So, then.
You are one of those who demands proof-beyond-a-shadow-of-doubt of a connection.
Do you know how a grand jury works?
They judge, according to a standard that is, let us say, somewhat less-than-absolute.
Are you averse to using your
own judgement?
OKay Where to start?
When the seriousness of the accusation is such as this then I would settle for credible evidence to suspect, hard provable evidence to convict. You have however offered no evidence at all other than you saying something is so. You haven't even offered up a tenuous connection.
Originally Posted by
devilsadvocate
Here's the thing.
I'm for genital removal in the slowest and most painful way possible for pedophiles.
If actually true, this weighs in your favor, however, if you make this statement while simultaneously creating conditions which ensure that it will never happen, the statement becomes superfluous.
What conditions have I created? I'd be happy to have it applied to the guys that turned up on the dateline show.
As with all crimes it's important that the punishment is only applied to the guilty.
Originally Posted by
devilsadvocate
I don't have a stake in it or particularly worry about it but I don't see any reason why a gay couple shouldn't enjoy the same legal rights as a heterosexual couple, so let's say I wanted to campaign for it.
You want to campaign for it?
Take it all the way to the Supremes; I guarantee you'll meet some people and find out some things that'll make you squirm.
Seeing as this hypothetical campaign is about the same legal rights as heterosexual couples, unless someone starts talking about what they do in bed I don't see why? I mean I've been married nearly 30 years and there's nothing squirmish about any of the legal rights we have.
I really hate to keep harking to the Catholic example, but do you think, backing up several years, you could have found a Catholic priest, any Catholic priest at all, who wasn't conversant of the problem, or most probably had first-hand knowledge of, or acquaintance with, pedophiles?
Tell me. Do you link Christianity (or religion in general) with pedophilia or just the catholic church?
I am speaking of decisions you make as a sentient human being on earth, the type you make when you decide who your kids should or shouldn't hang around with, and don't tell me you've never done that.
I did it all the time with my children and still do with my grandchildren. My concern wouldn't be that someone was homosexual, it would be that they were a pedophile. Being homosexual doesn't increase the chances.
Do you think NAMBLA doesn't have a channel to the gay lobby?
Do you think they have no channel to a heterosexual lobby?
Granted they use the term man/boy but they are a pedophile lobby, not a gay rights lobby
The "gay lobby" as you call it isn't a central command affair. Like any other campaign/activist type "lobby" it is made up of many parts working for individual goals and only grouped together by the word homosexual. Granted the end desire may be pretty similar.
Do you think the ACLU isn't a conduit?
Start there, I'll wait.
The ACLU takes on cases to protect the bill of rights, which means my rights, your rights and their rights.
Originally Posted by
devilsadvocate
How would that be connected to someone that wants to lower the age of consent so they don't go to prison for molesting children?
Start by telling me which lobby and which lawyers are leading that particular effort, why don't you.
Such endeavors aren't conducted in a legal vacuum, you see.
It's a hypothetical, but obviously the alliance defense funded lawyer would try to connect gays getting married to molesting children, I mean you seem to think the two go hand in hand.
Originally Posted by
devilsadvocate
Let's say I wanted to change a law to allow unwed heterosexual couples to adopt (for this it's illegal) giving them the same right to adopt as married heterosexual couples.
I would be opposed to that, myself.
Would you actually need to ask why.
I dare say my guess would be near the mark if not spot on, and if I'm right your reasons would have less to do with child safety and more with your values. I say this because the vetting process would be the same and as the dateline shows, pedophiles are often married.
I know a few unmarried couples that are wonderful parents, I also know a few married ones that could be better. It's the person that matters, not the ring on the finger when it comes to being a good parent.
Originally Posted by
devilsadvocate
Would anyone be connecting this campaign to pedophiles?
I should think anyone taking notice of any involvement by such as the ACLU need not go much further.
I get it, you are a conservative and so hate the ACLU.
Originally Posted by
devilsadvocate
Remember pedophiles aren't just same sex offenders and in quite a lot of cases they are married. We have a television program here called to catch a predator which sets up sting operations with local police to catch pedophiles. The show is filled with older men, often married, going to meet with underage girls. Yet it seems only homosexuals get connected.
Quite right, it often does seem that way; problem is,
seems is not cause for legal action, unless you advocate marching on the Supreme Court in order for them to write you some laws, absent public referenda.
Your argument fails, though, when one considers pedophelia as only another lifestyle, and only homosexual in characteristic in proportion with statistics.
I guess they'd prefer we think of it as the true third sexual preference.
Anyway, sorry, that's all you get.
Bookmarks