Federal Appeals Court Holds Prop 8 Unconstitutional

Not quite, the classification for an attraction to pubecent children is Ephebophilia. That said, there may be much stronger links between Ephebophilia and attraction towards adults.

 

As opposed to pedophillia, like I said. Not sure of your point

 

And bear in mind that those often-arbitrary classifications are argued about even at present day among academics, and with the waffling field of psychology, infested with political agendas no less, changes from generation to generation.

So the only concrete qualifier for the crossover between pedophilia and homosexuals would be for example, say, their choice of a pedophile, guilty of felony child sodomy and date-rape, to promote "the epitome of gay heros". That and a linguistical heritage that has more terms referring fondly to sex with minors than a dog has fleas.

Those are the concrete telltale data that you can drive a nail through and hang your hat on. Timeless and lasting..

 

Revealing how the gays look to the APA, the professional organization that defines and treats mental disorders, as the authority on what is and is not homosexuality.

 

Well... Yeah. You'd have to know what one is in order to say what clearly isn't.

 

I was refering back to this post of yours

Which might be more accuratly stated as "post prubecent boys are not considered when it comes to defining pedophilia, nor are adults" But the distinction may be meaningless depending on why they're drawing the distinction.

Not an important point I'm trying to make, in other words.

 

Yeah, just the irrelevancy you are drawn to in order to avoid addressing the relevant.

 

You mean like the distinction in the California Penal Code, for example?

So child sex-criminal Harvey Milk is promoted by the overwhelming majority of organized gays as their ambassador to children. I'd say right about there a crucial line has been crossed in the definition of "gay" and "pedophile"...

Until they withdraw the promotion of that man to children via SB 48, they are saying that they are in fact embracing pedophilia as defined in California law.

 

Harvey Milk's partner was 18 by the time they travelled to California. Try again.

 

Besides that, no reasonable person would consider it to be "pedophilia" to have sex with someone 16 upwards. Many states have that as their age of consent.

 

I learn from the best ;-P

Honestly, you should learn to try and be more positive and receptive in your debates, you would promote lesse defensiveness and more open minds to what you have to say instead of taking every opportunity to back-slap and slander.

 

harvey milk didn't commit a sexual crime in california.

 

Pedophilia is sex with a prepubescent child. The fact that california law made it a crime to have anal sex with someone below the age of 18 does not mean that they, or anyone, intends to call that crime "pedophilia", so the link is denied.

Could it be considered wrong? sure. Is it pedophilia? certainly not.

The man started a movement for gay rights, and regardless of whatever other questionable ethics may be seen, that does not change. This would not be the first time in history that a man of questionable ethics would be remembered and memorialized for the good they did, shoving the skeletons under the rug. It's not evidence that everyone in the gay rights movement wants pedophilia legalized. It's evidence that, if anything, we just don't have that many people to look up to in the first place.

 

Well let's look at what Perriquine [one of the gay-advocates here] has to say about it.

Here's her entire quote from this link: http://www.politicalforum.com/polit...ilk-have-been-registered-sex-offender-13.html

And my point by point responses:

 

You hear silence because most of us don't recognize him as a hero to begin with, nor can we speak on behalf of everyone else. I never even heard of him until that movie came out, and even when it did come out, I didn't go see it. He happens to be one of the few notable figures in history who stood up for gay rights, and is likely chosen for that reason alone... not because he's the embodiment of everything we want to represent.

I'm sorry if not everyone agrees with your standards on how bad a person can be in their personal life before they can no longer be remembered for the good they did. Personally would I recognize him? no. But the fact that others do is not an inditement against the entire movement who chooses to shove the bad under the rug (or may not even be aware of it). Gays don't have that many well known public figures to look up to unfortunately.

 

Nicely summed-up. And I have virtually no doubt that Silhouette's primary purpose is to vilify anyone and anything 'homosexual'.

 

16 years old is the age of consent in most states. Harvey Milk was not a pedophile. The boy was a few days off his 17 birthday, and 17 is/was the age if consent in New York. You can't prove they had sex in that period, either. This whole point is ridiculous and once again proves that homosexuals are held to a higher standard than heterosexuals, who regularly go in for "jail-bait" types.

It's simply an effect of the "homosexuals are preying on our boys!!" mentality. Pathetic.

 

And you'll find my response to Silhouette's cross-posted mess above if you follow the link supplied and move forward a couple of pages.

 

Why are we wasting the Peoples' time and money, by merely being less ethical and immoral enough to be repugnant and bear false witness to our own laws?

From my perspective, that section is a specific recognition of natural rights as expressed under our form of common law.