Pedophiles waiting in line....

[Spike22]

Black Dork you devilish brute you...I am so m-bare-assed.

[Shakeyhands]

BalckDog.... Can you link this article that Betsy finds so distastful please?

Oh and Spike, I really wish you would find another forum to spew your crap... thanks.

[Black Dog]

Here 'tis Shakey.

Police make secret deal with gay bars

[Spike22]

Shakeyhands I didn't know you cared.

[Shakeyhands]

deleted, because I really don't care.

[Argus]

Our new Liberal opposition leader, Bill Graham and his supposed involvement with 15 year old male prostitute Lawrence Metherel for years never really was made an issue by the media ........apparently Toronto didn't care either and re-elected him again. Fifteen year olds with old guys is acceptable in T.O.?

The media wouldn't touch this story. It was only really in Frank magazine, and on a few internet sites. The charges were described as scurrilous, but not, in essence denied, except that it was claimed Graham didn't actually pay him. Thus he did nothing illegal.

[Argus]

Here 'tis Shakey.

Police make secret deal with gay bars

Most police departments are afraid to lay charges at gay bars. They have no difficulty closing down strip clubs, of course. But they're all scared shitless of being called homophobic. So gay bars and bathhouses are allowed to have perversions of every variety without harrassment while the same municipal politicians who smile benignly on them demand the cops crack down on strip clubs.

[betsy]

The only people who know what NAMBLA is are people like you intent on creating the association between homosexuality and pedophilia. If there's a link between this non-entity organization and public perception of homosexuality it's because people like you put it there. (BTW, I have to chuckle at the notion that my position on this topic is based on my sexuality. It's not.)

Woooo....we're getting into the great conspiracy theory here eh?

So who's in on this conspiracy to tarnish ILGA. Definitely NAMBLA is in on it!

Of course, the UN too....they gotta be in on it! Those bastards!

And that Clinton! I just knew it! You could never trust that blasted guy! Who would've thought that he'd be a right-winger in the closet?

[Melanie_]

I read the article, betsy, and I'm not sure what your point is. There was no one underage mentioned in the story, so I don't see how it relates to pedophilia, the topic of this thread. Maybe your real issue here needs to be with the media for the way they reported the story, not the people who engaged in consensual sex in a semi public place.

[betsy]

"Even "pro-gay" feminists have called on gay groups to distance themselves from efforts to lower the age of consent.

Writing in the UK Guardian newspaper in 2001, Julie Blindel points out, "If gay men are going to, on the one hand, campaign for sexual access to younger and younger boys, but bleat about public perceptions of them as a league of child abusers, is it any wonder that the whole thing is such a mess?" Blindel concludes, "If gay men are serious about distancing themselves from child sexual abuse, then it's up to them to make some real efforts to join forces against this gross violation." (see Blindel's piece here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/Archive/Article/...3,4145251,00.... )

The IATC's Carlin concurs, "If gays are going to campaign (by way of zero change), for sexual access to young boys, they may lose the right in the eyes of many people to complain about the perceptions associated with their choice".

I thought you were just kidding. But it seems that you're not well-informed for there are ample evidence about this!

Hmmm. No context, no reference to any actual incidences where gay groups have lobbied for the AoC to be lowered for all type sof sexual activity... yup...more b.s.

Ummm....where's the substantiation that this is all b.s?

[betsy]

I read the article, betsy, and I'm not sure what your point is. There was no one underage mentioned in the story, so I don't see how it relates to pedophilia, the topic of this thread. Maybe your real issue here needs to be with the media for the way they reported the story, not the people who engaged in consensual sex in a semi public place.

Which article. The one on National Post? It's not the same one that Black Dog's talking about. There were no cops involved about this one that I'm talking about. It was just a descriptive essay/article that talked about this new gay bar with the "slurp" rails or holes. But it was sexually explicit...and was on the front page, alongside the headlines.

No, that one had nothing to do with pedophilia. We just got side-tracked on that one because we talked about the media' bias and its role in pushing for the acceptance of gay culture.

[betsy]

"Never mind the fact that NAMBLA has never been a very large or influential organization," says Philip Jenkins,

I think that pretty much sums up where you're coming from betsy.

But I don't care if NAMBLA has only one member. No matter the size of this organization, the fact remains that it managed to get Clinton to take notice and issue a threat towards ILGA to get booted out of the UN.

Now why would this sazzy Democrat Prez be driven to that point, I wonder? Why would he even bother to waste a moment to demand that ILGA drop NAMBLA?

Do presidential adminstrations normally waste their time doing that kind of thing?

Black Dog, you're having a hard time arguing on this one simply because what I say is simple fact.

[betsy]

The only people who know what NAMBLA is are people like you intent on creating the association between homosexuality and pedophilia. If there's a link between this non-entity organization and public perception of homosexuality it's because people like you put it there. (BTW, I have to chuckle at the notion that my position on this topic is based on my sexuality. It's not.)

You're right! Not too many people knew about NAMBLA. I accidentally found out about it when it was referred to casually in an article at the height of the priest scandal. I looked it up online...and the whole thing just floored me!

Then I accidentally discovered something when I started going into forums. Never mention the word "NAMBLA." Uttering that word will bring down the wrath, big-time.

I got into vicious debates in US forums...and funny thing, there seems to be a "uniform-style" of the way gays and supporters of the movement handle the NAMBLA incident. Furious sweeping denial!

But you see...there's a character flaw in me. I'm tenacious and stubborn...when I know I'm onto something right.

I agree with you that a lot of people do not even know such a thing as NAMBLA exists. Well, that's something we ought to rectify.

[betsy]

The homosexual community is part of the problem - it's the entire society's problem...and it's the entire society's responsibility to solve it...with or without the support of the homosexual community.

If you really think so then why do you single out the homosexual community (whatever that is)? If They're no more responsible than the rest of us why focus on gays? Why reinforce the false association?

A Hermit, you're giving me a head-ache.

Kindly scroll back and re-read.

[betsy]

The difference, of course, is consent. Regardless of the gender of the victim or offender, a sexual relationship conducted without the consent of both partners is dead wrong. So your right-wing writer (who can't resist dredging up NAMBLA) is mistaken to characterize these people as homosexuals first and foremost. They are predators who used their auhority to engage in nonconsensual sex.

Consent my foot! When you're talking about pubescent or young teens....it wouldn't take much seduction to convince those raging hormones and natural curiousity for sensuality to make consent very possible!

And coercion is highly likely! Predators go where they have easy access to prey. Usually, authority comes with their position....

[betsy]

Is that why there's a resistance from EGALE to raise the age of consent to 16?

EGALE's position:

In our view, it would not be responsible for government to complete any review of the age of consent before carrying out substantial research-based analysis of the impact of criminal age of consent provisions on youth with particular regard to the concerns raised in these submissions

To be fair with EGALE, let me take a look, then I'll get back to you on this.

If I do have any important questions regarding EGALE, I'll post it as a separate topic. This topic is getting too long and convoluted.

I need some time on this.

[betsy]

For those who are curious about ILGA's positions. Positions that NAMBLA claimed to have helped in writing.

ILGA's current positions on man/boy love and pedophilia are

explicit:

-- In 1985, ILGA adopted a position on "Age of Consent/Paedophilia/

Children's Rights" that urged member organizations to "lobby their

governments to abolish the age of consent law" so long as there is

"adequate protection for youth from being sexually abused without

the age of consent law."

-- In 1986, ILGA adopted a position that says the group "supports

the right of young people to sexual and social self-determination."

-- In 1988, ILGA declared "this conference recognizes that existing

same-sex age-of-consent laws often operate to oppress and not to

protect; that in many countries, existing laws on sexual coercion

and rules of evidence also often operate to oppress and not to

protect; that therefore member organizations are urged to consider

how best children, adolescents, and people of all ages can be

empowered and supported against both sexual coercion and sexual

oppression and to work towards that end."

-- In 1990, ILGA "calls on all members to treat all sexual

minorities with respect and to engage in constructive dialogue

with them. In another position adopted that year, ILGA declared

that it "supports the right of every individual, regardless of

age, to explore and develop her or his sexuality."

ILGA has also taken strong stands against sexual coercion. NAMBLA

helped write these positions, and our delegates supported them in the General

Assembly, contrary to what the ILGA secretariats imply.

http://www.qrd.org/qrd/orgs/NAMBLA/nambla....lga.secretariat

[Black Dog]

Woooo....we're getting into the great conspiracy theory here eh?

So who's in on this conspiracy to tarnish ILGA. Definitely NAMBLA is in on it!

Of course, the UN too....they gotta be in on it! Those bastards!

And that Clinton! I just knew it! You could never trust that blasted guy! Who would've thought that he'd be a right-winger in the closet?

Now you're not even making any sense.

Ummm....where's the substantiation that this is all b.s?

Well, in order to refute it, I'd have to have something to refute. So far, all you have offered is some gay groups arguing for the equalization of age of consent laws (a point you convienently ignored for most of the thread) and a single random quote from an article that uses the same dishonest tactics you are: that is using the select comments of a few members of a community to brand the whole community either as pedophiles or pedophile sympathizers. A similar tactic would be for me to trot out someone like James Kopp and ask why Christians aren't making a more serious effort to campaign against radical anti-abortion types. It's intellectually dishonest because it assumes the bulk of the responsibility for the actions of individuals falls on the collective, soley on the basis of select shared attributes.

You're right! Not too many people knew about NAMBLA. I accidentally found out about it when it was referred to casually in an article at the height of the priest scandal. I looked it up online...and the whole thing just floored me!

Then I accidentally discovered something when I started going into forums. Never mention the word "NAMBLA." Uttering that word will bring down the wrath, big-time.

I got into vicious debates in US forums...and funny thing, there seems to be a "uniform-style" of the way gays and supporters of the movement handle the NAMBLA incident. Furious sweeping denial!

But you see...there's a character flaw in me. I'm tenacious and stubborn...when I know I'm onto something right.

Of course the fact that you're completely out to lunch hasn't occured to you? Of course it hasn't: you have your agenda to promote, facts be damned.

I agree with you that a lot of people do not even know such a thing as NAMBLA exists. Well, that's something we ought to rectify.

Throughout this thread, I simply thought you were a fool with poor logic and comprehension skills. While that is undoubtably true, it's obvious at this point that you are also focused on spreading your agenda, which is to equate homosexuality with pedophilia by continuing to mention a tiny fringe group and inflating it's importance within the gay community. Your singlemindedness makes you impervious to reason, logic or any facts that stand between you and your agenda of hate. I'll have no further discussion with you.

[Spike22]

Betsy you go girl, boy whatever you are...the gay agenda must be stopped and these organizations are ridiculous.

[Insom Elvis]

NAMBLA believes that like homosexuality, pedophilia is a sexual preference and that its members deserve the same rights and recognition as homosexuals. They believe they should be able to not only engage in sexual acts, have relationships with, but also marry their partners.

And the Polygamists aren't going to be far behind in the parade to demand rights and recognition.

But that is a completely ridiculous analogy.

Pedophilia is about men preying on children, always.

The vast majority of polygamy involves consenting adults. If children of any sex are involved in polygamous relationships, it must be criminalized not because there are more than two persons involved, but because children are involved. To discriminate against a relationship solely because it involves 2+ people is no different than other forms of bigotry.

Hey, if you want your wife rolling the dice to see if she wants to sleep with you or one of the other 6 tonight, more power to you, but if you want this in a legal document or to be socially acceptable, move to an island I'll never know exists.

[betsy]

And this one as well.

[BubberMiley]

And this one as well.

You're scouring the history of this forum for every site related to pedophilia? What's with the obsession? Considering a career in child care?

[betsy]

And this one as well.

You're scouring the history of this forum for every site related to pedophilia? What's with the obsession? Considering a career in child care?

Hi there! What took you so long. I was expecting you'd be the first one to respond with EGALE somewhere here.

Getting hot around the collar seeing it resurrected? I wonder why.....

[BubberMiley]

No, I'm not hot at all. I'm just wondering why you suddenly feel it's necessary to have five threads going on pedophilia in the Federal, U.S. Politics, and Moral and Religious Issues forums.

[betsy]

No, I'm not hot at all. I'm just wondering why you suddenly feel it's necessary to have five threads going on pedophilia in the Federal, U.S. Politics, and Moral and Religious Issues forums.

Who's counting?

How many threads about Muslims?

Harper-bashing?

Afghanistan?

Somehow I get this feeling that the topic of pedophilia is some people's "boogeyman". Like a family's skeleton in the closet (no pun intended).