Why will no one call this what it is?
Should be called "Homosexual kids reign of terror".
Reference: Dominion Post, Front page, School bullies reign of terror.
A gang of six teens terrorised classmates in late 2007, chasing younger boys around the school, dragging them to the ground to remove their pants then violating them with a screwdriver, scissors, branches, pens, pencils and drills.
Should be called "Homosexual kids reign of terror".
Reference: Dominion Post, Front page, School bullies reign of terror.
I think this is more of a case of "I'm not gay, but I've sexually violated a lot of little boys I thought were gay."
ReplyDeleteThe fact that sex abuse is being conducted by these teens is a sick sign these people are being corrupted by a steady diet of violence, porn, lack of ethical and spiritual direction and lack of self-control and empathy.
I don't expect to see headlines of "heterosexual reign of terror" for a serial rapist, but clearly the scope for the headlines could be well placed to say something like "Perverts reign of terror and sex abuse" because what they have done is perverted.
I don't expect to see headlines of "heterosexual reign of terror" for a serial rapist..
ReplyDeleteNeither do I, as heterosexuality is the norm, therefore it's unnecessary to mention it. Only homosexual activists bring it up.
A commenter in Kiwiblog:
ReplyDelete'3-coil (932) Says: September 7th, 2011 at 9:42 am
We have a friend who’s child was one of those bullied at HVHS. He said that (in their case) the bullies were the children of local Mongrel Mob members, and the MM parents continued the intimidation (of the victims, and also him as a parent) outside the school grounds, further along Woburn Rd.
Was the school intimidated into non-action by their fear of Mongrel Mob gang retaliation?'
I have a hunch this is the tip of a large, country-wide problem.
Some one on the radio just said that the kids have been brought down from the far North because one of their parents is in prison down here.
ReplyDeleteCouldn't aqgree more leftrightout.
ReplyDeleteYou really give the game away here Lucia Maria.
Any self respecting homosexual myself included would instantly recognise that these kids are most unlikely to be gay.
Hard to believe that your brain is so twisted by your hatred of homosexualsa that you are too dense to see this.
A few things.
ReplyDeleteI noted the attacks happened during the Helengrad years so the current rgovernment is not to blame as a Stuff headline imples, when it says government negected Hutt Valley high.
I wonder if the kids were inspired by Trevor Mallard and his heineken bottle. He was education minister a while back.
But more seriously we need to look at the causes of such sexual assaults.
As I comment at my place:
"As for those who see homosexuals as the lowest as the low and blaming such attacks on hordes of horny homos on the rampage and defrocking and deflowering Hutt Valley High's innocent youth, consider this:
As noted at Kiwiblog, some of the attacks involved sons of gang members, where a most macho culture would prevail. Their background would hardly be what you might call gay friendly.
Rape and similar assaults are about power and humiliation.
Performing such an assault would be to humiliate the victim in the strongest terms possible.
Such perpetrators would have a macho muslim attitude that it is better to give than to receive, that enforcing it doesn't make them gay like it would if you were at the receiving end.
And why do some people look down on gays, because of the attitude of those who see them as evil!
Thus, their own attitudes, in turn, contribute to the sordid sexual attacks at Hutt Valley High."
LibertyScott,
ReplyDeleteThese young men were not in prison where there is only a choice of male victims - they were at a co-ed school, and they targeted boys and sodomised them with objects.
Sodomy of other males is one of those defining characteristics of homosexual behaviour, yet even the word sodomy wasn't used in the newspaper report. It's as if anything that might link their actions to homosexuality has been sanitised, except for the acts themselves.
Newspapers aren't so reticent when the targets of bullies are self-defined homosexuals, but seems to be a different matter when the bullies themselves act in a homosexual way.
Isn't there a school principal here, what the heck are the authorities doing. And if they're not doing anything, how about replacing them with those who will.
ReplyDeleteNo wait i forgot, thanks to leftards, incompetence and being a useless parasite are not grounds for sacking.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteLRO,
ReplyDeleteI do not label homosexuality a sin - because it isn't. What is a sin is sex outside of marriage - of all types - including homosexual acts.
OK lucai, but if that is true why has your emphasis on this thread been trying to prove homosexuality rather than sex outside amrriage?
ReplyDeleteYou also seem to be contradicting your earlier post where you claimed "The sin destroys the person and leads them to Hell. Anyone who believes that and doesn't say anything is far more hateful and selfish than those of us who point out that male sex attacks on other males are by definition homosexual."
Why is it so hard for you to accept what this is - a serious assault, the deliberate denigration of people, not some form of homosexual game?
maybe take the mote out of your eye, worry less about a non existent homosexual threat and show sympathy for and solidarity with the victims.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteCheezy,
ReplyDeleteLong time no see.
Are you saying that my girlfriend and I (who are not married, but have been bonking away happily for several years now) are more 'sinful' than a married gay couple?
No, I am not saying you and your girlfriend are more sinful than a married gay couple, because the gay couple is not actually married, they are in a simulated marriage that is a parody of the real thing. Two of the same sex cannot get married, it's impossible.
As to what sort of sexual acts are more sinful, see this post, update 2.
Wherefore simple fornication, which is committed without injustice to another person, is the least grave among the species of lust.
However, it's all moot as most sexual sins are mortal and therefore deadly to your soul, so you'll end up in the same place no matter which one you do.
If you really love your girlfriend and want what is best for her, be a man, stop bonking and propose.
Heine,
ReplyDeleteGee not everything is about homosexuals - people can just be evil.
But homosexuals can't be evil, or if they are, we aren't allowed to point it out?
I think I see the distinction you are making.
ReplyDeleteThis is around the definition and meaning of a word, and I think some people see it one particular way, and you see it another.
Take marriage. Some say the definition is "a union between a man and a women" and others say "any union of any two people" and yet others say "any union of any number of people" and a few say "any declaration between a person and any other object".
Whilst those definitions are different, it is hard to have a sensible conversation, other than "my definition of this word is correct", and indeed, that is a big part of the marriage debate.
So, to look at what you are saying: any homosexual act, regardless of the element of consent, is a homosexual act, which makes that person a person acting in a homosexual way at that moment.
So if a man kisses another man, whether or not they are a self-professed gay, they never-the-less just conducted a homosexual act.
Likewise, homosexual acts of violence are homosexual acts of violence, just as heterosexual acts of violence are heterosexual acts of violence.
So, a homosexual could rape a women, and we would call it a heterosexual act of violence whether or not the person said "but I can't rape a women because I'm gay", because, guess what, they just did (which they may well do simply because they were motivated by a need to dominate and humiliate even though they are normally not heterosexual....)
Is that right?
The interesting thing is that many christians will preach that it's better to be in a non-loving hetro relationship than a loving homosexual one.
ReplyDeleteThe act of love isn't enough because it is a "sin" as described in the bible, in the same breath as saying eating shellfish is an abomination.
Pretty sure when I was at church we all were told to love one another, love thy neighbour etc...
Seems to me you are just looking for reasons to hate Christians Heine.
ReplyDeleteYou make claims on what "many" Christians supposedly preach, so you can extrapolate out to all Christians. It's no surprise to me therefore, with your obvious anti-Christian rhetoric that you apply the same logic to the arguments you read here, and mischaracterize them accordingly.
If you think "the act of love" is the only litmus test of whether something is right or wrong, then the "act of love" from a pedophile demands that we all say, "well, that's a lot better than a non-loving relationship". In my example, it's plain to see acts of genuine love (and I'm sure we could argue some Pedophiles or Pederests consider their love pure and natural, only constrained by an arbitrary line of age 16 instead of say, age 13, or lower.
On the other hand, we would argue such love is destructive.
To further continue the conversation about the idea of attaching the word to the act, rather than the person, does it matter if a heterosexual (ie in a married relationship) commits an act of pedophilia? Do we say that is just a one-off case of abuse, or do we say "that was pedophilia, the person has committed an act of pedophilia, we'll call him a pedophile even if he also maintains other forms of sexual relationships."?
I note that such people don't escape the label irrespective of their "normal" state.
NOTE: To the idiots who cannot understand the discussion of ideas by examining different situations and testing how we treat those situations, I'll state this plainly:
I am not arguing above that homosexuality is in the same class as pedophilia, just as I don't equate it to heterosexuality.
PS: I am also not arguing about which feeling of love is more or less purer than any other feeling of love, especially because the type of love that Jesus discusses is something that transcends the physically based love that springs from physical attraction. The various types of love and how we are called to be is a deeper discussion, and all I'll say about it here is that the emotional forms of love most people think from today is not it at all. Indeed, if marriage only lasts whilst people fall in and out of love, then it's no wonder a society built on primacy of feelings rather than morals suffers from moral decay.
ReplyDeleteThis is where "Love the sinner, hate the sin" gets you.
ReplyDeleteWASHINGTON (AP) -- Barbara Von Aspern loves her daughter, "thinks the world" of the person her daughter intends to marry and believes the pair should have the same legal rights as anyone else. It pains her, but Von Aspern is going to skip their wedding. Her daughter, Von Aspern explains, is marrying another woman.
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_AP_POLL_GAY_MARRIAGE?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2011-09-14-03-08-29
Our daughter’s getting married!
What a joyous, joyous day!
But we’re going to skip the wedding,
Cos you see, our daughter’s gay.
We love her more than life itself
And love her wife-to-be;
We’d never be judgmental, but
We simply can’t agree!
I mean no disrespect, of course,
I love her to the core—
It’s just that, when it comes to this,
I love religion more.
Can't wait for one of Lucia's kids to come out. :-)
LRO,
ReplyDeleteShe's not getting married, she's pretending to get married. There's a big difference.
"Can't wait for one of Lucia's kids to come out. :-)"
If that ever happened, as per the lady in one of my you-tube clips by Archbishop Fulton Sheen, I would ask for whatever suffering was needed (for myself) in order to save their soul.
But why would you suffer if you loved your child unconditionally?
ReplyDeleteWithout going into the detail (I'm busy with other things), this comment is about accepting any burden because the child is loved unconditionally.
Rather than going on about Happiness as the ultimate goal, I'd suggest the child's wellbeing is a more comprehensive and more altruistic (selfless) goal.
A lot of parents are so concerned for their child's happiness, they feed them a diet of "anything you want" rather than what they need to become good adults. If you also believe that there is something more than oblivion after death, then consideration of what is good for their soul is part of this mix.
I don't know the details of the situation that LRO linked to, and I doubt the link actually accurately portrays the life story to get to that point, but I do know LRO's conjectures and assumptions arising from that one story is a mistake that a Rational Humanist, of all people, shouldn't fall for.
Except that even some Rational Humanists turn out to be as imperfect as all of us others.