Why Homosexuality MUST Be Recriminalized! Part 5

[MrDante]

Originally Posted by MrDante
why would ANYONE sit down with you?



I would love to go over Linda Harvey's "12 Ways Homosexual Adults Endanger Children" again.

https://barbwire.com/twelve-ways-homosexual-adults-endanger-children/

Oh please go ahead.

we could start with her ongoing support of violence in schools

i forget does Harvey's fruitcake list include her belief that Halloween is an invention of homosexuals used to "recruit" children?

As I recall, you changed the subject to something other than child molestation/indoctrination before we got too far into Harvey's article.

as i recall you did what you usually do when your garbage is confronted with facts, you ran away

In any event, as we've seen with the Dear Uncle Art/Dear Uncle Kit scenarios that I presented: proud and unrepentant homosexuals (in the case of you and Arthur, one alleged straight guy and one alleged bisexual who defend homosexuality) won't tell children that homosexuality is wrong, be it from physical, psychological or spiritual perspectives.

http://lordoftheflies.org/img/TERRYDJDAN.jpg

why would anyone except a child abuser lie to a child and say things like that?

 

[Arthur Brain]

In any event, as we've seen with the Dear Uncle Art/Dear Uncle Kit scenarios that I presented: proud and unrepentant homosexuals (in the case of you and Arthur, one alleged straight guy and one alleged bisexual who defend homosexuality) won't tell children that homosexuality is wrong, be it from physical, psychological or spiritual perspectives.

There's nothing "alleged" about it aCW. Your "Uncle Art/Kit" scenarios would probably have even made Jack Chick cringe.

:freak:

 

[MrDante]

Thank you for at least agreeing that if someone is "inspired" by a child rapist

You've been asked asked several times to back up this claim about Hay but all you do is keep repeating the lie.

 

[MrDante]

I'll get to the bottom of your and ...Dante's posts where while discussing adult-child sex (specifically the homosexual founded North American Man Boy Love Association) you both stated numerous times something to the effect "I might not agree with their stance, but I agree that they have the right to say it!"

i don't agree with your perversion and obsession with presenting lies and propaganda as truth....but i support your right to do so.

 

[aCultureWarrior]

Quote: Originally posted by aCultureWarrior
Would leading UK homosexual activist Peter Tatchell's letter to the editor where he stated that some children as young as 9 years old enjoy having sex with adults be considered a "responsible conversation" about pedophilia Kit?

you forgot two things. first you forgot to include the fact that the Guardian retracted and apologized for the content editing they subjected Thatchelle's letter to.

Since you didn't supply a link to that alleged "retract", I'll have to assume that the Guardian didn't do so.

How soon you forget that you and I talked about Peter Tatchell's letter to the editor supporting adult-child sex. It was in Part 4:

Quote: Originally posted by MrDante
Too bad your Tatchell lie has been debunked a dozen times over.

Find a new lie already, this one is getting boring.

Quote: Originally posted by aCultureWarrior
I recall discussing with alwight the atheist (RIP) UK homosexual activist Peter the pedophile's article where he attempted to explain that everything in his letter to the editor was taken out of context.

Adults should not have sex with children. I do not advocate paedophilia
http://www.petertatchell.net/lgbt_rights/age_of_consent/under-age-sex-statement-of-clarification/



Note how Peter the pedophile in the above link says:

"3. I agree that for the vast majority of children, sex with adults is neither wanted nor joyful

Re: #3: According to Peter the pedophile, some child sex with adults is wanted and joyful.

"and 4. I believe an academic discussion of these issues, based on research and evidence, is legitimate and should not be misinterpreted as support for any form of child sex abuse."

Re: #4: As long as it's an academic discussion based on research and evidence (that some child sex with adults is wanted and joyful) then in the mind of homosexual activist and promoter of pedophilia Peter Tatchell, that discussion is legitimate.

Go ahead ...Dante, tell me how I "misinterpreted" Peter Tatchell's above article and how he really didn't mean those things.
http://theologyonline.com/showthrea...ized!-Part-4&p=4946231&viewfull=1#post4946231

You also forgot to put up your usual photo shopped picture:

If a homosexual activist is going to support child rape, why not put a picture to it?

 

[MrDante]

Take for instance famous poet Walt Whitman, who at age 65 had a sexual relationship with a 12 year old boy.

WALT WHITMAN and BILL DUCKETT:
MAN/BOY LOVERS
https://www.nambla.org/whitman.html

https://www.nambla.org/Pics/duc-1a.jpg

Was LGBTQ icon Walt Whitman a "responsible" pedophile/pederast Kit?

the photo above was taken in 1886. The man with Whitman is Bill Duckett who was born in 1862. do the math.

 

[Kit the Coyote]

Moving the goal post from "responsible conservation amongst pedophiles" Kit now says that even irresponsible and insane speech is some kind of "right".

Considering that what I said is what most people are talking about in reference to that phrase, I question who is moving the goal posts.

So yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater even though you know that there isn't one and that it will cause a panic that could cause injury and death to others is now a "right"?

Which I addressed when I brought up the example, you will not find a blanket law that makes it illegal to yell fire but you are still responsible if doing so causes injury and death.

Talking about man-boy sex/adult-child sex, even though the promoters of pedophilia/pederasty might not engage in the act (more like they haven't been caught) is the same. It promotes sexual chaos and anarchy and children and others are hurt by such talk.

Exactly, which is why it is irresponsible to talk about it positively. And they can be held responsible for any such hurt. Talking about it in general? Have you turned yourself into the police yet?

As requested numerous times before: provide a scenario where two or more pedophiles/pederasts talking about adult-child sex have that supposed "right" to do so, as so far you've stated that they don't.

It is your strawman and I would say you have provided several examples. They have a right to speak, that does not make their speech responsible and they can be held responsible for any consequences of their speech.

I'm surprised that you've even heard of Walt Whitman (sarcasm). He's a major icon in the movement that you represent.

It is rather hard to get to the High School and College level American Literature and not have heard the name. As usual, you seem to paint with the worst brush and assumptions. From the wiki entry:

Though biographers continue to debate Whitman's sexuality, he is usually described as either homosexual or bisexual in his feelings and attractions. Whitman's sexual orientation is generally assumed on the basis of his poetry, though this assumption has been disputed. His poetry depicts love and sexuality in a more earthy, individualistic way common in American culture before the medicalization of sexuality in the late 19th century. Though Leaves of Grass was often labeled pornographic or obscene, only one critic remarked on its author's presumed sexual activity: in a November 1855 review, Rufus Wilmot Griswold suggested Whitman was guilty of "that horrible sin not to be mentioned among Christians."


Whitman had intense friendships with many men and boys throughout his life. Some biographers have suggested that he may not have actually engaged in sexual relationships with males

....

Another possible lover was Bill Duckett. As a teenager, he lived on the same street in Camden and moved in with Whitman, living with him a number of years and serving him in various roles. Duckett was 15 when Whitman bought his house at 328 Mickle Street. From at least 1880, Duckett and his grandmother, Lydia Watson, were boarders, subletting space from another family at 334 Mickle Street. Because of this proximity, Duckett and Whitman met as neighbors. Their relationship was close, with the youth sharing Whitman's money when he had it. Whitman described their friendship as "thick". Though some biographers describe him as a boarder, others identify him as a lover

Wait a minute, you said he was 12. So it is not clear that there was any sexual relationship.

In the case of NAMBLA and the pedophiles/pederasts of the LGBTQ movement: 'talking equals promoting'. See my above comment highlighted in red.

See my response. If 'talking equals promoting' have you turned yourself into the police yet?

While I'm honored that you believe that I wrote the moral code for mankind, all credit goes to God.

As observed before, there are differences of opinion among Christians on this and homosexuality is still legal in the US. But thanks again for confirming your position.

You mean the 11 million LGBT individuals that consider pederasts Walt Whitman, Harry Hay, Frank Kameny, Terry Bean (who founded the HRC, the most powerful homosexual "rights" organization in the world) and Harvey Milk as well as child indoctrinators Kevin Jennings and Dan Savage to be icons (i.e. "leaders) of the modern day homosexual movement?

I suspect most of them don't even know who they are or care.

 

[aCultureWarrior]

While I'm not going to spend much time exposing leading UK homosexual activist Peter Tatchell and his defense of adult-child sex, as it's been covered ad nauseum in previous threads, I should point out that Tatchell in his letter to the editor defending adult-child sex did praise the following book.

http://img.valorebooks.com/FULL/97/9780/978085/9780854492411.jpg

Joseph Geraci, an American writer living in the Netherlands, earned his place in the pantheon of sexual scholarship as the editor, and one of the founders, of Paidika: The Journal of Paedophilia. He also edited Dares To Speak: Historical and Contemporary Perspectives on Boy-Love, a book that drew together and extended selected aspects of Paidikas work. He is the author of four novels and is also a dealer in archives, books, and vintage photographs.
https://www.boywiki.org/en/Joseph_Geraci

Those that have followed this 5 part thread will remember that I spoke about "Paidika: The Journal of Paedophilia"

and that many noted "scholars in academia" took a part in writing it.

https://spotlightonabuse.files.wordpress.com/2014/03/g260697.jpg

Tell us again how pedophiles have a "right" to talk about adult-child sex Kit and ...Dante.

 

[aCultureWarrior]

Regarding homosexual/pederast icon Walt Whitman and his sexual relationship with Bill Ducket:

the photo above was taken in 1886. The man with Whitman is Bill Duckett who was born in 1862. do the math.

According to the founders of the modern day man-boy love movement:


"The boy was probably not 12 in 1889, but neither was he 18 in 1886. My estimate is that Bill was 12 when the two began going together in 1884 and was 18 when they parted in 1889. He was unquestionably a teenager when Whitman knew him."
https://www.nambla.org/whitman.html

i.e. Homosexual icon Walt Whitman started raping the lad when he was 12.

 

[Kit the Coyote]

Regarding homosexual/pederast icon Walt Whitman and his sexual relationship with Bill Ducket:



According to the founders of the modern-day man-boy love movement:


"The boy was probably not 12 in 1889, but neither was he 18 in 1886. My estimate is that Bill was 12 when the two began going together in 1884 and was 18 when they parted in 1889. He was unquestionably a teenager when Whitman knew him."
https://www.nambla.org/whitman.html

i.e. Homosexual icon Walt Whitman started raping the lad when he was 12.

Once again, ACW turns to NAMBLA as a source. Has anyone noticed that he is the only one here that reads NAMBLA publications?

As for your claim, you have presented no evidence to support it. What NAMBLA wanted the relationship to be or their seemingly inaccurate guess at the lad's age is meaningless.

 

[aCultureWarrior]

Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
So yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater even though you know that there isn't one and that it will cause a panic that could cause injury and death to others is now a "right"?

Which I addressed when I brought up the example, you will not find a blanket law that makes it illegal to yell fire but you are still responsible if doing so causes injury and death.

Actually every US State does have laws prohibiting the false reporting of a fire:

Making a False Fire Alarm
California Penal Code 148.4 PC
Penal Code 148.4 is the California law making it a crime to make false reports of a fire. Specifically, this section prohibits
tampering with or breaking fire alarms or fire protection equipment (such as extinguishers)
triggering a false fire alarm, OR
making a false report of a fire
https://www.shouselaw.com/false-fire-alarm.html

Are you beginning to see why certain laws are written? (to prevent things that lead to chaos, anarchy, injury and death).

Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
Talking about man-boy sex/adult-child sex, even though the promoters of pedophilia/pederasty might not engage in the act (more like they haven't been caught) is the same. It promotes sexual chaos and anarchy and children and others are hurt by such talk.

Exactly, which is why it is irresponsible to talk about it positively. And they can be held responsible for any such hurt. Talking about it in general? Have you turned yourself into the police yet?

I'm still waiting for the "While I might not agree with pedophilia, pedophiles still have a "right" to discuss raping little boys" scenario.


Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
As requested numerous times before: provide a scenario where two or more pedophiles/pederasts talking about adult-child sex have that supposed "right" to do so, as so far you've stated that they don't.

It is your strawman and I would say you have provided several examples. They have a right to speak, that does not make their speech responsible and they can be held responsible for any consequences of their speech.

Oh I see now: It's a homosexual pedophiles' "right" to talk about raping children and they'll deal with consequences after it happens.

That doesn't help the victims of child rape out much does it?

Hence the reason for criminal conspiracy laws.


Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
I'm surprised that you've even heard of Walt Whitman (sarcasm). He's a major icon in the movement that you represent.

It is rather hard to get to the High School and College level American Literature and not have heard the name. As usual, you seem to paint with the worst brush and assumptions. From the wiki entry:

While wiki does have some good information, when talking about child rapists, why not seek out what the experts on man-boy love had to say about homosexual icon Walt Whitman:

https://www.nambla.org/whitman.html


Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
In the case of NAMBLA and the pedophiles/pederasts of the LGBTQ movement: 'talking equals promoting'. See my above comment highlighted in red.

See my response. If 'talking equals promoting' have you turned yourself into the police yet?

It appears that you need the definition of "promote" explained to you:

further the progress of (something, especially a cause, venture, or aim); support or actively encourage.

Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
While I'm honored that you believe that I wrote the moral code for mankind, all credit goes to God.

As observed before, there are differences of opinion among Christians on this and homosexuality is still legal in the US. But thanks again for confirming your position.

And I've pointed out that "opinions" don't matter when it comes to being a follower of Christ, only what's written in Holy Scripture, in this case what's been written in both the Old and New Testaments regrading human sexuality.

Regarding homosexuality being legal in the US: Hmmmm, perhaps I should start a thread giving numerous reasons why it shouldn't be (oh wait...)

Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
You mean the 11 million LGBT individuals that consider pederasts Walt Whitman, Harry Hay, Frank Kameny, Terry Bean (who founded the HRC, the most powerful homosexual "rights" organization in the world) and Harvey Milk as well as child indoctrinators Kevin Jennings and Dan Savage to be icons (i.e. "leaders) of the modern day homosexual movement?

I suspect most of them don't even know who they are or care.

If you run across any of those 11 million that don't know about the icons in the LGBTQ movement, tell them to be grateful, because the homosexual movement wouldn't be where it's at today without the child indoctrinating/molesting-jack booted thug perverted "icons" .

 

[aCultureWarrior]

Quote: Originally posted by aCultureWarrior
"The boy was probably not 12 in 1889, but neither was he 18 in 1886. My estimate is that Bill was 12 when the two began going together in 1884 and was 18 when they parted in 1889. He was unquestionably a teenager when Whitman knew him."
https://www.nambla.org/whitman.html

i.e. Homosexual icon Walt Whitman started raping the lad when he was 12.

Once again, ACW turns to NAMBLA as a source. Has anyone noticed that he is the only one here that reads NAMBLA publications?

What page(s) in "After the Ball..." did Kirk and Madsen tell homosexual activists to 'distance themselves from organizations such as NAMBLA'?

You're a good learner grasshopper.

As for your claim, you have presented no evidence to support it. What NAMBLA wanted the relationship to be or their seemingly inaccurate guess at the lad's age is meaningless.

So you're saying 65 year old homosexual male Walt Whitman who spent years with a lad whom he met when the boy was 12, didn't have a sexual relationship going on with the boy?

Yeah, I bet all of those underage boys that Terry Bean (who founded the HRC) had over to his condo were only playing parcheesi with him.

Refer my earlier comment about not falling off of the turnip truck yesterday.

 

[Kit the Coyote]

Actually, every US State does have laws prohibiting the false reporting of a fire:

Making a False Fire Alarm
California Penal Code 148.4 PC
Penal Code 148.4 is the California law making it a crime to make false reports of a fire. Specifically, this section prohibits
tampering with or breaking fire alarms or fire protection equipment (such as extinguishers)
triggering a false fire alarm, OR
making a false report of a fire
https://www.shouselaw.com/false-fire-alarm.html

Are you beginning to see why certain laws are written? (to prevent things that lead to chaos, anarchy, injury, and death).

Which could not be used against me if I simply say the word fire. Indeed in any of those states, I could go out on a stage of a crowded theater and after making sure the audience is aware there is no threat, yell fire at the top of my lungs and these laws could not be used against me and stand up in court. These laws only illustrate how the consequences of your speech can be held against you.

I'm still waiting for the "While I might not agree with pedophilia, pedophiles still have a "right" to discuss raping little boys" scenario.

It is your strawman, provide your own straw.

Oh I see now: It's a homosexual pedophiles' "right" to talk about raping children and they'll deal with consequences after it happens.

That doesn't help the victims of child rape out much, does it?

Hence the reason for criminal conspiracy laws.

Exactly

While wiki does have some good information when talking about child rapists, why not seek out what the experts on man-boy love had to say about homosexual icon Walt Whitman:

You seem to be the only one around here who thinks NAMBLA is a good source of information.

Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
In the case of NAMBLA and the pedophiles/pederasts of the LGBTQ movement: 'talking equals promoting'. See my above comment highlighted in red.

It appears that you need the definition of "promote" explained to you:

further the progress of (something, especially a cause, venture, or aim); support or actively encourage.

And you said 'talking equals promoting'. You talk about the subject constantly, you read and promote NAMBLA materials thus by your OWN words you are promoting it. Have you turned yourself into the police yet?

 

[aCultureWarrior]

Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior

Then there's Jennings working? relationship with Larry Kramer at ACT UP! in the early years.

“In those instances where children do have sex with their homosexual elders, be they teachers or anyone else, I submit that often, very often, the child desires the activity, and perhaps even solicits it, either because of a natural curiosity that will or will not develop along these lines, or because he or she is homosexual and innately knows it. This is far from “recruitment."
-Larry Kramer, founder of ACT UP!, who worked alongside Kevin Jennings.

And Kramer goes on to say: "I realize that this is a very volatile issue, and that this in no way absolves the adult participant of responsibility in colluding in such acts, be it with boys or girls. Nor am I sanctioning sex with children, which I personally find as abhorrent as if I was a parent of a child myself. I am just saying that the issue is not so cut-and-dried as many laws and many parents had many righteous moralists maintain."

Again, no link to the above.

I see that Kit the Coyote thanked you for your post, so he must agree with you and what homosexual activist Larry Kramer said:

"I am just saying that the issue is not so cut-and-dried as many laws and many parents had [and] many righteous moralists maintain."

So "the issue" (adult-child sex) is not "cut-and-dried as many laws (that prohibit adult-child sex) and many parents [who want to protect their children from adult sexual predators] and many righteous moralists maintain." (righteous moralists" meaning those who stand behind the biblical view of human sexuality)?

You boyz do realize that you're digging yourselves deeper into the sexually depraved proverbial grave with each post that you write defending the promoters and enablers of man-boy love/adult-child sex don't you?

 

[Kit the Coyote]

What page(s) in "After the Ball..." did Kirk and Madsen tell homosexual activists to 'distance themselves from organizations such as NAMBLA'?

You're a good learner grasshopper.

Couldn't tell you since I've never read the book.

So you're saying 65 year old homosexual male Walt Whitman who spent years with a lad whom he met when the boy was 12, didn't have a sexual relationship going on with the boy?

I am saying you have provided no real proof that the boy he met at age 15 was anything more than a close friend and boarder.

 

[Arthur Brain]

Once again, ACW turns to NAMBLA as a source. Has anyone noticed that he is the only one here that reads NAMBLA publications?

As for your claim, you have presented no evidence to support it. What NAMBLA wanted the relationship to be or their seemingly inaccurate guess at the lad's age is meaningless.

Yes, and why on earth would anyone consider NAMBLA as a source of credible evidence for anything anyway?

 

[aCultureWarrior]

Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
Actually, every US State does have laws prohibiting the false reporting of a fire:

Making a False Fire Alarm
California Penal Code 148.4 PC
Penal Code 148.4 is the California law making it a crime to make false reports of a fire. Specifically, this section prohibits
tampering with or breaking fire alarms or fire protection equipment (such as extinguishers)
triggering a false fire alarm, OR
making a false report of a fire
https://www.shouselaw.com/false-fire-alarm.html

Are you beginning to see why certain laws are written? (to prevent things that lead to chaos, anarchy, injury, and death).

Which could not be used against me if I simply say the word fire. Indeed in any of those states, I could go out on a stage of a crowded theater and after making sure the audience is aware there is no threat, yell fire at the top of my lungs and these laws could not be used against me and stand up in court. These laws only illustrate how the consequences of your speech can be held against you.

It appears that Kit the Coyote needs to understand what the term "Shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theater" means:

"Shouting fire in a crowded theater" is a popular metaphor for speech or actions made for the principal purpose of creating unnecessary panic...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shouting_fire_in_a_crowded_theater

Panic which in turn often times causes injury and even death.

Don't waste my time with other useless scenarios.


Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
I'm still waiting for the "While I might not agree with pedophilia, pedophiles still have a "right" to discuss raping little boys" scenario.

It is your strawman, provide your own straw.

Do your really want me to go back to the numerous posts showing where you and ...Dante quoted "I might not agree with their child raping message, but they have a right to say it!"

Again, provide a scenario showing where promoters of adult-child sex would have that supposed "right".


Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
Oh I see now: It's a homosexual pedophiles' "right" to talk about raping children and they'll deal with consequences after it happens.

That doesn't help the victims of child rape out much, does it?

Hence the reason for criminal conspiracy laws.

Exactly

Thanks for acknowledging that criminal conspiracy laws should be enforced against the leaders of the LGBTQ movement for promoting adult-child sex, as like shouting "fire!" in a crowded theater when there isn't one, these laws protect the innocent from in this case homosexual predators.


Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
While wiki does have some good information when talking about child rapists, why not seek out what the experts on man-boy love had to say about homosexual icon Walt Whitman:

You seem to be the only one around here who thinks NAMBLA is a good source of information.

I have found that the child rapists at NAMBLA are honest about their ties to the LGBTQ movement and many of it's "icons".


Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
In the case of NAMBLA and the pedophiles/pederasts of the LGBTQ movement: 'talking equals promoting'. See my above comment highlighted in red.

It appears that you need the definition of "promote" explained to you:

further the progress of (something, especially a cause, venture, or aim); support or actively encourage.

And you said 'talking equals promoting'. You talk about the subject constantly, you read and promote NAMBLA materials thus by your OWN words you are promoting it. Have you turned yourself into the police yet?

You really are ashamed (or pretend to be) of the child molesting roots of your LGBTQueer movement aren't you Kit?

Your left wing tactic of 'accuse the accuser of being what he's attempting to expose' bores me.


Moving on...

 

[aCultureWarrior]

Originally Posted by Kit the Coyote
Once again, ACW turns to NAMBLA as a source. Has anyone noticed that he is the only one here that reads NAMBLA publications?

As for your claim, you have presented no evidence to support it. What NAMBLA wanted the relationship to be or their seemingly inaccurate guess at the lad's age is meaningless.

Yes, and why on earth would anyone consider NAMBLA as a source of credible evidence for anything anyway?

Excellent point Arthur. Why on earth would anyone that wanted to find out about pedophiles go to a website created by homosexual pedophiles/pederasts?

On that same note: why would anyone that wanted to learn about disease go to a medical website?

Why would anyone that was interested in food go to a culinary website?

You make an excellent case Arthur (Kit's attempt at sarcasm aint got nuttin on mine).

"Boywiki" is a website dedicated to "man-boy lovers" writes the following about homosexual/pedophile/pederast icon Walt Whitman:

Though Whitmen was not pederastic in the classical sense, it appears that he had sexual relationships with both men and boys and perhaps women as well. In 1841, Whitman was allegedly tared and feathered and rode him out of town on a rail due to reports that he was having sexual relationships with one or more of his male students in Southold, N.Y. [2]
https://www.boywiki.org/en/Walt_Whitman

"David S. Reynolds, in his Walt Whitman's America: A Cultural Biography (New York: Knopf, 1995) falls into this pattern with one remarkable exception, his recovery of a "Sodom" story from Whitman's teaching days on Long Island. Katherine Molinoff published a pamphlet in 1966, Walt Whitman at Southold that collected the testimonials of descendants whose oral tradition offers a remarkable story. Reynolds summarizes: "As the story goes, one Sunday (January 3, 1841, is the probable date) he [Whitman] was publicly denounced by the Reverend Ralph Smith from the pulpit of Southold's First Presbyterian Church `because of his behavior to the children, and his goings on.' (Later on, reports of `bloody bedding' would emerge.) Members of the congregation formed a furious mob and went to nearby Kettle Hill, where hot tar was always available for mending fishing nets. They hunted Whitman down at the home of George C. Wells, whose son Giles was later said by Judge Jesse Case to have been `one of Whitman's victims.' Whitman fled to the nearby home of Dr. Ira Corwin, whose housekeeper, Selina Danes, known as `the orphan's friend,' hid him in the attic. The pursuing townspeople found him there, hiding under `straw ticks' (summer mattresses). They seized him, plastered tar and feathers on his hair and clothes, and rode him out of town on a rail."
https://www.nambla.org/whitewash.html

Is being tarred and feathered for raping children better than having a millstone placed around your neck and tossed into the sea?

 

[Arthur Brain]

Excellent point Arthur. Why on earth would anyone that wanted to find out about pedophiles go to a website created by homosexual pedophiles/pederasts?

On that same note: why would anyone that wanted to learn about disease go to a medical website?

Why would anyone that was interested in food go to a culinary website?

You make an excellent case Arthur (Kit's attempt at sarcasm aint got nuttin on mine).

"Boywiki" is a website dedicated to "man-boy lovers" writes the following about homosexual/pedophile/pederast icon Walt Whitman:

Though Whitmen was not pederastic in the classical sense, it appears that he had sexual relationships with both men and boys and perhaps women as well. In 1841, Whitman was allegedly tared and feathered and rode him out of town on a rail due to reports that he was having sexual relationships with one or more of his male students in Southold, N.Y. [2]
https://www.boywiki.org/en/Walt_Whitman

"David S. Reynolds, in his Walt Whitman's America: A Cultural Biography (New York: Knopf, 1995) falls into this pattern with one remarkable exception, his recovery of a "Sodom" story from Whitman's teaching days on Long Island. Katherine Molinoff published a pamphlet in 1966, Walt Whitman at Southold that collected the testimonials of descendants whose oral tradition offers a remarkable story. Reynolds summarizes: "As the story goes, one Sunday (January 3, 1841, is the probable date) he [Whitman] was publicly denounced by the Reverend Ralph Smith from the pulpit of Southold's First Presbyterian Church `because of his behavior to the children, and his goings on.' (Later on, reports of `bloody bedding' would emerge.) Members of the congregation formed a furious mob and went to nearby Kettle Hill, where hot tar was always available for mending fishing nets. They hunted Whitman down at the home of George C. Wells, whose son Giles was later said by Judge Jesse Case to have been `one of Whitman's victims.' Whitman fled to the nearby home of Dr. Ira Corwin, whose housekeeper, Selina Danes, known as `the orphan's friend,' hid him in the attic. The pursuing townspeople found him there, hiding under `straw ticks' (summer mattresses). They seized him, plastered tar and feathers on his hair and clothes, and rode him out of town on a rail."
https://www.nambla.org/whitewash.html

Is being tarred and feathered for raping children better than having a millstone placed around your neck and tossed into the sea?

NAMBLA isn't a credited source of information about anything and yet you keep using it. It doesn't reflect homosexuals at all but you'll still keep scouring their site and articles and peddling the same garbage ad nausea. It's just bizarre and boring in equal measure.

 

[Kit the Coyote]

Again, provide a scenario showing where promoters of adult-child sex would have that supposed "right".

Very well the very NAMBLA publications you like to read and cite. If you need further clarification on the 'right', look up the legal term prior restraint.

Thanks for acknowledging that criminal conspiracy laws should be enforced against the leaders of the LGBTQ movement for promoting adult-child sex, as like shouting "fire!" in a crowded theater when there isn't one, these laws protect the innocent from in this case homosexual predators.

Thank for acknowledging what I already said about three rounds ago.

You really are ashamed (or pretend to be) of the child molesting roots of your LGBTQueer movement aren't you Kit?

I've made clear how I feel about child molesters regardless of what group they belong to. Having admitted that you expand the title to people who don't molest children you will have to excuse me if I consider you an unreliable source as to who fits in that category.