Bosk is basing his defence on FACTS – let’s examine his logic

1. People are born homosexual or heterosexual.
2. Child molesters on the other hand are the product of child molesters in their past.
3. Conclusion: Anyone CANNOT TRUTHFULLY claim that they were born that way.
4. Only those for whom there is evidence which supports it.

SO Bosk and co.,

Is it possible that a child molester be also a same-sex enthusiast?

In your "book of life", how was the first child molester originated?

Is there a possibility that a child brought up in a gay environment could also become one as a matter of “accepted” choice and not simply based on genetics (as you put it)?

If there is a soupçon – even a vague link between molestation and same-sex; why should society trust same-sex existence while despising child molesters?

[i.e. No one wants to live next to a child molester – why should we live next to homos?]

As for biblical references they are aplenty - starting with Genesis 2:

18 The LORD God said, "It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him."
20 … But for Adam no suitable helper was found.
21 So the LORD God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep; and while he was sleeping, he took one of the man's ribs and closed up the place with flesh.
22 Then the LORD God made a woman from the rib he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man.
23 The man said, "This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called 'woman, for she was taken out of man."
24 For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh

And for the evolutionists - Where does homosexuality fit with your theory of survival of the fitest or even natural selection intra-species sexual attraction?

Marilyn Shepherd - <They all told me that they would all have to be slaughtered because they would never be with the majority Shia's>

Interesting to note that you don’t appear to find anything wrong with this statement. So lets change the scenario - if a white Australian commented that ‘all aboriginals will have to be slaughtered to bring peace to Australia’, what would you say? From reading your posts, I think you would be completely outraged, then you would go on to use the comment as ‘evidence’ that all white Australians are hopeless barbarians and would-be murderers.

So why are you accepting such an outrageous and barbaric statement from Iraqis? Not one Iraqi, but several. Would you accept it if an American had said it?

Your unquestioning acceptance of such a statement – solely because it was made by your Iraqi friends - demonstrates a bit of hypocrisy and special pleading, wouldn’t you say?

<Leo - English please! Your last post resembles a random word generator.>

Who needs English? Rabid anti-Semites get their point across even with a word generator. Those JewNazis sure are busy ruling the world - but wouldnt you think Israel would get a better press, seeing that Jews control the media? And the staggering number of Jewish scientists on the Nobel list - guess thats all a ploy. They PRETEND to invent benefits to mankind, but all the time ..

Rache - <Iraq wasn't attacked because it was a threat, it was attacked because it was weak.>

The US needed a foothold in the ME in order to place its troops close to Iran and Saudi Arabia (and perhaps to protect Israel) - and maybe simply to throw a rock in the pond and change the variables of the region. Saddam was fool enough to give them an opening by thumbing his nose at the UN for 12 years and talking big about chemical warfare. I believe there were WMDs (what was used on the Kurds?) but many were inoperable or sent into Syria before the invasion. Thats my take, anyhow, could be wrong.

BOAZ /dee,

The US (and the UK) definitely DID help put Saddam in power and the CIA even provided 600 names to add to the infamous death list that was implemented after his rise to power.

Yes, the West typically stood back and watched in horror while the Kurds were being killed.

Turkey was also trying to prevent a Kurdish uprising along their own border with Iraq. The USA later helped facilitate the killing of thousands of Iraqi Kurds by Turkey in the no-fly zone they implemented and enforced after the first war.

The previous Bush administration even helped keep Saddam in power when it became apparent that their preferred military coup option was not going to happen. They actively prevented the popular uprising that started after Desert Storm by helping the Republican Guard cut the rebels off from access to weapons.

We all knew about all the ongoing atrocities for years yet the USA chose to do nothing until it suited their own purposes so the claim that this war was a humanitarian action is somewhat feeble.

The WDM fiasco, like the mythical human-shredding machine and other preliminary lies, was just a vehicle to get troops into the country and consolidate an ongoing permanent military presence in the region. As late as February 2001, Colin Powell was still claiming that Saddam had no serious WDM capability. Rumsfeld was also actively a Saddam supporter (remember the infamous handshake video from 1998?)

For a more definitive explanation of the true motives behind this affair – as well as other events that are now unfolding - check information related to PNAC (“Project for the New American Century”) on the net.

This action was taken to prevent threats specifically to American Interests and it is not the grand humanitarian effort they like to portray.

Anyway, who is using “firepower, torture and brutality” now?

Rache - we agree on some points, such as US inaction on the Kurds. One question:

You dont mention Saddam’s collusion with UN member countries such as France and Germany. The reports of millions of dollars paid to UN reps in money-for-oil scandals ensured that the UN would remain the same corrupt to the core organization whose workers trade food for sex in starving countries:

‘ .. the mounting evidence of scandal that has been uncovered in the U.N. Oil For Food program suggests that there was never a serious possibility of getting Security Council support for military action because influential people in Russia and France were getting paid off by Saddam’.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/op-ed/20040321-101405-2593r.htm

‘A South Korean acting as a go-between with Boutros Boutros Ghali, the UN Secretary-General at the time, asked for $10 million from Iraq to “take care of some people” before the creation of the UN Oil-for-Food programme, a court in New York has been told.

Iraq set aside $15 million for the alleged bribery scheme and sent $3 million in cash to New York in the year that the UN’s largest humanitarian programme was set up, the court was told.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,11069-2251219,00.html

The UN bleets continually that world-policing should be left to them - God help any country relying on the ethics of this bunch.

Dee you forgot a teensy little thing in your rant about the UN oil for food program being rorted didn't you. Just a tiny matter of our own AWB being the biggest thieves of all to the tune of $300 million. It is a wee bit impossible to hold a high moral ground in this case.

If you read Richard Baker's work in the AGE today you will note that Downer was out protecting the corrupted wheat trade 4 days after the invasion and warning off the US.

2 days after the invasion a beautiful young Australian journalist was blown to bits in the north of Iraq by the first ever car bomb in Iraq and Downer said virtually that his death was his own fault, he shouldn't have been there.

Contrast that to Kovco who shot himself in the head playing the fool who was given a full honours funeral with PM and co attending.

100,000 or so Iraqi men, women and children are dead on the backs of these lies by Bush, Blair and co and our government has not once said a word about them. Not one word of grief when the US soldiers stalk a young Iraqi mum for a week, rape her and then burn her body and murder three of her family.

Not a word about the massacre at Haditha, the murder of a crippled man and countless hundreds of other cold-blooded murders by US soldiers. Not a word because the ADF then copy them and shoot down the trade ministers guards in cold blood.

Come on someone, anyone, condone this filth and then tell me why not one member of our government mourns the death of Paul Moran or the Iraqis.

Dee, Are you saying that Saddam Hussein sent his WMD to SYRIA do you have any idea about Middle East recent history? A little enlightenment for you... Syria and Iraq were both ruled by the same philosophy as dictated by the secular Baath Party. Both countries and their leaders Hafez Al Assad and Saddam Hussein looked to influence and lead the Arab world as both countries were central to the Arab world at different times in Middle East history. Syria more recently as a front line state against Israel. They also hated and distrusted each other with a passion. During the Iraq/Iran war Syria broke with most Arab countries and the USA in backing Iran. Gulf War I saw Syria support the USA in its liberation of Kuwait and subsequent invasion of Iraq. Saddam Hussein would not have transferred his American supplied WMD to Syria he would rather destroy them first which he did through the UN supplied weapon inspectors. Where on earth do you think WMD could come from considering the USA had choked off all their weapon supplies and were instrumental with the UK in enforcing UN backed sanctions the most draconian regime ever imposed on a sovereign state where even powdered milk was not permitted into the country?