Pedophilia - The Next Taboo To Fall?

[Yttrium]

I knew more than a decade ago that the U.S. would allow gay marriage eventually. During my lifetime, there has been a strong social trend of improving tolerance toward homosexuals. With this trend, it was only a matter of time before members of the same sex were allowed to legally marry each other across the country.

I haven't seen that kind of trend for pedophilia. In fact, I've seen the opposite. Public anger toward pedophilia has only increased over the course of my life, as have laws against pedophilia. Those convicted of statutory rape can now get stiff prison sentences, and their names added to a public sex crimes list. (I invite others to show how I might be wrong about this trend.) A few voices promoting tolerance of pedophilia do not make a trend, especially since we had such voices when I was young, and probably more of them.

So I don't expect to see the pedophilia taboo to fall.

[Starlight]

There are animals that eat their young. Why would it be wrong for humans to kill and eat their young from a naturalistic perspective?

I think the term "naturalistic" is confusing you, and you're confusing "copying animals" which nobody at all is advocating, with "philosophical reasoning done without reference to god(s)". The two things are totally different and have no overlap, and in any discussion of morality the terms "natural principles" or "naturalistic morality" refers to the latter and not the former.

[ke7ejx]

• Edited by a Moderator • The fact that it is impossible for a homosexual couple to reproduce, and the fact that homosexuals have a host of mental and physical health issues and shortened lifespans are pretty darn good scientific arguments against homosexuality.

Not being able to reproduce is not in any way "good" evidence against homosexuality any more than it would for 2 infertile people not to have sex. Most heterosexual sex is not for the goal of reproduction. So this is utter nonsense. No one would argue "two infertile people cannot reproduce, therefore that is good scientific evidence infertile people having sex is wrong." Please sir, have higher intellectual standards for your views.

The mental issues homosexuals face is due in large part to them being demonized by conservatives like you. In cultures where homosexuality is accepted these mental health issues decrease. In other words, your very attitude towards homosexuality causes the mental health issues that you claim are "good" scientific reasons not to be homosexual. That would be like me saying that the depression I cause Christians to have by constantly making fun of them and their religion is a "good" scientific reason not to be a Christian. And as far as physical health issues, many of them only effect gay men, not women, showing how homosexuality simpliciter is not the issue. It has to do with how particular people behave about their homosexuality, all of which can be changed or improved with safe sex measures and people having monogamous partners - you know, like in a marriage.



That makes no sense. You'd have to show how "Consent, as it is currently understood by society" is not an objective moral standard, and offer me an objective moral standard regarding consent. Second, I never said you can't try to make a moral argument against gay marriage. Go ahead. You can try, but you won't be successful. So there is no hypocrisy on my part.




Christians redefine things all the time. "Marriage" used to involve older men and underage girls. Not popular now. "Marriage" used to involve one man and many women. Not popular now. The truth is, you don't get to define marriage and claim your definition is the only one. You're the one being hypocritical here.

Moderated By: ke7ejx

Inappropriate name change. You know better!

***If you wish to take issue with this notice DO NOT do so in this thread.***
Contact the forum moderator or an administrator in Private Message or email instead. If you feel you must publicly complain or whine, please take it to the Padded Room unless told otherwise.

[LeaC]

I knew more than a decade ago that the U.S. would allow gay marriage eventually. During my lifetime, there has been a strong social trend of improving tolerance toward homosexuals. With this trend, it was only a matter of time before members of the same sex were allowed to legally marry each other across the country.

I haven't seen that kind of trend for pedophilia. In fact, I've seen the opposite. Public anger toward pedophilia has only increased over the course of my life, as have laws against pedophilia. Those convicted of statutory rape can now get stiff prison sentences, and their names added to a public sex crimes list. (I invite others to show how I might be wrong about this trend.) A few voices promoting tolerance of pedophilia do not make a trend, especially since we had such voices when I was young, and probably more of them.

So I don't expect to see the pedophilia taboo to fall.

I don't believe this is entirely accurate. I think that pedophiles and advocates for them are testing out new methods of approaching the problem of public disgust. More young people on social media sites are of the belief that 'pedophilia' is a sexual orientation than people did in the past. That's a worrying trend. I agree that public anger toward sex with children remains strong, but there are definitely those who are pushing the boundaries by making casual sex/pornography and the notion of underage sexuality more favorable. If you can convince people that a 'lack of sex' is a human rights issue, and that pedophiles are suffering from it, just like the same social stigma associated with homosexuality, you effectively turn pedophilia into a social justice cause. And that's what some people are attempting to do, increasingly.

Now, I don't believe they'll have the same success as the homosexual crowd, but at the very least, they'll convince those on the left to make passionate arguments in favor of giving them access to child porn or willing child prostitutes. Consent and leftist morality is all about choice, after all, and why would we deny people under the age of 18 the right to choose their gainful employment?*

*Please note, I do not actually agree with this idea.

[rogue06]

The human heart is more deceitful than it is anything else. And it is desperately wicked.

It does seem that we can rationalize any behavior so long as that we really want to do it.

[rogue06]

Must be a right wing thing. I've never seen them related other than on sites like this. But then that's why I visit them, it's fascinating.

Really? I find it hard to believe that the only time you find deviant sexual behavior linked together is on "right wing" sites unless you automatically class anyone who associates them as be right wing.

[Cow Poke]

Must be a right wing thing. I've never seen them related other than on sites like this. But then that's why I visit them, it's fascinating.

In the early days, the gay movement in the US was definitely linked with NAMBLA, but the proponents of the gay movement knew that they'd never be accepted unless they distanced themselves from NAMBLA.

[Catholicity]

In the early days, the gay movement in the US was definitely linked with NAMBLA, but the proponents of the gay movement knew that they'd never be accepted unless they distanced themselves from NAMBLA.

I'm curious if that was every gay person or only a certain percentage of gay men. I hadn't heard that before. Now what I do know is that the original Psychiatrists who promoted bodily change for transgenders were highly and strongly linked to pedophiles that started the NAMBLA movement and they were also linked with other psychiatrists that were accused of molesting minors, who were (shock shock) the ones that peer reviewed and approved of their papers put forward and approved of their so called research, most notably the case of David Reimer. (who later commited suicide)

[rogue06]

I'm curious if that was every gay person or only a certain percentage of gay men.

Seriously?

[Catholicity]

Seriously?

Its the first time I've ever heard it. And I have not seen any papers written on it. I only know about the transgender movements association with pedophilia. The only thing I remember from extensively studying psychology was the association of transgender with pedophilia and homosexuality typically being a reason (even through the sexual revolution) for forced therapy and lock up in a mental institution for months and months.

[Catholicity]

Ok so I found some information, And it looks like NAMBLA was a member of the IGLA for one year until they were expelled by the IGLA. I know Wikipedia isn't the greatest source but here's what it says:
Apparently most gay organizations wanted nothing to do with Nambla at all?

[LeaC]

Ok so I found some information, And it looks like NAMBLA was a member of the IGLA for one year until they were expelled by the IGLA. I know Wikipedia isn't the greatest source but here's what it says:

Apparently most gay organizations wanted nothing to do with Nambla at all?

It would be hard to gain acceptance while being linked to NAMBLA. Beyond acceptance, though, I don't find it hard to imagine that most gay individuals do have an issue with pedophilia(same as any other reasonable individual). They tended to avoid activities dealing directly with young children, to avoid that connection. Transgender activists do far more advocacy in schools and with children, pushing the idea that children "know" their gender identity at 2 or 3 years old in a way that homosexual organizations formerly didn't attempt. It's an interesting and disturbing development, and I see signs of pedophilic interest in much of the language and activism.

[JimL]

It would not surprise me, would it surprise you?

I don't see any thing wrong in principle with 2 consenting people having sexual relations so long as they are mature enough mentally to make those decisions. But how can it be known if that is the case? It can't be, so we set a specific legal age limit. Certainly everyone isn't the same, some 15 year olds are more mature than some 18 year olds so what it comes down to, in my opinion, is naught but legal matter.

[rogue06]

Ok so I found some information, And it looks like NAMBLA was a member of the IGLA for one year until they were expelled by the IGLA. I know Wikipedia isn't the greatest source but here's what it says:

Apparently most gay organizations wanted nothing to do with Nambla at all?

It's roots are much deeper. From Journal of Homosexuality in 1991:

Source: Man/Boy Love and the American Gay Movement

Abstract

The issue of man/boy love has intersected the gay movement since the late nineteenth century, with the rise of the first gay rights movement in Germany. In the United States, as the gay movement has retreated from its vision of sexual freedom for all in favor of integration into existing social and political structures, it has sought to marginalize cross-generational love as a "non-gay" issue. The two movements continue to overlap, amid signs of mutual support as well as tension - a state of affairs that also characterizes their interrelationship in other countries. This article offers an overview and analysis of that interrelationship in the United States since the Stonewall Riots in New York City in June 1969, which marked the beginning of a reinvigorated struggle for gay liberation.

© Copyright Original Source

And from your source:

[Cow Poke]

I don't see any thing wrong in principle with 2 consenting people having sexual relations so long as they are mature enough mentally to make those decisions. But how can it be known if that is the case? It can't be, so we set a specific legal age limit. Certainly everyone isn't the same, some 15 year olds are more mature than some 18 year olds so what it comes down to, in my opinion, is naught but legal matter.

Naturally, I believe those 'sexual relations' should be inside marriage, but I had a rare opportunity to amen a post by Jimmy.

(No, Rogue, I was NOT trying to report it. )