|
Post by Anti Pharisaism on Jul 6, 2004 21:17:11 GMT -5
Topic: The North American Man Boy Love Association
Freedom is indivisible. The liberation of children, women, boy-lovers, and homosexuals in general, can occur only as complementary facets of the same dream. -- David Thorstad
NAMBLA calls for the empowerment of youth in all areas, not just the sexual. We support greater economic, political and social opportunities for young people and denounce the rampant ageism that segregates and isolates them in fear and mistrust. We believe sexual feelings are a positive life force. We support the rights of youth as well as adults to choose the partners with whom they wish to share and enjoy their bodies.
Freely-chosen relationships differ from unwanted sex. Present laws, which focus only on the age of the participants, ignore the quality of their relationships. We know that differences in age do not preclude mutual, loving interaction between persons. NAMBLA is strongly opposed to age-of-consent laws and all other restrictions which deny men and boys the full enjoyment of their bodies and control over their own lives.
Ageism: To ignore a person's ideas or contributions simply because of that contributing person's age; fail to recognize a person's abilities due solely to his or her age; imply that a person's behavior stems directly from his or her current age.
1) Is this an organization championing the fight against age-based discrimination?
2) Or is it trying to justify their unlawful sexual desire?
3) Are people more concerned that it is with boys, or with minors? Both?
4) When should a person be considered capable of consent?
5) Is this organization exorcising their right to free speech, or trying to justify perversion?
6) Should such expression be protected as free speech?
Anti Phatrisaism is not trying to condemn or condone a person's sexual orientation with this posting. Anti Pharisaism has posted the previous topic because discussion has become stagnant.
|
|
|
Post by SardaASSK on Jul 7, 2004 0:34:51 GMT -5
1) Is this an organization championing the fight against age-based discrimination? No, they're perverts. They maintain that they can sexually educate a child as young as 4. This is morally, and developmentally wrong.2) Or is it trying to justify their unlawful sexual desire? Largely yes, but of course I'm sure a number of them believe their Bs.3) Are people more concerned that it is with boys, or with minors? Both? That it is with minors. I have no problem with homosexuals.4) When should a person be considered capable of consent? 18, just as it is.5) Is this organization exorcising their right to free speech, or trying to justify perversion? I'd say justify a perversion.6) Should such expression be protected as free speech? No There's absolutely no connection between free speech and and sex
|
|
|
Post by Black Adder on Jul 7, 2004 4:04:18 GMT -5
I can understand the desire to pick up activity on the boards as it is somewhat lacking given the excitement of the NP is apparently concluded.
I cannot support delving into this topic with even a rebuttal to the platform of the organization. Children aren't sexual beings to be interacted with by adults. The NPO is not an organzation which would even condone such behaviour. I question whether this is a test to show the world whether you can really post what you'd like so long as you're within the civil code.
To that end I would say Piss on the world Praetor and turn this thread into a smoking crater.
|
|
|
Post by SardaASSK on Jul 7, 2004 4:19:38 GMT -5
I'm inclined to agree actually. I just thought I'd bring my answers to the question out... before it gets deleted, and I'm sure it will be
|
|
|
Post by Anti Pharisaism on Jul 7, 2004 9:46:44 GMT -5
No was bored and watching South Park. Had not thought about this that way though, so good point.
Tangent: You bring up an interesting question... Should we really be allowed to post whatever we want so long as we are within the code? Or should it be justified via topics for UN proposals, not just ranting?
Thank you to SardASSK for your response.
AP is analysing and formulating a response.
|
|
|
Post by BertramStantrous on Jul 8, 2004 19:05:40 GMT -5
1) Is this an organization championing the fight against age-based discrimination? No, they're perverts. They maintain that they can sexually educate a child as young as 4. This is morally, and developmentally wrong.2) Or is it trying to justify their unlawful sexual desire? Largely yes, but of course I'm sure a number of them believe their Bs.3) Are people more concerned that it is with boys, or with minors? Both? That it is with minors. I have no problem with homosexuals.4) When should a person be considered capable of consent? 18, just as it is.5) Is this organization exorcising their right to free speech, or trying to justify perversion? I'd say justify a perversion.6) Should such expression be protected as free speech? No There's absolutely no connection between free speech and and sex I would have to agree with you 100%. Right on, comrade.
|
|
|
Post by TheDarkPheonix on Jul 8, 2004 20:47:05 GMT -5
Well my opinions on this, I disagree completely with these guys trying to have sex with kids, really it's a biological fact that kids' development is hampered by sex under a certain age.
The more general views that they have however, I consider much more logical. You see, being I minor myself I understand that that legally you are highly restricted if you are under 18. Until quite a few years after that people will treat as their lesser because of your age, even if you are their better. I have found myself in a variety of situations where my views on something were dismissed completely because I was "too young to understand", only to be proven correct later, yet not given any credit for it, and still ignored next time. I am a human being of above-average intelligence who could quite easily compete with adults, given the chance, but the fact is, I'm not given any. In fact no one is given any, until they go through those years of indoctrination known as schools, which attempt to make them a carbon-copy of everyone else (as a sidenote to this, many schools are banning the Book, To Kill a Mockingbird because they say it teaches going against society).
History teaches us that those in power will not reliquish it easily. They will use any excuse they possibly can to concentrate their power. For minor the excuse is "they're too young to make descisions". To that I say, "since when is wisdom the same as age, just because you're older doesn't mean you're better".
|
|
|
Post by Black Adder on Jul 9, 2004 11:56:50 GMT -5
No was bored and watching South Park. Had not thought about this that way though, so good point. Then the correct question would have been what are your feelings on the North American Marlon Brando Look Alike club.
|
|
|
Post by SardaASSK on Jul 10, 2004 8:31:36 GMT -5
That was the first thing that came to my mind when he died
|
|
|
Post by IAD on Jul 10, 2004 20:12:37 GMT -5
First it's boy love then its, man, pet love where does it stop!! I think that man puppet love is better! *Kisses his sock puppet*
|
|
|
Post by SardaASSK on Jul 11, 2004 3:32:02 GMT -5
I guess that's tolerable
|
|
|
Post by Chosen Men on Jul 11, 2004 14:25:56 GMT -5
As long as it isn't with a pet rock.
|
|
|
Post by IAD on Jul 11, 2004 21:56:45 GMT -5
As long as it isn't with a pet rock. Noo! Your right pet rocks are not ok at all. Them and dalmations are off limits! Give me a sock puppet and a can of crisco! Now were talking!
|
|
|
Post by B4kst4br on Jul 12, 2004 3:45:05 GMT -5
Noo! Your right pet rocks are not ok at all. Them and dalmations are off limits! Give me a sock puppet and a can of crisco! Now were talking! Never say that again, Im still trying to get rid of unwanted mental pictures.
|
|
|
Post by Warrior Thorin on Jul 12, 2004 8:55:53 GMT -5
Noo! Your right pet rocks are not ok at all. Them and dalmations are off limits! Give me a sock puppet and a can of crisco! Now were talking! Um, no. In fact, I make a motion that crisco is to be hereby outlawed in the Pacific since some people use it for immoral purposes with their sock puppets.
|
|