Quote of the day
posted at 11:00 pm on February 3, 2007 by Allahpundit
“If it buys her a new bicycle, that’s the sort of thing that might cheer her up.”
GreenRoom
- Syria, Russia: It all looks different from out there
- Hot Air Survey Results: CPAC Edition
- ‘Playboy’ bunny who cabby thought was vampire sues NYPD for abuse
- Embalmer penalized for speaking ill of dead sues to get license back
- Obama attempting to ‘get his groove back’ with young voters
- NYT hails the safety net: Poor hardest hit
- 9pm “Whitney Houston DEAD, latest developments, CPAC, Maine Caucuses”
- Why isn’t Sarah running?
- Contraception mandate: MSM stuck in “narrative capture”?
- ObamaCare architect: Health insurance premiums will rise, not fall, under law
Hot Links
|
|
Feeds
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »
Pedophilia is the new gay. Soon we will be hearing how it’s not a choice and how great historical figures used to do it and only narrow-minded religious bigots oppose it and……you know the rest.
billy on February 3, 2007 at 11:10 PM
We Vermonters have popularized weak handling of child molestation cases. The UK only wishes they could be as shameful as us.
Sadly, I believe you’re right billy. I think it will happen within the next couple decades.
RightWinged on February 3, 2007 at 11:22 PM
that’s why pedophiles will convert to islam, to emulate mohamed
Ropera on February 3, 2007 at 11:27 PM
Billy & RightWinged, I’m afraid it will happen sooner then a few decades. Restorative Justice my a$$. I had to read that article twice to make sure I wasn’t dreaming I was reading it. Well, the ACLU took on NAMBLA as a client. Soon they will want the jails emptied of these freaks.
Catie96706 on February 3, 2007 at 11:27 PM
Agreed. That’s my biggest fear about the whole “let’s normalize homosexuality” chants from the left. I don’t care how you slice it, homosexuality is a sexual perversion. Once one sexual perversion is “protected”, the rest will become just as valid. The whole gay thing is just a doorway for even worse horrors.
Guardian on February 3, 2007 at 11:29 PM
I can’t remember if I heard it on Glen Beck or Laura Ingraham or was it Savage, anyway, there was an international psychological conference type thing where they were saying and pretty much all in aggrement on exectly what you guys are talking about that’s coming. Almost as if all these things are infact normal and not really mental illnesses at all.
- The Cat
MirCat on February 3, 2007 at 11:36 PM
Uncovered veal.
Kid from Brooklyn on February 3, 2007 at 11:55 PM
Whoa!…Let’s not confuse gay with pedophile…
Where did that come from?
JetBoy on February 4, 2007 at 12:00 AM
Actually, Naziism is the new gay. I know this because while at my local art house cinema last year there were three posters advertising three separate films to be released about Nazis.
When I asked the ticket taker what the deal was with all the Nazi movies he said, “Nazis are the new gay.”
So, technically, pedophilia will be the new Naziism.
Get with the times, dudes.
Editor on February 4, 2007 at 12:03 AM
Yeah… I’m not willing to make that jump, either. How about pedophiles are the new furries? Nobody likes furries.
Savage on February 4, 2007 at 12:05 AM
I’m so ready to make that jump.
Editor on February 4, 2007 at 12:10 AM
Just a heads up, there are a lot of conservatives who are now accepting gays and you’re about to take heat from a few here (not myself, I agree with you).
Sadly though, you’re right. If we should let gays do what they want and accept that they are born that way, who are we to say pedophiles don’t have equal rights? Or polygamists? The “gay rights” folks (even here) will say it’s about “two consenting adults”…. The problem is, who defines what an adult is? And why is it only 2? Why not 3, 4, 28 people at once?
RightWinged on February 4, 2007 at 12:12 AM
I think the parents would feel better if the £250 was used to turn him into a eunuch.
TwinkietheKid on February 4, 2007 at 12:15 AM
I don’t have aproblem with gays; it’s a free country so if you want to be gay then have it. My problem is with gay activistswho insist tha
billy on February 4, 2007 at 12:18 AM
Ooops. I really shouldn’t even be on internet.
billy on February 4, 2007 at 12:20 AM
Again…exactly what does being gay have to do with pedophiles? What a ridiculous argument…that if we “let gays” have equal rights, somehow pedophiles and polygamists will inevitably be treated the same? Why not say mass murderers will be accepted because we accept 2 men or 2 women being together?
What is the whole “gay thing”? And again…HOW did this turn into a gay debate, when it’s about a pedophile case (not a gay one, either) with a ridiculous sentence? That’s what I thought it was, anyway…
JetBoy on February 4, 2007 at 12:24 AM
In related news, a sex offender with a long rap sheet just won $14 million on a lottery ticket in Florida.
RightWinged on February 4, 2007 at 12:25 AM
This is always awkward, because I don’t support any of it.. but assuming we accept gays, who are you to tell a pedophile he/she isn’t born that way, and that it isn’t natural?
RightWinged on February 4, 2007 at 12:27 AM
Hey – at least the judge didn’t order the pedophile to give her a lollipop.
lorien1973 on February 4, 2007 at 12:27 AM
Oh by the way, I was tipped to the story of the sex offender winning $14 million in the Florida lottery I linked to above, from Saturday Night Live’s Weekend Update… The punchline (paraphrasing): The man said he was going to use the money to buy a puppy, and a van.
RightWinged on February 4, 2007 at 12:35 AM
Now, I’m no expert on the workings of the human brain, and whether or not pedophilia is a mental disorder or what…
But in being gay, as it is, there is no victim or abused. With a pedophile, there is a victim and abuse. That my friend is the difference.
JetBoy on February 4, 2007 at 12:36 AM
“Defining deviancy down”, now where have I heard that before?
TBinSTL on February 4, 2007 at 12:38 AM
I’m not trying to bash gays, again I don’t really have a problem with them, either personally or morally. The problem is,the left activists who insist that homosexuality cannot ever be questioned and that to not accept it as perfectly normal is “intolerance.”
I fear that pedophilia will be the next target.
billy on February 4, 2007 at 12:38 AM
And every pedo will tell you that it is a victimless crime. “She really wanted it too”, donchya know…
TBinSTL on February 4, 2007 at 12:41 AM
For something to be normal, it has to be something that a general population engages in, so homosexuality is pretty obviously not normal. Its sexual deviancy in the eyes of God, but the rest of us have no business judging what others do behind closed doors, as long as they aren’t harming anyone or society. Pedophelia does screw up people, it hurts children for the rest of their life. Homosexuality is between consenting adults and nobody is harmed by it at all. I don’t see where the connection is, even with the genetic argument.
Savage on February 4, 2007 at 12:46 AM
Do you have that SNL clip? That’s hilarious.
lorien1973 on February 4, 2007 at 12:49 AM
OT (sorry)–Can someone tell me how to update my email address and password for my user account here? I’ve looked and looked for it, but I can’t figure out how to do it. Sorry–I’m clearly a nitwit and I’m probably overlooking something obvious.
aero on February 4, 2007 at 12:51 AM
Oh, yeah, aero, it’s happened to me, too. Click on that link that says your name just above the submit comment box and you’ll see how to edit all that stuff.
Savage on February 4, 2007 at 12:54 AM
Jetboy,
You and RW are coming from much different perspectives. I’ll take a wild guess that RW is coming from a Biblically based perspective and you are not (yes, a generalization).
It is VERY easy for those of us who come from a traditional and solid Biblical background to see the logic in RW’s case. Sexuality is a behaivor. Pedophilia is a behavior. Murder is a behavior. Kindness is behavior. Love is a behavior.
To us, what are unaccepted, sinful (to God) behaviors and what are accepted and encouraged (commanded) behaviors are spelled out very clearly. It’s not about “how you were born” – it’s about how you allow yourself to know what is pleasing to God behave accordingly.
So since we view sexuality as behavior we want to know why those who think acting on homosexual impulses should be more accepted than other sexual behavior? You must answer the question why homosexuality should be accepted more than say incest by consenting, ahem, siblings?
Editor on February 4, 2007 at 12:55 AM
Well, I can agree with the second half of that comment.
As for…
Using that logic, sculptors or rocket scientists aren’t normal…because most people don’t do that kind of thing.
Again…from the very first comment, this turned into a “gay” thing, when the article in question has nothing to do with being gay. I was just peeved that by somehow accepting being gay will lead to accepting pedophiles.
And that is just ridiculous…
JetBoy on February 4, 2007 at 12:55 AM
Dang, the inclusion of “in*est” must have snagged my comment. Will it be pushed through? Inquiring mind wants to know.
Editor on February 4, 2007 at 12:58 AM
TBinSTL hits the nail on the head.
To both Savage and JetBoy… this is your problem. Who are you to decide what an adult is?
RightWinged on February 4, 2007 at 1:00 AM
Savage, great advise. I’d never clicked that link before. Opens up a whole knew world… WOW, I can change my password. Who knew.
Editor on February 4, 2007 at 1:01 AM
Eighteen in most states, sixteen in others. Now how is two men in love or lust in their private lives morally equivalent to a seventy year old molesting a six year old girl?
Savage on February 4, 2007 at 1:05 AM
My snagged comment was on these lines, but I threw in in*est – consented. No vicitm… well, hmm, maybe if you consider a possible conception, but what if they get spayed and neuterd?
Editor on February 4, 2007 at 1:06 AM
Pretty much my answer to RightWinged’s question on who decides what an adult is. I’ll second it.
JetBoy on February 4, 2007 at 1:11 AM
Well, you see, from a Biblical standpoint they ARE morally equivalent, but they are morally equivalent with lying and stealing, also. They are all considered sinful behavior and we all know what the wages of sin are.
Editor on February 4, 2007 at 1:12 AM
I never drew that comparison…
As for those ages in those states… why? Just because it’s the law? Why then do you support those ages, but you apparently oppose laws that were once on the books in most states banning sodomy? (And don’t think I didn’t notice you haven’t explained why polygamists don’t get the equal rights)
RightWinged on February 4, 2007 at 1:13 AM
See my 1:13 AM comment. You can’t just support it because “it’s the law”, because gay activity was against the law until very recently as well, which takes us back around to billy’s original comment:
RightWinged on February 4, 2007 at 1:15 AM
Homosexuality is a sexual preference. Pedophilia is a sexual preference.
The only difference between the two is that pedophilia is illegal and the victim is not always willing. Neither have anything to do with the actual desire of the deviant.
They are both the same thing, accept that one happens to be criminal.
Gregor on February 4, 2007 at 1:17 AM
…because polygamy is against the law. Being gay isn’t.
JetBoy on February 4, 2007 at 1:17 AM
By the way, Mexico joined the party this week as well. Ha! If you had Howard Dean in charge (as we did) you’d have been “civil unioning” 7 years ago! Late bloomers.
RightWinged on February 4, 2007 at 1:18 AM
Ooops. Forgot the link to the Mexico story
http://news.yahoo.com/s/po/20070201/co_po/mexicologsfirstsamesexcivilunion
RightWinged on February 4, 2007 at 1:18 AM
Please resign from this debate (and read previous comments). Being gay used to be until it was mainstreamed over the past few generations. Next.
RightWinged on February 4, 2007 at 1:19 AM
Well I’d rather be wrong than right on this, but I do think there is a strong effort to sexualize children (do you really think condom education in schools is about AIDS prevention?) The campaign to normalize pedophilia will (is?) follow the same lines as the campaign to normalize homosexuality.
Once again, I’ve got no beef with teh gheys, just with those on the left who want to completely separate any moral considerations from sexual activities.
billy on February 4, 2007 at 1:19 AM
Whoa – so like, what’s being gay? Does that include the deed or just tendancies and impulses?
Editor on February 4, 2007 at 1:20 AM
Oh the irony. Such concern over legality when it benefits yourself. Where’s that concern for legality when gays go running to San Francisco to participate in ILLEGAL gay marriages?
Does the law only count when it’s on your side?
Gregor on February 4, 2007 at 1:22 AM
Argh! Homosexuality is not a preference. Give me one good reason to “choose” to be gay.
Homosexuality and pedophilia are the same thing?? Well, for one, “being criminal” is quite a difference if ya ask me!
JetBoy on February 4, 2007 at 1:23 AM
Argh! Homosexuality is not a preference. Give me one good reason to “choose” to be gay.
I don’t know, but my wife says our IT guy at work is WAAAYYY ugly, and his boyfriend is too.
Editor on February 4, 2007 at 1:25 AM
Oh really? Homosexuality is not a sexual preference? It’s not “having a preference sexually for the same sex?”
That’s news to me and probably everyone else in the world. So what is YOUR definition?
You might want to actually read the rest of the comment. Did you just stop half way through, or did you leave the rest out on purpose?
Gregor on February 4, 2007 at 1:27 AM
Is this an article of faith?
If homosexuality isn’t a preference, then why isn’t pedophilia? Name one good reason to molest children if you could control your urges? Shouldn’t we just accept that that’s just the way G-d made them and all try to nurture the loving relationships an older man has with a child?
and so it goes…
billy on February 4, 2007 at 1:33 AM
JetBoy, how about answering my questions? Do you just not like the fact that you’ve been completely removed from this debate. Your argument has been that gay activity is okay because it’s legal, and polygamy and pedophilia are not okay because they are illegal. I tell you AGAIN, being gay WAS ILLEGAL UNTIL VERY RECENTLY, until it was mainstreamed enough. Now they’re continuing to push, and civil union and gay marriage laws are slowly being passed in different states. You have absolutely no argument here, because you’re basing it entirely on legality. You’ve essentially told us that if billy’s first comment does turn out to be true in a few years or a decade or two, you’ll then support pedophilia, because it will then be legal.
Again, you’ve just resigned from this debate. Next.
RightWinged on February 4, 2007 at 1:34 AM
Do you think Hilary will throw us in Jail retroactively for our statements?
Editor on February 4, 2007 at 1:36 AM
You make-a-me laugh. “Used to be”? When was being gay ever illegal in this country? It “used to be” that gays could not meet, including bars or meetings. And it “used to be” that there was legalized segregation. Did that make it right? Or was it just “mainstreamed”?
But you’re right…I hereby resign myself from this “debate” as ya call it…those last few comments sunk this ship anyway…
So goodnight, and have a pleasant tomorrow.
JetBoy on February 4, 2007 at 1:36 AM
Just because I support one law, I don’t have to support all laws, especially not those that have already been stricken down.
I don’t care what two or more people do behind closed doors in their private lives, regardless of gender. Their sex life is between them, their partner or partners, and God. It is none of my business as long as it isn’t hurting society or raising taxes.
The age of consent laws are on the books because that’s the age of maturity, when people have to start taking full responsibility for their actions as an adult. Since eighteen is the age that by then most people understand the difference between right and wrong, have graduated or made an attempt at High School, and understand what society expects from them in terms of respecting the law, I think that’s a perfectly valid age for people to start having sex if they so choose. Some states have the age of consent younger, and personally, I wouldn’t if I was dictator. But I’m in full support of letting states decide what is best for their residents. I wish all government could be held down to a scale comprehensible to the people. And so I respect their decision.
Savage on February 4, 2007 at 1:36 AM
Aaaahhhhh, the nuance of the homosexual, PC crowd, shove it in your face in every chance, day after day, “Will and Grace” movement over the past twenty to thirty years coming home to roost….
There will always be an excuse for immoral behavior, always… and by the way, the Islamic Jihadists eat this shit {sorry Allahpundit, please don’t ban me}, up for breakfast.
You just recruited another generation and given them another excuse to kill the “Kaffar” {I don’t even know if I am spelling that correctly} …………. happy?
PinkyBigglesworth on February 4, 2007 at 1:39 AM
I see now you’re just slowly catching up… That said, read my other comments you’ve missed.
By the way, you are so predictable. I actually had typed a response to your new diversion that you’re using because you’re boxed in and have no where to go about “being gay”, when I was obviously talking about acting on it. If there is no act involved, and something remains in one’s head, obviously there is no way to police that. Anyway, I was going to preempt you on that predictable diversion, but then of course I’d have been accused of building a strawman.
At any rate, the point remains. You have said gay activity is okay because it’s legal, and argued that pedophilia and polygamy are not because they aren’t legal. Again, I say “gay activity” (no playing semantics with language and diverting this time) was illegal until recently (It may even still be in some states, I’m not sure on that.). So your argument is that if one day pedophilia becomes mainstream and accepted enough, and laws against it disappear, then you’re fine with it too.
RightWinged on February 4, 2007 at 1:41 AM
\
Texas. Up until the 90′s, when the sodomy law was overturned by the Supreme Court. Scalia dissented and warned of a “gay agenda” The sophisticated class laughed at him. A few years later, we have judicial attempts to impose a right of gay marriage.
billy on February 4, 2007 at 1:41 AM
I just don’t want to hear about two men (or women) being in love. I just don’t. That’s MY predilection.
Glynn on February 4, 2007 at 1:42 AM
But again, this is just all your opinion of what is a good law. I know people in their 30s and even 40s who are less mature than I was in high school. That really doesn’t even matter though. Your argument is the “adult” thing. I ask what an adult is, your argument is “whatever the law says an adult is”… But wait, homosexual activity was against the law and slowly but surely became accepted and mainstreamed, and now gay marriage and civil union laws are begining to pass. Right now pedophilia is illegal and as unacceptable as gay acts once were. So if the law is what makes it okay…
RightWinged on February 4, 2007 at 1:46 AM
Indeed this is the most famous.
More information at SodomyLaws.org (just found it, and with a quick scan actually appears to be a gay advocacy group… but will inform you on what used to be against the law until recently, and still is in some cases)
RightWinged on February 4, 2007 at 1:51 AM
S/b “Quote of the day” :)
Entelechy on February 4, 2007 at 1:55 AM
OK, but this is my last comment…
RightWinged, you said plainly and clearly that…quote, and emphasis yours… “being gay WAS ILLEGAL UNTIL VERY RECENTLY…”
Being gay was never illegal…even in Texas. Sodomy was illegal. There is a difference.
I just get angry when the subject here is supposed to be a stupid sentence passed by a stupid judge on a very serious topic…sexually abusing children. And it turns immediately into “See? If we accept gays, we’ll inevitably have to accept pedophiles”…
good night.
JetBoy on February 4, 2007 at 1:59 AM
No, you didn’t read my post for context, you’re looking for your own poorly drawn conclusions. I pointed out that the age of consent laws are what they are because they had a reason to be what they are – that American society expects people to be mature enough to manage their sex life, and the consequences that come along with it, by the time they are eighteen.
The laws forbidding sodomy were abolished due to logic and reason, not just whiney lobbying. Unless you believe that child molestation and homosexuality are equally morally equivalent and unacceptable to civilisation, then the laws forbidding child molestation will not fall. Slippery slope arguments do not work in this case because homosexuality and child molestation are wildly different objective acts.
Savage on February 4, 2007 at 2:00 AM
Yes, but given the context it was clear what I meant, and you know you only diverted because you had no argument left. As I’ve explained, the semantics of the language don’t make a difference to the point.
RightWinged on February 4, 2007 at 2:01 AM
Rinse and repeat.
RightWinged on February 4, 2007 at 2:02 AM
Am I the only one upset about the judge? Remember him?
Buck Turgidson on February 4, 2007 at 2:08 AM
I don’t believe they are morally equal. My point is that the arguements used to mainstream homosexuality will be used to mainstream pedophilia. The goal is to separate sexual activity from moral considerations.
billy on February 4, 2007 at 2:10 AM
Speaking for myself, I’m very upset about the judge–nearly as pissed as I am about the serial child molester. That incompetent bastard ought to be removed from the bench immediately. As for the maggot that preys on young girls, well, I’ve always subscribed to the Large Caliber Bullet to the Head school of justice for people like him. And for the whiny liberals out there, yes, I’m totally serious–if I became dictator tomorrow, that would be the punishment for serial child molesters. I’d pull the trigger myself if necessary, but the victim’s family would get first dibs. That’s real restorative justice. Hell of a deterrent too.
ReubenJCogburn on February 4, 2007 at 2:22 AM
It appears they’re already falling, doesn’t it. We have case after case where pedophiles are getting 30 days, 60 days, 90 days … or no time at all. It’s becoming clear that the court system (however you define that) does not feel that pedophilia is a serious crime.
I don’t think it’s unfair to say that the same people who claim that homosexuality is inherited at birth, will also believe that pedophilia is inherited at birth. It’s a sexual desire. A sexual urge. It’s what turns you on.
That is the argument. It has nothing to do with legality or moral issues. It is simply that history has shown a path to victimizing the offenders. Nothing is their fault. It’s all in the genes. It’s beyond their control, so … we can’t possibly punish them. Just have the guy buy the little girl a bike and all will be well.
Gregor on February 4, 2007 at 2:35 AM
True, and I can certainly understand why you would and should be concerned about that. My problem with their argument is that even if homosexuality and an attraction to children are both genetically influenced behavior biases are right, they are ignoring the fact that child molestation gravely harms another human being, whereas consensual homosexuality does not, so the comparison is not valid. This old man deserved to have the hammer dropped on him, as do just about all sex offenders, and of course its heart breaking to see a judge not service justice.
Savage on February 4, 2007 at 2:46 AM
A lot of what I am reading is making me grind my teeth. The government has no buisness regulating someones personal life as long as it meet these two criteria:
1. Are the parties involved of legal age?
2. Are the parties involved concenting?
Revolutionary, I know, but bear with me.
Homosexuality
1. Yes
2. Yes
Polygamy
1. Yes
2. Yes
Furries (I saw someone mention this further up)
1. Yes
2. Yes
Pedophillia
1. No
2. No
As it stands, pedophillia is the only one that can not be performed without a victim. That is the over riding factor. As for everything else, is it good for the people involved? Is it good for their home life or their job? That is not for us to decide and should have no bearing on its legality. You may disagree with it on every moral or religous ground but as long as it is someones private life and complies with rules 1 and 2, you should have no say.
SnakeintheGrass on February 4, 2007 at 2:55 AM
Read earlier comments. The “because it’s the law” argument doesn’t fly.
RightWinged on February 4, 2007 at 3:06 AM
Legal age is an arbitrary distinction. It can be changed in light of more “enlightened” and “tolerant” views.
I tend to be pretty libertarian about most issues, but the campaign to mainstream homosexuality has a deeper agenda, which is to separate moral considerations from sexual practices.
billy on February 4, 2007 at 3:09 AM
*roles eyes* Dont discuss what I said, just latch on to the word “legal”…
Where to begin on this…
My own personal views about when one becomes an adult is when you are mentally and physically ready to support yourself independently. But that is my own personal view and people dont all reach that at the same age. It would be impossible to evaluate every single person for the soul perpose of determining when they are an adult. There for a limit must be set. 18 is a decent number. The person has or is about to graduate from mandatory schooling and a good chunk of them are ready to move on. It is old enough to ensure a majority but not so old that most of them have matured far earlier.
Being of legal age simply means “not a child”. It has nothing to do with it simply being “the law”, I just happen to agree with the reasoning.
And why should you be able to force those morals on someone who is (I suppose I should revise…*roll eyes*)
1. Not a Child
2. Concenting
SnakeintheGrass on February 4, 2007 at 3:25 AM
For those of you who think RW and I are completely out lunch on this, read up on this guy
He’s pretty much the messiah of the Euro-American Left, and he especially focuses on sex and legal institutions.
billy on February 4, 2007 at 3:31 AM
I stick by the fact that you’re choosing which laws you think are good which doesn’t work as a real argument here, even if you think they have good reason to be in place.
But you need to specify that the second quote you use is from Billy, not me. I don’t argue morals when arguing against homosexuality, because morals would come from God and I think the major religions anyway all condemn homosexuality. This being the case, gays don’t subscribe to them in the first place, so why use them as an argument against someone who doesn’t believe in them? Like why tell a gay “it’s in the Bible”, when they don’t believe in the Bible. This “moral” thing brings to mind one of likely reasons Darwinists are so forceful in their insistance that everyon must accept their beliefs… Because without God, there are no morals, no judgements on personal behavior, etc.
That said I always argue that the day they find a gay gene, disorder, or gays are able to produce offspring with eachother, we can talk. This is of course a separate debate, but it brings to mind another interesting point. Who are you to say a 12 year old girl who can get pregnant can’t consent to have sex with an adult man?
Yeah I read your argument, but it doesn’t wash because it only fits with our “society”. What about primitive tribes in Africa, etc.? The age of “adulthood” of 18, as you explain it with high school, etc. doesn’t really cut it. That’s simply the way society has set things up in this country… it has nothing to do with anyway. I don’t know why I’m bothering… You still ignore the point that years ago it wasn’t thought acceptable for a gay to insist that he’s born that way and only attracted to men. Today you’re considered a bigot for not accepting it. Who are we to say that some pedophile isn’t naturally only attracted to children, and that he was born that way? And who is to say that a 12 year old can’t consent? Because our society is set up in a way that the majority of people go through a system that leaves them being 22 and still getting weed money from mommy and daddy, doesn’t have anything to do with this.
RightWinged on February 4, 2007 at 3:44 AM
You are missing the point. It isn’t homosexuality that I disapprove of (although I think RW does, for religious reasons) it’s that the arguements on behalf of homosexuality can,and I think they will be, be applied to pedophilia.
The arguements against it are now on shaky ground. Judges, like the jerk in the story, are decriminalizing it. Secondly, the “legal age” of an adult is an arbitrary number, it can be changed.
Tell me honestly, do you think that contemporary culture has increased or decreased interest in the sexual exploration of children?
billy on February 4, 2007 at 3:48 AM
While I’m on your side of this debate about the possibility (if not likelyhood) that pedophilia could be accepted one day, I have to take issue with that statement. I always make it clear that I oppose homosexuality (I even hate using that word that legitimizes it) for logical reasons, because in my mind if a homo was a Bible believer in the first place, they wouldn’t be involved in the lifestyle they’re involved in in the first place.
As I said above:
RightWinged on February 4, 2007 at 3:56 AM
RightWinged on February 4, 2007 at 3:56 AM
Fair enough. I shouldn’t try to speak for you.
You are quite capable of speaking for yourself ;)
billy on February 4, 2007 at 4:06 AM
“You’re not getting the point,” “I already diffused that argument,” “you didn’t read every word I said above,” “you ignored a detail in my post,” etc. How long is it going to be before you start accusing people of being liberal spies again, RW?
Savage on February 4, 2007 at 4:16 AM
and so the ad hominems begin.
Good night.
billy on February 4, 2007 at 4:27 AM
Anyone notice that to some extent it is already happining in our country?? If you are a “hot” female teacher getting it on with your teen student you get a slap on the wrist sentance, but if you are a male teacher you get the book thrown at you. I dont remember the specifics ( not really too awake yet) but I think Glenn Beck did a show or two on that.
mrfixit on February 4, 2007 at 5:12 AM
And now, if this is off topic I apologize, about gay marriage…. This comes from warroom.com (morning talk show here in the Steel buckle of the rust belt) form their Quick STart Guide to their show.
“26. You cannot legalize gay marriage because there is no such thing. Its like legalizing the square wheel. There is no such thing as that either. Marriage as a concept was created so as to give a name to an arrangement between a man and woman that has the potential to create the lives of the next generation of citizens. If sex between a man and a woman didnt create the next generation of citizens there would be no need for a word to describe their relationship since civilization would have no interest in it. We would just hook up with each other and when we got bored move on. Gay activists understand this and it explains the headlong plunge into gay adoption as an attempt to legitimize the oxymoron, Gay Marriage. “
mrfixit on February 4, 2007 at 5:24 AM
Moral relativism is the view that ethical standards, morality, and positions of right or wrong are culturally based and therefore subject to a person’s individual choice. We can all decide what is right for ourselves. You decide what’s right for you, and I’ll decide what’s right for me. Moral relativism says, “It’s true for me, if I believe it.”
The opposite of moral relativism would be the Judeo Christian values that our founding fathers embedded in this nation. That would also be that some things are absolutely wrong in God’s eyes and should be in all mankind’s eyes.
Pedophilia or being sexually attracted primarily or exclusively to prepubescent or peripubescent children should be one of those absolutes and any action taken towards satisfying that sexual attraction should be a crime, a serious crime.
It is a slippery slope when moral relativism gains traction in a culture but is there any other moral absolute in any culture once secularism takes God out of the argument? Honestly I’m a Christian but not a “Bible Thumper”, I just can’t think of any other moral absolute to which a society can anchor itself.
So who opposes our nation having God as our nations moral absolute and replacing it with subjective views of anything goes? Atheists are only 3% (at most) of our population and few of them support child molestation.
Who knows where moral relativism will take us but it isn’t going to be a pleasant journey. Where will “It’s true for me, if I believe it.” take human behavior.
Buzzy on February 4, 2007 at 5:41 AM
If gays are born that way and it’s not a choice, would they support a “cure”?
Chuck on February 4, 2007 at 7:35 AM
Thank you billy. This is exactly the right question to ask.
I’m not lumping homosexuals and pedophiles together; however, there are distinct similarities in how they view these issues. People who embrace homosexuality and pedophilia do not see it as destructive behavior. As long as no one gets hurt, what’s the problem?
People against these behaviors view them as destructive, maybe not physically destructive but destructive on an emotional level as well as a spiritual level. These same people also argue that sexual behavior between consenting unmarried adults is also destructive on at least an emotion and spiritual level, if not also on a physical level.
However, our current society tends to view any behavior between adults as acceptable under the definition of “freedom” as long as nobody appears to be injured. And it is politically correct to view homosexuality as a non-destructive behavior.
Pedophilia, on the other hand, is not generally considered acceptable behavior in our society. Not yet anyway… but it’s quickly becoming so.
+++
The reason we can’t all just get along on this is because both sides of the argument view the problem differently.
Pro-homosexual people view it as a choice, despite the irony they also argue that being homosexual isn’t a choice. On the other hand, the opposing view these behaviors as wrong and/or sinful, arguing that being homosexual is indeed a choice.
Likewise, pro-pedophile people tend to approach their “issue” from the pro-choice perspective. Despite the fact that the anti-homosexual and anti-pedophile establishment has proven time and again how these behaviors are destructive in more ways than physical.
Regarding homosexuality between consenting adults, a legal argument of freedom of choice reflects some rationality. But with pedophilia, and homosexuality between adults and children, there is no way to rationally argue consent. Therefore if one does not considered it immoral, it is still very much illegal.
+++
My position is that homosexuality and pedophilia, among other vices, are examples of wrong-headed thinking that seeks to justify preying on the weak under the false guise of “freedom of choice”.
Lawrence on February 4, 2007 at 8:26 AM
Exactly right Buzzy.
The question we must ask our opposition is what about when we decide it is okay to force or decision of right/wrong on others? Moral relativism doesn’t automatically make it right for everyone else who doesn’t believe it, or doesn’t have the ability to defend themselves against you.
Yes, we can make this same arguement about me and my “puritan” ideologies… except that I’m not so much against someone doing their thing… I’m against them doing it when it is destructive to someone else.
It very much is our business, as a member of society, to defend weaker members of society from those who seek to prey on them.
Pedophilia is illegal, because child abuse is illegal.
Lawrence on February 4, 2007 at 8:39 AM
Let’s not be hasty here. What kind of bike?
shaken on February 4, 2007 at 8:44 AM
I’m thinking that this judge has set a new standard for rape. Now if the girl were 16, would she be getting a new car?
Restoritive justice? Howz about restoring this guy to jail till he’s restored to room temperature. I would advocate for the death penalty in this case but that’s a different topic altogether. What has happened to the judiciary?
This is beyond tragic.
Mojave Mark on February 4, 2007 at 9:46 AM
And the day they find that gene, it’s going to look FABulous!
Can I get a “two-snaps up in a double helix”?
Seriously…if we’re to worry about any precedent here, it’s the sentence handed down by that judge for a very serious crime. I do believe these judges should be held to some account for their decisions.
JetBoy on February 4, 2007 at 10:12 AM
And I stick by the fact that you are using a straw man to deflect my argument. I explained why I agree with the age limit set for our country. You counter with:
Pedophilia may very well be genetic. That doesn’t make it acceptable. Why? Because in pedophilia, unlike homosexuality, one of the parties involved is a victim. Why do you keep ignoring this? You might as well say that accepting gays will also lead to rapists being accepted.
As for this little gem:
A 12 year old girl is neither physically or mentally ready for that kind of strain. It could cause sever damage to her and the child and well as mental and emotional scaring, at a time when she is not mature enough to make that decision.
And so he doesn’t pitch a fit, RW was the one I quoted for the above.
I don’t see pedophilia becoming more accepted, I just see judges with their heads up their asses. I think there needs to be mandatory minimum sentences for cases like this in the event of a bone headed judge.
SnakeintheGrass on February 4, 2007 at 11:00 AM
lol nice.
SnakeintheGrass on February 4, 2007 at 11:01 AM
Hmm…not sure whats wrong. My reply isnt posting…sorry if it suddenly shows up several times.
SnakeintheGrass on February 4, 2007 at 11:04 AM
Exactly!
If we don’t hold these judges accountable, then we are accepting it by default. And that is why I claim it is quickly becoming acceptable in our society.
Lawrence on February 4, 2007 at 11:19 AM
Same thing happens to me sometimes, when my interent connections and servers get bogged down.
Lawrence on February 4, 2007 at 11:21 AM
Finally, the post poped up. heh.
Ah, good point. The problem then becomes “how do you hold the judges accountable”? As the system is set up the judge as “technically” broken no law. If he is simply removed because we disagree with his decision it would make all judges afraid to hand down what they see as a reasonable sentence.
I was thinking that, for certain crimes, the minimum sentencing should be taken out of the hands of the judges, but with a lot of cases their are extenuating circumstances where a relatively light sentence would be appropriate.
SnakeintheGrass on February 4, 2007 at 11:42 AM
Pedophilia is what the law says it is, and the law will follow public opinion. Most people would agree that an adult over 30 having sex with a 14 year old is a pedophile. But in Canada it’s perfectly legal. At one point, in the Netherlands, a 12 year old could legally consent to sex with an adult; I’m not sure what the laws are there now.
The age of consent is subject to be changed, just as sodomy laws were changed. A society that permits things like (and I don’t mean legally, I mean socially)
- the marketing of “eye candy” thongs for children
- sexual “freedom” for children to the point that a 13 year old can request an abortion, state that the father is in his 20s and they’ve been having sex for over a year and it still doesn’t get reported
- kiddie cyberporn
is not terribly far from normalizing pedophilia. And once it’s socially normalized, the law will follow.
Laura on February 4, 2007 at 12:06 PM
Oh good grief. The point I was trying to make earlier is really very simple. Homosexuality IS a sexual perversion. No realistic person would say otherwise. Pedophilia is also a sexual perversion. The homosexual agenda is an effort to normalize and protect a sexual deviancy. Once a particular sexual perversion is protected who is to say that pedophiliacs don’t have the same rights to protection? As this thread points out, pedophilia, which used to be severely punished, is now a slap on the wrist. THAT my friends is my point. The normalization of pedophilia has already begun and you can thank the homosexual agenda for it. As for JETBOY, I can see clearly why you are having such a conflict.
Guardian on February 4, 2007 at 12:08 PM
We ignore this because it’s meaningless to the argument. The argument is based on sexual desire or preference, not the actual act of sexual molestation.
The argument is that both homosexuality and pedophilia are sexual desires and “preferences” which, if you believe homosexuals … is beyond the control of the individual and inherited at birth. The act itself is separate from the desire. Theoretically, a pedophile could have the “desire” but not actually “act” on the impulse.
So, is this different than homosexuality? Only as far as legality of the act itself, which is not what this debate is about.
Today, we have laws against discrimination based on “sexual preference.” The law does not say “discrimination based on “sexual acts.” Being that pedophilia is the sexual desire or preference for young children, this would mean that current discrimination laws would protect pedophiles from being discriminated against, as long as there is no proof that the actual “act” has taken place. “Pedophilia” is not illegal. “Child molestation” is illegal.
So THIS is why your argument is ignored and is in fact meaningless to this discussion.
I use the following example:
If you are a business owner conducting an interview with a potential employee, and all indications tell you that this person would be an outstanding employee, but suddenly the applicant informs you that he is sexually attracted to 6 year old girls … what do you do? What if there’s no criminal record? What if he looks you in the eyes and says … “but there is no way I would ever act upon my impulses.”
Do you hire him? Or do you discriminate against this person “based on sexual preference?”
Gregor on February 4, 2007 at 12:21 PM
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »