I read tonight that the ubiquitous Stacy Harp is involved in trying to get google to take down a manboy love site from blogger.  When reading their site, I was again struck by the similarity in verbiage and logic in their arguments as compared to the pro-gay arguments. 

Now, I am not trying to broadbrush hx as in the same category as manboy love, but I again must remark that they use the exact same language and logic as manboy-love advocates.  You might argue that involving a child is wrong, but then again, at what age?  18?  16?  14?   I mean, children are sexual before even 14.  Who are *we* to judge their "love"? 

1. Comparing their plight to other valid human rights issues

Currently “Paiderastia” is being attacked by certain conservative outlets, theocrats that have little respect for rational thought and freedom of speech. It is not only our ideas that offend and ignite these people, but any sort of openness and honest dialogue about fundamental rights for marginalized groups, be they homosexuals, racial minorities or gender issues.

Like every marginalized and suppressed population throughout history, ours is an issue of basic civil rights, not to break the law but to exist.

2. Appealing for progress in sexual preference, and the removal of persecution

There was a time when society was offended that a slave should be a free citizen. There was a time when society was offended that a woman should vote and hold property. The course of civilization is the struggle for justice. Currently boylovers are experiencing oppression akin to the times when society suffered its greatest failures: vigilantism, roundups, ghettos, propaganda, and state sanctioned murder.

3. Trying to divert attention from their own immorality by focusing on that of those who persecute them

Don’t get me wrong. I get angry; I get damn angry when I hear some vigilante is threatening the life of another boylover, or that some guy is making phone calls to the house of a fourteen-year-old boy telling his parents that their son is a pervert and ought to kill himself.

4. Appeal to perennialism – it has been around for a long time, and will continue

Boylove has existed forever. And wherever there is man and boy, the two will fall in love.

5. Appeal to unchosen feelings and inclinations

I never had a relationship with an adult friend. These feelings came to me naturally without any outside interference.

Loving boys is a part of me as true as the color of my eyes and hiding it hurts. If it’s true that we only get one chance at life, wouldn’t it be a shame to spend so much of it being untrue to myself?

6. Portraying the xian church as against sex
(unfortunately, in many instances, backwards churches give that impression by omitting positive teachings on sex, and only dwelling on prohibitions)

And, how does the Church feel about "sex"? Sex is a horrible, dirty, evil, vile act.

7. Re-interpreting the story of Sodom
(in this case, they interpret it to say that Sodom’s sin was being anti-gay!  now that’s a new one on me)

When the mob demanded that Job send out the men so that they could have sex with them, wasn’t this simply their way of saying, "send the faggots out"? If there was not even a word for homosexuals in their language, how else would they refer to them, and convey their accusations?? To homosexually rape a defeated opponent after battle was something widely practiced at the time, since it demonstrated the superior strength and manhood of those engaged in the assault….Was the incident at Sodom the first recorded account of gay bashing? Homophobia can legitimately be considered as an exteme form of inhospitality.