betsy

http://www.arthistoryclub.com/art_history/NAMBLA]http://www.arthistoryclub.com/art_history/NAMBLA The following excerpts from the link above are...along with what I think is the most recent lobbying of the Gay Rights group in lowering the age consent (Mar 2004).... what has been bothering me, thus I'm seeking for answers. "ILGA had passed a resolution in 1985 which stated that "young people have the right to sexual and social self-determination and that age of consent laws often operate to oppress and not to protect." In spite of this apparent agreement with NAMBLA on the age of consent issue just nine years before, ILGA, by a vote of 214-30 expelled NAMBLA and two other groups (MARTIJN and Project Truth ) in early 1994 because they were judged to be "groups whose predominant aim is to support or promote pedophilia." Although ILGA removed NAMBLA, the U.N. reversed its decision to grant ILGA special consultative status. Repeated attempts by ILGA to reacquire special status with the U.N. have not been successful, but the group does exercise consultative status with the European Commission." "Radicals like Pat Califia [15] argue that politics played an important role in the gay community's rejection of NAMBLA. Califia says that although the gay rights mainstream never committed itself to NAMBLA or its platform, neither did it actively ostracise NAMBLA until opponents of gay rights used the group to link gay rights with child abuse and "recruitment." As evidence, subscribers to this theory point to statements made by prominent gay activists which contain political assessments of NAMBLA's impact on gay rights. One such statement was made by gay rights lobbyist Steve Endean. Endean, who opposed NAMBLA, said: "What NAMBLA is doing is tearing apart the movement. If you attach it [the man/boy love issue] to gay rights, gay rights will never happen." Gay author and activist Edmund White made a similar statement in his book States of Desire: "That's the politics of self-indulgence. Our movement cannot survive the man-boy issue. It's not a question of who's right, it's a matter of political naivete."

This one's for you: The full history of NAMBLA. Just found it...and looked like to be the most complete in its description. http://www.arthistoryclub.com/art_history/NAMBLA Whoa. I think it came from the NAMBLA site itself?

This one's for you: The full history of NAMBLA. Just found it...and looked like to be the most complete in its description. http://www.arthistoryclub.com/art_history/NAMBLA

You can repeat this lie over and over in the hope that it sticks and people make some affiliation between the two, but it's not ethical nor moral -- especially given that "NAMBLA" effectively doesn't exist and never did, except as a teeny tiny group originally started by a conservative US government agency to smear gays. Can you please give us a link to substantiate your theory that "Nambla never did existed, except as a teeny tiny group originally started by a conservative US government agency to smear gays?

You can repeat this lie over and over in the hope that it sticks and people make some affiliation between the two, but it's not ethical nor moral -- especially given that "NAMBLA" effectively doesn't exist and never did, except as a teeny tiny group originally started by a conservative US government agency to smear gays. As for the "Gay Rights Movement," your "reports" must not be very informative if you're capable of constantly erroneously citing a tiny and unrelated group like NAMBLA, but cannot name any major, well-funded and bona fide gay rights group in the USA or Canada. Please take note of the words "history" and "previous".

Can you give me a link to support your theory that World Net Daily and Fox News are not credible? Sorry, I cannot just take your word for it. How does this have anything to do with Homosexuality? That's the answer I'm looking for. Why is the Gay and Lesbian Association pushing for lowering the age of consent?

Well I know this topic is sort of hard to read for on one hand I do not wish for the whole gay community to be put into question. I am sure that a good number of gays would rather just wish to live their lives without all the publicity/arguments attached to the controversy of SSM.....but on the other hand, when I read all various researches and reports....including the history of NAMBLA (with its previous association with the Gay Rights Movement), plus the lowering of age of consent being pushed by the Gay Rights Movement, I think I do have a legitimate question to ask. Even if the question may be painful for some. The Gay Rights Movement's success in doing away with the traditional meaning of marriage had opened the gates. It is nice if we can surely say..."Oh, it's only between consenting adults." But how sure are we that no genius lawyer would find that there is a slight loophole...or a way to twist around that? Lobbying works! All it takes is a powerful lobby group.

Corrections, BubberMiley.......I am not against gays or lesbians. I am however, against the changing of the traditional definition of marriage, which was lobbied by the Gay Rights Movement.

Then what is this? http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2004/mar/04030105.html

Consenting adults. Then why is the age of consent being lobbied by the Gay Group to be lowered? And wasn't Svend Robinson one of the advocates for lowering the age of consent? Wasn't he the one too who advocated the gag law?

You said it. You got to admit though...a lot of questions beg to be answered...just so to clear the air and erase doubts and suspicions. Why is the Gay Rights Movement sticking its nose to the pedophiles' turf? What's in it for them? So why the lobbying for the age of consent, of all things...especially if they want to bust that statistical report and research findings that there is a co-relation between homosexuality and pedophilia? What's young children got to do with consenting adults?

Apparently there was a class action lawsuit against members of NAMBLA. I've read it from one of the links provided.

As far as I know, the only aspect of the age of consent laws that mainstream gay groups like EGALE want changed is that which sets the age of consent for anal sex higher than that for other forms of sex. I'm not aware of any movement to lower to AoC below its current level. Did you click on the links I provided?

Exactly. But you would think that for a group that had a long struggle to achieve what they want to do without being further encumbered by the bad publicity of being associated with NAMBLA....one would think that the most logical step is not to do anything that would raise the spectre of suspicion. Not only do their magazines apparently say or advertise otherwise....but to go as far as lobbying for the age of consent to be lowered? Can you blame me if I think that publicly rejecting NAMBLA was just a political move? Openly sticking with NAMBLA would have meant the Gay Movement would have faced a dead-end. They would never have gathered massive supports from mainstream society if they openly advocated pedophilia....or would they? I am questioning that!

Consenting adults. Then why is the age of consent being lobbied by the Gay Group to be lowered?

This is most recent I think. Pedophilia is winning. http://www.poormojo.org/pmjadaily/archives/004600.html

I am not painting everyone with one brush. Not all homosexuals are inherently pedophiles. But the lobbying that happened and succeeded in Europe...and happening in other parts of the world makes me wonder why the Gay Rights Movement would even think of lobbying for this...especially if they want to distance themselves with NAMBLA. http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2004/mar/04030105.html

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article....RTICLE_ID=27431

Just want to back up some of my points with these links. Just read them, then we'll discuss. http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article....RTICLE_lD=27431 http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,52098,00.html

Please take note of the title on this topic. And the content of my first post. The point I'm making is that success of the Gay Rights Movement opens the door for others. Wife-Swapping, swinging is now very acceptable...according to our Supreme Court. Apparently our courts are very confident that nobody is getting hurt....psychologically manipulated...coerced....in participating in these acts. Women are all strong now that to think that anyone is in anyway abused or coerced to degrading acts is just being silly. So what was the uproar all about about when the Supreme Court sez practically that these are just normal acts and must be tolerated....since we live in a very tolerant society? Hicksey mentioned about polygamy....because polygamy is now following close to the heels of the Gay Rights Movement when they succeeded in changing the traditional definition of marriage. Polygamy advocates are now challenging the the words "ONE man, ONE woman." Acceptance of bestiality is not far behind. A woman got "married" in a televised ceremony to a....dolphin. This may be a tongue-in-cheek scenario right now....but how long before someone demands "equal" rights? So, why shouldn't pedophiles have their rights too? I mean....let's be fair here. After all, a Gay magazine contends that there's no harm with boys having sex with older men....just think of it as positive mentoring.

While reaserching for my arguments in that forum approx. 2 years ago, I accidentally stumbled on what looked like a memo between two pedophiles from Quebec. I don't know how I got in. They were excitedly awaiting the result of the Gay group lobbying.

Some of the research datas I've got will surprise you.

I have scores of printed materials taken from the web when I was in a heated discussion at a US forum. They include statistical datas and researches.... My concern is that: if I post those materials, will I be in violation of the new gag law? Will I get into legal trouble?

Please refer to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NAMBLA Then scroll down a bit til you find a list of contents. Check THE ILGA CONTROVERSY.

Another awful teachings of the now-generation is the weird concept of "sharing". Kids nowadays seemed to think that they can come up to someone who's playing with a toy and DEMAND that he/she shares it with him. You always hear the automatic response of adults as soon as someone complains that "he doesn't want to share." Junior, you have to share. The rule "wait for your turn" does not apply anymore. And learning CONSIDERATION FOR OTHERS is unheard of. Consideration for others is one of the most important value that a child must learn. This knew idea of "sharing" produces two negatives. 1. It fosters bullying. An approved type of bullying at that. 2. The other child is psychologically being primed to become a "push-over". When a child indicates to me that he wants to play with a toy that someone else is playing with, I ask the one playing if he would like to share or just wants to play by himself. If he just wants to play by himself....I respect that. I tell the other kid that he can have it when the other boy is done playing with it. That he sould wait for his turn. They DON'T ALWAYS HAVE TO SHARE.