MJNSEIFER -- Witnesses (as in, more than one) have testified to personally seeing Jackson with his hand down the pants of little boys, sleeping naked with naked little boys, and more. Children have testified (on top of confirming the others' testimonies) that Jackson had them take sleeping pills and drink wine. On top of all that, your sig translates to "little hampsters, big adventures", a quite obvious reference to the homosexual act of placing a hampster, gerbil, et cetera into one's rectum to feel it squirm around. If and when Michael Jackson is convicted, would THAT be enough proof for you? And just because he's an excellant performer (edit: which I do agree with, he's a great performer), does that mean you should give your money to such an immoral SOB? I guess the money he gets to keep his victims silent has to come from somewhere, right?
I would agree that sex isn't just for reproduction, but I don't see where it would be impossible to love if that were the case. I believe sex was meant to be carried out within the bonds of love, not just with everybody (or everything, in some cases apparently) we want to--we've all heard the whole thing before, yadda yadda yadda--but that it's pleasurable, so it's not a limit. It's not like an "obligation" to do with somebody you love, but neither is it something that shouldn't be taken seriously.
udsuna -- What's dendrophelia? Sorry, I'm not familiar with the term--I may know what you're talking about and can't relate it to the term, but "dendrophelia" doesn't ring a bell right off the bat.
lionx has touched on something I believe I've already pointed out... What is "accepted" now is more than what was accepted in the past, and no doubt less than what will be accepted in the future. Our society is moving more and more towards a place where we can't offend anybody, everybody is special and great like they are and we're just one big happy family. Now, some of our "acceptance" could be considered progress--for example, acceptance of other races, nationalities, cultures (to an extent), females, music, you name it--but some, in the opinions of some, are considered to be something that shouldn't happen--i.e. acceptance of homosexuality as "normal", acceptance of abortion, violent or degrading culture, foreign cars, wine coolers, and tofu. (Those last three were jokes, by the way.) In fact, some people see those "progressive" acceptances as something that shouldn't have happened...there are groups of people that still believe their race is superior to others', or that females don't belong anywhere but raising children, cooking, and cleaning. But the point is, when will it be "accepted" that it's "natural" to want to have sex with animals or children? Inter-racial relationships was a big hurdle for society, as was/is homosexual relationships, when will that hurdle become inter-age relationships, or inter-species? When will society coin terms like "paedophile-phobic", when people that disagree with it are looked down on more than those who participate in it?
EDIT:
I had a dog one time that would hump people's legs constantly. Does that make it alright for me to do, too?Originally Posted by lionx
The guy said "use your imagination to finish that sentence negatively". That doesn't mean he's complimenting those that disagree with him, does it, slick? And the outrageous comments by the other two parties--such as saying that zoophilia and paedophilia are perfectly natural and should be accepted, or saying that Michael Jackson "is just doing what people should do"--lend a pretty good thought to the idea that they shouldn't be taken seriously. If you ran across a guy who said the earth is flat and the moon is made of cheese, would you take him seriously? Don't answer that, in fact there's no need for you to reply to me, just as there was no need for you to reply in the first place.
