'Pedophile Protection Act' Heads to Senate Committee

[PubliusInfinitum]

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.

Anyone need any more than this?

It's the implication that reason is not subject to laws, it's just whatever ya feel it needs to be... no law requiring continuity of thought... it's just a suggestion... No laws which determine validity... anything goes...

It should be noted that this is the same member who not ten minutes ago was assuring us that NO JUDGE WOULD EVER DETERMINE THAT THIS BILL EFFECTIVELY PROVIDES A PROTECTION STATUS FOR 'people who love children...'

Those are the scientists who actually study homosexuality, and pedophilia, and they say pedophilia is not a sexual orientation.

OH! Ya say they're SCIENTISTS? Well I had no idea... So we need to allow then to set aside common sense...

In fact, you will be hard pressed to find any reputable scientific group that is willing to say that.

I'd be interested in reading the findings of anyone who wants to declare that pedophilia is not a mental disorder which presents through the sexual orientation of sexual cravings for adolescents...

I've seen you elude to this; and I've seen you emphatically assert such as fact... what I've yet to see is a source reference where such is shown to be the case; and I suspect that such is not likely to show...

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.

ROFLMNAO... There are no technological marvels which have come out of the "SCIENCE" of psychology... that's a certainty and secondly, no technological marvel has resulted from anyone who failed to observe the laws of reason.

But I have enjoyed this diatribe which serves to lament reason and advocate for SCIENCE!

It's absolutely HYSTERICAL! (in at least two contexts and on several levels...)

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

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.

Well I see you eluding to an 'abuse of terminlogy' but no citation which would provide say... an actual example of such...

Might I suggest you get to producing such, or concede by default that you're merely desperate to cloud the debate with this little obfuscation... Either way works for me... but I'm predicting the default concession is what we end up with.

 

[Agnapostate]

Well I see you eluding to an 'abuse of terminlogy' but no citation which would provide say... an actual example of such...

"Eluding to"? I'm "evading or escaping to" an abuse of terminology? Well thanks, Pub! That really made my day.

Might I suggest you get to producing such, or concede by default that you're merely desperate to cloud the debate with this little obfuscation... Either way works for me... but I'm predicting the default concession is what we end up with.

You seem not to realize that pedophilia remains categorized as a mental illness in DSM-IV (and the ICD), and that the term "sexual orientation" has a frankly political overtone that would not permit acknowledgment of pedophilia as a valid sexual orientation, if nothing else. The unanimous censure of the Rind meta-analysis should indicate that.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

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.

"And there is nothing wrong with the Ninth Circuits opinions."

Well that's all I need to know this member lack the means to reason and has no understanding of what being an American even means.

 

[Nik]

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.

Anyone need any more than this?

It's the implication that reason is not subject to laws, it's just whatever ya feel it needs to be... no law requiring continuity of thought... it's just a suggestion... No laws which determine validity... anything goes...

It should be noted that this is the same member who not ten minutes ago was assuring us that NO JUDGE WOULD EVER DETERMINE THAT THIS BILL EFFECTIVELY PROVIDES A PROTECTION STATUS FOR 'people who love children...'



OH! Ya say they're SCIENTISTS? Well I had no idea... So we need to allow then to set aside common sense...

In fact, you will be hard pressed to find any reputable scientific group that is willing to say that.

I'd be interested in reading the findings of anyone who wants to declare that pedophilia is not a mental disorder which presents through the sexual orientation of sexual cravings for adolescents...

I've seen you elude to this; and I've seen you emphatically assert such as fact... what I've yet to see is a source reference where such is shown to be the case; and I suspect that such is not likely to show...

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.

ROFLMNAO... There are no technological marvels which have come out of the "SCIENCE" of psychology... that's a certainty and secondly, no technological marvel has resulted from anyone who failed to observe the laws of reason.

But I have enjoyed this diatribe which serves to lament reason and advocate for SCIENCE!

It's absolutely HYSTERICAL! (in at least two contexts and on several levels...)

Laws of reason is a meaningless term. Perhaps why you couldn't provide me with any when I asked for them. There are laws of logic, but those are fixed and fairly concrete. Nothing you've said has implicated those laws at all. Merely bullshit like "contuity of thought" and the like.

Ah yes, the vaunted idea of "common sense". Yet for all your blustering about laws of reason, common sense, and the like, you still haven't presented one tiny shred of evidence that any court would ever consider sexual orientation to include pedophilia. Are you planning on doing this anytime soon? Or are you just going to continue blabbering on incessantly? And try to avoid asking me to prove a negative, thanks.

 

[Agnapostate]

I'd be interested in reading the findings of anyone who wants to declare that pedophilia is not a mental disorder which presents through the sexual orientation of sexual cravings for adolescents...

Well, for one thing, Pub, the American Psychiatric Association may have something to say about that. As defined in DSM-IV, pedophilia is a prolonged sexual attraction to prepubescent children, not "adolescents." You're likely either alluding to ephebophilia, which is a sexual preference for adolescents (not a mere attraction), or simply exhibiting your own ignorance of clinical terminology.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

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.

Well the dirty little secret is there's about one degree of separation between the sexual orientation of the homosexual and the pedophile... and that is why this ignoramous is standing upon the absurdity, which desperately seeks to isolate pedophilia from being classified as a 'sexual orientation'...

Such was one of the means to soften the language through this 'scientific term'; as was the changing of the word used to identify homosexuals culturally... 'gay'... so where one now simply acknowledges that a sexual orientation merely speaks to the phase from which an individual is oriented, with reference to the normal baseline... even THAT seemingly innoculous phrase sets to lie that homosexuality is something akin to normalcy...

It's all just a damnable lie, with the truth just barely below the surface... which is why you see the army of faggetry come RUNNING on mass, when ever it finds an argument splashing around...

 

[Nik]

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.

Well the dirty little secret is there's about one degree of separation between the sexual orientation of the homosexual and the pedophile... and that is why this ignoramous is standing upon the absurdity, which desperately seeks to isolate pedophilia from being classified as a 'sexual orientation'...

Such was one of the means to soften the language through this 'scientific term'; as was the changing of the word used to identify homosexuals culturally... 'gay'... so where one now simply acknowledges that a sexual orientation merely speaks to the phase from which an individual is oriented, with reference to the normal baseline... even THAT seemingly innoculous phrase sets to lie that homosexuality is something akin to normalcy...

It's all just a damnable lie, with the truth just barely below the surface... which is why you see the army of faggetry come RUNNING on mass, when ever it finds an argument splashing around...

And of course you are the one true purveyor of the truth...just you happened, by some strange coincidence, to not include any evidence at all.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

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.

The evidence is in the bill itself... where it defines sexual orientation as a protected element of that legislation and given that pedophilia is a CLASSIC sexual orientation and given that the debate of this bill considered the exclusion of pedophilia and given that such was REJECTED; the bill unambiguously protects pedophilia by rendering exponentially increased levels of punishment to anyone who is found committing a crime upon a person who was motivated by their knowledge that the individual is a PEDOPHILE.

The BILL MUST COVER PEDOPHILES... there is no species of valid reasoning wherein such would NOT BE THE CASE.

 

[KittenKoder]

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

 

[Sky Dancer]

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.

The evidence is in the bill itself... where it defines sexual orientation as a protected element of that legislation and given that pedophilia is a CLASSIC sexual orientation and given that the debate of this bill considered the exclusion of pedophilia and given that such was REJECTED; the bill unambiguously protects pedophilia by rendering exponentially increased levels of punishment to anyone who is found committing a crime upon a person who was motivated by their knowledge that the individual is a PEDOPHILE.

The BILL MUST COVER PEDOPHILES... there is no species of valid reasoning wherein such would NOT BE THE CASE.

You can't reason. Period. You haven't proved a thing in your arguments, although one could argue you have proved that you can't seem to think very clearly. That's what comes of a steady diet of worldnet daily. I'm not surprised the latin term infinitum is in your name.

Repeating the same invalid arguments infinitely doesn't win the debate.

 

[Nik]

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.

The evidence is in the bill itself... where it defines sexual orientation as a protected element of that legislation and given that pedophilia is a CLASSIC sexual orientation and given that the debate of this bill considered the exclusion of pedophilia and given that such was REJECTED; the bill unambiguously protects pedophilia by rendering exponentially increased levels of punishment to anyone who is found committing a crime upon a person who was motivated by their knowledge that the individual is a PEDOPHILE.

The BILL MUST COVER PEDOPHILES... there is no species of valid reasoning wherein such would NOT BE THE CASE.

Pedophilia is a classic sexual orientation? Please show me the literature where its described as such. As to why the term was rejected in the bill, I've explain that already with, unsurprisingly, no response from you.

And merely stating that your reasoning is correct doesn't actually make it so. Oh wait, you have the "laws of reason" on your side, you just won't name any of them.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

I'd be interested in reading the findings of anyone who wants to declare that pedophilia is not a mental disorder which presents through the sexual orientation of sexual cravings for adolescents...

Well, for one thing, Pub, the American Psychiatric Association may have something to say about that. As defined in DSM-IV, pedophilia is a prolonged sexual attraction to prepubescent children, not "adolescents." You're likely either alluding to ephebophilia, which is a sexual preference for adolescents (not a mere attraction), or simply exhibiting your own ignorance of clinical terminology.

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.

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...

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

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.

Well the dirty little secret is there's about one degree of separation between the sexual orientation of the homosexual and the pedophile... and that is why this ignoramous is standing upon the absurdity, which desperately seeks to isolate pedophilia from being classified as a 'sexual orientation'...

Such was one of the means to soften the language through this 'scientific term'; as was the changing of the word used to identify homosexuals culturally... 'gay'... so where one now simply acknowledges that a sexual orientation merely speaks to the phase from which an individual is oriented, with reference to the normal baseline... even THAT seemingly innoculous phrase sets to lie that homosexuality is something akin to normalcy...

It's all just a damnable lie, with the truth just barely below the surface... which is why you see the army of faggetry come RUNNING on mass, when ever it finds an argument splashing around...

And of course you are the one true purveyor of the truth...just you happened, by some strange coincidence, to not include any evidence at all.

ROFLMNAO... the truth just IS,... and anyone that purveys such is the pruveyor of it at that moment.

You're flaccid little attempt here to pile up a classic ad populum farce not withstanding...

The argument advanced immutable reason, which is all the evidence that is called for when the only evidence ont he table is spurious conclusions born from specious reasoing.

 

[KittenKoder]

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.

 

[Nik]

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.

No. BDSM is predicated on the idea that both individuals are consenting. There is nothing abusive about that, just some people get their jollies in ways you might disagree with.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

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...

 

[Sky Dancer]

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.

Kitten BDSM is not abuse. It is sex between mutually consenting adults.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

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.

The evidence is in the bill itself... where it defines sexual orientation as a protected element of that legislation and given that pedophilia is a CLASSIC sexual orientation and given that the debate of this bill considered the exclusion of pedophilia and given that such was REJECTED; the bill unambiguously protects pedophilia by rendering exponentially increased levels of punishment to anyone who is found committing a crime upon a person who was motivated by their knowledge that the individual is a PEDOPHILE.

The BILL MUST COVER PEDOPHILES... there is no species of valid reasoning wherein such would NOT BE THE CASE.

You can't reason. Period. You haven't proved a thing in your arguments other than that you can't seem to think very clearly. That's what comes of a steady diet of worldnet daily. I'm not surprised the latin term infinitum is in your name.

Repeating invalid arguments infinitely doesn't win the debate.

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.

 

[KittenKoder]

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.