(09-08-2012 07:06 PM)Smaug Wrote:  If this is a legitimate condition (and I will continue to think of it as a "condition" rather than an orientation), then by all means, let's have a dialogue about what people who have these urges can/should do to keep them from harming a child.

Fact is, anyone who has those urges and has the will to not act on them deserves a gold star.

It's a miserable way to live, to be sure, and I certainly wouldn't want to be in their shoes.

Having said all that, let's just be damn clear on not losing sight of the fact that if there are "victims" here, it's the children being molested by adults.

Jiberish above. I have urges to push old people down stairs, JUST DON'T DO IT! (Borrowed from Chris Rock). If they ACT on urges to permanently scar innocent children the only appropriate deterent is a bullet between the eyes.

You can quote me on that.

There is nothing new about this. Pedophiles were a part of the Gay rights movement in the before the mid 80's. When the LGBTAQLOMNA movement ditched the pedo's they found it easier to get traction.

(09-08-2012 03:10 PM)Ninerfan1 Wrote:  Born This Way: Sympathy and Science for Those Who Want to Have Sex with Children

Just a warning, don't eat before you read it.

Quote:It's not easy to listen to Terry talk about the time he had sex with a seven-year-old girl. But after his psychotherapist put us in touch, he agreed to lay it all out for me during a phone call and email, and I was enthralled the way one might stare at a man falling from a bridge. Terry is 38, a small-business owner, and deeply religious—he ends all our correspondence by saying, "Blessings to you, Cord"—but back then when it happened Terry was 20 and a meth head. He was living with his then-wife, his marriage to whom had made him the co-guardian of her two nieces and a nephew. The one niece was a baby, but the other was seven, and it wasn't long before Terry, addicted and in a marriage he calls "abusive," fell for his niece and began a sexual relationship with her.

Quote:The old adage is that the true mark of a society is how it treats the weakest in its ranks. Blacks, women, Latinos, gays and lesbians, and others are still in no way on wholly equal footing in America. But they're also not nearly as lowly and cursed as men attracted to children. One imagines that if Jesus ever came to Earth, he'd embrace the poor, the blind, the lepers, and, yes, the pedophiles. As a self-professed "progressive," when I think of the world I'd like to live in, I like to imagine that one day I'd be OK with a man like Terry moving next door to me and my children.

Absolutely repugnant.

This isn't progressive. This is child abuse.

(09-08-2012 11:33 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  There is nothing new about this. Pedophiles were a part of the Gay rights movement in the before the mid 80's. When the LGBTAQLOMNA movement ditched the pedo's they found it easier to get traction.

If you'd like to talk to people who protect pedos, please talk to the US Conference of Catholic Bishops and the Church of Latter Day Saints, both of who are anti-Gay rights and either protect pedos or who worship prophets who marry 14 year old girls.

(09-08-2012 08:44 PM)Ninerfan1 Wrote:  

(09-08-2012 08:36 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  In order to tolerate a pedophile's actions you have to be OK with a kid getting molested. Is that where we're heading next?

The next phase would be arguing that it's not actually molestation. Just the consensual act of two loving people. That's what NAMBLA puts out in the their propaganda. In this article Terry states that the little girl he was pursuing willingly came to him.

I don't believe the next step is saying it's ok for a pedophile to force themselves on a child. It's to say if the child consents then it's ok.

So since I'm a gay man, I'm assuming you wish to treat me as a child rapist? Because that's what I'm getting from your erroneous link. Do I accuse all Christians of being exactly like Westboro Baptist?

(09-09-2012 12:06 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(09-08-2012 08:44 PM)Ninerfan1 Wrote:  

(09-08-2012 08:36 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  In order to tolerate a pedophile's actions you have to be OK with a kid getting molested. Is that where we're heading next?

The next phase would be arguing that it's not actually molestation. Just the consensual act of two loving people. That's what NAMBLA puts out in the their propaganda. In this article Terry states that the little girl he was pursuing willingly came to him.

I don't believe the next step is saying it's ok for a pedophile to force themselves on a child. It's to say if the child consents then it's ok.

So since I'm a gay man, I'm assuming you wish to treat me as a child rapist? Because that's what I'm getting from your erroneous link. Do I accuse all Christians of being exactly like Westboro Baptist?

I didn't connect your homosexuality to pedophilia Tom, the article did.

How you took my comment above as having anything to do with you is beyond me, unless you're a member of NAMBLA. I tend to doubt you are so the short answer to your question is no.

I realize claiming victimization status has become second nature to you, but at least make the effort not to find it where it doesn't exist.

(09-08-2012 08:47 PM)Ninerfan1 Wrote:  I find it a little more than sad you appear to care more about twisting my words than preventing children from being molested.
This article is attempting to bring legitimacy to the idea pedophilia is an orientation. Doing that makes it more dangerous for children, not less. You don't see anything wrong with legitimizing that behavior. Therefore you want more kids molested. Why do you want kids molested?
See how easy that was?

Since the article is talking about potential ways to prevent child molestation and is not in any way attempting to legitimize that behavior, once again you don't have a clue what you are talking about. No matter how hard you try to believe otherwise, he was not equating raping children with consensual sex between adults. If you are going to post an article you should at least read it first.

Quote:When I call Van Gijseghem in the middle of August, he tells me that he got a lot of hate mail from people who thought him using the term "sexual orientation" meant he was equating raping children with consensual sex between adults. "They said, ‘You bastard! You are treating pedophilia like a normal human function,'" says Van Gijseghem. "I can understand these criticisms, but I'm not using the term sexual orientation to mean that at all."

Van Gjiseghem says what he and his colleagues mean by sexual orientation is a person's inborn and unalterable sexual preference, irrespective of whether that preference is harmful to others or not.

And the article didn't connect pedophilia to homosexuality anymore than it did heterosexuality.

(09-09-2012 12:33 AM)Ninerfan1 Wrote:  

(09-09-2012 12:06 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(09-08-2012 08:44 PM)Ninerfan1 Wrote:  

(09-08-2012 08:36 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  In order to tolerate a pedophile's actions you have to be OK with a kid getting molested. Is that where we're heading next?

The next phase would be arguing that it's not actually molestation. Just the consensual act of two loving people. That's what NAMBLA puts out in the their propaganda. In this article Terry states that the little girl he was pursuing willingly came to him.

I don't believe the next step is saying it's ok for a pedophile to force themselves on a child. It's to say if the child consents then it's ok.

So since I'm a gay man, I'm assuming you wish to treat me as a child rapist? Because that's what I'm getting from your erroneous link. Do I accuse all Christians of being exactly like Westboro Baptist?

I didn't connect your homosexuality to pedophilia Tom, the article did.

How you took my comment above as having anything to do with you is beyond me, unless you're a member of NAMBLA. I tend to doubt you are so the short answer to your question is no.

I realize claiming victimization status has become second nature to you, but at least make the effort not to find it where it doesn't exist.

Any link between ANY pedophilia article and Gay rights = calling all Gay men child rapists. You posted this for a reason. To link progressivism and Gay rights with child rape. Because you wish to call ALL gay men and ALL liberals child rapists. That was your point of posting this work of garbage.

NAMBLA is less representative of progressivism and Gay rights than Westboro Baptist is of evangelical Christianity.

Oh and the choice you gave for the article title. How do you even know that Cord Jefferson is a progressive? I don't claim him. Neither does 99.999999 percent of progressives. You are intellectually dishonest and disgusting.

Even for you, you've sunk to a new low.

By the way...I'm so glad that UNC-Charlotte is no longer in the A-10.. Losers like you guys never belonged in the A-10 with respected academic schools that actually competed in athletics. Take your loser school (13th out 14 teams in your tenure in league play) and your crappy academics to CUSA. Congrats on beating Fordham and no one else in athletics. Sorry you couldn't get anywhere near any of the A-10 schools academically.

(09-09-2012 12:33 AM)Ninerfan1 Wrote:  

(09-09-2012 12:06 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(09-08-2012 08:44 PM)Ninerfan1 Wrote:  

(09-08-2012 08:36 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  In order to tolerate a pedophile's actions you have to be OK with a kid getting molested. Is that where we're heading next?

The next phase would be arguing that it's not actually molestation. Just the consensual act of two loving people. That's what NAMBLA puts out in the their propaganda. In this article Terry states that the little girl he was pursuing willingly came to him.

I don't believe the next step is saying it's ok for a pedophile to force themselves on a child. It's to say if the child consents then it's ok.

So since I'm a gay man, I'm assuming you wish to treat me as a child rapist? Because that's what I'm getting from your erroneous link. Do I accuse all Christians of being exactly like Westboro Baptist?

I didn't connect your homosexuality to pedophilia Tom, the article did.

How you took my comment above as having anything to do with you is beyond me, unless you're a member of NAMBLA. I tend to doubt you are so the short answer to your question is no.

I realize claiming victimization status has become second nature to you, but at least make the effort not to find it where it doesn't exist.

How about the title you chose for your posting. You found something on the friggin' internet? So friggin' what?

(09-09-2012 01:10 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  Any link between ANY pedophilia article and Gay rights = calling all Gay men child rapists. You posted this for a reason.

Ah, the militant gay has spoken. I'll say again, I didn't make the link, the article did. It did so in an attempt to call pedophilia an orientation, not a condition.

Quote:To link progressivism and Gay rights with child rape.

Gay rights appeared nowhere in the article or in any of my posts. You're irrational militancy on things such as this has made you see attacks where none exist. You've been playing the victim so long if it rained on your picnic it would be evidence to you God was trying to victimize you. You're a nut job.

Quote:Because you wish to call ALL gay men and ALL liberals child rapists. That was your point of posting this work of garbage.

If that was my point Tom I would have said it. If I wanted to equate All gay men and ALL liberals to child rapists I would have come straight out and said it. I wouldn't beat around the bush about it. But I didn't because I don't believe it to be the case. But you can't be convinced of that because your mind is warped and you attacks where there are none.

You're the Chris Matthews of the spin room with your irrationality.

Quote:NAMBLA is less representative of progressivism and Gay rights than Westboro Baptist is of evangelical Christianity.

I was pointing out that NAMBLA embraces many of same justifications for its cause that this article does. But your militancy has blinded you to any and all rational discussion on a subject like this. If someone doesn't embrace everything you believe they just hate you and want to hurt you.

Quote:Oh and the choice you gave for the article title. How do you even know that Cord Jefferson is a progressive?

Um, cause he calls himself one?

Quote: As a self-professed "progressive," when I think of the world I'd like to live in, I like to imagine that one day I'd be OK with a man like Terry moving next door to me and my children.

Quote:By the way...I'm so glad that UNC-Charlotte is no longer in the A-10.. Losers like you guys never belonged in the A-10 with respected academic schools that actually competed in athletics. Take your loser school (13th out 14 teams in your tenure in league play) and your crappy academics to CUSA. Congrats on beating Fordham and no one else in athletics. Sorry you couldn't get anywhere near any of the A-10 schools academically.

LOL! Let that rage out Tom. All over things I didn't say but just because you're so sure how I think and feel. You go with it.

Trust me, I'm thrilled to be leaving that A-10 behind. And in pretty much every other sport saved men's basketball we dominated the A-10. Look it up.

(09-09-2012 12:57 AM)jh Wrote:  Since the article is talking about potential ways to prevent child molestation and is not in any way attempting to legitimize that behavior, once again you don't have a clue what you are talking about.

The article was about more than that. Read the title of it if you need some evidence of that. Note the way it makes pedophiles out to be victims.

Quote:No matter how hard you try to believe otherwise, he was not equating raping children with consensual sex between adults. If you are going to post an article you should at least read it first.

I did. If you are going to defend an article you should at least attempt to understand the whole article.

Quote:And the article didn't connect pedophilia to homosexuality anymore than it did heterosexuality.

Yeah. That comment he made on "pray the gay away" had nothing to do with homosexuality. He was talking about sending kids to camp to pray them being overly happy away.

(09-08-2012 03:44 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  Hey, all of us prefer different things. Some of us like blondes, big knobs, big butts, older women, Asian women, whatever. So I can almost understand how the occasional oddball comes around and likes something outside the white lines; statistically, it's bound to happen. But the idea has to be all about self control. I can easily cheat on my wife with a younger, better looking babe but I don't because it would be wrong plus their are families involved who would all be impacted. People diddling 7 year olds have to know it's wrong and just cave in to their desires. It's this lack of will power, lack of respect for the child and what happens afterward, and lack of overall decency that makes me mad.

So let this guy and Terry live next door to each other along with all their other progressive friends........as long as it's on an island far off into the ocean.

Naturally, the libs on this board will hammer me.

I think that you summed it up best. I would only add that there are consequences to every action and these illegal and immoral actions should be punished with the full weight of the law. The only understanding that should be given is that pedophiles have a mental disesase that they may not be able to control and should be segregated from places where there are children, after they finish serving their prison time.

(09-09-2012 01:14 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  By the way...I'm so glad that UNC-Charlotte is no longer in the A-10.. Losers like you guys never belonged in the A-10 with respected academic schools that actually competed in athletics. Take your loser school (13th out 14 teams in your tenure in league play) and your crappy academics to CUSA. Congrats on beating Fordham and no one else in athletics. Sorry you couldn't get anywhere near any of the A-10 schools academically.

Soooo, know anything about VCU? Not exactly Harvard...

(09-09-2012 06:42 AM)Ninerfan1 Wrote:  

(09-09-2012 12:57 AM)jh Wrote:  Since the article is talking about potential ways to prevent child molestation and is not in any way attempting to legitimize that behavior, once again you don't have a clue what you are talking about.

The article was about more than that. Read the title of it if you need some evidence of that. Note the way it makes pedophiles out to be victims.

It doesn't. The article does not say that child rapists are victims. It does point out that pedophiles face unique challenges and that revising our strategy to help them cope with these challenges might reduce then number of pedophiles who become actual child rapists.

Quote:

Quote:And the article didn't connect pedophilia to homosexuality anymore than it did heterosexuality.

Yeah. That comment he made on "pray the gay away" had nothing to do with homosexuality. He was talking about sending kids to camp to pray them being overly happy away.

Sigh. "[W]hat he and his colleagues mean by sexual orientation is a person's inborn and unalterable sexual preference, irrespective of whether that preference is harmful to others or not." The first clause of says that pedophilia is inate, just like both homosexuality and heterosexuality. In the context of the paragraph, the second clause recognizes that, unlike the other options, however, pedophilia cannot be practiced without harming others.

When was the last time you heard about a parent who sent a kid off to pray the straight away? The "pray the gay away" was an analogy, used to compare ineffective treatments for sexual orientations. If a sexual orientation is truly unalterable then any attempt to alter it will obviously fail. That is why the article suggests that the best way to prevent child rape is to help pedophiles cope with their desires so that they do not act on them. If the desires will always be there then managing those desires becomes critical.

(09-09-2012 12:04 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(09-08-2012 11:33 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  There is nothing new about this. Pedophiles were a part of the Gay rights movement in the before the mid 80's. When the LGBTAQLOMNA movement ditched the pedo's they found it easier to get traction.

If you'd like to talk to people who protect pedos, please talk to the US Conference of Catholic Bishops and the Church of Latter Day Saints, both of who are anti-Gay rights and either protect pedos or who worship prophets who marry 14 year old girls.

I never said gay people like to protect pedo's nor did I imply straights are free from issues..

BTW the catholic thing was old men having sex with young boys... thats kind of a homosexual activity. You might want to reload with some new talking points.

What I did say was that in the older history of the gay right movement there were a lot of pedophiles trying to ride coat tails, and for a long time it was tolerated.

"The “1972 Gay Rights Platform in the United States” called for the “Repeal of all laws governing the age of sexual consent.” This platform was endorsed by liberal Democratic presidential candidate George McGovern, who sent a supportive telegram. There were other homosexual organizations, such as the Canadian Lesbian and Gay Rights Coalition and the Gay Alliance Towards Equality, that also opposed the age of consent laws. Their support of the cause would disappear in 1977."

So I was off by a few years when I said the 80's..

(09-09-2012 09:12 AM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(09-09-2012 12:04 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(09-08-2012 11:33 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  There is nothing new about this. Pedophiles were a part of the Gay rights movement in the before the mid 80's. When the LGBTAQLOMNA movement ditched the pedo's they found it easier to get traction.

If you'd like to talk to people who protect pedos, please talk to the US Conference of Catholic Bishops and the Church of Latter Day Saints, both of who are anti-Gay rights and either protect pedos or who worship prophets who marry 14 year old girls.

I never said gay people like to protect pedo's nor did I imply straights are free from issues..

BTW the catholic thing was old men having sex with young boys... thats kind of a homosexual activity. You might want to reload with some new talking points.

What I did say was that in the older history of the gay right movement there were a lot of pedophiles trying to ride coat tails, and for a long time it was tolerated.

"The “1972 Gay Rights Platform in the United States” called for the “Repeal of all laws governing the age of sexual consent.” This platform was endorsed by liberal Democratic presidential candidate George McGovern, who sent a supportive telegram. There were other homosexual organizations, such as the Canadian Lesbian and Gay Rights Coalition and the Gay Alliance Towards Equality, that also opposed the age of consent laws. Their support of the cause would disappear in 1977."

So I was off by a few years when I said the 80's..

1977? Really? I've never heard of GATE or the CLGRC.

Most likely, it was only an issue with equality of romeo and juliet laws (regarding 19 year olds having sex with 17 year olds - legal for straights - illegal for Gays).

One of the ways that perverse behavior is blended into mainstream society is to stop calling the behavior by its true name, and start calling it by something more "neutral" or "therapeutic" or "scientific". Eventually, the old vocabulary/terms are forgotten and younger generations are never even taught to recognize them. So, over time, fornication becomes "pre-marital sex", adultery becomes "extramarital sex", other behaviors and tendencies become known as "transgendered", "same-sex attraction", and so on.

The effort to normalize child-molestation is still in a very early stage, even on the fringes of society. But it (the effort) is going to become more obvious in the decades to come. And child-molestation already has a "modern", "non-judgmental" euphemism all ready to go as the broader society becomes more alienated from traditional religious concepts and standards of behavior. The term is intergenerational intimacy. Coming soon to a graduate-level studies program near you.

As we know Muslims embrace Podophilia as their prophet Momhamad was a pedophile.

(09-09-2012 12:47 PM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  As we know Muslims embrace Podophilia as their prophet Momhamad was a pedophile.

I understand that that's a common point, but I would like to know the amount of men that we would consider pedophiles that existed during and before the time of Mohammed. There were probably a ton of respected Christians and Jewish leaders that were because it was fairly normal.