Gay Illegal Immigrant to be Deported

Posted 13/03/2007 at 10:47am Leslie Benisz

Leslie Benisz

In my opinion the Immigration Board consists of a lot of idiots who don't know they butts from their elbows when it comes to human dignity.
Don't get me wrong, I love Canada and I am a law abiding Canadian citizen, but the Immigration Board cannot just deny someone their right to live here because they don't believe someone is gay.
How would they be able to know for sure?
Are they planning to put asylum seekers to the test by hiring some escorts of both sexes to see which one turns them on?

This young man was subject to years of horrific abuse and the government of Nicaragua hasn't the backbone to protect their nation's children with legislation prohibiting such abuse.
How could he define his sexual orientation when for most of his young life he was either on the run or trying to 'mentally' escape while he was having the crap beaten out of him by the parents whom should have loved him and taken better care of him?
Just for the abuse that he suffered I really hope some intelligent and compassionate person with Immigration Canada will grant him asylum as a protected person (meaning that he can't be removed) to stay in Canada.

At the same time, with no disrespect intended for this man's family I really hope that the father who abused his son for years gets his just reward sooner or later.
The father of this man deserves to be locked in prison and beaten senseless every single day with a picture of his son pinned to the wall every time he receives his daily beating from the prison guards.
Maybe when he screams for mercy as his teeth are kicked out and he bleeds from every hole in his head this abusive father might realize that justice waits patiently for those who deserve it.
If I had enough money and some influence in the right places I would be willing to sponsor this young gay man because he is a human being and no human being deserves to be subject to what he endured nor should he be sent back to the same hell hole that he escaped from as a child.

Posted 14/03/2007 at 5:53am Allan Smith

For the record, Leslie, there is no "right" for any person, born to non-canadian parents and born outside Canada to live in Canada. The Imigration Board may GRANT the privilege of living in Canada on certain grounds but it still is not a "right". People born to canadian parents have that right and then, people born in canada have that right but otherwise, no such right exists.

As for "when it comes to human dignity." People who are adulterers, homosexuals, child abusers ( etc ) have already surrendered their dignity. The Immigration Board didn't remove it from this gentleman.

The Immigration Board has the challenge of either enforcing the fact that a "foreigner" has no right to come to the country permanently OR to examine the person's non-citizen's claim for special consideration and, if there are adequate grounds to make an exception, to then over rule the law regarding access to permanent residence in the Canada and to grant to the person the privilege of the exception to the rule.

If the person applying for the privilege of living / working in Canada does not show adequate grounds for their request, then that person can expect that the Immigration Board will not grant them that privilege. There are laws in place which already deny the applicant the privilege of living in Canada and the Immigration Board didn't make them all up.

You ask "How would they be able to know for sure?" I'm having one of those "I can't believe she asked that" moments, mostly because I'm confident that you know the answer already.

I would recommend that the applicant use www.Google.com and search for the following expression :

"coming out of homosexuality"

The solution in this case for the applicant is to discover the truth about homosexuality and then to turn his back on it. He needs to read what other people who've come out of homosexuality have to say about it and how they feel for the first times in their lives liberated from the bondage and the baggage of homosexuality. The applicant needs to learn more ot the sadness, if not suicidal tendencies and practices, which are not uncommon to homosexuals and find out how to over come that sadness and those tendencies.

In doing so, he'll resolve his "need for assylum" in Canada and will improve his chances of living happier in his home country.

I am surprised, and then again NOT surprised that Leslie condones violence. Where as she would encourage people to get to know prostitutes and their motivation for prostituting themselves and tho she would justify women who lie, cheat and steal in order to get money from their johns and tho she would encourage us to understand why they do it and to therefore, overlook their selfish actions, she made NO mention of getting to know the applicant's father to understand him or to find out what drove him to alcohol and the underlying factors in that father's life which lead to his (claimed) violence against the applicant. Perhaps if Lesie wasn't so hasty to condemn the father and so quick to overlook where the applicant is wrong, she would be able to propose a right solution to the issue ( or at least a better one ).

What should the Immigration Board decide IF the applicant is lying 1) about being homosexual and 2) about the horrible life he's lead before he came to Canada ? Does that applicant STILL have "the right" to get into Canada ? Do they have the RIGHT to tax-payer funded freebies ?

Heather Wallace said if she was Prime Minister, she'd remove the tax on Tampons. I wonder how much taxes have to be collected from the working stiffs so that ILLEGAL immigrants can have the welcome mat laid out for them, to pay for housing and food and health benefits, etc. ( note: I clearly stated ILLEGAL immigrants ). I wonder if Heather would, as Prime Minister, take any action to reduce the burden on tax payers by toughening the laws on illegal immigrants and by reducing the benefits available to them.

Posted 14/03/2007 at 9:58am Tracey Grebnew

Al, you poor soul. Your intense anger over everything is almost unbelievable. Had I not spent many years studying and working with the mentally ill I would likely not believe an individual could express such extreme and obsessive thoughts on such a broad range of topics. You too can use Google to do some research into Narcissistic and Schizotypal Personality Disorders, symptoms and treatment. No need to respond to this post, but knowing the behavioural affect that both of these disorders have on an individual, I will predict you will not be able to resist the "urge to purge" the obsessive thoughts that reading this will evoke.

Posted 14/03/2007 at 12:59pm Orato Staff

Allan clearly ruffles a lot of feathers. I don't want him to be discouraged because so many people, myself included, (strongly) disagree with him. Anything that triggers a discussion is a good thing for Orato, so let's keep talking!

Gay rights all the way, by the way. Homosexuality is natural, or it wouldn't exist. Aristotle said "Nature does nothing uselessly." I disagreed with a lot of what Aristotle said too, but in this case, I think he was onto something.

heather wallace
senior editor

Posted 14/03/2007 at 3:13pm Allan Smith

Human nature is full of "natural" things. It comes naturally for a child to be selfish ( and it takes the careful love of parents to teach the child to controll their selfishness and to learn to be thoughtful & respectful of others ).

An infant doesn't need to be taught to scream and holler to have its own way.

Children instinctively know how to lie. They know how to reach out and take things that are not theirs. They know how to grab things from other children and how to hit other children. The know how to cry if they don't get a toy that they want, when they want it.

It is therefore arguable that it's _natural_ to lie, to steal, to throw a temper tantrum when they don't get their way, just as it's natural to be selfish and all which that encompasses.

The biggest part of a parent's responsibility is to teach a child NOT to lie, not to steal, not to grab, not to throw a temper tantrum at the check out @ WallyWorld, not to sneak cookies when Mommy and Daddy isn't looking, etc.

It's also _natural_ for a person to experience sexual desires. Those sexual desires which are not disciplined and controlled result in some of the things discussed in the Objectification of women, men and johns which is discussed in other articles.

Some of those sexual desires result in pre-marital sex. Others result in adultery after marriage. Some of them result in pedophilia while others result in other forms of perversion like beastiality.

Resent it if you will but homosexual desires and sex between same-gender people is also a perversion.

For the record, lest anyone feel I'm pointing fingers, I have committed adultery and have been involved in homosexual acts so here-in I acknowledge that I have perverted The Creator's intent for our bodies and especially what The Creator intended for us to do with our sexual desires.

Now, if your position is that homosexuality is natural, then the arguement might also be made that the lustful sexual desires are not either taught nor are they brain washed. A homosexual's desires aren't something that someone imposes on that person. He's not taught it by his society nor by members there-of. All the homosexual knows is that those desires are there.

So it is for the adulterer. They aren't taught nor are them imposed. They are just as _natural_ as are homosexual desires.

The same can be said for any sexual desire, including those experienced by youth as they kick into adolecense. They're not taught those desires. They're argueably VERY _natural_.

The scary part is that a pedophile has strong sexual desires that he didn't learn nor were imposed on him. They're as _natural_ for him as hetrosexual desires are for most in society today.

The only difference between the _natural_ homosexual desires or hetrosexual desires or pedophile's desires is the OBJECT of their desire ... and then what the person does with their desires.

If you can successfully argue that somehow homosexuality is "as natural as" hetrosexuality, then you're not far off considering sex with children under 18 is _natural_, as do people in Holland. What we consider pedophilia here in Canada/USA is LEGAL in Holland.

You're on the slippery slope to saying that the sexual desires people experience for children are _natural_, as are sexual desires for animals and sexual desires towards cadavers in the mortuary.

Tho I would agree that there is something about human nature which tends towards selfishness, including selfish sexual desires, I draw the line between between what is appropriate and what is not.

For those out there who deny the existance of The Creator, I can see how it would be easy for you to head down that slippery slope of re-defining what's OK sexually / morally and what's not. If you have no Higher Authority to which you care to answer, then you are to yourselves your final authority. As such, if you wish to declare that homosexuality or other forms of fornication are OK, then I expect you'll do so, for you have no restraining motivator to prevent you from doing so.

As we see in Holland, they're redefined pedophilia. Are you comfortable with them doing so ? Are you comfortable with them saying it's OK for kids in their early teens being considered old enough to have consentual sex and the "older guy" who's preying on them NOT prosecuted for rape ?

When people deny The Creator, they become their own gods. They assume that they have the right to define right and wrong for themselves ... and what we end up with is that laws which once stated that homosexuality and adultery were illegal are now either overlooked or abolished. We see in the case of Holland that men who prey upon young teen age girls are not pedophiles. We see amongst some people the full extension of "consentual sex" to include anything a person or persons wish to do "in the privacy of their own home", which includes beastiality, etc.

Where there is no knowledge or acknowledgement of The Creator, people ultimately do that which is right in their own eyes. They redefine right and wrong and, sadly, it gets defined DOWN. Standards are lowered.

Pay close attention to the MBLA ( Man/Boy Love Association ) and their lobbying efforts. Keep an eye on Holland and Denmark and Sweden and their sexual liberties and watch the trend.

Consider carefully that the only thing which seperates those who consider homosexuality to be _natural_ and those who think beastility to be _natural_ is TIME.

Given just enough time, people can rationalize / justify ( and have rationalized / justified ) adultery, just as they have rationalized / justified premarital sex. Extend that just a little farther and you can see how lawmakers in some European countries have done the same with pedophilia.

With no moral compass, be assured that there is no sexual perversion which society will not come to justify / rationalize / tolerate.

Posted 14/03/2007 at 5:49pm Allan Smith

I would like to hear from all who take exception with me for my position that homosexuality is immoral.

Some of you will be frothing at the mouth, I'm sure, for me being so bold as to be imposing my moraity on you.

Be prepared for my responsive questions to you about morality.

For example, is it wrong for your lover to have a lover behind your back ? Is it wrong for your lover to have a relative as their other lover ? Is it wrong for your lover to be intimate with one ( or both ) of your parents ? Is pedophilia wrong ?

Definitions of right and wrong are traditionally founded on morality.

Now, if you say the answer to any of the questions above is even a muffled and cowardly "yes", I would be tempted to respond with a query "Who are you to impose your morality on someone else.", since we instinctively know that right and wrong, when it comes to conduct, motivation and thoughts, are ultimately moral issues.

When you acknowledte by your query "who are you to impose your morality on others ?", you undermine your own fragile position, for you acknowledge instinctively tho perhaps subconsciously that homosexuality, like adultery and other forms of fornication are indeed moral issues.

Morality is founded on a presupposition of the existance of Diety.

Deny diety and you ultimately deny morality. Deny morality and you ultimately destroy your position that pedophilia ( and other forms of perversion ) is wrong.

It is illogical to conclude that homosexuality is natural / right without ultimately coming to the conclusion that any and all other sex acts are also natura / right ( if only you conclude that homosexuality is right for some and wrong for others, so also you open the flood gates for some to conclude that sex with kids is right for some and wrong for others ).

You can't have it both ways. You can't denounce the moral high ground which identifies homosexuality ( and adultery and premarital sex ) as immoral and then, out of the other side of your mouth, denounce pedophilia for in doing the latter, you are in fact imposing your morality on others and you risk being seen as a two-faced hypocrite.

You're stuck between a rock and a hard place here and it'll be interesting to see, over time, how you fare in your predicament.

There is neither peace nor security in your perception of morals, nor in how you selectively apply them variably to different situations. Your life is like driving at night, down a dark country road, trees on either side of you and no markings on the pavement. you have torn down the boundaries of morality which have been placed there by The Creator for your own good and you are now a ship without a compass, in a see of other vessels who are equally self-determined and directed, their captains without a compass as well.

Now, I challenge you. Go public. State for the record your position on Adultery ( ie: your spouse's intimate interaction with someone other than you ) and tell the world why you believe their adulterous acts are either right or wrong.

Similarly, go public on your position regarding pedophilia, for I suspect that with one voice, you will all say it's unquestionably wrong and should be punished as an abhorant perversion. Please humor me enough to state on what moral grounds you stand and what gives you the right to state that pedophilia is wrong. What gives you the right to impose your morals on a pedophile by telling him that his pedophilia is wrong ? ( or perhaps you would like to go public, stating that it's not wrong. Maybe I'm under estimating the number of readers who're well on their way down that slippery slope. )

Read up on the Man/Boy Love Association & what they belive and practice. Use this forum to document your position on whether or not their conduct should be legalized and recognized as natural. Use this forum to declare to all other readers that you've done your homework and be clear by what criteria you declare their actions right or wrong.

Take a stand. Show some back bone. Show that you have a good solid foundation on which to stand.

I'm betting you can't do it, either in this comments section nor by writing your own article for Orato !!

Posted 15/03/2007 at 9:13am Orato Staff

Religion and spirituality should be a good thing. But (some) people have always used it as a justification for bigotry, prejudice and hate. It's a way they can seal themselves inside a tight little box where everyone else is wrong. It's based on fear. The question is what are you afraid of?

Life is so much better outside of the box. If you insist on staying in the Dark Ages, you will simply be sitting in the dark.

I've heard people say "It's the Christian thing to do." To me, the only thing to do is accept others as they are, and to not presume you are any better than anyone else. You do not want others to judge you, yet you are very quick to dish out the same.

How many atrocities and rapes have been carried out by heterosexuals? Sin is universal. Love should be also.

Only one person seems to be frothing at the mouth...

Heather

Posted 15/03/2007 at 12:33pm Allan Smith

Now if only Heather had taken the time ( opportunity ? ) to answer the questions about her position on adultery, incest, beastiality and pedophilia. Maybe then we could have found out what she REALLY believes.

I suggest to you that Heater is trapped by some of her own beliefs. She says "To me, the only thing to do is accept others as they are, and to not presume you are any better than anyone else."

Am I to understand from what she writes that she feels that we should accept pedophiles as they are ? Am I to understand that she believes that if her lover / partner she has or may have in the future should be accepted as they are, even if they develop the habit of "stepping out for a little on the side" ? Am I to understand from Heather that any lover / partner she has or may ever have should be accepted as they are, even if they're a pedophile and even if they exercise their pedophilic hunger while in a relationship with Heather ?

Heather can not take a stand on any of these issues in this forum because in doing so, she would expose her achilles heal. If she were to go public with a statement that any of the perversions I mentioned in my previous article were in fact perversions, she would be recognized as taking a moral stand. She would be exposing herself to those who might wish to assail her with "the question"; ie: "who are you to impose your morals on me ?"

On the other side of the coin, Heather can not say that pedophilia is ok or right or natural, for she'd be exposing herself to all who take the moral high ground, not the least of which are parents of assulted children

Heather, I am no better than any other; in fact, I'm worse than many who've NOT committed adultery. I have surrendered my dignity and defiled my own reputation by acting selfishly in response to my _natural_ desires. Family and friends who know of my homosexual choices and actions have understandably lost respect for me and have been given, by me, good reason to question my integrity.

I make no pretense of being better than you, Heather, nor do I look down my nose at you ( nor any other respondant here who disagrees with my position ), as tho by some stroke of evolutionary luck, I am any better than you ( or them ). I grew up, being taught what was right and what was wrong and then, knowing that certain things were wrong, I chose to do them anyway, which tosses me into the despised category of christians in that I was a hypocrite. As a result of my selfish choices and actions, it's reasonable if someone doesn't trust me or lacks respect for me.

I'm one of those christians who recognizes that any favor which comes my way from The Creator is undeserved. As a christian, I am ashamed of my selfish choices and knows more shameful things about myself than I know of Heather or any other and am in no position to consider myself any better than any other.

That being cleared up, let's get back to the questions I've posed, for the questions and their answers lend themselves to a better understanding of the issues at hand in the applicant's claim for refugee status in Canada.

I've noticed that respondents stop addressing the issues and revert to personal attacks. I can handle the personal attacks as I'm used to them. What I find baffling is that respondants seem unable or unwilling to deal objectively with the issues.

I grow increasingly convinced that some respondants choose not to answer my questions because they know that the answers to the questions play into my hand and support my position.

What is most conspicuous about Heather's response is that it's so typical of the responses to my comments. They have no meat to them, they don't take a responsibile shot at objective discussion nor debate. Instead of addressing the topic at hand, as related to the original article, she resorts to derogatory comments about the author.

I'm hoping that Heather will approach this discussion with a little more honesty and objectivity and sincerity. Dare to answer the questions posed, Heather. Show you've got it in you !!

Posted 15/03/2007 at 2:46pm Tracey Grebnew

Heather, your comment is a little shocking to me. You say "Lets keep talking"....who exactly are you referring to? In my opinion your comment discourages actual 'discussion' by the Orato community and instead encourages hateful rants by an obvioiusly disturbed invididual. Reading the extremely predictable exchanges between yourself and Allan becomes boring very quickly. The reader begins to feel like an unwelcome guest at a private party. I may be completely off base here as I'm very new to this site and new to posting my opinions/ideas online. I only stumbled upon Orato because of your coverage of the Picton trial. As someone who was close to a number of the women I felt a thirst for information as I wasn't able to attend the trial. I found that 'some' of the coverage on this site quenched that thirst (although I still believe that the backgrounds of certain writers should have been researched for authenticity). After awhile I found myself reading other stories on the site and more recently I began reading the forum. Not long ago I read and responded to a post that I felt was unnecessarily "ruffling feathers" (Johns...The Hidden Angle: 03/08/07). Unbeknownst to me at the time, it was the work of a 'serial blogger' (for lack of a better term)who had found his forum...Orato....and his enabler....Heather Wallace. When I realized that this was basically a longstanding mutual amusement I was almost embarassed that I had bothered to comment at all. Now, with your most recent comment about not 'discouraging' Allan, I'm just downright floored. Communication is not a new concept to me, I've been doing it professionally for 15 years. Your comment, along with your ongoing rebuttle of Allan's hateful diatribe, completely shut me down...I left the party....
I'd be interested to hear the opinion of the other reader who had their hand slapped. I hope for the sake of Orato that I am the only one that feels this way, or that I am at least in the minority. I will continue checking the site occassionally to see if there actually is any 'discussion'.

Posted 15/03/2007 at 4:24pm Leslie Benisz

Leslie Benisz

Allan, you have mentioned how homosexuals like adulters and child abusers have surrendered their dignity.
Gays and Lesbians have never surrendered their dignity nor do they have anything in common with adulters pedophiles. Abusing children is a crime but being gay is not.
Homosexuality is about finding sexual attraction to and loving someone who is the same gender. It's not about lying to the one that you love while fooling around with your neighbour, co-workers, etc, and taking advantage of minors or people who are vulnerable.
Also, I don't condone violence but I do have a very strong sense of justice and I support the death penalty. For men like this gay man's father who abused him so badly, I have very little sympathy and justice needs to be served.
I don't need to understand him or what drove him to alcohol.
The father was an adult who had choice and the responsibility to take control of his life and not abuse his son. If he needed help with his drinking there are many places to go for help, even in the poorest countries.
His son was a child and could not have stopped the abuse nor could he have just walked out early on to get some help or a better life elsewhere.
He did escape though at a young age when he realized that the next beating might cost him his life.
He did what few kids his age will ever have to do.
As for prostitutes who lie and cheat and steal.
The women and men who are on the street selling their bodies are doing that for survival.
I don't suppose that the men who pick up young girls and who want to sleep with homeless and hungry boys are not lying, cheating them out a good life, and stealing their soles forever?
Many of the 'johns' don't even pay their hookers and sometimes they beat them up and steal their drugs or money.
If you or I were both living on the street and we hadn't eaten for days do you think that stealing and lying to get a meal and a warm shower might not seem so impossible?
It appears to me Allen that the only one who is so quick to overlook is you;
As far as I can tell you may have never been repeatedly beaten or raped as a child nor have you had to surrender you own dignity by peddling your ass for generous pedophiles to keep food in your stomach every single night.
Maybe if you had to live like the forgotten ones in our society you might have an appreciation for the people who are trying to help these poor wounded souls.

Posted 15/03/2007 at 5:27pm Allan Smith

What is "hateful" about my comments ?

If it is "hateful" to say that homosexuality is immoral, is it then also hateful to say that adultery is immoral ? Is it also hateful to say that pedophilia is immoral ? Is it hateful to say that women who volunteer to sell their bodies or the pleasure they can provide sexually are immoral ? Is it hateful to say that pimping is immoral ?

I'm starting to believe that those of a more liberal bent are far more hateful of me and my position than I am of any respondent or of any homosexual.

Tracey said "I will continue checking the site occassionally to see if there actually is any 'discussion'."

Now, Tracey, after you've exercised your presumed right to your verbal assault, why not participate in the conversation and the debate. Instead of deriding Heather as an enabler and myself as an "obviously disturbed individual" and "serial blogger", why not do something constructive and actually contribute to the discussion by discussing !! It's a little hypocritical to come in here and decry any perceived lack of discussion and then to so obviously avoid discussing.

It almost appears that the hatred which you impute to others is perhaps a reflection of the hatred you feel for those who don't hold the same ( liberal? if not licentious ) views which you have.

You've got 15 years of communication experience and skills under your belt. Why not prove it. In this forum, you've got the opportunity to show your stuff ( excuse the obvious pun ) and to exercise what ever superior communication skills you possess. ( Or should we have Heather and other editors do a better back ground check of your qualifications before you are permitted to have an opinion here ? )

Enough with the childish name calling and flippant denunciations. We are reasonable to expect more of a mature adult.

Show us that your opinion / views are worth reading. Silence us with your wisdom.

Heather, is that the same as saying "fish or cut bait" ?

Posted 16/03/2007 at 10:27am Orato Staff

Hi Tracey,
I'm so glad to hear you started reading the site. Welcome. There are plenty of other discussions going on.

With regards to encouraging Allan Smith - I sort of take the position that his statements are so absurd that it gives the rest of us opportunity to seize the teachable moment and actually reassert the truth. A lot of people seem to want to put him in his place. To me, it's better to deal with reprehensible views head on rather than push them into the closet.

I certainly disagree that I am an enabler.

It is my job to allow both sides of a story to present their views. But that doesn't mean I am promoting his views.

You may have noticed Allan's stories have never been displayed on the homepage, with the exception of one. And that was because his assertion that women are to blame for their own murders is a very dangerous one that needs to have light shed on it.

I will always continue to encourage discussions. Not just Allan's. You will notice if you read all the comments, that I encourage a continuation of dialogue in all cases.

I hope you'll continue to participate and read. You can always pick and choose your battles, but you don't need to condemn others for those that they choose to fight.

Thanks again,
Heather Wallace
Senior Editor

Posted 16/03/2007 at 10:47am Tracey Grebnew

Firstly, I did not claim to have "superior communication skills", I simply said that I have been communicating professionally for 15 years and that the concept of communication is not new to me. This is a very different statement. Secondly, you are correct, I should not be commenting on the backgrounds of other contributors, regardless of my personal knowledge of them, because no one has checked my background and many people on here could be exaggerating about who they are, what they have done and pretty much everything else about themselves. I believe it would be in bad taste to use this site to expose someone as too fantastical in their story telling. If their "story" helps or inspires someone then the value is obvious, we all know our own truths in our hearts. Finally, we are all free to choose who we have discussions with. I believe my comments to Heather (who hasn't responded to me) are just as valuable as your comments and anyone else's comments. I will continue to choose when I feel it is valuable to post and when I feel it is not, just as others will make that same choice. Some will choose to comment on everything, others, like myself, will simply read, absorb the ideas, experiences, and thoughts of others and ponder them in our own minds, for our own well being, nothing else. As far as I am aware there is no 'rule' on this site governing when a reader must engage in discussion. I certainly wont do so just because someone calls me childish and flippant, most of us learned to let those sorts of remarks just roll off our backs when we were back in grade school. Comments that I have made that you have construed as name calling, inputing of hatred and licentious (talk about name calling), are based on my years of forensic examination of documents and conducting therapy with codisordered offenders. Having said that, you are certainly entitled to your opinion, I wont lose any sleep over it. Thanks, Tracey.

Posted 16/03/2007 at 10:53am Tracey Grebnew

Hi Heather, your reply is much appreciated. I see where you are comming from and I, I don't totally agree, but I understand. Thanks again.

Posted 16/03/2007 at 10:57am Allan Smith

Leslie stated "Abusing children is a crime but being gay is not."

Homosexuality and adultery were once against the law ane punishable !!

As law makers morals and moral standing and moral fortitude have declined, they have succumbed to liberal influences and special interests to change the legality of such issues as adultery and homosexuality.

Take careful note that in Holland, predatory men can now be intimate with children in their early teens. The laws in this country still consider a man to be a pedophile if he's intimate with children who are the same age as kids in Holland who are legally considered "consenting" for sexual experiences.

Watch carefully and you will see, perhaps in your life time, that laws will change in Canada/USA in the same area.

The legality of a matter, as defined by law makers, does not change the morality of that matter. The fact that lawmakers decide that an immoral practice is now legal doesn't change the actual rightness nor wrongness of a matter.

It was once legal to own slaves. Did that make it right ?

Leslie also said "Homosexuality is about finding sexual attraction to and loving someone who is the same gender."

Well, dig this. Pedophilia is about attraction to and loving someone who is under aged." or at least so some pedophiles claim.

You went on to say "it's not about lying to the one that you love while fooling around with your neighbour, co-workers, etc, .... "

Neither is pedophilia. SO ????

The issue, Leslie, ultimately is whether homosexuality ( pedophilia, adultery, etc ) is right or wrong.

The issue is how a person may reasonably define homosexuality ( pedophilia, adultery, etc ) as right or wrong.

The issue is whether there is some defining authority to whom we can turn to know with certainty as to whether it's right or wrong.

It is obvious that the law makers can not be trusted regarding whether something is right or wrong. For years thru history, these acts have been considered immoral and illegal. I'd have to say that you would agree that, in your opinion, they were not trustworthy in how they defined the legality or illegality of homosexuality. I expect that you would also not take their position and accept it as legitimate.

Since we can easily discover that law makers are not a reliable definer of right and/or wrong, what is our final authority in such matters ?

Society can't be trusted, for societies in the past have pursecuted minorities and homosexuals and adulterers. Majority rule is not always correct nor trustworthy in all matters.

Who then defines whether or not homosexuality ( et al ) are right or wrong ? Who's definition would you accept as being definitive and acceptable ?

Those who deny the existance of an ultimate defining authority and who recognize that neither law makers nor society can ultimately be trusted to define right and wrong will ultimately get to the point where THEY THEMSELVES are the ultimate defining authority on issues of morality.

When the law makers get to the point where they are convinced that there is no other ultimate defining authority on moral issues and when they begin to believe that they have the authority to define what's moral and what's not, what's right and what's wrong, we see what's been happening in Canada/USA ( and all other countries like Holland for years ) where morality has been defined down.

You can expect, therefore, that in time, both here in Canada/USA, that the laws pertaining to pedophilia will be defined down. Just as in Canada laws have recently changed pertaining to homosexuality, so laws will change regarding "age of consent" for minors in our respective countries. If you've got kids or have relatives who're minors, get ready because such law changes are coming to a community / province / country near you !!

Where any nation or society denies the existance of an ultimate defining moral authority and/or their accountability to any such defining authority, that society will degenerate to levels of depravity that you and I might today consider unspeakable ... just like it wasn't too many years ago that what homosexuals and adulterers do in secret was unspeakable.

To see the potential of our respective countries today, one need only study past civilizations to find evidence of their moral decline and ultimate distruction.

Leslie said " ... nor do they have anything in common with adulters pedophiles."

Homosexuals in fact have something in common with pedophiles and many hetrosexuals. All of these individuals have sexual desires.

Some of them control their sexual desires, some don't. Moral disposition is one of the leading restraining forces in people's lives. Those who are not taught morals are more likely to act immorally.

Some who've been well-taught morals choose to ignore or to deny those morals and to define their own right and wrong.

Among that group of people are adulterers, pedophiles and homosexuals, as well as liars, thieves, cheats, wife beaters, volunteer prostitutes and those who find pleasure in beastiality.

The position you're in, Leslie, is that you are your own moral authority at least in the matter of homosexuality and that you are answerable to no other higher moral authority. As such, you then concede that others have the right to be their own moral authority and you concede that if they believe that their pedophilic actions are OK, you are in no position to impose your morals on them, for they are their own moral authority and they have no higher authority to whom they need to submit, not even you or I.

If there is no higher moral authority, then we are indeed free to define our own morality and no one is free to impose theirs on us. If there is no higher moral authority then anyone who would impose any form of morality on any other person is without grounds to do so.

By becoming the definer of your own morality, you have conceded to all others that they are ultimately the sole definer of their morality and you have surrendered any grounds on which you might declare pedophilia ( and/or any other perversions ) to be wrong.

Now, when the rest of the world figures out that there is no Higher Moral Authority, you will find that people will eventually give a flip about whether or not you or I consider pedophilia to be wrong and they'll do it any way. They'll rub it in your face that you have no right to impose your morality on them. They'll consider themselves free to prey upon any kids that you may have or on children related to you or kids in your neighborhood and there'll not be a thing you can do about it, once the laws are changed !!

Those who believe they are accountable to no higher moral authority and/or that they're free to define their own morality in any one or more areas ( such as homosexuality ) are on a broad, self-defeating and self-destructive path. They have surrendered the foundation of principles on which a society must rest if they are to survive peacefully.

Posted 16/03/2007 at 11:30am Allan Smith

Heater stated "You may have noticed Allan's stories have never been displayed on the homepage, with the exception of one. And that was because his assertion that women are to blame for their own murders is a very dangerous one that needs to have light shed on it."

Heather, so help me, this is a power trip for you. How you can continue to tell the world that my assertion is that "women are to blame for their own murders", in the face of what I've clearly and repeatedly stated to the contrary is beyond me.

You are incredible ... and by the strictest definition of the word, that's not a good thing, either for you nor for Orato.

Imagine an editor of a publication which wants itself to be perceived as reputable, going public with a statement like "You may have noticed Allan's stories have never been displayed on the homepage ... " which is the equivalent of saying :

"Censorship is alive and well @ Orato"

Dear Heather, why on earth are you so afraid of what I have to say ?

And what should other readers and/or contributors understand from how boldly you admit to this form of censorship ?

Posted 16/03/2007 at 1:54pm Tracey Grebnew

Al, I'm going out a limb here, but perhaps, just perhaps, Heather was referring to the following direct quote from you Al;

"The person, tho, DOES have a degree of responsibility, especially considering that they're all going at their work with their eyes open, knowing that their profession is high-risk.
Blame ? No. Accountability / responsibility ? Yes. SOLE accountability / responsibility ? No for the women who willingly prostitute and who are murdered but none-the-less, they do have a degree of responsibility".

Al, you may want to say that responsiblity and blame are only distant cousins, but the unfortunate fact is the definition of blame according to the Canadian Oxford Dictionary is: "to assign responsibility to; to assign the responsibility for an error or a wrong to a person etc.; the act of attributing responsibility."

It doesn't get much more plain than that. You can try to water down your theory with the use of the term 'degree', but all that does is assign some sort of arbitrary value to how much the victim is to blame for their own murder. I'm not sure what overall good could come from that. God forbid the courts start to assign degree's of responsibility to homicide victims vs. the murders! Prostitutes may end up with a clear 50/50 split, therefore why impose a sentence, both parties are equally to blame.
Lets apply this same theory to other "professions" and other situations. What about Police Officers? If an officer is murdered in the line of duty what 'degree' of blame should be assigned to them? Probably about 80% given the fact that they knew what they were getting into, they went in with their eyes wide open, in fact, not only did these people sign up for this job, but they likely planned this career for many years, dreaming of it since childhood. I might even bump it up to 90% now that I think of the premeditation factor.
Prison guards, prison nurses, psychologist, doctors, actually all staff in prisons would need to have a degree of responsibility for their own murder, assigned to their position. After all, they are clearly in a high risk profession by virtue of the fact they are working with the murderers who are 'partly' to blame for homicides in our community.
You talk of the other folks who are "risk takers" such as the tight rope walker and the daredevil (not that I personally see any similarity between a DTES drug addicted prostitute and Houdini, but I'll use your analogy and continue with the logic) What about the elderly, the ones of sound mind but not quite so able bodied but still got their wits about them? What degree of responsibility/blame should we assign to them if they were to be murdered while on an outting, or even inside their home for that matter. Would they be more to blame for being irresponsible enough to actually leave their home and not take into the account the risk they are taking. If they are of sound mind they must realize, they are old, they are vulnerable, their reactions are slower, the streets can be a mean place these days. Or would we assign more blame to them for being so careless as to think they can safely live in their home alone at such an age?
The same could be said for the physically disabled. If you are in a wheelchair, or otherwise disabled physically, you are taking a great risk at being victimized, even murdered, every time you go out. What degree of responsibility should be assigned to the disabled murder victims?
It's a tough call and I wouldn't have to make that decision, God forbid anyone ever have to make such a decision.
We need to use our words thoughtfully, as words are to thought what paint is to canvass.

Posted 16/03/2007 at 4:05pm Allan Smith

First of all, Tracey, TY for some of the most meaningful comments and dialog I've ever seen on any matter here on Orato. Your comments were targetted and clear and well thought out and raise expected concerns in the minds of some readers.

The concept being put forward here isn't new.

People in high-rish careers pay higher insurance than people in low-risk careers. Construction workers pay higher insurance premiums than does a librarian. A police officer pays more insurance than does a telephone tech support person. The way they share in responsibility for their career choices is by paying higher premiums, by perhaps spending more time in the ER or ICU, days off or work, trips to the shrink, etc.

The reason for this is that the person is assuming higher life / health threatening risks and responsibilities.

A bank robber is doing something wrong. If that bank robber gets killed while robbing a bank, he assumes a portion of the resonsibility of his death because, if he has any brains at all, he knows some bank robbers get shot. He goes into his "profession" with open eyes, knowing that he's got a better chance of being injured or dying than he does of seeing an honest politician elected.

Firemen and policemen pay higher insurance premiums because they know that many of these professionals get injured. THEY have to pay for their choice of a line of work. If a fireman isn't doing anything wrong when they're fighting fires and if they die, he's covered by insurance which, knowing his risks, insured him subsequent to his payment of his premiums. If, however, he does something wrong in his line of work and suffers injury or death as a result of that action, his could receive either partial payment or none at all.

If a person goes running thru the halls of a hospital and someone opens a door abruptly, due to the fact that the individual was running, they share a percentage of the responsibility for the injury. They're not considered "to blame" for the injury. Since they were running, their injury would have been greater than if they had been walking and perhaps might not have happened at all if they were walking, They therefore hold a degre of responsibility and accountability for their injury.

If a person knows a friend was drunk and if they knew that the person had a wreckless driving record, as well as other DWI's and yet they get into the car as a passenger with that drunk driver, knowing the person is too intoxicated to drive responsibly, they share a degree of responsibility in any injury or death which may result from any accident. They should not expect any insurance settlement or in the very least, only receive a partial settlement, due to their own foolish choices.

This concept of shared responsibility and accountability is nothing new.

Any person who murders a person should get the death penalty, whether they murder a child or a prostitute or a policeman or a reverend or a gang member of some opposing gang.

Any person who goes into a trade or profession knowing that they have a chance of death and/or injury assumes a degree of responsibility in the event of their death, as we see clearly for how insurance premiums are assigned for people in different professions.

Any person who smokes cigarettes shares a degree of responsibility for any negative health and/or their death as a consequence of their smoking habit.

A person who shoots up shares a degree of responsibility / accountability if they OD and suffer bodily damage ( brain damage ? ) or even death ... and when the drug-abuser sticks that needle in their arm, they do so, knowing the risks and accepting them.

This is not such a difficult concept to grasp.

If a person engages in some ILLEGAL activity which bears with it high risk of injury and/or death, they do so, accepting the consequences of their actions and they share in the responsibility of any such consequences.

Any person who does these people bodily harm or kills them should still receive the maximum penalty for that injury and/or death. Though there may at times be exceptions to the rule, I would say that people who do illegal acts should get maximum punishment as individuals for their actions and this includes any person(s) who would do personal injury or murder any other person, whether that person be prostitute, preacher, politition or pope.

Posted 16/03/2007 at 4:56pm Tracey Grebnew

Not suprisingly you missed the point completely. Work related injuries as opposed to being 'murdered' on the job. Two completely different issues. Changing the subject doesn't change what you said in the past, it simply offers a red herring for those willing to take it.
You claim murder is a possible consequence of the 'profession' of prostitution and therefore the prostitute shall assume a "degree of responsibility" for that consequence. Absolutely no difference in the situation of a Police Officer. They get murdered, I'm not talking injured on the job, hurt in the line of duty, accidentally shot at and killed, I'm talking murdered. Perhaps I can use an analogy that exemplifies your logic a little more clearly.
A forensic psychologist is required to work with a variety of individuals, mostly codisordered offenders with signficant mental health issues. Many psychotic, many with the potential to murder. The therapist goes to see the offender in prison for a regular therapy session, just like every other visit. Of course the therapist knows there is a certainly level of 'risk' involved in the job and of course they go in with their "eyes wide open". Heck Al, they may even be paying those higher insurance rates that you talk about, not the point! Lets say on this day the offender snaps and murders the therapist. They dont open the door in the therapists face, they dont accidentally scare the therapist who then falls off the chair and bumps their head, no, the inmate murders the therapist.
Using your logic, as stated by you in earlier postings and writings, this therapist, who was murdered because of the "profession" they have chosen, should assume a degree of responsibility in the murder.
I'm not making stuff up here Al, I'm simply taking your logic and applying it to different professions, just like you do in almost every single one of your posts. Like when someone writes that they dont think homosexuality is wrong, you automatically respond by telling them that they must also believe beasteality and fornication with dead bodies is o.k. too. Now I see that as being a big of a stretch, but I really believe my application of your theory is extremely accurate.

Posted 16/03/2007 at 6:56pm Allan Smith

I think the area in which I am not yet understood or in which we don't yet agree is that there's a consequential difference between a fireman / policeman / shrink who're assuming risks while doing their legal job ... and a person who's assuming risks while doing something illegal.

There's a BIG difference between a person who's injured in their honorable line of duty and a person who's injured while committing a crime.

A police officer who's shot by a criminal has every right to hold that criminal wholey accountible for the consequences of the shooting. The spouse of a police officer has every legal right to pursue for recourse the criminal who did the officer injury.

A criminal who opens fire on a police officer has only himself to blame if he's shot / injured / killed by the police officer who returns fire.

One person is injured while acting honorably, the other is injured as a consequence of acting dishonorably.

A streaker who runs across the field during the final down of the Grey Cup game and who gets severely injured by a passing middle linebacker should assume all responsibility for any and all injuries, especially his own.

I'm a photographer. Last year, I was at a barn fire. I was standing on the far side of the barn from a rather powerful water canon being operated by a fireman. I was nearly hit by a very powerful blast of water. As a journalist / photographer, I went into a dangerous situation and assumed any consequences of my actions. I recognized that there were many dangers from being there and if I'd been hit or injured while there, it would have been totally irresponsible of me to hold the fireman ( who couldn't see me ) and/or the voluntary fire department to blame for what happened to me. It would have been morally wrong to seek damages from them if I'd been injured. I knew there were risks. I went anyway.

If there's one thing that prostitutes know, it's that they're engaging in a high risk and illegal profession. They know that people who are involved in high risk illegal activities often die young. If a prostitute were to come home, crying of being injured during her illegal activity, it would be reasonable for you to look at them and say "Well, what did you expect ?"

There are deadly STD's and violent johns around the next corner. It's not like they have any grounds to be surprised if they get a disease nor if they get injured. Sisters on the street aren't surprised when another one of their sisters shows up missing or dead. It's common on the street.

These girls are involved in an illegal and immoral activity. They're not on the street very long and they know the seriousness of their profession. The longer they're in the profession, the more apparent become the risks.

They inherit a degree of responsibility in what ever happens to them while they're out there on the street. Just like I did when I went to photograph the barn burning, these girls are putting themselves in the line of fire ( over look the pun ). Once they, with open eyes, place themselves in this high-risk environment, it becomes their responsibility if they get injured. They should not be provided free health care to repair their injuries. Insurance shouldn't pay for it. Tax payers shouldn't pay for it. Parents shouldn't pay for it. If the prostitute wishes to seek compensation for her injuries, her only recourse should be the perp. She should feel surprised if any have sympathy for her, just as if I'd been injured at the barn fire, I'd have had no grounds for sympathy.

Again, this is not a difficult principle to understand. A person who is injured during the commission of a crime bears a much greater degree of responsibility than the person who's injured during the prevention of a crime or the apprehension of a criminal.

There's a big difference in level of responsibility of a person who's injured in the honorable line of duty ( soldier, policeman, fireman, coast guard ) and a person who's injured while engaged in an dishonorable illegal activity ( prostitute, pimp, gangstuh, drug dealer, loan shark ).

If you hang with criminals ( and johns are criminals ) it should come as no surprise if those criminals treat you in a criminal way.

Do you deny that persons who engages in a high risk illegal profession inherits by their choices, some responsibility in what happens to them during the commission of their crime ?

Posted 16/03/2007 at 11:34pm Leslie Benisz

Leslie Benisz

Allan, I do not hold myself superior to any laws or make myself a moral defender or judge of what is right and wrong.
As a person with a mild developmental disability I am still sensitive to accusations that the 'mentally ill are dangerous' or that people with mental handicapps might harm children.
So when the majority of convicted pedophiles have been proven to be hetrosexual despite their criminal acts, how can people continue to lump gays and lesbians into the same pile as people who rape, steal, kill, torture, and take advantage of children?
The same accusations were said about black people for years with every television show depicting blacks and hispanics as hookers, pimps, drug dealers, and ex-cons or people on death row.
The blacker their skin and the more African sounding their names, such as Leroy 'Muhammed' or Sista Shabbaz Latifa, the more badder they were.
Of course all the good 'brothas and sistas' on t.v. who were cops and doctors and lawyers etc, were light skinned black people with more American sounding names like John Jefferson or Thelma Turner who were undoubtedly christian and who spoke perfect English with no 'ebonic' slogans or black accents.
Even the steroetypes of some hispanic illegal immigrant with a heavy accent and a name like Jesus Pedro Vallasquez was always depicted on t.v. with the 'latino' being shot, imprisioned, or deported.
So how are gays and lesbians expected to prove their worth when so many people are still being brainwashed to live in fear of people who are gay?

I'm not even surprized when some people today still think that Hawaiians and other Pacific islanders are all closeted cannibals who would readily nibble on the bones of human victims if they were unable to control their hungry urges of eating human flesh.
I still don't know if such stereotypes are actually based on historical incidents but I've never heard of any Maoris from New Zealand, Somoans, Fijians, or any other Pacific islanders eating their neighbours.
But believe it or not I've heard some Canadians and even some British tourists making up such stupid accusations.
I guess Maori opera diva Kiri Te Kanewa who is known to be a big fan of sushi would roast choir boys on a barbeque if she had the chance (I seriously doubt it).

I know that I've gone on a tangent here but I don't even care to argue with anyone anymore in trying to prove that gays and lesbians can be good people too.
Most of the gay men and women that I know are decent people and I would trust them with children before I trust many hetros that I've met who are scumbags who reasure themselves with their sexual orientation despite laughing at the idea of raping an 11 year old or having the most disgusting and perverted sex imaginable.
I've met hetros like that but thankfully I'll have nothing to do with them.

So with that, say what you will but I don't feel that I have to lock my doors and live in a bomb shelter because I live across the street from a gay bar with drag queens walking in and out every night.

Posted 17/03/2007 at 7:38am Allan Smith

Leslie wrote "So when the majority of convicted pedophiles have been proven to be hetrosexual despite their criminal acts, how can people continue to lump gays and lesbians into the same pile as people who rape, steal, kill, torture, and take advantage of children?"

Don't know how much you remember of elementary school math but I remember learning about something called "sets". Sets were generally groups of numbers or letters which had something in common.

For example, there was one set of all english letters and then there was a subset of vowels and another subset of consonants. There was one set of integers, another of even numbers, another of odd numbers, etc.

Out of all the people in civilization, there are similarly sets of people.

For example, there are people who are known for their decorum and self-disciplined conduct. They're the kind of people you can trust with any job, knowing they'll get it done right and that they'll do it well. You don't find yourself wondering about these people because you know they're honest to a fault. You know by their conduct that you could leave a hundred dollar bill laying about and they'd never touch it. Not only are they not thieves but they're generous with what they own.

There's similarly another subset of civilization; people who have strong sexual desires. Of that subset, there's two other subsets of civilization ... those who control their sexual desires and those who don't.

When I was involved in homosexual activity, I had never even knew what homosexuality was. I'd never heard of it. I'd never been told what it was nor had I been told that it was either right or wrong. I knew neither bias nor bigotry regarding homosexuality, even tho I lived in what might have been considered a "christian" community ( Summerside, PEI ).

I still snuck around when it came to my homosexuality activity. Deep inside, I knew that what I was doing was wrong. I can't explain that inner feeling ... but it was there. Tho I've forgotten most of the actual homosexual encounters, I still remember clearly that I felt dirty, guilty, ashamed ... I felt that people knew my secret and always felt inferior when with classmates. No one knew my secret. I don't believe that anyone actually looked down their nose at me about my homosexual activity because I don't believe anyone knew. BUT STILL, I FELT like everyone knew. I felt like girls would never date me because of my secret. I felt unworthy and that no one would ever stoop so low as to date me. I felt like the guys avoided me and the girls did the same and I was convinced it was because of my secret.

I later learned that I felt like many homosexual people feel today. They feel that way instinctively and they feel that way long before anyone ever "makes" them feel that way. They feel guilty and ashamed and dirty long before anyone finds out their secret and long before the inevitable show of distain and mockery which pursues many openly homosexual people.

I was a part of another subset of people. I had strong sexual desires and I acted upon them. I didn't control them. I didn't stop just because there was some inner voice telling me that what I was doing was wrong. I denied my conscience and went with my lusts.

Those desires I had weren't ever "taught" to me. No one ever imposed them on me. I didn't "learn" them. They were just there.

So were strong sexual urges to be involved with females and later in my high school years and into adulthood, I once again didn't listen to my instinctive knowledge that certain conduct with females was immoral / wrong but rather I acted selfishly, to attempt to satisfy my urges / desires.

I placed myself, in both instances, in a subset of civilization of people with sexual urges who didn't show proper dignity nor self-control. My conduct resulted from me ignoring the fact that my choices were immoral. That's what selfish people do. I was placing myself, by my choices and actions, in a subset of civilization that's called SELFISH people.

What hetrosexuals and homosexuals and pedophiles have in common is 1) strong sexual desires.

What subdivides these people with strong sexual desires into other subsets is how well they control their urges and desires.

What homosexuals and adulterers and pedophiles have in common is that 1) they don't have a strong enough motivation to maintain their dignity and their honor, 2) they chose to give in to their selfish sexual desires 3) they lack self control 4) they instinctively know that what they're doing is wrong 4) they experience a degree of shame 5) they almost immediately think that others know and that others despise them for their choices. I've never known a person involved in sexual perversion who didn't have each of these characteristics in common.

These people in this subset can similarly be divided into other subsets, in that some of them only act out their particular sexual perversion in fantasies or thru porn, while never actually engaging in sexual acts with their object of choice. The other subset is those who actual act out their desires with the objects of their desires.

So, you see Leslie, homosexuals and hetrosexuals DO have something in common.

Sometimes the only thing which keeps either hetrosexuals or homosexuals from abusing children is that they respond to their instinct that doing so is wrong. There are, sadly enough, both homosexuals and hetrosexuals who do NOT restrain themselves and who cross the line.

Leslie, I'd like your opinion on MBLA ... the Man/Boy Love Association. Ever hear of them ? They're an organized group of men who believe that it's legit to have consentual sexual activity with young boys, some of whom are pre-puberty.

Tell me, Leslie, is that _natural_ ?
Is it _right_ ?
Is it _moral_ ?
Should it be made legal ?
Would you trust your male child or young male relative to the care of a MBLA member ?

I'd be interested in your answers to these questions.

Careful how you answer because remember, some of these MBLA members are well-respected in their communities. Some of them are known for their benevolence and hard work ethic. Some are known for their philanthropic generosity, as well as their community service. Some are loving parents and doting grand parents, while others are school teachers and cub-scout leaders in good standing who are loved and well respected.

You stated "... that gays and lesbians can be good people too. Most of the gay men and women that I know are decent people ... "

" ... CAN be ... ". What do you mean ? Like most aren't good people but you're suggesting that if I look long enough, I'll find some that "can be" ? I think there's some homosexuals who'll take exception to how you've expressed yourself in this manner.

Interestingly enough, many of the child abusers in our respective countries are well known and well respected people, not at all disruptive in their communities ... when interviewed, neighbors of many child abusers have often said that the abuser was very likable and had proven themselves to be responsible members of their community.

The fact that they otherwise present themselves as being honest, dependable, generous people does not alter the fact that they have crossed a moral line. If I remember correctly, Trisha mentioned that the most skilled of pimps present themselves to an unsuspecting gal as kind, caring guys. The gals are convinced they've got a friend whom they can trust.

For all you know, there are children who've been preyed upon by pedophiles who actually willingly participate and enjoy the attention and activity. Does that make the pedophile's actions RIGHT ? Or EXCUSABLE ? I trust I'll hear a resounding NO from all who read these rhetorical questions.

The fact that some of the boys who're involved with MBLA members may enjoy the attention and the experience and have never been beaten or lied to or threatened, does that make what MBLA members are doing RIGHT or MORAL or JUSTIFIABLE or EXCUSEABLE ? I hope again I'll hear a resounding NO to this rhetorical question.

The fact that you know many "good" and/or "decent" homosexuals you can "trust" doesn't make their choices and/or their conduct either right or moral.

They have something in common with (hetrosexual) adulterers, liars, (hetrosexual or homosexual) pedophiles, cheats and theives ... and yes, murders ... in that they've not surrendered their wills to The Creator. They've not acknowledged and obeyed the instincts which The Creator has put in their hearts and minds. They've chosen to ignore if not to totally eradicate that instinct which we're all born with. They've chosen rather to seek to satisfy their desires regardless of their instinct. They've crossed the line.

BTW, did you know that most thieves and liars and crooked politicians and murderers and spouse beaters and child abusers and cheats and drug dealers and bank robbers are hetrosexuals ? I'm thinking we should make laws that restrict the civil liberties of hetrosexuals. What do you think ?

Posted 31/03/2007 at 8:34pm Luyen Dao

I enjoyed reading your last post Allen, albeit quite long. There's one thing where you said, that i am wondering about...

You stated that homosexuals are controlled by their sexual desires, but aren't there homosexuals who enter into relationships the same way heterosexuals do? Where the focus isn't so much on satisfying just sexual urges, but other desires such as having a healthy relationship and so forth...

Although the popular image and maybe it's true for some societal context reasons, that homosexuals because they do not feel accepted, focus more on their sexual activity because it's frowned upon by most people. This i don't know, i'm just throwing it out there. Even with statistics, it'd be difficult to know for sure.

I think from my personal point of view, and i think it's accurate on your part to point out the types of minds that mislead us, like excessive sexual desire, or intense hatred and anger, can bring us to act in very harmful ways for others, and thus ourselves.

It's very important therefore, not to get caught up in the labels of hetero, homo, this or that, because really, at any given moment we're under the influence of different mental patterns, different desires, delusions, but also beneficial mind sets of caring and generosity and so forth.

People who do harmful things to themselves and others, are really under the influence of misleading mental states and unfortunately carry out some action afterwards. We've all done that, you, me, we're all in the same boat, i feel that everyone therefore is worthy of feeling compassion for.

Fortunately all of these mental patterns can be changed, compassion and patience can be encouraged over anger for example. If these were purely instinctual or static mental states, then there'd be no possibility for change, in fact you wouldn't even know there was a possibility for something else, if they were permanent.

Even though it may seem like these things don't have root causes, they must, otherwise you could not apply another cause to change them.

I feel way off track off this original story, but i think there are some great comments here, and enjoyed reading them, even the *fiery* ones.

Posted 17/04/2007 at 2:56pm Dacia Miller

I have had a very inforamative time reading all of these comments! As a new member of Orato, I found this story to be extremely shocking. Any country that allows families to carry on such as this one should have some sort of intervention. It may or may not be wrong to be homosexual, but being physically abused to such extremes because of it is very, VERY wrong. somethings in this world have gone terribly wrong-and this story is an example of just that.

I am a homosexual. I have known this for almost 8 years now. My parents have verbally abused me over this fact and if it wasnt for their denial about my sexuality, they would've disowned me by now. I do not believe that homosexuality is wrong or immoral, but just misunderstood. The only reason that anyone pretends to be straight when they are actually gay is because of the fear of violence and hostility towards them in our ignorant and closeminded society. Even so, I believe that every man or woman is entitled to their opinion and beliefs. If you want to believe that homosexuality is wrong, then go ahead and believe it. Just do not react in physically or emotionally violent ways towards those of us that are gay. Do people react in physically violent ways towards those who have premarital sex, or frequently cheat? Yes, many sexual acts are against the law, but again, those are acts against minors or children or people who have no ways of defending themselves. If anyone is born homosexual, which i honestly believe is so, then let that be between them and God. I just hope you may see gays and lesbians and bisexuals for the PERSON that they are, and not for their sexuality.

Posted 15/05/2007 at 1:01pm Allan Smith

Dacia,

You stated "I just hope you may see gays and lesbians and bisexuals for the PERSON that they are, and not for their sexuality."

Dacia, have you ever trusted someone, only to have them lie to you ? Or to steal from you ? Have you ever had a lover who had someone on the side ? Have you ever felt manipulated by someone you had previously trusted ?

Now, imagine if any one of those people came to you and stated "I just hope you may see liars for the PERSON that they are, and not for their truthfulness."

or

If one of them said "I just hope you may see thieves for the PERSON that they are, and not for their thievery."

or

"I just hope you may see unfaithful for the PERSON that they are, and not for their faithfulness."

Sexual desires are "normal", in as much as any person alive experiences them. People are just as likely to be tempted to lie, instead of telling a truth which will perhaps lead to other problems. Other people badly want something ( like money ) will experience temptation to steal money that they see, laying unattended on a desk at work. Married people will sooner or later be tempted to cheat and single people will sooner or later have to deal with their desires sexually toward another person.

Whether or not a person lies, cheats, steals, deceives , commits adultery, pedophilia or homosexuality or any other form of wrong depends to a large degree on their character and, ultimately, on their spirituality and their submission to The Creator. We all face many of the above temptations. We make the final choice as to what we're going to do with our temptations.

What others think of us ... ie: our reputation ... will be impacted in a big way by the choices we make subsequent to experiencing our desires.

One person's reputation is determined based on other people's perception of that one person and their character / integrity / trustworthiness, etc. Their reputation is affected by other people's perception of honesty ... and ... sexual practices. It's very natural to evaluate a person's character / reputation on various criteria, including some of the character traits mentioned above.

Even people who've lived for years as a trust-worthy member of their community can have their reputation trashed for so much as one indescretion, whether it be getting caught for stealing, lying, cheating ... or committing adultery ( their sexuality ) or pedophilia or homosexuality.

People of character do not give in to their temptations. The stronger the person's character, the more of life's temptations they will overcome and deal with responsibly. Perhaps I should say that the stronger a person's character the LESS of life's temptations they'll give in to.

The temptations are common. People of character are rare.

Lest any assume that I consider myself a person of character, as tho better than you, let me dispell any such false notions by telling you that I've lied, stolen, cheated, committed adultery and have engaged in homosexual activity. I'm not sitting here with any pretense of being "holier than thou" but recognizing my humanity, my frailty and my selfishness.

If there's a marked difference between me and some others is that I acknowledge that each of the above activities I've engaged in were all wrong and selfish choices that I should never do them again.