Political Crossfire Forums

[Drake]

If one of the goals of the homosexual community is to gain mainstream acceptance, why do they not speak out against a group such as NAMBLA?

Does that hurt their cause?

[Enoch]

Drake wrote: If one of the goals of the homosexual community is to gain mainstream acceptance, why do they not speak out against a group such as NAMBLA?

Does that hurt their cause? People do speak out against NAMBLA, both gay and straight. Don't confuse their message as being a part of, or condoned by, our community.

[Æ]

UrielsFyre wrote: Drake wrote: If one of the goals of the homosexual community is to gain mainstream acceptance, why do they not speak out against a group such as NAMBLA?

Does that hurt their cause? People do speak out against NAMBLA, both gay and straight. Don't confuse their message as being a part of, or condoned by, our community.
[devils_advocate]

If one can justify a right to homosexual sex based upon the right of two parties to consent, how would this situation be any different? Yes, I know the "they don't have the ability to consent" argument, but that's just an assertion. If we can say that there are no children who can understand and reason as adults, can we also say that there are no adults who cannot understand and reason as adults (yet they still have a legal right to consent)? The basis for this conclusion is more subjective than objective.

[/devils_advocate]

[Prole]

I think that the problem which you are bringing up, alienated, is of the arbitrary age at which we set certain rights (including the right to consent) rather than with any of those specific rights. The same is true of the right to vote, to drive, to serve in the military, etc; turning a certain age doesn't magically enable you be more capable than you were the day before, and age whether above or below does not always merit it being appropriate, all other things being equal.

But setting an arbitrary age is something we do of utility. Perhaps there are a few 13-year-olds out there with the maturity to have consensual sex, but I'd rather error on the side of protecting them and force them to wait a few more years than risk them legally allowed to have sex at too young an age. There are countless examples of people suffering lasting psychological troubles because of being exposed to sex at too young an age. I've never heard of anyone who was forced to wait have any problems beyond simply impatience.

By the way, I'm a firm supporter of NAMBLA: The North American Marlon Brando Look Alikes. :lol:

[Demonic Spoon]

When has the Catholic Church actively spoken out and apologized for the Crusades?

When has the hispanic population spoken out against the Spanish Inquisiton?

When have the french population apologized for the Saint Bartholomew's Day Massacre?

NEVER! That does NOT make them wrong. It's not the current pope's fault Urban II was an ****. It's not Jose's fault that some jackasses slaughtered a bunch of people hundreds of years ago. It's not Pieere's fault that the French government slaughtered some Huguenots.

IT IS NOT the responsibility of gays to speak out against ORGANIZATIONS, since organizations do not represent them. Anyone who thinks that NAMBLA represents gay people (unless they actively speak out against it) is a moron.

[Drake]

UrielsFyre wrote:
People do speak out against NAMBLA, both gay and straight. Don't confuse their message as being a part of, or condoned by, our community.


Demonic Spoon wrote:
IT IS NOT the responsibility of gays to speak out against ORGANIZATIONS, since organizations do not represent them. Anyone who thinks that NAMBLA represents gay people (unless they actively speak out against it) is a moron.

Is NAMBLA not seen participating in Gay Pride events and parades? This would appear that the gay community as a whole is embracing them. It would seem to me that to avoid this appearance, if that's what they want to do, they would be more vocal in speaking out against them. UF, you're saying they do speak out, but I've never seen that.

[Enoch]

Drake wrote: UrielsFyre wrote:
People do speak out against NAMBLA, both gay and straight. Don't confuse their message as being a part of, or condoned by, our community.


Demonic Spoon wrote:
IT IS NOT the responsibility of gays to speak out against ORGANIZATIONS, since organizations do not represent them. Anyone who thinks that NAMBLA represents gay people (unless they actively speak out against it) is a moron.

Is NAMBLA not seen participating in Gay Pride events and parades? This would appear that the gay community as a whole is embracing them. It would seem to me that to avoid this appearance, if that's what they want to do, they would be more vocal in speaking out against them. UF, you're saying they do speak out, but I've never seen that. And I've never seen NAMBLA at a Gay Pride event...so, we're even.

[StrangerWitCandy]

Drake wrote: If one of the goals of the homosexual community is to gain mainstream acceptance, why do they not speak out against a group such as NAMBLA?

Does that hurt their cause?

Most gays do not support NAMBLA. The homosexual community is more concerned with accomplishing goals of equality and fairness for homosexuals and less about speaking out against organizations that have nothing to do with them. I mean you might as well ask why they don't speak out against rape. Its irrelevant to the cause. But if you ask the opinion of most gays they do not approve of pedophilic behavior.

[StrangerWitCandy]

Drake wrote: UrielsFyre wrote:
People do speak out against NAMBLA, both gay and straight. Don't confuse their message as being a part of, or condoned by, our community.


Demonic Spoon wrote:
IT IS NOT the responsibility of gays to speak out against ORGANIZATIONS, since organizations do not represent them. Anyone who thinks that NAMBLA represents gay people (unless they actively speak out against it) is a moron.

Is NAMBLA not seen participating in Gay Pride events and parades? This would appear that the gay community as a whole is embracing them. It would seem to me that to avoid this appearance, if that's what they want to do, they would be more vocal in speaking out against them. UF, you're saying they do speak out, but I've never seen that.

Are they seen participating in Gay Pride events? I've never seen that. Got a link?

[Æ]

StrangerWitCandy wrote: Drake wrote: If one of the goals of the homosexual community is to gain mainstream acceptance, why do they not speak out against a group such as NAMBLA?

Does that hurt their cause?

Most gays do not support NAMBLA. The homosexual community is more concerned with accomplishing goals of equality and fairness for homosexuals and less about speaking out against organizations that have nothing to do with them. I mean you might as well ask why they don't speak out against rape. Its irrelevant to the cause. But if you ask the opinion of most gays they do not approve of pedophilic behavior.
Do you have a survey to cite that backs up the "most" assertion? Not that it matters, but it seems that the same arguments that are thrown at gays by those revolted by their lifestyles are no different than the arguments thrown out in cases such as this one. Whether or not I find pedophilic behavior disgusting is irrelevant to the question at hand and that question is how can you qualify "consent" by saying that it is "adult consent" when there is only one kind of "consent"? This is the same as arguing "reasoned rights" with the objectivists when in fact there are only "rights".

[StrangerWitCandy]

aLienaTeD wrote: StrangerWitCandy wrote: Drake wrote: If one of the goals of the homosexual community is to gain mainstream acceptance, why do they not speak out against a group such as NAMBLA?

Does that hurt their cause?

Most gays do not support NAMBLA. The homosexual community is more concerned with accomplishing goals of equality and fairness for homosexuals and less about speaking out against organizations that have nothing to do with them. I mean you might as well ask why they don't speak out against rape. Its irrelevant to the cause. But if you ask the opinion of most gays they do not approve of pedophilic behavior.
Do you have a survey to cite that backs up the "most" assertion? Not that it matters, but it seems that the same arguments that are thrown at gays by those revolted by their lifestyles are no different than the arguments thrown out in cases such as this one.

I don't have to have a survey that backs up the "most" assertion. The initial assertion (that most gays support NAMBLA) was not made by me and was not backed up by anything. If someone makes the claim that gays support NAMBLA it is up to THEM to prove it, not me to disprove it. I'm speaking from knowledge of myself and numerous other gay people I know, all of which do NOT support NAMBLA or pedophilic behavior.

Why don't you ask for some evidence to back up the claim that most gays support NAMBLA?

aLienaTeD wrote: Whether or not I find pedophilic behavior disgusting is irrelevant to the question at hand and that question is how can you qualify "consent" by saying that it is "adult consent" when there is only one kind of "consent"? This is the same as arguing "reasoned rights" with the objectivists when in fact there are only "rights".

Our society has determined 18 as the age of consent. This is designed to protect minors from being taken advantage of because of the natural naivety attached to their age. I'm not really sure what you're arguing here, just because homosexual relationships are justified because they are consensual has nothing to do with pedophilia. Heterosexual relationships are also justified by consent. What you're arguing really has nothing to do with homosexuality at all, but rather pedophilic behavior of any kind. I really don't see what the two issues have to do with each other unless you're really stretching to make a correlation between them.

[Æ]

StrangerWitCandy wrote: I don't have to have a survey that backs up the "most" assertion. The initial assertion (that most gays support NAMBLA) was not made by me and was not backed up by anything. If someone makes the claim that gays support NAMBLA it is up to THEM to prove it, not me to disprove it. I'm speaking from knowledge of myself and numerous other gay people I know, all of which do NOT support NAMBLA or pedophilic behavior.

Why don't you ask for some evidence to back up the claim that most gays support NAMBLA?
I'm just questioning your remark since there is no way for me to ascertain its factuality one way or the other. No ill will was intended.

StrangerWitCandy wrote: Our society has determined 18 as the age of consent. This is designed to protect minors from being taken advantage of because of the natural naivety attached to their age. I'm not really sure what you're arguing here, just because homosexual relationships are justified because they are consensual has nothing to do with pedophilia. Heterosexual relationships are also justified by consent. What you're arguing really has nothing to do with homosexuality at all, but rather pedophilic behavior of any kind. I really don't see what the two issues have to do with each other unless you're really stretching to make a correlation between them.
But our society has also "determined" that gay marriage should not be allowed. Their "determination" one way or the other is irrelevant because it is you who moves your own hand not someone else who moves it. The same is true for all of us.

What I am arguing has to do with the primary argument in favor of homosexuality: it is a relationship between consenting adults. Regardless of what society believes, consent is something that exists and is independent of any contingent interpretation. My question posed to you is not to condone pedophilic behavior, but rather to understand what difference there is in argument to say that a homosexual relationship is any more/less valid than any other relationship that is consented to.

[spearsy23]

aLienaTeD wrote:
But our society has also "determined" that gay marriage should not be allowed. Their "determination" one way or the other is irrelevant because it is you who moves your own hand not someone else who moves it. The same is true for all of us.

What I am arguing has to do with the primary argument in favor of homosexuality: it is a relationship between consenting adults. Regardless of what society believes, consent is something that exists and is independent of any contingent interpretation. My question posed to you is not to condone pedophilic behavior, but rather to understand what difference there is in argument to say that a homosexual relationship is any more/less valid than any other relationship that is consented to.
The problem is, society rather right or wrong has said you need to be of a certain age to consent. They have also said homosexuality is wrong, however people are changing their oppinions on this issue every day. Some day age of consent may be a hot button issue that will be heavily debated, and it may turn out you can have sex with any age of person but that's for another time.

[Drake]

[quote="StrangerWitCandy]
Are they seen participating in Gay Pride events? I've never seen that. Got a link?[/quote]

This from 1999:

The North American Man-Boy Love Association (NAMBLA) considered the study "good news." Their web site proclaims that "sex does not pose the danger to minors claimed by police, prosecutors and prudes crusading against man/boy love."

Apparently, the current mayors of San Francisco and New York City agree. Why else would they choose to march in "homosexual pride" parades, along with a self-identified group of proud and practicing pedophiles?
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=12958

BTW, Harry Hay was the grand marshal in SF that year, who openly supported NAMBLA's right to participate in gay pride events.

I realize it's a few years old. Whether they continue to participate today, I really don't know. But it's also true that NAMBLA was a member of ILGA as late as 1994.

The point is, particularly to those outside the gay community, there appears to be a link.

Let me be clear. I've not said that most gays support NAMBLA. Maybe they don't. If they don't, it would seem to me that they would want to do more to dispel the appearance.

[spearsy23]

Is it possible for them to do anything? Without getting lawyers involved.

[Prole]

Who decides who gets to participate in gay-pride parades? Merely them being there does not mean that they have much homosexual support.

Who decides who gets to be a member of ILGA? And why should gays care from where they get their support? There are a lot of KKK members who voted for Bush; does that mean Bush supports the KKK? Not necessarily, just as NAMBLA support for homosexuals does not mean that homosexuals support NAMBLA.

[ToonArmyIsComing]

What? Homosexuals who sleep with other conseting homosexual adults have nothing to do with NAMBLA ... Why should they spend their energy to fight NAMBLA? :?

[Drake]

Prole wrote: Who decides who gets to participate in gay-pride parades? Merely them being there does not mean that they have much homosexual support.

Who decides who gets to be a member of ILGA? And why should gays care from where they get their support? There are a lot of KKK members who voted for Bush; does that mean Bush supports the KKK? Not necessarily, just as NAMBLA support for homosexuals does not mean that homosexuals support NAMBLA.

NAMBLA being in the parades and a member of ILGA would give the appearance that the gay community supports them.

To use your analogy; If the GOP was concerned about being perceived as racist, it would be unwise to invite Klan members to speak at the Republican National Convention. Rather, you would expect them to distance themselves from the Klan and even speak out against them.

[Drake]

ToonArmyIsComing wrote: What? Homosexuals who sleep with other conseting homosexual adults have nothing to do with NAMBLA ... Why should they spend their energy to fight NAMBLA? :?

Haven't you read the thread?

Because the appearance exists that the gay community is at least sympathetic towards NAMBLA, and this would seemingly be detrimental to their goal of gaining mainstream acceptance.

[ToonArmyIsComing]

Drake wrote: NAMBLA being in the parades and a member of ILGA would give the appearance that the gay community supports them.

To use your analogy; If the GOP was concerned about being perceived as racist, it would be unwise to invite Klan members to speak at the Republican National Convention. Rather, you would expect them to distance themselves from the Klan and even speak out against them.

Hold on a second.

The Journal of Homosexuality is an academic journal that publishes a variety of articles. By publishing an article about child sexuality, which the NAMBLA happened to like, the Journal of Homosexuality hasn't endorsed the NAMBLA. I don't understand how your article just assumes that.

Also, where did these "self-identified group of proud and practicing pedophiles" were marching in the "homosexual pride" parades because I have never seen any such groups.

As for the NAMBLA, I agree that they should be banned, but they have the right to free speech.

One should also realize that in some cultures, men/boy relationship is considered normal by all parties!

Drake wrote: ToonArmyIsComing wrote: What? Homosexuals who sleep with other conseting homosexual adults have nothing to do with NAMBLA ... Why should they spend their energy to fight NAMBLA? :?

Haven't you read the thread?

Because the appearance exists that the gay community is at least sympathetic towards NAMBLA, and this would seemingly be detrimental to their goal of gaining mainstream acceptance.

No, the gay community is too busy protecting itself from hatred to be wasting energy on other groups.