(March 21, 2015 at 8:00 pm)NuclearJaguar Wrote: To be honest, I wouldn't describe a pedophile as "straight" or "gay" based on the child's sex. It's not "gay", it's just perverted. Gay men are attracted to masculine characteristics found in adult males (facial features, body shape, hair, not found in young boys), not interested in hairless feminine little boysHarvey Milk WAS gay, that's a fact.
Be careful how you throw around "the gay person" when discussing pedophilia. And if you insist on attaching adult sexuality to it, remember the overwhelming majority of sex offenses are committed against women and young girls, by men.
(March 21, 2015 at 8:10 pm)Esquilax Wrote: However, I don't think Huggy was attempting to make the connection that gay people are necessarily pedophiles, I think he was pointing out- no less fallaciously- that because some atheists defended Harvey Milk for having an underage boyfriend, therefore that somehow makes us hypocrites because we're atheists too, and because of that must have the same opinions as those atheists.I'm talking about members of this forums so "us" would be correct, you added your 2 cents to the conversation.
http://atheistforums.org/thread-26392-po...#pid679293
(May 31, 2014 at 10:59 am)Esquilax Wrote: 16 is the age of consent where I am. Bit shaky, but I don't find this particularly objectionable on its own, and certainly not enough to label the guy a pedophile. Seems like classic theistic stretching beyond their means to me.Would you be fine with a straight man in his 30's having sexual relations with a 16 year girl....
(March 21, 2015 at 8:16 pm)Spooky Wrote: Fair enough. Guilt by association. Seems like standard christian MO.I'm talking about a few members of this forum, I don't believe you were part of the conversation however.
