kindlyexplain,
Putting aside the fact that you are borderline spamming all and sundry in your quest to anchor the christian right aka fundie bigotry against AWARE and education, your comments demonstrate extremism, and your follow-up questions is a very loaded survey. Inspired by what Karl Rove might have used in running his George W. Bush presidential campaigns?

I got to hand it to you for couching your spam in terms you deem fit the theme of the blog you’re spamming. But putting aside the fact that it is all purely skewed “kindlyexplain” speculation, it doesn’t wash at all, just as anonymous has said.

You are positing and trying to get people concerned with animal-welfare to stand on your so-called pro-family” side with your outrageous assumptions because you are assuming homosexuals are without ethics and moral and you can rile people concerned with animal-welfare by your crude wordplay.

But hey, two can play speculative propositions. Kindly answer, substantiate and kindly explain your answers to 2 questions, kindlyexplain:
- can you say FOR SURE homosexuals are more likely to support pedophilia and corruption?
- can you say FOR SURE homosexuals are more likely to commit pedophilia and corruption?

Apart from the high-handedness of the Josie Lau AWARE exco, cases like pastors molesting children and lining their pockets from church coffers show only that morality and ethics (or lack thereof) are color, creed, belief and even profession-blind, kindlyexplain.

It will disturb your fundie psyche but awareness, education is better than the head-in-the-sand approach, and homosexuality does occur in nature.

“Turns out Shawn Tay himself claims to be an ‘ex-gay’.. umm…. take a look here..

http://www.coos.org.sg/testimony/index.php?coospg=2007/2007_finding_learning_the_truth.html

interesting…”

Yah. Interesting.

That is, there is nothing negative in same-sex marriages, in same-sex sex acts in same-sex parenting – and, in the “joy” and the “pleasure” of jerking the male human’s penis in and out of the rectums and faeces-stuffed large intestines of male or female human, before ejaculating into them.

The two questions:

1. Which of the above two factions will be highly more likely to support the view that any “consensual gentle” sex act, between any “consenting” human and any “consenting” animal – is a “neutral” act of love making and bonding, between the “consenting” human and the “consenting” animal?

2. Which of the above two factions will be highly more likely to condemn any “consensual gentle” sex act, between any “consenting” human and any “consenting” animal – to be a perversion; and a most vile assault against human decency and morality, and animal?