[Todd D.]

So by that reasoning, heterosexual sex isn't victimless either. If you consent(without duress), you aren't a victim.

Not necessarily. It's semantics, I suppose. You can still suffer negative consequences as a result of your action, even if you are a "victim of your own choices", right? I would say that those effected by destructive choices are "victims" in a broad sense of the word, again even if victims of their own choices.

I don't disagree with the rest of your discussion with DDM, incidentally.

[DanDaMan]

Talking about "victims"... check out the title of the book...

"...in cases of mutual consent and mutual sexual attraction, sexual activity itself [between men and boys] seems to produce no damaging effects. It is to be hoped that this may put parents' minds at rest and help them to avoid being unnecessarily upset and anxious."

~ Dr. Preben Hertoft, eminent Copenhagen sexologist,
"Introduction", Crime Without Victims, Amsterdam: Global Academic Publishers, 1993.
http://www.nambla.org/hertoft.htm

So it would seem that there can be no victims.

[Godstud]

Being a victim of someone else making a choice for you is victimization. I'm not a victim if I make a choice and come to regret it later. I made informed consent, whereas a child cannot do so.

Crime with Victims is a book written by one person and is his own opinion, whether it's informed or not. I am puzzled why you seem to be dodging the whole issue by making accusations while not answering questions, DDM. As a liberal, by your definition, I think just because NAMBLA is using some quotes from the book doesn't make the book bad. I am sure NAMBLA uses quotes from all over in an attempt to support their deviant lifestyle.

This is the way of out modern Liberal education system. A world with no morals.

This is just extremist conservative attitude at its peak of arrogance and ignorance. There's a big difference between fostering education and fostering ignorance.

Any Conservatives here sign the petition to let Polanski go?
http://www.petitiononline.com/270909/petition-sign.html

Fixed.

Contrary to what you might think in your blatant right wing bias and conservative extremism, DDM, most liberals aren't raving lunatics, but normal people who are, probably, more concerned about morals than you. If you took a few moments to actually discuss things with liberals on this forum instead of falling back on your tired Glenn Beck rhetoric, you might actually discover this. There are extremist liberals, but they are the minority. As in the cases with most minorities, they tend to be the loudest and most noticed.

[Todd D.]

Being a victim of someone else making a choice for you is victimization. I'm not a victim if I make a choice and come to regret it later. I made informed consent, whereas a child cannot do so.

As I said, it's semantics. I was responding to your "it is a destructive behavior that victimizes someone. Homosexuality does not have a victim.", which seemed to be implying that because it does not have a victim, it is not "destructive". Perhaps I misread you.

[Godstud]

No problemo, Todd D. I can sometimes be hard to read as I don't always get my thoughts into text in the manner I would like. It's easy to construct an argument in your head but once you put it on paper it doesn't always make sense to others, who don't have the same frame of reference.

Yes it can be semantics, but there's a distinction between "destructive", like you put it.

[Donna]

Actually, there has been a process recently by which pedophilia has been separated from homosexuality both ideologically (in the Althusserian sense of ideology) and institutionally. The increased public acceptance of homosexuality has been accompanied by an increased demonisation of pedophilia. These two trends are of course linked; homosexuality has become more acceptable to most people because it is not perceived as part of the same continuum as pedophilia. This is one of the reasons for the increasing tendency of gay rights activists to distance themselves from organisations like NAMBLA. This was not always the case, of course - back in the 70s, pedophilia was much less demonised than it is now, and was associated in most people's minds as being a form of homosexuality. Both were regarded as being equally despicable and contemptible. Before homosexuality could achieve acceptance in mainstream society, this process of separating it from other forms of paraphilia, specifically pedophilia, had to occur, and is occurring.

Potemkin is correct here. NAMBLA was actually still a part of the International Lesbian and Gay Association until 1994, and this is largely why ILGA was denied consultative status with the UN then (NAMBLA was purged as a result), and still, today. The relationship between NAMBLA and ILGA has positively been a major setback for gay rights, and while the vitality of the UN is debatable, the lack of address of gay rights issues on an international level is mostly a result of this controversial legacy. Only recently (2007, maybe) did ILGA’s European wing gain limited entry into the UN’s economic and social council.

Regarding the relationship between pedophilia and homosexuality, there is none. There is however a strong relationship between ephebophilia/pederasty and homosexuality, and historically, the great deal of documented homosexuality has all been pederastic, even in aestheses or idealized. Oscar Wilde had considered himself a pederast in a very classic sense, even though his choice of partners were mostly in their early 20’s; and apparently, Wilde’s young lover Lord Alfred Douglas had no interest in men or teenagers, but male children, and his brother was suspected of having a relationship with the Earl of Rosebery, but this might say more about the attitudes that the aristocratic classes held toward sexual morality in Victorian era Britain. It was more wholesome in the United States, with all the gays that were connected in some way to Walt Whitman, none were really that privileged nor exceedingly debaucherous to the point of pedophilia.

Today, pederasty is not talked about among gays, but continues to be prominent in gay culture with the cultic exaltation of youth. I quickly encountered this when I became of age to explore the gay scene, observing both the potency of my own youth and the general obsession gay men have with boyish looking young men. The morality of it seems clear, though: there is a legal age of consent, and that is that. Those that breach it are excommunicated from the community, and properly so. In this day, ignoring and breaking the law in this regard is burdening, selfish and inexcusable.

[DanDaMan]

Regarding the relationship between pedophilia and homosexuality, there is none.

Sure there is. Pedophiles are born that way too and deserve equal protections and rights like homosexuals.
One cannot discriminate one deviance from another just because it's illegal.


Keep in mind I'm against mainstreaming homosexuality because of what must also be done to protect a pedophiles rights.

See... this is what happens when deviants are given rights...

Next on Senate agenda? 'Pedophile Protection Act'
'Hate crimes' law definitions would protect 547 sex 'philias'
Posted: May 04, 2009
9:08 pm Eastern

By Bob Unruh
© 2009 WorldNetDaily

The leader of a pro-family organization says families across the nation need to contact their U.S. senators now to try to derail a legislative plan that already has passed the U.S. House and is being awaited by President Obama – after a Democrat confirmed it would protect "all 547 forms of sexual deviancy or 'paraphilias' listed by the American Psychiatric Association."
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=97115

Understand that the fight for gay rights is the fight for all forms of sexual deviants. PERIOD.
When lawmakers make a law to protect a class of citizens they must protect all within that class. That is why pedophiles would be protected too.

[The Clockwork Rat]

There is a minimum age of consent for sex. If men are above it then they can consent to homosexual sex. If they are below then it is child abuse or paedophilia.

[ninurta]

Then you should know that Joseph did not become pharaoh of Egypt.

Then what did he become?

And there is no difference between homosexuality and pedophiles when homosexuals argue for rights based on a platform that they were "born that way".

Actually, only homosexuals and sexual orientation variants argue they are born that way and for good reasons because they are born that way. Pedophiles don't, many pedophiles become like that for psychological reasons, and they need help, if not sterilization. Many become pedophiles because they were sexually molested, had a mental illness of sorts, or were sexually deprived for too long (becuase of abstinence for years) like in the cases of some priests.

Telling me pedophilia is illegal doesn't mean much when sodomy was illegal too 30 years ago.

It's best not to use sodomy, its still illegal in some states, and it no longer means gay sex in those states. I just happen to live in one of the states that has sodomy as gay rape and not homosexual sex.

And it usually is used to mean butt raped, and can happen to girls as well. So in other words, sodomy in the sense it is used in my state, can also be heterosexual.

And to clarify... child molesters can also be homosexual.

Duh........
The majority rape little girls, and they are heterosexual......

Case in point.. the priests were homosexual pedophiles.

There is also a chance they were straight. Men in prison were noted to have changed to gay simply for being sexually deprived for so long that they went after everything that moved. It is not a gay issue, its a mental illness caused by mental issues going on in your head causing changes.

Yes, and some priests were heterosexual pedophiles.

Pedophilia is wrong regardless of sexual orientation.

Exactly right.

And to do so would mean pedophiles "born that way" are equals to homosexuals.

No, because that would be them lying. Pedophiles aren't born that way, and all had serious psychological issues that made them become that way. As for being equals to homosexuals, that is like me saying that you are like pedophiles because you were born heterosexual.

[]The difference is that adults can give consent, children can't. That's why one is alright and the other isn't.[]
For arguments sake..OK.
Aside from that infraction of the law can pedophiles have access to existing child pornography?

What would anyone want with that? There is a huge difference between child pornography and homosexuality. Trust me. I can explain the difference.

The difference, pedophilia and child pornography exploit and harm children, and whether they are born that way or not is truly irrelevant, because homosexuality exploits and harms no one.

Laws are meant to protect people, that is why they made child abuse (such as pedophilia and porn of children) illegal. homosexual and bisexual sex harm no one. They have no victoms. Just rape, child abuse and other abuse. That is why its no longer illegal to have those kinds of relations. Not because of any other reasons.

What you are saying is that since I was not born a soda drinker, and since its far less natural to drink soda than to have homosexual sex, that I should not drink it? If not, the "born that way" arguement is only a side thing, it has nothing to do with homosexuals and bisexuals wanting to live their lifestyle, it only is an answer to the question "how did you get that way?"

Dude. What the fuck?

You never cease to surprise me with hilariously fucked up ideas of Liberalism.

And I, Cheney, and other conservatives are exactly why he is wrong thinking that this is just "Liberalism".

I am not a Liberal by any stretch of the imagination, and since he is calling me a liberal by supporting homosexuality, why even bother with what he said?

I agreed with DDM at times when it came to economics, but once you start getting into social issues, its hard to agree, if not impossible.

[]Homosexuality does not have a victim.[]
More appropriately, it doesn't have a victim that didn't consent. That doesn't mean that it's "victimless", any more than one can say that Heroin use or Prostitution is "victimless", when of course neither are.

Victom:
1 : a living being sacrificed to a deity or in the performance of a religious rite
2 : one that is acted on and usually adversely affected by a force or agent <the schools are victims of the social system>: as a (1) : one that is injured, destroyed, or sacrificed under any of various conditions <a victim of cancer> <a victim of the auto crash> <a murder victim> (2) : one that is subjected to oppression, hardship, or mistreatment <a frequent victim of political attacks> b : one that is tricked or duped <a con man'

And how does this tie into homosexuality victimizing others?

[] What else can be the goal of teaching our children that in our schools if not for access to sexually educated children?[]
Ummm to prevent teen pregnancies which are so damned common despite what the great religions preach? Religion doesn't seem to be doing anything, so education is the next step. How do you read this sort of crap into things? Liberalism is not about hurting children. Freedom to hurt someone is something nobody wants, regardless of ideology.

Why bother? You aren't going to get across to him. He's hopeless.

[]Ummm to prevent teen pregnancies which are so damned common despite what the great religions preach? []
Then why does Obama think five year old children need sex ed in the video below?

Why would you be against teaching 5 year olds the difference between bad touch and good touch? To not go with strangers and whatnot? That's what sex education in that age consists of. Don't know any conservatives that wouldn't teach their children that if their school didn't, except pedophile ones but they aren't against pedophilia.
As for NAMBLA, never heard of it prior to today. And if they are for pedophilia being legalized if "consentual", I bet most homosexuals, bisexuals and most of everyone would disagree with legalizing it so it wont happen, dont worry.

I notice they cut Obama off in the video and don't let him continue to finish his statment. Propaganda, pure bullshit and taking what people say out of context.

As always.

A world with no morals.

Morals are social constructs made by people and can be destroyed by people. It's not a world without morals that's coming. Some people think what used to be moral is immoral. Take for instance the killing of homosexuals, that was seen as moral and as an honor killing, and in some parts of the world it still is. But many others see that as immoral. And I see all oppression as immoral. Your morals are yours alone, and they are going to be a fossil someday.

As for liberal's education system, trust me, this is not a liberal vs. conservative issue, and besides the fact that many gays and bis are conservative, there are as many conservatives as there are liberals that support LGB rights, I am sure. Our former vice president, Dick Cheney, he is for gay marriage. Ron Paul is for letting people make their own decisions and for getting government out of the marriage buisness. If the government stopped being in charge of it, then do you realize how many weddings would be performed for them? There is no government limit. They can marry then. Though he is a wimp and wants states to decide, I say keep the government out all together.

Trust me, your (mix of conservatives and liberals) side that wants to stop this (conservative and liberal) agenda, is on the wrong side of history and on the losing side.

[] Contrary to what you might think in your blatant right wing bias and conservative extremism, []

That is a controversial part of this, it's not just conservatives, he is with Obama on this one. DDM agrees with Obama that gays shouldn't marry, but disagrees with neocons like Cheney who say otherwise. Why use Obama and Cheney. One is a extreme neoliberal and the other an extreme neocon. Trust me, its just christian and other religious extremists, no different than Bin Ladin and those we are fighting abroad. Except, they kill with guns instead of suicide bombings.
While Obama isn't part of that crowd, DDM agrees with the liberal side that wants a more peaceful ban on this stuff. while the same group on the right wants to compete with islamic extremists like the Taliban.

DDM, most liberals aren't raving lunatics, but normal people who are, probably, more concerned about morals than you. If you took a few moments to actually discuss things with liberals on this forum instead of falling back on your tired Glenn Beck rhetoric, you might actually discover this. There are extremist liberals, but they are the minority. As in the cases with most minorities, they tend to be the loudest and most noticed.

And that minority is what DDM has most in common with, the liberal Minorities that think that gay marriage should be illegal but not do it violently.

Like Obama, he doesnt want to legalize gay marriage, he wants what many conservatives want, same sex "unions"/"partnerships"

[]Regarding the relationship between pedophilia and homosexuality, there is none. []
Sure there is. Pedophiles are born that way too and deserve equal protections and rights like homosexuals. []

Ummm.......no. First off, cite where you find that you are born a pedophile?

Also, that is like saying you are born mentally ill so you should be able to go crazy and not take drugs because you are born that way and its the voices that make you do bad things.

No one is victomized by homosexuality itself, just rape and pedophilia are the sexual things that cause victims.

And just because homosexuals and bisexuals are born the way they are, it doesn't justify their lifestyle. What justifies their lifestyle is that it is harmless, pleasureful, and is a great thing for them. That is how they choose to live their life, the way they were born to live it, because it is pleasureful. But that is not their justification, the justification is that there is nothing wrong with it.

One cannot discriminate one deviance from another just because it's illegal.

Except when one violation of the cultural norm is harmful and the other isn't.

I am a social deviant because I am pagan. Paganism is a social deviance, it violates the norm of being christian. It harms no one, homosexuality is on the side of the spectrum that paganism is on, and not on the same side as pedophilia.

Laws aren't meant to prevent social deviance, just legal deviance. so in this regard, homosexuality is not a deviance.

See... this is what happens when deviants are given rights...
[]Next on Senate agenda? 'Pedophile Protection Act'
'Hate crimes' law definitions would protect 547 sex 'philias'

Philia means love in greek, pedo- meaning child. There is a difference between the philias, and as for protecting pedophiles from being hated on, well that's not a bad thing. While certainly I am not for what they do, and I want them to be castrated humanely and prevented from being around children, I wouldn't want things happen to them that don't fit the crime.

Now to the law which is irrelevant to pedophilia:

Posted: May 04, 2009
9:08 pm Eastern

By Bob Unruh
© 2009 WorldNetDaily

The leader of a pro-family organization says families across the nation need to contact their U.S. senators now to try to derail a legislative plan that already has passed the U.S. House and is being awaited by President Obama – after a Democrat confirmed it would protect "all 547 forms of sexual deviancy or 'paraphilias' listed by the American Psychiatric Association."
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=97115
[]

Paraphilia not pedophilia. You are a heterophile, so what do you care?

Nice playing with words, but an epic failure to realize what the bill was about. It was moreless against hatecrimes.

O yeah, and my likeing african american women is paraphilia, it deviates from the normal white male to white female philia, and recently in my state someone got killed for that heterophilia. So I really really support this law. You may just be a heterophile who likes white women, but there are alot of deviances from that norm.
By the way, heterophile means the same thing as homosexual, they just said it so they don't sound strange by saying sexualities instead of philias. Why? I really don't know and don't care.

Understand that the fight for gay rights is the fight for all forms of sexual deviants. PERIOD.
When lawmakers make a law to protect a class of citizens they must protect all within that class. That is why pedophiles would be protected too.

Why are you against interracial sex? what's wrong with that? That's a sexual deviance, and a paraphilia. Well maybe its not considered a paraphilia but it can be.

[DanDaMan]

There is a minimum age of consent for sex. If men are above it then they can consent to homosexual sex. If they are below then it is child abuse or paedophilia.

Sodomy/homosexuality was once illegal too. So I fail to see your logical reasoning above.
I mean if sodomy/homosexuality can be overturned why not man/boy love?

If two men can marry because they are born that way who are you to say ageist laws are justified?

[ninurta]

Sodomy/homosexuality was once illegal too. So I fail to see your logical reasoning above.
I mean if sodomy/homosexuality can be overturned why not man/boy love?

If two men can marry because they are born that way who are you to say ageist laws are justified?

Exactly because of what I said and you ignored, it's not because they are born that way, but because its victimless and pleasurefull and good and great for them.

[Nets]

I can't believe that I am defending the homosexuals, but, as other posters have written, there is a fundamental difference between homosexuality and pedophilia. Homosexual sex can occur between two consenting persons, pedophilia cannot. End of story.

[QatzelOk]

Thing is, in the biblical Sodom story, it was male-on-male exclusivity that lead the homophobic Israelis to scapegoat homosexuals.

Pedophilia was A-okay in this story as long as it was male-on-female.

[ninurta]

Thing is, in the biblical Sodom story, it was male-on-male exclusivity that lead the homophobic Israelis to scapegoat homosexuals.

Pedophilia was A-okay in this story as long as it was male-on-female.

We don't know the age of Lot's daughters and until we do, we can't say it was. But if it was, wow......a god would be fine with pedophilia but not homosexuality?

Though you are right that it was their male-on-male activities that sealed their fate, but if they accepted Lot's daughters then they themselves weren't homosexuals, at least not by modern standards.

[QatzelOk]

a god

A god-text that wanted to sell to an already homophobic audience.

[Brio]

Then what did he become?

Then Pharaoh said to Joseph, "Since God has shown you all this, there is none so discerning and wise as you are. You shall be over my house, and all my people shall order themselves as you command. Only as regards the throne will I be greater than you." And Pharaoh said to Joseph, "See, I have set you over all the land of Egypt." - Genesis 41: 39-41 (English Standard Version)

Joseph rose to become viceroy of Egypt, not pharaoh.

[ninurta]

Then Pharaoh said to Joseph, "Since God has shown you all this, there is none so discerning and wise as you are. You shall be over my house, and all my people shall order themselves as you command. Only as regards the throne will I be greater than you." And Pharaoh said to Joseph, "See, I have set you over all the land of Egypt." - Genesis 41: 39-41 (English Standard Version)

Joseph rose to become viceroy of Egypt, not pharaoh.

What is a viceroy of what Nome?

Or do you mean the whole country? They didnt have that, the ruler (of any sort) was called a pharaoh. Yeah I know, its just a story and there was never a ruler by that name, but still, its gotta fit the location. He ruled egypt therefore he was pharaoh or didn't rule all of egypt, nor half.

[Brio]

In the biblical story Joseph was responsible for ruling over all of Egypt and was second only to the Pharaoh in power. Maybe viceroy is the wrong word to use, but at least in the story, he is not a Pharaoh. I thought this was all evident by the biblical verses I provided.

And yes this is just a story that most probably never happened, but if you are going to use biblical stories in your debate, you have to use the source material provided by the Bible.

[Nets]

Though you are right that it was their male-on-male activities that sealed their fate, but if they accepted Lot's daughters then they themselves weren't homosexuals, at least not by modern standards.

Sodom's fate had been decided before the events with Lot.

[Donna]

Sure there is. Pedophiles are born that way too and deserve equal protections and rights like homosexuals.
One cannot discriminate one deviance from another just because it's illegal.


Keep in mind I'm against mainstreaming homosexuality because of what must also be done to protect a pedophiles rights.

Laws that criminalized gay sex were scrapped not because courts felt that homosexuality was 'normal', but because they were deemed an unconstitutional invasion of privacy. While it was a graduated process in the United States that became federal precedent in 2003, the parliament of Canada debated sodomy law in 1969, shortly before the law was gutted, and the minutes reveal a great deal of legal discipline; not one single MP defended the nascent gay rights movement, not one single MP regarded homosexuality as normal or healthy, and many used strong moral language--perversion, deviancy, sickness--but the majority of them agreed that the government had no business in the bedrooms of citizens when consenting adults were concerned. The legality of homosexuality today has absolutely nothing to do with how it is being viewed today.