When Gay "rights" groups/supporters fail to condemn homopedos the movement suffers

Before anyone gets their panties in a bunch I used "homopedos" because of the space limitation.

The gay "rights" groups never not even one condemned the Liberace movie or what that monster did to that child. In fact, they celebrated it.

The Liberace thread started here was a perfect example of homosexual supporters going bat (*)(*)(*)(*) crazy and doing their very best to run cover for a sick bastard over 40 years older than the child he molested doing everything they could pretending a child isn't a child or trying to deflect bringing up a possible heterosexual pedo as if that helps them. Only a handful actually condemned it.

And here we go again, a different subject with the same broad brush. In Russia there is a group of heterosexual men luring homosexual pedophiles into the open then humiliating them. Don't expect me to shed any tears for them even though it is illegal.

But now according to the article below they are luring not homosexual pedophiles but homosexual men and boys and humiliating or using force then filming it. That of course is wrong in every way. <--- Got it Jeff? But the gay community is once again NOT making the distinction between going after homosexual pedophiles and homosexuals.

You can be against violence against these older men thinking they are meeting up with a 15 year old child for sex but you must condemn the action they are taking. It is no different than a man in his upper 20s trying to lure a 15 year old girl for sex online.

If this movement wants to be taken seriously and have their message reach the majority that distinction must be made every single time it is brought up and that does not happen with gay "rights" groups and many of their supporters.

http://americablog.com/2013/07/russian-vigilantes-kidnapping-beating-young-gays.html

This website for example doesn't even mention the pedophiles and only focuses on the boy who was looking for sex with older men

http://gaygenesis.wordpress.com/201...tivists-go-full-witch-hunt-inciting-violence/

This website like the other focuses their pictures only on the boy and not the pedophiles

http://www.gayrva.com/news-views/russian-extremists-using-social-media-to-target-attack-lgbt-youth/

Again, another gay website with only the one picture of the gay boy not the pedophiles

http://www.lgbtqnation.com/2013/07/...ing-social-media-to-target-attack-lgbt-youth/

This one doesn't even mention the pedophiles they caught

http://www.advocate.com/news/world-...is-torture-gay-teens-anti-pedophilia-campaign



If the gay community is truly interested in distinguishing between homosexuals and homosexual pedophiles it must do so with its own advocacy groups and members and stop broadly defending all homosexuals including pedophiles when they are included in the story.

 

First of all, let me introduce myself. I am the author of the post that Texmaster used as an example. I simply want the chance to explain myself. I am not out to start a flame war-I just want everyone to be clear on my position and clear up some misconceptions about my post.

I have not seen the movie 'Liberace' and I am not familiar with your reference, so I reject the premise of the statement.

I want to state, on the record, that I am against pedophilia of any kind, gay or straight.

The cases I was referring to in my post were of heterosexual men luring homosexuals who had not engaged in acts of pedophilia, but were being targeted by the common misconception that all homosexual men are pedophiles.

The distinction is being made on the part of the Russians, and not the American LGBT community.

I agree and share your condemnation of molestation.

The reason I chose the photo of the young boy was simply because I wanted to show the inappropriateness of beating up a person and posting photos online. Whether the boy in that photo was a convicted pedophile is irrelevant. The fact of the matter is that this boy was not given a trial by peers and was not caught in the act of pedophilia. This isn't the Russian version of 'to catch a predator'. This is a group of people seeking out a different group of people and attacking them for what they assume they are doing.

I am in partial agreement of your statement.

The argument I try to make (hence this post) is that there is a common misconception that all homosexuals engage in acts of pedophilia. This assumption is historically based; in Roman times most homosexual relationships were comprised of older men, centuries, for example, and younger boys. Though these relationships are wrong, this does not mean that homosexual men of modern society are more or less prone to being pedophiles. My goal is to eliminate the common assumption that homosexuals are pedophiles by nature, or that they are more prone to pedophilia then heterosexuals. This assumption is flatly untrue.

I do agree that the LGBT organizations do not alway do their research fully, and occasionally leap to the defense of someone wrongly. This is one of the reason I started Gay Genesis-because I did not agree with other LGBT politics.

My article condemns groups like Occupy Pedophilia that attack innocent homosexuals under the guise of seeking out pedophiles. It is wrong to target a demographic for violence because of an assumption. My article also gives voice to the claims that Occupy Pedophilia is seeking out pedophiles, but the claim is quickly overridden with so many LGBT organizations releasing statements that the group is using this guise to attack homosexuals.

I appreciate you taking the time to read this rather long post, and I hope I have made my position clearer.

 

First of all I don't think that 'not actively denouncing evil' = condoning that evil. Were Democracy-spreading/interventionist neo-cons denouncing their government when it exiled the democratically elected leader of Haiti in favor of a US puppet? What about when neo-con advisers wanted a first strike in response to the Cuban Missile Crisis? I don't think this is a fault of neo-cons (except those who did it), nor do I think homosexual pedophilia is the fault of homosexuals who don't actively denounce it.

I think if you actually asked homosexuals what they think, the vast majority would denounce homosexual pedophilia, or would have a more nuanced position (as I do) surrounding age of consent laws, regardless of sexual orientation.

 

Regarding your example, 15 year olds is a grey area, they can legally give informed consent in plenty of countries. So gay rights groups do not necessarily need to condemn such relationships, we are not talking little kids here. Of course, they should not encourage any illegal activity either. Also, pedophilia strictly speaking means prepubescent kids, generally less than 13 years old.

I dont think you will find any gay rights group that would not condemn child molesters, homosexual or heterosexual. And maybe they should do it more actively, I can see the logic behind that opinion.

 

Where there is anything about pedophiles except the claims of vigilantes (which clearly can't be considered a reliable source)? The vigilantes are linked to neonazi groups They don't focus on child molesters, they don't focus on pedophiles, they clearly focus on gays. There is nothing about pretending being prepubescent boys. They pretend to be 15 years old or so, which is nearly adult. BTW the age of consent in Russia is 16. Mostly the victims of the vigilantes groups are young people. Furthermore, as far as I know there is no clear sign that those people are going to meeting with the supposed young male to have sex with him.

I didn't find anywhere people celebrating those, who want to have sex with minors. You should quote it if you find it there.

 

First of all, lets just clear the air here.

We don't have to go around denouncing pedophilia and trying to distance it from ourselves. No decent human being agrees with pedophilia, gay, straight, bisexual, transgendered, or asexual.

Do heterosexuals walk around denouncing pedophilia at every turn of the road? Do heterosexuals need to profess how disturbed and disgusted they are when they see straight jail bait in a movie? Or when there's a straight performer with a much younger man or woman? Do you have to apologize for what someone else does who happens to be heterosexual?

If the answer to that is no then why are you implying there should be a double standard?

As for the Russian neo nazi group luring homosexual teens in and then beating and humiliating them...if you actually read up on them they pretend to be older men looking for younger boys. They are themselves preying on young boys using the Internet to target homosexuals.

 

We've been over this subject. Liberace having sex with a 16 year old does not make him a pedophile. Hell, it's not even illegal in half the western world. Your definitions are (*)(*)(*)(*)ed beyond all recognition. And yes, websites talking about hate crimes against homosexuals don't mention pedophiles. Why should they? If the group was angling for pedophiles and ended up with gay teens, and then still went ahead with it, that doesn't by any means excuse their actions. I don't give two (*)(*)(*)(*)s about how many pedophiles the caught, their actions are extremely criminal and absolutely inexcusable. Yes, I condemn pedophiles. But you seem to be confused about what actually constitutes a pedophile, and you seem to be asserting that because we don't explicitly condemn pedophiles, we support them. Or that this matters. Yeah, pedophiles are bad. They also aren't the subject when talking about gay teens being beaten and tortured in Russia, or Liberace - who was not a pedophile, and probably not even a ****phile.

 

No, I think it's safe to say that the content of your post is as ignorant as the title.

Let's be fair. Scott Thorson was 16 years old. 16 is not the age of consent in several states. So quit painting the picture that Liberace was some child molester, when in fact the real issue is a debatable gray area at best.

See above.

Sir, you are grossly misrepresenting reality. Nobody here is excusing the pedophiles. In fact, the poster who started the thread dealing with the subject you are referring to said this in response.

As to the articles, they are focusing on the 15 year olds because that's who the Russian government targeted. You didn't provide any articles that said they even went after the pedophiles. What does that tell you?

Contrary to your misrepresenting opinions, most progay people here are angry at Russia's backwards methods in this situation. Rather than helping the underage kids get out of that lifestyle, they target them, INSTEAD of targeting the pedophiles.

If you want to be taken seriously, then stop misrepresenting your opponents' opinions and get the facts straight.

[video=youtube;VDW0ZnZxjn4]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VDW0ZnZxjn4[/video]

 

We? Have you assigned yourself as spokesperson?

You remain silent at your own peril. You need to get familiar with the facts of life.

 

Oh look, a pedant.

 

Me thinks you don't know how to apply that word.

 

You must hold an incredible hatred for the Catholic Church....I suggest you avoid talking to the Pope.

 

I understand that a story which addresses all of the facts would cover the pedophiles they discover. Since none of the sites linked are actual news outlets rather, they are homosexual propaganda sites, then the slant on the stories should be expected.

I find no issue with an agenda driven web site pushing their agenda. Does anyone believe any of those silly blogs to actually be news sites?

If you visit a site like lifesitenews.com do you think you will find one positive story about abortion (not that there is one) ?

If you are pro-abortion (anti-baby) then you don't go to lifesitenews. It's the same thing with the sites linked in the OP

 

Well, it's true, that these sites have some interests and therefore there can be slant on the stories. But you can't just assume it's there. Plus vast majority of homosexuals aren't child molesters (the same like vast majority of heterosexuals aren't child molesters), so if there were people seeking sex with young children, they wouldn't really have an interest in hiding it. Neonazis and some other groups in Russia clearly have some interests too, they are clearly antigay. I definitely believe more gay sites than neonazis.

 

Because it's utterly irrelevant. There is no universe in which that fact would make a whit of difference. This isn't some national courtroom that accidentally got the wrong guy. These guys are illegal vigilantes who (at least according to you) were after pedophiles. They ended up with multiple teenagers looking for a good time, and then proceeded to not say, "Whoops, we got the wrong person, we were actually baiting pedophiles", but rather to physically abuse them. Then we get their assertions that they were aiming for gay pedophiles. Yeah, sorry, that's no (*)(*)(*)(*)ing excuse. Even if they did catch "pedophiles", their actions would still be illegal, because torturing someone for an alleged crime, or a crime not committed, is still (*)(*)(*)(*)ing torture. There's a reason we have court systems.

Sec. Let's be (*)(*)(*)(*)ing clear here.

Are you going to play the apologist for extreme vigilante justice against those who have committed no crime and who were never judged guilty or not guilty with a clear motive to hurt as many gay people as possible?

 

I'm not sure what you are referring to. I'm not here to point the finger at any one person or article but a group thought displayed in multiple LGBT articles.

How can you reject something you admit you haven't seen?

Good.

Again, I have no idea who you are or what posts you are referring to. It certainly was not aimed at any one person.

I posted American LGBT articles on this. None made the distinction.

Good.

If you are responsible for that article why did you not mention that they picked up true pedophiles and that the gay community does not support pedophilia? That was missing from every single article linked.

Anyone who believes that is a moron.

And thats fine but the condemnation of pedophilia must be as front and center as it is with defending ordinary homosexuals and that by the articles I posted is not the case.

Your position is very clear and I appreciate your thoughts. I just wish more people in the LGBT community made the distinction between regular homosexuals and pedophiles preying on children. You can be against the violence against the child predators of course (which I personally am not against be it gay or straight child predators) but the action must be condemned. I believe very strongly that your ranks of supporters would be far greater if more people knew your feelings on the matter.

 

before my detractors, after having their PM chats come flying in, please find one post where I support beating anyone.

Now, to the point I underlined. We will agree to disagree. I believe that your agenda would make you want to believe that the advocate and other gay sites are not biased. I will offer to you the Family Research Center as a site where I will find stories which lean conservative and always expect them to have conservative leanings much like I would never expect the advocate or other similar sites to push for smaller, less intrusive govt.

 

find me one post, just one, where I deviate from my position of "my rights end at the tip of my nose and your rights end at the tip of your fist"

If you are looking for a bogey man might I suggest the closet, basement or under the bed

Nobody but nobody has the right to go out, grab someone and beat them for whatever perverse pleasure or sense of justice they feel they have.

Now, does that mean that if someone hurt my child that the person had best hope the cops get there before me, you bet your bippy I'd be making a beeline to their home.

 

Wonderful. So why should stories about what amounts to a terrorist group entrapping, kidnapping and physically abusing gay teens have to mention that the group also caught pedophiles? It's like arguing that when talking about Charles Manson, we should mention the statistical probability that some of the people he murdered were also murderers. It's completely (*)(*)(*)(*)ing irrelevant and a smokescreen to distract from what's really happening, and what we should be discussing.

 

ahh, I see what you are asking. The reason would be that the thread is pointing out how half of the story is omitted, which it is. I addressed that earlier by stating that I would not expect fair and balanced reporting from non news, agenda driven sites. I offered up lifesitenews and family research council as 2 examples on the other side.

 

Then it should be reflected in those articles and it isn't. Thats the entire point.

The same with the Liberace movie and zero condemnation from the LGBT websites. In fact it was celebrated.

 

This kind of hair splitting is exactly what I'm talking about.

And you are incorrect on the definition.

Definition of PEDOPHILIA
: sexual perversion in which children are the preferred sexual object
— pe·do·phil·i·ac or pe·do·phil·ic adjective

 

Obviously you didn't read the article. They also pretend to be 15 year old children looking for older men. In fact that is how they started out. Its this kind of omission from your argument that I'm talking about here.

I don't know of a single heterosexual group that defends pedos. If you know of one, quote them and link them to it.

 

Which half of the story is being omitted? The story is that a vigilante group has been kidnapping, physically abusing, and outing young homosexuals. That they aimed for pedophiles (or at least claimed to, I don't believe them for a (*)(*)(*)(*)ing minute) is completely (*)(*)(*)(*)ing irrelevant given their actions. It's like how the insane psycho slasher used to feed kittens in his spare time between slowly burning his victims to death.