Gay rights first...pedophile rights next?

[castille]

First came womens rights...then gay rights...now pedophiles rights?

Our world is going down the shitter. Why? I just discovered this horrifying article. Gay groups have given pedophile groups an excuse for their disgusting behaviour - since gay people say their behaviour is "unpreventable", so too can any other sexually perverted group on the planet.

Gay groups are keeping their distance from the pedofile groups, simply because the gays want to be more "accepted" into society. But are they actually trying remove their responsibility for society's so-called "sexual freedom"? (more like sexual perversion)


FULL ARTICLE: http://www.nj.com/specialprojects/expresst..._otherside.html


PIECES FROM THE ARTICLE:
</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
Pedophilia "has all the same characteristics as homosexuality, transvestism, fetishism, etc.," said Dan Markussen, spokesman for the 100-member association, which was founded in 1985. "Sexual orientation is defined as a lifelong attraction, which pedophilia obviously is."<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
In the United States, the most notorious may be the New York-based North American Man/Boy Love Association, or NAMBLA.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
According to its Web site, NAMBLA&#39;s goal is to end the "extreme oppression" of men and boys in mutually consensual relationships by educating the public on the "benevolent nature of man/boy love," and working to abolish age-of-consent laws.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

[Mathieu]

Well, if you throw the concept of consenting adults ...

And if I follow your logic, people like you who wants to impose to other what they do between consenting adults ...

It opens the door for to impose you what religion you should follow ? You want me to impose you who you f*** your wife ? You want me to impose you what sports you should play ?

[castille]

Don&#39;t teenagers always go on about having the right to make their own decisions?

That means if a 14 year old boy agrees to be ass-fucked by a 60 year old homosexual, then its consent from both sides.

Whoops, more ammo for sick perverted groups.

The fact is, those pedofile groups are using homosexual arguments to advance their cause. And its working.

[Mathieu]

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
That means if a 14 year old boy agrees to be ass-fucked by a 60 year old homosexual, then its consent from both sides.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

As far as I know, this is illegal...

Being gay is not illegal .

[Leopard]

the whole point has nothing to do with homosexuals, it has to do with being a &#39;minor&#39; - minors are determined not to be able to act in their own best interests and have therefore reduced &#39;rights&#39; .

It doesn&#39;t matter if a 60yr old man boinks a 14yr old boy OR if a 60yr old woman does... it is rape and therefore illegal.

you keep trying to connect homosexuality and pediophilia - they are two distinct issues. Gays are not necessarily pediophiles and pediophiles are not necessarily gay.

Don&#39;t worry about pediophilia becoming commonplace or legal - ever. This will not happen as long as parents have a say in the matter.

For someone who abhores homosexuality so much, you sure do talk about it alot - why is it your business what two people, ANY two people, who are consenting adults, do with each other?

michael

[Samildanach]

Just because a 14 yr old gives consent doesn&#39;t make it legal. Hell even if an adult gives consent it doesn&#39;t become legal a lot of the time. Look at that guy who volunteered to be killed and eaten. Full consent was given yet &#39;hannibal&#39; was still convicted of manslaughter because of societies ridiculous laws. As far as I&#39;m concerned thats an open and shut case and the guy should never have been convicted. My point is consent doesn&#39;t really mean anything.

[Sean]

Ok castille, this is twice now that I&#39;ve seen fallacious argument. Now what you&#39;ve got here is slippery slope (if green means go, then everytime I see green I NEED to go).

I think we need to get some fallacious argument articles up.

[antayla]

Y&#39;know, I don&#39;t think anything we do is unnatural. Everything human beings are is based in nature. I might even try to say that force is the only perversion, but wouldn&#39;t that be part of nature? of course, then it might be natural to kill someone who forced someone else, wouldn&#39;t it.

[RebelWithanAK]

Why is this topic still open? Homosexuality and pedophilia are two separate topics, and nothing in this thread have linked them in any meaningful way.

[Lepid]

"It doesn't matter if a 60yr old man boinks a 14yr old boy OR if a 60yr old woman does... it is rape and therefore illegal."

I could easily have picked on out of the replies to dissect but I will go no further than this!

...this is a nice, juicy morsel...

O....K!! ... Not being a "Boylover" myself I don't actually want to do this either - as I find it disgusting... :eek:

But just a brief look at the way this sentence is constructed says a lot about the ignorance of it's author!!!


First of all, you used the emotive word 'boinks' which automatically puts things on a certain setting..

And secondly, your usage of a vast age difference (!!!) as an example of how wrong you believe breaking the law in this way to be, is compounding the initial emotiveness and is an unnecessary example to make!

Why not have used the example of two 14 year olds? A 14 yr old and an inexperienced 21 year old man! A 35 year old....why?

Because it is not as attention-grabbing!

Lastly, the huge error of this sentence is evident in its circular argument - it is rape and therefore illegal!!!

NO!! it is not rape as such, it is only statutory rape, which is an entirely different ball game.

It is not illegal because it is rape, it is rape specifically because it is illegal - i.e. you have defined the act of consensual sex with an underaged person (statutory rape) as being illegal - thereby making the act rape.

[another day]

Y'know, I don't think anything we do is unnatural. Everything human beings are is based in nature. I might even try to say that force is the only perversion, but wouldn't that be part of nature? of course, then it might be natural to kill someone who forced someone else, wouldn't it.

Yes, It's impossible for any behavior to be unnatural...the simple fact that this behaviour exists makes it natural...Murder is natural, rape is natural, pedophilia is natural, homosexuality is natural. Which is why there have been milliosn of people doing these things since the dawn of time.

Also, the scenario between the 60 yr old and 14 yr old would not be illegal in Canada as the age of sexual consent is 14. And rightly so...if you can't make a decision about who you want to sleep with at age 14 then you are drasticaly immature. Besides, sex with a 14 year old is hardly pedophilia.

[Lepid]

"Also, the scenario between the 60 yr old and 14 yr old would not be illegal in Canada as the age of sexual consent is 14. And rightly so...if you can't make a decision about who you want to sleep with at age 14 then you are drasticaly immature. Besides, sex with a 14 year old is hardly pedophilia."

Might you also be persuaded to extend this license for consenting to sexual activity towards 12?

At least for girls, that is, after all they are much more mature than their counterparts are on average!

[Seeker_Of_Sins]

This thread is a fairly good example of why academics shouldnt be law makers, ever. The number of people defending paedophilia based on legal arguements or academic arguements is sickening. A 14 year old is a child, and sex with a child is moral issue. Ask any parent if they would want their 14 year old engaging in sexual activity and the answer will be no. Any parent that woiuld consent to their child having sex has moral issues that seriously need addressing. Any person that would argue in favour of a child having sex because of preconcieved ideas on maturity or anything else also has serious moral issues that need addressing.

The other part of this thread I agree with. Homosexuality is a sexual perversion. Paedophilia is a sexual perversion. By extending rights to one group, you open the door to an extrension of rights to another group. We reap what we sew. Parents are loosing the battle for their children as states and governments take those rights away and replace them with their own lowered morality or political correct political agenda. We now have the ridiculous situation where schools can and do teach things to our children that parents either do not know about or do not agree with.

My daughter can be given birth control at school without my knowledge. She can also arrange an abortion, can arrange alternative accommodation, can explore sexual perversion in class etc, all without my knowledge or consent as a parent

Is the state more qualified to raise kids than parents? Does that state have more rights over a child than the childs parents?

[Plasma Snake[D]]

This is what you get when you get the wrong people organizing together and attaining power. I say the hell with them! Turn a blind eye to those pedophile freaks. Sooner or later they will get tired and just shut the fuck up.

[RickSp]

The other part of this thread I agree with. Homosexuality is a sexual perversion. Paedophilia is a sexual perversion. By extending rights to one group, you open the door to an extrension of rights to another group. We reap what we sew.

You seem to have left out the obvious conclusion that if we give gay folks the same rights as the rest of us that we will soon have Satanic rituals being practiced in City Hall (well, in those where they are not being practiced already.)

You also didn't mention Rick Santorum's suggestion that if gays are allowed to marry that we will soon all start having sex with our pets.

Over the years I find it hard to escape the conclusion that bigotry makes us all stupid.

And most of us reap what we sow, not to put too fine a point on it, so to speak.

[another day]

This thread is a fairly good example of why academics shouldnt be law makers, ever. The number of people defending paedophilia based on legal arguements or academic arguements is sickening. A 14 year old is a child, and sex with a child is moral issue. Ask any parent if they would want their 14 year old engaging in sexual activity and the answer will be no. Any parent that woiuld consent to their child having sex has moral issues that seriously need addressing. Any person that would argue in favour of a child having sex because of preconcieved ideas on maturity or anything else also has serious moral issues that need addressing.

So what about all the "good christian men" who fucked and married girls as young as 13, when they themselves were 40+...People did this for centuries...why is it suddenly unacceptable to you? Why is a 14 year old a child when hundreds of years ago WHEN YOUR RELIGION REIGNED SUPREME, it was thought that a girl over 16 was an old maid?

My daughter can be given birth control at school without my knowledge. She can also arrange an abortion, can arrange alternative accommodation, can explore sexual perversion in class etc, all without my knowledge or consent as a parent

Oh dear, you don't get to rule your daughters life with an iron fist like some third world dictator. Cry me a river.

[Seeker_Of_Sins]

So what about all the "good christian men" who fucked and married girls as young as 13, when they themselves were 40+...People did this for centuries...why is it suddenly unacceptable to you? Why is a 14 year old a child when hundreds of years ago WHEN YOUR RELIGION REIGNED SUPREME, it was thought that a girl over 16 was an old maid?


Oh dear, you don't get to rule your daughters life with an iron fist like some third world dictator. Cry me a river.

What religeon would that be, just out of interest?

As for it being SUDDENLY unacceptable, wowee, it has always been unacceptable to me. I must have missed the bit where it was acceptable. Also, when the average life span of a human was around 35-40,(that being the average lifespan for humans hundreds of years ago), there were different rules based on how long it took to raise a child vs your expected lifespan. To take that and impose it on society today when the average lifespan is closer to 85 is spurious at best.

You call wanting to restrict my daughters sexual activity until she is mature enough to make an informed decision iron fisted and domineering? What planet are you from?

Do you have kids? More importantly do you have a daughter? With your seemingly liberal attitudes, when exactly will she be old enough in your eyes for me to pay the necessary 10 bucks to break her in? What a nong you are.

How old are you? 12?

[Jack]

To take that and impose it on society today when the average lifespan is closer to 85 is spurious at best.

While other 2000 year old morals are OK to impose on modern society? Outdated is outdated. If you want to ignore history when it comes to the age of marriage, consent, etc., then let's drop all those other ancient morals, too.

[Mia]

So nothing can change over time unless everything is thrown out and re-done? Hardly logical.

[Samildanach]

Hmmmm...After considering the arguments I tend to agree with (surprisingly) anotherday. If women were and are ready to have sex at a young age say 14 for the sake of argument, why should we stop them from doing so especially if it was not a crime in the past? Most would argue that it is because they are not mentally ready enough but I would dispute that, as I remember being that age and I would have been quite ready for a sexual relationship about then, especially with someone of about the same age or slightly older.
I don't see sexual freedom as having changed significantly ie we haven't started growing any slower to warrant a slow down or upgrade in age, if anything education and the internet are accelerating peoples maturity levels to question things sooner and learn much much more in a shorter period of time. I would not be surprised if the next generation had the same knowedge in primary school that most of us graduated high school with including sex education. When people are learning things faster which drives them to experiment earlier, the law becomes in conflict with human curiosity and people could end up getting punished simply for exploring. The morals we have in society today are too limited. there needs to be come leeway established to loosen these laws a little.
I generally see these 'morals' arising from the fact that people want to protect their offspring and due to having more resources they now can. In the past people were happy to marry off their daughters younger so they wouldn't have to look after them any more so they wouldn't be a burden.
As I don't have daughters I can't really comment on the parenting aspect of it. But it makes logical sense to me to reduce the age of consent so people over 14 can have sex with anyone over the age of 14 and not over 16 and so on and so on...two years either side ought to do it until they reach the age of 16, then with anyone. I call that REASONABLE protection.