Tatchell Again

[gricerboy]

I would have revived the original thread but I feel it inportant that this is read. I am quite cross about this so here I go.

I am particularly troubled by the air time given to Peter Tatchell in the media on this Papal visit. I believe, in fact, that he is the brain child of the Protest The Pope movement.

Now, I never approved of Tatchell's outing of prominent figures who were still in the closet, so to speak. Coming out is a personal issue and one may be gay but still feel that it is morally wrong so I can identify with members of the clergy or politicians who ARE gay but do not necessarily approve of the promotion homosexuality (i.e. Tatchell's agenda).

More recently I've chanced upon some other rather unsavoury views of his. I don't have a reference for this but I read somewhere a while back that he advocated the teaching of the details of explicits sexual acts, such as how to administer a knickerbocker Glory, to young children under the aegis of promoting safe sex. WRONG, WRONG, WRONG, WRONG. QUITE WRONG.

More disturbingly, I read in last Sunday's Peter Hitchings column that this revolting individual has a prediliction for paedophilia. After talking about adult-child sexual relationships in some non - western societies he goes on to say:

"The positive nature of some child-adult sexual relationships is not confined to non-Western cultures.
Several of my friends - gay and straight, male and female - had sex with adults from the ages of nine to 13.
None feel they were (sic) abused. All say it was their conscious choice and gave them great joy.
While it may be impossible to condone paedophilia, it is time society acknowledged the truth that not all sex involving children is unwanted, abusive and harmful"

This is something that I FIND COMPLETELY AND UTTERLY REPREHENSIBLE.

[Boudica]

I would have revived the original thread but I feel it inportant that this is read. I am quite cross about this so here I go.

I am particularly troubled by the air time given to Peter Tatchell in the media on this Papal visit. I believe, in fact, that he is the brain child of the Protest The Pope movement.

Now, I never approved of Tatchell's outing of prominent figures who were still in the closet, so to speak. Coming out is a personal issue and one may be gay but still feel that it is morally wrong so I can identify with members of the clergy or politicians who ARE gay but do not necessarily approve of the promotion homosexuality (i.e. Tatchell's agenda).

More recently I've chanced upon some other rather unsavoury views of his. I don't have a reference for this but I read somewhere a while back that he advocated the teaching of the details of explicits sexual acts, such as how to administer a knickerbocker Glory, to young children under the aegis of promoting safe sex. WRONG, WRONG, WRONG, WRONG. QUITE WRONG.

More disturbingly, I read in last Sunday's Peter Hitchings column that this revolting individual has a prediliction for paedophilia. After talking about adult-child sexual relationships in some non - western societies he goes on to say:

"The positive nature of some child-adult sexual relationships is not confined to non-Western cultures.
Several of my friends - gay and straight, male and female - had sex with adults from the ages of nine to 13.
None feel they were (sic) abused. All say it was their conscious choice and gave them great joy.
While it may be impossible to condone paedophilia, it is time society acknowledged the truth that not all sex involving children is unwanted, abusive and harmful"

This is something that I FIND COMPLETELY AND UTTERLY REPREHENSIBLE.

Are you a daily mail reader?

Vegetarian?

Cyclist?

[sasguru]

, such as how to administer a knickerbocker Glory.

Wots' one of those?

[gricerboy]

Wots' one of those?

Something that would be removed by the profanity filter.

[MarillionFan]

I would have revived the original thread but I feel it inportant that this is read. I am quite cross about this so here I go.

I am particularly troubled by the air time given to Peter Tatchell in the media on this Papal visit. I believe, in fact, that he is the brain child of the Protest The Pope movement.

Now, I never approved of Tatchell's outing of prominent figures who were still in the closet, so to speak. Coming out is a personal issue and one may be gay but still feel that it is morally wrong so I can identify with members of the clergy or politicians who ARE gay but do not necessarily approve of the promotion homosexuality (i.e. Tatchell's agenda).

More recently I've chanced upon some other rather unsavoury views of his. I don't have a reference for this but I read somewhere a while back that he advocated the teaching of the details of explicits sexual acts, such as how to administer a knickerbocker Glory, to young children under the aegis of promoting safe sex. WRONG, WRONG, WRONG, WRONG. QUITE WRONG.

More disturbingly, I read in last Sunday's Peter Hitchings column that this revolting individual has a prediliction for paedophilia. After talking about adult-child sexual relationships in some non - western societies he goes on to say:

"The positive nature of some child-adult sexual relationships is not confined to non-Western cultures.
Several of my friends - gay and straight, male and female - had sex with adults from the ages of nine to 13.
None feel they were (sic) abused. All say it was their conscious choice and gave them great joy.
While it may be impossible to condone paedophilia, it is time society acknowledged the truth that not all sex involving children is unwanted, abusive and harmful"

This is something that I FIND COMPLETELY AND UTTERLY REPREHENSIBLE.

Actually I read that article as it happens. I used a comparison of homosexuality to paedophilia the other day Xoggoth had asked why.

This article went on to discuss how homosexuality is now accepted(as opposed to the 50+ years ago) while paedophilia is not. But by extrapolating the argument that and other practices may be accepted in the future.

Sexual practices are based on the norm of the masses. Homosexuality is now considered normal, others abnormal.

[AtW]

Something that would be removed by the profanity filter.

We can only wish that filter also removed you

[gricerboy]

We can only wish that filter also removed you

We can only wish that that filter had also removed you

[Bunk]

Actually I read that article as it happens. I used a comparison of homosexuality to paedophilia the other day Xoggoth had asked why.

This article went on to discuss how homosexuality is now accepted(as opposed to the 50+ years ago) while paedophilia is not. But by extrapolating the argument that and other practices may be accepted in the future.

Sexual practices are based on the norm of the masses. Homosexuality is now considered normal, others abnormal.

That only shows the danger of extrapolation. You can't predict the future, only Threaded can.

[MaryPoppins]

This article went on to discuss how homosexuality is now accepted (as opposed to the 50+ years ago) while paedophilia is not. But by extrapolating the argument that and other practices may be accepted in the future.

But would you say a large number of the population are repressed paedophiles?

[MarillionFan]

But would you say a large number of the population are repressed paedophiles?

Now there's an interesting question isn't it?

Or bisexual?