Political Crossfire Forums

[Drake]

ToonArmyIsComing wrote:
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.

I didn't write the article. Someone requested a link supporting the fact that NAMBLA participates in these events. Take it for whatever you think it's worth.

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

Assuming this is true, why do you mention this?

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

You seem to be missing the point. It would benefit the gay community to dispel this appearance. Therefore, it wouldn't be wasted energy.

[Prole]

Drake wrote: 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.
Do they have any grounds to deny them membership or prevent them from participating in parades?

I don't think political parties have any provisions for exlcuding members, nor do I know if ILGA does. Regarding parades, I don't know about provisions for denying participants either, and strongly suspect that even if there are, this is one extremely isolated instance of homosexuals in any way choosing to identify with NAMBA

[Drake]

Prole wrote: Drake wrote: 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.
Do they have any grounds to deny them membership or prevent them from participating in parades?

I don't think political parties have any provisions for exlcuding members, nor do I know if ILGA does. Regarding parades, I don't know about provisions for denying participants either, and strongly suspect that even if there are, this is one extremely isolated instance of homosexuals in any way choosing to identify with NAMBA

The GOP can't necessarily exclude members from the party but they can most certainly decide who is going to represent them at sponsored events, just like the organizers of a pride parade. NAMBLA was a member of ILGA as an organization, not just individuals who also happen to belong to NAMBLA. And yes, ILGA can exclude members. That's what they did in 1994 when they ousted NAMBLA, some believe for political rather than philisophical reasons. They had been a member for years. This would suggest there was a "relationship" of some sort, not just an isolated incident of association.

[ToonArmyIsComing]

Drake wrote: I didn't write the article. Someone requested a link supporting the fact that NAMBLA participates in these events. Take it for whatever you think it's worth.

The article you've provided is more like a rant than an actual news!

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

Assuming this is true, why do you mention this?

I am mentioning it to say that culture and stigmas play a huge role in what is considered a "sexual crime".

And let me make it clear I am only saying that as an academic. I do not want the NAMBLA to be freely running around and doing whatever they want in the US.

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

You seem to be missing the point. It would benefit the gay community to dispel this appearance. Therefore, it wouldn't be wasted energy.

The "gay community" has nothing to do with pedophilia. I don't understand why there is a drive to associate gays and pedophiles!!!

You know that's quite interesting actually:

When a man abuses a girl, no one goes on and on about his heterosexuality, rather he is called a pedophile, but amusingly, when a man abuses a boy, there seems to be more focus on the fact that he abused someone of the same sex rather than the fact that he is a pedophile.

Now, tell me why is that?

[Drake]

ToonArmyIsComing wrote:
The "gay community" has nothing to do with pedophilia. I don't understand why there is a drive to associate gays and pedophiles!!!


Let's stay on topic here a moment. Whether they have anything to do with pedophilia is beside the point. True or not, the appearance exists that they do. If they don't, as you contend, shouldn't they be more vocal in their opposition to NAMBLA?

[Æ]

Drake wrote: ToonArmyIsComing wrote:
The "gay community" has nothing to do with pedophilia. I don't understand why there is a drive to associate gays and pedophiles!!!


Let's stay on topic here a moment. Whether they have anything to do with pedophilia is beside the point. True or not, the appearance exists that they do. If they don't, as you contend, shouldn't they be more vocal in their opposition to NAMBLA?
The appearance comes from your perspective.

Does a company that has a sweatshop have to be blasted by another company in order for the other company to appear to not support sweatshops? You make no sense at all, really.

[Drake]

aLienaTeD wrote:
The appearance comes from your perspective.

Does a company that has a sweatshop have to be blasted by another company in order for the other company to appear to not support sweatshops? You make no sense at all, really.

Let's use a more accurate analogy.
Company 1 uses sweatshops.
Company 2 does not, and claims it does not approve of the use of sweatshops.
These two companies have been clearly affiliated in the recent past.
The suspicion exists within the public that there may still be some affiliation between these two companies.
Company 2 does not want the public to believe that they approve of the use of sweatshops in any way.

Yes, I believe that it would benefit Company 2 to be vocal in speaking out against Company 1 and their use of sweatshops.

Does that make more sense to you?

[George W Bush]

I think the point is clear: its not the Gay movements obligation to speak out against NAMBLA as NAMBLA has nothing to do with sex between two consenting adults.

[Drake]

George W Bush wrote: I think the point is clear: its not the Gay movements obligation to speak out against NAMBLA as NAMBLA has nothing to do with sex between two consenting adults.

No one is saying it's their obligation. The question is: Does their failure to do so hurt their cause?

[George W Bush]

Drake wrote: George W Bush wrote: I think the point is clear: its not the Gay movements obligation to speak out against NAMBLA as NAMBLA has nothing to do with sex between two consenting adults.

No one is saying it's their obligation. The question is: Does their failure to do so hurt their cause?

Ide like to find where the "gay movement" gets to speak out about anything, let alone sex with children.

It would be MORE RELEVANT, if you posed this question to:

- Catholic Church
- Jews
- Some Asian countries (where suffrage is low)

As for the idea that it would do anything for them to speak out against it? Theres nothing wrong with playing an advocasy role. In fact, that could only help.

I just get tired of hearing people and their stupidity relate NAMBLA and homosexuality.

What is so profoundly ironic is the finding that people who sexually abuse children are mostly white, heterosexual males.

[Drake]

George W Bush wrote:

It would be MORE RELEVANT, if you posed this question to:

- Catholic Church
- Jews
- Some Asian countries (where suffrage is low)
.

These groups have never supported or had an affiliation with NAMBLA. Don't you see the difference that makes?

George W Bush wrote:
I just get tired of hearing people and their stupidity relate NAMBLA and homosexuality.

I would think the gay community is tired of it as well. Which is why I find it hard to understand when they aren't more vocal about it.

[spearsy23]

It could be said that the catholic church HAS had an affiliation with NAMBLA, although it's more of a guilt by association with what they support.

[Demonic Spoon]

I heavily doubt that most of the stories of catholic priest molestation are true. Ever heard of false memory syndrome?

Here's something I posted on the matter...
Quote:
Has anyone heard of this?

False Memory Syndrome is an occurance when the brain fabricates memories. This most often occurs when a psychiatrist uses hypnosis/suggestion. What happens is that the brain comes to believe something happened, and then it makes up memories to go along with it.

This syndrome was proven by two tests.

In one, a child was taken to the hospital and told that his thumb had been broken when in reality, he had no injuries. By the 11th interview, he not only believed that he injured his thumb, but made up a whole bunch of memories and details about the incident that caused the "injury".

A second one had a bunch of adults being told that as a child, they were lost in a supermarket. After awhile, 20% of them believed it and made up memories of being "lost".

Most often, when these "memories" come to light, they are treated as "repressed memories". That is, they say that the event was so traumatizing that the mind forgot it. This has caused a huge surge of child molestation/rape charges. The child, when grown up, is somehow affected and creates false memories-usually because of a psychiatrist suggesting something happened. They then press charges on the parents. This is also one of the reasons so many Catholic priests are being charged with child molestation.


This was all, however, proven to be bulls**t. NO reputable study has ever proven that traumatic memories can be repressed like that.


Now, this brings me to the point of this thread. HUGE amounts of people have been imprisoned because of this bulls**t. Why? Convictions occur without proof.

There is not a shred of proof of any of this except a sob story, and yet so many people are convicted.

[spearsy23]

So are you saying people are constantly telling them they were molested by priests?

[George W Bush]

Drake wrote: George W Bush wrote:

It would be MORE RELEVANT, if you posed this question to:

- Catholic Church
- Jews
- Some Asian countries (where suffrage is low)
.

These groups have never supported or had an affiliation with NAMBLA. Don't you see the difference that makes?

George W Bush wrote:
I just get tired of hearing people and their stupidity relate NAMBLA and homosexuality.

I would think the gay community is tired of it as well. Which is why I find it hard to understand when they aren't more vocal about it.

Drake, i'm not sure where you are coming from.

The gay movement has never advocated or supported NAMBLA.
If you base the support allegation on association (that of man with boy), it stands to reason the same expectation holds true within, at least, the catholic priest arena.

However, the whole topic is flawed logic on the fallacy of association. It should be OBVIOUS that gays dont support NAMBLA. Theres never been any indication that they do. If so, show me.

[Drake]

George W Bush wrote:

Drake, i'm not sure where you are coming from.

The gay movement has never advocated or supported NAMBLA.
If you base the support allegation on association (that of man with boy), it stands to reason the same expectation holds true within, at least, the catholic priest arena.

However, the whole topic is flawed logic on the fallacy of association. It should be OBVIOUS that gays dont support NAMBLA. Theres never been any indication that they do. If so, show me.

W, could you please do us a favor and read the thread before posting? This is getting frustrating.

As has already been stated, there are indications. NAMBLA has participated in gay pride parades in the past. They were a member of ILGA until 1994. This is the association I am speaking of. It is this association that gives the appearance that NAMBLA has had at least some level of support from the gay community.

[Enoch]

Drake wrote: George W Bush wrote:

Drake, i'm not sure where you are coming from.

The gay movement has never advocated or supported NAMBLA.
If you base the support allegation on association (that of man with boy), it stands to reason the same expectation holds true within, at least, the catholic priest arena.

However, the whole topic is flawed logic on the fallacy of association. It should be OBVIOUS that gays dont support NAMBLA. Theres never been any indication that they do. If so, show me.

W, could you please do us a favor and read the thread before posting? This is getting frustrating.

As has already been stated, there are indications. NAMBLA has participated in gay pride parades in the past. They were a member of ILGA until 1994. This is the association I am speaking of. It is this association that gives the appearance that NAMBLA has had at least some level of support from the gay community. So, let me get this straight. The fact that NAMBLA used to participate in some gay pride parades, and was a member of ILGA 12 years ago is an indication that the modern gay rights movement, and gay community, supports them?

Tell me, exactly how does that follow?

[George W Bush]

Drake wrote: George W Bush wrote:

Drake, i'm not sure where you are coming from.

The gay movement has never advocated or supported NAMBLA.
If you base the support allegation on association (that of man with boy), it stands to reason the same expectation holds true within, at least, the catholic priest arena.

However, the whole topic is flawed logic on the fallacy of association. It should be OBVIOUS that gays dont support NAMBLA. Theres never been any indication that they do. If so, show me.

W, could you please do us a favor and read the thread before posting? This is getting frustrating.

As has already been stated, there are indications. NAMBLA has participated in gay pride parades in the past. They were a member of ILGA until 1994. This is the association I am speaking of. It is this association that gives the appearance that NAMBLA has had at least some level of support from the gay community.

Ok, like Uriel said - its not like theres been this affiliation that would implicate the entire gay rights movement. I'm sure theres been discontent over pedophilia being advocated in parades. It stands to reason being that, probably all, if not most, gay men prefer other gay men and not children.

But, I'll go out on a limb with pedophilia advocacy and say it could have been one of the many failed attempts by anti-gay activists to use propoganda as a way to steer feelings such as you may have regarding gays and pedophilia.

Drake, I am about as pissed off as you with this NAMBLA group. They suck, and I wouldnt cry if their headquarters in Canada were burned to the ground. They victimise kids and try to sell their bulls**t on America culture - where children are children and not objects of attraction. I can guarantee you there are some homosexuals on here who have been victims of childhood sexual abuse, so its probably a matter that they want no involvement so they dont say anything or post responses.

Screw NAMBLA.

[Drake]

UrielsFyre wrote: So, let me get this straight. The fact that NAMBLA used to participate in some gay pride parades, and was a member of ILGA 12 years ago is an indication that the modern gay rights movement, and gay community, supports them?

Tell me, exactly how does that follow?

I'm saying it gives the appearance that they might continue to support them. And I think their failure to vehemently speak out against NAMBLA also contributes to that appearance.

[Enoch]

Drake wrote: UrielsFyre wrote: So, let me get this straight. The fact that NAMBLA used to participate in some gay pride parades, and was a member of ILGA 12 years ago is an indication that the modern gay rights movement, and gay community, supports them?

Tell me, exactly how does that follow?

I'm saying it gives the appearance that they might continue to support them. And I think their failure to vehemently speak out against NAMBLA also contributes to that appearance. It takes a person with preconcieved bias to look at a twelve year-old incident, in isolated gay pride parades, to draw the conclusion that it somehow represents the feelings of the modern gay rights movement.