With all due respect... this is the sort of thing that both parties have done... taking words out of context... applying an argument in one event to an argument in another...

The California law does not apply to pedophiles... and the Congresswoman is pushing for a similar federal law... but not all states define pedophelia asNOT being a sexual orientation. According to many psychologists, it IS a sexual orientation. I can't imagine a thinking person wouldn't believe that MANY pedophiles believe they have a different sexual orientation rather than a criminal predatory sickness.

It IS true that those who advanced the position in a previous debate are likely to advance the argument in the next debate... and they will use the decisions of one argument as support another. Sometimes they just aren't good arguments. I mean, there is no "good" way to advance an argument about pedophelia, but people do it. Turning pedophelia into a sexual orientation is not nearly the stretch that many supporters of gay rights want to act like it is when poo-pooing the "slippery slope" argument... given that support for gay rights as "consenting adults exercising their free will" is a better argument and doesn't in any way that I can see negate their argument to "equal protection"... I think they should go that way, as opposed to the "sexual freedom" route... because it opens the door to OTHER sexual freedoms, like pedophelia, which "consenting adults" doesn't.

The problem with these arguments isn't that Republicans see ways to take the argument to extremes not supported by the left (no different than the "taking money from seniors" that the left does, or war for oil or whatever)... but that the left doesn't see that their same arguments can be used in ways like these to support things I'd like to THINK they don't support. the left seems to just believe that "nobody would let that happen"... even though there are plenty of examples of just that happening.

(04-03-2013 03:36 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  With all due respect... this is the sort of thing that both parties have done... taking words out of context... applying an argument in one event to an argument in another...

I'm just saying the wheel is in motion. You disagree?

F*ck, Tom, I deleted your post trying to quote it.

(04-03-2013 03:19 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(04-03-2013 03:17 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  One of the problems bound to arise is the criminal behavior part. Fanticizing about little kids kids is one thing, but it's a criminal offense to act on it. Legitimizing pedophilia as sexual orientation could probably justify that behavior in the minds of some people.

Only in Cailfornia would this even be remotely considered.

*today* smn, Only in California today.

And the CA bill, which I linked above, clearly states that it only applies to Gay, Lesbian and Bisexuals, there is no ambiguous language in it whatsoever that can be construed to apply to pedophiles, which again can also be man on girl or woman on boy. And that bill has also been blocked by a judge from being enforced on another part of it.

You're being distracted and used by Rebel's story author who cited a quote from three years earlier, a quote made on an entirely other matter.

From Tom:

Quote:Redwingtom Wrote: Rebel, you're a complete fraud. Would someone please tell Rebel. He certainly isn't going to take it from me.

Unbelievable.

The articled flat out contains false information. Jeez, please tell me you can see that? Please?


False information? Was a bill not proposed? Did Alcee Hastings and the rest of the Dim rats not defeat an amendment specifying that pedophilia is not covered as an orientation? It doesn't matter if they were different bills. These type of things always take a multifaceted approach.

I see the writing on the wall, Tom. You have to wait until it's drawn out in a pretty picture for you. This is how these moonbat Prog movements start.


OMFG you've lost it. And shame on the rest of you for not calling him out. You don't practice what you preach, none of you.

But you're right Rebel...Hastings made his quote in 2009 clearly thinking of the CA bill which would come about in 2012 and then the resolution which would not even make it out of committee. 03-yawn

And here is the actual quote from Hastings:

Quote:“This bill addresses our resolve to end violence based on prejudice and to guarantee that all Americans regardless of race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity or disability or all of these ‘philias’ and fetishes and ‘isms’ that were put forward need not live in fear because of who they are. I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this rule,”


The quote was during debate over an amendment to H.R. 2647, the National Defense Authorization Act in 2009.

Now why would the author of your article lie to you and claim it was in reference to the Speier resolution?

Quote:Quote:“This bill addresses our resolve to end violence based on prejudice and to guarantee that all Americans regardless of race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity or disability or all of these ‘philias’ and fetishes and ‘isms’ that were put forward need not live in fear because of who they are. I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this rule,”

And you don't see a problem with this?

(04-03-2013 03:40 PM)Rebel Wrote:  

(04-03-2013 03:36 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  With all due respect... this is the sort of thing that both parties have done... taking words out of context... applying an argument in one event to an argument in another...

I'm just saying the wheel is in motion. You disagree?

In all honesty, I'd say there are fringe, fanatical groups on both side that are trying to move their wheels on something or another. But this is beyond loon-type stuff, this is essentially advocating criminal behavior of a hideous nature. I'm also guessing the libs know they have just under 4 years to accomplish whatever they might want so they're throwing everything against the wall and seeing what sticks.

I also believe that if it became a major news story that some state wanted to some how legitimize pedophilia it would kill their tourism business and attract vigilantes.

What you're missing Rebel is that a pedophile, regardless of whether it is a sexual orientation or not, is still not allowed to perform acts. They're against the law and always will be.

Please tell me you are fairly confident this will never change.

(04-03-2013 03:48 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  What you're missing Rebel is that a pedophile, regardless of whether it is a sexual orientation or not, is still not allowed to perform acts. They're against the law and always will be.

So were gays at one point.

All the legislators would have to do is change the age of the minor.

(04-03-2013 03:51 PM)Rebel Wrote:  All the legislators would have to do is change the age of the minor.

In certain states I see that as very real concern.

(04-03-2013 03:40 PM)Rebel Wrote:  

(04-03-2013 03:36 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  With all due respect... this is the sort of thing that both parties have done... taking words out of context... applying an argument in one event to an argument in another...

I'm just saying the wheel is in motion. You disagree?

Not at all. I agree. I'm merely supporting that the article uses hyperbolic language to accentuate a point that it really wouldn't need to, if we could ALL be honest with each other. See more on this later

(04-03-2013 03:43 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(04-03-2013 03:19 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(04-03-2013 03:17 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  One of the problems bound to arise is the criminal behavior part. Fanticizing about little kids kids is one thing, but it's a criminal offense to act on it. Legitimizing pedophilia as sexual orientation could probably justify that behavior in the minds of some people.

Only in Cailfornia would this even be remotely considered.

*today* smn, Only in California today.

And the CA bill, which I linked above, clearly states that it only applies to Gay, Lesbian and Bisexuals, there is no ambiguous language in it whatsoever that can be construed to apply to pedophiles, which again can also be man on girl or woman on boy. And that bill has also been blocked by a judge from being enforced on another part of it.

You're being distracted and used by Rebel's story author who cited a quote from three years earlier, a quote made on an entirely other matter.

The California bill isn't the problem. the Federal version is. Because all states don't have the same definition as California on "sexual orientation", that must be clarified. The California bill, if applied to ALL states, WOULD allow pedophelia to go "untreated".

(04-03-2013 03:50 PM)Rebel Wrote:  

(04-03-2013 03:48 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  What you're missing Rebel is that a pedophile, regardless of whether it is a sexual orientation or not, is still not allowed to perform acts. They're against the law and always will be.

So were gays at one point.

Exactly. "always" is a long time. There are NUMEROUS times in human history where pedophelia was accepted... and in many countries today, still is... depending on how you define pedophelia.

(04-03-2013 03:57 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  

(04-03-2013 03:51 PM)Rebel Wrote:  All the legislators would have to do is change the age of the minor.

In certain states I see that as very real concern.

Yep... especially in that the "age of consent" in some countries is already "officially" as low as 12. SOme don't HAVE one. Some US states as young as 16, Canada is 16 (though it was 14 until 2008) and Latin America is often 15. The Carribean is generally 16. China is 14 and Spain is 13. Angola is 12. I can't even SUGGEST you go to a junior high and "look" at what a typical 12-14yr old is without feeling dirty. I don't care if you're an 18yr old nerd. A 12yr old is a child.

It's a bit like the old joke...
would you sleep with me for $100mm?
Sure.
Okay, how about $1?
What kind of girl do you think I am?
We've established that... now we're merley haggling over the price.

Once they establish that they can't be "punished" for their thoughts, all they have to do is argue over what is "legal" to act upon.

Making "civil rights laws" should ALWAYS consider the unthinkable extreme of their actions... because once you give civil rights, it is very difficult to take them away again. See guns/abortion etc etc

Boner, please quote the exact text in the CA bill that applies to pedophiles. I linked it in Post #11 above.

And you are aware that the CA bill has been stopped by a judge aren't you?

And you are aware that the government bill, also with zero application to pedophiles, didn't even make it out of committee aren't you?

And you are also aware that the original story uses a quote from a congressmen about an entirely different bill made years before but that the author claims it was about congressional debate on this bill that never take place aren't you?

(04-04-2013 08:30 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Boner, please quote the exact text in the CA bill that applies to pedophiles. I linked it in Post #11 above.

And you are aware that the CA bill has been stopped by a judge aren't you?

And you are aware that the government bill, also with zero application to pedophiles, didn't even make it out of committee aren't you?

And you are also aware that the original story uses a quote from a congressmen about an entirely different bill made years before but that the author claims it was about congressional debate on this bill that never take place aren't you?

The california bill doesn't have to mention pedophiles, because OTHER laws define "sexual orientation". In California, "sexual orientation" does not include pedophelia. In other states, it does. The reason should be obvious. I don't understand how else to make this clear to you. SOME states still lump pedophelia in with gay as a sexual orientation... in some cases out of outdated ingorance, and in others in an attempt to stop one, by associating it with the other. MANY psychiatric groups HAVE identified pedophelia as a sexual orientation... thus it isn't merely "hate groups" that do this.

The fact that a judge blocked the bill doesn't mean it was because of pedophelia... meaning they can change something meaningless to THIS topic and still pass it... or that it didn't pass and wasn't heralded across the country as a "solution". Even you here, I'm sure feeling reasonable in your opinions, would accept that pedophelia should not be associated with being gay or transgendered in terms of something we SHOULDN"T discourage, would you? Do you deny that groups like NAMBLA and others would prefer that their "affliction" be viewed more like being gay as opposed to being a rapist, right? So while certainly hyperbolic, the important facts are correct, and this is something that needs to be corrected before anything meaningful can go forward. While the right may be reacting too much, the left isn't reacting enough.

To your last point... I very clearly stated in my reply to Rebel that words are being taken out of context. Your ignoring my comment and coming back with this "you are aware" pettiness is merely more of the same. Your opinion that "this bill will never happen" is lunacy. I am pretty confident that the gay and transgendered don't like having their sexual orientation being dealt with as something that must be "cured"... and that is what these bills try and address. I don't believe for a second that the efforts and opinions represented by this bill will continue, and get even stronger. We must be careful in "solving" issues like this that we don't bury our heads in the sand as to what doors we may be opening. You (and it seems to be very common of the left) seem to be so gung-ho on the simple answer that you don't seem to care about the more complex problems the seemingly simple solutions create... oh that will never happen... just don't list pedophelia... It's not that simple. At one point, blacks and women weren't mentioned in our Constitution. They weren't excluded... they weren't mentioned at all. Years later, we can't imagine them NOT being included... but there it is. Society changes... even on things like the age of consent. Canada, up until 2008 set the age of consent at 14. This is not some third world under-developed country... but Canada. Spain is STILL 13. In other words, sex between a 50yr old and a 13 yr old in Spain isn't necessarily a crime. In 2008, that 50yr old could cross the border and have sex with a 14yr old. How does that make you feel? Can you imagine that? Maybe it's just me... but I don't believe things can NEVER happen. **** happens every day that shocks the hell out of me

(04-03-2013 05:33 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(04-03-2013 03:43 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(04-03-2013 03:19 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(04-03-2013 03:17 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  One of the problems bound to arise is the criminal behavior part. Fanticizing about little kids kids is one thing, but it's a criminal offense to act on it. Legitimizing pedophilia as sexual orientation could probably justify that behavior in the minds of some people.

Only in Cailfornia would this even be remotely considered.

*today* smn, Only in California today.

And the CA bill, which I linked above, clearly states that it only applies to Gay, Lesbian and Bisexuals, there is no ambiguous language in it whatsoever that can be construed to apply to pedophiles, which again can also be man on girl or woman on boy. And that bill has also been blocked by a judge from being enforced on another part of it.

You're being distracted and used by Rebel's story author who cited a quote from three years earlier, a quote made on an entirely other matter.

The California bill isn't the problem. the Federal version is. Because all states don't have the same definition as California on "sexual orientation", that must be clarified. The California bill, if applied to ALL states, WOULD allow pedophelia to go "untreated".

Sorry, but I should have been more specific. This is the problem. Your comment here is factually wrong. First, there is no longer any federal version and secondly, the resolution in last year's congressional committee never contained it either.

Your continued acceptance of the completely factless story posted by Rebel astounds me. It wasn't hyperbole, it was purposeful lying by applying an out of context non-applicable quote to made up congressional activity.

(04-04-2013 12:39 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(04-03-2013 05:33 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(04-03-2013 03:43 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(04-03-2013 03:19 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(04-03-2013 03:17 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  One of the problems bound to arise is the criminal behavior part. Fanticizing about little kids kids is one thing, but it's a criminal offense to act on it. Legitimizing pedophilia as sexual orientation could probably justify that behavior in the minds of some people.

Only in Cailfornia would this even be remotely considered.

*today* smn, Only in California today.

And the CA bill, which I linked above, clearly states that it only applies to Gay, Lesbian and Bisexuals, there is no ambiguous language in it whatsoever that can be construed to apply to pedophiles, which again can also be man on girl or woman on boy. And that bill has also been blocked by a judge from being enforced on another part of it.

You're being distracted and used by Rebel's story author who cited a quote from three years earlier, a quote made on an entirely other matter.

The California bill isn't the problem. the Federal version is. Because all states don't have the same definition as California on "sexual orientation", that must be clarified. The California bill, if applied to ALL states, WOULD allow pedophelia to go "untreated".

Sorry, but I should have been more specific. This is the problem. Your comment here is factually wrong. First, there is no longer any federal version and secondly, the resolution in last year's congressional committee never contained it either.

Your continued acceptance of the completely factless story posted by Rebel astounds me. It wasn't hyperbole, it was purposeful lying by applying an out of context non-applicable quote to made up congressional activity.

........and the definition of "is" - is. Ignore that some may be opening pandora's box concerning pedophila, and focus on the minute details to make your side look ok.

C'mon Tom, our exalted government would never pass a law that would allow for some twisted lawsuit to make pedophila ok. Tom, you're fighting this so hard - you don't think pedophilia is ok? Do you?

Creb, I'm fighting this because the original post was utter bull****. It contained lies, mistruths and complete fabrications of events by co-mingling disconnected things together as one to further an agenda. If I ever posted anything like that I would get ripped to shreds. Instead, we start debating this as some factual beginning of an imaginary slippery slope, all the while ignoring the fact that pedophilia is a crime and always will be. But no...it's entirely possible that some states will lower their age of consent so this becomes legal and okay...because, "we're just saying it might".

As Stossel would say, "Give me a break!"

(04-03-2013 01:11 PM)RobertN Wrote:  Something tells me that this needs to be looked into more given the source.

:clap2:

If you're taking issue with the OP, then why do you keep arguing with me? I've already taken issue with the OP myself and he has responded and we've moved on. Unfortunately you don't seem willing to engage in rational debate with me and instead keep attacking Rebel through me.

Creb hit the nail on the head. It depends on what the definition of "is" is. If a) the California bill is enacted as a federal bill, which is exactly what some people want, then b) there are some issues that you need to be made aware of, and while it may be clear in your MIND that nobody supports pedophiles, then c) that doesn't mean that it will be clear in the legislation. The OP takes A which is a fact, and B which is a fact and C which is a fact and puts them all together... and your response is that it is a lie because a and b and c can't ever happen that way? It seems to me that your only real complaint is that the OP added that it was a democrat who sposored a and republicans who pointed out b and c. That is honestly the only reason why you are upset... because someone assigned "good" and "bad" to the parties. I have already addressed that with Rebel.

Your desire to beat up Rebel's post has nothing to do with my response. If you throw out the hyperbole and be honest about the issues, THEN we have something to talk about. Instead, you keep coming with your OWN hyperbole about how things like this will NEVER happen and how this law will NEVER be passed etc etc etc.... which to be honest, only supports Rebel's basic claim that the left can't see the forest for the trees.


Your denial that an argument made before won't be made again is lunacy. I'm not saying the same people will make it... I'm not saying that people who support the bill support pedophiles. I suspect they will merely quote it as "precedent" exactly as the SCOTUS does. In fact, everything they (the scotus) do is based on an interpretation of a comment made by someone else on an issue only loosely related to the topic at hand before them. I don't CARE if these things were said or laws passed "about" this "in" this context, because they were still said and passed... and there is a group, however small who hopes you don't catch the significance of it.... and based on your continued rants, it seems like a reasonable chance.

If you pass a bill outlawing treatment to "correct" sexual orientation, then you open the door for people like pedophiles to claim that their "affliction" is a sexual orientation. There are states now that already say that and PLENTY of medical professionals who would classify it as such... so acting as if it can't happen is not smart. Obviously, if it is deemed a sexual orientation, like being gay, then it would also be a hate crime to beat up a pedophile raping your child and a civil rights violation to imprison someone for pedophelia. While I'm certain that you see the lunacy of that situation... YOU are not everyone and YOU are not eternal. Laws sometimes are.

Because it's not a rational debate. Nodoby is pushing for any laws regarding this. Nobody.

Tom, you just admitted yourself that this bill got to committee... How can you say that "nobody" is pushing for it when it has gottn THIS far?

I'm sorry, but that is insane. You're as bad as what you are complaining about.