Am I a bad person?

[ForEverAfter]

^I need to clarify something minor.
The troll comment was a response to both willow and you: you said he shouldn't have kids; and willow voiced suspicions about him being a troll.

While the stuff about him not having kids can seem kind of strong, I can't really say that I regret saying it 'cause I honestly don't think that he should for the time being. It's not that I want to rob him of that joy (if he views it as such ofc), I'm just concerned about the kids.
I can't imagine the hell they would have to go through if they turned out to be gay. I agree that it ain't helpful, because he obviously wouldn't follow that advice anyways. I just hope he'll experience a drastic shift of perception regarding homosexual behavieur before such a time may come.

Since the child-porn stuff has been revealed, I'm not entirely comfortable with the thought of the OP fathering children either.
Until he stops accessing child pornography and accepts that it is wrong to do so, there is a conflict of interest.

Before I answer the question, I'd like you to try to answer it yourself.
I'll give you a hint: why do you think it is illegal? (Think about it, for a couple of minutes.)

Are you a pedophile?

Becuase of peoples morals, that's why people think it's illegal, it's simply morally repugnant to people. Lolicon/shotacon give people an outlet for their desires. But it's not the source of their desires.

You didn't answer the question: are you a pedophile?
(I will explain why I think quasi-legal cartoon child-pornography hurts children, momentarily.)

 

[psychedelicsoul]

^I need to clarify something minor.
The troll comment was a response to both willow and you: you said he shouldn't have kids; and willow voiced suspicions about him being a troll.



Since the child-porn stuff has been revealed, I'm not entirely comfortable with the thought of the OP fathering children either.
Until he stops accessing child pornography and accepts that it is wrong to do so, there is a conflict of interest.



You didn't answer the question: are you a pedophile?
(I will explain why I think quasi-legal cartoon child-pornography hurts children, momentarily.)

They're drawings... who gives a shit? Sure I guess liking lolicon makes you a pedophile... I guess

 

[Jabberwocky]

^I need to clarify something minor.
The troll comment was a response to both willow and you: you said he shouldn't have kids; and willow voiced suspicions about him being a troll.

I see.

Since the child-porn stuff has been revealed, I'm not entirely comfortable with the thought of the OP fathering children either.
Until he stops accessing child pornography and accepts that it is wrong to do so, there is a conflict of interest.

No shit? I wrote my latest post before reading further as I didn't intend to continue the conversation anyways so it wouldn't matter.
Now that I've read the whole thing, I think it should be obvious to anyone that he shouldn't have kids, I mean, fuck. I don't even know what to say. This is without a doubt THE most dramatic turn of events I have ever seen on any forum and I've spend a shitload of time reading on bluelight. I'm lost for words.

 

[Foreigner]

Is this a bait thread? Seriously.

My question is,.. do I seem like a bigot?

Essentially, yes. A bigot is by definition someone who lacks tolerance and doesn't change their views no matter how much contradictory evidence they're presented with.

Or bad person?

Subjective. All I can say is that I personally would not associate with you.

Or harmful to gays?

If you grew up telling gay classmates to their faces that they are wrong and inherently flawed, then yes.

Is the fact that I don't believe in directly hurting them enough for you to respect my views.

From what you've already confessed to, you've already directly hurt them. That it was psychological and not physical makes no difference.

Doesn't the fact that I support freedom and refuse to do something that would directly take kit way justify my homophobia?

I live in a country where bigots are suppressed by hate speech laws. I don't support the U.S. version of freedom of speech because it lets too many hate groups proliferate and continue to have a corrosive influence on society. People will always hate but they shouldn't be allowed to hold parades about it or conduct business around it.

I mean, if I don't support taking away gay peoples freedom or killing them or anything... then why is it wrong for me to be homophobic personally.

Well, it sounds like you would never stand up for a gay person who is being oppressed or experiencing violence. You tell them to their faces that they are wrong and that they're going to hell. Propagating such ideas is what leads some to take violent action. Fortunately, the way you think is going the way of the dinosaurs. You can't even hide behind the fact that it's somehow Christian values. There are millions of liberal Christians in the world who would not conduct themselves as you do, so you're unknowingly just using Christianity as a smoke screen to cover up your own bigotry.

If you'd distance yourself from your own child because they naturally turned out gay, then you've forgotten one of the cardinal rules of the faith which is that it's up to God to judge and not you. Jesus associated with prostitutes, the poor, lepers, and society's discarded people who were hated and bigoted against. American Christianity needs serious reform... the evangelicals have twisted the Word way, way too much.

And if you're allowed to say it's okay to be gay, then why is it wrong for me to spread my religious beliefs?

Because there's no secular evidence which shows anything wrong with being gay. It's not harming the individual or society. It's normal human behavior. Whereas your "religious" beliefs are an irrational thought virus that is supported by the Bible with the most flimsy of evidence. If Jesus didn't say it then I basically don't care what the rest of the Bible says about it.

 

[psychedelicsoul]

Essentially, yes. A bigot is by definition someone who lacks tolerance and doesn't change their views no matter how much contradictory evidence they're presented with.

My views contradict nothing.

If you grew up telling gay classmates to their faces that they are wrong and inherently flawed, then yes.

That was back when I was religious. I said it because it's a sin biblically.
What are christians supposed to do? Pretend like homosexuality isn't a sin for them? Stop believing the bible? Then what's the point of being religious? If gay people are too weak to accept that some religions disaprove of homosexuality, I have little sympathy.

From what you've already confessed to, you've already directly hurt them. That it was psychological and not physical makes no difference.

Not really... The bible calls it a sin... If they believe in the bible, then I'm just telling them the truth. If they don't believe in the bible... then it's not a big deal? What if I told you you're going to imagination land when you die?

I live in a country where bigots are suppressed by hate speech laws. I don't support the U.S. version of freedom of speech because it lets too many hate groups proliferate and continue to have a corrosive influence on society. People will always hate but they shouldn't be allowed to hold parades about it or conduct business around it.

Yea... real "tolerant" of your country. How high and mighty is that? There's no such thing as objective morality. People have a right to express their feelings. Taking that individuality from people is more intolerant than I am.
IF you support that, you're more of a bigot than me.

Well, it sounds like you would never stand up for a gay person who is being oppressed or experiencing violence. You tell them to their faces that they are wrong and that they're going to hell. Propagating such ideas is what leads some to take violent action. Fortunately, the way you think is going the way of the dinosaurs. You can't even hide behind the fact that it's somehow Christian values. There are millions of liberal Christians in the world who would not conduct themselves as you do, so you're unknowingly just using Christianity as a smoke screen to cover up your own bigotry.

I'm an agnostic... But anyways, wgy can't liberal christians and fundamentalist christians just agree not to fuck with each other?
Leave christians who support the bible alone...
If you wanna pretend the bible isn't anti-gay, fine... You leave them be, they leave you be.

If you'd distance yourself from your own child because they naturally turned out gay, then you've forgotten one of the cardinal rules of the faith which is that it's up to God to judge and not you. Jesus associated with prostitutes, the poor, lepers, and society's discarded people who were hated and bigoted against. American Christianity needs serious reform... the evangelicals have twisted the Word way, way too much.

I never said that I'd kick them out.
Also, Jesus never claimed that prostitution wasn't a sin. Saying something isn't a sin because Jesus loves them is totally unbiblical.

Because there's no secular evidence which shows anything wrong with being gay. It's not harming the individual or society. It's normal human behavior. Whereas your "religious" beliefs are an irrational thought virus that is supported by the Bible with the most flimsy of evidence. If Jesus didn't say it then I basically don't care what the rest of the Bible says about it.

What you're saying is completely subjective... If people believe it's a sin, to them it is... There's no such thing as "wrong". Whether there's something wrong with homosexuality is up to perception.
I'm an agnostic, and I can tell you you're perception of the bible is backwards as fuck.

 

[Tromps]

Better question is should fundamental religious institutions, churches, synagogues, mosques, etc, be forced to perform same sex marriage and violate long held traditions?

I strongly believe in the rights of the state vs federal government when it comes to these issues. Marriage, abortion, guns, drugs, etc. Any state or city that passes legislation contrary to federal law should not be penalized by fed overreach.

Speaking of marriage, separation of church and state has been a central policy, so let churches make rules for their churches and states make rules for their states. If you are a secular humanist I don't know why you would care that segments of the population are uncomfortable with homosexuality.. just let them to be free to practice their beliefs in peace, don't even bother with them, and most won't bother the LGBT community.

Here you go OP:

 

[nuttynutskin]

If I have a wife and kids I will teach my children to be like me. If one of them is gay, I'd still love them, but I'd also condemn them and since I'd be burdened by the concept of them going to hell, I'd try to distance myself.

Judge not lest ye be judged?

 

[ForEverAfter]

Is this a bait thread? Seriously.

I'm, honestly, not sure.
But, I'm enjoying the challenge (either way).
The timing is weirdly perfect, given the recent discussion in the "growing" thread.

Speaking of marriage, separation of church and state has been a central policy, so let churches make rules for their churches and states make rules for their states. If you are a secular humanist I don't know why you would care that segments of the population are uncomfortable with homosexuality.. just let them to be free to practice their beliefs in peace, don't even bother with them, and most won't bother the LGBT community.

+1

They're drawings... who gives a shit? Sure I guess liking lolicon makes you a pedophile... I guess

Even though your question is rhetorical, I'm going to answer it: a lot of people (most of us, I think) give a shit.
Child-sex is dangerous territory. If you grow accustomed to associating children with sex, you are more likely to engage sexually with them.
Before you object and tell me that you're not like that, I'm not talking about you. So, don't bother.
I'm talking about the issue.

It is illegal because studies have shown that a no-tolerance policy is much more effective in terms of the sexualization of children.
Repeat child-sex offenders have admitted this, themselves, on many many occasions.
Again, I'm not talking about you (yet). Bear with me, for a moment.

People who operate pornographic websites are not void of moral fiber.
The majority of pornographic websites have a legal disclaimer printed at the bottom of the screen.
Pornographers are, typically, not interested in peddling child-sex stuff.

To get this niche porn, you're visiting sites that are operated by people who (like you) think it is okay.
It's not unreasonable to assume that people who operate quasi-legal cartoon child porn sites might also dabble in "actual" child porn.
They are making money from advertisements. You make the operation of these sites possible.
You, therefore, are (indirectly) enabling sex offenders and (photographic) child-porn rings.

Before you respond, keep in mind that (although you don't hear about it a lot) there are serious problems with child pornography in Japan.
Possession of photographic child pornography was legal until last year, believe it or not.
So, if you're going to attempt to argue that you don't access niche porn sites and you buy Manga books with cartoon child-porn in them, the issue remains (essentially) the same.

http://time.com/2892728/japan-finally-bans-child-pornography/

Japan is known as an “international hub for the production and trafficking of child pornography,” according to the 2013 U.S. Department of State’s human-rights report. In 2012, the police reported investigations involving 1,264 child victims featured in pornography — a 98% increase from the previous year.

Even if you never abuse children in your life; even if no children were involved in the making of the cartoon child-porn you access: you're still (potentially) hurting children.
And, personally, I'd rather that potential didn't exist. I'd rather you didn't masturbate while thinking about having sex with children.
You're potentially doing harm by going around saying that it's okay, too; because it is not okay, and people should understand why.

To answer your question in four words: I give a shit.

 

[psychedelicsoul]

Even though your question is rhetorical, I'm going to answer it: a lot of people (most of us, I think) give a shit.
Child-sex is dangerous territory. If you grow accustomed to associating children with sex, you are more likely to engage sexually with them.
Before you object and tell me that you're not like that, I'm not talking about you. So, don't bother.
I'm talking about the issue.

It is illegal because studies have shown that a no-tolerance policy is much more effective in terms of the sexualization of children.
Repeat child-sex offenders have admitted this, themselves, on many many occasions.
Again, I'm not talking about you (yet). Bear with me, for a moment.

People who operate pornographic websites are not void of moral fiber.
The majority of pornographic websites have a legal disclaimer printed at the bottom of the screen.
Pornographers are, typically, not interested in peddling child-sex stuff.

To get this niche porn, you're visiting sites that are operated by people who (like you) think it is okay.
It's not unreasonable to assume that people who operate quasi-legal cartoon child porn sites might also dabble in "actual" child porn.
They are making money from advertisements. You make the operation of these sites possible.
You, therefore, are (indirectly) enabling sex offenders and (photographic) child-porn rings.

Before you respond, keep in mind that (although you don't hear about it a lot) there are serious problems with child pornography in Japan.
Possession of photographic child pornography was legal until last year, believe it or not.
So, if you're going to attempt to argue that you don't access niche porn sites and you buy Manga books with cartoon child-porn in them, the issue remains (essentially) the same.

http://time.com/2892728/japan-finally-bans-child-pornography/



Even if you never abuse children in your life; even if no children were involved in the making of the cartoon child-porn you access: you're still (potentially) hurting children.
And, personally, I'd rather that potential didn't exist. I'd rather you didn't masturbate while thinking about having sex with children.
You're potentially doing harm by going around saying that it's okay, too; because it is not okay, and people should understand why.

To answer your question in four words: I give a shit.

But if lolicon/shotacon didn't exist... These issues wouldn't go away.
I support freedom. How can you tell somebody they're bad for their thoughts and fantasies.

How are you any better than me? You claim I'm a bigot for saying homosexuality can be wrong for some people. But you're saying

You're basically telling people to change their sexual desires to fit society, even if they're not harming people. Being a pedophile isn't any more a choice than being gay. You want lolicon to be illegal because people can fantasize about something bad? If everyone were gay, then mankind would be extinct... so by that same logic being gay is wrong.
But in truth, people who molest kids and support real CP are gonna do it, with or without the existence of lolicon.
But this mixes well with your views on Christianity. You think homosexuality shoudln't be considered a sin, because some people go too far with the notion.

Also, your perception of lolicon is just plain false. It's produced by independent artists like the ones on DeviantArt. Unless you wanna argue that well known lolicon artists secretly engage in child porn. If they do, then it doesn't matter if you buy from them.
The person who owns the local store might be a child molester. And what happens with the money you spend a big business's? Where do you think that goes?

Do you seriously think the people who post on SankakuComplex are secretly running child porn rings?
Also the people who opperate sites aren't the ones making lolicon/shotacon. Artists are. The only thing the website admins do is sit back and let people post artwork. That's it.

 

[swilow]

Can I bring up Foreigners 12-hour post delay suggestion here?

If you're right, then I'm definately in for a surprise some time in the future! I kind of hope that you're right though, as I can certainly see the advantages of being bi-sexual.

Oops...

almost everyone

:D

What advantages do you see?

 

[ForEverAfter]

First of all, I'm sorry I upset you.
I don't think you're a bad person.
I think you're confused.

For the record, I didn't call you a bigot; Foreigner did.
And, in all fairness, you asked the question.

The argument "if i didn't kill people, murder wouldn't go away" is seriously flawed.
It (lolicon/shotacon) is not the foundation of the broader issue, so - obviously - making it illegal is not going to solve the broader issue.
But, I don't see how that has any impact - whatsoever - as to whether or not it should be legal, and whether or not it is (as you say) a sin.

You're basically telling people to change their sexual desires to fit society, even if they're not harming people.

There are at least two things wrong with that statement.

1. I clearly stated that I believe cartoon child-porn does harm children.

2. I'm not telling you to change your sexual desires. You started a thread, questioning your own moral fiber. My response to that thread includes the suggestion that you to acknowledge that your feelings of sexual desire towards children are wrong and - accordingly - decide not act on them. If you can do this with homosexuality (which you think is wrong) then I don't see why you can't do it with cartoon child-pornography (which is demonstrably wrong).

You want lolicon to be illegal because people can fantasize about something bad?

I explained in detail why it should be illegal; explaining, at length, how (potentially) it might contribute to (and inspire) actual child sex offences.

If everyone were gay, then mankind would be extinct... so by that same logic being gay is wrong.

By what logic?

But this mixes well with your views on Christianity. You think homosexuality shoudln't be considered a sin, because some people go too far with the notion.

The Bible has been edited.
Christ said nothing - not one word - against homosexuality.
Christianity is not anti-gay.

Also, your perception of lolicon is just plain false. It's produced by independent artists like the ones on DeviantArt. Unless you wanna argue that well known lolicon artists secretly engage in child porn. If they do, then it doesn't matter if you buy from them.

Have you ever lived in Japan?
I have. I lived in Tokyo for 3 years.
You don't have any idea what you're talking about.
Maybe you should look into the reality of lolicon.

As for these "artists"... Is the cameraman who shoots a child porn movie an artist?
(I don't think so.)

And, no offense, but I don't believe that you only visit soft-core sites like DeviantArt.
There are hardcore pornographic lolicon\shotacon images all over the internet.
And - even if you don't look at the hardcore stuff - you weren't specific when you were promoting lolicon as harmless.

...

Can I ask you this: what is it you like about children, anatomically speaking?
You must have thought about it. What is it about this niche that appeals to you?
What's going through your head when you're jerking off?

...

Can I bring up Foreigners 12-hour post delay suggestion here?

I don't like that idea, anymore.
I thought about it and it depends on the person and their style.
Foreigner has a certain posting style. So do I.
I get a bit carried away, sometimes.
But we're not going in circles. (Yet.)

Also, it's not like this thread had much of a chance to begin with.

 

[Jabberwocky]

Can I bring up Foreigners 12-hour post delay suggestion here?



Oops...



:D

What advantages do you see?

Well, the obvious one is that there would be a larger amount of potential sexual partners and/or boy/girlfriends to choose from, as I wouldn't be limited to females only.

The rest would be quessing 'cause I really don't know the first thing about being gay or bi. I don't know any gay or bi people and never have so it's not like I have some insider information

I do have a pretty good imagination though (or so I'd like to believe), so I'll take it from there. Let's just make it a starting point that I would enjoy sex with women and men equally.

I can imagine how a guy might be able to please another guy better than the average woman because he knows the male anatomy better, I quess that could be put into some kind of use.

There's the added spice of both giving and receiving anal sex in a way that just wouldn't be possible in a M/F sex act - strap on sure, but I can't imagine how that could be even close to the real deal.

You could blow guys.

There's the option of different kinds of touching - I mean, surely it must be a different kind of experience to touch a male body.

Your male sex partner would have a different kind of orgasm, there's quite a lot of possibilities right there if one would like to recieve.


In a more serious relationship, I'm sure that the average bi-sexual male would have some different things to "bring to the table" than what the average bi-sexual female would. Although I'm not really sure what that might be. At least some masculine features I quess.

Just for the record, I do realise that to some people, this might make me look pretty gay..... but it's all good

 

[herbavore]

OP, were you ever molested as a young child?

 

[alasdairm]

I'm religious, and think...

agree to disagree

related reading: Early indicators hint that Ireland just passed marriage equality legislation

it's hard to know what you're looking for, op? are you looking for validation from people who agree with you that you are 'right'
to hold the opinions that you do? are you looking for an internet 'indignation' fight where you can 'out indignation' a bunch of lefties and, in doing so, try to convince them (and maybe yourself) that you really, really are right? or any one of a hundred other reasons at which we can guess?

there's another bluelighter in that thread to which i linked who believes that he's tolerant of gays because he doesn't believe that they should be executed for their sexuality. sounds like you two would get on great.

it's interesting where some people set the bar...

And if you're allowed to say it's okay to be gay, then why is it wrong for me to spread my religious beliefs?

who's telling you it's wrong? nobody here...

alasdair

 

[swilow]

Just for the record, I do realise that to some people, this might make me look pretty gay..... but it's all good

Nice post in general actually. I think you raised a lot of advantages for sure.

For me, I find that I have never been able to 'love' a man, in the romantic sense. I've never enjoyed kissing men, at all- in fact, I've found it slightly unpleasant. I have enjoyed giving/receiving oral and giving anal; receiving it was painful but I have only tried once. I should point out I've been in relationship for the last 11 years pretty much (I'm 32) though its been on-and-off. Her first sexual epxperiences were with females; her first relationship was with a female, for about 4 years or so. She actually never considered herself gay or bisexual. We've had a few threesomes, mainly with two women and me, though we did have one drunken double-male threesome, and she didn't enjoy it at all. Feelings got hurt.

Just thought I'd share. There is nothing wrong with same-sex attraction; one reason that mainstream religion often seems a bit mad (to me) is its sexual proscriptions. I can't think of many mainstream religions that don't degrade idea's of sex, and make same-sex out to be evil. Given that it follows that there are literally billions of average humans who follow these sysems, and share the views of the OP, I don't think he can be called a bad person, just unoriginal and misguided. He is just following his religion, which billions of others do. Its not the individual that is bad but the institutions that foster these beliefs.

I say this, because in my life, sex is generally fun and pleasant, and just not worth feeling guilt or shame (or anything but anticipation for). Men have created religions and their dogma's; males are generally the possesive and sexually paranoid ones, when it comes to females at least. We often seek to control. I am always the active/dominant one in sexual encounters with women. Its freeing (but can be odd) giving in, and being dominated. A lot of men are uncomfortable with that.

agree to disagree

Good post mate

 

[psychedelicsoul]

agree to disagree

related reading: Early indicators hint that Ireland just passed marriage equality legislation

it's hard to know what you're looking for, op? are you looking for validation from people who agree with you that you are 'right'
to hold the opinions that you do? are you looking for an internet 'indignation' fight where you can 'out indignation' a bunch of lefties and, in doing so, try to convince them (and maybe yourself) that you really, really are right? or any one of a hundred other reasons at which we can guess?

there's another bluelighter in that thread to which i linked who believes that he's tolerant of gays because he doesn't believe that they should be executed for their sexuality. sounds like you two would get on great.

it's interesting where some people set the bar...who's telling you it's wrong? nobody here...

alasdair

What I was wondering was whether people ought to change or keep their beliefs to themself simply because those beliefs might hurt other peoples feelings.
I encourage other people, even children, to try and change their sexuality the way I did... through torture and self-abuse.

I would not care if someone followed my lead, and ended up commiting suicide. The reason why is becuase it would be a free act of their individuality, so there'd be nothing wrong if someone did... But also because I believe only some people can change.

I wanna find another young boy at the age of 12 on this site, who may read what I've said about torture and about sexual shame, and copy my actions. That way if one child could discover the joy and pride of improving ones self, then it's okay, even if 5 kids commit suicide as a result of stress and pain. Because nothing one person does to themselves is objectively wrong.
Suicide is a perfectly okay response to finding out your gay.... or for spilling milk. As long as the person does it to themselves, it's never wrong.

I wanna speak for all of those suffering from internalized homophobia that truely hates being gay/bi and is willing to die to change.

 

[psychedelicsoul]

There is nothing wrong with same-sex attraction; one reason that mainstream religion often seems a bit mad (to me) is its sexual proscriptions. I can't think of many mainstream religions that don't degrade idea's of sex, and make same-sex out to be evil. Given that it follows that there are literally billions of average humans who follow these sysems, and share the views of the OP, I don't think he can be called a bad person, just unoriginal and misguided. He is just following his religion, which billions of others do. Its not the individual that is bad but the institutions that foster these beliefs.

The religion isn't bad.
No religion is objectively bad.
In fact, individuals should be held way more accountable than a religion.
If a man burns down an abortion clinic, do you blame the bible or do you blame him? Is it the Qurans fault people are blowing each other up?

It's okay to condemn homosexuals (or anyone) as long as people don't take freedom from them or hurt them. If I preach against them from a moral persepctive and call homosexuality wrong, that's not bad because morality doesn't objectively exists.
It's never wrong unless I preach specifically that they should be harmed.

 

[Xorkoth]

I'm not even sure how to reply to this thread... just read the whole thing.

OP: relating child-based sex/pornography to gay sex/pornography is a ridiculous comparison. The difference is that in gay sex, all people involved are willing, adult partictpants (unless they're not, and then that's rape which is a different issue). With child pornography, you have an adult abusing and exploiting a child. Though you raise a good point, some people are attracted to that and they can't help it. But the difference is in the harm it causes. Consensual gay sex hurts no one. Child sex hurts children. it sucks for people who are attracted to that, but it doesn't mean it should be tolerated in any form.

As for the rest of what you've said... I just can't put it all together in a way that makes sense or is consistent. Do you really want to know whether you're a bad person? I don't think you are, but I do believe you're extremely misguided by your (past?) religious upbringing. Ideologies like yours bring suffering into the world.

And it really does disturb me that you like to masturbate to cartoon child porn. It may be that you can't help how you feel, but if that's the case, then please don't have children.

 

[psychedelicsoul]

I'm not even sure how to reply to this thread... just read the whole thing.

OP: relating child-based sex/pornography to gay sex/pornography is a ridiculous comparison. The difference is that in gay sex, all people involved are willing, adult partictpants (unless they're not, and then that's rape which is a different issue). With child pornography, you have an adult abusing and exploiting a child. Though you raise a good point, some people are attracted to that and they can't help it. But the difference is in the harm it causes. Consensual gay sex hurts no one. Child sex hurts children. it sucks for people who are attracted to that, but it doesn't mean it should be tolerated in any form.

As for the rest of what you've said... I just can't put it all together in a way that makes sense or is consistent. Do you really want to know whether you're a bad person? I don't think you are, but I do believe you're extremely misguided by your (past?) religious upbringing. Ideologies like yours bring suffering into the world.

And it really does disturb me that you like to masturbate to cartoon child porn. It may be that you can't help how you feel, but if that's the case, then please don't have children.

When the fuck did I compare them? I don't care.. 1. Morality is subjective. 2. Lolicon/shotacon are drawings, so who gives a fuck?
Never have I advocated allowing sexual behavior with kids, so I don' know what your'e talking about.

While I believe that for some people, homosexuality is wrong, and christians believe it's wrong for everyone.... How is that bothering you? It isn't. IT's only a problem if they are involved with government or act in violence.
As long as laws aren't passed based on it, and people aren't hurt, there's nothing wrong with seeing homosexuality as a sin. And even if there is, if gays want people to change thier beliefs for their own sake, then fuck them... Fuck gays who think that way, since they're no better than christians.
Christians want to make gay people change
Gays wanna make Christians abandon their beliefs
So fuck both of them...

Also, my ideology doesn't promote any suffering. I support the freedom for everyone to be the way they want. And if you're disturbed or grossed out by gays, then there's no need for you to change. If you're gay and you're disturbed by yourself, you do... or you can stop being disturbed, or you can commit suicide.
Again, since there's no universal law of morality, ANYTHING you do is okay, as long as it doesn't harm another.

 

[Xorkoth]

I think there's a dangerously fine line between enjoying cartoon child porn and real child abuse, is what I'm saying. Also, read ForEverAfter's comments about what you support when you support that shit. Your actions don't exist in a vaccuum.