Not to point out the obvious, but even groups like NAMBLA have the right to exist here in good ol' conservative USA. The right for a group to exist does not imply that they are just a step away from achieving their goals. Anarchists and Communists have existed in the USA for over a century, and none have any better chance of getting "their way" today than they did a century ago. ~String
The only thing that is going to convince the people who cling to the "slippery-slope" theory will be the legalization of gay marriage. Once they see it first-hand, in their own country, they aren't going to believe that homosexuals being allowed to marry won't lead to NAMBLA winning their sick battle.
"Sick battle"?? Ain't that the kind of thing some people say about homos butt-fuckin' other males? Or homo suckin' dick? Sick battle? Hmm, I'll have to remember that term ...and where who posted it. Baron Max
JDawg: There's no slippery slope there, as I have already explained carefully to Baron Max earlier in the thread. Please read my previous posts. Pedophilia harms children. Gay marriage does not. It is a simple error to conflate the two.
27 seconds before the girl turns 18(legal age), sex is harmful, traumatic, devastating to her life; 27 seconds after she turns 18, sex is perfectly okay. Slippery slope? Baron Max
I tried to avoid saying anything that sounded remotely like it was a personal belief, but you nabbed me on my first one. OK...yes, there are people who think that homosexuality is sick. Obviously. And nobody is saying that they shouldn't have the right to think that way, or stand on the corner and scream it. But there is an obvious difference between homosexuality and pedophilia. The idea is to protect people during the formative years of their lives from being taken advantage of by predators. Rather than looking at each case, and the personal development of each person, states set a limit as a blanket. I'm sure there are cases when a person is more than ready to make the decision by age 17, or maybe even 16. There are also people who, due to whatever circumstances, are never able to make wise decisions regarding relationships and sex. But the point here is that at some point, you have to be considered an adult. The best bet, according to the US, is 18 years old. And regarding your "slippery slope" theory, there haven't been any age limits lowered. If anything, age limits will go up, as did the national legal drinking age. And again, you're comparing apples to oranges. The age laws won't lower their limits because we know that pedophiles hurt children. We have seen them harm kids who aren't able to make the decisions for themselves. With homosexuality, who is the victim? And I believe fully that pedophiles are born the way they are, or have suffered some trauma themselves in their formative years that make them the way they are. I don't believe for a second that it's a personal choice to want to have sex with children. The difference is that what they do harms people. On an individual basis, children are being harmed by adults who take advantage of them sexually. There is emotional damage done to the child in every case. Compare that to homosexuality, where no harm is done. You can't say that society is harmed, because there are people in your society who say the same thing about women and minorities having equal rights (you're one of them who say this, actually), so society isn't always right.
Sorry ...I tried to be nice about it. Of course there is ...and a comparison is and never has been, what I've been talking about. And, of course, all of you know that, but you persist in continuing that same ol' "twistin' of my words" tactics. Pedophiles are pedophiles ONLY because of the age of consent LAWS! In Africa, Pakistan, India, and many Asian nations, girls as young as 13 are regularly married and have children. See? It's only the law that makes a pedophile a pediphile (or a "hated" person). They're not hated at all in those other nations. Protected from what? And should we all view those other nations' men as "predators" if they marry a girl of 13-15 or so? Is that how you see it? And are those girls somehow harmed or damaged? And please remember, it's ONLY our laws that make a young girl into a "victim" rather than a loved one of some man who is older. See? The "law"? See? And you want to change a law to suit gays, pedophiles want to change laws to suit them. Do you see any difference? I think ye're wrong. At one time, the legal age was almost uniformly 18. It's now not uniform in the nation, as some states have lowered it to 16. And just so you know, drinking age is not the same thing as "age of consent". Maybe they hurt the children because they can't openly woo them ...like they do in many other nations of the world. A pedophile sees a young girl that he's attracted to, what's he supposed to do? The law won't let him even get close to her ...so he grabs her in the night or something. See? The law is forcing the man to be a criminal ...sorta' like the druggies who want their fix, so have to do whatever is necessary. I'll bet that you would argue that drugs should be legalized, aren't you? Really? Every case? What of those other nations I mentioned? Where the girls are often married at 13 or so? Or maybe you could argue that that's the reason all those nations are so fucked up?? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! No harm is ever done in homosexual cases? Ever? Never? It's aways with full consent? No young kid is ever forced into homo sex? Even in prisons? See? So let's change the laws, okay? Y'all get to change the laws about marriage, and the pedophiles change the laws about age of consent. Fair? And remember what you said, ... "...society isn't always right." And what about my goats and sheep? Can we change the laws so I can marry my goats and sheep? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Baron Max
No. Pedophiles are pedophiles if they are attracted to adolescents. That's it. The law doesn't enter into it at that stage of mere definition. It's a recognized psychiatric disorder, the behaviors in furtherance of which have been criminalized because those behaviors typically (I'd even say "always," in the case of pedophilia) cause trauma to the pedophile's victim. Even if it were legal, it would still be a Psychiatric disorder, would still be morally wrong to pursue the resulting attraction, and it would still exist. I know that you claim to believe that homosexuality also causes trauma, but (even if that were true) then it is consensual harm, like boxing. ("Consent," by the way, is also not a legal term in this context, just a common sense one.)
Well, like I've always said, I know you aren't consciously comparing homosexuals to pedophiles. But the way in which you are arguing your case sounds an awful lot like you are bunching homosexuals together with pedophiles. The error in your argument is that homosexuals are a "special interest group". And the reason it's illogical is because if you used your definition of a special interest group, then everyone who wasn't a white male would be a "special interest group". And again, homosexuals aren't. And the nature of what they are asking for (equal rights) doesn't cause harm to anyone. What allowing gay marriages would do, at worst, is cause some moral discomfort for those who find it to be wrong...but those people who find it to be wrong don't suffer. In India, a bill to raise the age of consent from 16 to 18 is being considered. It seems to be the trend, world-wide, that these age limits are being raised, as opposed to lowered. But to your point, the reason young women are married off at such young ages is because (and has been, historically) the families who are marrying these children off are farmers and fieldworkers, and they need help; in the case of the groom's family, they will have more hands to help do the work when the children grow, and in the case of the bride's family, they are receiving livestock or something else in return. It has always been a matter of necessity in those areas where children are married off. But in Western nations, where we have considerably more resources and means to study the effects of such unions, the age is typically higher. It's becoming more widely accepted that children are not able to give informed consent on the subject of sex. Governments are also starting to come around to the idea that sex age laws should stand in a completely different category, and be treated completely different than other typical age-related laws. But a pedophile is a pedophile no matter the law. It has been studied and dissected by numerous experts, and it is accepted that a pedophile is someone who is primarily attracted to pubescent or prepubescent children. Whether it is criminal or not depends on where you are, but the fact remains that the nature of it involves an adult having sex with a person who most likely cannot give informed consent to the act. Could a 13 year old boy or girl consent to sex? Absolutely. But can the 13 year old boy or girl know the true weight of the consequences of it? There's no way that they could. And that is why there should be laws preventing an adult from having sex with a child. Predators? Maybe, and maybe not. In those places where a man can marry a very young girl, it is an established cultural thing. There's no way to know if those people are pedophiles. And yes, the young girls can be harmed by it. But that's where you're wrong, Baron. The law isn't what makes the act wrong. You honestly believe that the age is just an arbitrary thing? You think that they just decided one day that a man shouldn't be allowed to have sex with a child? No. Children who have sex during their vulnerable, formative years of adolescence have a higher rate of unwed pregnancies and sexually transmitted diseases. Peer pressure plays a strong role in the decision-making of teenagers, and that proves that they are less capable of making informed decisions without being blinded by the opinions of their peer group. When you throw an adult into the mix--a person who is fully capable of making those decisions, and knows the full weight and consequences of their actions, you have to understand that they are, by nature, taking advantage of someone who isn't capable of the same reasonable decision-making that they are. Again, it's the lack of ability to make sound decisions that make kids minors, and that makes it unfair to the child when an adult convinced them to have sex. That's why teen pregnancy rates are so high--the inability to make the right decision! And that is exactly what makes the child a victim when they are doing these acts with an adult! Because the adult is able to make these decisions! There is a great difference, Baron, and it lies in the acts in question. Because of the nature of pedophilia, the laws are not going to change. But homosexuality is being accepted as something that does not harm anyone, and is starting to be treated as such. New Hampshire just passed a bill allowing Civil Unions this past Thursday, actually. Do you see New Hampshire lowering their age of consent laws? NO. The slippery slope would have already gone into effect, if what you claim to be true were true.And just so you know, laws aren't set in stone. They change constantly. You fearing this one, single, tiny law being modified will bring an end to civilization is nonsense, because laws change every single day. Even if I feel it to be totally skewed and uninformed, I understand your fear. But rest assured, even if America views homosexuality as vile, disgusting, immoral behavior, they know the difference between it and things such as pedophilia. The evidence is in the fact that the laws regarding homosexual partnership rights are changing. At the same time, the only state in our union that is considering a change to the age of consent law is Georgia, and they are considering raising the age to 18. So you don't have anything to worry about. That's all I've ever tried to get you to understand. I get that you aren't going to like the idea of homosexuality in general, and the idea of them being allowed to marry even less, but you have nothing to fear as far as Western society falling apart goes. Pedophiles aren't going to get laws changed for them, because America knows the difference.
Baron Max: Again, you are attempting to construct a straw man, using words I never said. If you have a question, I will attempt to answer it, but I see no reason to defend arguments I have not made. Completely wrong - verging on crazy, if you really believe that. No need to explain it again to you; others have done a great job above. One point: pedophiles are usually defined as people (usually men) sexually attracted to pre-pubescent children. Sex with a 16 year old, sexually developed girl, for example, is not normally considered to be pedophilia. It is illegal for other reasons. Yes, they are, quite often. Work it out. Or, if puzzled, ask. Frankly, I find this attitude disgusting. Perhaps if you'd had children yourself you might have learnt something about the world by now. Will they give informed consent?
Your statements are untrue. Pedophilia harms some children, but not others. Pedophilia can be consensual, or it cannot be consensual. Gay marriage harms the sensibilities of people who do not believe in gay sex. Well? What are they? Can't think of any? Or don't want to write them down? You cheat. You are cheating. Your statement is a setup. You say "the victims", sitting up the idea that all children involved in pedophilia are victims. To be fair, your statement should read "Would the children involved in pedophilia be happy?"? Your question forces your judgmental and controlling language on the respondent. GOTCHA! Not thinking too clearly are we? Getting lazy conversing with the poor excuses for educated people around here huh? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! That is why you are supposed to keep the troublesome people that you don't like around. They keep you sharp because you have to be on your toes to deal with them. Keeping the easy people around softens your intellect, as I will demonstrate below. Up above you said: Pedophilia harms children Just now you said: Incest, on the other hand, can lead to harm even if consensual, especially where children are produced The implication here is that Incest does not necessarily lead to harm. You very clearly said "Incest...CAN lead to harm", which means it does not always lead to harm. I don't know about where you live, but where I live, Incest usually takes place with children. Where I live, Pedophilia is defined as sex with children. So Pedophilia and Incest are basically the same thing, aren't they? If Pedophilia and Incest are the same thing, how can Pedophilia always be harmful, as you stated, but Incest is only harmful once in awhile, as you also stated? By your own statements, Pedophilia must be OK once in awhile, in the same situations where you find Incest is OK. ------------------------------------------ You really ought to do something about the not so bright people around here. Not because they clog up a scientific forums with their one word or poorly thought out responses, but for your sake and the sake of other educated and thinking people. Stupidity is contagious as I just demonstrated. Just having them around makes it rub off on you.
Yeah, in the same way goats and sheep give their "informed consent" to be slaughtered, butchered, roasted and eaten. So now ...can we can the laws so I can marry them? Please? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Baron Max
But that isn't really harm, Denis. Did you not read my post? I list plenty. Like the fact that teenage pregnancy rates are through the roof. And studies are starting to link sexual activity to higher teen suicide rates, and cases of depression. Adolescents are not as capable of making informed decisions as adults are, and that is why it isn't fair to the child to be expected to make a decision regarding the subject. This is why adults are not allowed to have sex with children. Because the adult--who CAN make these informed decisions--are, by nature, taking advantage of the child. But they are victims. Even if they give consent, they are not typically capable of making informed decisions on the subject of sex. They haven't had the life experience, and there are so many things going on inside their bodies and brains during those formative years that their judgment is clouded. This is why peer pressure plays such a role in teenagers, but not in adults. So the idea is informed consent. Didn't you ever do anything stupid in your youth? Things that you wouldn't do as an adult? Of course you have--everyone has! And that's the basic idea; the decision-making capacity of a child is not the same as that of an adult. No, they aren't. When incest involves an adult and a child, then yes, it's both. But incest does not, by nature, require a child to be involved. It can be between two adults. That's not what he's saying. And for the record, there are laws that will make exceptions for people relatively close in age. For example, you aren't likely to be convicted of statutory rape in some places, if you are within 3 or 4 years of the underage person. A 17 year old and a 19 year old--while technically illegal--will probably get a slap on the wrist, as opposed to heavy fines and jail time. There is a gray area, of course, in this matter. We can't be sure what age every individual becomes able to make informed decisions regarding sex. There's no way to know on an individual basis. But we know enough about the maturation process that we can put a roundabout age on it, just to be safe. As I said, there are exemptions in the law that prevent a 19 year old kid from going to jail for 10 years if he has sex with a 17 year old, because there's just no way to know if the 19 year old is any more capable than the 17 year old, and the closeness in age makes it forgivable. But when you are talking an adult having sex with a child far younger in age then him, you're talking about an adult taking advantage of the child. There is no other way around it. Could a 17 year old girl give informed consent to the 35 year old man? Maybe. But since we believe that in the vast majority of cases, 17 year olds can't give informed consent, we enact a law that protects them. I don't really understand why you are arguing for pedophilia. Read up on it, and you'll see that the extreme cases that might seem unfair (an 18 year old and a 16 year old, for example) have exemptions in the law preventing them from being sent to jail on the same terms as a 34 year old would. Are they all victims? Maybe, maybe not, but the majority of them are, and that is why the law won't ever change. I don't know how much 'skoollin you got yourself, Baron, but that right there is what we call a "comparison". The fact is that there is a very big difference between gay marriage and inter-species marriage. Animals don't have to give consent to be eaten, because we are higher on the food chain then them, and we need to eat them.
So, ...what you're saying is that you're supporting a law/rule that keeps me from marrying the goats and sheep that I love dearly? Let's see, you don't need consent to kill the animals, but you insist on "informed consent" for me to fuck 'em or marry 'em? And you support such a law? Baron Max
You know, if you're going to play semantics we may as well be consistent. Specifically: Pedophelia and incest are not necessarily the same thing, which is why one can be harmful all the time and the other only some of the time.
Yes, I am. What is the benefit for the goat? Can the goat make the decision for itself? Obviously not. You're just playing Devils' Advocate right now, and you're seriously reaching. Obviously goats can't make informed decisions regarding that. They aren't an intelligent species. How much legislation has been enacted in the past year regarding man-sheep partnerships? Has any state granted civil unions for a man and a goat? No. But they have made civil unions available to homosexual couples. Because even the idiots in government know that homosexuality isn't hurting anyone, and these couples should be afforded the same rights as heterosexual couples.
denis: Welcome to sciforums. (Have you been here before?) No. Children below the age of consent are deemed not to be able to give informed consent to sexual acts. Hence, there is no question of consent. i.e. no actual harm. No meaningful psychological harm; no bodily harm; no monetary harm. Just a bit peeved. They are. This is quite ironic, considering the remainder of your post. Correct. Incest can take place between consenting adults. Pedophilia is sexual activity involving an adult and a child, where consent is not involved. Usually. Hmm... No. That's just muddy thinking. I would have expected more from somebody who holds himself up to be of superior intellect to the rest of the rabble I normally discuss things with here (according to your own words above). Who do you suggest I start with? Baron Max: Clearly, you missed my earlier post on that matter. Go back and find it.
Hello Sir. I regret to inform you that I have reported you to the national authorities whose remit is child sexual abuse. National Child Protection Clearing House I would provide the link for you, but you have disabled that ability. Your constant posting over the years of topics on rape, pedophilia, and incest has me concerned you are working up the courage to commit these crimes. -------------------------- Character assasination is no child's game like you think it is James R. Karma says that what you do will come back to you. You know what you have done. Will you have the courage to own up to what you did, and ask yourself if the consequences were actually worth it? Why would you behave in such an immoral and indefensible way, when your public persona is that of a trustworthy scientist and unbiased admin of scientific information?
"The police in Australia received a complaint and immediately co-ordinated with the international community in order to apprehend the offender and rescue the child," US Attorney Rod Rosenstein said. "This case is an example of international co-operation among law enforcement to stop the production of child pornography around the world."
