'Pedophile Protection Act' Heads to Senate Committee

[Nik]

Wow...WorldNetDaily...Follows FOX Noise's lead in propagating bullshit. US law already defines sexual orientation as applying ONLY to "consensual homosexuality or heterosexuality", thereby EXCLUDING pedophiles who sexually abuse children.

First, US Law doesn't define anything of the kind... the argument is absurd on its face...

Homosexuality is a mental disorder; a psychosis which results in a perversion of the natural sexual instincts... Pedophilia is a mental disorder which results in a perversion of the natural sexual instincts...

The fact is that pedophilia is a sexual orientation and there is NO exclusion for such in this law and such was debated, and such was rejected.

Thus the ideological left HAS OFFICIALLY DECLARED PEDOPHILIA AS A PROTECTED CLASS within the citizenry... and when the history of either the fall of the US or the second US Civil War is written; it will be noted that this point in which we're presently living is one of the milestones of the decadence which lead directly to it.

Actually pedophilia is NOT a sexual orientation, and is NOT treated as such. Before making ridiculous claims like this, you should really do your research.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

See? Your spinning Pubs is just too far fetched and only makes fewer people listen.

ROFLMNAO... what the Kitty meant by this is known only to her...

But this word 'Spin' which the political elites LOVE to abuse is an interesting one... One's "Spin" is nothing more than one's perspective; thus the word is used as an invalid means of reasoning to attack a perspective, by delcaring that perspective invalid; by declaring it 'spin'...

This bill, which tacitly determines pedophilia to be worthy of civil protections, is nothing more than a symptom of a culture in the last stages of decline.

It's Sunday Morning and I'm cruising through the channels on cable TV and I find a comedian openly discussing his sex life... Numerous commercials with nubile young ladies in their scanties... expressing wonderfully sexually orientated postures... and on lifetime... it's a full blown demostration of soft porn...

The secularist would have you believe that such is perfectly normal and acceptable... that you've a right to change the channel and turn off your TV... so ya pick up the Newspaper... and there are 10 year old girls in their underwear... looking at mommy in her underwear... Don't even THINK about turning to a magazine... and the web... FORGEDABOUDIT!

So, while the Kitty wants to 'spin' this as a gross overstatement; the culture is sex crazed... there are literally no taboos left... everything is up for grabs and if you think that the former cultural standards, all of which are based on Judeo-Christian values... which prevents the consideration of adult child sex are sufficient to hold back THAT taboo... then you're kidding yourself.

One generation at the MAX and the liberals on this board will be on another board at that time, declaring the hard scientific findings where it is 'known that children mature at a much younger age than was previously believed... particularly in families where Judeo-Christian values are not slung around their neck... and that there is no reason to believe that a 10 year old or a 12 year old is not perfectly capable of consenting to a loving relationship...' After all, it will have been 20 years ago, by then, that US Law declared that those suffering sexual deviency were a protected class, thus validating their 'disorder'... and preventing people from treating them 'differently'... or kicking the hell out of them, if they formed a loving relationship with one's child...

Of course, "RAPE" will still be off the table... as that will take a few more generations to rinse down to meaningless... after all, it's only sex... and some people just naturally LIKE IT ROUGH!

 

[Sky Dancer]

See? Your spinning Pubs is just too far fetched and only makes fewer people listen.

ROFLMNAO... what the Kitty meant by this is known only to her...

But this word 'Spin' which the political elites LOVE to abuse is an interesting one... One's "Spin" is nothing more than one's perspective; thus the word is used as an invalid means of reasoning to attack a perspective, by delcaring that perspective invalid; by declaring it 'spin'...

This bill, which tacitly determines pedophilia to be worthy of civil protections, is nothing more than a symptom of a culture in the last stages of decline.

It's Sunday Morning and I'm cruising through the channels on cable TV and I find a comedian openly discussing his sex life... Numerous commercials with nubile young ladies in their scanties... expressing wonderfully sexually orientated postures... and on lifetime... it's a full blown demostration of soft porn...

The secularist would have you believe that such is perfectly normal and acceptable... that you've a right to change the channel and turn off your TV... so ya pick up the Newspaper... and there are 10 year old girls in their underwear... looking at mommy in her underwear... Don't even THINK about turning to a magazine... and the web... FORGEDABOUDIT!

So, while the Kitty wants to 'spin' this as a gross overstatement; the culture is sex crazed... there are literally no taboos left... everything is up for grabs and if you think that the former cultural standards, all of which are based on Judeo-Christian values... which prevents the consideration of adult child sex are sufficient to hold back THAT taboo... then you're kidding yourself.

One generation at the MAX and the liberals on this board will be on another board at that time, declaring the hard scientific findings where it is 'known that children mature at a much younger age than was previously believed... particularly in families where Judeo-Christian values are not slung around their neck... and that there is no reason to believe that a 10 year old or a 12 year old is not perfectly capable of consenting to a loving relationship...' After all, it will have been 20 years ago, by then, that US Law declared that those suffering sexual deviency were a protected class, thus validating their 'disorder'... and preventing people from treating them 'differently'... or kicking the hell out of them, if they formed a loving relationship with one's child...

Of course, "RAPE" will still be off the table... as that will take a few more generations to rinse down to meaningless... after all, it's only sex... and some people just naturally LIKE IT ROUGH!

Coherence. Ever hear of the term?

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

Wow...WorldNetDaily...Follows FOX Noise's lead in propagating bullshit. US law already defines sexual orientation as applying ONLY to "consensual homosexuality or heterosexuality", thereby EXCLUDING pedophiles who sexually abuse children.

First, US Law doesn't define anything of the kind... the argument is absurd on its face...

Homosexuality is a mental disorder; a psychosis which results in a perversion of the natural sexual instincts... Pedophilia is a mental disorder which results in a perversion of the natural sexual instincts...

The fact is that pedophilia is a sexual orientation and there is NO exclusion for such in this law and such was debated, and such was rejected.

Thus the ideological left HAS OFFICIALLY DECLARED PEDOPHILIA AS A PROTECTED CLASS within the citizenry... and when the history of either the fall of the US or the second US Civil War is written; it will be noted that this point in which we're presently living is one of the milestones of the decadence which lead directly to it.

And the idiots on the right think if they spout the same lies enough times people will believe them.

Pedophilia is a crime. Homosexuality is a sexual orientation and completely legal. We are discussing the Matthew Shephard Act, which is hate crimes legislation.

It's not a question of 'believing' anything... If I sat in here as I have many times and droned on about gravity... you're free to disagree that gravity exist, despite our best scientific minds not having any idea what it actually is... or the source of it's origins; but gravity would exist and your disagreement would be, as it is here, wholly irrelevant.
Pedophilia is a crime... as was homosexuality, in most places, just a few short decades ago; hell it was a crime in many places just a few YEARS ago... and all it took to make it NOT a crime was a decision by a judge... who simply disagreed that the crime was what? That it failed to treat the devient equally...

As noted above, all we need to sipe pedophilia from the Big Book O'Crimes... is to change the law... and I'd say we've taken one step in that direction already...

As soon as this bill is signed into law, the punishment for beating a pedophile will be expoentially more severe than it is today... a point of no small value... as it will serve to lend credence to the secular 'scientists' the psychologists and mental health therapists who have come to know many would-be 'victims' of pedophilia who actually benefitted in many ways from a 'loving relationship' with their adult lover.

The APA issued just such a 'report' MANY years ago... which was shot out of the sky by Dr. Laura Schlesinger... and there was NO GREATER CONDEMNATION of her contest of that 'report' than that of the HOMOSEXUAL COMMUNITY...

One generation... at the most; that's all...

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

I'm skeptical that a condition categorized as a mental illness in DSM-IV (though I'd be curious to see these other "-philias" defined as conventional sexual orientations anywhere), would be considered a valid "orientation" by any stretch of the word. But then again, the word "pedophile," as with the word "terrorist," is a valuable tool in any demagogue's arsenal, given its ability to cloud rational analysis through the exploitation of base and crudely wrought urges and emotions. It thus serves as a valuable means of eliminating political and ideological dissent.

Ahhh... that's it... soften the language... change the name... sorta like 'gay'... only something not so obvious... that way the word used to describe the freaks will not inspire such discontent.

Great point...

Let the record reflect that I do not know this member; that I’ve had no contact with them; and in no way encouraged or compensated them to post that position, advocating for calmer heads to prevail and to take the extremist demagogues out of it... to soften the language, so that 'pedophile' doesn't automatically trigger a negative response and feed into the demagoguery... In order to give the impression that my position was spot on and that the same tactics used to normalize homosexuality would be effectively used to do the same for the rest of the pervs.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

Wow...WorldNetDaily...Follows FOX Noise's lead in propagating bullshit. US law already defines sexual orientation as applying ONLY to "consensual homosexuality or heterosexuality", thereby EXCLUDING pedophiles who sexually abuse children.

First, US Law doesn't define anything of the kind... the argument is absurd on its face...

Homosexuality is a mental disorder; a psychosis which results in a perversion of the natural sexual instincts... Pedophilia is a mental disorder which results in a perversion of the natural sexual instincts...

The fact is that pedophilia is a sexual orientation and there is NO exclusion for such in this law and such was debated, and such was rejected.

Thus the ideological left HAS OFFICIALLY DECLARED PEDOPHILIA AS A PROTECTED CLASS within the citizenry... and when the history of either the fall of the US or the second US Civil War is written; it will be noted that this point in which we're presently living is one of the milestones of the decadence which lead directly to it.

Actually pedophilia is NOT a sexual orientation, and is NOT treated as such. Before making ridiculous claims like this, you should really do your research.

ROFLMNAO... Oh GOD! That's precious...

So the instinct to seek sexual gratification from pre-pubescents, is NOT a sexual oriention? And wholly distinct, scientifically speaking of course, from the instinct to seek sexual gratification from those of their own gender... which is so clearly that most dubious of all cultural protections: a 'sexual orientation...'

Of course the difficulty ya have there is the word 'orientation'. Which tends to require a baseline... doesn't it? So without such a baseline, it's impossible to establish orientation, isn't it? And given that the baseline for the sexual orientation is normal sexual instincts, where the desire for sexual gratification is through a person of the opposite gender, similar age and so on... sexual orientation where such instincts are distinct would necessarily require that those 'orientations' are distinct from that baseline, now wouldn't it?

So where a person finds themselves craving sexual gratification from children... be they children of the same gender or of the opposite gender, they would be oriented differently from that baseline, thus a distinct 'sexual orientation' from that baseline; thus your position is absolutely absurd.

Oh you're makin' sense now Scooter! Please continue...

 

[Nik]

First, US Law doesn't define anything of the kind... the argument is absurd on its face...

Homosexuality is a mental disorder; a psychosis which results in a perversion of the natural sexual instincts... Pedophilia is a mental disorder which results in a perversion of the natural sexual instincts...

The fact is that pedophilia is a sexual orientation and there is NO exclusion for such in this law and such was debated, and such was rejected.

Thus the ideological left HAS OFFICIALLY DECLARED PEDOPHILIA AS A PROTECTED CLASS within the citizenry... and when the history of either the fall of the US or the second US Civil War is written; it will be noted that this point in which we're presently living is one of the milestones of the decadence which lead directly to it.

Actually pedophilia is NOT a sexual orientation, and is NOT treated as such. Before making ridiculous claims like this, you should really do your research.

ROFLMNAO... Oh GOD! That's precious...

So the instinct to seek sexual gratification from pre-pubescents, is NOT a sexual oriention? And wholly distinct, scientifically speaking of course, from the instinct to seek sexual gratification from those of their own gender...

Oh you're makin' sense now Scooter! Please continue...

That is correct. Consult DSM-IV if you don't believe me. They are the experts on this kind of shit, not you.

 

[Nik]

First, US Law doesn't define anything of the kind... the argument is absurd on its face...

Homosexuality is a mental disorder; a psychosis which results in a perversion of the natural sexual instincts... Pedophilia is a mental disorder which results in a perversion of the natural sexual instincts...

The fact is that pedophilia is a sexual orientation and there is NO exclusion for such in this law and such was debated, and such was rejected.

Thus the ideological left HAS OFFICIALLY DECLARED PEDOPHILIA AS A PROTECTED CLASS within the citizenry... and when the history of either the fall of the US or the second US Civil War is written; it will be noted that this point in which we're presently living is one of the milestones of the decadence which lead directly to it.

And the idiots on the right think if they spout the same lies enough times people will believe them.

Pedophilia is a crime. Homosexuality is a sexual orientation and completely legal. We are discussing the Matthew Shephard Act, which is hate crimes legislation.

It's not a question of 'believing' anything... If I sat in here as I have many times and droned on about gravity... you're free to disagree that gravity exist, despite our best scientific minds not having any idea what it actually is... or the source of it's origins; but gravity would exist and your disagreement would be, as it is here, wholly irrelevant.
Pedophilia is a crime... as was homosexuality, in most places, just a few short decades ago; hell it was a crime in many places just a few YEARS ago... and all it took to make it NOT a crime was a decision by a judge... who simply disagreed that the crime was what? That it failed to treat the devient equally...

As noted above, all we need to sipe pedophilia from the Big Book O'Crimes... is to change the law... and I'd say we've taken one step in that direction already...

As soon as this bill is signed into law, the punishment for beating a pedophile will be expoentially more severe than it is today... a point of no small value... as it will serve to lend credence to the secular 'scientists' the psychologists and mental health therapists who have come to know many would-be 'victims' of pedophilia who actually benefitted in many ways from a 'loving relationship' with their adult lover.

The APA issued just such a 'report' MANY years ago... which was shot out of the sky by Dr. Laura Schlesinger... and there was NO GREATER CONDEMNATION of her contest of that 'report' than that of the HOMOSEXUAL COMMUNITY...

One generation... at the most; that's all...

Actually it is "believing" something, since you've made the claim that pedophilia will be a protected class under the new law. That is, frankly, ridiculous as a prima facie matter, and even if your strange interpretation of the law was actually true, no judge would treat it as such. There is no statutory interpretative tool that you can use to transform the words sexual orientation to include pedophilia. None.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

See? Your spinning Pubs is just too far fetched and only makes fewer people listen.

ROFLMNAO... what the Kitty meant by this is known only to her...

But this word 'Spin' which the political elites LOVE to abuse is an interesting one... One's "Spin" is nothing more than one's perspective; thus the word is used as an invalid means of reasoning to attack a perspective, by delcaring that perspective invalid; by declaring it 'spin'...

This bill, which tacitly determines pedophilia to be worthy of civil protections, is nothing more than a symptom of a culture in the last stages of decline.

It's Sunday Morning and I'm cruising through the channels on cable TV and I find a comedian openly discussing his sex life... Numerous commercials with nubile young ladies in their scanties... expressing wonderfully sexually orientated postures... and on lifetime... it's a full blown demostration of soft porn...

The secularist would have you believe that such is perfectly normal and acceptable... that you've a right to change the channel and turn off your TV... so ya pick up the Newspaper... and there are 10 year old girls in their underwear... looking at mommy in her underwear... Don't even THINK about turning to a magazine... and the web... FORGEDABOUDIT!

So, while the Kitty wants to 'spin' this as a gross overstatement; the culture is sex crazed... there are literally no taboos left... everything is up for grabs and if you think that the former cultural standards, all of which are based on Judeo-Christian values... which prevents the consideration of adult child sex are sufficient to hold back THAT taboo... then you're kidding yourself.

One generation at the MAX and the liberals on this board will be on another board at that time, declaring the hard scientific findings where it is 'known that children mature at a much younger age than was previously believed... particularly in families where Judeo-Christian values are not slung around their neck... and that there is no reason to believe that a 10 year old or a 12 year old is not perfectly capable of consenting to a loving relationship...' After all, it will have been 20 years ago, by then, that US Law declared that those suffering sexual deviency were a protected class, thus validating their 'disorder'... and preventing people from treating them 'differently'... or kicking the hell out of them, if they formed a loving relationship with one's child...

Of course, "RAPE" will still be off the table... as that will take a few more generations to rinse down to meaningless... after all, it's only sex... and some people just naturally LIKE IT ROUGH!

Coherence. Ever hear of the term?

Yeah... it seems I have... if memory serves, that was the same word list where 'obfuscation' was noted... ever hear of that one?

I'm sure that was the same day we discussed 'avoidance...' and how such served as the feeble tactic of the weak case... where the argument is by-passed and an invalid projection is applied to undermine the argument, so as to avoid having to debate the points within it.

Yes... those were heady days, with all those new concepts coming at such a feverish pace... right along with discussions of veracity, ethics and morality and how some people confused those concepts and did so due to stark intellectual limitations...

 

[WillowTree]

so there's no such thing as equal justice under the law.. justice happens not to be blind.. hmmmmm.

 

[Agnapostate]

Ahhh... that's it... soften the language... change the name... sorta like 'gay'... only something not so obvious... that way the word used to describe the freaks will not inspire such discontent.

Great point...

Let the record reflect that I do not know this member; that I’ve had no contact with them; and in no way encouraged or compensated them to post that position, advocating for calmer heads to prevail and to take the extremist demagogues out of it... to soften the language, so that 'pedophile' doesn't automatically trigger a negative response and feed into the demagoguery... In order to give the impression that my position was spot on and that the same tactics used to normalize homosexuality would be effectively used to do the same for the rest of the pervs.

Correction of your inaccuracies and abuse of APA terminology doesn't constitute much more than that. Of course it's only a principle of mine that I oppose the bill, you understand. It's merely that I can't tolerate your typical abuse of terminology when it manifests itself in a particularly egregious and offensive manner.

 

[Nik]

so there's no such thing as equal justice under the law.. justice happens not to be blind.. hmmmmm.

Equal justice means that the law treats you the same, no matter who you are. That has nothing at all to do with what we are talking about here. What we are discussing is different consequences for different actions.

 

[AVG-JOE]

See? Your spinning Pubs is just too far fetched and only makes fewer people listen.

... Sorry. Did Publidude say something? All I saw was "Blah, blah, blah..." as I breezed by without really reading it...

DAMN, but it is good to be an American!

-Joe

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

Actually pedophilia is NOT a sexual orientation, and is NOT treated as such. Before making ridiculous claims like this, you should really do your research.

ROFLMNAO... Oh GOD! That's precious...

So the instinct to seek sexual gratification from pre-pubescents, is NOT a sexual oriention? And wholly distinct, scientifically speaking of course, from the instinct to seek sexual gratification from those of their own gender... which is so clearly that most dubious of all cultural protections: a 'sexual orientation...'

Of course the difficulty ya have there is the word 'orientation'. Which tends to require a baseline... doesn't it? So without such a baseline, it's impossible to establish orientation, isn't it? And given that the baseline for the sexual orientation is normal sexual instincts, where the desire for sexual gratification is through a person of the opposite gender, similar age and so on... sexual orientation where such instincts are distinct would necessarily require that those 'orientations' are distinct from that baseline, now wouldn't it?

So where a person finds themselves craving sexual gratification from children... be they children of the same gender or of the opposite gender, they would be oriented differently from that baseline, thus a distinct 'sexual orientation' from that baseline; thus your position is absolutely absurd.

Oh you're makin' sense now Scooter! Please continue...

That is correct. Consult DSM-IV if you don't believe me. They are the experts on this kind of shit, not you.

LOL... Oh I'm sure... because the people who make that same claim THERE, well they're not subject to the laws of reason... like everyone else.

 

[Nik]

ROFLMNAO... Oh GOD! That's precious...

So the instinct to seek sexual gratification from pre-pubescents, is NOT a sexual oriention? And wholly distinct, scientifically speaking of course, from the instinct to seek sexual gratification from those of their own gender... which is so clearly that most dubious of all cultural protections: a 'sexual orientation...'

Of course the difficulty ya have there is the word 'orientation'. Which tends to require a baseline... doesn't it? So without such a baseline, it's impossible to establish orientation, isn't it? And given that the baseline for the sexual orientation is normal sexual instincts, where the desire for sexual gratification is through a person of the opposite gender, similar age and so on... sexual orientation where such instincts are distinct would necessarily require that those 'orientations' are distinct from that baseline, now wouldn't it?

So where a person finds themselves craving sexual gratification from children... be they children of the same gender or of the opposite gender, they would be oriented differently from that baseline, thus a distinct 'sexual orientation' from that baseline; thus your position is absolutely absurd.

Oh you're makin' sense now Scooter! Please continue...

That is correct. Consult DSM-IV if you don't believe me. They are the experts on this kind of shit, not you.

LOL... Oh I'm sure... because the people who make that same claim THERE, well they're not subject to the laws of reason... like everyone else.

Please explain what are these "laws of reasons". Actually, don't bother, because its clear you just made that up, like the rest of the bullshit you spew.

Those are the scientists who actually study homosexuality, and pedophilia, and they say pedophilia is not a sexual orientation. In fact, you will be hard pressed to find any reputable scientific group that is willing to say that. And yet these groups who don't follow the "laws of reason" are responsible for bringing us modern technological marvels. Must be just all luck, i guess.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

And the idiots on the right think if they spout the same lies enough times people will believe them.

Pedophilia is a crime. Homosexuality is a sexual orientation and completely legal. We are discussing the Matthew Shephard Act, which is hate crimes legislation.

It's not a question of 'believing' anything... If I sat in here as I have many times and droned on about gravity... you're free to disagree that gravity exist, despite our best scientific minds not having any idea what it actually is... or the source of it's origins; but gravity would exist and your disagreement would be, as it is here, wholly irrelevant.
Pedophilia is a crime... as was homosexuality, in most places, just a few short decades ago; hell it was a crime in many places just a few YEARS ago... and all it took to make it NOT a crime was a decision by a judge... who simply disagreed that the crime was what? That it failed to treat the devient equally...

As noted above, all we need to sipe pedophilia from the Big Book O'Crimes... is to change the law... and I'd say we've taken one step in that direction already...

As soon as this bill is signed into law, the punishment for beating a pedophile will be expoentially more severe than it is today... a point of no small value... as it will serve to lend credence to the secular 'scientists' the psychologists and mental health therapists who have come to know many would-be 'victims' of pedophilia who actually benefitted in many ways from a 'loving relationship' with their adult lover.

The APA issued just such a 'report' MANY years ago... which was shot out of the sky by Dr. Laura Schlesinger... and there was NO GREATER CONDEMNATION of her contest of that 'report' than that of the HOMOSEXUAL COMMUNITY...

One generation... at the most; that's all...

Actually it is "believing" something, since you've made the claim that pedophilia will be a protected class under the new law. That is, frankly, ridiculous as a prima facie matter, and even if your strange interpretation of the law was actually true, no judge would treat it as such. There is no statutory interpretative tool that you can use to transform the words sexual orientation to include pedophilia. None.

Ahh... yes.. the patented 'declarations of assurance!'... LOVE "EM!

I well recall the debates back in the 1970s where the advocates of normalizing homosexuality contested assertions by their opposition, that were such to happen, that it would only be a matter of time before homosexuals were overtly demonstrating public displays of homosexual love... that the media will portray homosexuality in over optimistinc terms and at some point, they will demand a right to marry one another; that it only served reason, that where a given 'lifestyle' is said to be 'normal' that people engaged in that lifestyle will demand the same cultrual status as hetero-sexuals in marriage.

"That's rediculous! It's a slippery slope argument, where irrational predictions of doom and gloom are used to change the subject, when there is NO EVIDENCE that ANY of that will ever happen, or that anyone will ever challenge that marriage is anything but a union between a man and a woman...

All we're asking is for people to respect homosexuals as people... that's all..."

And here we have today, friends, that the Democrat bill which establishes sexual orientation as a protected class, where pedophilia was DEBATED, it was suggested that such should be excluded from the protections and SUCH WAS REJECTED... that despite that... we have this idiots assuarance and "NO JUDGE WOULD EVER TREAT IT AS SUCH!"

Two words, friends: Ninth Circuit...

 

[Nik]

It's not a question of 'believing' anything... If I sat in here as I have many times and droned on about gravity... you're free to disagree that gravity exist, despite our best scientific minds not having any idea what it actually is... or the source of it's origins; but gravity would exist and your disagreement would be, as it is here, wholly irrelevant.
Pedophilia is a crime... as was homosexuality, in most places, just a few short decades ago; hell it was a crime in many places just a few YEARS ago... and all it took to make it NOT a crime was a decision by a judge... who simply disagreed that the crime was what? That it failed to treat the devient equally...

As noted above, all we need to sipe pedophilia from the Big Book O'Crimes... is to change the law... and I'd say we've taken one step in that direction already...

As soon as this bill is signed into law, the punishment for beating a pedophile will be expoentially more severe than it is today... a point of no small value... as it will serve to lend credence to the secular 'scientists' the psychologists and mental health therapists who have come to know many would-be 'victims' of pedophilia who actually benefitted in many ways from a 'loving relationship' with their adult lover.

The APA issued just such a 'report' MANY years ago... which was shot out of the sky by Dr. Laura Schlesinger... and there was NO GREATER CONDEMNATION of her contest of that 'report' than that of the HOMOSEXUAL COMMUNITY...

One generation... at the most; that's all...

Actually it is "believing" something, since you've made the claim that pedophilia will be a protected class under the new law. That is, frankly, ridiculous as a prima facie matter, and even if your strange interpretation of the law was actually true, no judge would treat it as such. There is no statutory interpretative tool that you can use to transform the words sexual orientation to include pedophilia. None.

Ahh... yes.. the patented 'declarations of assurance!'... LOVE "EM!

I well recall the debates back in the 1970s where the advocates of normalizing homosexuality contested assertions by their opposition, that were such to happen, that it would only be a matter of time before homosexuals were overtly demonstrating public displays of homosexual love... that the media will portray homosexuality in over optimistinc terms and at some point, they will demand a right to marry one another; that it only served reason, that where a given 'lifestyle' is said to be 'normal' that people engaged in that lifestyle will demand the same cultrual status as hetero-sexuals in marriage.

"That's rediculous! It's a slippery slope argument, where irrational predictions of doom and gloom are used to change the subject, when there is NO EVIDENCE that ANY of that will ever happen, or that anyone will ever challenge that marriage is anything but a union between a man and a woman...

All we're asking is for people to respect homosexuals as people... that's all..."

And here we have today, friends, that the Democrat bill which establishes sexual orientation as a protected class, where pedophilia was DEBATED, it was suggested that such should be excluded from the protections and SUCH WAS REJECTED... that despite that... we have this idiots assuarance and "NO JUDGE WOULD EVER TREAT IT AS SUCH!"

Two words, friends: Ninth Circuit...

Oh noes...gays holding hands in public...the horror!

And, yet again, you assert the Democratic bill protects pedophilia. It doesn't. The amendment to exclude pedophilia was defeated because it is, obviously, unnecessary. By the way, excluding pedophilia would do more to hurt your cause than help it. If you specifically excluded pedophilia, courts might interpret sexual orientation as something broader. But barring that, there is 0 reason for them to do so.

And there is nothing wrong with the Ninth Circuits opinions. They would never protect pedophilia under the bill, that much is patently obvious.

 

[007]

Actually it is "believing" something, since you've made the claim that pedophilia will be a protected class under the new law. That is, frankly, ridiculous as a prima facie matter, and even if your strange interpretation of the law was actually true, no judge would treat it as such. There is no statutory interpretative tool that you can use to transform the words sexual orientation to include pedophilia. None.

Ahh... yes.. the patented 'declarations of assurance!'... LOVE "EM!

I well recall the debates back in the 1970s where the advocates of normalizing homosexuality contested assertions by their opposition, that were such to happen, that it would only be a matter of time before homosexuals were overtly demonstrating public displays of homosexual love... that the media will portray homosexuality in over optimistinc terms and at some point, they will demand a right to marry one another; that it only served reason, that where a given 'lifestyle' is said to be 'normal' that people engaged in that lifestyle will demand the same cultrual status as hetero-sexuals in marriage.

"That's rediculous! It's a slippery slope argument, where irrational predictions of doom and gloom are used to change the subject, when there is NO EVIDENCE that ANY of that will ever happen, or that anyone will ever challenge that marriage is anything but a union between a man and a woman...

All we're asking is for people to respect homosexuals as people... that's all..."

And here we have today, friends, that the Democrat bill which establishes sexual orientation as a protected class, where pedophilia was DEBATED, it was suggested that such should be excluded from the protections and SUCH WAS REJECTED... that despite that... we have this idiots assuarance and "NO JUDGE WOULD EVER TREAT IT AS SUCH!"

Two words, friends: Ninth Circuit...

Oh noes...gays holding hands in public...the horror!

And, yet again, you assert the Democratic bill protects pedophilia. It doesn't. The amendment to exclude pedophilia was defeated because it is, obviously, unnecessary. By the way, excluding pedophilia would do more to hurt your cause than help it. If you specifically excluded pedophilia, courts might interpret sexual orientation as something broader. But barring that, there is 0 reason for them to do so.

And there is nothing wrong with the Ninth Circuits opinions. They would never protect pedophilia under the bill, that much is patently obvious.

The bill can and will be used to protect pedophiles. You're personal assertion that it won't doesn't hold water. It's there, it wasn't removed, it WILL be used to protect pedophiles. That is EXACTLY why it WAS NOT REMOVED.

You liberals have a love affair with homosexuals. That's no secret. It's part of your voting block, and for no other reason than that, THAT is why you LIBERALS did NOT remove pedophiles from the bill. You knew it would PISS OFF your homo voters.

 

[Nik]

Ahh... yes.. the patented 'declarations of assurance!'... LOVE "EM!

I well recall the debates back in the 1970s where the advocates of normalizing homosexuality contested assertions by their opposition, that were such to happen, that it would only be a matter of time before homosexuals were overtly demonstrating public displays of homosexual love... that the media will portray homosexuality in over optimistinc terms and at some point, they will demand a right to marry one another; that it only served reason, that where a given 'lifestyle' is said to be 'normal' that people engaged in that lifestyle will demand the same cultrual status as hetero-sexuals in marriage.

"That's rediculous! It's a slippery slope argument, where irrational predictions of doom and gloom are used to change the subject, when there is NO EVIDENCE that ANY of that will ever happen, or that anyone will ever challenge that marriage is anything but a union between a man and a woman...

All we're asking is for people to respect homosexuals as people... that's all..."

And here we have today, friends, that the Democrat bill which establishes sexual orientation as a protected class, where pedophilia was DEBATED, it was suggested that such should be excluded from the protections and SUCH WAS REJECTED... that despite that... we have this idiots assuarance and "NO JUDGE WOULD EVER TREAT IT AS SUCH!"

Two words, friends: Ninth Circuit...

Oh noes...gays holding hands in public...the horror!

And, yet again, you assert the Democratic bill protects pedophilia. It doesn't. The amendment to exclude pedophilia was defeated because it is, obviously, unnecessary. By the way, excluding pedophilia would do more to hurt your cause than help it. If you specifically excluded pedophilia, courts might interpret sexual orientation as something broader. But barring that, there is 0 reason for them to do so.

And there is nothing wrong with the Ninth Circuits opinions. They would never protect pedophilia under the bill, that much is patently obvious.

The bill can and will be used to protect pedophiles. You're personal assertion that it won't doesn't hold water. It's there, it wasn't removed, it WILL be used to protect pedophiles. That is EXACTLY why it WAS NOT REMOVED.

You liberals have a love affair with homosexuals. That's no secret. It's part of your voting block, and for no other reason than that, THAT is why you LIBERALS did NOT remove pedophiles from the bill. You knew it would PISS OFF your homo voters.

Your assertion that its there is the thing that doesn't hold any water. You, nor Pub, have provided any evidence at all to support the claim that it will protect pedophiles. Feel free to do so at some point, but merely making the same assertion ad nauseum is getting tiring.

Pedophiles weren't specifically excluded from the bill because it was unnecessary, and because then the bill would imply an odd definition of sexual orientation. In fact, if you did that, courts would have no recourse but to define sexual orientation as something overly broad, when its actually not.

 

[Bullypulpit]

Wow...WorldNetDaily...Follows FOX Noise's lead in propagating bullshit. US law already defines sexual orientation as applying ONLY to "consensual homosexuality or heterosexuality", thereby EXCLUDING pedophiles who sexually abuse children.

First, US Law doesn't define anything of the kind... the argument is absurd on its face...

Homosexuality is a mental disorder; a psychosis which results in a perversion of the natural sexual instincts... Pedophilia is a mental disorder which results in a perversion of the natural sexual instincts...

The fact is that pedophilia is a sexual orientation and there is NO exclusion for such in this law and such was debated, and such was rejected.

Thus the ideological left HAS OFFICIALLY DECLARED PEDOPHILIA AS A PROTECTED CLASS within the citizenry... and when the history of either the fall of the US or the second US Civil War is written; it will be noted that this point in which we're presently living is one of the milestones of the decadence which lead directly to it.

Ummm...No, the "ideological left" has done no such thing, and your continued repetition of this particular bit of right wing-nut bullshit will not make it otherwise.

As for this bit of excreta...

First, US Law doesn't define anything of the kind... the argument is absurd on its face...

The Hate Crimes Statistics Act pf 1990 states quite clearly that "...the term "sexual orientation" means consensual homosexuality or heterosexuality...".

PubliusIgnotus...You are hoist by your own petard.