Revised: Objective proof of demonstrable harm ... Marriage/Same sex

[Shogun]

You're close, but need to work on your reading comprehension.... his point is, that you liberals see no sexual deviancy in homosexuality, thus you also see no sexual deviancy in pedophiles, demonstrated by the new hate crime law where it was disgusted to REMOVE pedophiles from the bill, but was NOT, by the LIBERALS in control. So one can reasonably assume that liberals no longer feel pedophiles are a sexual deviant, therefore warrant special protection under the law.

This FAIL moment brought to you by Pale Rider!

yea, dude.. it sure is the case that NO ONE is equating fags with pedos!

Sorry.... did you make a point?

As a matter of fact, yes. I've bolded cognitive failure time and again and made fun of your assumption that extending equality to gays "essentially" validates gay pedos (as if there are no hetero pedos). Further, I'm lampooning your take on the issue in relation to the EXACT same arguements against the PC-ness of the civil rights era. For real, dude. Eat more Carrots and Fish. You know.. brain food.

 

[007]

I read his post...and this is basically what it says: If the hate crime legislation is changed from just protecting blacks, women, etc. to also protecting homosexuals Pubic is afraid that he will no longer be able to refrain from acting on his pedophilliac desires.

You're close, but need to work on your reading comprehension.... his point is, that you liberals see no sexual deviancy in homosexuality, thus you also see no sexual deviancy in pedophiles, demonstrated by the new hate crime law where it was disgusted to REMOVE pedophiles from the bill, but was NOT, by the LIBERALS in control. So one can reasonably assume that liberals no longer feel pedophiles are a sexual deviant, therefore warrant special protection under the law.

Why should it be seen as sexual deviancy, it's two consenting adult with no risk of creating malformed offspring. What's wrong with that?

A pedophile? How can it be two consenting adults if it's a pedophile? Are you saying pedophilia ISN'T a deviancy?

 

[007]

This FAIL moment brought to you by Pale Rider!

yea, dude.. it sure is the case that NO ONE is equating fags with pedos!

Sorry.... did you make a point?

As a matter of fact, yes. I've bolded cognitive failure time and again and made fun of your assumption that extending equality to gays "essentially" validates gay pedos (as if there are no hetero pedos). Further, I'm lampooning your take on the issue in relation to the EXACT same arguements against the PC-ness of the civil rights era. For real, dude. Eat more Carrots and Fish. You know.. brain food.

You're so far off the OP it's pathetic. I said go back and read the OP. Obviously you didn't.

 

[Ravi]

You're close, but need to work on your reading comprehension.... his point is, that you liberals see no sexual deviancy in homosexuality, thus you also see no sexual deviancy in pedophiles, demonstrated by the new hate crime law where it was disgusted to REMOVE pedophiles from the bill, but was NOT, by the LIBERALS in control. So one can reasonably assume that liberals no longer feel pedophiles are a sexual deviant, therefore warrant special protection under the law.

Pedophiles were never in the bill, so it isn't possible to remove them. The only people protected in the bill are people that are not engaging in criminal behavior.

Yes, pedophiles, specifically were disgusted, and no termanology was changed, leaving very vague language that can be and will be used to protect pedophiles.

Go out and kick a pedophiles ass rav... see what you get charged with NOW. Yeah... a hate crime. So now, thanks to the liberals, PEDOPHILES are PROTECTED!

Pedophiles were disgusted? Are you talking about yourself? Oh, you mean discussed.

Again, pedophilia is a crime and a mental disorder and it is not covered by the term "sexual orientation" any more than bestiality is...asshole.

 

[KittenKoder]

Well no, my statistic is actually quite accurate, and you're inclination is right. HS and college isn't the only place people get badgered. They get it at work too. Wasn't there just a thread in the general section about someone having something ruined at work that was being printed that was conservative in nature? I think there was. They went on to say that where they worked was over flowing with young teenie boppers that were VERY pro obama and liberal.

No, they weren't ruined, unless they were weak enough to think that one persons opinion of them actually matters that much ... and that whole story was suspect at best.

Also your statistic isn't true, sorry but it's another of those shock stats used to rile people up. I won't bother with more detail than that, but Penn and Teller did an excellent "Bullshit" episode on colleges, but if you are one of those who think "higher education" is actually something worthwhile I would not recommend viewing since it pretty much trashes them.The public schools are in fact independent, run by the community not the individuals, in communities where there are a majority of liberals, then they will be more liberal in technique, but what they actually teach is federally mandated.

I was raised by a mother JUST like PI, I once said she was more like Allie, but I was wrong in that assessment. She constantly berated me for being different, and I'm not gay. Instead of dollies I had computers and junk, instead of playing tea party I was chatting on BBSes and writing programs. Instead of wanting to date the boys I hung out with we went tree climbing, frog hunting, etc.. My mother ranted and raved that it was a sin to not follow what she thought was right. So my stance is this, to protect children as they are growing up and when they enter adulthood from such stupid and ignorant behavior from the "christian right" and other such groups, we need to learn, as a nation, to just accept people for who they are.

PI is taking an extremist view on this, wanting to government to dictate behavior and control religious belief. Many religions do not have a legal right to have their traditions respected, and while there are financial implications to some, others it's just plain religious domination. Homosexuals getting married won't hurt anything, and if there is a risk it is only for them, no one else. Spinning the possibilities so drastically is a last ditch effort, not based on logic or morals, it's basically lying to make a point. Luckily more people are starting to see this so PI is becoming the minority, but look on the bright side, at least he can soon become a "protected" class himself.

Well I can sympathize with your childhood KK. I don't think that was right. But it's a well known fact that America's learning institutions are very, VERY liberal, and being controlled by the teachers unions, that are very, VERY liberal SOLID democrats.

And I could say that I think agnostic and atheist behavior is very ignorant and stupid behavior and that kids should be protected from that too. All that is, is my opinion contradictory to yours. But, I do disagree with you, pretty much all the way down the line on this subject. I'm just glad that we're able to disagree without the name calling and insults, as many of the others seem to reduce themselves too all but immediately.

In reality children should be allowed to explore their world, period, while not be effected by the adults. Offer them choices, teach them about everything you can, and let them make their choices when they get older, but forcing them to think, behave, or or believe one way will only make more like me, who resent a large portion of one group for it. I don't name call unless it's in the flame zone (or at least try not to, everyone slips). Atheists tend to let their children explore religion and learn about as many as they want (my father did once he got me away from my mother) and if it was done at a younger age then children will be able to make their own wise choices as adults. The biggest and best teacher in the universe are mistakes, I offer a parable from a priest I knew (RIP):

A father went to a party where everyone had brought their toddlers, there was a wood burning stove in the room. Every couple of minutes one of the fathers would have to pull their toddler back to a a safe distance, except this one father who's toddler just seemed to stay at a safe distance on his own. When one of the other fathers asked him why he responded quite simply, "my kid already touched a hot stove, he knows it hurts and doesn't want to do it again."

 

[007]

Pedophiles were never in the bill, so it isn't possible to remove them. The only people protected in the bill are people that are not engaging in criminal behavior.

Yes, pedophiles, specifically were disgusted, and no termanology was changed, leaving very vague language that can be and will be used to protect pedophiles.

Go out and kick a pedophiles ass rav... see what you get charged with NOW. Yeah... a hate crime. So now, thanks to the liberals, PEDOPHILES are PROTECTED!

Pedophiles were disgusted? Are you talking about yourself? Oh, you mean discussed.

Again, pedophilia is a crime and a mental disorder and it is not covered by the term "sexual orientation" any more than bestiality is...asshole.

I knew you'd just blow it off with another inane line of crap and an insult. Well have a shitty day then.... BITCH!

 

[Nik]

You're close, but need to work on your reading comprehension.... his point is, that you liberals see no sexual deviancy in homosexuality, thus you also see no sexual deviancy in pedophiles, demonstrated by the new hate crime law where it was disgusted to REMOVE pedophiles from the bill, but was NOT, by the LIBERALS in control. So one can reasonably assume that liberals no longer feel pedophiles are a sexual deviant, therefore warrant special protection under the law.

Pedophiles were never in the bill, so it isn't possible to remove them. The only people protected in the bill are people that are not engaging in criminal behavior.

Yes, pedophiles, specifically were disgusted, and no termanology was changed, leaving very vague language that can be and will be used to protect pedophiles.

Go out and kick a pedophiles ass rav... see what you get charged with NOW. Yeah... a hate crime. So now, thanks to the liberals, PEDOPHILES are PROTECTED!

You are fucking retarded. They threw it out, as I've said countless times, because it was unnnecessary. They didn't feel the need to specifically exclude killing dogs from being a hate crimes, because dogs, like pedophiles, are not covered under sexual orientation and the only people who think that they are, are homophobic dipshits like you.

 

[007]

No, they weren't ruined, unless they were weak enough to think that one persons opinion of them actually matters that much ... and that whole story was suspect at best.

Also your statistic isn't true, sorry but it's another of those shock stats used to rile people up. I won't bother with more detail than that, but Penn and Teller did an excellent "Bullshit" episode on colleges, but if you are one of those who think "higher education" is actually something worthwhile I would not recommend viewing since it pretty much trashes them.The public schools are in fact independent, run by the community not the individuals, in communities where there are a majority of liberals, then they will be more liberal in technique, but what they actually teach is federally mandated.

I was raised by a mother JUST like PI, I once said she was more like Allie, but I was wrong in that assessment. She constantly berated me for being different, and I'm not gay. Instead of dollies I had computers and junk, instead of playing tea party I was chatting on BBSes and writing programs. Instead of wanting to date the boys I hung out with we went tree climbing, frog hunting, etc.. My mother ranted and raved that it was a sin to not follow what she thought was right. So my stance is this, to protect children as they are growing up and when they enter adulthood from such stupid and ignorant behavior from the "christian right" and other such groups, we need to learn, as a nation, to just accept people for who they are.

PI is taking an extremist view on this, wanting to government to dictate behavior and control religious belief. Many religions do not have a legal right to have their traditions respected, and while there are financial implications to some, others it's just plain religious domination. Homosexuals getting married won't hurt anything, and if there is a risk it is only for them, no one else. Spinning the possibilities so drastically is a last ditch effort, not based on logic or morals, it's basically lying to make a point. Luckily more people are starting to see this so PI is becoming the minority, but look on the bright side, at least he can soon become a "protected" class himself.

Well I can sympathize with your childhood KK. I don't think that was right. But it's a well known fact that America's learning institutions are very, VERY liberal, and being controlled by the teachers unions, that are very, VERY liberal SOLID democrats.

And I could say that I think agnostic and atheist behavior is very ignorant and stupid behavior and that kids should be protected from that too. All that is, is my opinion contradictory to yours. But, I do disagree with you, pretty much all the way down the line on this subject. I'm just glad that we're able to disagree without the name calling and insults, as many of the others seem to reduce themselves too all but immediately.

In reality children should be allowed to explore their world, period, while not be effected by the adults. Offer them choices, teach them about everything you can, and let them make their choices when they get older, but forcing them to think, behave, or or believe one way will only make more like me, who resent a large portion of one group for it. I don't name call unless it's in the flame zone (or at least try not to, everyone slips). Atheists tend to let their children explore religion and learn about as many as they want (my father did once he got me away from my mother) and if it was done at a younger age then children will be able to make their own wise choices as adults. The biggest and best teacher in the universe are mistakes, I offer a parable from a priest I knew (RIP):

A father went to a party where everyone had brought their toddlers, there was a wood burning stove in the room. Every couple of minutes one of the fathers would have to pull their toddler back to a a safe distance, except this one father who's toddler just seemed to stay at a safe distance on his own. When one of the other fathers asked him why he responded quite simply, "my kid already touched a hot stove, he knows it hurts and doesn't want to do it again."

Although I agree with part of what you're saying, I disagree with some of the rest. I don't think children should be left to make all their own decisions. I don't think they posses the education or maturity to do that. Children need to be taught right from wrong, what's good and bad, and how to treat other people. If left completely unchecked and left to fend for themselves, I think a child of such a circumstance could grow up to be a very dangerous person. Maybe not, but maybe so.

 

[Shogun]

Sorry.... did you make a point?

As a matter of fact, yes. I've bolded cognitive failure time and again and made fun of your assumption that extending equality to gays "essentially" validates gay pedos (as if there are no hetero pedos). Further, I'm lampooning your take on the issue in relation to the EXACT same arguements against the PC-ness of the civil rights era. For real, dude. Eat more Carrots and Fish. You know.. brain food.

You're so far off the OP it's pathetic. I said go back and read the OP. Obviously you didn't.

I've specifically bolded your quote regarding "ESSENTIALLY" classifying fags as pedos on the laughable assumption that liberals can't make a distinction. Meanwhile you dance and dive around the term "TWO CONSENTING ADULTS" like a cat to water. By all means, scroll up and read YOUR error or let me know and I'll quote you with giant multi colored font.

 

[Ravi]

Yes, pedophiles, specifically were disgusted, and no termanology was changed, leaving very vague language that can be and will be used to protect pedophiles.

Go out and kick a pedophiles ass rav... see what you get charged with NOW. Yeah... a hate crime. So now, thanks to the liberals, PEDOPHILES are PROTECTED!

Pedophiles were disgusted? Are you talking about yourself? Oh, you mean discussed.

Again, pedophilia is a crime and a mental disorder and it is not covered by the term "sexual orientation" any more than bestiality is...asshole.

I knew you'd just blow it off with another inane line of crap and an insult. Well have a shitty day then.... BITCH!

There is nothing inane about being intelligent enough to know the difference between homosexuality and pedophilia, asshole.

 

[007]

Pedophiles were never in the bill, so it isn't possible to remove them. The only people protected in the bill are people that are not engaging in criminal behavior.

Yes, pedophiles, specifically were disgusted, and no termanology was changed, leaving very vague language that can be and will be used to protect pedophiles.

Go out and kick a pedophiles ass rav... see what you get charged with NOW. Yeah... a hate crime. So now, thanks to the liberals, PEDOPHILES are PROTECTED!

You are fucking retarded. They threw it out, as I've said countless times, because it was unnnecessary. They didn't feel the need to specifically exclude killing dogs from being a hate crimes, because dogs, like pedophiles, are not covered under sexual orientation and the only people who think that they are, are homophobic dipshits like you.

Get a grip skippy. You're making a fool out of yourself, unless that's your intent.

No, they didn't. Right now, this instant, if you were to go downtown and slap the shit out of a PEDOPHILE, under the new law pushed through by liberals, you WOULD be charged with a HATE CRIME. So now, thanks to liberals, PEDOPHILES are enjoying new protection.

And yes, pedophilia IS a sexual orientation. It pertains to sex, therefore it is. You or anyone else claiming it isn't are just talking like a sap.

 

[007]

As a matter of fact, yes. I've bolded cognitive failure time and again and made fun of your assumption that extending equality to gays "essentially" validates gay pedos (as if there are no hetero pedos). Further, I'm lampooning your take on the issue in relation to the EXACT same arguements against the PC-ness of the civil rights era. For real, dude. Eat more Carrots and Fish. You know.. brain food.

You're so far off the OP it's pathetic. I said go back and read the OP. Obviously you didn't.

I've specifically bolded your quote regarding "ESSENTIALLY" classifying fags as pedos on the laughable assumption that liberals can't make a distinction. Meanwhile you dance and dive around the term "TWO CONSENTING ADULTS" like a cat to water. By all means, scroll up and read YOUR error or let me know and I'll quote you with giant multi colored font.

There is NO "consenting adults" about what a PEDOPHILE does... for Christ sake man... get a fucking clue.

 

[007]

Pedophiles were disgusted? Are you talking about yourself? Oh, you mean discussed.

Again, pedophilia is a crime and a mental disorder and it is not covered by the term "sexual orientation" any more than bestiality is...asshole.

I knew you'd just blow it off with another inane line of crap and an insult. Well have a shitty day then.... BITCH!

There is nothing inane about being intelligent enough to know the difference between homosexuality and pedophilia, asshole.

Then say something intelligent... bitch.

There's a new bill that will protect pedophiles, thanks to the dems running Washington.

And don't worry, the first time someone is charged with a hate crime for touching a pedophile, I'm going to throw it in your face.

 

[Shogun]

Pedophiles were disgusted? Are you talking about yourself? Oh, you mean discussed.

Again, pedophilia is a crime and a mental disorder and it is not covered by the term "sexual orientation" any more than bestiality is...asshole.

I knew you'd just blow it off with another inane line of crap and an insult. Well have a shitty day then.... BITCH!

There is nothing inane about being intelligent enough to know the difference between homosexuality and pedophilia, asshole.

kinda makes you wonder what people like this WONT say to demonize homosexuality. Again, this is why he is avoiding the above bolded quote, and batshit crazy assumptions he keeps making.... while crying about shit talking WHITE shit talking, no less. You could say CONSENTING ADULTS a million times and he's cry that someone is off topic. Meanwhile, we all know goddamn well that assulting a fucking pedo is STILL CRIMINAL ASSAULT and will illicit your arrest... which is exactly what he seems to think makes pedos a protected class.


seriously. There must be a lot of lead in the water out in the lower wisconsin river valley.

 

[KittenKoder]

Well I can sympathize with your childhood KK. I don't think that was right. But it's a well known fact that America's learning institutions are very, VERY liberal, and being controlled by the teachers unions, that are very, VERY liberal SOLID democrats.

And I could say that I think agnostic and atheist behavior is very ignorant and stupid behavior and that kids should be protected from that too. All that is, is my opinion contradictory to yours. But, I do disagree with you, pretty much all the way down the line on this subject. I'm just glad that we're able to disagree without the name calling and insults, as many of the others seem to reduce themselves too all but immediately.

In reality children should be allowed to explore their world, period, while not be effected by the adults. Offer them choices, teach them about everything you can, and let them make their choices when they get older, but forcing them to think, behave, or or believe one way will only make more like me, who resent a large portion of one group for it. I don't name call unless it's in the flame zone (or at least try not to, everyone slips). Atheists tend to let their children explore religion and learn about as many as they want (my father did once he got me away from my mother) and if it was done at a younger age then children will be able to make their own wise choices as adults. The biggest and best teacher in the universe are mistakes, I offer a parable from a priest I knew (RIP):

A father went to a party where everyone had brought their toddlers, there was a wood burning stove in the room. Every couple of minutes one of the fathers would have to pull their toddler back to a a safe distance, except this one father who's toddler just seemed to stay at a safe distance on his own. When one of the other fathers asked him why he responded quite simply, "my kid already touched a hot stove, he knows it hurts and doesn't want to do it again."

Although I agree with part of what you're saying, I disagree with some of the rest. I don't think children should be left to make all their own decisions. I don't think they posses the education or maturity to do that. Children need to be taught right from wrong, what's good and bad, and how to treat other people. If left completely unchecked and left to fend for themselves, I think a child of such a circumstance could grow up to be a very dangerous person. Maybe not, but maybe so.

It's a process, though some decisions have to be left to them or they will not learn how to learn, and you get the problems we are facing now. They are now in more danger because of their own inexperience with life as a whole than any other threat. Religion isn't required to teach right from wrong, just simple logic. The only rules I ever obeyed when I was young were those my father explained to me, because he taught me the logic behind them not the spiritual nonsense, to which he allowed me to learn on my own. He was atheist, swung agnostic when he was with my mother but otherwise just didn't believe in the after life or anything more divine than aliens (which he just hoped existed). If it had been only him raising me I would have never learned to hate people, he didn't believe in it, and I would never have learned to lie, the one thing he never stood for was lying, if you lied to him you had better hope he never found out.

My mother, the christian conservative, taught me those. Lying I learned how to do by when I found out about the "Santa Claus" and "Easter Bunny", that taught me it was okay to lie if you could find a justification for it, as well as how to get away with it, there are many more examples but those are the least religious ones I can think of. She also taught me to hate anyone different, not just through her behavior toward me but also through the religious teachings. I use to actually act like those who are so anti-anything-unique that I was involved in some serious crimes when I was younger. Until my father managed to correct my hatred and teach me one simple fact, I was violent and just evil. But he taught me the "live and let live" philosophy, one which I am thankful for. If he had not then I would have been into far worse, but against christians, when I grew up. He taught me not to take anger out on others as well, so even though I resent many of those like my mother, I am also capable of seeing reason and not just attack them.

But here's the logic, pedophilia is not in the bill, it is against the law. It isn't a sexual orientation nor a lifestyle (though it does fit into the BDSM mentality). It is about domination and control, the destruction of innocence and it's about using a position of power to get what you want. Most pedophiles have no real power in life, others feel inferior no matter what power they have. It will always be illegal in the US, though many other countries either ignore it or even go as far as allowing it, every one of those such places also have laws making homosexuality illegal.

 

[Nik]

Yes, pedophiles, specifically were disgusted, and no termanology was changed, leaving very vague language that can be and will be used to protect pedophiles.

Go out and kick a pedophiles ass rav... see what you get charged with NOW. Yeah... a hate crime. So now, thanks to the liberals, PEDOPHILES are PROTECTED!

You are fucking retarded. They threw it out, as I've said countless times, because it was unnnecessary. They didn't feel the need to specifically exclude killing dogs from being a hate crimes, because dogs, like pedophiles, are not covered under sexual orientation and the only people who think that they are, are homophobic dipshits like you.

Get a grip skippy. You're making a fool out of yourself, unless that's your intent.

No, they didn't. Right now, this instant, if you were to go downtown and slap the shit out of a PEDOPHILE, under the new law pushed through by liberals, you WOULD be charged with a HATE CRIME. So now, thanks to liberals, PEDOPHILES are enjoying new protection.

And yes, pedophilia IS a sexual orientation. It pertains to sex, therefore it is. You or anyone else claiming it isn't are just talking like a sap.

1) How exactly could a law that hasn't passed increase my sentence?

2) Sexual orientation doesn't mean anything that pertains to sex. This is patently obvious and only a fool would claim otherwise.

How about this. Lets make a bet. If this bill passes, and if in a years time someone has been convicted with a hate crime for attacking a pedophile, I'll give you $10,000. If the bill passes, and nobody has been charged, you can give me $100. Thats how sure I am about your retarded ass views being completely and utterly paranoid.

 

[Nik]

In reality children should be allowed to explore their world, period, while not be effected by the adults. Offer them choices, teach them about everything you can, and let them make their choices when they get older, but forcing them to think, behave, or or believe one way will only make more like me, who resent a large portion of one group for it. I don't name call unless it's in the flame zone (or at least try not to, everyone slips). Atheists tend to let their children explore religion and learn about as many as they want (my father did once he got me away from my mother) and if it was done at a younger age then children will be able to make their own wise choices as adults. The biggest and best teacher in the universe are mistakes, I offer a parable from a priest I knew (RIP):

A father went to a party where everyone had brought their toddlers, there was a wood burning stove in the room. Every couple of minutes one of the fathers would have to pull their toddler back to a a safe distance, except this one father who's toddler just seemed to stay at a safe distance on his own. When one of the other fathers asked him why he responded quite simply, "my kid already touched a hot stove, he knows it hurts and doesn't want to do it again."

Although I agree with part of what you're saying, I disagree with some of the rest. I don't think children should be left to make all their own decisions. I don't think they posses the education or maturity to do that. Children need to be taught right from wrong, what's good and bad, and how to treat other people. If left completely unchecked and left to fend for themselves, I think a child of such a circumstance could grow up to be a very dangerous person. Maybe not, but maybe so.

It's a process, though some decisions have to be left to them or they will not learn how to learn, and you get the problems we are facing now. They are now in more danger because of their own inexperience with life as a whole than any other threat. Religion isn't required to teach right from wrong, just simple logic. The only rules I ever obeyed when I was young were those my father explained to me, because he taught me the logic behind them not the spiritual nonsense, to which he allowed me to learn on my own. He was atheist, swung agnostic when he was with my mother but otherwise just didn't believe in the after life or anything more divine than aliens (which he just hoped existed). If it had been only him raising me I would have never learned to hate people, he didn't believe in it, and I would never have learned to lie, the one thing he never stood for was lying, if you lied to him you had better hope he never found out.

My mother, the christian conservative, taught me those. Lying I learned how to do by when I found out about the "Santa Claus" and "Easter Bunny", that taught me it was okay to lie if you could find a justification for it, as well as how to get away with it, there are many more examples but those are the least religious ones I can think of. She also taught me to hate anyone different, not just through her behavior toward me but also through the religious teachings. I use to actually act like those who are so anti-anything-unique that I was involved in some serious crimes when I was younger. Until my father managed to correct my hatred and teach me one simple fact, I was violent and just evil. But he taught me the "live and let live" philosophy, one which I am thankful for. If he had not then I would have been into far worse, but against christians, when I grew up. He taught me not to take anger out on others as well, so even though I resent many of those like my mother, I am also capable of seeing reason and not just attack them.

But here's the logic, pedophilia is not in the bill, it is against the law. It isn't a sexual orientation nor a lifestyle (though it does fit into the BDSM mentality). It is about domination and control, the destruction of innocence and it's about using a position of power to get what you want. Most pedophiles have no real power in life, others feel inferior no matter what power they have. It will always be illegal in the US, though many other countries either ignore it or even go as far as allowing it, every one of those such places also have laws making homosexuality illegal.

Pedophilia is NOT comparable to BDSM.

 

[007]

In reality children should be allowed to explore their world, period, while not be effected by the adults. Offer them choices, teach them about everything you can, and let them make their choices when they get older, but forcing them to think, behave, or or believe one way will only make more like me, who resent a large portion of one group for it. I don't name call unless it's in the flame zone (or at least try not to, everyone slips). Atheists tend to let their children explore religion and learn about as many as they want (my father did once he got me away from my mother) and if it was done at a younger age then children will be able to make their own wise choices as adults. The biggest and best teacher in the universe are mistakes, I offer a parable from a priest I knew (RIP):

A father went to a party where everyone had brought their toddlers, there was a wood burning stove in the room. Every couple of minutes one of the fathers would have to pull their toddler back to a a safe distance, except this one father who's toddler just seemed to stay at a safe distance on his own. When one of the other fathers asked him why he responded quite simply, "my kid already touched a hot stove, he knows it hurts and doesn't want to do it again."

Although I agree with part of what you're saying, I disagree with some of the rest. I don't think children should be left to make all their own decisions. I don't think they posses the education or maturity to do that. Children need to be taught right from wrong, what's good and bad, and how to treat other people. If left completely unchecked and left to fend for themselves, I think a child of such a circumstance could grow up to be a very dangerous person. Maybe not, but maybe so.

It's a process, though some decisions have to be left to them or they will not learn how to learn, and you get the problems we are facing now. They are now in more danger because of their own inexperience with life as a whole than any other threat. Religion isn't required to teach right from wrong, just simple logic. The only rules I ever obeyed when I was young were those my father explained to me, because he taught me the logic behind them not the spiritual nonsense, to which he allowed me to learn on my own. He was atheist, swung agnostic when he was with my mother but otherwise just didn't believe in the after life or anything more divine than aliens (which he just hoped existed). If it had been only him raising me I would have never learned to hate people, he didn't believe in it, and I would never have learned to lie, the one thing he never stood for was lying, if you lied to him you had better hope he never found out.

My mother, the christian conservative, taught me those. Lying I learned how to do by when I found out about the "Santa Claus" and "Easter Bunny", that taught me it was okay to lie if you could find a justification for it, as well as how to get away with it, there are many more examples but those are the least religious ones I can think of. She also taught me to hate anyone different, not just through her behavior toward me but also through the religious teachings. I use to actually act like those who are so anti-anything-unique that I was involved in some serious crimes when I was younger. Until my father managed to correct my hatred and teach me one simple fact, I was violent and just evil. But he taught me the "live and let live" philosophy, one which I am thankful for. If he had not then I would have been into far worse, but against christians, when I grew up. He taught me not to take anger out on others as well, so even though I resent many of those like my mother, I am also capable of seeing reason and not just attack them.

But here's the logic, pedophilia is not in the bill, it is against the law. It isn't a sexual orientation nor a lifestyle (though it does fit into the BDSM mentality). It is about domination and control, the destruction of innocence and it's about using a position of power to get what you want. Most pedophiles have no real power in life, others feel inferior no matter what power they have. It will always be illegal in the US, though many other countries either ignore it or even go as far as allowing it, every one of those such places also have laws making homosexuality illegal.

Well, this is where the fundamental disagreement here lies. I believe pedophilia IS a sexual orientation. If it has to do with sex, it is, period. A pedophile is "oriented" towards having sex with children, "sex." So with that in mind, it's not going to be just me that thinks that way. All it's going to take is the first pedophile to get beat up and hire an attorney for that attorney or some agenda driven liberal D.A., to then take the vague wording in the new hate crimes law, where it WAS discussed to remove any wording that might protect pedophiles but wasn't, and you'll see someone charged with a hate crime for touching a pedophile.

It will happen. The door is open and the ground work is laid for it. Pedophiles will now push for more specific protection, and their argument will be the pedophilia IS a sexual orientation, and that is now protected under this new law. They never leave it alone. Our society is headed down that self imposed, self regulating, immoral toilet. There's too much apathy. No one speaks out against. They're afraid. They have to take flack from frothing at the mouth, liberal zealots as I do here.... which is part of the reason I do it. I love be the pain in a liberals side. I WANT them to know that they don't scare EVERYBODY. There's people out here that are NOT intimidated by their GANG TACTICS.

I think what I think and it's a conservative view point... thank God. I think if I was a liberal I'd kill myself.

 

[007]

You are fucking retarded. They threw it out, as I've said countless times, because it was unnnecessary. They didn't feel the need to specifically exclude killing dogs from being a hate crimes, because dogs, like pedophiles, are not covered under sexual orientation and the only people who think that they are, are homophobic dipshits like you.

Get a grip skippy. You're making a fool out of yourself, unless that's your intent.

No, they didn't. Right now, this instant, if you were to go downtown and slap the shit out of a PEDOPHILE, under the new law pushed through by liberals, you WOULD be charged with a HATE CRIME. So now, thanks to liberals, PEDOPHILES are enjoying new protection.

And yes, pedophilia IS a sexual orientation. It pertains to sex, therefore it is. You or anyone else claiming it isn't are just talking like a sap.

1) How exactly could a law that hasn't passed increase my sentence?

2) Sexual orientation doesn't mean anything that pertains to sex. This is patently obvious and only a fool would claim otherwise.

How about this. Lets make a bet. If this bill passes, and if in a years time someone has been convicted with a hate crime for attacking a pedophile, I'll give you $10,000. If the bill passes, and nobody has been charged, you can give me $100. Thats how sure I am about your retarded ass views being completely and utterly paranoid.

It's a bet... even though it is a RETARDED bet... retard.

Just had to say that... since you seem so ENAMORED with the word.

 

[Ravi]

Here you go you ignorant asshole Pole Rider.

The definition of sexual orientation is codified into the law:

“(3) Nothing in this section creates a cause of action or a right to bring an action, including an action based on discrimination due to sexual orientation. As used in this section, the term ‘sexual orientation’ means consensual homosexuality or heterosexuality.

Hate Crime Statistics, 2004