Political Crossfire Forums

Æ · Joined: 17 Jun 2005 Posts: 5124

I've never liked the age of consent argument because it's a qualifier for something that does not need to be qualified. Whether an agreement is fully comprehended or not, it does not absolve either party from the terms of the agreement.

I don't support organizations like the NAMBLA, but that doesn't mean that I support convenient short-circuiting of arguments.

red dragon · Joined: 27 Aug 2004 Posts: 1695 Location: Cardiff

So it seems at least two of you won't come out and fully denounce NAMBLA for what they stand for, giving vague excuses why they should have a cause to fight. A very worrying predicament I feel.

Enoch · Joined: 29 Aug 2005 Posts: 8784

red dragon wrote: So it seems at least two of you won't come out and fully denounce NAMBLA for what they stand for, giving vague excuses why they should have a cause to fight. A very worrying predicament I feel. Don't assume anything. I find NAMBLA to be a wholly despicable group. I was not arguing for thier cause, and never will. So, if you are going to make statements like that, have something to back it up. I was giving arguments that COULD be made to lower the age of consent, I was not supporting NAMBLA.

Drake · Joined: 20 Feb 2006 Posts: 402

UrielsFyre wrote: In my personal opinion, I would advocate 16 as an appropriate age. While 14 year-olds may have the ability to understand the effects of their decisions, I would still say that the two years between 14 and 16 offers quite a bit of maturity growth.

Also, you may wish to avoid the ad homs. They do not advance your argument, and only serve to give you a negative repuation and make your arguments less likely to be responded to by other posters.

You're right about the ad homs, I apologize. Sometimes, I can only take so much and react in frustration.

I agree that 16 is an appropriate age. Are you aware of the position the major gay rights organizations take on this issue?

Enoch · Joined: 29 Aug 2005 Posts: 8784

Drake wrote: UrielsFyre wrote: In my personal opinion, I would advocate 16 as an appropriate age. While 14 year-olds may have the ability to understand the effects of their decisions, I would still say that the two years between 14 and 16 offers quite a bit of maturity growth.

Also, you may wish to avoid the ad homs. They do not advance your argument, and only serve to give you a negative repuation and make your arguments less likely to be responded to by other posters.

You're right about the ad homs, I apologize. Sometimes, I can only take so much and react in frustration.

I agree that 16 is an appropriate age. Are you aware of the position the major gay rights organizations take on this issue? I am not aware of the stance taken by most organizations.

Robin Hood · Joined: 14 Sep 2005 Posts: 3295

UrielsFyre wrote: Drake wrote: UrielsFyre wrote: In my personal opinion, I would advocate 16 as an appropriate age. While 14 year-olds may have the ability to understand the effects of their decisions, I would still say that the two years between 14 and 16 offers quite a bit of maturity growth.

Also, you may wish to avoid the ad homs. They do not advance your argument, and only serve to give you a negative repuation and make your arguments less likely to be responded to by other posters.

You're right about the ad homs, I apologize. Sometimes, I can only take so much and react in frustration.

I agree that 16 is an appropriate age. Are you aware of the position the major gay rights organizations take on this issue? I am not aware of the stance taken by most organizations.

I am...at least for Britian...we had a big public debate on it recently...gay rights groups seemed to asking for the same age of consent as heterosexuals enjoy...which is 16.

Æ · Joined: 17 Jun 2005 Posts: 5124

red dragon wrote: So it seems at least two of you won't come out and fully denounce NAMBLA for what they stand for, giving vague excuses why they should have a cause to fight. A very worrying predicament I feel.
Please get it through your skull that no one has to denounce NAMBLA. In fact, feeling the need to make such a statement necessarily indicates one's guilty conscience. There is nothing for the GLBT community to feel guilty about; however, the story for the rest of society is quite different.

Drake · Joined: 20 Feb 2006 Posts: 402

aLienaTeD wrote:
Please get it through your skull that no one has to denounce NAMBLA. In fact, feeling the need to make such a statement necessarily indicates one's guilty conscience. There is nothing for the GLBT community to feel guilty about; however, the story for the rest of society is quite different.

Is this what possessed GLAAD to issue a statement denouncing NAMBLA? A guilty conscience? If not, what was it?

Enoch · Joined: 29 Aug 2005 Posts: 8784

Drake wrote: aLienaTeD wrote:
Please get it through your skull that no one has to denounce NAMBLA. In fact, feeling the need to make such a statement necessarily indicates one's guilty conscience. There is nothing for the GLBT community to feel guilty about; however, the story for the rest of society is quite different.

Is this what possessed GLAAD to issue a statement denouncing NAMBLA? A guilty conscience? If not, what was it? No, it was people who shared ideas such as the one indicated in this thread that made GLAAD denounce NAMBLA. The idea of "well, if you don't denounce them it just hurts you" is what forced them to make a statement.

Drake · Joined: 20 Feb 2006 Posts: 402

UrielsFyre wrote: No, it was people who shared ideas such as the one indicated in this thread that made GLAAD denounce NAMBLA. The idea of "well, if you don't denounce them it just hurts you" is what forced them to make a statement.

I was hoping aLienaTeD would offer his answer.

I don't see that idea in this thread. What I see is, "If you support a group for years and then one day, out of the blue, claim that you don't, the public is going to have a difficult time believing your new stance and you should do more to prove you're being honest".

BTW, are you a member of GLAAD?

Enoch · Joined: 29 Aug 2005 Posts: 8784

Drake wrote: UrielsFyre wrote: No, it was people who shared ideas such as the one indicated in this thread that made GLAAD denounce NAMBLA. The idea of "well, if you don't denounce them it just hurts you" is what forced them to make a statement.

I was hoping aLienaTeD would offer his answer.

I don't see that idea in this thread. What I see is, "If you support a group for years and then one day, out of the blue, claim that you don't, the public is going to have a difficult time believing your new stance and you should do more to prove you're being honest".

BTW, are you a member of GLAAD? No, I am not a member of GLAAD. The aforementioned was merely my speculation based on the theme of many conversations I have had, and the recurring theme of this thread.

Drake · Joined: 20 Feb 2006 Posts: 402

UrielsFyre wrote: Drake wrote: UrielsFyre wrote:
BTW, are you a member of GLAAD?
No, I am not a member of GLAAD. The aforementioned was merely my speculation based on the theme of many conversations I have had, and the recurring theme of this thread.

Beings that I am not a member of ILGA, I can not comment on their reasoning.

Speculation get people no where.

Do the above principles quoted from your earlier posts no longer apply?

Enoch · Joined: 29 Aug 2005 Posts: 8784

Drake wrote: UrielsFyre wrote: Drake wrote: UrielsFyre wrote:
BTW, are you a member of GLAAD?
No, I am not a member of GLAAD. The aforementioned was merely my speculation based on the theme of many conversations I have had, and the recurring theme of this thread.

Beings that I am not a member of ILGA, I can not comment on their reasoning.

Speculation get people no where.

Do the above principles quoted from your earlier posts no longer apply? Oh, no! I speculated. Shoot me! :roll:

Æ · Joined: 17 Jun 2005 Posts: 5124

Drake wrote: I was hoping aLienaTeD would offer his answer.
I already answered your question. From your position, you're looking to throw bricks at steel.

ToonArmyIsComing · Joined: 15 Feb 2005 Posts: 5888 Location: Ontario

Drake wrote: I don't see that idea in this thread. What I see is, "If you support a group for years and then one day, out of the blue, claim that you don't, the public is going to have a difficult time believing your new stance and you should do more to prove you're being honest".

:roll: Like the gay community saying something is going to change the stereotypical views of these people ... these people believe the stereotypes so much that they will NEVER listen!

Drake · Joined: 20 Feb 2006 Posts: 402

aLienaTeD wrote: Drake wrote: I was hoping aLienaTeD would offer his answer.
I already answered your question. From your position, you're looking to throw bricks at steel.

No you haven't. Is GLAAD's statement indicative of a guilty conscience on their part?

Drake · Joined: 20 Feb 2006 Posts: 402

UrielsFyre wrote: Drake wrote: UrielsFyre wrote: Drake wrote: UrielsFyre wrote:
BTW, are you a member of GLAAD?
No, I am not a member of GLAAD. The aforementioned was merely my speculation based on the theme of many conversations I have had, and the recurring theme of this thread.

Beings that I am not a member of ILGA, I can not comment on their reasoning.

Speculation get people no where.

Do the above principles quoted from your earlier posts no longer apply? Oh, no! I speculated. Shoot me! :roll:

I don't mind if you speculate. These were your statements, not mine. You refused to offer an explanation for ILGA because you weren't a member and you refused to speculate. Shouldn't your position be consistent when talking about GLAAD?

Enoch · Joined: 29 Aug 2005 Posts: 8784

Drake wrote: UrielsFyre wrote: Drake wrote: UrielsFyre wrote: Drake wrote: UrielsFyre wrote:
BTW, are you a member of GLAAD?
No, I am not a member of GLAAD. The aforementioned was merely my speculation based on the theme of many conversations I have had, and the recurring theme of this thread.

Beings that I am not a member of ILGA, I can not comment on their reasoning.

Speculation get people no where.

Do the above principles quoted from your earlier posts no longer apply? Oh, no! I speculated. Shoot me! :roll:

I don't mind if you speculate. These were your statements, not mine. You refused to offer an explanation for ILGA because you weren't a member and you refused to speculate. Shouldn't your position be consistent when talking about GLAAD? Even if I were inclined to speculate on ILGA, which I'm not, I couldn't because I have no idea about their motives before or after NAMBLA being a member.

GLAAD I can speculate on because I have an idea. And that idea is that people with the same idea as you, "if you don't denounce them it just hurts you," forced them in to the position.

But, those are just my ideas.

red dragon · Joined: 27 Aug 2004 Posts: 1695 Location: Cardiff

Why the hell would any man want the right to bugger a 14 year old boy, because they feel they maybe be physically and maybe mentally capable of doing it. I find that abhorant as a father of two children as much as i would if a man was saying about a girl. :-| :-| :-|

ToonArmyIsComing · Joined: 15 Feb 2005 Posts: 5888 Location: Ontario

Drake wrote: aLienaTeD wrote: Drake wrote: I was hoping aLienaTeD would offer his answer.
I already answered your question. From your position, you're looking to throw bricks at steel.

No you haven't. Is GLAAD's statement indicative of a guilty conscience on their part?

Tell us something: Do you believe that gay people recruit children to be gay?