I thought pedophelia was Bush’s fault? (Just like everything else wrong in this universe.)
……..rolling eyes……shaking head……

PoliticallyIncorrectSandy on February 5, 2007 at 1:16 PM

I believe you mean:

Pedophiles attacking children?…..Boooooooooooooooosh

… and wants to treat every sin as if it were a crime, is just as misguided as someone who wants to see even the most serious of crimes go unpunished.

Watcher on February 4, 2007 at 6:37 PM

Yes. In our society there is a difference between a sin against God and a crime against humanity. And it is illogical to try and make all sins criminal. Yet we still try by making up arbitratry “hate laws”, etc.

Crimes in terms of legality are ranked from bad to worse with varying degrees of punishment. However, ranking all sins the same is exactly what Christ talked about in context of ultimate salvation. With Christianity, it is black and white, yes or no. No varying degrees identifying someone as more or less saved.

Christ’s Grace is equal for everyone, regardless. If we embrace Christ we embrace salvation. If we reject Christ we reject salvation. And in this context, it doesn’t matter how one ranks their sinfulness. So, yes, in context of your argument I do view sin in relative terms.

In our culture, due to a successful advertisement-public relations-promotional campaign, homosexuals and lesbians and their advocates have raised homosexuality to the status of saintly behavior, while demoting opposition to homosexual behavior to that of the scum of the earth, to bigotry, to “homophobia” (that’s supposed to be a bad thing), so that the person who does not advocate and embrace and condone homosexual and lesbian behavior – and I man advocate, not merely tolerate homosexual and lesbian behavior – is the person with the problem, the person who is anathema.

So, if you are “tolerant” of homosexual and lesbian behavior, then you are still a mean, nasty, up tight, frightened, anal retentive, bigoted homophobe, for you are not truly open to it, but if you advocate, embrace, endorse, and condone homosexual and lesbian behavior, then you are truly an enlightened soul, up there with the likes of Mohandas Gandhi, Jesus the Christ, Gautama the Buddha, Mother Theresa, Mother Theresa, Saint Francis of Assisi, and Father Damien.

So-called “Ethicists” have already shoehorened pedophilia into their reasoning bag of tricks, by claiming that some children are not hurt by sexual experiences with adults, and that some actually have good experiences with it.

Nevertheless, some Gay Pride Parades associated with the active homosexual population, have have allegedly been included pedophiles of the Man-Boy Love Association

Of course it is good for a populace to protect children from such exploitation.

William

stonemeister on February 5, 2007 at 1:46 AM

I’m not sure what your stance is, so it’s impossible to really comment.

Homosexuality is definitely a sexual preference, and I don’t believe in the theory that it is inherited. I’m not sure if you’re agreeing with that, or disagreeing.

Your other point about homosexuality being a preference or inherited…let’s see, when a homosexual has kids, he/she passes on his/her homosexual genes into the gene pool, and…no, wait a second, I guess the argument kinda stops there!

stonemeister on February 4, 2007 at 10:58 PM

LOL! Stonemeister, you called it a stupid point and then agreed with it entirely.

Thanks!

I don’t think you realized the point I was making.

As I stated clearly, “criminality is meaningless” because it is not a crime to be a pedophile unless you act on your desires.

This is a stupid point. The law does not criminalize thought (except for hate crime laws). People are judged — by each other, by society, by the law, and by G-d — by their deeds. As for their thoughts, G-d gave us free will to conquer temptation. As a backup, society created laws to penalize the inability or lack of desire to fight temptation. We criminalize that subset of moral laws we think is important to society, and morality is defined by our ultimate judgement — our actions.

So drop the bogus argument of what somebody thinks. This is a deliberate feign away from the argument at hand.

While I may disagree with you on some aesthetic points I find nothing wrong with the way you would choose to handle the subject in general. In short, I agree.

1. Are those who practice it wrong? If so, why?

Obviously, those who “practice” pedophilia are wrong if by “practice” you mean “actually molesting children.”

I believe the “urges” and “thoughts” are “wrong” too, but most people have had horrible urges relating to one thing or another in their lifetime. Humans are not perfect and are prone to wants and desires. Murder, adultery, stealing, pornography are all examples of thoughts most of us have at least let creep into our minds at some point. I can’t hold it against someone for having “thoughts.” It’s the actions that count.

As for homosexuals, I believe those acts are “not normal” based on the functional design and intention of the human body. So yes, I believe they are wrong. Morality or religion has nothing to do with my opinion on that.

This would answer your other question as to my definition of “deviant.”

“Contrary to the intended function or accepted norm.”

I actually had a female debate me last week on another blog, and she truly believed that any form of sex for pleasure was “okay” if it didn’t hurt anyone else, including beastiality.

THAT … is deviant.

2. If you agree they are wrong, do you believe something should be done to legally prevent consenting adults to do as they wish concerning their private lives, such as actively being homosexual?

If we’re talking about homosexuality, absolutely not! I really don’t care what two adults do in their private lives. Although, “marriage” is a legal contract and tradition which has always been described as between a man and a woman. I do not believe same sex marriages should be allowed.

I also do not buy the argument that this is discrimination. Homosexuals have the same rights and ability to get married as the rest of us, but it’s defined as between a man and a woman. If you choose to be with the same sex, you are voluntarily choosing to turn down the option of marriage. Nobody claims that two people of the same sex may not bond together and live their lives together. By all means, go out and buy your lover a ring, ask them to spend their life with you. I couldn’t possibly care less.

I also believe it should be illegal for homosexuals to teach our kids their belief that homosexuality is “normal” while teaching in a public school. When my child is in a public school (which they are not, and will never be), I have no control over what a teacher tells my child. They should restrict instruction to basic subjects and leave sexual revolution out of the classroom.

3. Is it right to discriminate against said people?

Again, if we’re talking about homosexuals, my initial answer to that question is “absolutely not” but I know there are some instances where it should be allowed. For instance, if I own a magazine and I’m looking for a journalist to write a weekly story on men’s dating … it wouldn’t make much sense to hire a gay male.

As long as the person is qualified and reasonably fits the job description than the answer is no.

If we’re talking about pedophiles, than I don’t believe it really matters whether it’s right or not. It’s going to happen regardless of the law if the person’s deviant thoughts are known up front. And that includes me. I would not hire a person who I knew had sexual desires for children. I wouldn’t care if it was legal and I wouldn’t care if God himself told me it was wrong. I would not work next to a person with thoughts such as this.

If that is wrong, so be it. It’s beyond my capability to accept such a person and I admit that to God.

Now you’re just being dishonest. Do you usually have to make up false accusation in order to support your arguments?

While I did imply that a pedophile WOULD be discriminated against, there’s nothing in my statement that implied that it would be understandable or “right.”

I am not being dishonest, that is what your analogy truly seemed to imply. Was that your intention? Apparently not.

You obviously need to resort to the usual homosexual defense, which is to attempt to label anyone with an opposing viewpoint as a bigot.

I never called you a bigot. Now it seems to be you who are being dishonest. Or did I seem to imply that without meaning to? Hmm.

What you conveniently left out of my comment when you re-posted it, was the paragraph which preceded the one you posted:

You posted that argument several times already and I felt the paragraphs I quoted summed up your argument. So you don’t want to use the every day meaning of pedophile, namely a child molester? Fine. So a pedophile is someone who just feels the urge. Ok?

Contrary to what you are suggesting, my comment actually points out that discriminating against pedophiles is in fact illegal. There’s nothing in my comment that suggests that I feel this should be changed or ignored. I only imply that in reality … most business owners would do it anyway if they had knowledge of a persons desires for children.

You are correct. If someone openly volunteered the information, most business owners would not hire them, despite not ever having acted on their desires. It would be incredibly stupid to volunteer such information, but yes, you are correct.

But you know what? You are so intellectually dishonest that you are unable to admit that you would do the same, and instead you change the subject to whether or not it’s right to ask anyone their preference. Strange, being that nowhere in any of my comments did I make any mention of asking a person their preference. My comment suggested what would happen if the person were to “volunteer the information.”
But you already know that.

I always find it amusing how someone can go from making a valid point to personal attacks in the same breath. You might want to steer clear of doing that as it seriously reduces the impact of the points you make.

So, I’ll take this to mean that you agree that homosexuality is the same as pedophilia in that it’s a sexual deviancy? I’ll assume that your original argument was meant to be that it’s not the same as “child molestation” which I’m sure we can all agree.

I have a problem with the term “sexual deviancy” as it has moral connotations attached to it. As morals are relative from person to person. If by “sexual deviancy” you mean different from the norm, than yes, I agree.

No. I never said that. Maybe you’re confusing me with another person. None of my comments ever included the word “moral” or anything to do with morality or religion. In fact, I believe someone to be of the utmost morality if they can resist deviant urges. We all have impure thoughts and urges to do immoral acts throughout our lifetime, whatever those thoughts might be. The true measure of our morality and strength is how successful we are at resisting those urges.

I am just trying to clarify here. You find nothing wrong with those who are “sexually deviant” as long as they resist the urge to follow through on it. Other than pedophilia, which can only be followed through by child molestation, what do you find objectionable about people who actively participate in “sexual deviancy”?

I wonder how you’ll take that comment and twist it to suggest that I said something else.

I am just going to let that one slide.

In the end, I am left wondering what it is you are arguing about. Since we seem to be in agreement to the idea that “child molesters” are the scum of the earth, we, apparently differ on our view of pedophiles, homosexuals, etc. and how they should be handled. So let’s break this down (and avoid the personal attacks)

1. Pedophiles (NOT child molesters), homosexuals, and everything else consider too be “sexually deviant”. Are those who practice it wrong? If so, why?
2. If you agree they are wrong, do you believe something should be done to legally prevent consenting adults to do as they wish concerning their private lives, such as actively being homosexual?
3. Is it right to discriminate against said people?

I actually did read your comment very closely and what you implied is that it would be understandable to discriminate against someone even though they had done nothing wrong.

SnakeintheGrass on February 4, 2007 at 7:50 PM

Now you’re just being dishonest. Do you usually have to make up false accusation in order to support your arguments?

While I did imply that a pedophile WOULD be discriminated against, there’s nothing in my statement that implied that it would be understandable or “right.”

You obviously need to resort to the usual homosexual defense, which is to attempt to label anyone with an opposing viewpoint as a bigot.

What you conveniently left out of my comment when you re-posted it, was the paragraph which preceded the one you posted:

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.

Contrary to what you are suggesting, my comment actually points out that discriminating against pedophiles is in fact illegal. There’s nothing in my comment that suggests that I feel this should be changed or ignored. I only imply that in reality … most business owners would do it anyway if they had knowledge of a persons desires for children.

But you know what? You are so intellectually dishonest that you are unable to admit that you would do the same, and instead you change the subject to whether or not it’s right to ask anyone their preference. Strange, being that nowhere in any of my comments did I make any mention of asking a person their preference. My comment suggested what would happen if the person were to “volunteer the information.”

But you already know that.

Is pedophilia and child molestation the same thing? No. Are they used interchangeably in every day speech? Yes. Again, you are nitpicking terms to skirt the meat of the argument.

Once again, your argument was that the difference between homosexuality and pedophilia is that one of them is illegal. Once again, I’ll point out that pedophilia is NOT illegal and that nobody in this thread is arguing that child molestation is the same as homosexuality. So who exactly are you arguing with? If you meant “child molestation” when you used the term “pedophilia” then you were arguing a point that was never made.

So, I’ll take this to mean that you agree that homosexuality is the same as pedophilia in that it’s a sexual deviancy? I’ll assume that your original argument was meant to be that it’s not the same as “child molestation” which I’m sure we can all agree.

So to get down to the basics of your argument, you believe someone is immoral due to their urges, weather or not they act on them?

No. I never said that. Maybe you’re confusing me with another person. None of my comments ever included the word “moral” or anything to do with morality or religion. In fact, I believe someone to be of the utmost morality if they can resist deviant urges. We all have impure thoughts and urges to do immoral acts throughout our lifetime, whatever those thoughts might be. The true measure of our morality and strength is how successful we are at resisting those urges.

I wonder how you’ll take that comment and twist it to suggest that I said something else.

You didn’t read my comment very closely.
First off, nothing in my comment implied or suggested that the person SHOULD be judged as though he had committed a crime. I am suggesting that any normal thinking business person would DESCRIMINATE against the person for their “sexual preference.” I didn’t state whether I thought this was good or bad. You just assumed that.

I actually did read your comment very closely and what you implied is that it would be understandable to discriminate against someone even though they had done nothing wrong. Hell, earlier today I felt like punching someone in the face, but I didn’t. I even admitted as much to my employer. Should I be fired?

As for the analogy, it doesn’t really matter that a pedophile would not freely admit his desires in a job interview. The point is, that if you were to know the person had a sexual desire for children, you would refuse to hire the person based on that sexual preference, having absolutely nothing to do with any criminal activity or illegal act. The point being, and quite obvious, that if you’re going to admit that you would do it in this case, then you are hypocritical to then say a business owner would be wrong to do the same thing to a homosexual.

Actually, the point is that someone’s sexual orientation should not even come up. It would have nothing to do with the persons qualifications. I don’t care what urges they have, if they have not acted on them, I can not fault them for it. If I did a background check and the person was convicted of molesting a child, you are right. I would not hire them.

As I stated clearly, “criminality is meaningless” because it is not a crime to be a pedophile unless you act on your desires. You seem to be stuck on this crime issue for some reason and you’re unable to differentiate between pedophilia and child molestation. One is a sexual desire, and the other is a physical sexual act.

And

It’s not nitpicking terminology. They are two different things! As I stated before, and I’ll repeat it again … “one is a sexual desire, and the other is a physical sexual act.” I don’t believe it’s nitpicking to point out the difference when your entire argument is based on claiming that homosexuality is different than pedophilia simply because one is illegal.
Again! Pedophilia is NOT illegal. So your argument does not exist. Nobody on this thread is claiming that child molestation is the same as homosexuality. So no, both words are not interchangeable as you claim.

To borrow your own statement… “My God! What a completely moronic argument.”

Is pedophilia and child molestation the same thing? No. Are they used interchangeably in every day speech? Yes. Again, you are nitpicking terms to skirt the meat of the argument.

So to get down to the basics of your argument, you believe someone is immoral due to their urges, weather or not they act on them? What ever happened to judging someone based on their actions?

Now lets see if you can reply without again insisting that, because I said pedophile instead of child molester, everything I say is invalid.

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

That is not true, Guardian!

Why would you think that homosexuality is a perversion?

Don’t you know that our best and brightest, those who are alive today, and those who have lived and left their imprint in history, are the salt of the earth, better parents at raising children and babies, and better teachers, the most creative among us, the best musicians and performers, the best inventors, the most compassionate, caring people on earth are homosexuals and lesbians?

Haven’t you received the memo yet?

Guardian,

What we have here is a failure to communicate. Your mind ain’t. But we can fix that. I have high hopes about that. From now on you’ve got to get your mind right.

Are you prepared and willing to undergo the proper thought adjustment in order to align yourself with the proper method of thinking?

Good.

I trust that you will now become a supportive, vibrant, inspired advocate for homosexuality and lesbianism, as well as for pedophilia. Then, and only then, will you show yourself to be enlightened and progressive, not to mention intelligent and cool!

Let’s get started!

William

Why on earth would something like that come up in a job interview? I wouldn’t hire someone like that simply based on the fact that they very obviously have poor judgment. I will grant you that it was a poor analogy, but I get your point. The answer is that the person in question has committed no crime yet you imply that he should be judged as though he has. As corny as it sounds, you seem to be advocating “thought police”.

SnakeintheGrass on February 4, 2007 at 6:26 PM

You didn’t read my comment very closely.

First off, nothing in my comment implied or suggested that the person SHOULD be judged as though he had committed a crime. I am suggesting that any normal thinking business person would DESCRIMINATE against the person for their “sexual preference.” I didn’t state whether I thought this was good or bad. You just assumed that.

As I stated clearly, “criminality is meaningless” because it is not a crime to be a pedophile unless you act on your desires. You seem to be stuck on this crime issue for some reason and you’re unable to differentiate between pedophilia and child molestation. One is a sexual desire, and the other is a physical sexual act.

As for the analogy, it doesn’t really matter that a pedophile would not freely admit his desires in a job interview. The point is, that if you were to know the person had a sexual desire for children, you would refuse to hire the person based on that sexual preference, having absolutely nothing to do with any criminal activity or illegal act. The point being, and quite obvious, that if you’re going to admit that you would do it in this case, then you are hypocritical to then say a business owner would be wrong to do the same thing to a homosexual.

It seems to me you can’t really argue the point so you nitpick terminology.

“Nitpick terminology?” My God! What a completely moronic argument. It’s not nitpicking terminology. They are two different things! As I stated before, and I’ll repeat it again … “one is a sexual desire, and the other is a physical sexual act.” I don’t believe it’s nitpicking to point out the difference when your entire argument is based on claiming that homosexuality is different than pedophilia simply because one is illegal.

Again! Pedophilia is NOT illegal. So your argument does not exist. Nobody on this thread is claiming that child molestation is the same as homosexuality. So no, both words are not interchangeable as you claim.

It is actually quite the opposite. I’m defining a black and white view of morality, in that it doesn’t matter the vice, because all vices are wrong. The relative persective is that the determination of right or wrong regarding any vice or circumstance is relative to the perspective of the viewer.

Sorry… I meant that it sounds like moral relativism in that it sounds just as silly to me, but it didn’t come out quite right.

Let me try to be a little clearer. Someone that tries to elevate every personal decision they disagree with to being on same level as the gravest of sins, and wants to treat every sin as if it were a crime, is just as misguided as someone who wants to see even the most serious of crimes go unpunished.

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?”

Why on earth would something like that come up in a job interview? I wouldn’t hire someone like that simply based on the fact that they very obviously have poor judgment. I will grant you that it was a poor analogy, but I get your point. The answer is that the person in question has committed no crime yet you imply that he should be judged as though he has. As corny as it sounds, you seem to be advocating “thought police”.

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.

and

“Pedophilia” is simply the “sexual desire” for young children. “Pedophilia” is not illegal. “Acting upon those desires” is illegal.
Therefore, all arguments based on legality or the age or consent of the “victim” are meaningless.

It seems to me you can’t really argue the point so you nitpick terminology. You know very well that “pedophilia” and “child molester” is used interchangeably in every day usage. If it makes you feel better, just go back and mentally change the two phases.

People on both sides are talking like the laws have always been 16 or 18, but Jerry Lee Lewis married his 13 year old cousin in 1957. The age of consent has not been static.
MamaAJ on February 4, 2007 at 12:27 PM

Good point, but the age of consent isn’t really what should be argued. As far as our laws go, upon reaching a defined age you are entitled to all the rights and restrictions of adult hood. As to what that age is can be debated, but once you are an adult no one has the right to tell you how to live your private life as long as everyone else involved is concenting and also an adult.

I think butt sex is stupid too, but if everything I thought was stupid were outlawed, you wouldn’t have a Super Bowl.
Watcher on February 4, 2007 at 2:39 PM

Dead on. Exactly what I am talking about. You may not agree with it but you arent trying to impeed others rights to do so.

but I don’t understand your need to lump pornography, homosexuality, and pedophilia together as being somehow equivalent. That sounds an awful lot like moral relativsm to me.

Watcher on February 4, 2007 at 4:17 PM

It is actually quite the opposite. I’m defining a black and white view of morality, in that it doesn’t matter the vice, because all vices are wrong.

The relative persective is that the determination of right or wrong regarding any vice or circumstance is relative to the perspective of the viewer.

The judge in this case is taking a relative view by making a personal judgement call and stretching the interpretation of the legal statute beyond what you and I as well as legal precedent consider appropriate.

However, if we say and do nothing when a judge makes a bad judgement in response then we are by default condoning it, and by default fostering an environment more accepting. At what point does pedophelia become so accepted that it begins to gain legal and societal acceptance equal to pornography and homosexuality, (plus any number of other vices)?

I’m not condoning what the judge did in this case did, I think his decision was retarded… but I don’t understand your need to lump pornography, homosexuality, and pedophilia together as being somehow equivalent. That sounds an awful lot like moral relativsm to me.

I meant:
What this judge did, effectively, is pimp out this child to a phedophile for the price of a bicycle.

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

From my perspective the problem is not minimum sentences so much as judges arbitrarily defining the status.

I just do not see making a pedophile buy the child a bicycle as punishment. It may be a judgement, but it isn’t a punishment of the crime.

What it is is a precedent that abusing a child is okay as long as you pay them. And what this constitutes is prostitution.

What this judge did, effectively is pimp out this child to a phedophile for the price or a bicycle.

Lawrence… are you talking about NAMBLA-type predatory homosexuality here, or are you lumping all consensual homsexual sex together with pedophilia as things that prey on the weak?

Watcher on February 4, 2007 at 1:36 PM

I think your point is there is a difference between concensual homosexuality between adults and preying on the weak for your own personal gratification. This falls in line with your position on pornography as well.

The legality of consenting adults doing what they want to do brings up the legality of acceptance in society, and this point is gaining more and more acceptance over time.

The legality of acting out one’s pedophelia is obviously illegal. However, if we say and do nothing when a judge makes a bad judgement in response then we are by default condoning it, and by default fostering an environment more accepting.

At what point does pedophelia become so accepted that it begins to gain legal and societal acceptance equal to pornography and homosexuality, (plus any number of other vices)?

Excuse me for saying the obvious, but pedophilia is perversion. So is homosexuality. Don’t believe that? OK, here goes. The very idea that cramming your stuff into some guy’s whoosits is a valid way of expressing “love” has major mental problems.

I think butt sex is stupid too, but if everything I thought was stupid were outlawed, you wouldn’t have a Super Bowl.