OT - SpongeBob SquarePants Promotes Homosexuals
WingNut
In the meantime, George W(ar) Bush is preparing us for his
next invasion (Iran).
--
Wingnut
Alan Balmer
wrote:
Who is "SpongeBob SquarePants", and why do you claim he promotes
homosexuals?
--
Al Balmer
Balmer Consulting
removebalmerc...@att.net
Andy S
"Alan Balmer" <alba...@att.net> wrote in message
news:gok2v0t6krlh1sjon...@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 21 Jan 2005 17:45:27 GMT, "WingNut" <subp...@houston.rr.com>
> wrote:
>
> Who is "SpongeBob SquarePants", and why do you claim he promotes
> homosexuals?
>
> >LOL - the RR never ceases to amuse.
> >
> >In the meantime, George W(ar) Bush is preparing us for his
> >next invasion (Iran).
>
"Sponge Bob Square Pants" -- A very popular kids cartoon show which now has
it's own movie out in theaters.
"SpongeBob Accused of Promoting Homosexuality"
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,145046,00.html
"New Your - Conservative groups are putting the squeeze on a film starring
SpongBob Squarepants bound for elementary schools -- charging it promotes a
gay lifestyle.":
What a bunch of morons!
Gary
"Andy S" <and...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:35d3dqF...@individual.net...
"whose sexuality has been questioned because he often holds hands with his
pink friend, starfish Patrick Star -"
more proof than the conservadopes usually have lol
>
>
Alan Balmer
wrote:
Thanks for the link. The situation is even worse than reported - the
film apparently espouses interspecies sexuality! Holding hands with a
starfish, of all things! What is the world coming to?
BTW, the "fair and balanced" Fox report talks about "conservative
groups", but it seems there's actually only one group involved.
Don Lampson
promoting the "gay agenda" by twisted cartoons, that fan the flames of
lust in tender young minds....
Too bad we don't have an upright American, like Sen. Joe McCarthy to
nip this situation in the bud! (Except he was queer himself, and so
was J.E.Hoover!)
I hope that SpongeBob doesn't marry "Twinky Dinky", the gay
"TeleTubby"!!!
This just goes to show why we need astute censors to save us from
ourselves!
Don
Wolf Leverich
> Sponge Bob Squarepants has been licensced by some group deceptively
> called American Family something or other. The group is going to make
> available to the schools their material about the same time they run a
> TV program about tolerance. They even got Cosby to be in the film. Yes,
> the campaign is financed by gay and lesbian alliances and is aimed at
> the children to advocate that being queer is just an alternative
> lifestyle. They think if they can get to them at a young age they can
> recruit potential new queers and tolerance for their deviance.
> I don't remember the exact name of this group. It's been a month or more
> since I heard about it. They have an internet site that is referenced in
> the school literature that lays out in graphic detail their agenda,
Are you spoofing the brain-dead flavor of conservatives, or are you
really dumber than a fencepost?
No sane person would choose to be gay, and you certainly can't recruit
people to be gay. Most of us come factory-equipped to fixate on the
opposite sex, and some of us don't.
- Wolf <-- *Extremely* conservative, but does not belong to
the dumber-than-a-fencepost flavor.
Randy & Cheyanne
Idiocy has reached yet higher levels. Right wing Christian groups
trying to ban cartoons. Remember the Teletubbie they decided was
gay? The best part about the Sponge Bob story is they haven't
even seen the film yet are standing in judgement ;) What a hoot.
Randy & Cheyanne
> Sponge Bob Squarepants has been licensced by some group deceptively
> called American Family something or other. The group is going to make
> available to the schools their material about the same time they run a
> TV program about tolerance. They even got Cosby to be in the film. Yes,
> the campaign is financed by gay and lesbian alliances and is aimed at
> the children to advocate that being queer is just an alternative
> lifestyle. They think if they can get to them at a young age they can
> recruit potential new queers and tolerance for their deviance.
> I don't remember the exact name of this group. It's been a month or more
> since I heard about it. They have an internet site that is referenced in
> the school literature that lays out in graphic detail their agenda,
> WingNut wrote:
>
>> LOL - the RR never ceases to amuse.
>>
>> In the meantime, George W(ar) Bush is preparing us for his next
>> invasion (Iran).
>>
Recruiting "queers"!!!They need to be recruiting someone with some
sense. There's that word again, AGENDA, the ever looming threat
to all that is holy :) These asses need a life.
HHamp5246
<alba...@att.net> writes:
>Who is "SpongeBob SquarePants", and why do you claim he promotes homosexuals?>
He's the purple Teletubbie's partner.
Hunter
--
http://members.aol.com/ILuvBrady/summer2004.htm
"Life's journey is not to arrive at the grave safely in a well-preserved body,
but rather to skid in sideways, totally worn out, shouting
"...holy shit...what a ride!"
Wolf Leverich
> Re-read J's post: it had nothing to do with recruiting, he just
> comments on propaganda that is designed to make the sexual preferences
> of a small minority appear normal.
>
> Canoli
Quoting verbatim from the original post:
> > They think if they can get to them at a young age they can
> > recruit potential new queers
What part of reading do *you* find difficult?
So many idiots in the world, so little time to laugh at them.
- Wolf
Not Me
"HHamp5246"
|
| >Who is "SpongeBob SquarePants", and why do you claim he promotes
homosexuals?>
|
| He's the purple Teletubbie's partner.
Is this a committed relationship for the one episode, for the season or the
series, including re-runs and syndication?
Gary
"HHamp5246" <hham...@aol.comnojunk> wrote in message
news:20050122085143...@mb-m19.aol.com...
> In article <gok2v0t6krlh1sjon...@4ax.com>, Alan Balmer
> <alba...@att.net> writes:
>
>>Who is "SpongeBob SquarePants", and why do you claim he promotes
>>homosexuals?>
>
> He's the purple Teletubbie's partner.
but he hold hands with a pink starfish,,,what more proof do you need lol
al...@omnicast.net
>The point of the message was not to recruit homosexuals, but to
>promote acceptance of that sort of lifestyle as "normal" to kids at an
>early age.
>
>Re-read J's post: it had nothing to do with recruiting, he just
>comments on propaganda that is designed to make the sexual preferences
>of a small minority appear normal.
Many people, including me, think that homosexuality is normal, *for a
homosexual*. I wouldn't favor teaching young children that fact, just
as I wouldn't favor teaching young children much about
heterosexuality. Why many in society feel it is their business to
meddle in someone else's sexuality is beyond me.
Tom
HHamp5246
writes:
>Many people, including me, think that homosexuality is normal, *for a
>homosexual*. I wouldn't favor teaching young children that fact, just
>as I wouldn't favor teaching young children much about
>heterosexuality. Why many in society feel it is their business to
>meddle in someone else's sexuality is beyond me.
>
Well said Tom.......
HHamp5246
>Is this a committed relationship for the one episode, for the season or the
>series, including re-runs and syndication?
It was actually just a guess..... I don't really know if SpongeBob Square Pants
is having a relationship with the Purple Tele-Tubbie.
al...@omnicast.net
>On Sat, 22 Jan 2005 09:29:09 -0800, al...@omnicast.net wrote:
>
>>. Why many in society feel it is their business to
>>meddle in someone else's sexuality is beyond me.
>>
>>Tom
>
>It's not so much meddling as responding to the in-your-face campaigns
>by homosexuals designed to force the rest of us to accept their
>lifestyle as 'normal'.
>
>I believe they are entitled to practice their activities in private,
>just as nudists have the freedom to run around starkers in their
>secluded environments. I do not feel I am required to accept their
>beliefs and activities as normal.
>
>Come right down to it, all these plots to force acceptance of their
>lifestyle is just meddling in the sexual choices of straight men and
>women by a group determined to make the population believe they are
>behaving normally.
>
>Canoli
>
Difference is, I don't see any "plots". Every homosexual knows
he/she/it is born that way, hence there is no need to convince anyone
to become a homosexual.
Tom
Gary
<al...@omnicast.net> wrote in message
news:vr76v0huurtdjts9o...@4ax.com...
just curiosity,,,,,how do you convince someone to be a homosexual,,,j/k,,i
know it's your point
>
> Tom
Randy & Cheyanne
Dave Thompson
Gary <ga...@bardstowncable.com> pecked:
> "HHamp5246" <hham...@aol.comnojunk> wrote in message
> news:20050122085143...@mb-m19.aol.com...
>> In article <gok2v0t6krlh1sjon...@4ax.com>, Alan Balmer
>> <alba...@att.net> writes:
>>
>>> Who is "SpongeBob SquarePants", and why do you claim he promotes
>>> homosexuals?>
>>
>> He's the purple Teletubbie's partner.
>
> but he hold hands with a pink starfish,,,what more proof do you need
> lol
Do all you people routinely converse with the MIB?
Sponge Bob Square Pants has nothing to do with the Teletubbie's. If you had
ever seen the show, you could clearly see that SBSP is a child with an
apparent age of about 7 or 8. If little boys can no longer hold hands when
scared, happy or playing, there is no hope for the world.
I am a died in the wool political conservative, but such concerns are
stupid, counter productive and give real Conservativism a bad name.
--
Dave Thompson
Randy & Cheyanne
> On Sat, 22 Jan 2005 09:29:09 -0800, al...@omnicast.net wrote:
>
>
>>. Why many in society feel it is their business to
>>meddle in someone else's sexuality is beyond me.
>>
>>Tom
>
>
> It's not so much meddling as responding to the in-your-face campaigns
> by homosexuals designed to force the rest of us to accept their
> lifestyle as 'normal'.
>
> I believe they are entitled to practice their activities in private,
> just as nudists have the freedom to run around starkers in their
> secluded environments. I do not feel I am required to accept their
> beliefs and activities as normal.
>
> Come right down to it, all these plots to force acceptance of their
> lifestyle is just meddling in the sexual choices of straight men and
> women by a group determined to make the population believe they are
> behaving normally.
>
> Canoli
>
>
No one has to accept anything they don't want to, but I think as
humans they deserve respect just as much as hetero couples. With
so much hate in the world, if someone finds caring and comfort
from another human being, and grows from that experience, who
gives us the right to condemn them? I think if 2 people are in a
ong term committed relationship that they should have the benefits
of that relationship in terms of survivors benefits, powers of
attorney priveleges, insurance coverage, etc. Who cares? Why is
it important? Have that many of you been hassled and provokes by
homosexuals trying to "recruit" you? If so, think of the Bible
thumpers who harass them, telling them they will burn in hell for
loving the person that they do. That isn't my God, is it yours?
marriage isn't doing so well for the heteros these days, if you'll
notice the 50% rate of divorce. and how many of the remaining 50%
are in faithful, fulfilling unions. Just because the heteros
don't seem to be able to make it work, must we condemn someone for
living life differently? When I was a child I remember several
family members stating their beliefs that interracial couples were
going to burn in hell for their sins. And they BELIEVED this to
be true just as they believed the sun would rise the next morning.
Didn't mmake it right, didn't make it fact. Just caused misery
for others.
Mike Simmons
"Randy & Cheyanne" <alg...@apple.com> wrote in message
news:5DeId.17988$wi2....@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com...
Yeah..... he....he...he.... sorta like the Lib's did when Mel Gibson's
"Passion" came out......
Mike
Randy & Cheyanne
bug
@bignews4.bellsouth.net:
> Sponge Bob Squarepants has been licensced by some group deceptively
> called American Family something or other. The group is going to make
> available to the schools their material about the same time they run a
> TV program about tolerance. They even got Cosby to be in the film. Yes,
> the campaign is financed by gay and lesbian alliances and is aimed at
> the children to advocate that being queer is just an alternative
> lifestyle. They think if they can get to them at a young age they can
> recruit potential new queers and tolerance for their deviance.
> I don't remember the exact name of this group. It's been a month or more
> since I heard about it. They have an internet site that is referenced in
> the school literature that lays out in graphic detail their agenda,
> WingNut wrote:
>> LOL - the RR never ceases to amuse.
>>
>> In the meantime, George W(ar) Bush is preparing us for his
>> next invasion (Iran).
>>
>
...and this "American Family" group has nothing to do with other groups
with a similiar name.
This "American Group" works with musician and music producer Niles Rodgers,
who wrote among other songs "We Are Family", recorded by Sister Sledge.
-bug
Gary
<can...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:1bb6v09vtg3ll5k1m...@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 22 Jan 2005 19:54:18 -0800, al...@omnicast.net wrote:
>
>
>>>
>>Difference is, I don't see any "plots". Every homosexual knows
>>he/she/it is born that way, hence there is no need to convince anyone
>>to become a homosexual.
>>
>>Tom
>
> is intended to alter the public's perception that their perversions
> are abnormal. The agenda is plainly there for all to see, from
> lobbying for marriage licenses to allowing same sex couples to adopt
> children.
>
> If they were simply presenting their position and allowing society to
> make up its' own mind there wouldn't be a need for constant plotting.
> Their goal, however, is to force everyone to accept their views, and
> to welcome their activities as though they were completely natural.
>
> As to the argument about being born not made, which came first, the
> chicken or the chicken hawk? You might look up the NAMBLA, a group of
> homosexuals who consider children to be preferred sex partners, and
> who's motto is "after eight it's too late."
>
> I doubt if an eight year old understands that he is born homosexual,
> while the likelihood of being initiated into the life by an adult
> predator is much more likely to create a willing participant.
that type of behavior goes under the heading crimes against children and
should be prosecuted to fullest extent of the law no matter if the preps are
homosexual or heterosexual
>
> Canoli
Gary
"Dave Thompson" <da...@cme4it.com> wrote in message
news:ZtGId.13520$nt.1527@fed1read06...
no shit lol,,,,but the group in here are conservadopes,,,,a very distant
cousin to real conservatives
>
> --
> Dave Thompson
>
Gary
you lose the fact,,,some people feel superior attacking those they think
weaker,,,,,any one "different" from them is obviously "not normal" and
subject to their scorn,,,,same people who justified slavery,,,no right to
vote for women,,,white supremacy,,,,,list goes on and on
Gary
"Mike Simmons" <mik...@yhti.net> wrote in message
news:10v6nue...@corp.supernews.com...
what did they do?,,,,,,mel is my hero and boy the big bucks he made
>
> Mike
>
>
Lon VanOstran
> "WingNut" <subp...@houston.rr.com> wrote in news:XcbId.48394$Ta2.31059
> @fe2.texas.rr.com:
>
>
>>LOL - the RR never ceases to amuse.
>>
>>In the meantime, George W(ar) Bush is preparing us for his
>>next invasion (Iran).
>>
>
>
> ....as he also readies his onslaught on Social Security.
>
>
> -bug
>
>
>
Hey, yeah, you. SS is destined to fail. Chain letters can't work for the
majority. They only work for the first few people in line. How can
anyone oppose changes which MIGHT give SS a chance to survive as a means
of preventing extreme poverty for the aged, when what we have just can't
work?
Lon
Carl A.
"Lon VanOstran" <RV...@wmconnect.com> wrote in message
news:35i1c1F...@individual.net...
> bug wrote:
>
>> ....as he also readies his onslaught on Social Security.
>>
>>
>> -bug
>>
>>
>
> Hey, yeah, you. SS is destined to fail. Chain letters can't work for the
> majority. They only work for the first few people in line. How can anyone
> oppose changes which MIGHT give SS a chance to survive as a means of
> preventing extreme poverty for the aged, when what we have just can't work?
>
> Lon
Damn it, Lon, when are you going to learn that Liberals aren't supposed to have
*solutions* to problems. It's uncouth to ask them for it.
--
Carl A. in FL
Enjoy photo-journals of my travels at
http://sky.prohosting.com/chainfl/index.htm
Gary
"Carl A." <cha...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:35i1mrF...@individual.net...
>
> "Lon VanOstran" <RV...@wmconnect.com> wrote in message
> news:35i1c1F...@individual.net...
>> bug wrote:
>>
>>> ....as he also readies his onslaught on Social Security.
>>>
>>>
>>> -bug
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Hey, yeah, you. SS is destined to fail. Chain letters can't work for the
>> majority. They only work for the first few people in line. How can anyone
>> oppose changes which MIGHT give SS a chance to survive as a means of
>> preventing extreme poverty for the aged, when what we have just can't
>> work?
>>
>> Lon
>
> Damn it, Lon, when are you going to learn that Liberals aren't supposed to
> have
> *solutions* to problems. It's uncouth to ask them for it.
conservadope lie and accuse,,,,much easier for them,,,let's wait and see
what the true conservatives do about ss
al...@omnicast.net
>>>
>>Difference is, I don't see any "plots". Every homosexual knows
>>he/she/it is born that way, hence there is no need to convince anyone
>>to become a homosexual.
>>
>>Tom
>
>Every public utterance by the homosexual groups and their supporters
>is intended to alter the public's perception that their perversions
>are abnormal. The agenda is plainly there for all to see, from
>lobbying for marriage licenses to allowing same sex couples to adopt
>children.
<snipped for brevity>
And the problem with that is??? Of course it is intended to alter the
publics perception that homosexuality is abnormal. It isn't. It is
just different than you and me. Why shouldn't gay couples be afforded
all the rights of any other couple? Why shouldn't gay people have the
same rights as you and me? They don't want anything other than
equality. Every group in America pushes it's own agenda and tries to
change the public perception. Pro-gun and anti-gun groups, pro and
anti abortion, environmentalists, bikers, hikers, etc. plus thousands
more all try to alter public perception of their particular interest.
Tom
al...@omnicast.net
<RV...@wmconnect.com> wrote:
>Hey, yeah, you. SS is destined to fail. Chain letters can't work for the
>majority. They only work for the first few people in line. How can
>anyone oppose changes which MIGHT give SS a chance to survive as a means
>of preventing extreme poverty for the aged, when what we have just can't
>work?
As an only source of retirement, it has already failed. No one I know
can live on Social Security. Therefore, they will already have to have
other means (401k, savings, investments, etc.), or they live in near
poverty. President Bush's plan to privatize part of the retirement
system has therefore *already* taken place. For most of us, some of
our retirement already comes from private sources.
Unless I am missing the general gist of his plan.
Tom
Mark Jones
have
> *solutions* to problems. It's uncouth to ask them for it.
Gary
<al...@omnicast.net> wrote in message
news:ctu7v0pdh1c6ce3vb...@4ax.com...
you make it all seem so simple,,,,how can i hate anyone if i thought that
way,,<g>
>
> Tom
>
Carl A.
"Mark Jones" <noe...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:l7UId.5058$cZ1....@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
Seems to me that it worked well enough to get you to demonstrate that you don't
have a proposed solution.
Q.E.D.
bill horne
> On Sun, 23 Jan 2005 05:15:25 GMT, can...@sbcglobal.net wrote:
>
>
>>>Difference is, I don't see any "plots". Every homosexual knows
>>>he/she/it is born that way, hence there is no need to convince anyone
>>>to become a homosexual.
>>>
>>>Tom
>>
>>Every public utterance by the homosexual groups and their supporters
>>is intended to alter the public's perception that their perversions
>>are abnormal. The agenda is plainly there for all to see, from
>>lobbying for marriage licenses to allowing same sex couples to adopt
>>children.
>
> <snipped for brevity>
>
> And the problem with that is??? Of course it is intended to alter the
> publics perception that homosexuality is abnormal. It isn't.
>
> Tom
Of course it's "abnormal". Look up the definition of "abnormal". Some
of you want to change the definition of "marriage". Do you want to
change the definition of "abnormal", too?
Having said that, I'll also say that I don't consider all
abnormalities as bad. I know that's a cop-out, but that's the way it
is - I argue with myself from time to time about the various aspects,
effects, causes, and ramifications of homosexuality, and neither I
nor myself has prevailed yet.
But one argument in which I have prevailed over myself is that I'm
reasonably convinced that inventing euphemisms and changing
definitions ain't gonna fix the problem.
And hey. Is pedophilia a "choice"? If you think it is, ask yourself
why someone would "choose" to be sexually attracted to kids. If you
think it isn't a "choice", then do they get equal rights, too? And
don't give me any crap about "age of consent" - the "age of consent"
is demonstrably arbitrary, varies from state to state, and is a legal
term rather than some biological, psychological, or emotional fact.
Think about that 'abnormality' ("difference") for a while, and how it
might be similar to, or different from, homosexuality. And then think
about how those similarities/differences affect how society reacts to
them.
I think that if you think about it honestly, ignoring any political
ideologies you may have attached yourself to, and suppressing any
moral high ground delusions or unsupportable preconceived opinions
you may have, you will end up like me - in an intermittent,
apparently interminable argument with yourself.
--
bill
Theory don't mean squat if it don't work.
bill horne
While you're correct that many of us already have additional
retirement income from non-SS sources, or that many plan to have
additional retirement income come from private sources, until folks
are allowed to use some of the money the government is taking, Bush's
plan has definitely Not *already* taken place, and you are, in fact,
missing the general gist of his plan.
--
Gary
"bill horne" <red...@rye.net> wrote in message
news:ppudnRzwte5...@cybersouth.com...
as is most of congress
Kevin W. Miller
> al...@omnicast.net wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 23 Jan 2005 05:15:25 GMT, can...@sbcglobal.net wrote:
>>
>>
>>>> Difference is, I don't see any "plots". Every homosexual knows
>>>> he/she/it is born that way, hence there is no need to convince
>>>> anyone to become a homosexual.
>>>>
>>>> Tom
>>>
>>> Every public utterance by the homosexual groups and their supporters
>>> is intended to alter the public's perception that their perversions
>>> are abnormal. The agenda is plainly there for all to see, from
>>> lobbying for marriage licenses to allowing same sex couples to adopt
>>> children.
>>
>> <snipped for brevity>
>>
>> And the problem with that is??? Of course it is intended to alter the
>> publics perception that homosexuality is abnormal. It isn't.
>>
>> Tom
>
> Of course it's "abnormal". Look up the definition of "abnormal". Some
> of you want to change the definition of "marriage". Do you want to
> change the definition of "abnormal", too?
I would think that "normal" for any species would be to procreate to
continue the species. Anything other than that would be conterproductive and
therefore could be considered "abnormal". I also don't think that "abnormal"
necessarily equates to "wrong".
>
> Having said that, I'll also say that I don't consider all
> abnormalities as bad. I know that's a cop-out, but that's the way it
> is - I argue with myself from time to time about the various aspects,
> effects, causes, and ramifications of homosexuality, and neither I
> nor myself has prevailed yet.
I've pretty much accepted that I'm npot gonna be able to answer all of those
questions for myself; let alone for anyone else.
>
> But one argument in which I have prevailed over myself is that I'm
> reasonably convinced that inventing euphemisms and changing
> definitions ain't gonna fix the problem.
What is the "problem" in this case?
>
> And hey. Is pedophilia a "choice"? If you think it is, ask yourself
> why someone would "choose" to be sexually attracted to kids. If you
> think it isn't a "choice", then do they get equal rights, too? And
> don't give me any crap about "age of consent" - the "age of consent"
> is demonstrably arbitrary, varies from state to state, and is a legal
> term rather than some biological, psychological, or emotional fact.
We legislate ages for various things and they're often different in various
states. Why not the "age of consent"? And just because it varies from state
to state how does that negate the value of the legislation?
>
> Think about that 'abnormality' ("difference") for a while, and how it
> might be similar to, or different from, homosexuality. And then think
> about how those similarities/differences affect how society reacts to
> them.
>
> I think that if you think about it honestly, ignoring any political
> ideologies you may have attached yourself to, and suppressing any
> moral high ground delusions or unsupportable preconceived opinions
> you may have, you will end up like me - in an intermittent,
> apparently interminable argument with yourself.
True. And you may come to accept that you don't have all of the answers and,
while you might not give up searching for them, not having the answers won't
lead to interminable anguish and self-recrimination.
Kevin W. Miller
bill horne
Dammit, checkdaddy, I asked you not to give me any crap about the age
of consent, but like definitions of say, marriage, the age of consent
legislation can be changed when it's politically expedient.
And you ask me how variability negates the value. I can't anwser that
until I know what value you think it has as regards pedophilia -
which was the context of my ref to age of consent.
> Kevin W. Miller
Kevin W. Miller
>
<snip>
>
> Dammit, checkdaddy, I asked you not to give me any crap about the age
> of consent, but like definitions of say, marriage, the age of consent
> legislation can be changed when it's politically expedient.
Sorry, my wise and bountious geezercheckson. That's also true of the driving
age, concealed weapons permit age, voting age, drinking age and so on.
>
> And you ask me how variability negates the value. I can't anwser that
> until I know what value you think it has as regards pedophilia -
> which was the context of my ref to age of consent.
I think the value lies in its ability to give law enforcement a set point
(arbitrary or not) where wthey can arrest and the legal system can prosecute
and convict those who violate the legislated age of consent.
Kevin W. Miller
Bruce
"Kevin W. Miller" <ab...@wavecable.com> wrote in message
news:35inn9F...@individual.net...
consent to anything if you do not know what you are consenting to, or if you
lack the ability to understand what you are consenting to. since it would
be impossible to individualoly test everyone for their ability to give
informed consent, the justice system has arbitrarily chosen an age. some
legislators seen the age differently, thus different ages in different
jurisdictions. (Well its also a leftover from sexual paternalism,
protecting our womenfolk, even from themselves if necessary, thats why so
many states have 18 as the age of consent. 14 would be more appropriate in
this day and age. sex ed is everywhere, so informed consent would come much
earlier than 18 - does anyone really believe that a 17 year old is unable to
decide for herself is she wants to have sex??? and in that vein, the only
reason most states even have an age of consent for boys is that it would be
sexual discrimination if the age of consent only applied to girls and not
boys too. I remember 20 years ago working in juvenile corrections in
Arizona. I had one juvenile in custody in my dorm who was convicted of
statutory rape - he was 14 the girl he had been with was 16 and the sex was
her idea, but at that time in arizona, it was only a boy that could be
guillty, and his age was irrelevant, only the age of the girl.)
And now back to the original question - the reason pedophilia is criminal is
the presence of a victim. the underage child - being unable to give
informed consent - is a victim. that is the real difference between
pedophilia and homosexuality. in a homosexual relationship, both parties
consent - no force - no victim. And for that reason, no different than any
sexual relationship between any two (or more) consenting adults. It may be
"abnormal" or "immoral" but without a victim, it should not be against the
law. and if it is not against the law, it should not be the basis for any
form of discrimination under the law.
Bruce
Mark Jones
>
> "Mark Jones" <noe...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
> news:l7UId.5058$cZ1....@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
> > "Carl A." <cha...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:35i1mrF...@individual.net...
> >> Damn it, Lon, when are you going to learn that Liberals aren't supposed
to
> > have
> >> *solutions* to problems. It's uncouth to ask them for it.
>
>
> > You need to get a new line. This one isn't working.
> >
>
>
> Seems to me that it worked well enough to get you to demonstrate that you
don't
> have a proposed solution.
SS.
Carl A.
Thanks for *again* proving my point that you don't have a solution.
bill horne
But does it determine the point at which pedophile - a sexual deviant
- is no longer a deviant? Which leads back to the original question,
is pedophilia a choice, or not?
bill horne
> And now back to the original question - the reason pedophilia is criminal is
> the presence of a victim.
The original question was, "Is pedophilia a choice?"
the underage child - being unable to give
> informed consent - is a victim. that is the real difference between
> pedophilia and homosexuality. in a homosexual relationship, both parties
> consent - no force - no victim. And for that reason, no different than any
> sexual relationship between any two (or more) consenting adults. It may be
> "abnormal" or "immoral" but without a victim, it should not be against the
> law. and if it is not against the law, it should not be the basis for any
> form of discrimination under the law.
>
> Bruce
Hunter
>
>
> The original question was, "Is pedophilia a choice?"
>
It doesn't matter...what does matter it's a crime.
You are comparing apples and oranges.
Homosexuality is legal when it's two consent adults.
No victim. There is always a victim when a pedophile strikes.
Hunter
Tex Houston
"Hunter" <HHam...@aolhell.com> wrote in message
news:35j12eF...@individual.net...
>
> Homosexuality is legal when it's two consent adults.
> Hunter
Probably ought to be legal but there are still some strange laws on the
books.
My theory on lawmaking is that a new law cannot be enacted unless it repeals
two existing ones.
Of course when asked what I thought about prison overcrowding I suggested
that a fenced compound be constructed on Colorado's Eastern Plains
containing construction material, plans, prisoners and a reminder that
"Winter starts in sixty days".
It's getting harder and harder to stay a liberal.
Tex
WingNut
> The original question was, "Is pedophilia a choice?"
>
No, the original question was the sheer ludicrosity of the
religious right wanting to censor a cartoon character for
promoting 'gay lifestyle'. I guess I am the only one on
this ng who is able to see just how ridiculous it makes them
appear.
--
wiNGnut
Lone Haranguer
> And you ask me how variability negates the value. I can't anwser that
> until I know what value you think it has as regards pedophilia - which
> was the context of my ref to age of consent.
>
screaming about homophobia.
Pedophiles are just waiting for homosexuals to win approval and then
they will use the same "born that way" argument.
It could be extended to rapists, ax murderers, serial killers, ad
infinitum. Like gun control, there is no end to this crusade. The ACLU
makes its money that way.
LZ
Hunter
> No, the original question was the sheer ludicrosity of the
> religious right wanting to censor a cartoon character for
> promoting 'gay lifestyle'. I guess I am the only one on
> this ng who is able to see just how ridiculous it makes them
> appear.
>
> --
> wiNGnut
The hell you are...... I see how ridiculous it makes them appear.
Hunter
Lone Haranguer
>>Seems to me that it worked well enough to get you to demonstrate that you
>
> don't
>
>>have a proposed solution.
>
> We should cut you off right away. You appear to have plenty of money without
> SS.
>
a mandatory retirement program. If you did well on your own, that means
you probably paid more in during your working years but now will get
zero benefit because you did TOO well.
Sorry about that, Carl. Mark has taken up discrimination now and you
have been red-lined.
LZ
Tex Houston
"WingNut" <subp...@houston.rr.com> wrote in message
news:EVYId.45971$_56....@fe2.texas.rr.com...
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Ten years ago, then-Vice President Dan Quayle ignited a
firestorm of controversy when he criticized Murphy Brown, the powerful,
intelligent character in an eponymous sitcom, for having a child out of
wedlock -- and without any father in the picture whatsoever.
Tex
Bruce
"bill horne" wrote ...
> Bruce wrote:
>
>
>> And now back to the original question - the reason pedophilia is criminal
>> is the presence of a victim.
>
> The original question was, "Is pedophilia a choice?"
>
>>
>
> --
> bill
Well to answer that we need to define the question. Are you asking if being
a pedophile (ideation) is a choice? or if pedophiliac behavior is a choice?
as to the first, I have no real answer. I suspect, that at some point it is
internal, and a person's sexual preferences are what they are. (A pedophile
can no more stop being attracted to children than you can stop being
attracted to women - however see paragraph #2) Since pedophiles tend to be
victims, it may be learned before being internalized, but as adults, no,
being a pedophile is not a choice. ( This is Just my opinion - I have no
real evidence, but have worked with pedophiles and counselors for severl
years, and that seems to be the theory of choice today).
As to the question about pedophiliac behavior - of course that is a choice.
and just as easily as the person can choose to engage in this type of
behavior, he can choose not to. It may take a certain amout of work on his
part, not to act on the desires, but that is what sets us apart from the
animals. We can make those choices and not engage in behavior that we know
is wrong (whether morally or legally). I can choose not to have sex with
the woman I want, even though I love her, and she is available in every way.
(Since its legal and moral, I may not make that choice, but I could abstain
if I wanted to) The pedophile can make that same choice. He can choose not
to engage in deviant sex. It may be difficult, but it can be done.
I hate to bring homosexuals into this part of the discussion, but since
someone (possibly you, I don't remember and don't care to look it up) tried
to make an analogy between homosexuallity and pedophilia, I will go there
again. Homosexual behavior is a choice - homosexual ideation is internal
and out of the control of the individual. It's simply who he/she is, not
something he/she can control. If someone wants to make the argument that
homosexual behavior is immoral, I won't argue. If they want to argue that
it should be illegal or that people who engage in the behavior should be
discriminated against, that I will argue against. With no victim, its none
of societies business what they are doing, and they should not be subject to
any form of discrimination simply for being who they are. And as to the
moral issue, thats between them and God. I can disaprove, but I don't get
to judge.
Bruce
(Sorry for the long posts - I have spent almost 30 years working for the
government, in the criminal justice system, and don't know how to say
anything in 5 words when 100 will do.)
BTW I really do have some RV interests and questions, and will get around to
them in the near future. Who knows, maybe they will be such common
questions, that they are in the FAQ, if I can find it. Or maybe someone
else will get to them first.
Carl A.
"Lone Haranguer" <lin...@direcway.com> wrote in message
news:35j5qaF...@individual.net...
Not to worry. Why do you think the Democrats having been losing votes and
support since the early 90s?
Despite their control of the education system, despite their advocacy of
socialism, despite their obstructionism - they won't prevail because they are
very successful at demonstrating their intellectual dishonesty, as Mark has just
done.
He doesn't bother to think through how much would be saved if means testing
would reduce the payee base by eliminating people with a net worth of, say $5
Million or more. Chickenshit, even if you bring the cutoff down to just a
couple of millions. It's just so much easier to propose class warfare
solutions.
As I have offered before -- just give me back what I directly and indirectly
contributed, compounded at a reasonable interest rate, and I'll gladly leave SS
to those who didn't provide for their old age.
Lone Haranguer
> bill horne wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> The original question was, "Is pedophilia a choice?"
>>
>
> It doesn't matter...what does matter it's a crime.
Who says it doesn't matter? Homosexual acts were also once considered a
crime.
>
> You are comparing apples and oranges.
Not in his context: Is pedophilia a choice"?
If homosexuals can make the statement that they were born that way, why
can't pedophiles make the same claim?
>
> Homosexuality is legal when it's two consent adults.
>
> No victim. There is always a victim when a pedophile strikes.
Gradual pressure from activist groups have legalized homosexual
practices. What is to keep pedophiles from asserting the same rights?
You wouldn't want to discriminate against someone who was "born that
way" would you? What about THEIR right to "pursuit of happiness"?
You've walked onto a slippery slope with your previous arguments.
Trying to dismiss the subject won't get you back on safe ground.
LZ
bill horne
> bill horne wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> The original question was, "Is pedophilia a choice?"
>>
>
> It doesn't matter...what does matter it's a crime.
Sure it matters. If pedophilia turns out to be genetic and
involuntary, do we keep it as a crime?
> You are comparing apples and oranges.
Not so. I'm just asking if pedophilia is a similar apple.
> Homosexuality is legal when it's two consent adults.
What if it's two consenting 12 year olds - or three consenting adults?
> No victim. There is always a victim when a pedophile strikes.
Are you sure? For example, if a consenting 13-year old and a
consenting 15-year old engage in homosexual activity in private in a
state where the "age of consent is 14, is it a crime, pedophilia,
just wrong, and/or normal? And if it's a crime, should it be?
Or what if two 11-year olds engage in sex - homo or hetero? What is that?
I sure as hell don't know, and some of you folk who like to talk
about everything being gray seem to think this is black and white.
If one of you could imbue me with this certainty, I'd be
appreciative. Then that portion of my pondering time that I spend on
this could be spent on something else.
> Hunter
Anyhow, my original questions about all this aren't based on what's
legal. I'm pondering on things like whether they're voluntary or
involuntary, and what we (society) should do about them if they're
involuntary.
bill horne
> It's getting harder and harder to stay a liberal.
>
> Tex
If you think from time to time, it should be.
bill horne
> "bill horne" wrote >
>
>>The original question was, "Is pedophilia a choice?"
>>
>
>
> No, the original question was the sheer ludicrosity of the
> religious right wanting to censor a cartoon character for
> promoting 'gay lifestyle'.
That's not a question, and I know what I asked.
> I guess I am the only one on
> this ng who is able to see just how ridiculous it makes them
> appear.
>
> --
> wiNGnut
>
>
WingNut
Wingnut wrote
>> No, the original question was the sheer ludicrosity of
>> the religious right wanting to censor a cartoon character
>> for promoting 'gay lifestyle'.
>
> That's not a question, and I know what I asked.
>
apples?"
The original post of this thread was a link to an article
which said RR groups were trying to censor a cartoon
character.
The original question you asked, I don't know but it was
probably something like "are you my mommy?".
--
CPinTX
bill horne
> "bill horne" wrote ...
>
>>Bruce wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>And now back to the original question - the reason pedophilia is criminal
>>>is the presence of a victim.
>>
>>The original question was, "Is pedophilia a choice?"
>>
>>
>>>Bruce
>>
>>--
>>bill
>
>
> Well to answer that we need to define the question. Are you asking if being
> a pedophile (ideation) is a choice?
Yes.
> or if pedophiliac behavior is a choice?
No.
> as to the first, I have no real answer. I suspect, that at some point it is
> internal, and a person's sexual preferences are what they are. (A pedophile
> can no more stop being attracted to children than you can stop being
> attracted to women -
> homosexual ideation is internal
> and out of the control of the individual. It's simply who he/she is, not
> something he/she can control.
> Bruce
Then if both (attractions/tendencies) are involuntary, how do we
justify one as a crime, and the other as not? And why do some try to
call one normal, and the other abnormal?
Hunter
> Hunter wrote:
>
>
> Sure it matters. If pedophilia turns out to be genetic and
> involuntary, do we keep it as a crime?>
Bill,
You know the answer... why do you act so damn dense. Pedophilia is not
involuntary.... The urge can be involuntary.... the crime is a choice.
>
>
>> Homosexuality is legal when it's two consent adults.
>
>
> What if it's two consenting 12 year olds - or three consenting
> adults?>
Why do people think you are so smart.... I'll never understand it. What
if the moon is made out of green cheese?
>
> Are you sure? For example, if a consenting 13-year old and a
> consenting 15-year old engage in homosexual activity in private in a
> state where the "age of consent is 14, is it a crime, pedophilia,
> just wrong, and/or normal? And if it's a crime, should it be?>
Do you have a clue what pedophilia is?
>
> Or what if two 11-year olds engage in sex - homo or hetero? What is
> that?>
See my last question....
>
> I sure as hell don't know, and some of you folk who like to talk
> about everything being gray seem to think this is black and white.
>
> If one of you could imbue me with this certainty, I'd be
> appreciative. Then that portion of my pondering time that I spend on
> this could be spent on something else.
>
Who are you kidding. You never answer questions directly.... who answer
questions with more questions..... it's a game you play here.
>
>
> Anyhow, my original questions about all this aren't based on what's
> legal. I'm pondering on things like whether they're voluntary or
> involuntary, and what we (society) should do about them if they're
> involuntary.>
Pedophilia is voluntary...... so what we should do with them if it's
involuntary is moot.
Hunter
>
al...@omnicast.net
wrote:
>al...@omnicast.net wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 23 Jan 2005 05:15:25 GMT, can...@sbcglobal.net wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>Difference is, I don't see any "plots". Every homosexual knows
>>>>he/she/it is born that way, hence there is no need to convince anyone
>>>>to become a homosexual.
>>>>
>>>>Tom
>>>
>>>Every public utterance by the homosexual groups and their supporters
>>>is intended to alter the public's perception that their perversions
>>>are abnormal. The agenda is plainly there for all to see, from
>>>lobbying for marriage licenses to allowing same sex couples to adopt
>>>children.
>>
>> <snipped for brevity>
>>
>> And the problem with that is??? Of course it is intended to alter the
>> publics perception that homosexuality is abnormal. It isn't.
>>
>> Tom
>
>Of course it's "abnormal". Look up the definition of "abnormal". Some
>of you want to change the definition of "marriage". Do you want to
>change the definition of "abnormal", too?
>
>Having said that, I'll also say that I don't consider all
>abnormalities as bad. I know that's a cop-out, but that's the way it
>is - I argue with myself from time to time about the various aspects,
>effects, causes, and ramifications of homosexuality, and neither I
>nor myself has prevailed yet.
>
>But one argument in which I have prevailed over myself is that I'm
>reasonably convinced that inventing euphemisms and changing
>definitions ain't gonna fix the problem.
>
>And hey. Is pedophilia a "choice"? If you think it is, ask yourself
>why someone would "choose" to be sexually attracted to kids. If you
>think it isn't a "choice", then do they get equal rights, too? And
>don't give me any crap about "age of consent" - the "age of consent"
>is demonstrably arbitrary, varies from state to state, and is a legal
>term rather than some biological, psychological, or emotional fact.
>
>Think about that 'abnormality' ("difference") for a while, and how it
>might be similar to, or different from, homosexuality. And then think
>about how those similarities/differences affect how society reacts to
>them.
>
>I think that if you think about it honestly, ignoring any political
>ideologies you may have attached yourself to, and suppressing any
>moral high ground delusions or unsupportable preconceived opinions
>you may have, you will end up like me - in an intermittent,
>apparently interminable argument with yourself.
The pedophile argument has already been answered here, so I won't
address it. What I *didn't* mention in my diatribe was the fact that
certain religious groups contend that homosexuality is learned, not
born with. They then consider it abnormal. An understandable point of
view considering where it comes from. I just happen to disagree, and
have presented my viewpoint. Bear in mind I do understand where you
are coming from, I just respectfully disagree.
Tom
al...@omnicast.net
wrote:
>
>But does it determine the point at which pedophile - a sexual deviant
>- is no longer a deviant? Which leads back to the original question,
>is pedophilia a choice, or not?
Doesn't matter. It is illegal. That's all we need to know.
Tom
al...@omnicast.net
>I see where bill horne <red...@rye.net> asked a question that I feel
>certain will be ducked by liberals:
>
>>And hey. Is pedophilia a "choice"? If you think it is, ask yourself
>>why someone would "choose" to be sexually attracted to kids. If you
>>think it isn't a "choice", then do they get equal rights, too? And
>>don't give me any crap about "age of consent" - the "age of consent"
>>is demonstrably arbitrary, varies from state to state, and is a legal
>>term rather than some biological, psychological, or emotional fact.
>>
>>Think about that 'abnormality' ("difference") for a while, and how it
>>might be similar to, or different from, homosexuality.
>
>We seem to be approaching a time when virtually any atrocity mankind
>can conceive of and carry out will be considered involuntary because
>the perp was 'born that way'.
>
>Put me down as favoring the death penalty for pedophiles - and
>ostracism for people who insist on homosexual habits.
>
>Will Sill
It doesn't matter whether any atrocity would be considered
involuntary. It only matters that they are illegal. If I believed in
the death penalty, which I don't, I too, would prescribe it for
pedophiles. Pedophiles harm people. Homosexuals don't, unless they rob
a bank or commit some other crime.
Tom
al...@omnicast.net
wrote:
>al...@omnicast.net wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 23 Jan 2005 07:51:37 -0700, Lon VanOstran
>> <RV...@wmconnect.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Hey, yeah, you. SS is destined to fail. Chain letters can't work for the
>>>majority. They only work for the first few people in line. How can
>>>anyone oppose changes which MIGHT give SS a chance to survive as a means
>>>of preventing extreme poverty for the aged, when what we have just can't
>>>work?
>>
>> As an only source of retirement, it has already failed. No one I know
>> can live on Social Security. Therefore, they will already have to have
>> other means (401k, savings, investments, etc.), or they live in near
>> poverty. President Bush's plan to privatize part of the retirement
>> system has therefore *already* taken place. For most of us, some of
>> our retirement already comes from private sources.
>> Unless I am missing the general gist of his plan.
>>
>> Tom
>
>While you're correct that many of us already have additional
>retirement income from non-SS sources, or that many plan to have
>additional retirement income come from private sources, until folks
>are allowed to use some of the money the government is taking, Bush's
>plan has definitely Not *already* taken place, and you are, in fact,
>missing the general gist of his plan.
That's entirely possible. I haven't studied it. However, I am
uncomfortable with the concept of having my money forcibly removed
from me, then invested privately "for my own good". Doesn't seem like
freedom to me.
SS, doesn't work that way. It's just forcibly removed from me. If I
were in congress when it was started, I would have voted against it.
And I still would.
Tom
bill horne
> bill horne wrote:
>>But one argument in which I have prevailed over myself is that I'm
>>reasonably convinced that inventing euphemisms and changing
>>definitions ain't gonna fix the problem.
>
>
> What is the "problem" in this case?
> Kevin W. Miller
Sorry. I missed that one earlier. The problem I mean refers to the
legal and attitudinal treatment of homosexuals. As a society, what
should we do, and why?
Carl A.
<al...@omnicast.net> wrote in message
news:rls8v01bhhf7fnjrg...@4ax.com...
>
> That's entirely possible. I haven't studied it. However, I am
> uncomfortable with the concept of having my money forcibly removed
> from me, then invested privately "for my own good". Doesn't seem like
> freedom to me.
> SS, doesn't work that way. It's just forcibly removed from me. If I
> were in congress when it was started, I would have voted against it.
> And I still would.
>
> Tom
Tom, you are missing the key differences.
While under the proposed plan the money is still forcibly taken from you, there
are two important new aspects: (1) within certain guidelines, you decide how it
will be invested, and (2) if you kick the bucket before *you* have spent all the
money in your account, whatever is left will go to your heirs.
Of course Democrats will argue that this provides an incentive for your heirs to
get you to take up dangerous retirement activities. Become a NASCAR driver
instead of rolling along in your RV, take up sky diving, get married to a woman
half your age, etc.
I haven't figured out yet what the net effects on Medicare costs will be.
bill horne
> bill horne wrote:
>
>> Hunter wrote:
>> Sure it matters. If pedophilia turns out to be genetic and
>> involuntary, do we keep it as a crime?>
> Bill,
>
> You know the answer...
No, I don't.
> why do you act so damn dense. Pedophilia is not
> involuntary....
If you have evidence of that, I'd to see it. Evidence that a
pedophile should be able to resist his desires better than a goodly
part of the population is unable to resist pre- and extramarital sex.
> The urge can be involuntary.... the crime is a choice.
Just as homosexuality used to be. Whether or not something is a crime
is a decision made by society - and society has been wrong before.
According to society.
>>> Homosexuality is legal when it's two consent adults.
I don't much care about "legal" right now, I'm searching for the
ideas and reasons and justifications behind the decisions to make
something legal or illegal. I remind you again that homosexuality
used to be illegal in most of the country.
>> What if it's two consenting 12 year olds - or three consenting
>> adults?>
> Why do people think you are so smart....
Do they?
> I'll never understand it. What
> if the moon is made out of green cheese?
I'm pretty sure that it isn't - but aren't you introducing an
orang...ummm...cheese ball into the apple barrel with that apparent
non sequitur?
>> Are you sure? For example, if a consenting 13-year old and a
>> consenting 15-year old engage in homosexual activity in private in a
>> state where the "age of consent is 14, is it a crime, pedophilia,
>> just wrong, and/or normal? And if it's a crime, should it be?>
>
>
> Do you have a clue what pedophilia is?
Well, yes. One dictionary defines it as:
-------------------------------------------
The act or fantasy on the part of an adult of engaging in sexual
activity with a child or children.
------------------------------------------
And pedophile is defined as:
----------------------------------
An adult who is sexually attracted to a child or children.
----------------------------------
I see a small conflict in those two definitions, but I'll pass on it
for now.
And homosexual is defined as:
----------------------------------
of, or characterized by sexual desire for those of the same sex as
oneself
----------------------------------
So, do you have a followup question?
>> Or what if two 11-year olds engage in sex - homo or hetero? What is
>> that?>
>
>
> See my last question....
Your last question doesn't answer that question.
>> I sure as hell don't know, and some of you folk who like to talk
>> about everything being gray seem to think this is black and white.
>>
>> If one of you could imbue me with this certainty, I'd be
>> appreciative. Then that portion of my pondering time that I spend on
>> this could be spent on something else.
>>
> Who are you kidding. You never answer questions directly.... who answer
> questions with more questions..... it's a game you play here.
What question did you ask me that I haven't answered? Besides, I've
already admitted that I don't know the answers to my own questions in
this discussion. It's why I ask them.
>> Anyhow, my original questions about all this aren't based on what's
>> legal. I'm pondering on things like whether they're voluntary or
>> involuntary, and what we (society) should do about them if they're
>> involuntary.>
> Pedophilia is voluntary...... so what we should do with them if it's
> involuntary is moot.
Moot to you because you've somehow made up your mind that my queries
are about actions, when they're about desires or attractions.
But I see what hair you're trying to split - the legal/non-legal one
- but it still doesn't answer my question as to to whether a
pedophile - like a homosexual - has a choice about what he sexually
desires, or is attracted to.
Note the definition of pedophilia again:
---------------------------------------------
The act or fantasy on the part of an adult of engaging in sexual
activity with a child or children.
---------------------------------------------
Is the fantasy a crime? No.
But the basic question still remains - is a sexual attraction to a
child voluntary or involuntary? If it's involuntary, then the only
difference between the two apples is that one is well on its way to
no longer being the "crime" it once was.
And this is without even complicating the situation with the
definition of "child" - which varies all over the place dictionarily,
geographically, legally, and emotionally.
> Hunter
Randy & Cheyanne
> I see where bill horne <red...@rye.net> asked a question that I feel
> certain will be ducked by liberals:
>
>
>>And hey. Is pedophilia a "choice"? If you think it is, ask yourself
>>why someone would "choose" to be sexually attracted to kids. If you
>>think it isn't a "choice", then do they get equal rights, too? And
>>don't give me any crap about "age of consent" - the "age of consent"
>>is demonstrably arbitrary, varies from state to state, and is a legal
>>term rather than some biological, psychological, or emotional fact.
>>
>>Think about that 'abnormality' ("difference") for a while, and how it
>>might be similar to, or different from, homosexuality.
>
>
> We seem to be approaching a time when virtually any atrocity mankind
> can conceive of and carry out will be considered involuntary because
> the perp was 'born that way'.
>
> Put me down as favoring the death penalty for pedophiles - and
> ostracism for people who insist on homosexual habits.
>
> Will Sill
Might as well add an old bastards' home, where you will forever
reign as king
Randy & Cheyanne
Homosexuality is legal, and will always be. Wait and see :)
Abortion is legal, and will always be:) Many of you have no idea
of the strength of women in this country that will show itself in
full force should this right even come close to extinction. It
will shrivel the balls of misoginists around the globe.
Randy & Cheyanne
exactly; society shut the mouth of the vice president over a tv
show. Just try taking away a right to choose. It will be a show
many of you are ill prepared for.
Randy & Cheyanne
> Tex Houston wrote:
>
>> It's getting harder and harder to stay a liberal.
>>
>> Tex
>
>
> If you think from time to time, it should be.
>
If it is hard for you, we don't need you :)
bill horne
No, it hasn't - it's only been addressed with opinions. But forget
that for now.
> so I won't
> address it. What I *didn't* mention in my diatribe was the fact that
> certain religious groups contend that homosexuality is learned, not
> born with. They then consider it abnormal.
It's abnormal regardless of whether it's learned or born with. And
regardless of whether it comes from "certain religious groups", or
from data gathered and analyzed by scientific experts. Did you look
up the definition of abnormal?
> An understandable point of
> view considering where it comes from.
I think you're letting your personal biases and opinions about
sources interfere with independent thinking based on what you
actually Know or can find out.
> I just happen to disagree, and
> have presented my viewpoint. Bear in mind I do understand where you
> are coming from, I just respectfully disagree.
You can't look up the definition of abnormal, and then rationally
disagree that homosexuality is abnormal (if that's what you're
disagreeing with). You really can't - not rationally. You can
however, hold the opinion that the abnormality is not bad. You could
even do that rationally, IMO. My current opinion, that is. For me,
this whole thing is a work in progress, and I'm nearly always on the
lookout for new information. I am, in fact, currently seeking it here.
> Tom
bill horne
That can hardly be regarded as the openmided, thinking approach that
I thought you capable of. Did you say the same thing when
homosexuality was illegal? Is it all you need to to know about
homosexual marriage now? That it's illegal?
Keep this up, and I may have to remove your endangered species status
- Thinking Liberal.
al...@omnicast.net
wrote:
>Sorry. I missed that one earlier. The problem I mean refers to the
>legal and attitudinal treatment of homosexuals. As a society, what
>should we do, and why?
>
>--
Legally, we ought to treat them as we would anyone else.
We as a free people can have any attitude we want. To codify attitudes
in law would fly in the face of freedom.
Tom
bill horne
Then I would suggest that you remain silent until you have, because
to put it bluntly, you don't know what you're talking about.
> However, I am
> uncomfortable with the concept of having my money forcibly removed
> from me, then invested privately "for my own good". Doesn't seem like
> freedom to me.
The above suggestion is based on that misconception, for one.
It would be interesting to know where you got that misconception. Where?
> Tom
Bruce
"bill horne" >>
>> Well to answer that we need to define the question. Are you asking if
>> being a pedophile (ideation) is a choice?
>
> Yes.
>> is internal, and a person's sexual preferences are what they are. (A
>> pedophile can no more stop being attracted to children than you can stop
>> being attracted to women -
>
>> homosexual ideation is internal and out of the control of the individual.
>> It's simply who he/she is, not something he/she can control. Bruce
>
> Then if both (attractions/tendencies) are involuntary, how do we justify
> one as a crime, and the other as not? And why do some try to call one
> normal, and the other abnormal?
>
> --
> bill
We justify one as a crime because of the presence of a victim. A child
(and that can be an arbitrary defination based on age - 14 in some places,
16 in others (nevada for example) and 18 in still others (California for
example)) is legally unable to give consent. because the child cannot
consent, he/she is always a victim, therefore, the act of pedophiliac sex is
a crime. Doesn't matter if his sex drive is a matter of nature or choice,
his actions are a matter of choice. In this regard, I'm sure that some
time today, well, maybe in the last week, you saw someone you would have
wanted to have sex with but didn't. You made the choice not to for many
reasons. Maybe you're married, maybe you knew that she would refuse and you
would need to use force, who knows why; you made a decision not to engage
in behavior you knew was wrong. the pedophile has that same responsibility.
As to your questions about fantasies, I don't care what thoughts he uses to
masturbate, he simply cannot force a partner into the act.
Bruce
bill horne
> On Sun, 23 Jan 2005 23:11:30 -0500, bill horne <red...@rye.net>
> wrote:
>
>
>>Sorry. I missed that one earlier. The problem I mean refers to the
>>legal and attitudinal treatment of homosexuals. As a society, what
>>should we do, and why?
>>
>>--
>
> Legally, we ought to treat them as we would anyone else.
Why? "marriage" has been defined for centuries as a union between a
man and a woman. Why should we let a man and a man, or a woman and a
woman "marry"? Or do I misunderstand you?
> We as a free people can have any attitude we want.
Not very relevant. People in prison can have any attitude they want.
> To codify attitudes
> in law would fly in the face of freedom.
Bull. Many laws codify attitudes by punishing the expression of those
attitudes.
And I didn't say anything about codifying attitudes, I asked what
attitudes we, as a society "should" have. For example, if enough
people eventually develop the attitude that homosexuals should be
allowed to 'marry", then a law will be passed to allow it. And the
converse is also true.
Attitude:
----------------------------------
a complex mental state involving beliefs and feelings and values and
dispositions to act in certain ways
----------------------------------
When enough people have the same attitudes, laws happen. Attitude
gets codified. Morals get legislated. Actions reflecting attitudes
get prohibited or allowed.
'Rehabilitation' of a criminal - when it actually works - is in
significant part, an attitude readjustment.
> Tom
al...@omnicast.net
wrote:
>al...@omnicast.net wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 23 Jan 2005 20:10:15 -0500, bill horne <red...@rye.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>But does it determine the point at which pedophile - a sexual deviant
>>>- is no longer a deviant? Which leads back to the original question,
>>>is pedophilia a choice, or not?
>>
>>
>> Doesn't matter. It is illegal. That's all we need to know.
>>
>> Tom
>
>That can hardly be regarded as the openmided, thinking approach that
>I thought you capable of. Did you say the same thing when
>homosexuality was illegal? Is it all you need to to know about
>homosexual marriage now? That it's illegal?
>
>Keep this up, and I may have to remove your endangered species status
>- Thinking Liberal.
You are correct. I was taking a very narrow view. I do that when I'm
tired. The correct answer is that pedophiles harm people. Whether it
is a choice to be one, I don't know. but it is illegal to harm
children. And rightfully so.
Tom