Pedophiles Demand Same Rights As Gays

[Era Might]

Didn't read that particular article, but just google "NAMBLA."

 

I have no doubts about the limitless perverseness of the human heart. I honestly think child pornography would be big business if it were legal...it's already big business on the black market. I don't believe the point of laws against pedophilia are about making people moral and preventing pedophile lust, but about keeping those lusts in control on the market and protecting children from exploitation. Homosexuality is an entirely different matter, since it is consensual and not a market phenomenon in the same way. The idea that pedophilia is on the gates of congress about to break it down is fearmongering and not true from a purely political and social perspective. The existence of NAMBLA is about as politically relevant as the existence of the Flat Earth Society to science.

[Ice_nine]

We've seen how the church has survived in a hostile pagan world, how the church predominated and thrived in Christianized societies, but it will be interesting to see, after having enjoyed enormous influence, will deal in a post-Christian society.

 

 

[Apteka]

We've seen how the church has survived in a hostile pagan world, how the church predominated and thrived in Christianized societies, but it will be interesting to see, after having enjoyed enormous influence, will deal in a post-Christian society.

 

When the Roman Empire was Pagan and Christianity was a nascent movement spreading through urban areas, the Pagan establishment attempted to counter by adopting positive aspects of Christianity. Pagan priests were instructed to mimic the charitable efforts of Christians that were found so effective in making the cult grow. Eventually of course the intelligentsia and leaders of society were converted to the new religion, and the old was relegated to the rustics out in the country (hence the etymology behind the word "pagan"). It's an irony of history that the Church in her hay day is now attempting to do the same thing, scrapping it's ancient traditions to make itself more relevant in a world that is constantly changing. It's future may well be that of the pagans of old.

[Socrates]

I have no doubts about the limitless perverseness of the human heart. I honestly think child pornography would be big business if it were legal...it's already big business on the black market. I don't believe the point of laws against pedophilia are about making people moral and preventing pedophile lust, but about keeping those lusts in control on the market and protecting children from exploitation. Homosexuality is an entirely different matter, since it is consensual and not a market phenomenon in the same way. The idea that pedophilia is on the gates of congress about to break it down is fearmongering and not true from a purely political and social perspective. The existence of NAMBLA is about as politically relevant as the existence of the Flat Earth Society to science.

 

In the 1960s, the exact same could be said of the "gay rights" movement.

 

I certainly don't think full legalization of pedophilia is immanent, but given the extremely rapid decline of morals in this country and the world, nothing would shock me anymore, and I can't claim to know the future.

 

One could always push to lower the consent laws - there's really nothing magical that makes an 18-year-old capable of consent, but a 17-year-old not.

 

 

Pederasty between men and adolescent boys was actually common and accepted in a variety of cultures (including the ancient Greeks), so while it is wrong, this is not something entirely unheard of in human society.

 

Sexual perversions of all kinds are becoming more and more accepted in our culture.

[Era Might]

In the 1960s, the exact same could be said of the "gay rights" movement.

 

I certainly don't think full legalization of pedophilia is immanent, but given the extremely rapid decline of morals in this country and the world, nothing would shock me anymore, and I can't claim to know the future.

 

One could always push to lower the consent laws - there's really nothing magical that makes an 18-year-old capable of consent, but a 17-year-old not.

 

 

Pederasty between men and adolescent boys was actually common and accepted in a variety of cultures (including the ancient Greeks), so while it is wrong, this is not something entirely unheard of in human society.

 

Sexual perversions of all kinds are becoming more and more accepted in our culture.

 

Except the "gay rights" movement was not a matter of exploitation, but individual rights in a democratic society. The government is not the leader of a religious community, laws are meant to regulate the society that actually exists. You can't regulate consensual sexual behavior in a democratic society anymore than you can regulate greed or piety or Sunday resting habits. Laws against pedophilia are not about eradicating pedophile lust (which will always exist in the shadows) but controlling exploitation, and society in America is generally still ruled by opposition to exploitation (of the public kind). I agree that cultural sexuality in general is problematic, but I don't believe it was caused by the "gay rights" movement or even the sexual revolution. It's a very broad development in how a democratic society functions. You bring up ancient Greece, and that's an interesting point to consider, whether democracy and paganism are necessarily connected...and I mean that in a broad way, considering paganism as a respect for "many gods." History is a long-view story, we may come to find out that the American experiment begun in the 18th century was not, after all, a successful one.

Edited July 30, 2013 by Era Might

[Winchester]

Fifty years ago this was still a very Christian country, times have change and life moves on. Most people no longer feel it necessary to judge human actions according to by-gone religious dogma and supposed divine revelations.

hahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

[Winchester]

Not exactly a fallacy, as we've already been sliding down the slope for many decades now.

 

Fifty years ago the idea that homosexual "marriage" would be recognized by law in this country would have seemed completely laughable, and an absurd slippery slope scenario.

And before that, Catholics knew better than to involved gubbmint in marriage.

[Ice_nine]

the 1950's, hooray virtue!

 

 

[CatherineM]

If children aren't worth protecting in the womb, then why protect them from perverts? Things get rough financially, and just sell them off like they do in some poorer third world countries.

[Socrates]

Except the "gay rights" movement was not a matter of exploitation, but individual rights in a democratic society. The government is not the leader of a religious community, laws are meant to regulate the society that actually exists. You can't regulate consensual sexual behavior in a democratic society anymore than you can regulate greed or piety or Sunday resting habits. Laws against pedophilia are not about eradicating pedophile lust (which will always exist in the shadows) but controlling exploitation, and society in America is generally still ruled by opposition to exploitation (of the public kind). I agree that cultural sexuality in general is problematic, but I don't believe it was caused by the "gay rights" movement or even the sexual revolution. It's a very broad development in how a democratic society functions. You bring up ancient Greece, and that's an interesting point to consider, whether democracy and paganism are necessarily connected...and I mean that in a broad way, considering paganism as a respect for "many gods." History is a long-view story, we may come to find out that the American experiment begun in the 18th century was not, after all, a successful one.

 

While this may sound shocking, I don't worship at the altar of "Democracy" or "democratic society."  (Incidentally, our nation was founded as a republic, rather than a democracy, and most of the founders actually despised democracy).  Nor do I believe democracy ensures protection against our worst tendencies.

 

Democracy is really just mob rule, and if the mob believes in traditional morality and that homosexuality is wrong (as in the past) it will oppose it, and if the mob believes in  "anything goes" hedonistic ethic, the laws will follow - nothing particularly high-minded about it.  Rightly or wrongly, state anti-sodomy laws existed in this country until fairly recent times.  Without belief in objective morality, "rights" become simply a series of wants.  Rights such as the right to life and to freedom of religious practice are dropped if the state/mob see fit. 

 

The concept of anything being okay so long as it's between "consenting adults" is a very recent one.  And I think one could reasonably argue that young teenagers and adolescents are capable of consent.

 

Anyway, all we are is dust in the wind, dude.

[CatholicsAreKewl]

Is this article legit? I can't find anything else about this. The whole thing about children not suffering from child abuse seems fishy. 

Edited July 31, 2013 by CatholicsAreKewl

[Winchester]

While this may sound shocking, I don't worship at the altar of "Democracy" or "democratic society."  (Incidentally, our nation was founded as a republic, rather than a democracy, and most of the founders actually despised democracy).  Nor do I believe democracy ensures protection against our worst tendencies.

 

Democracy is really just mob rule, and if the mob believes in traditional morality and that homosexuality is wrong (as in the past) it will oppose it, and if the mob believes in  "anything goes" hedonistic ethic, the laws will follow - nothing particularly high-minded about it.  Rightly or wrongly, state anti-sodomy laws existed in this country until fairly recent times.  Without belief in objective morality, "rights" become simply a series of wants.  Rights such as the right to life and to freedom of religious practice are dropped if the state/mob see fit. 

 

The concept of anything being okay so long as it's between "consenting adults" is a very recent one.  And I think one could reasonably argue that young teenagers and adolescents are capable of consent.

 

Anyway, all we are is dust in the wind, dude.

With our representative democracy, the mob at the Federal level is smaller.

 

Do you support throwing people in cages for sodomy?

[Era Might]

While this may sound shocking, I don't worship at the altar of "Democracy" or "democratic society."  (Incidentally, our nation was founded as a republic, rather than a democracy, and most of the founders actually despised democracy).  Nor do I believe democracy ensures protection against our worst tendencies.

 

Democracy is really just mob rule, and if the mob believes in traditional morality and that homosexuality is wrong (as in the past) it will oppose it, and if the mob believes in  "anything goes" hedonistic ethic, the laws will follow - nothing particularly high-minded about it.  Rightly or wrongly, state anti-sodomy laws existed in this country until fairly recent times.  Without belief in objective morality, "rights" become simply a series of wants.  Rights such as the right to life and to freedom of religious practice are dropped if the state/mob see fit. 

 

The concept of anything being okay so long as it's between "consenting adults" is a very recent one.  And I think one could reasonably argue that young teenagers and adolescents are capable of consent.

 

Anyway, all we are is dust in the wind, dude.

 

Republic simply means "res publica," that the people are involved in public affairs...a democracy is a republic, even a pure democracy. Of course any kind of law can exist in any society. You can create a celibate military where castration is the penalty for impure thoughts...but that is pretty silly considering the sociology of military life. It's the same with other areas of society, laws against morality become unfeasible. "Freedom of religious practice" is a good example...that is a modern invention, and was motivated by the same reality that motivates the striking down of "anti-sodomy" and similar laws. Society is not a static altar to law. And law does not create virtue, it only creates awareness of sin (the biblical perspective on law). What do you expect to do, criminalize homosexuality and throw everyone in prison? Is that a healthy perspective on law? Is that going to change the many-faceted developments that society underwent over the last 400 years?

 

Law and morality are not synonomous. Morality is inseparable from religious community. Law is a way to keep the peace and create the best possible and realistic good in an imperfect world. Law is necessarily evolving.

Edited July 31, 2013 by Era Might

[KnightofChrist]

It's not on the steps of congress, but unfortunately, as Era points out, it would be bigger business if it were legal, it's illegal and it's still big business. The sexual exploitation and slave trade of childern is big and powerful. Even in the United States it is alive and well. And lets not forget the US already allows the mass murder of children, as a 'individual right'. Even though the child does not consent to death.

So a legal kind of child slavery already exist. The adult master can kill their child slave without consent within the 'law'. As society becomes more and more accepting of sexual perversions why would it be wrong to believe that probability of legal pedophilia increases? Which is of course a kind of slavery where the adult master can violate the honor of the child slave.

[Era Might]

Democracy is really just mob rule, and if the mob believes in traditional morality and that homosexuality is wrong (as in the past) it will oppose it, and if the mob believes in  "anything goes" hedonistic ethic, the laws will follow - nothing particularly high-minded about it.  Rightly or wrongly, state anti-sodomy laws existed in this country until fairly recent times.  Without belief in objective morality, "rights" become simply a series of wants.  Rights such as the right to life and to freedom of religious practice are dropped if the state/mob see fit. 

 

Ideals and principles have a role in statesmanship, but I don't believe rulers are here to protect us from ourselves, or to impose a society on us, even a moral one. That's the blessing and the curse of individual liberty, the centerpiece of American civic life. Political rulers are stewards of public resources, representatives in public affairs, leaders in society, but they are not our guardians from ourselves. That, at least, is the American model, which I do not hold as the only one or the supreme one...it is a product of the American experience. How does one balance principle and deference in our model? It's tricky, very difficult, but ultimately I think a man must be willing to see his world fall apart, rather than save it by imposition. That would truly be the death of "republic."

 

In the past, Christian societies were theocracies. In ancient Greece, it was pagan democracy. Today, many segments of Islamic societies are still compelled by a theocratic model which used to compel Christians and Jews. Society is a complex phenomenon, I think we can learn from all models, past and present, and not try to impose artificial models on society that would not work in reality. Models have to spring from their own circumstances, just as they are overthrown from their own circumstances.

Edited July 31, 2013 by Era Might