There is no evidence to suggest that homosexuality and pedophilia are in any way related. The fact that they may both be genetic does not show that they are in any way linked any more than height and eye color are.

The fact that a gay man was a pedophile is no more surprising than the fact that straight men are pedophile. Linking the two has no basis in science.

As mentioned above, animals and minor do not have the ability to give consent.

Whether the Brinkman was a victim of genetics or not does not matter. One is a criminal act the other is not. The fact that you seem to be trying to link the two when no link is proven further weakens your argument.

The pope knowingly helped hide known rapists so legally he is complicit in the crime. Now you are interested in proof? You do not seem to be concerned with proof in regards to any of the BS spewed above so why the concern now?

__________________
Sent from an agnostic abacus

2014 C250 21,XXX my new DD ** 2013 GLK 350 18,000 Wife's new DD**

- With out god, life is everything.
- God is an ever receding pocket of scientific ignorance that's getting smaller and smaller as time moves on..." Neil DeGrasse Tyson
- You can pray for me, I'll think for you.
- When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.

Obviously the point raised here is that gays are born wanting sex with men and it's part of ingrained nature- not part of learning. Gays have no choice and it's natural. We see gay traits in the animal world and I think a gay is gay because he is gay, not because he saw some great advertising which made him gay, or that he had a traumatic childhood experience.

Knowing that- how is wanting to have sex with infants any different? Did a person learn to want to have sex with infants? This behavior is no different with that regard- it's ingrained nature.

We have societal laws regarding sex because those laws have helped create a strong society. Now many of those laws are being changed- if they help or hurt society is up for debate.

Not sure the point is that obvious but what ever. I still do not see the point of the thread. One act involves consenting adults the others do not.

So what is the purpose of linking the two together in a thread? The fact that something genetic or not does not dictate legality or not.

__________________
Sent from an agnostic abacus

2014 C250 21,XXX my new DD ** 2013 GLK 350 18,000 Wife's new DD**

- With out god, life is everything.
- God is an ever receding pocket of scientific ignorance that's getting smaller and smaller as time moves on..." Neil DeGrasse Tyson
- You can pray for me, I'll think for you.
- When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.

How does looking at naked pictures of infants involve consent? I believe the point is that once this "ingrained" and not learned is on solid footing then a whole host of other "ingrained" behavior is now closer to having a legit reason for otherwise inexcusable actions.

Thanks for ably demonstrating the cognative superiority of a chess master among a field of checker chumps! It is refreshing and appreciated.

A very interesting case study would be the of the Mattachine Society and NAMBLA, not inconsequentially Harry Hay's involvment and support in the advocacy strategies and efforts of both organizations!

Did you read the article? Because it is quite clear that the facts of the circumstance link homosexuality with pedophilia not the thread about the circumstance! What is your purpose of attempting to delink these two co-joined facts of this circumstance?

Why are you trying to interject the subjectivity of "legalities" when as far as I can see no one has questioned whether sex with infants should or should not be "legal"?

Why shouldn't people view your own portrayed intolerance of pedophilic inclination as evidence of repressed latent pedophilic inclinations just as homosexuals and their advocates view the portrayed intolerance of homosexual inclination as evidence of repressed latent homosexual inclinations?

I am heterosexual. Therefore, I am born wanting sex with females. That hottie down the street won't give willingly. Can I simply take since it is my natural born impulse?

__________________
01 Ford Excursion Powerstroke
99 E300 Turbodiesel
91 Vette with 383 motor
05 Polaris Sportsman 800 EFI
06 Polaris Sportsman 500 EFI
03 SeaDoo GTX SC Red
03 SeaDoo GTX SC Yellow
04 Tailgator 21 ft Toy Hauler
11 Harley Davidson 883 SuperLow

Can't differentiate between inclination and action"? Anybody can want anything as much as they'd like, but they can not have anything or everything they want.

The article is clear there is no evidence that Brinkin acted to violate the rights of any other except in the most tangental of reasoning that consumers of kiddie porn by the demand that they create are somehow complicit in the abuse of children. Don't think anybody in the discussion has suggested that he did, or should be able to.

Then there is no argument. He can want kiddie porn all he does but he cannot have anything or everything he wants. Kiddie porn happens to be one of them.

__________________
01 Ford Excursion Powerstroke
99 E300 Turbodiesel
91 Vette with 383 motor
05 Polaris Sportsman 800 EFI
06 Polaris Sportsman 500 EFI
03 SeaDoo GTX SC Red
03 SeaDoo GTX SC Yellow
04 Tailgator 21 ft Toy Hauler
11 Harley Davidson 883 SuperLow

Of course you can any time the opportunity presents itself- no one is walking side by side with you to stop you. What happens after or during this attempt of "taking" is another matter and for a another discussion/thread.

So you deny that heterosexual, homosexual, pedophilia, beastiality, etc. are not equally valid human sexual proclivities? Seems like a very subjective, prejudiced and bigoted attitude completely unsupported by science unless you have some data to offer to substansiate your declaration that different inherent and immutable human sexual impulses are not related. Do you know of or have any data to support such an intolerant and hateful attitude?

PS I will point out that in fact it was you who raised the issue of linkage between homosexuality and pedophilia by trying to de-couple the two variations of human sexual inclination! I simply asked if Brinkin was a victim of fate or not, you seem to in the case of homosexuality attribute that inclination to an inherent and immutable factor but refuse to apply equal deference to an equally inherent and immutable inclination to sexual gratification with infants. Maybe you can share with the wider audience how in your mind such inclinations are unequal and differ in origin?