Pedophiles waiting in line....

[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."

None of this is relevant. Sources are credible when they are free of bias, are reporting studies, are held in high esteem through peer review, etc. Citing an opinion piece in an online "Chrisitan" news source, is NOT proof. And citing a fox news article is just .....well....funny

Please cite some scientific journals or studies based on research. Opinion pieces don't count!

[

Yes, I definitely agree with your last sentence. Opinion pieces don't count.

I'm still waiting for your scientific journals and studies based on research that negates the ones that have been provided. I'm still waiting for credible evidences backing up your claims. Need more time?

[scribblet]

Same difference, they want it lowered in the name of equal rights, but protecting our young boys is preferable

If you want to "protect our young boys," and making the age of consent for same-sex relations the same as opposite sex relations doesn't do so, doesn't that say that the age of consent for heterosexual relations is too low and should be increased?

Whatever - and I didn't say that, I just posted information. I also said I disagreed with that part of his statement.

Definitely the age of consent for heterosexual relations is too low and should be increased.

Please provide your documentation about the FBI and NAMBLA.

[tml12]

EDIT: Do you support the idea that the age of consent for homosexuality should be different than for heterosexuals?

The age is too low as is. Shouldn't be a difference, it just shouldn't be 14.

I still say it shouldn't be based on the age, rather we need to make sure 50 year olds aren't screwing their 14 year old neighbour.

I think justice is best served when it is based on both age and difference in age. What to propose though? Maybe a min age at 15, but not allowing anyone 25 or over to have sex with anyone more than 10 years their junior where the junior is between 15 and 20 years of age. I know it may seem complicated but maybe someone can think of a better way.

I could most definitely accept a proposal like that.

[Black Dog]

Your attempts at denials...even when faced with different accounts from all sources that yes, NAMBLA had a history with ILGA, and yes, Gay Rights Movement had pushed for the lowering of AoC in Lithuania, highly questions your credibility in your arguments and reasoning.

This is a good summary of every half-assed, facile and totally fallacious point you've clung to throughout this thread, regardless of any evidence presented.

1. ILGA is one part of the gay rights movement (you know, the one you keep talking about, yet are so frightfully ignorant of) that consists of hundreds of organizations around the world. Even if one presupposses that NAMBLA was ever a serious prescence within ILGA, the latter is not necessarily representative of the "movement" as a whole any more than, say, Stormfront is representative of conservative groups.

2. Your Lithunania claim has been trampled again and again, yet you stubbornly cling to the fallacy that the "Gay Rights Movement" (again!) was responsible for lowering the age of consent (the implication being that the age of consent was lowered for all sex acts) when in fact the AoC for anal sex was lowered to conform with the cutoff for hetero sex. When will you acknowledge what you are saying and the facts are seperate things?

3. NAMBLA seems to have a far greater prescence in the brains of right wingers than it does in the gay community. Certainly, there's no evidence to indicate NAMBLA is a significant part of the gay community or that it even exists (no web site, no membership to speak of), but the prominence the anti-gay right gives it lends credence to YA's claims that it is nothing more than a bogeymany to forment the idea that homosexuality=pedophilia.

In closing, it''s funny to watch you question another poster's credibility and raise the spectre of bias when your steadfast refusal to acknowledge the errors in your arguments light up your own biased agenda like a neon sign. In short: you've been pwned.

[PocketRocket]

Hmmm. If I start a group called PocketRocket And Teenage Scandinavian Inline Skaters will that make me a lobby group rather than a pervert???

PRATSIS, coming soon to a town near you.

Send me your poor, your hungry, your blonde teenage roller skaters.

I may send back the poor and hungry,,,,,

The sad thing is these guys in NAMBLA want to be taken seriously.

PRATSIS, on the other hand....

The upside to the organization is it's a lot easier to catch fish when they're all crowded into one barrel.

[CCGirl]

Please cite some scientific journals or studies based on research. Opinion pieces don't count!

Yes, I definitely agree with your last sentence. Opinion pieces don't count.

I'm still waiting for your scientific journals and studies based on research that negates the ones that have been provided. I'm still waiting for credible evidences backing up your claims. Need more time?

Nope. That is not debate. YOU need to provide credible evidence for your claims, which are then refuted by the other "side" by providing supporting evidence for their argument.

We are anxiously awaiting for credible resources to be supplied! Opinions do not count

[geoffrey]

Please cite some scientific journals or studies based on research. Opinion pieces don't count!

Yes, I definitely agree with your last sentence. Opinion pieces don't count.

I'm still waiting for your scientific journals and studies based on research that negates the ones that have been provided. I'm still waiting for credible evidences backing up your claims. Need more time?

Nope. That is not debate. YOU need to provide credible evidence for your claims, which are then refuted by the other "side" by providing supporting evidence for their argument.

We are anxiously awaiting for credible resources to be supplied! Opinions do not count

No actually when you want to turn society on its head, I think you have the burder of proof. We are waiting.

And for all of your trying to find some hyrbid age model, I again propose my divide by two add seven idea. What a great law that would be.

[YankAbroad]

For all your accusations about "FBI-conspiracy" theories which are really....really way to the top.....

at least humor us and provide a link backing up your claims

Not everything is in a nice tight file on the internet.

I'm a gay man. I'm actually living the gay rights phenomenon which you're prattling on about.

For you to not mention a single real gay rights lobby or even show basic knowledge of them, whilst screaming on about NAMBLA -- and then demanding I substantiate my position based on experience -- really shows chutzpah on your part.

Arrogance plus homophobia = unintential comedy.

[Hicksey]

For all your accusations about "FBI-conspiracy" theories which are really....really way to the top.....

at least humor us and provide a link backing up your claims

Not everything is in a nice tight file on the internet.

I'm a gay man. I'm actually living the gay rights phenomenon which you're prattling on about.

For you to not mention a single real gay rights lobby or even show basic knowledge of them, whilst screaming on about NAMBLA -- and then demanding I substantiate my position based on experience -- really shows chutzpah on your part.

Arrogance plus homophobia = unintential comedy.

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. Even someone like me that isn't entirely sympathetic to the GRM's cause (though I admit I am mostly) has to admit that most gay people are normal people like the rest of us that believe what goes on between two consenting adults is one thing, but that sex with children is wrong.

Sorry, you won't find any concrete links between the two groups. Even the anti-gay Rush Limbaugh agrees here. He's talked much about it on his show.

[fellowtraveller]

EDIT: Do you support the idea that the age of consent for homosexuality should be different than for heterosexuals?

The age is too low as is. Shouldn't be a difference, it just shouldn't be 14.

I still say it shouldn't be based on the age, rather we need to make sure 50 year olds aren't screwing their 14 year old neighbour.

I think justice is best served when it is based on both age and difference in age. What to propose though? Maybe a min age at 15, but not allowing anyone 25 or over to have sex with anyone more than 10 years their junior where the junior is between 15 and 20 years of age. I know it may seem complicated but maybe someone can think of a better way.

I could most definitely accept a proposal like that.

That is sort of how the current law works right now, with an age of consent of 14 years. If you are a 15, 16, 17 year old and are boinking a 14 year old , and you are a peer of the other person - it is very unlikely that you will be charged with anything. If you are a 21 year old Scout leader - you likely will be charged - but not with statutory rape. The courts in these cases, often use a different charge to reflect the abuse of trust involved.

There is no reason that the age of consent cannot be raised to 16 and still maintain the discretion for young lovers that has always existed in Canada. Police and prosecutors and ultimately judges also have plenty of latitude in deciding what is appropriate. But it all starts with legislation - theoretically at least.

The main purpose of increasing the age of consent is to provide some discouragement to predators, and how can that be a bad thing?

[Hicksey]

EDIT: Do you support the idea that the age of consent for homosexuality should be different than for heterosexuals?

The age is too low as is. Shouldn't be a difference, it just shouldn't be 14.

I still say it shouldn't be based on the age, rather we need to make sure 50 year olds aren't screwing their 14 year old neighbour.

I think justice is best served when it is based on both age and difference in age. What to propose though? Maybe a min age at 15, but not allowing anyone 25 or over to have sex with anyone more than 10 years their junior where the junior is between 15 and 20 years of age. I know it may seem complicated but maybe someone can think of a better way.

I could most definitely accept a proposal like that.

That is sort of how the current law works right now, with an age of consent of 14 years. If you are a 15, 16, 17 year old and are boinking a 14 year old , and you are a peer of the other person - it is very unlikely that you will be charged with anything. If you are a 21 year old Scout leader - you likely will be charged - but not with statutory rape. The courts in these cases, often use a different charge to reflect the abuse of trust involved.

There is no reason that the age of consent cannot be raised to 16 and still maintain the discretion for young lovers that has always existed in Canada. Police and prosecutors and ultimately judges also have plenty of latitude in deciding what is appropriate. But it all starts with legislation - theoretically at least.

The main purpose of increasing the age of consent is to provide some discouragement to predators, and how can that be a bad thing?

I don't think its a bad thing. But I do think that in Canada punishments for crimes have gotten ridiculously low so increasing the age of consent I think will prevent the honest man from doing it, but not the one who today would have sex with a 13 year old anyway. And I believe that the honest man that made the mistake of not being studios enough to ask for ID before having sex with someone purporting to be 18 or 19 isn't the person we're the most worried about. Its the guy that doesn't care about right and wrong and would knowingly have sex with the 13 year old.

[YankAbroad]

Sorry, you won't find any concrete links between the two groups.

Of course they won't.

The other bizarre tactic is finding some "link" between NAMBLA and some group nobody's ever heard of, and then claiming it "proves" that the former is a backbone of the "GRM" (again, whatever that is).

I still have yet to have these educated social conservatives explain to me what the "agenda" of the "GRM" is, too. Seeing that I used to sit on the board of a major gay rights group and rarely saw agreement on any issue, I'm at a loss as to figuring out what it means!

[betsy]

Please cite some scientific journals or studies based on research. Opinion pieces don't count!

Yes, I definitely agree with your last sentence. Opinion pieces don't count.

I'm still waiting for your scientific journals and studies based on research that negates the ones that have been provided. I'm still waiting for credible evidences backing up your claims. Need more time?

Nope. That is not debate. YOU need to provide credible evidence for your claims, which are then refuted by the other "side" by providing supporting evidence for their argument.

We are anxiously awaiting for credible resources to be supplied! Opinions do not count

I gave you what I consider credible evidences. The ball just landed in your court. You're refuting it. Well, back it up.

[YankAbroad]

Betsy, art history sites and "news" links from anti-gay web sites aren't "credible evidences" (sic).

They're silliness.

The fact that you don't even know the name of a single major gay lobby, let alone the three largest ones, tells me that you don't even have the minimum knowledge necessary to discuss this issue in a substantive or even semi-informed fashion.

But then again, you're not interested in discussing it, you're just interested in tarring gay people. Quelle surprise!

[Hicksey]

Sorry, you won't find any concrete links between the two groups.

Of course they won't.

The other bizarre tactic is finding some "link" between NAMBLA and some group nobody's ever heard of, and then claiming it "proves" that the former is a backbone of the "GRM" (again, whatever that is).

I still have yet to have these educated social conservatives explain to me what the "agenda" of the "GRM" is, too. Seeing that I used to sit on the board of a major gay rights group and rarely saw agreement on any issue, I'm at a loss as to figuring out what it means!

For the argument at hand I'm assuming legalized gay marriage, both here and the USA is the uniting issue. Why people want so badly to associate these two groups is beyond me. I am a social conservative, with this one issue a notable exception (not complete agreement but 90%) to that, and even I know that most gays decry sex with children as much as heteros do.

[YankAbroad]

I'm assuming legalized gay marriage, both here and the USA is the uniting issue

Not even that. There are plenty of people in major groups in both countries who argue against lobbying for marriage.

[Hicksey]

I'm assuming legalized gay marriage, both here and the USA is the uniting issue

Not even that. There are plenty of people in major groups in both countries who argue against lobbying for marriage.

That's strange. Wonder why they would argue against lobbying for marriage?

[justcrowing]

Well I have my tinfoil hat on ... here goes!

http://www.regent.edu/acad/schlaw/lawrevie...14_2baldwin.PDF

Research confirms that homosexuals molest children at

a rate vastly higher than heterosexuals, and the

mainstream homosexual culture commonly promotes sex

with children.1 Homosexual leaders repeatedly argue

for the freedom to engage in consensual sex with

children, and blind surveys reveal a shockingly high

number of homosexuals admit to sexual contact with

minors.2 Indeed, the homosexual community is driving

the worldwide campaign to lower the legal age of

consent.

This trend comes at the expense of our children's

safety."

[Hicksey]

Well I have my tinfoil hat on ... here goes!

http://www.regent.edu/acad/schlaw/lawrevie...14_2baldwin.PDF

Research confirms that homosexuals molest children at

a rate vastly higher than heterosexuals, and the

mainstream homosexual culture commonly promotes sex

with children.1 Homosexual leaders repeatedly argue

for the freedom to engage in consensual sex with

children, and blind surveys reveal a shockingly high

number of homosexuals admit to sexual contact with

minors.2 Indeed, the homosexual community is driving

the worldwide campaign to lower the legal age of

consent.

This trend comes at the expense of our children's

safety."

No, not the homosexual community. Pedophiles are.

All the gay people I know resent such people.

[Black Dog]

Justcrowing:

The first sentence of your linked "report" states:

Lately, the gay movement seems to be making large gains in its war on America’s Judeo-Christian culture.

Gee, that sounds like a scholarly, scientific opinion.

Sadly, it goes downhill from there.

[August1991]

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

The argument seems to be that "All fathers are men, Socrates is a man therefore Socrates is a father."

By the same logic, female teachers are a dangerous menace to male students. If Betsy wants to associate gays with underage sex, then by the same logic, Betsy should also associate teachers with it.

[YankAbroad]

Regent "University" is a "Bible college" (which was recently bailed out by the Moonies).

Wonder why they would argue against lobbying for marriage?

Lots of different reasons. Some think that gays should avoid marriage and monogamy because those are heterosexual institutions. Others think that marriage is for procreation (i.e. they'd agree with those who say gays are too perverted or sick to get married). Others want to see the issue "delayed indefinitely" in order to advance their own political agenda.

They don't represent a majority per se, but they are a significant piece of the community, which is why arguments that there's some monolithic "agenda" which we all subscribe to are so retarded.

[betsy]

Your attempts at denials...even when faced with different accounts from all sources that yes, NAMBLA had a history with ILGA, and yes, Gay Rights Movement had pushed for the lowering of AoC in Lithuania, highly questions your credibility in your arguments and reasoning.

This is a good summary of every half-assed, facile and totally fallacious point you've clung to throughout this thread, regardless of any evidence presented.

1. ILGA is one part of the gay rights movement (you know, the one you keep talking about, yet are so frightfully ignorant of) that consists of hundreds of organizations around the world. Even if one presupposses that NAMBLA was ever a serious prescence within ILGA, the latter is not necessarily representative of the "movement" as a whole any more than, say, Stormfront is representative of conservative groups.

"Even if one presupposses that NAMBLA was ever a serious prescence within ILGA,"

You know why we are stuck on this one particular issue? Ironically, it is because of you guys continuously trying to deny that at some time in the past, NAMBLA was associated with ILGA.

It is because of your kind of reactions and handling of this issue that makes me all the more wonder: Is there something to fear? Is there something to hide?

You make it sound that ILGA is just a small drop in the bucket for an organization, quite insignificant. If so, how did they ever have the clout to even be included in the UN?

This excerpt was taken from the site of Gay and Lesbian Activists Alliance, another gay group I presume.

"The current controversy over the membership of the North American Man/Boy Love Association (NAMBLA) in the International Lesbian and Gay Association (ILGA) raises in sharp relief the question of what boundaries, if any, should be drawn around the Gay and Lesbian civil rights movement. The predicament is prompted by the Clinton Administration's threat to seek the revocation of ILGA's consultative status in the United Nations Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) if ILGA does not oust NAMBLA at ILGA's 16th World Conference in New York next June. ILGA's leadership has stated its intention to seek NAMBLA's ouster, which under ILGA voting rules requires an 80% supermajority."

That statement states the fact that NAMBLA was a member of ILGA.

It states the fact that ILGA is not just one of the many gay groups scattered all over the world. It probably is THE MOTHER of all gay groups...if not, at least one of the most important, for it had achieved a recognized status,a consutative status in the United Nations.

So you say..."Even if one presupposses that NAMBLA was ever a serious prescence within ILGA,"

Like as if there's even any doubt about it.

NAMBLA sounds more than just a "serious" presence infact....if it managed to prompt the Clinton Administration to get involved...threatening to seek the revocation of ILGA's place in the UN.

At least no one can ever accuse Clinton of being a right-winger. He's on your side, for crying out loud!

http://www.glaa.org/archive/1994/namblaoutofbounds.shtml

[BubberMiley]

So what's the point you're trying to make by working so hard to make this association, Betsy?

[betsy]

But in fairness, I had also read in the past that majority of the gay members of ILGA did not know anything about NAMBLA and three other pedophile groups that had joined ILGA. Only high level officials knew of it.

I've read it somewhere that ILGA tried to comply with UN's demands and rejected the three pedophile groups. However ILGA secretly tried to keep NAMBLA.