Pedophiles waiting in line....

[BubberMiley]

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).

You get that feeling too?

[watching&waiting]

I guess there is some kind of feud going on here between some of the posters, from a long way back, but that to me does not mean that the whole idea of age of consent is a hot topic. I like the old day where if some one was seen as abusing age and consent type things, the community basically made this person and outcast and if he persisted in remaining, he would be found beaten very badly some where and by the time he recovered in hospital, he pretty much chose to move else where. Those days were not that long ago. I am talking of the 50's and 60's. The community as a whole were more family oriented and all adults would keep an eye on any child that was appraoched by an adult who was not known or known to be of questionable taste. We protected our children as best we could. Yes there were those young kids that did inappropriate things, but that was looked upon as curiosity of the young. There were not very many pedophiles that could stay anywhere for very long.

Now we look to the police to do the lawful things and we are seeing a vast increase because the police just can not cover the area like the community of yesterday could. The Pedophiles can now remain in the community hunting and people will not know until the worst happens. While this way is probably a better and more lawful method, it just can not stand up to the community of yesterday and the standards that were there.

The day we made homosexuality a legal thing, we then made for them to openly move in ourt midst and we now allow them to even push their lifestyle to the young in our society. Will we do the same for those who want sex with younger and even more innocent children. While I really was not a supporter of legalizing homosexuality, I can live with it as long as it stays like the sx lives of the majority of people, and that is behind closed doors. We have already gone too far in the Gay rights argument, and it has cost us way too much money. We simply should have the vote or referredum, and end it right there and then. The age of consent by law is one thing. But if I had a daughter that was found with a 21 year old guy, he would never again be heard from period. You can guess exactly why that is. It would not matter what the law said was age of consent was. When the difference is such that it allows for question of coersion, then I will act accordingly. Maybe if more fathers did this we would not be having organization like NAMBLA.

[Drea]

But if I had a daughter that was found with a 21 year old guy, he would never again be heard from period. You can guess exactly why that is. It would not matter what the law said was age of consent was. When the difference is such that it allows for question of coersion, then I will act accordingly. Maybe if more fathers did this we would not be having organization like NAMBLA.

At what age would you cease to kill the 21 yo guy in your daugher's life. Not to mention she'd grow up without a dad as you'd be in jail...

Anyhoo.. when I was 16 I met the man I would marry two years later. He was 21 when we met. Although we divorced a few years in, he certainly was not a pervert. He was only 21. Boys mature slower than girls. My 13 yo son is still very much a boy who plays with leggo etc. My niece at 13 considered herself too old to play anymore. At 16 I was just as "mature" as my 21 year old man -- who was still living at home when we met.

Of course, this was in 1981. Kids grew up faster than they do today.

On the other hand. 4 years ago my then 17 year old niece met a 28 yo man (he looked 20). We found out later that he was married after he died (won't go into reasons here) that he was 28. We also found out the niece was pregnant. Now she has a 3 year old to raise on her own. Her first sexual experience and she was used by a pervert and ended up with a baby. Poor kid, she was absolutely head over heels in love with this loser. If her dad would've known he was 28, he would've killed him -- maybe he did!

Edited to add: Yes I agree that homosexuality should not be pushed as an optional lifestyle choice. If yer gay yer gay, but we don't need anyone telling our sons and daughters they are gay before they even are old enough to have a sexual urge.

[watching&waiting]

Drea believe me when I say that back in the 50's and 60's when I was growing up, there would not even have been much of an investigation into the man going missing after he was found with a child under the age of majority. In those days it would have been looked at the maturity of the two. Now if a 21 year and an 18 year were together that would be okay, and even if the girl was say 16 and the 21 year old was backward a bit, that would have been ok. But lets say 13-15 and the man was normal mature 21, well the community would have made it impossible for this guy to be seen in public and as I said he would be kind of encouraged seriously to moving on. If and when that did not happen, well as I said most would not have been heard of again or found for that matter. The police of those days would have done a minor investigation and that would be it.

You just need to look back to those eras to see that this was true, in much of the Canadian society. Hell until homosexuality was made legal arounf 1967-68 I believe, it was not uncommon to find many gays who were using bathrooms as a place to meet, to be found beaten and unconscious in and around places like the Lord Elgin Hotel in Ottawa, and many other places in Canada. It nearly destroyed the Lord Elgin Hotel as a good place for the government to use between posting, for high level staff, becuase of the reputation it got from the gays using their public washrooms as a place to meet others. It was Trudeau who I believe changed the laws for this, but I am not sure.

Now remember I am saying what would have happened back in that period of time. These have changed, and I am not so sure if it has al been for the good. But today we have given our right to self reliance and even self defence to the police, who just can not be there to protect you and yours all the time. There has to be a movement back to where people will again come to the aid of someone being beaten, or even to the aid of a child that seems to be indistress. The "let the authorities handle it " is not what I believe should happen.

[betsy]

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).

You get that feeling too?

Come to think of it Bubbermiley, why do you care?

If I remember correctly from the topic about crack clinics, you seem to have no problem at all with your child being babysat by a crackhead.

[scribblet]

/quote]

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?

Yes he was, and NAMBLA and other gay rights group have lobbied the U.N. for years to reduce the age of consent, usually under the guise of equalization.

There is a disproportionate number of male on male child molestation victims which is disturbing, and gays are driving the agenda to lower the age of consent laws, which I believe comes at the expense of children's safety.

[Mr.Canada]

Absolutely disgusting. Is this why the struggle for "Gay Rights" continues when they're already equal? The want their NAMBLA agenda realized?

[Progressive Tory]

Note that the vast majority of heterosexuals and homsexuals are not interested in children as sexual partners.

I agree. I didn't know the name of the organization but had heard of something like it. There was a local court case and when the man who was putting kiddy porn of the net, was convicted; he started reading scripture stating that God intended man to have pure love, or some such nonsense.

However, pediphelia has nothing to do with religion or homosexuality. It's just sick and should never be legal.

[Argus]

Are you implying or insinuating that gay men are inherently pedophiles?

Note that pedophiles prey on both sexes.

Well.... kinda... sorta... but mainly it seems to be men preying on boys.

Most men who molest little girls were drunk or on drugs and the girls just happened to be there - usually family members. There seems to be very few examples of sane men not hopped up on drugs or booze molesting little girls.

And no, I don't count teenagers as little girls.

[Argus]

Perhaps you should read the rest of the article, which demonstrates that NAMBLA has been rejected by mainstream gay organizations:

Indeed it has. Once the idea of adult-child sex came out of the closet, so to speak, and moved from being something almost no one knew about or talked about to being a recognized danger to children, and once society really began to crack down on everything related to child sexual abuse, then pressure began building on the mainstream gay rights groups to denounce NAMBLA, which was formerly welcome at gay pride parades. Eventually, reluctantly, they did so.

[Argus]

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?

Yes, he introduced a private members bill to this purpose, year after year, session after session. It was quite embarrassing to the NDP. But few people paid much attention to this sort of thing back then. Only when child sexual abuse became known to the mainstream and it became culturally and politically insupportable to defend anything related to it did the party convince Svend to stop introducing those bills.

[Argus]

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?

I"m sure Svend sees nothing wrong with gagging people, and likely has a large collection of them in his toy chest.

[punked]

Indeed it has. Once the idea of adult-child sex came out of the closet, so to speak, and moved from being something almost no one knew about or talked about to being a recognized danger to children, and once society really began to crack down on everything related to child sexual abuse, then pressure began building on the mainstream gay rights groups to denounce NAMBLA, which was formerly welcome at gay pride parades. Eventually, reluctantly, they did so.

So you have fallowed this movement closely since the 1970's then? If not stop claiming to be an expert. They denounced it or they didn't. I will leave the details up to the experts of which I don't think you or I are one. I don't the motions which these organizations voted, I don't know how or why the supported them and neither do you. Otherwise citation needed.

Edited January 29, 2009 by punked

[Argus]

There's mountains of research showing that no such correlation exisits. For example, one study of 175 male adults who had been convicted in Massachusetts of child sexual assault found that none of them were homosexuals; all of them would fit the description of a fixated child molester ( that is: they were sexually attracted only to children and not to other adults). The problem with attempting to draw a correlation is what I call the "plumber" problem: fixing a sink doesn't make one a plumber; in the same vein, a pedophile who molests kids of the same sex is not necessarily homosexual, something right-wing anti-gay folks can't get their heads around.

No, in fact, no one I've talked to about that, liberal or conservative, can seem to get their heads around it. To us, if you like to molest boys you're a fag, period.

And you know what, if you routinely work on plumbing you are a plumber, just not a professional plumber.

[Argus]

Your defintions dont count! Who says anal intercourse isnt natural? Anal intercourse is practiced widely by HETEROSEXUALS...not just homosexuals!

So is bondage. That's not particularly "natural" either.

[punked]

So is bondage. That's not particularly "natural" either.

But if everyone did it, it would be?

[Argus]

Sorry guys, neither of you are going to find any real evidence that gay rights activist groups were endorsing the NAMBLA agenda. It's never been that way. Of course you may find an op. ed. article based on an unidentified srouce from within but that source is likely to be a participant living on the fringes. In fact is that they've been at odds with one another since NAMBLA's founding because, the GRM advocates thought NAMBLA was being viewed as being a part of the GRM and hence hurting their cause.

I don't doubt your word. But it seems to me there was at the very least sympathy for anyone who was advocating sexual freedoms, and that the NAMBLA people were percieved as gay - more or less - in their choice of targets, and so were, at the least, tolerated as a sort of member of the famly, albiet extended family. Dissasociating themselves with NAMBLA was more a political tactic than any real dissaproval of NAMBLA. It was kind of like in the Godfather, when Tom warns the Carleones that "nobody kills a police captain" because all their political friends would run for cover. It wasn't so much he was against killing the captain, so much as he warned of the political consequences. Absent those consequences - sure, by all means, kill the guy.

[Argus]

There have been many ridiculous threads on this forum but I believe this one sets a new record.

Don't be ridiculous. Oleg isn't in it yet.

[Argus]

Again YankAbroad....back up your claim! Remember, personal opinions don't count.

This is beyond outrageous! :angry: Has anyone here gone to university? Learned how to research and what constitutes a reliable source? Same standards here. Provide legitimate sources only please. Otherwise your claims have no merit.

This is not an academic forum and we do not have thst kind of standard for discussion here. News articles are routinely cited to support arguments on all sides on all issues.

CHRISTIAN WEBSITES ARE NOT A SOURCE. TO PROVE A POINT, YOU MUST COME TO THE TABLE WITH FACTS.

I disagree. If we can say that homosexual web sites are acceptable (even though they are clearly going to be biased) why would we dissavow Christian web sites? There are certain topics where you're really not going to find anything on the web unless it comes from a religious organization because no one else, other than religious people, are going to be posting information which, as an example, might be considered to be unflattering about homosexuals - whether that information is accurate or not.

[punked]

I don't doubt your word. But it seems to me there was at the very least sympathy for anyone who was advocating sexual freedoms, and that the NAMBLA people were percieved as gay - more or less - in their choice of targets, and so were, at the least, tolerated as a sort of member of the famly, albiet extended family. Dissasociating themselves with NAMBLA was more a political tactic than any real dissaproval of NAMBLA. It was kind of like in the Godfather, when Tom warns the Carleones that "nobody kills a police captain" because all their political friends would run for cover. It wasn't so much he was against killing the captain, so much as he warned of the political consequences. Absent those consequences - sure, by all means, kill the guy.

Sorta like the Catholic Church? See what I did there? I took your comparison of NAMBLA and the gays rights Movement and compared it to the Church and their treatment of Man/Boy Loving priests.

Just because those priests were child molesters and also protected in someway members of the Church does not mean the Church some how supports them.

[Argus]

Sorta like the Catholic Church? See what I did there? I took your comparison of NAMBLA and the gays rights Movement and compared it to the Church and their treatment of Man/Boy Loving priests.

Just because those priests were child molesters and also protected in someway members of the Church does not mean the Church some how supports them.

I would say there are elements within the Church - or were elements - who at least sympathised with those priests, probably for different reasons. There has always been an element within the Church more than willing to absolve priests of wrongdoing on the basis of the almost instinctive belief that all priests are good men, and therefor if they did wrong it was become someone led them into temptation - ie, those evil women, for example. And it would not surprise me to find the same stance among some towards those cute little alter boys It might sound bum, but women were evil because they were sexual creatures who tempted men, so why not ascribe the same sort of thing to alter boys?

So get the priest away from that flirtatious little cutey, give him a good talking to, pray a lot, and no doubt he'll be good as new again.

And yes, I believe there were/are elements within the gay community, which is, after all, notoriously obsessed with youth - even more than the straight community, and much less abashed about admitting it - who sympathised with the NAMBLA types and at the very least thought of them as fellow travellers.

[Ontario Loyalist]

Sorta like the Catholic Church? See what I did there? I took your comparison of NAMBLA and the gays rights Movement and compared it to the Church and their treatment of Man/Boy Loving priests.

The problem is, pedophelia is openly advocated by some in the gay community under the guide of "pederastry". You know full well that deviant sexual behaviour is viewed by the Church as a sin, but there will always be individuals who will exploit the Chruch and its trusting environment to fulfill their sexual urges. The Canadian pedophile caught in Malaysia or wherever is one such example.

Just because those priests were child molesters and also protected in someway members of the Church does not mean the Church some how supports them.

I wouldn't say that they "protected" these people, rather have a different notion on how the sinner should be treated; I'm sure these people were expected to seek a solution through their faith, but with some that's basically an impossibility.

[guyser]

No, in fact, no one I've talked to about that, liberal or conservative, can seem to get their heads around it. To us, if you like to molest boys you're a fag, period.

Rue schooled all of us, and debunked the idea that homosexuals are pedophiles. I am surprised you dont recall .

[Argus]

Rue schooled all of us, and debunked the idea that homosexuals are pedophiles. I am surprised you dont recall .

I didn't say homosexuals were pedophiles. I don't think even Betsy has said that.

I said men who molest boys are fags.

[Shakeyhands]

I didn't say homosexuals were pedophiles. I don't think even Betsy has said that.

I said men who molest boys are fags.

nice.... all class, as usual, Argus.