Homosexuals adopting children

[Rodion Romanovich]

What's you view on homosexuals adopting children? In recent news, a homosexual couple molested an adopted child for a long time until discovered by the authorities. I think such incidents was the main argument against homosexuals adopting children before this incident was discovered, and now the extremists who support homosexuals adopting children have seen proof that this is indeed something that happens in reality. So what are your views on homosexuals adopting children? What are the reasons for supporting homosexuals adopting children? This couple was considered appropriate through very careful judgement made by the authorities but in the end turned out to be child molestor pedophiliacs. There might be even more such cases going on right at this moment that haven't been discovered yet. And that already after only a very few homosexual adoptions have been allowed.

I'd like to hear if those who previously supported homosexual adoption still support it, and if they do, what their arguments for creating such child molesting scenarios are?

[Aenlic]

Are heterosexuals not molesting adopted children, or even their own children? Seems to be a huge gaping hole in your argument here.

Using your logic, heterosexual couples shouldn't be allowed to adopt either. There have certainly been cases of heterosexual couples molesting their adopted children. For that matter, heterosexual couples shouldn't be allowed to keep their own children; because there have been cases of heterosexual couples molesting their own children.

So, what do we do with the children? Hmm... Well, we can't give them to the Church, any church or religious organization for that matter, because of all the cases of molesting by priests and deacons and ministers and rabbis and ulamas and nuns and such. And I'm willing to bet you that children are more likely to be molested in orphanages than at church; so where does that leave us?

Then there are the cases of children being molested by their teachers; so we can't let them attend school. And the parks, that's a clear no. Can't let them outside at all. But wait, we've already eliminated the inside as an unsafe place.

I suppose we could launch all the children into space to keep them safe; but, really, given enough children and enough time, I'm certain there would be a case of an astronaut molesting one too.

Whatever are we to do, Legio? What's your solution?

[Rodion Romanovich]

Homosexual couples have no right to adopt children, just like a single male or a single female isn't allowed to adopt. Adopting or having children is a right restricted to a couple of a male and a woman.


There have certainly been cases of heterosexual couples molesting their adopted children

The rate of molesting seems to be a lot lower for heterosexuals. Also, it's very often the woman in the household that provides the necessary help for the child that the male molests to get in touch with the police. Those children can get some comfort from their not molesting mothers, but a homosexual couple of two males where both are molesting the child... That's a horrible trauma.



So, what do we do with the children?

Orphans don't have an easy time, but at least it's better to be at an orphanage than being molested by your two daddies. Orphanage works, and there's no panic situation requiring us to endorse the extremism that homosexual adoption and the child molesting it results in is.

[doc_bean]

Homosexual couples have no right to adopt children, just like a single male or a single female isn't allowed to adopt. Adopting or having children is a right restricted to a couple of a male and a woman.


Over here single parents can adopt. I thought it was the same in the US ? How did Angelina Jolie get her kids otherwise ?


The rate of molesting seems to be a lot lower for heterosexuals.

Please back this up with statistics.



Also, it's very often the woman in the household that provides the necessary help for the child that the male molests to get in touch with the police.

Where are you basing this argument on ? I've heard a lot of stories of mothers turning a blind eye. I've heard stories about mothers protecting their partner and caliing their children insane.


Those children can get some comfort from their not molesting mothers,

If they're being molested then either the mother leaves and tells the police or just ignores it/doesn't know about it/doesn't care, either way, there is no comforting while they're being molested...


but a homosexual couple of two males where both are molesting the child

So you'd need to have two child molestors comming together, that should be a pretty rare thing. Besides, women have been known to actively participate in molestation too.



... That's a horrible trauma.

Like being raped as a kid isn't in any other case :dizzy2:



Orphans don't have an easy time, but at least it's better to be at an orphanage than being molested by your two daddies. Orphanage works

True.

EDIT: we don't need cars either, walking has worked for thousands of years, yet we seem to think that driving is preferable, just as most people would think raising a child in a family is preferable to an orphanage. People get run over by cars, children get molested in families (although they can get molested in orphanages too..) No solution is perfect.



, and there's no panic situation requiring us to endorse the extremism that homosexual adoption and the child molesting it results in is.

Adoption will always result in more molestation, just because child molesters will be more eager to get their hands on little children. I don't see what the sexual orientation of the adoptive parents has to do with it. :wall:

[Rodion Romanovich]

I agree, adoption at all is a dangerous business also for heterosexuals. Maybe both forms of adoption should be removed.

[doc_bean]

I agree, adoption at all is a dangerous business also for heterosexuals. Maybe both forms of adoption should be removed.

Nah, do you know what goes on in most orphanages ? I'd like to see statistics showing molestation rates for kids adopted and kids in an orphanage. There only needs to be one sicko in an orphanage to molest a whole bunch of children...

[Mithrandir]

:laugh4: this thread is silly. Aenlic&Doc Bean pretty much said enough :laugh4:

[Rodion Romanovich]

Please back this up with statistics.

All statistics on the subject are silenced because of the extremist leadership that supports child molestation and homosexual adoption. A long google search doesn't show any statistics at all of the percentage of homosexual adoption cases that leads to child molestation compared to what percentage of heterosexual adoption leads to child molestation. It's of course in the interest of the supporters of child molestation and homosexual adoption to make sure there are no statistics so that the opponents of this extremism lose their best argument. But even without the main argument, there's still enough argumentation that there's no excuse for homosexuals adopting children, as it creates an unnatural family structure - and, as seen - a worse child molestation trauma than anything seen so far when child molestation actually happens. Remember that child molestation causes child molestation, so every case of child molestation that society causes causes plenty of child molestation in the future. This child who was victim of these horrible deeds might end up becoming such a monster himself, if he doesn't commit suicide first. Also remember that most forms of homosexuality throughout history has had elements of pedophilia. What do you think dad and dad will do when they have to help their adopted child to take a bath? Will they be able to resist their temptations? Homosexuality should be accepted and not lead to persecution, but homosexuals adopting children is not about acceptance towards homosexuals, it's about acceptance towards pedophiliacs.

[TB666]

It is legal in Sweden for a few years now and we haven't had any problems so far.
However we do have a recent case(a few months old) where a hetrosexual couple tortured their adopted son to death.

[doc_bean]

All statistics on the subject are silenced because of the extremist leadership that supports child molestation and homosexual adoption.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Bush, you damn liberal :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:

[Mithrandir]

It is legal in Sweden for a few years now and we haven't had any problems so far.
However we do have a recent case(a few months old) where a hetrosexual couple tortured their adopted son to death.

In my country we had several of those, the only difference being that they were heterosexual couples or single mothers. None in the recent years had homosexuals involved.

..then again the media are probably silenced because of the extremist leadership that supports child molestation and homosexual adoption.

[Aenlic]

All statistics on the subject are silenced because of the extremist leadership that supports child molestation and homosexual adoption. There's still no excuse for homosexuals adopting children, as it creates an unnatural family structure - and, as seen - a worse child molestation trauma than anything seen so far. Remember that child molestation causes child molestation, so every case of child molestation that society causes causes plenty of child molestation in the future. This child who was victim of these horrible deeds might end up becoming such a monster himself, if he doesn't commit suicide first.

The first sign of a crackpot conspiracy theory is when the "the evidence" is hidden/lost/destroyed by some all-powerful "THEY" who have various nefarious designs. There is evidence! No, really! We just can't ever see it because "THEY" are keeping it from us.

(Cue scary music, preferably made on a theremin)

I'm sorry, Legio, but this is all just entirely too cliché for so early in the morning, my time. :laugh4:

[Rodion Romanovich]

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Bush, you damn liberal :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:

Are you saying that Bush has allowed the collecting of such statistics? If so, please show them. From what I've heard Bush hasn't allowed such statistics to be collected.

[InsaneApache]

:laugh4: this thread is silly. Aenlic&Doc Bean pretty much said enough :laugh4:

What he said.

[Rodion Romanovich]

The first sign of a crackpot conspiracy theory is when the "the evidence" is hidden/lost/destroyed by some all-powerful "THEY" who have various nefarious designs. There is evidence! No, really! We just can't ever see it because "THEY" are keeping it from us.

(Cue scary music, preferably made on a theremin)

I'm sorry, Legio, but this is all just entirely too cliché for so early in the morning, my time. :laugh4:
There's no conspiracy, it just happens to be a leadership where critisizing gay adoption is taboo. Saying that gays should die is and should be tabboo, but somehow extremists have gone too far in the political correctness and gay rights thing and claim that homosexual couples should be allowed to make adoptions, and gradually becoming more and more accepting towards pedophilia, especially homosexual pedophilia, as pedophilia somehow throughout history has been a central element of homosexuality. If the leadership wouldn't be so over-PC and have this tabboo there would be statistics. Please show these statistics, or else it's a pretty good proof that there's a taboo against making such statistics, because such statistics would be in the interest of many. The vast majority don't want acceptance towards pedophiliacs and child molestors.

[AntiochusIII]

Legio, why do you hate freedom? :balloon2:

[Kralizec]

What he said.

Ditto.

[rory_20_uk]

Yeah, damn gays - I hate 'em all. Look - here's one case so it SHOWS they're all in it together, aren't they.

In fact, aren't paedophiles really gay as well? YEAH that sounds right - it must be true. I hate paedophiles and gay people, so they are the same.

In fact, if there weren't any gays at all we'd get rid of all this child related crime. Let's lock these animals up, eh? No, het's shoot them all. Better yet, let's just make it legal to kill them, and print all paediatricians' names in the paper and then the world will be a better place.

The fact that there's no proof shows that these poofs are connected in high places and it's all a conspiracy... :inquisitive:

Suddenly it's all so clear :laugh4:

~:smoking:

[Rodion Romanovich]

It's amazing how calling someone who doesn't claim the existence of any conspiracy a conspiracy theorist is being used as a way of argumenting in modern debate.

rory_20_uk your post clearly shows exactly what I'm talking about - how homosexuals adopting children is seen as a gay right and that being against it is not PC and considered to be the same as being against gay rights. Your post is just another example of the PC misconception and resulting taboo I've talked about in this entire thread.

I wonder what the next step will be. Sooner or later you'll find an explanation for why pedophilia should be allowed and that it would be oppression of rights to not allow it. Yeah wait - pedophilia is a form of sexuality, so we can't dislike someone based on it or remove any rights from them based on it. Sex is a right to everyone, to a pedophiliac too. So we must of course allow pedophiliacs to adopt children, to get insemination and own children, and putting them in jail is Medieval and backwards.

The homosexuals adopting children and the upcoming acceptance of child molestors and pedophiliacs is nothing else than left-extremism and neo-communism.

[Fragony]

I think the knights in the order of the purple star that want to adopt a child are a pretty selfish bunch. Why is it never enough?

[rory_20_uk]

It's amazing how calling someone who doesn't claim the existence of any conspiracy a conspiracy theorist is being used as a way of argumenting in modern debate.

rory_20_uk your post clearly shows exactly what I'm talking about - how homosexuals adopting children is seen as a gay right and that being against it is not PC and considered to be the same as being against gay rights. Your post is just another example of the PC misconception and resulting taboo I've talked about in this entire thread.

I wonder what the next step will be. Sooner or later you'll find an explanation for why pedophilia should be allowed and that it would be oppression of rights to not allow it. Yeah wait - pedophilia is a form of sexuality, so we can't dislike someone based on it or remove any rights from them based on it. Sex is a right to everyone, to a pedophiliac too. So we must of course allow pedophiliacs to adopt children, to get insemination and own children, and putting them in jail is Medieval and backwards.

The homosexuals adopting children and the upcoming acceptance of child molestors and pedophiliacs is nothing else than left-extremism and neo-communism.

This blinkered, biggoted intolerance which only uses facts to further ossify its position is nothing else than right-extremism and neo-nazism.

~:smoking:

[Fragony]

This blinkered, biggoted intolerance which only uses facts to further ossify its position is nothing else than right-extremism and neo-nazism.

~:smoking:

Well, look at us. 'Open' as we are towards homosexuality, we now have a political party that wants to legalise sex between adults and children older then 12. Of course all they want is 'spark a discussion'.

The homosexuals adopting children and the upcoming acceptance of child molestors and pedophiliacs is nothing else than left-extremism

I agree.

[rory_20_uk]

And you feel that in a democracy such things should be stopped before they are started? Erm, Russian / Chinese Democracy, perhaps?

Or is it only the "right" sort of person can discuss things, or on the "right" issues?

I think that defining consentual sex merely on a person's age is extremely outdated. There might be some 16 or even 18 year olds who are not as ready as some 14 year olds.

Puberty does start earlier due to better diet. So now we have an unfortunate situation where one's body and sex hormones are at a high level earlier than before.

I don't know what needs to be done. But I do know that having intelligent adults duscuss this - or the house of Representatives and the Senate failing that - is better than to try to ban it - and then ignore all the youngsters screwing each other. Then the 17 year old with the 15 year old goes to jail, whereas the 15 year old can be with a 13 year old. :inquisitive:

In a hospital where I studied as a student there was a problem with the above. The 16 year old had a 14 year old girlfriend, and had been put on the sex offenders register. He needed to go into hospital. He's under 18 and so is a child. Matters came to an, uh, head when she was cought sucking his penis on the paediactric ward behind the curtains.

Where do situations like that fit into your father fixed view on the world?

~:smoking:

[Lemur]

It's amazing how calling someone who doesn't claim the existence of any conspiracy a conspiracy theorist is being used as a way of argumenting in modern debate.

All statistics on the subject are silenced because of the extremist leadership that supports child molestation and homosexual adoption.
Sounds like an unfounded conspiracy theory to me.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. If your contention is that (1) homosexual adoptive parents are much more likely to be pedophiles than heterosexual adoptive parents, and (2) "extremist leadership" is suppressing the statistics that would prove this point, you've got some evidence to provide.

I don't think that's unreasonable.

[DemonArchangel]

The first sign of a crackpot conspiracy theory is when the "the evidence" is hidden/lost/destroyed by some all-powerful "THEY" who have various nefarious designs. There is evidence! No, really! We just can't ever see it because "THEY" are keeping it from us.

(Cue scary music, preferably made on a theremin)

I'm sorry, Legio, but this is all just entirely too cliché for so early in the morning, my time. :laugh4:


Seconded, this does indeed make for a good laugh with my morning coffee. Legio, don't you have more important things to do?

[Fragony]

Not everything should be discussed, as some things are just immoral. Trying to 'spark a discussion' about an adult having sex with a 12 year old is a sign for me that it has gone too far allready.

[Aenlic]

Ah, yes, but how about when it's a blonde woman teacher having sex with a 12-year old male student who gets a relatively light sentence, then violates her probation when she does get out by getting impregnated by the now 16-year old and gets another light sentence because she's pregnant, upon her second release she marries the now 20-year old and goes on the talk show circuit, including Larry King, explaining all about how it was love not child rape.

[Fragony]

It's not about individual cases, it is about the need some people feel to relativate everything. For me, I kinda want to spark a discussion about slowly torturing dolphins to death, let's see how they like that.

[Spetulhu]

All statistics on the subject are silenced because of the extremist leadership that supports child molestation and homosexual adoption.


Bush, you damn liberal :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:


Are you saying that Bush has allowed the collecting of such statistics? If so, please show them. From what I've heard Bush hasn't allowed such statistics to be collected.

No statistics, ergo Bush is one of the extremist leadership who doesn't want you to see these statistics. Wouldn't it be fun if he came out of the closet during his next State of the Union speech? :2thumbsup:

[Lemur]

I kinda want to spark a discussion about slowly torturing dolphins to death, let's see how they like that.
You'll need to start a new thread on that, I'm afraid. Dolphin torture is a bit OT from this. But by all means, let the cetacean crucifixion chat commence!

[DemonArchangel]

Ah, yes, but how about when it's a blonde woman teacher having sex with a 12-year old male student who gets a relatively light sentence, then violates her probation when she does get out by getting impregnated by the now 16-year old and gets another light sentence because she's pregnant, upon her second release she marries the now 20-year old and goes on the talk show circuit, including Larry King, explaining all about how it was love not child rape.

Well, if i was friends with that 12 year old, I'd be like:
"Dude... you are such a ****ing pimp!"

[Reenk Roink]

There was a thread a while back on this subject:

"Can I get a gay couple here?"

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=59585

[rory_20_uk]

Not everything should be discussed, as some things are just immoral. Trying to 'spark a discussion' about an adult having sex with a 12 year old is a sign for me that it has gone too far allready.

I utterly disagree. Who decides what is too immoral? If some things are never talked about, things can never be changed. There is no set of things that are universally immoral, and so discussion is a method of ascertaining what is and is not permitted in the constantly changing society.


~:smoking:

[Fragony]

I utterly disagree. Who decides what is too immoral? If some things are never talked about, things can never be changed. There is no set of things that are universally immoral, and so discussion is a method of ascertaining what is and is not permitted in the constantly changing society.


See? LegioXXXUlpiaVictrix spoke about upcomming acceptance of child molestors. Well, there we have it. Step 1 discussion, Step 2 dialogue, step 3 acceptance. He gets a lot of laughter in this thread, but in the end his point proves itselve.

[Lemur]

Step 1 discussion, Step 2 dialogue, step 3 acceptance.
So anything that is discussed will become accepted? If I begin a discussion on whether or not it's a good idea to pour a full bottle of bleach on your privates, this will become an acceptable practice? Even if everybody laughs at the idea and says it's insane?

Please tell me you're kidding.

[rory_20_uk]

See? LegioXXXUlpiaVictrix spoke about upcomming acceptance of child molestors. Well, there we have it. Step 1 discussion, Step 2 dialogue, step 3 acceptance. He gets a lot of laughter in this thread, but in the end his point proves itselve.

Maybe a leeetle bit of a soundbite piece there? Lacking anything substantive. Who said that paedophiles are accepted? Hell, as I put in my mock post paediatricians have been forced to flee their houses due to mob rule.

~:smoking:

[Fragony]

So anything that is discussed will become accepted? If I begin a discussion on whether or not it's a good idea to pour a full bottle of bleach on your privates, this will become an acceptable practice? Even if everybody laughs at the idea and says it's insane?

Please tell me you're kidding.

Discussion doesn't have to lead to acceptance, but the fact that the morality of an adult having sex with 12 year old has to be discussed in the first means we are a bit lost. Everyone but the insane knows it's wrong, so what is there to talk about?

[Lemur]

I disagree with you on two fronts. (1) Sometimes the obvious does need to be discussed, because of the vastness and variability of human imagination. Who was the saint who said "there is no horror I have not committed in my mind"? And (2) sex with people who have reached or passed puberty is not obviously wrong. We can all agree that it's wrong from a societal point of view, in that we don't want children making such serious decisions before a certain age (say 16-18), but it's not biologically unnatural in the same way that sex with a pre-pubescent child is.

Something can be biologically natural and still wrong. Numerous examples spring to mind. Discussion is warranted, sez the Lemur.

[rory_20_uk]

Discussion doesn't have to lead to acceptance, but the fact that the morality of an adult having sex with 12 year old has to be discussed in the first means we are a bit lost. Everyone but the insane knows it's wrong, so what is there to talk about?

To use as a premise those that disagree are insane doesn't bode well for an argument.

Don't put your morals on society. It's supposed to be a democracy. I personally agree with you. That doesn't mean I think everyone who has a different opinion should be sectioned.

~:smoking:

[Fragony]

I disagree with you on two fronts. (1) Sometimes the obvious does need to be discussed, because of the vastness and variability of human imagination. Who was the saint who said "there is no horror I have not committed in my mind"? And (2) sex with people who have reached or passed puberty is not obviously wrong. We can all agree that it's wrong from a societal point of view, in that we don't want children making such serious decisions before a certain age (say 16-18), but it's not biologically unnatural in the same way that sex with a pre-pubescent child is.

Something can be biologically natural and still wrong. Numerous examples spring to mind. Discussion is warranted, sez the Lemur.

Not talking about kids fooling around, I am talking about things like this;

http://www.geenstijl.nl/mt/archieven/images/pedofilmpje.gif

He wants to 'talk' about having sex with 12 year olds, still the same to you?

[Lemur]

I'm not sure I understand your point. And why are you posting doc_bean's picture here?

Are there creepy pedophiles in this world? Yes, of course. Should they be dealt with severely? Yes, of course. Does anybody disagree on this point? Only NAMBLA, and they haven't sent a representative to this board, strangely enough.

The original topic of this thread was about whether or not homosexuals are more likely than heterosexuals to molest adopted children. No evidence has been put forward, not even a link to a wacko web site. Nothing, nada.

Okay, you've got a creepy picture of a (presumedly) creepy pedophile. What have your proved? Please explain.

[rory_20_uk]

How do you legally divide the two?
And surely you're not descriminating on the age gap are you? It's alright for a 15 year old to be with a 12 year old, but not a 20 year old? How do you defend such laws?

And OK hes talking. Genrally speech is allowed in democracies. Or only on topics that are approved of?

~:smoking:

[Fragony]

The original topic of this thread was about whether or not homosexuals are more likely than heterosexuals to molest adopted children. No evidence has been put forward, not even a link to a wacko web site. Nothing, nada.


Ya I kinda hijacked the thread sorry for that. My point is, let's take a popular example, terrorism. If you talk to terrorists you acknowledge them as a discussion partner. Same with (active) pedophiles, if you are willing to listen to their filth you are giving a finger, and they will take the hand.

[Rodion Romanovich]

How do you legally divide the two?
And surely you're not descriminating on the age gap are you? It's alright for a 15 year old to be with a 12 year old, but not a 20 year old? How do you defend such laws?

And OK hes talking. Genrally speech is allowed in democracies. Or only on topics that are approved of?

~:smoking:

I think Fragony isn't talking about laws against free speech, but about the responsibility that comes with free speech. Just because you can speak in favor of murder and child molesting it doesn't mean you should do so. You can kill anyone you want if you carry out the plan before the police catches you, but that doesn't mean you should do it, and you can molest a child if you do it before the police catches you, but that doesn't mean you should do it etc.

And I agree with Fragony, it's quite interesting to see how my point is proven by the very posters who are disagreeing with my view. As predicted, the gap between allowing homosexuals adopting and accepting pedophilia and child molesting is very small, and many of those who have accepted homosexual adoption are now seriously discussing removal of laws against pedophilia and child molesting. Utterly disturbing!

[Lemur]

As predicted, the gap between allowing homosexuals adopting and accepting pedophilia and child molesting is very small, and many of those who have accepted homosexual adoption are now seriously discussing removal of laws against pedophilia and child molesting. Utterly disturbing!
Who is suggesting that the laws against pedophilia and child molesting should be taken off the books? For crying out loud, start slinging some specifics! Discussing this topic with you is like boxing a cloud ...

[rory_20_uk]

I think Fragony isn't talking about laws against free speech, but about the responsibility that comes with free speech. Just because you can speak in favor of murder and child molesting it doesn't mean you should do so. You can kill anyone you want if you carry out the plan before the police catches you, but that doesn't mean you should do it, and you can molest a child if you do it before the police catches you, but that doesn't mean you should do it etc.

And I agree with Fragony, it's quite interesting to see how my point is proven by the very posters who are disagreeing with my view. As predicted, the gap between allowing homosexuals adopting and accepting pedophilia and child molesting is very small, and many of those who have accepted homosexual adoption are now seriously discussing removal of laws against pedophilia and child molesting. Utterly disturbing!

Your point remains patently unproved. You've not given any evidence in the slightest for your initial asertation. Indeed it seems to have been ignored due to its idiocy and then lack of evidence.

That you have linked these two items shows your bias. And you seem to think laws are bieng eroded. Examples please.

What I find disturbing is how text can be read and then passed through the "bigot" node of the brain to ensure that everything confirms the person's worst fears.

~:smoking:

[Rodion Romanovich]

Your point remains patently unproved. You've not given any evidence in the slightest for your initial asertation. Indeed it seems to have been ignored due to its idiocy and then lack of evidence.

That you have linked these two items shows your bias. And you seem to think laws are bieng eroded. Examples please.

What I find disturbing is how text can be read and then passed through the "bigot" node of the brain to ensure that everything confirms the person's worst fears.

~:smoking:

It's all in your posts above, suggesting that having sex with 12 years olds should be illegal "if the 12 year old is very developed". That's just the first step towards embracing child molesting.

[Lemur]

It's all in your posts above, suggesting that having sex with 12 years olds should be illegal "if the 12 year old is very developed". That's just the first step towards embracing child molesting.
Legio, I just read through every post Rory has made in this thread. There's not one place where he advocates repeal of child molestation laws. The closest he comes is this:

"I don't know what needs to be done. But I do know that having intelligent adults duscuss this - or the house of Representatives and the Senate failing that - is better than to try to ban it - and then ignore all the youngsters screwing each other."

He was talking about teens having sex with teens, a phenomenon which has existed since the dawn of humanity. Surely that's not what you're referring to?

I'm sorry to sound repetitive, but specifics, please. If you're going to accuse someone of saying someting, please use the quote feature. If you're going to declare that something has been written up somewhere, please link to it. These are not unreasonable requests.

[Fragony]

Your point remains patently unproved. You've not given any evidence in the slightest for your initial asertation. Indeed it seems to have been ignored due to its idiocy and then lack of evidence.

Ah, now I remember how I got here, it's about the taboo killing spree that is currently going on. One thing may lead to the other not because of the gay couple that wants to adopt a child, but because it opens the debate for a whole lot more. Down with everything, and this is where it gotten us.

http://www.geenstijl.nl/mt/archieven/images/pedofilmpje.gif

[Mithras]

I take it that nobody here has heard of the slippery slope logical fallacy here?

[Lemur]

That's a very slippery slope (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope#The_slippery_slope_as_fallacy) you're standing on ...

[edit]

I see Mithras beat me to the punch. Dang!

[doc_bean]

I'm not sure I understand your point. And why are you posting doc_bean's picture here?



WTF ????

People have been killed for lesser insults... :furious3

EDIT: no this is not a death threat, just wtf, what did I do to suddenly be thought off as being the leader of the European NAMBLA ?

[Lemur]

Okay, I might as well be honest -- it's my picture. I was just trying to pawn it off on Doc_bean.

[edit]

I meant it as a joke, doc, but it obviously misfired.

[Fragony]

WTF ????

People have been killed for lesser insults... :furious3

EDIT: no this is not a death threat, just wtf, what did I do to suddenly be thought off as being the leader of the European NAMBLA ?

Might be you questioning OUR sexuality ~;)

(I like pony's)

[doc_bean]

Might be you questioning OUR sexuality ~;)



I really should change that title :laugh4:

[Mithras]

That's a very slippery slope (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope#The_slippery_slope_as_fallacy) you're standing on ...

[edit]

I see Mithras beat me to the punch. Dang!

To be honest Legio already set the standard for the arguement with his "I think queers are peadophiles and I don't have to back this up becouse of a evil liberal conspiricy"

(I hope someone gets this)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbcthree/imagedump/10173.jpg


"By the divine authority of some guy I met down the pub who knew for certain, the daily mail and in the holy name of mass hysteria and moral panics I declare all gays PEADOPHILES!!!!!!!!!"

[doc_bean]

this has a good point about the subject and the so-called liberal bias in the media... (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oSpM3fcFGR0&search=gaywatch)

[Rodion Romanovich]

I'm sorry to sound repetitive, but specifics, please. If you're going to accuse someone of saying someting, please use the quote feature. If you're going to declare that something has been written up somewhere, please link to it. These are not unreasonable requests.

Here you go:


sex with people who have reached or passed puberty is not obviously wrong




I think that defining consentual sex merely on a person's age is extremely outdated. There might be some 16 or even 18 year olds who are not as ready as some 14 year olds.

the first steps towards embracing pedophilia. It's not the physical maturity that's the problem with underage sex, it's the mental immaturity and inability to make own decisions and say no to suggestions from others. A 12 year old is easier to persuade and doesn't dare to call the police if sexually abused. There's a good reason why we don't tolerate sex with underage people.

[Lemur]

the first steps towards embracing pedophilia
Quote out of context much?

And (2) sex with people who have reached or passed puberty is not obviously wrong. We can all agree that it's wrong from a societal point of view, in that we don't want children making such serious decisions before a certain age (say 16-18), but it's not biologically unnatural in the same way that sex with a pre-pubescent child is.

Something can be biologically natural and still wrong. Numerous examples spring to mind. Discussion is warranted, sez the Lemur.

[Rodion Romanovich]

Quote out of context much?
As far as I can see the extra added lines don't change the meaning of the quote in any way relevant to the discussion

[Lemur]

The point I was making was that something can be biologically natural and still wrong. If all you get from that is that I think children should be schtupped, then you're looking at this discussion with molestor-colored glasses.

None of this fra-de-la is building up your case for your initial post, BTW.

[rory_20_uk]

You appear to see it as paedophilia. It's that "bigot" node, I tell ya.

You could also argue that the age should be increased to 18 - as some may not be ready before then.

Mental immaturity. *Sigh* My whole point. Some 14 year olds are mentally mature. Some 18 year olds aren't.

Gillick competence (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gillick_competence)

A better way to judge. I said that before. You obviously ignored it (bigot node realised it was against your already held view).

"Underage". A term that has no age in it. Here 18 year olds drink. In the USA it's "underage".

There's no set age!!! (http://www.ageofconsent.com/ageofconsent.htm)

Look at the variation. Of course you are right, and everyone else is wrong.

May I suggest you might think why your opinion outweighs the rest of the world?

~:smoking:

[solypsist]

it's all clinton's fault.

[Rodion Romanovich]

You appear to see it as paedophilia. It's that "bigot" node, I tell ya.

You could also argue that the age should be increased to 18 - as some may not be ready before then.

Mental immaturity. *Sigh* My whole point. Some 14 year olds are mentally mature. Some 18 year olds aren't.

Gillick competence (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gillick_competence)

A better way to judge. I said that before. You obviously ignored it (bigot node realised it was against your already held view).

"Underage". A term that has no age in it. Here 18 year olds drink. In the USA it's "underage".

There's no set age!!! (http://www.ageofconsent.com/ageofconsent.htm)

Look at the variation. Of course you are right, and everyone else is wrong.

May I suggest you might think why your opinion outweighs the rest of the world?

~:smoking:

I'm a bit curious about how the alternative ways of measuring the child's consent would work in practise. Just look at how today people are starting to make excuses for breaking the age of consent laws. A male adult rapes a girl, the girl is 12 years old but physically well-developed, the man only gets sentence for rape and not statuatory rape because he could convince the court. How many such incidents haven't we had already? An age is the only measurable way strict enough to be able to make laws from. Until you have an alternative you can't really call me insane for wanting to keep the age of consent law. It's not perfect but as long as nothing better that would work from a legal, democratic, moral and justice point of view is found then it's pretty contra-productive to critisize support for keeping this alternative in the meantime. If you have better ideas or want to raise a discussion of it I'm all ears but until you present something that works I'm afraid I have to stick to the view held by most others - that there must be an age of consent to avoid pedophilia and child molesting.