Homosexual Wayne Besen on BEL

[eph39]

One more thing: if it's just a matter of naturally desiring sex with people with the same sex, why do so many homosexuals enjoy dressing up as ladies?

 

[Revelation]

Some human beings have found it pleasurable to inject plant opiates into their veins, too. Feels good, I'm told, but isn't natural.

Answer the question: Is the anus and rectum of a male as readily self-lubricated and penetrable as a female's vagina, assuming the receptive partners are equally desirous of sex? Does the anus naturally and spontaneously lend itself to such activity, as the vagina does?

Further, does the anus and rectum hold up to repeated, prolonged and vigorous penetration without any negative consequences, as a receptive vagina can?

Also, why's there such a thing as Gay Bowel Syndrome and other disorders of the butt, if men sodomizing one another is so natural?

While we on the topic: why does semen trigger an foreign immune response in receptive men, but not in women?

Interesting arguments.

First off, the vagina is better suited for sexual intercourse than the anus. I'm not disagreeing. That argument just doesn't mean anything since I don't pretend that there is a sole purpose for everything. Also, there is more to homosexuality than just sex, just as there is more to heterosexuality than just sex.

Anal sex is generally not a healthy sexual activity in abundance. That is why gay men practice mutual masturbation, frotting, and oral sex far more often. Of course, lesbians don't have to worry too much, do they?

As far as gay bowel syndrome, this wiki article should explain it.
http://rationalwiki.com/wiki/index.php?title=Gay_Bowel_Syndrome

Also, did you know that when a woman is pregnant with a male child, her body forms antibodies to attack it? The immune system will naturally respond to anything it sees as a foreign presence, whether it someone's semen or vaginal fluid.

 

[Revelation]

One more thing: if it's just a matter of naturally desiring sex with people with the same sex, why do so many homosexuals enjoy dressing up as ladies?

I already addressed that argument in another thread.

Transvestism is a fetish that is separate from sexual orientation. There are heterosexual people who dress in women's clothes. They are just less likely to pubically demonstrate the behavior than homosexuals because they are often afraid of being accused of being gay.

 

[eph39]

Interesting arguments.

First off, the vagina is better suited for sexual intercourse than the anus. I'm not disagreeing.

Of course you aren't, you came out of one. Aren't you thankful your father wasn't an exclusive homosexual?

Also, there is more to homosexuality than just sex, just as there is more to heterosexuality than just sex.

I wouldn't dare speak for all normal people, much less all homosexuals. But I can tell you that every homosexual I've met - and that's a lot, as I was in a theater department for five years - every one of them made their sexual choices the primary factor of their identity. Perhaps you're unlike them, or perhaps you are but are lying, I can't know. But they sure as heck made a point of being "on" all the time, sexual jokes and innuendos, even though no one really cared.

And by the way: if it's just a matter of normal sexual expression, where's the effeminacy common to homosexuals come from? I ask b/c I've seen them turn it on and off at will, appearing totally normal when need be, and then cutting loose and "flaming" in another. Which one's the normal state for homosexuals?

Anal sex is generally not a healthy sexual activity in abundance.

Define "abundance."

That is why gay men practice mutual masturbation, frotting, and oral sex far more often.

But if anal sex is NATURAL...you already know what I'm going to ask.

Of course, lesbians don't have to worry too much, do they?

The ignoring and/or perversion of structures and plumbing still applies.

As far as gay bowel syndrome, this wiki article should explain it.
http://rationalwiki.com/wiki/index.php?title=Gay_Bowel_Syndrome

No thanks. If it's a normal practice it shouldn't exist. There's no Straight Vagina Syndrome, after all.

Also, did you know that when a woman is pregnant with a male child, her body forms antibodies to attack it?

That's a hormonal issue more than anything else. It is not her system ID'ing foreign matter in her bloodstream, as is the case with receptive homosexuals and semen. The point being, you deliberately inject yourself with a substance that, doctors have proved, sets off your immune alarms. That's not natural.[/quote]

 

[Revelation]

I wouldn't dare speak for all normal people, much less all homosexuals. But I can tell you that every homosexual I've met - and that's a lot, as I was in a theater department for five years - every one of them made their sexual choices the primary factor of their identity. Perhaps you're unlike them, or perhaps you are but are lying, I can't know. But they sure as heck made a point of being "on" all the time, sexual jokes and innuendos, even though no one really cared.

Yes, I don't particularly like flamers. They choose to act that way not so much because that is who they are, but as a political statement. From the views you have expressed, I can't imagine many gays like me would be forthcoming in coming out to you.

And by the way: if it's just a matter of normal sexual expression, where's the effeminacy common to homosexuals come from? I ask b/c I've seen them turn it on and off at will, appearing totally normal when need be, and then cutting loose and "flaming" in another. Which one's the normal state for homosexuals?

Gender disconformity. You should have watched that 60 minutes documentary I posted. Personally, I consider myself 100% male.

Define "abundance."

It depends upon the individual.

But if anal sex is NATURAL...you already know what I'm going to ask.

We are coming down to where we have a disagreement on the definition of natural. Whereas I see it as what occurs in nature, you define as loving in accordance to some predefined purpose.

The ignoring and/or perversion of structures and plumbing still applies.

Meaning they don't live by the predefined purposes that you accept.

No thanks. If it's a normal practice it shouldn't exist. There's no Straight Vagina Syndrome, after all.

It only exists because of people like you. The term is virtually meaningless to medicine.

That's a hormonal issue more than anything else. It is not her system ID'ing foreign matter in her bloodstream, as is the case with receptive homosexuals and semen. The point being, you deliberately inject yourself with a substance that, doctors have proved, sets off your immune alarms. That's not natural.

As I said, any foriegn substance can set off your immune alarms. Including the food you eat. Heck, even another person's saliva will cause an immune response. Do you want to do away with kissing because it doesn't meet your definition of "natural"?

 

[eph39]

Well. Guess we've said all we can here. Except,

Vagina is for sex and birth.

Anus is for pooping.

so long,

 

[Revelation]

Well. Guess we've said all we can here. Except,

Vagina is for sex and birth.

Anus is for pooping.

so long,

Yup, teleological until the very end.

The vagina and anus are body parts of which freewill allows people to use as they see fit. To argue a predefined purpose ignores what occurs in reality.

 

[AlfredTuring]

Graphite, thanks for listing those examples of homosexual leaders and leading publications tolerating and even promoting pedophilia.

Men who care about children should have zero tolerance for the promotion of sex with children.

Notice that AlfredTuring didn't mention that Wayne Besen himself refused to condemn Alyson Publications for promotion of their pediophila titles.

That is direct evidence from Besen himself of a filthy degree of tolerance. Amazon.com for example has disassociated from publishers that condemn homosexuality, but has refused to do so even after Christian campaigns asking them to stop selling actual pro-pedophila books and promoting publishers like Alyson.

Regarding the case against homosexual 'leaders,' this is the most damning regarding Besen himself: "Besen insisted that only the gay fringe tolerated sex with children so Bob asked if he had heard of Alyson Publications of Boston, a leading homosexual publisher. Yes... but when asked to condemn Alyson for publishing Paedophilia: The Radical Case, with 300 pages of why and how to have sex with even pre-teen boys, Besen himself refused!"

AlfredTuring, birds of a feather. I assert that in widespread disagreement over morality, your rebellion against God naturally moves you to side with others in rebellion against God.

Alfred, two questions (Boolean logic may be helpful here :

Do you condemn Alyson Publications for their promotion of pedophila?

Should Besen condemn Alyson Publications for their promotion of pedophila?

-Bob Enyart
KGOV.com

Such disingenuous behavior. You are accusing this man of something very serious, and it's based on nothing except for your personal distaste for people "of his kind". Everything you've said above relies on Wayne's "refusal to condemn" the company. As I recall from the conversation, the two of you were talking over each other quite a bit at this point. If you were interested in seeing his actual stance on the topic, you would've urged him to clearly state his view. Instead you asked the question, then you guys talked over each other for a short time, then you rapidly moved on (this is why I urged people to actually listen to the recording!). It makes sense on your part to do this: because Wayne expressed his desire to make "crystal clear" that he in no way advocates pedophilia (of course this isn't in the summary). This conflicts with his supposed refusal to condemn someone advocating the act -- obviously, we still don't really know his stance on Alyson, nor his reasons for it. If you're going to accuse someone of something like this, you should be "crystal clear" about the truth of it; this is less than what we have so far. Pointing out the uncertainty would've been more fair, but this...

I have no rebellion against your God. To say so would assert my belief in Him. I don't even rebel against Christianity; I merely say, "umm, no, thank you." My view doesn't acknowledge Christianity as deserving a specific dismissal -- I reject all institutions of faith collectively. Incidentally, I do rather like the character of Christ though.

Thanks Bob, I'll use my brain's logical circuitry on this one, if you insist.

"Do you condemn Alyson Publications for their promotion of pedophila?"
If the situation is indeed as it's been described by you, obviously I condemn them. I've already made my stance clear in previous posts.

"Should Besen condemn Alyson Publications for their promotion of pedophila?"
If the situation is indeed as it's been described by you, obviously he should condemn them.

 

[Bob Enyart]

AfredTuring, thanks for answering...

AfredTuring, thanks for answering...

AT: I'm thankful for your direct answers:

Do you condemn Alyson Publications for their promotion of pedophila?
AT: "If the situation is indeed as it's been described by you, obviously I condemn them. I've already made my stance clear in previous posts."

Should Besen condemn Alyson Publications for their promotion of pedophila?
AT: "If the situation is indeed as it's been described by you, obviously he should condemn them."

And the way you answered these questions shows thoughtfulness also and a willingness to engage on the substance of the issue.

I didn't press Besen on this because his refusal to condemn Alyson is common to what I've seen from homosexuals for 17 years on air. It was no surprise to me; perhaps it was to you.

-Bob Enyart
KGOV.com

 

[Bob Enyart]

This is a bit self-serving, posting this email from John Haskins...

This is a bit self-serving, posting this email from John Haskins...

John Haskins of UndergroundJournal.net sent me this email about the interview with Wayne Besen:

Bob,
Wow. Terrific job! What patience you showed. And you got better and better and better as it went on. By the last third of the debate you seemed in full control. Besen was on the defensive and his evasions were becoming ineffective.
Besen was very evasive and manipulative. He was quite difficult to handle in the first third or so, but not because of the content or logic of anything he says. Everything he says is extremely weak content-wise and logic-wise. His skill is in his constant evasiveness, ridicule and constantly interrupting any point you make that is effective and using a faux-mature superior tone. ...
At about 60% of the way through the interview Besen:

1. asserted (several times) that "gay men are not attracted to youths."

But within a minute or two he flatly contradicted himself by saying:

2. "the Catholic Church will have molestation problems as long as they do not allow women priests, male priests to marry and gay priests to come out of the closet."

Well, a small percentage of victims of priests' molestation were girls. About 85% of the guilty priests molested boys. They were homosexuals. So Besen is trapped. He implies that these priests molested boys because they are sexually repressed homosexuals who are not allowed to be openly gay. This came moments after he asserted that homosexual men are NOT attracted to youths.
Moreover, it appears that many greatly prefer sex with boys because obviously, it's far easier and safer for a homosexual priest to find adult male homosexuals than to isolate boys and molest them in secret, risking prosecution.

Thanks John for your encouragement. And, great website by the way!

-Bob Enyart
KGOV.com