Debono. Your response infers that you must be a pollie as your response to my post is rather muddled. Instead of answering my question you attack my post by stating' it lacks sincerity'? I am very sincere when it comes to child pornography and the attempt by the arty farty crowd to justify it in the name of art.
Does your post mean that you would not be concerned if someone took a photo of your child without your permission?
What's the connection between homosexuality and paedophilia? Your post suggests that, because the former is now accepted in Western society that the latter will, at some stage, also become acceptable?
Then you throw in a line about abuse of children by the catholic Church. What's that got to do wth this topic? We all know it's been a 'cover up' by the Church.
I also suggest you stop altering my posts eg I did NOT state "Yes the parents that let their kids run naked are sick', but I did state 'But anyone who portrays their naked children PUBLICLY and for monetary gain must be SICK!' If you read my posts carefuly you will notice a signifcant difference between the two posts.
I respectfuly suggest you take a course in logic and read my posts, need I say, with more diligence and stop trying to 'muddy the waters' by mixing photos of pubescent children in the home environment with those taken for PUBLIC display for monetary gain. It is the latter we are discussing.
