Freethought & Rationalism Archive

winstonjen · 07-16-2003, 02:48 PM

Yguy:

Quote:

I categorically deny beating to death more than 30 puppies a week.

Just the heterosexual puppies? Do siamese twins count as one or two?

trunks2k · 07-16-2003, 03:07 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by winstonjen
Yguy:

Just the heterosexual puppies? Do siamese twins count as one or two?

two if less than 50% of their bodies are shared with the sibling.

Fr.Andrew · 07-16-2003, 03:11 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by noli
Fr. Andrew-

So sorry, I cut and pasted the wrong portion of Amen's post. The definition was to clarify that pederasty means male on male, homosexuality, not heterosexuality.

One of the reasons why I posted from NAMBLA's site is to clarify precisely what was being discussed. If one doesn't know how NAMBLA percieves and defines itself, how can one object to or understand why others may tolerate what they stand for?

As to your original quote and how it relates to your response-

In this country a child is legally anyone under the age of 18. Furthermore in this country adult sex with such minors, but especially those further and further away from the age of consent, is considered abuse. So when you wrote:

"The notion that sexual contact between adults and children is always abusive is incorrect, and studies show that a great many adults who have had childhood inter-generational sexual experiences see them in a positive light."

You were indulging in a bit of ambiguity.

Because regardless of how a child perceives a sexual encounter with an adult later it is considered abuse because children are not able to give informed consent. You are redefining abuse to mean that which a child feels bad about and that is neither an appropriate legal nor psychological definition of abuse.

(Fr Andrew): Hello, Noli--
I do appreciate the distinction and made that clear in a previous post--in another thread. It is legally "abuse" for an adult to have sex with a child...no question about it.
I've only said that it is not, in all cases, "abusive". I say this based on the published recollections of adults (I probably shouldn't have said "a great many"), some of whom, as children, had a sexual relationship with an adult and consider it to have been a positive experience in their lives.

I don't say this to promote any agenda--just to correct misinformation.

Amen-Moses · 07-16-2003, 04:06 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by noli
Pederasty and pedophilia are two different things, pedophilia is where an adult is sexually attracted to pre-pubescent children (for legal purposes the age limit is defined as 12 but commonly it is 9 and below).

Interesting. That may be the legal definition, I was just trying to remain consistent witht the sources.

ped�er�ast ( P ) Pronunciation Key (pd-rst)
n.
A man who has sexual relations, especially anal intercourse, with a boy.

That's it from dictionary.com

It is a minor quibble but in antiquity lesbians didn't exist, well not in a legal sense anyhow. Sexual activity between two females of any age just wasn't even considered.

Of course the reason for this as I've pointed out elsewhere was because the sex laws were written to protect bloodlines and only after christianity (or rather paulianity) became the norm did specific laws governing homosexuality (originally again only for males) get included.

Pederasty in modern legal sense includes any sex although modern law has made it redundant, we now call it statutory rape.

The point remains that pedophilia is specifically adult attraction to pre-pubescents and is considered a mental illness, in fact I think I'm right in saying that a classic pedophile tends not to show much bias as far as the sex of their victims is concerned as the whole point is that the victim is sexless or pre-development of sexual differences.

Amen-Moses

Hedwig · 07-16-2003, 06:26 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by yguy
Indeed, it is a good possibility that they crash the parade with the acquiesence of the law. Reminds me of when "gay" activists insisted on being included in the Boston St. Patrick's Day parade. What goes around comes around, I guess.

Aaaah...so you are equating homosexuality and pedophilia?

Quote:

I don't see why I should be the one to do that.

Why not? You asked the questions.

Quote:

If you lived in NYC, and you were able to verify that indeed NAMBLA was to be allowed in the march, what would you do? [/B]

I imagine I would ask the parade committee how come they were allowed.

noli · 07-16-2003, 06:50 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Fr.Andrew
(Fr Andrew): Hello, Noli--
I do appreciate the distinction and made that clear in a previous post--in another thread. It is legally "abuse" for an adult to have sex with a child...no question about it.
I've only said that it is not, in all cases, "abusive". I say this based on the published recollections of adults (I probably shouldn't have said "a great many"), some of whom, as children, had a sexual relationship with an adult and consider it to have been a positive experience in their lives.

I don't say this to promote any agenda--just to correct misinformation.

'Lo Fr. Andrew~

I really would view any sexual relationship of a child not old enough to drive with an adult as probable abuse, whether the recollection is pleasant or not. It's abusive not because it's unpleasant, it's abusive because it is misusing a child in gratification of adult physical and emotional needs.

noli · 07-16-2003, 06:51 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Amen-Moses
It is a minor quibble but in antiquity lesbians didn't exist, well not in a legal sense anyhow. Sexual activity between two females of any age just wasn't even considered.

That must have been a real shocker for the Amazons.

yguy · 07-16-2003, 06:53 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Hedwig
Aaaah...so you are equating homosexuality and pedophilia?

No, I am pointing out the parallel between the intimidation practiced by homosexual activists against the straight community and that used by NAMBLA against homosexual activists.

Quote:

Why not? You asked the questions.

Fine. Don't ask. Be nice and comfy, and let these ghouls give the homosexual rights movement a worse reputation than it already has. If you don't give a damn, why the hell should I?

Quote:

I imagine I would ask the parade committee how come they were allowed.

If you cared, that is. Evidently you are content to rely on the straight community's unending willingness to bend over backwards (or forwards) in an effort to be fair. I wish those who think like you as pleasant a daydream as you deserve.

Hedwig · 07-16-2003, 06:56 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by yguy

That's just it. I'm not, despite your pathetic and lamentable efforts to distort my position.

Did I stumble onto the wrong thread? I thought I was on the "attention, homosexual rights activists" thread.

Hedwig · 07-16-2003, 07:02 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by yguy
No, I am pointing out the parallel between the intimidation practiced by homosexual activists against the straight community and that used by NAMBLA against homosexual activists.

Oh, I see.

Quote:

Fine. Don't ask. Be nice and comfy, and let these ghouls give the homosexual rights movement a worse reputation than it already has. If you don't give a damn, why the hell should I?

Jesus bloody Christ...you asked the question in the first place! Why ask a question if you don't attempt to find out the answer?

Quote:

If you cared, that is. Evidently you are content to rely on the straight community's unending willingness to bend over backwards (or forwards) in an effort to be fair. I wish those who think like you as pleasant a daydream as you deserve.

Is it too much to ask that the heterosexual community did treat us fairly?

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.