'Pedophile Protection Act' Heads to Senate Committee

[Sky Dancer]

Pedophilia isn't a lifestyle, it's not even truly sexual, it's a form of abuse, your argument falls flat because of that.

ROFLMNAO.. DAMN look at all the advocates of deviency flying around this thread?

(Now remember kids... they're arguing that the left is NOT hard core advocates of deviency... and just because they've been arguing on it's bahalf for two hours, should NOT lead anyone to conclude that they are...)

Pedophilia is every bit as much a 'lifestyle' as is homosexuality...

It's the CHOICE to seek sexual gratification from far abeam of the baseline norm... Oh sure, the law prevents them from moving in with the kids... TODAY.

But the pedophile sits in their home with their secret stach of child porn and focusees and obsesses on their kink, just as much as the homosexual sits and focuses on theirs... they just get to play catch at home...

What's more; that Pedophilia focuses upon those who are presently declared to be psychologically incapable of consent is PURELY a function of what the law declares to be acceptable in terms of that age... and where the law changes to include the adolescent... PRESTO... the pedophiles are IN!

Now you want to argue that it's a crime... well this bill is the first step to undermining that status... In and of itself this bill doesn't change that status... it merely establishes a legal precedent from which a cultural rationalization and a future legal challenge can be mounted...

Nothing more deviant than BDSM.

Nonsense. Pedophilia is deviant, rape is deviant. BDSM is consensual sexual play between adults.

 

[Agnapostate]

ROFL... OH... So you're saying that the DSM-IV says the pedophilia and ephbophilia are two names given to the same sexual orientation wherein the individual suffers the mental disorder which falls from the baseline... with one craving sex from little kids and the other craving sex from older kids... not at all dissimilar in most respects from the sexual orientation of homosexuality... where sexual cravings are focussed upon those of the same gender. Just two barely distinguishable licks from the same debaucherous bowl.

Incorrect. Ephebophilia is not classified as a mental disorder as pedophilia is, and it would not have been similarly maladaptive in the sense that exclusive sexual attraction to prepubescent children would inhibit one's capacity to reproduce. Homosexuality is also similarly not classified as a mental disorder, and you still[/i] seem to possess an inability to grasp the meaning of the term "sexual orientation."

Thanks Doctor Dumbass... I appreciate the schoolin'... now if any of it served to substantiate your point that would be a real kill-shot for ya.

Sadly, for you... all ya did was to establish that you know that pedophilia is a classification of the same mental disorder that is homosexuality... which is 'sexual'; as is pedophilia and this obscure but indistinguishable disorder where the perv get their kicks off on older kids.

Which pretty will dsicredits you on the issue... in its entirety.

Nice work...

Gotcha...

Ephebophilia is not a mental disorder, just as teleiophilia (sexual preference for adults), is not a mental disorder. Moreover, if you want to claim that a sexual preference for adolescents (typically aged 15-19) is a mental disorder akin to pedophilia, you'll likely run into conflicts with both the law (since the most common age of sexual consent in the U.S. is 16), as well as so conservative a figure as Newt Gingrich, since he's in favor of "ending adolescence,", which would presumably eliminate legal distinctions between legal adults and those currently considered "adolescents."

I await your thread announcing that Newt Gingrich is in favor of legalizing pedophilia.

 

[Nik]

Pedophilia isn't a lifestyle, it's not even truly sexual, it's a form of abuse, your argument falls flat because of that.

ROFLMNAO.. DAMN look at all the advocates of deviency flying around this thread?

(Now remember kids... they're arguing that the left is NOT hard core advocates of deviency... and just because they've been arguing on it's bahalf for two hours, should NOT lead anyone to conclude that they are...)

Pedophilia is every bit as much a 'lifestyle' as is homosexuality...

It's the CHOICE to seek sexual gratification from far abeam of the baseline norm... Oh sure, the law prevents them from moving in with the kids... TODAY.

But the pedophile sits in their home with their secret stach of child porn and focusees and obsesses on their kink, just as much as the homosexual sits and focuses on theirs... they just get to play catch at home...

What's more; that Pedophilia focuses upon those who are presently declared to be psychologically incapable of consent is PURELY a function of what the law declares to be acceptable in terms of that age... and where the law changes to include the adolescent... PRESTO... the pedophiles are IN!

Now you want to argue that it's a crime... well this bill is the first step to undermining that status... In and of itself this bill doesn't change that status... it merely establishes a legal precedent from which a cultural rationalization and a future legal challenge can be mounted...

Any evidence yet?....Nope?...ok, well, I'll be waiting.

Nooooo.... I haven't proven ANYTHING... which is the basis for your having long since fled the argument... because my argument is empty and such is clear to any objective thord party which would read this thread... and your emphatic declarations that I haven't proven anything are necessary... because, at least in your mind... I haven't proven anything.

Oh Yeah... you're all over it.

I'm going to "flee" the argument soon too if you don't actually say something new, or respond to my points. And no its not because you have proven anything, its because there is little point in arguing with someone who merely repeats the same thing over and over again. Yeah you won a "victory", congratulations on being so annoying and obstinant that people won't argue with you because you are so incoherent and illogical you can't even recognize simple basic facts.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

No Pubs, what you are saying is not truth, it's spin, and a really far reach for a strawman. If you want we will look at something that should be illegal but isn't, BDSM and any form of it. Technically it's abuse and not a lifestyle or sexual orientation, and should be punishable by death. We could put that in there to.

Yes... "I hear you saying that my position isn't truth... " what I don't hear you saying is anything which might on some level support that which you're saying...

I hear you saying that my position is a strawman... what I don't hear you saying is anything which would demonstrate that such is the case... and I hear your chronic referense to the whole 'whips and chain thang...' and why you keep making these references is known only to you...

If two hetero-sexuals enjoy yanking on each others fun parts... that's there business... I couldn't care less. Sure, it can be argued that they're a couple of kinks... but we still end up at "so what?" I don't see anyone offering protections for them in that law? Hell i've never even HEARD anyone complain about 'em... to the best of my knowledge, those people just like to be left the hell alone...

Queers on the other hand... they need the world to celebrate their perversion; flip the world on it's axis, to accomodate them...

No thanks... you're a pack of assholes and while I know that's what ya love about yourselves the most... it doesn't help the rest of us MUCH!

 

[KittenKoder]

ROFLMNAO.. DAMN look at all the advocates of deviency flying around this thread?

(Now remember kids... they're arguing that the left is NOT hard core advocates of deviency... and just because they've been arguing on it's bahalf for two hours, should NOT lead anyone to conclude that they are...)

Pedophilia is every bit as much a 'lifestyle' as is homosexuality...

It's the CHOICE to seek sexual gratification from far abeam of the baseline norm... Oh sure, the law prevents them from moving in with the kids... TODAY.

But the pedophile sits in their home with their secret stach of child porn and focusees and obsesses on their kink, just as much as the homosexual sits and focuses on theirs... they just get to play catch at home...

What's more; that Pedophilia focuses upon those who are presently declared to be psychologically incapable of consent is PURELY a function of what the law declares to be acceptable in terms of that age... and where the law changes to include the adolescent... PRESTO... the pedophiles are IN!

Now you want to argue that it's a crime... well this bill is the first step to undermining that status... In and of itself this bill doesn't change that status... it merely establishes a legal precedent from which a cultural rationalization and a future legal challenge can be mounted...

Nothing more deviant than BDSM.

Nonsense. Pedophilia is deviant, rape is deviant. BDSM is consensual sexual play between adults.

Shush, it's 100 times more deviant than being gay is, of course Pubs wouldn't want to see that ...

 

[Nik]

Pedophilia isn't a lifestyle, it's not even truly sexual, it's a form of abuse, your argument falls flat because of that.

ROFLMNAO.. DAMN look at all the advocates of deviency flying around this thread?

(Now remember kids... they're arguing that the left is NOT hard core advocates of deviency... and just because they've been arguing on it's bahalf for two hours, should NOT lead anyone to conclude that they are...)

Pedophilia is every bit as much a 'lifestyle' as is homosexuality...

It's the CHOICE to seek sexual gratification from far abeam of the baseline norm... Oh sure, the law prevents them from moving in with the kids... TODAY.

But the pedophile sits in their home with their secret stach of child porn and focusees and obsesses on their kink, just as much as the homosexual sits and focuses on theirs... they just get to play catch at home...

What's more; that Pedophilia focuses upon those who are presently declared to be psychologically incapable of consent is PURELY a function of what the law declares to be acceptable in terms of that age... and where the law changes to include the adolescent... PRESTO... the pedophiles are IN!

Now you want to argue that it's a crime... well this bill is the first step to undermining that status... In and of itself this bill doesn't change that status... it merely establishes a legal precedent from which a cultural rationalization and a future legal challenge can be mounted...

Nothing more deviant than BDSM.

Oh noes! Its deviant! And the government should make illegal everything that departs from the norm as well! Go to Harvard? Thats not the norm! Illegal!

What an idiotic reason to illegalize something. Because it departs from the norm? The government needs to stay out of peoples bedrooms.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

ROFL... OH... So you're saying that the DSM-IV says the pedophilia and ephbophilia are two names given to the same sexual orientation wherein the individual suffers the mental disorder which falls from the baseline... with one craving sex from little kids and the other craving sex from older kids... not at all dissimilar in most respects from the sexual orientation of homosexuality... where sexual cravings are focussed upon those of the same gender. Just two barely distinguishable licks from the same debaucherous bowl.

Incorrect. Ephebophilia is not classified as a mental disorder as pedophilia is, and it would not have been similarly maladaptive in the sense that exclusive sexual attraction to prepubescent children would inhibit one's capacity to reproduce. Homosexuality is also similarly not classified as a mental disorder, and you still[/i] seem to possess an inability to grasp the meaning of the term "sexual orientation."

OH! So you're saying that these "SCIENTISTS" believe; meaning that they are just POSTIVE that those whose sexual cravings are focused upon Little pre-pubescent kidlins... tricycle-motors and such... THOSE folks are sick in the head... but the folks who target adolescents... 'older kids...' They're not sick... and this is because those who focus their obsessions on the tots... that would preclude their means to reproduce.

Which is WHOLLY distinct from the common homosexual, in light of the clear and incontestable reproductive viability of that freak fest...

ROFLMNAO... Sweet MOTHER... You truly ARE the gift that keeps on givin'...

And yes.. one can't really expact a lay-person to grasp the heady concepts of 'sexual' and 'orientation' and when it comes to joining those two concepts ... that's CRAZY education right there...

I mean a person of my limited intellect would takes the definiton of sexual:

sex·u·al [sékshoo əl, séksh'l]
adj
of sex: relating to sex, sexuality, or the sexual organs

And the definition of orientation:
o·ri·en·ta·tion [àwree ən táysh'n]
n
positioning: the positioning of something, or the position or direction in which something lies [/quote]

Thanks Doctor Dumbass... I appreciate the schoolin'... now if any of it served to substantiate your point that would be a real kill-shot for ya.

Sadly, for you... all ya did was to establish that you know that pedophilia is a classification of the same mental disorder that is homosexuality... which is 'sexual'; as is pedophilia and this obscure but indistinguishable disorder where the perv get their kicks off on older kids.

Which pretty will dsicredits you on the issue... in its entirety.

Nice work...

Gotcha...

Ephebophilia is not a mental disorder, just as teleiophilia (sexual preference for adults), is not a mental disorder. Moreover, if you want to claim that a sexual preference for adolescents (typically aged 15-19) is a mental disorder akin to pedophilia, you'll likely run into conflicts with both the law (since the most common age of sexual consent in the U.S. is 16), as well as so conservative a figure as Newt Gingrich, since he's in favor of "ending adolescence,", which would presumably eliminate legal distinctions between legal adults and those currently considered "adolescents."

I await your thread announcing that Newt Gingrich is in favor of legalizing pedophilia.

And there ya have it kids...

According to this genius... THE LAW IS CLEAR! There are subtle distinctions between the man who initiates a loving, caring, sexual relationship with your 13 year old son and the one who flirts it up, establishes a tender loving, sexual relationship with your 17 year old son... and what's MORE... this member is POSITIVE that Newt Gingrich is a long standing advocate for adult men who target your post pubescent 13 year old son for a tender lovin,' sexual mentorship...

Everyone up to speed on that?

Ya see, Homosexuals who target your young'ns... they aren't suffering a mental disorder... that sort of 'classification' is reserved for the people who seek sexual gratification with babies, toddlers and those kids who've no conscious understanding of sexuality... but once they start growing pubic hair... they're FAIR GAME! 'Cause 'everyone knows' that you can't procreate with a toddler... so such an obsession just can't be explained as being anything worthy of 'normal'... in contrast to the homosexual who is dating... er... "Mentoring" your 13 year old son... who everyone KNOWS is as fertile as a cornfield; and as long as Chester promises to support the new family... what's the harm? RIGHT?


ROFLMNAO...

You can't make this crap up...

 

[KittenKoder]

Pubs, not all lifestyles are about sex, many gay people never have sex.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

Nothing more deviant than BDSM.

Nonsense. Pedophilia is deviant, rape is deviant. BDSM is consensual sexual play between adults.

Shush, it's 100 times more deviant than being gay is, of course Pubs wouldn't want to see that ...

Is it?

Are you sure?

How so? And be as specific as your intellectual limitations allow?

(Now kids we'll now NOT be treated to ANY argument wherein your spanky-spankers are 'more devient', in mathematical terms no less... than the common queer...)

 

[KittenKoder]

Nonsense. Pedophilia is deviant, rape is deviant. BDSM is consensual sexual play between adults.

Shush, it's 100 times more deviant than being gay is, of course Pubs wouldn't want to see that ...

Is it?

Are you sure?

How so? And be as specific as your intellectual limitations allow?

(Now kids we'll now NOT be treated to ANY argument wherein your spanky-spankers are 'more devient', in mathematical terms no less... than the common queer...)

Getting off on causing pain and humiliation is not normal, no matter how you look at it.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

Pubs, not all lifestyles are about sex, many gay people never have sex.

Golly Kitty... if I had suggested that 'all lifestyles are about sex' that might be a fair point... but since I agree with that point; having never asserted otherwise... the point is moot.

The issue is sexual orientation... not the lifestyle, per se; but it is an incontestable fact that both homosexuality and pedophilia are sexual orientations... which reflect a mental disorder which present through sexual devience, of subtle, but various distinctions.

I hope that helps...

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

ROFLMNAO.. DAMN look at all the advocates of deviency flying around this thread?

(Now remember kids... they're arguing that the left is NOT hard core advocates of deviency... and just because they've been arguing on it's bahalf for two hours, should NOT lead anyone to conclude that they are...)

Pedophilia is every bit as much a 'lifestyle' as is homosexuality...

It's the CHOICE to seek sexual gratification from far abeam of the baseline norm... Oh sure, the law prevents them from moving in with the kids... TODAY.

But the pedophile sits in their home with their secret stach of child porn and focusees and obsesses on their kink, just as much as the homosexual sits and focuses on theirs... they just get to play catch at home...

What's more; that Pedophilia focuses upon those who are presently declared to be psychologically incapable of consent is PURELY a function of what the law declares to be acceptable in terms of that age... and where the law changes to include the adolescent... PRESTO... the pedophiles are IN!

Now you want to argue that it's a crime... well this bill is the first step to undermining that status... In and of itself this bill doesn't change that status... it merely establishes a legal precedent from which a cultural rationalization and a future legal challenge can be mounted...

Nothing more deviant than BDSM.

Oh noes! Its deviant! And the government should make illegal everything that departs from the norm as well! Go to Harvard? Thats not the norm! Illegal!

What an idiotic reason to illegalize something. Because it departs from the norm? The government needs to stay out of peoples bedrooms.

ROFLMNAO... Out of their BEDROOMS? You idiots just advanced a BILL WHICH TAKES SEXUALITY OUT OF THE BEDROOM AND TURNS IT INTO A PROTECTED CLASSIFICATION OF CITIZENSHIP. And "WE" didn't do that sis... YOU DID THAT.

 

[KittenKoder]

Pubs, not all lifestyles are about sex, many gay people never have sex.

Golly Kitty... if I had suggested that 'all lifestyles are about sex' that might be a fair point... but since I agree with that point; having never asserted otherwise... the point is moot.

The issue is sexual orientation... not the lifestyle, per se; but it is an incontestable fact that both homosexuality and pedophilia are sexual orientations... which reflect a mental disorder which present through sexual devience, of subtle, but various distinctions.

I hope that helps...

Wanting to control another sexually is the same as rape, so BDSM (which is purely sexual) is deviant and illegal. We should get lynch mobs up on that one, all BDSM participants should be locked up, it's a sin.

 

[Nik]

Nothing more deviant than BDSM.

Oh noes! Its deviant! And the government should make illegal everything that departs from the norm as well! Go to Harvard? Thats not the norm! Illegal!

What an idiotic reason to illegalize something. Because it departs from the norm? The government needs to stay out of peoples bedrooms.

ROFLMNAO... Out of their BEDROOMS? You idiots just advanced a BILL WHICH TAKES SEXUALITY OUT OF THE BEDROOM AND TURNS IT INTO A PROTECTED CLASSIFICATION OF CITIZENSHIP. And "WE" didn't do that sis... YOU DID THAT.

Gays have the choice whether to take it out of the bedroom or not. NOT the government. This should be pretty obvious.

 

[Nik]

Pubs, not all lifestyles are about sex, many gay people never have sex.

Golly Kitty... if I had suggested that 'all lifestyles are about sex' that might be a fair point... but since I agree with that point; having never asserted otherwise... the point is moot.

The issue is sexual orientation... not the lifestyle, per se; but it is an incontestable fact that both homosexuality and pedophilia are sexual orientations... which reflect a mental disorder which present through sexual devience, of subtle, but various distinctions.

I hope that helps...

Wanting to control another sexually is the same as rape, so BDSM (which is purely sexual) is deviant and illegal. We should get lynch mobs up on that one, all BDSM participants should be locked up, it's a sin.

You know absolutely **** all about BDSM.

BDSM is NOT purely sexual. There are many, many people who engage in it who do not actually have sex with each other.

Wanting to control another sexually is NOT the same as rape. The person being raped/controlled matters, and their consent matters. If they've given permission and willingly allowed the other to control them, it is not rape, nor is it anything close to rape.

Yeah...go and lynch people because they like being hit, or humiliated. Thats a really wonderful idea. Because mob justice is really what America is all about. Not individual rights, freedom, liberty or whatever. You know, just killin people when we don't like what they do in the privacy of their own homes.

A sin? Leave the Christian posturing at home please. Your religion has no place in government.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

Shush, it's 100 times more deviant than being gay is, of course Pubs wouldn't want to see that ...

Is it?

Are you sure?

How so? And be as specific as your intellectual limitations allow?

(Now kids we'll now NOT be treated to ANY argument wherein your spanky-spankers are 'more devient', in mathematical terms no less... than the common queer...)

Getting off on causing pain and humiliation is not normal, no matter how you look at it.

No? Ok... Let assume you're right... so what? They're not bothering anyone... If someone needs to be humiliated and someone else is all about the humiliation... whose that hurtin'? And most IMPORTANTLY, there are NONE of those people rationalizing that THEIR KINK NEEDS TO BE HELD UP AS BEING PERFECTLY NORMAL FOR THEM TO FEEL BETTER ABOUT THEMSELVES... They're not demanding the world change to accomodate them... and that is exactly what the queers are doing; and thats my problem with THEM.

I couldn't give a damn what two men, a box of gerbils, a case of lightbulbs, two midgets and a unicycle do with a goat in the privacy of their own farm... but when they start undermining the viability of my culture by normalizing their rancid perversion...

That makes it my business....

 

[KittenKoder]

Is it?

Are you sure?

How so? And be as specific as your intellectual limitations allow?

(Now kids we'll now NOT be treated to ANY argument wherein your spanky-spankers are 'more devient', in mathematical terms no less... than the common queer...)

Getting off on causing pain and humiliation is not normal, no matter how you look at it.

No? Ok... Let assume you're right... so what? They're not bothering anyone... If someone needs to be humiliated and someone else is all about the humiliation... whose that hurtin'? And most IMPORTANTLY, there are NONE of those people rationalizing that THEIR KINK NEEDS TO BE HELD UP AS BEING PERFECTLY NORMAL FOR THEM TO FEEL BETTER ABOUT THEMSELVES... They're not demanding the world change to accomodate them... and that is exactly what the queers are doing; and thats my problem with THEM.

I couldn't give a damn what two men, a box of gerbils, a case of lightbulbs, two midgets and a unicycle do with a goat in the privacy of their own farm... but when they start undermining the viability of my culture by normalizing their rancid perversion...

That makes it my business....

BDSM is a bigger perversion, and the only thing you mentioned about gays was the "two men" part, the rest are all other fetishes, no different than BDSM. Abuse like BDSM though has more implications and does actually harm people, while gay men and women harm no one.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

Pubs, not all lifestyles are about sex, many gay people never have sex.

Golly Kitty... if I had suggested that 'all lifestyles are about sex' that might be a fair point... but since I agree with that point; having never asserted otherwise... the point is moot.

The issue is sexual orientation... not the lifestyle, per se; but it is an incontestable fact that both homosexuality and pedophilia are sexual orientations... which reflect a mental disorder which present through sexual devience, of subtle, but various distinctions.

I hope that helps...

Wanting to control another sexually is the same as rape, so BDSM (which is purely sexual) is deviant and illegal. We should get lynch mobs up on that one, all BDSM participants should be locked up, it's a sin.

Is it Kitty? Are ya sure? Cause 'wanting to control someone sexually,' is pretty much called being a male...

Last time I checked, the whips and chains crowd were all into the same crap... some being pitchers and some being catchers... labor and management... givers and takers... where they tend towards complimenting the means and needs of one another.

Now where you find the harm in that is known only to you... and without regard to what one wants to call their kink... where they force their will upon another, and violate the sanctity of their body in so doing, they have committed rape... and you've not heard me justifying anything of the kind, for any reason.

 

[Sky Dancer]

Is it?

Are you sure?

How so? And be as specific as your intellectual limitations allow?

(Now kids we'll now NOT be treated to ANY argument wherein your spanky-spankers are 'more devient', in mathematical terms no less... than the common queer...)

Getting off on causing pain and humiliation is not normal, no matter how you look at it.

No? Ok... Let assume you're right... so what? They're not bothering anyone... If someone needs to be humiliated and someone else is all about the humiliation... whose that hurtin'? And most IMPORTANTLY, there are NONE of those people rationalizing that THEIR KINK NEEDS TO BE HELD UP AS BEING PERFECTLY NORMAL FOR THEM TO FEEL BETTER ABOUT THEMSELVES... They're not demanding the world change to accomodate them... and that is exactly what the queers are doing; and thats my problem with THEM.

I couldn't give a damn what two men, a box of gerbils, a case of lightbulbs, two midgets and a unicycle do with a goat in the privacy of their own farm... but when they start undermining the viability of my culture by normalizing their rancid perversion...

That makes it my business....

Undermining the viability of the culture? Good luck proving that one. Of course, proving your point is not your posting practice. This is all about domination, isn't it? You're threatened that your point of view is becoming relatively minor in our culture.

The tide has shifted. Americans favor civil marriage equality.

 

[Agnapostate]

OH! So you're saying that these "SCIENTISTS" believe; meaning that they are just POSTIVE that those whose sexual cravings are focused upon Little pre-pubescent kidlins... tricycle-motors and such... THOSE folks are sick in the head... but the folks who target adolescents... 'older kids...' They're not sick... and this is because those who focus their obsessions on the tots... that would preclude their means to reproduce.

What's unfortunate is that the manner in which you cavalierly abuse clinical definitions could arguably constitute exhibition of symptoms of some disorder itself included in the DSM. Whilst referring to formal clinical definitions, it's necessary to refer back to DSM-IV simply as a means of deriving formal categorizations and definitions, not simply for the purpose of forming opinions. And according to DSM-IV, pedophilia is a mental disorder and ephebophilia (or any variety of sexual attraction to adolescents), is not. Those aren't grounds for arguing that sexual interactions with reproductive adolescents are morally acceptable, but grounds for asserting that such is not biologically unnatural or abnormal.

Which is WHOLLY distinct from the common homosexual, in light of the clear and incontestable reproductive viability of that freak fest...

ROFLMNAO... Sweet MOTHER... You truly ARE the gift that keeps on givin'...

Unfortunately, I expected that you would be stupid enough to bring this up, and you have affirmed my expectations. I never claimed that pedophilia could be ruled a disorder on the grounds of an inability to reproduce. Moreover, there is a strain of thought that argues that homosexuals' inability to reproduce could once have been a benefit for the species as a whole, if not the individual animals.

And yes.. one can't really expact a lay-person to grasp the heady concepts of 'sexual' and 'orientation' and when it comes to joining those two concepts ... that's CRAZY education right there...

I mean a person of my limited intellect would takes the definiton of sexual:

sex·u·al [sékshoo əl, séksh'l]
adj
of sex: relating to sex, sexuality, or the sexual organs

And the definition of orientation:
o·ri·en·ta·tion [àwree ən táysh'n]
n
positioning: the positioning of something, or the position or direction in which something lies

Pubicus, sexual orientation is typically understood as capable of being placed on a linear model that ranges from heterosexuality to bisexuality to homosexuality, with personal preferences or fetishes being derivatives of those orientations. Your claim, as I understand it, is that legislators, lawyers, or otherwise influential public officials, could claim that pedophilia is a valid "sexual orientation." Such is extremely unlikely, and only exposes your vast ignorance of the ideological biases of the American Congress. If you were familiar with the Rind et al. controversy, for instance, during which the U.S. House of Representatives unanimously passed a resolution condemning the Rind meta-analysis and declaring that Congress "vigorously opposes any public policy or legislative attempts to normalize adult-child sex or to lower the age of consent." There's absolutely no space in any legislator's agenda for open endorsement of pedophilia as a legitimate sexual orientation. It would utterly ruin a political career and likely adversely impact one's personal life also.

And there ya have it kids...

According to this genius... THE LAW IS CLEAR! There are subtle distinctions between the man who initiates a loving, caring, sexual relationship with your 13 year old son and the one who flirts it up, establishes a tender loving, sexual relationship with your 17 year old son... and what's MORE... this member is POSITIVE that Newt Gingrich is a long standing advocate for adult men who target your post pubescent 13 year old son for a tender lovin,' sexual mentorship...

Everyone up to speed on that?

I find it difficult to believe that a degenerate imbecile such as the one I have the misfortune of quoting would possess the motor-cognitive functions that the ability to type necessitates. The law and psychiatric analysis are indeed clear in the distinctions between the two age groups that you mention in that sexual interactions with a 17 year old would be legal in the large majority of states in this country, whereas that would not be the case for a 13 year old (there might be separate ages of consent for heterosexuals and homosexuals, but this would likely be ruled unconstitutional), and that sexual attraction to a 17 year old would be either ephebophilia or standard heterosexuality/homosexuality, whereas sexual attraction to a 13 year old could possibly be one of those conditions, but could also be hebephilia or pedophilia. Of these conditions, only pedophilia is categorized as a mental disorder in DSM-IV.

As for Newt Gingrich, his support of "ending adolescence" would indeed presumably end legal distinctions between current "adults" and "adolescents." How then would sexual matters be excluded from such a change in legal policy?

Ya see, Homosexuals who target your young'ns... they aren't suffering a mental disorder... that sort of 'classification' is reserved for the people who seek sexual gratification with babies, toddlers and those kids who've no conscious understanding of sexuality... but once they start growing pubic hair... they're FAIR GAME! 'Cause 'everyone knows' that you can't procreate with a toddler... so such an obsession just can't be explained as being anything worthy of 'normal'... in contrast to the homosexual who is dating... er... "Mentoring" your 13 year old son... who everyone KNOWS is as fertile as a cornfield; and as long as Chester promises to support the new family... what's the harm? RIGHT?


ROFLMNAO...

You can't make this crap up...

Actually, Pubicus, that's not what I said. Moreover, I have no idea how you could derive such a convoluted and incoherent interpretation except if plagued by mental deficiencies of the worst variety.