Gay pedophilia accepted by Gay Activist Groups

Except it's not limited to sexual couples in either case.

 

Again, I can say the same thing. Limiting marriage to fertile couples has a rational relation to serving the governmental interest in improving the well being of children that only fertile couples produce. Whereas limiting marriage to all heterosexual couples, both fertile and sterile, has no rational relation to the new stated government interest in fostering the formation of stable homes.

See? Your logic is silly. If you are going to make it about the potential for procreation, you have to limit to to couples that can procreate, not some broad category.

 

It's the logic of the courts and the thousands of years history of marriage.

 

Back when women had no purpose other than to reproduce and anullments were common due to infertility. Not to mention the fact that artificial means of reprodicing have only existed in recent history, and thr unions and joint adoptions, and decriminalizatoon of Same-sex partners has changed and become normalized. Before recent history, the idea of a same-sex couple beig able to adopt and raise a family was all but unimaginable, they were considered mentally ill at best and criminals at worst. times have changed, and quickly. Thousands of years or human history provided a different context than today's legal and social standards.

The courts have said that a law that was created for a good purpose, but which is maintained for a bad one is a bad law nevertheless. It is only today's reality that counts. The courts, today, have the hallente of weighing in on quickly changing circumstances to determine if they have any significance. Whether through the courts or otherwise, it is going to change as people grown to realize these couples are making families just like anyone else and there is no need for distinguishing.

 

Again with those links? They have already been discussed. And if the courts are using bad logic, all the more reason to change the laws based on bad logic.

 

You know, I clicked on this thread with an open mind, thinking the original post actually offered a valid example of pedophilia. Then I saw 16 years old...

I laughed...

 

Actually, most states do not set limits on what age the lover of a minor who has reached the age of consent can be, and I know for a fact that Nevada did not at that time. So, there was nothing illegal about their relationship. In fact Indiana is the onlt state I know that has such laws. Our law states that the age of consent is 16, but a minor can only consent to sex with someone up to 4 years older, so 20 being the highest, and 21 is still statutory rape.

 

Labeling it "silly" or "bad" logic isn't the same as being "discussed"

 

I already proved the bad logic wrong...your last response to it was "well the courts used it!!!" without actually explaining how my refutation of it was wrong.

 

The motivation behind marriages limitation to heterosexuals remain the same. They aren't changed because now two lesbians can use artificial insemination to have a baby. As well, two sisters or platonic friends could use artificial insemination to have a baby. The fact that two lesbians rub each others genitals doesn't endow them with superior abilities to raise children.

 

I have only ever heard of ONE group that actively promotes and defends pedophilia. I am speaking of course of NAMBLA. I wonder why the only (or at least the biggest) pro-pedo group out there specifically promotes GAY pedophilia: man-boy, not man-girl or woman-boy. I'm sure it's just a coincidence, right? After all, with a whopping 4% of people being some kind of gay BLT, one would expect that level of representation in pro-pedo activities, right? Since there's no correlation.

 

Maybe because such "advocacy groups" for a heterosexual-counterpart are unnecessary because it's already legal in the USA for a man to marry and have sex with an underaged girl. Maybe because when such groups are talked about, nobody thinks of it as a "heterosexual" organization used to condemn heterosexuals the way that they do homosexuals.... take for example the mormon fundamentalist groups who routinely practice underaged marriages with girls. Maybe because people tend to enjoy spending their time finding ways to demonize gay people rather than straight people, so they don't busy themselves digging up obscure stories or groups unless it can be somehow held against "the gay" - and after they do, it becomes a pattern of proof to them, even though such members of such organizations represent like .0000001% of the population. Not to mention the fact that the vast majority of molestation against boys is committed by men in heterosexual relationships with women. But never mind those patterns, right? It's all about pegging it to that "4%". Among those crimes where a boy was abused, it is rare that it is committed by a man romantically involved with another man, so why people try to use this to demonize that category, I have no idea.

 

Oh, horse (*)(*)(*)(*). There is no distinction in law between pedophilia that is hetero or homo. And you are trying to use the word "underaged" to blur the line between pedophilia and pederasty. Nowhere in the US is it legal to have sex with a 9 year old, male or female.

OK, not sure the Morman cult counts as an advocacy group, as they, unlike NAMBLA, have goals and beliefs about things other than pedophilia. But Mormans who do this are breaking the law. The law that you just claimed did not exist. Such as in this case:"Raymond Jessop, 38, is the first of a dozen members of the group accused of facilitating or engaging in underage polygamous marriages...Jessop is also charged with bigamy in connection with Jeff's daughter, whom he is accused of marrying the day after she turned 15. Under Texas law no one under 17 can consent to sex. Jessop faces up to 20 years in prison if convicted of sexual assault of a child." http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/oct/26/raymond-jessop-polygamy-texas-trial

Yeah, it's always the same answer. Male on male sex doesn't count as "gay" if one of them is a child. Nice way to keep your statistics down, if that's how you want to categorize it. Neat little accounting trick you have there.

 

Is there anything about pedophilia in law at all? I doubt that. Pedophilia is an erotic attraction to prepubescent children, note the word attraction. It's not a legal term.

An important thing to realize is that knowing about someone, that he have had sex with person of certain sex and age is not sufficient to determine his sexual orientation.

 

Having gay sex, with a child or an adult, does not necessarily make someone gay. That's your issue. In the case of pedophilia, often pedophiles do not really care what the sex of the child is as much as a non-pedophile would. Many pedophiles who molest young boys are actually heterosexual.

A high number of boys are molested, not because molesters are disproportionately gay or bi, but because men typically have more access to boys than to girls.

 

Semantics. Of course I was talking about acting on that pedophilia.

If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck...

 

It might be a goose.

Sexual behavior is not sufficient enough to determine sexual orientation.

 

It's important to use correct words to prevent misunderstanding. Semantics lesson number two: What from the following is considered acting on pedophilia?
- being a teacher at elementary school
- having a young friend and spending a lot of time with him
- working as leader at child camp
- masturbating to sexual fantasies about children
- looking at pictures of half-naked children

Which is surely why some sexologists claim, that most offenders who commit a sexual crime against children are adult attracted heterosexual people. (And basically in any serious book about sexual abuse you'll find typology of offenders and something about non-pedophilic offenders.
Also there can be quite a lot of heterosexuals who have had sex with the person of same sex.
But surely there are lots of homosexuals who have had sex with people of the opposite sex, some of them were or still are married and have children.

 

Look, it's not that complicated. It's sex with children. Let's not introduce red herrings.

And then there's this thing called bisexuality which refutes these false dilemmas.

 

Then use words "sex with children".

They are not false dilemmas. Bisexuality is when someone is attracted about the same to both sexes. If you are exclusively or nearly exclusively attracted to the same sex, you are homosexual, if to the opposite sex, you are heterosexual. Heterosexual doesn't become bisexual for having sex with the person of the same sex because of curiosity. Homosexual doesn't become bisexual when he marry to person of opposite sex because of social pressure or because he wants to have children.

You can find something about gays married to women at
http://marriedgay.org/about-the-author/

Something about typology of sex offenders with child victims:
http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/current%20series/tandi/421-440/tandi429.html

(Note the authors of such papers are usually focused on child sexual abuse, not on pedophilia, they usually don't know much about non-criminal pedophiles.)

Paper about pedophiles that also says it's important to make a difference between pedophiles and people who've had sex with children:
http://www.mhamic.org/sources/okami&goldberg.htm

 

What is? did they invent a gaydar? In my book, a man who molests boys and who identifies himself as a homosexual, IS a homosexual, regardless of whether the APA wants us to label him only as a pedophile.

 

Many pedophiles who molest boys do not identify as homosexual. In fact, they identify as heterosexual. Sexual behavior is not sufficient enough to determine sexual orientation.

 

Perhaps I'm unfamiliar with the age-rage NAMBLA is concerned with, either that or you're the one blurring the line between pedophilia and what NAMBLA is advocating for. I'm not really familiar with the particulars of the group, so I can't really say. Either way, "blurring the line" was not my intent. Rather, my intent was to point out the irony that you're complaining about NAMBLA and trying to hold that against all gay men, while in the mean time the legal institution of marriage has made it legal to have sex with girls much younger than legally allowed otherwise - perhaps not at the age that would be described as pedophile, but still much younger than would be applicable to boys. So while you're busy blaming homosexuals for a small fringe organization called NAMBLA, there's already something much bigger and legal across most of the USA in place for men and underaged girls. Before you start demonizing homosexual men for a small fringe group, I think it's perfectly fair to start looking at what's going on in the other side

What does having other beliefs in addition to the one in question have to do with anything? And Mormon Fundamentalists have about as much to do with heterosexuals who do not subscribe to their beliefs as NAMBLA has to do with homosexual men who do not subscribe to theirs beliefs - i.e. not very much at all.

Ah you want to see a neat accounting trick?

Example: 99% of all plants in the world are inedible or poisonous to humans. Therefore you should avoid eating all plants, and we can assume with a 99% probability that any given apple, orange and tomato is poisonous.

Another example: Religious people are responsible for 100% of muslim extremists terrorist attacks, therefore we should be caution and profile all religious people.


That is performed under the ecological fallacy:

By arbitrarily grouping groups that might have totally dissimilar risks and etiology under one label, you can take something bad about the one group, and by "mushing them together", make them both look bad. The only reason we can look at those statements and deduce that the conclusion is wrong is because we're willing and able to look at the diversity within those labels, and recognize that the risks are not the same throughout the populations under the labels.



Male on male sex involving a minor certainly is homosexual, just as male on male sex involving only adults. Homosexual, in this context, is a label for a specific action. The question I'm asking is if it's fair to assume everyone under that label has the same risks, the same origin, the same likelihood to abuse a child, or if we're arbitrarily grouping two together and incorrectly assuming the risk associated to one group under the label applies to the other group(s) at the same rate. Given that the vast majority of cases of pedophilia against male victims are not committed by men in relationships with other men, we have good reason to believe that there is a difference in risk and etiology. Yes, they are all "homosexual" under one label, but what this does not demonstrate is that everyone under that label has the same risks, that gay men in relationships with other men are any more likely than any other male to abuse a child. It's like blaming Buddhists for terrorist attacks motivated by Muslim Extremism because they're both called "religious".

So yes, sir, there is an accounting trick going on here, but it is you that is unknowingly committing it.

 

Except, of course, for the fact that marriage has not been categorically protected among heterosexuals for sake of their potential to procreate, and I've given several examples of how it has been protected even in spite of a total inability to procreate. So until the state stops adding these protections and starts acting like marriage is only about the potential for procreation, that logic fails. More and more, it's becoming about who it excludes rather than what it is supposedly for, i.e. the examples I gave of states changing their adoption laws in response to the de-criminalization of homosexuality, by requiring that couples must be married and cannot be cohabiting in order to be eligible. What on earth does that, and other special privileges given to heterosexual couples have to do with the potential to procreate?

 

Most do identify themselves as gay. But that's irrelevant because they are gay and sexual behavior is sufficient. To say otherwise would be like saying 1 identifies themselves as vegetarian, yet they eat chicken. Gerald Arthur (Jerry) Sandusky is gay, as some1 who has same sex behavior with a young boy is gay or a homolester. Wladius Valentino Liberace's a homolester.

Whether it's homosexual statutory rapist Harvey B. Milk or pianist Wladius Valentino Liberace, gay/lesbian groups side with gays & lesbians no matter what wrong gay/lesbian does. Here's more from Huffington Post which both Daily Kos and Huffington Post are apologists for gays & lesbians who commit sex abuse http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013...n_3318291.html.

It‘s no surprise that Judy Peck Shepard, corrupt ex cop Greg Joseph Miraglia, Laramie Project and Big Island Chronicle‘s Tiffany Camille Edwards Hunt see nothing wrong with Florida lesbian Kaitlyn Ashley Hunt committing sex abuse on a 14 year old girl in a public bathroom & are against this lesbian going to jail for what she did to this teenage girl. Gay/lesbian groups are predictable and side with gays or in this case a lesbian no matter what wrong the lesbian does. What's sad are the kids who are rallying for Kaitlyn Ashley Hunt sexually abusing a 14 year old girl and again Kaitlyn Ashley Hunt admitted to having sex with an underage girl in a public bathroom.

There's no excuse for what Kaitlyn Ashley Hunt did and she must go to prison for this. 14 year old girl is the victim here because as Kaitlyn Ashley Hunt's the adult, Kaitlyn Ashley Hunt has no right to be having sex with a 14 year old girl. It's evil to use kids to rally behind a person who again has sex with an underage girl in a public restroom because again, the bathroom isn't the place for having sex-when people can't see anything wrong with this indecent exposure, then there's something wrong with the people. Most likely, adults urged kids to rally for Kaitlyn Ashley Hunt & that is wrong-using children for propaganda. & harassing the victim’s parents because they reported this crime is wrong.