physical problems of any kind. This person is set to live a happy life until a very bad uncle comes along and molests them. This very little child does not understand and is deeply hurt by this, and it stay with them or a very long time. Years later, this person developes a morbid fear of sex. They cannot have sex with anyone and they avoid it. Should you make sure that this person doesn’t teach your kid how to build a fire or widdle some wood? If this person poses NO DANGER to your child or the community and lives a totally normal life, but happens to have a private sexual disorrder, should you treat them with contempt and hatred and bigotry? There is no excuse for treating someone differently for something they can’t control. There is no excuse for treating someone differently for something they can’t control. There is no excuse for treating someone differently for something they can’t control.

lindseylatch

In my Brain and Behavior class there was a study that examined the brains of gay men, women, and straight men. This was a couple years ago, so I don't remember the names of the parts of the brain, but one area that has been linked to sexual activiy showed interesting results. In women's brains, this area is about 1/5 the size it is in men's; the gay men's brains showed that this area was even smaller than in an average woman. So, there is something physical in being gay. I'm not saying this proves it's genetic, but it does show that it's biological, so it can't just be changed on a whim.
If anyone wants the specific, PM me, and I'll find the study.

__________________
"Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities"
"If God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him."
"It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong."
-Voltaire

alansmithee

In a link I posted, McGrevey talked about years of "sexual confusion". That doesn't sound like "I was always gay". It sounds like someone trying different things, and CHOOSING one lifestyle. And this wasn't his first marriage, but his second. Apparently he liked the hetero life enough to give it another go.

All your opinion. Not fact.


I was going to reply to this thinly veiled (and clumsy IMO) personal attack in kind, but I'll refrain. I checked on the link you provided. In the review on the site, it talks about the authors finding that there are biological AND environmental causes for homosexual behavior. And it's by no means definitive. Here's one view refuting the claims of the book:
The Animal Homosexuality Myth.

I fail to see where I supposedly switched topics. And as for homosexuality in animals, see the above link.

Again, where is the irrelevancy? I didn't say that homosexual couples couldn't raise children, i said produce. There's a large difference.

That statement makes no sense. If the action defines the group, or is exclusive to the group, then condemning the action doesn't make someone bigoted. People object to same-gender relationships. That's what defines homosexuality. If I condemn drug use, am I "bigoted" against drug users? I'm not condemning non-drug users, so apparently I must be. Does it matter that drug users are the only people using drugs? Not by the above line of thinking. Calling people who object to a certain lifestyle bigots is an odious tactic that makes the term less effective in identifying true bigots.

And honestly, what is up with the liberal thinking on the subject. Most seem to say that sex is natural, nothing special, just a physical thing. It's the conservatives/Republicans who have all these supposed hang-ups. But mention homosexual sex, and suddenly homosexual sex is the most glorious thing ever, something that rises above all other sex. It should be put on display for all to see, regardless of if people want to see it or not.

guy44

alansmithee, you just quoted an organization whose part of the "positive alternatives to homosexuality" network and is dedicated to "help people with unwanted same-sex attractions to realize their personal goals for change."

They are a psuedo-science bullshit factory, like intelligent design theorists, but with the added benefit of bigotry.

__________________
"You have reached Ritual Sacrifice. For goats press one, or say 'goats.'"

squirrelyburt

I think the minority extremists in the AClU has forced some dangerous opinions on the majority, whether we like it or not. This has not come soley from the AClU, but the twisted reasoning they have been allowed to get past a twisted Supeme Court.

__________________
If you've ever felt there was a reason to be afraid of the dark, you were right.

Superbelt

Damn that group for standing up for the Constitution of the United States!

NCB

Yeah, and my 2nd Amendment rights too!!

__________________

Superbelt

Yeah, there crap on that one. But there's a whole other organization devoted just to #2. So no worries here.

alansmithee

And Superbelt referenced a book that had the goal of showing how homosexuality was supposedly natural. I could just as easily say that that book was a pseudo-science bullshit publication, but instead I posted an alternate view. That's the type of things you deal with when science gets mixed with agenda. And your use of the term bigotry is quite offensive.

Gilda

This sounds remarkably like the research that shows that mtf transsexuals have physically female brains. Essentially, the bed-nucleus of the stria terminalis in men is much larger, about twice the number of neurons, than it is in women, and MTF transsexuals have brains consistent with those of normal women. But this research didn't find any physical differences between homosexual males and heterosexual males. I'd be very interested in seeing that research if you can find it.

guy44

There's real research, which may show findings such as homosexuality is biological, and then there's fake research, which happens when an organization is created with the intent of proving that homosexuality is a wrong moral choice and then goes about creating "studies" to prove things. Real research starts with questions, not answers.

And please, the ACLU takes no stance for or against the Second Amendment. They are neutral. Stop acting like they should take one side or another, that isn't what they are about.

__________________
"You have reached Ritual Sacrifice. For goats press one, or say 'goats.'"

alansmithee

Or there's fake research, which starts when a homosexual starts with the goal of showing how his choice is natural, and a refutation where an organization that disagrees with him points out where and how his biased interpretation can lead to a faulty conclusion.

Willravel

Can I ask you a question, alansmithee? Let's say you're right about homosexuality not being biological, wich I suppose is possible. Let's say you're 100% right, and it's social. You're right, and we're wrong. It's possible. Now if you're right, and homosexuals are socially inclined to be homosexual and not biologically inclined to be homosexual, does that make it okay to fire them from jobs and treat them with disrespect? Is it okay to treat someone with less respect because they are different, even if the difference isn't biological, but social? I'm trying to get to the root of the article's implications, not argue points that no one will cave on. Does your moral code allow for you to fire someone for simply being gay, despite the fact that when you didn't know thery were gay, they were excelent workers that did not hurt or effect anyone with their sexual prefrence? Is sexual prefrence so damning in your mind?

Gilda

You begin by talking about rearing offspring, then switch to producing them. Two different topics. When I responded to the reference to rearing kids, you switched back to producing them.

Homosexuals both produce offspring and rear them.

NARTH, huh? Going to start quoting Misogyny next? NARTH begins with the assumption that homosexuality is a choice, a psychological disorder, and can and should be cured. The first has yet to be established, the second untrue, and the third derived from the faulty second premise, and therefore also untrue. I don't take anything they have to say seriously.

You make a reference to rearing kids in the same sentence as being the purpose of animals forming couples. And you're wrong on the second part. Homosexual couples do produce offspring. Lesbian couples routinely have children through the artificial insemination of one of the partners.

And correct me if I'm wrong, but I seem to be seeing an objection to homosexuality based on reproduction. If a sexual relationship not based on reproduction is objectionable, then the CFBC people and people who are sterile shouldn't have sexual relationships either.

What specific actions are exclusive to homosexuals? What behaviors are exhibited by homosexuals that are not also exhibited by heterosexuals? I'm curious because I cannot think of any.

There is one specific action--vaginal intercourse--that heterosexuals engage in that homosexuals do not, but I don't know of any available exclusively to homosexuals.

No. Homosexuality is defined by being attracted exclusively or primarily to people of the same sex. It's a status, not a behavior.

This is exactly what I've been talking about. This is condeming a specific action--taking drugs.

What are the actions to which you object when engaged in by homosexuals? You haven't identified any. If these are actions that are also performed by heterosexuals, do you object to them then? If not, that is an example of discrimination based on status and not action, and that is bigotry. Please note, I am not calling any specific person a bigot here, just giving what I think is a fair general use definition of bigotry.

What lifestyle? Identify the specific actions, behaviors, and lifestyle characteristics that define the homosexual lifestyle, and show how heterosexuals don't engage in those same behaviors, and you'll have something here. Just throwing out a label without defining it makes it difficult to understand exactly what behaviors or lifestyle characteristics it is to which you object. If you can identify some specific behaviors about the homosexual lifestyle to which you object, I may well join you in condeming them.

Who, exactly, has been saying this? It sounds suspicously like a straw man to me.

alansmithee

It depends on if their lifestyle inteferes with the work environment or adversely effects the business as to whether someone should be fired. Ideally, you wouldn't know if someone was gay or not. But if it intruded into their work and a great deal of other employees or customers complained, then yes they should be fired.

People get treated differently due to their behavior all the time, sexual or otherwise. If you find some behavior immoral or wrong, you have no obligation to accept it. However, you shouldn't go actively seeking those you disapprove of for the express reason of harassing them, either.

alansmithee

I didn't reference rearing offspring, someone else did. And homosexual COUPLES don't produce offspring, which is what I said.



And I don't have to take what your biased sources say seriously either. Currently, homosexuality is not treated as a psychological disorder, but not to long ago it was. It was outside pressure that changed this, not scientific research. You could easily draw parallels between homosexuality and many sexual disorders/fetishes. But this isn't done because of a strong gay lobby, not because it's untrue. If exibitionists or NAMBLA had the same type of lobbying efforts that gays do, flashers and pedophiles might not be considered to have sexual disorders either.


Then the lesbian couple isn't producing offspring, it's the person impregnated and the sperm donor. Although I did hear on NPR a month or so again that in the future it may be possible for two women to mix there genetics and produce viable offspring, but currently that's not possible now.

My inclusion of reproduction has more to do with the marriage issue than anything else. Personally, I don't care what goes on in people's homes.



Male/Male and Female/Female sexual contact and non-platonic relationships are the exclusive domain of homosexuals.

But it's the relationships that come from that attraction that are the outward signs of homosexuality, which is a behavior. Without some form of behavior, you can't determine if someone is homosexual (or hetero, for that matter)


But if you condemn drug use, you are condemning the people who have attraction toward using drugs, which by your definition makes it bigoted, since the attraction is a "status". And to take it more extreme, condemning serial killers is condeming people with the status of enjoying killing. Again, your definition of bigot to include "status" makes it a nonsense term. If that's the case, everyone is a bigot.

[quote]What lifestyle? Identify the specific actions, behaviors, and lifestyle characteristics that define the homosexual lifestyle, and show how heterosexuals don't engage in those same behaviors, and you'll have something here. Just throwing out a label without defining it makes it difficult to understand exactly what behaviors or lifestyle characteristics it is to which you object. If you can identify some specific behaviors about the homosexual lifestyle to which you object, I may well join you in condeming them. [QUOTE]

I have pointed out behavior that is exclusive to homosexuality, because engaging in it makes you homosexual. And many people find that behavior immoral. Just like many people find alchohol consumption immoral. I don't personally care if people live homosexual lifestyles, but I do care when they want to elevate the behaviors associated with that above other behavior types.

Manx

How is gay marriage elevating homosexual behavior ABOVE other, comparable, behavior types such as that of the heterosexual?

That would be equality, not superiority.


And let's note, your analogies to drug users, flashers, pedophiles and serial killers are purely illogical. Homosexuals do not harm other people due to being homosexual, the others to which you attempt a comparison expressly do that (though in the case of drug users, not really - which is a good portion of why you see such a strong movement for the legalization of drugs, but that's another topic). So it might be "bigotted" to be anti-serial killer, but there is an actual logic to that "bigotry". Whereas, the anti-gay marriage bigotry (which you encourage and partake in) has no similar logic. I might as well compare anything and everything that I dislike to a serial killer and claim a form of moral justification - it doesn't make any sense, but you'd like to think it does.

And I'm not sure how you've been able to deal with this glaring contradiction in your stated philosophy:
vs.
On the one hand, you're in opposition to redefining marriage and on the other, you're eagerly waiting to sign a petition of redefinition.

Gilda

Sure you did: "Usualy animals only form partnerships while rearing kids, which it's biologically impossible for homosexual couples to produce."

The APA and the DSM IV are the mainstream standard for what constitutes a psychological disorder. It was a recognition that homosexuality does not constitute a disorder that resulted in it's being removed fromt the DSM. A disorder must cause harm to the individual, and homosexuality doesn't.

Nice. Flashers and child molestors actively seek to intrude upon and harm others. The same cannot be said of homosexuals as a group.

Would you say the same of a heterosexual couple with an sterile male? Being a parent is about a lot more than biology.

So the purpose of marriage is reproduction? What about CFBC couples, infertile couples, couples past child producing age? Should they not be allowed to marry?

You've defined homosexual behavior here, but I fail to see any specific behavior that homosexuals engage in that is not also engaged in by heterosexuals.

I could just as easily say, "Black / White sexual contact and non-platonic relationships are the exclusive domain of miscegenationists." It would be equally true, and equally irrelevant.

Sure you can. Ask a person, "Are you sexually attracted to men, women or both equally," and their answer will allow you to determine their sexual orientation without observing their behavior.

But it isn't the status that's being condemed, it's the action: taking drugs or killing people. Notice that you can condem the behavior without knowing the sex of the person engagine in it. With homosexuality it isn't the behavior that's being condemed, it's the sex of the person engaging in the behavior.

Examples.

Walking down the street holding hands with a woman.
Kissing a woman on the lips.
Slow dancing with a woman.
Performing oral sex on a woman.
Marrying a woman.

Are these things acceptable or not? If it is truly the behavior that is at issue, then these things are acceptable or not regardless of the sex of the person doing them.

If however, these are acceptable for men, but not for women, then it is the sex of the person being condemned, not the action itself.

Assume that the woman in the examples is white. Would it be fair to say it's acceptable for a white person to do those things, but not a black person? Of course not. We've rejected the idea that miscegenation is immoral, because it punishes people not for what they are doing, but for who they are.

No, you have yet to identify a single behavior that is exclusive to homosexuals. You've also failed to define the "homosexual lifestyle". My lifestyle consists of teaching middle school, collecting and reading comic books, eating at Denny's, playing Diablo II obsessively, and regularly having sex with a beautiful young woman. There is nothing, literally, nothing I do that heterosexuals don't also do, unless you attempt to define a behavior by the status of the person engaging in that behavior.

Tarl Cabot

Well, the parts of it they like, at least. For fun, we once called up the local head of the ACLU, and asked him why they don't do more in regard to the tenth amendment.

His answer was, and I quote, "That's a strange amendment."

lindseylatch

I don't even know what the tenth amendment is...

and to Gilda

__________________
"Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities"
"If God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him."
"It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong."
-Voltaire

matthew330

"No, they are banned because bigoted idiots THINK their sexual preference injects itself into every nonsexual aspect of their lives."

what did you think i mean when i said that? I'm not afraid of being called a bigot, i know i'm not. Please explain what you think i meant by that, and why you think i'm a bigot.

You know how some people just wouldn't know what to do with themselves if they didn't have anything to worry about? There is a large population of people that wouldn't know what to do with themselves if bigotry didn't exist.

How are my liberal friends on this board doing?

VARIETY

I'm not going to ask you to quote a source on that one, but you speak of something I've never personally observed: a woman Boy Scout master. And if you're referring to den mothers of cub scouts as "BSA leaders at the younger levels," that's a totally different animal.

That's fine, but what scoutmasters do or advocate on overnight camping trips and visits to the "old swimming hole" are a different matter entirely.

To use an old quote, "it wouldn't be wise to lock a starving man in a factory with 10,000 chocolate bon-bons."

Manx

You do understand that there is a very non-subtle difference between a gay man and a pedophile, yes?