Hmmm I wonder how long this party is going to excist...

[Steve P.]

I don't really know. I think they had a cop and an Indian. Other than that I only really remember the radio playing YMCA all the damn time.......  Every now and then I see something on a sitcom about them. If someone hadn't said something to me about Johny Cakes looking like one of them I would have never put it together.   I'm still not sure he does resemble any of them..

[73dodge]

I don't think your comparison of gays and lesbians 30 years ago or today and child pornography are even in the same boat.

you miss my point. I am not comparing the two. I am comparing the attitudes and thoughts that existed between the two. I am not saying all gays are pedophiles. What I am saying is that the thoughts were the same.

People acted with revulsion at the thought of 2 men doing it, now after 30 years of constant in your face actions they are now making full fledge movies based on this.

This is the same thing is happening now, people act rightly with revulsion when they hear of pedophiles BUT when you have no standards and have been told for 30 years by the gay lobby, that judging people is wrong and you cannot impose your morality on anyone else that acting with revulsion over gays is a bigoted response. Then acting with revulsion over pedophiles is wrong too because WHO ARE YOU TO JUDGE THEIR ACTIONS? And if you do judge them by what standards of decency do you judge them by? Hmmmm?

The LAW? Their were laws 30 years ago against homosexuals? Common decency? Again 30 years ago common decency said that 2 men having sex was wrong.

And the argument comparing Blacks and Gays is a strawman argument, homosexuality is NOT racial because you cannot prove gayness is genetic and they never will prove it, any and every so-called scientific study proving a gay gene has been soundly debunked by the scientific community not the religious community. The difference between the two is this An African American cannot ever change his race, gays can and DO change their behaviour all the time. And to discriminate against a person for something they cannot change  (like the color of their skin) is wrong and a violation of their civil rights, but gay people come out of the lifestyle all the time can and do change from being gay to being straight. So if being gay is genetic how can they change their genetics by changing their behavior? But to cut off one last argument I am NOT advocating Lynch mobs or disrespectful behaviour against gays which is wrong too. Treat all human life with respect regardless of behaviour.

Back to the original point, history is repeating itself in these 2 areas and the arguments being presented are the same as they were 30-40 years ago.

[Orange_Crush]

The LAW? Their were laws 30 years ago against homosexuals? Common decency? Again 30 years ago common decency said that 2 men having sex was wrong.

And the arguement comparing Blacks and Gays is a strawman argument, homosexuality is NOT racial because you cannot prove gayness is genetic and they never will. The difference between the two is this An african american cannot ever change his race, gays can and DO change their behaiviour all the time.

Your ENTIRE argument is a straw man argument...I'm just countering what you're saying.

40 years ago, a black man marrying a white woman was considered "against common decency" and there were laws on the books against it.  Are you saying that interracial relationship=homosexuality=pedophilia? 

In addition, your argument is inherently racist since you're saying that, given the choice, a black man would change his race.

You are right, BTW.  No one can prove homosexuality is genetic, however, no one can prove that its not.  In any case, that doesn't matter.  If a company chose to fire you because you were a Christian, would you not sue?  You CHOSE to be a Christian, after all.  If the government had a law forbidding marriage between a Jew and a Christian, would you protest?  It is, after all, their choice to worship as they wish.

Lastly, homosexuality and pedophilia are different in one HUGE way and that is, two adult homosexuals are engaging in their relationship (emotional and sexual) of their OWN FREE WILL.  In a man (or woman)-child relationship, one of the parties is NOT entering into it of their own free will.  This is the same with a bestial relationship.  The law assumes that one of the parties is being coerced.

[73dodge]

The LAW? Their were laws 30 years ago against homosexuals? Common decency? Again 30 years ago common decency said that 2 men having sex was wrong.

And the argument comparing Blacks and Gays is a strawman argument, homosexuality is NOT racial because you cannot prove gayness is genetic and they never will. The difference between the two is this An African American cannot ever change his race, gays can and DO change their behaviour all the time.

Your ENTIRE argument is a straw man argument...I'm just countering what you're saying.

40 years ago, a black man marrying a white woman was considered "against common decency" and there were laws on the books against it.  Are you saying that interracial relationship=homosexuality=pedophilia? 

No I am not comparing the three I never said that homosexuals were equal to pedophiles, but the arguments that the pedophiles are using in the netherlands are the same that the homosexual lobby used 30 years ago and it worked for them.

In addition, your argument is inherently racist since you're saying that, given the choice, a black man would change his race.

Nope did not say that, he cannot change and I am not saying he wants to. Many many homosexuals do want to change and DO change. They have a choice to change. I know many that have walked away from that lifestyle, many that would have made the same arguments that you are making now.

You are right, BTW.  No one can prove homosexuality is genetic, however, no one can prove that its not.  In any case, that doesn't matter.  If a company chose to fire you because you were a Christian, would you not sue?  You CHOSE to be a Christian, after all.  If the government had a law forbidding marriage between a Jew and a Christian, would you protest?  It is, after all, their choice to worship as they wish.

If  no one can prove homosexuality is non-sensical the whole premise of homosexuality is based on behaviour the only thing that distinguishes a gay from a straight person is their choice of sexual partners. 

No I would not, I would not sue because you are right it is my choice and if I were to be fired for my choice then so be it. You may not believe that and I cannot prove it to you that if I got fired I would not sue, because Christians have been persecuted long before gays and it is to be expected.

If the govt had alaw forbidding marriage between a jew and Christian yes I would protest. Because its a belief system that they are discriminating against, and relgious beliefs are not the realm of the govt. And what laws do the govt have now against gays? you cannot be fired for being gay, gays cannot get married but marriage is not an institution created by men. Recognized by governments not created by governments

Lastly, homosexuality and pedophilia are different in one HUGE way and that is, two adult homosexuals are engaging in their relationship (emotional and sexual) of their OWN FREE WILL.  In a man (or woman)-child relationship, one of the parties is NOT entering into it of their own free will.  This is the same with a bestial relationship.  The law assumes that one of the parties is being coerced.

NOT true I have read arguments by college professors stating that both parties can enter into a sexual relation even if one party does not think that it is OK and that children can make a informed choice about this matter, after all how many gays have you heard say, "I knew I was gay since I was 5 years old"


Read this quote from Peter Singer PROFESSOR at PRINCETON university

when I asked him last month about necrophilia (what if two people make an agreement that whoever lives longest can have sexual relations with the corpse of the person who dies first?), he said, "There's no moral problem with that." Concerning bestiality (should people have sex with animals, seen as willing participants?), he responded, "I would ask, what's holding you back from a more fulfilling relationship?' [but] it's not wrong inherently in a moral sense."

He also reaffirmed that it would be ethically OK to kill 1-year-olds with physical or mental disabilities, although ideally the question of infanticide would be "raised as soon as possible after birth"

So if you present those types of arguments against having sex with children please read the above quote from Mr. Singer and know that the arguments are being made right NOW along the same lines.

[RD]

Why are you guys so surprised at this???

30 years ago the reaction was the same for homosexuality and homosexuals and the responses that you wrote could have been written 30 years ago about gays. Now your responses if they were written about gays would get you branded as bigots and homophobes and possibly jail time and labeled a hate crime.

Give this about 10 more years, as I don't think it will take as long, for this become acceptable. It's interesting that it started in the Netherlands were they are more open sexually.

As a matter of fact it will eventually become more and more common place as people like the ACLU defend the members of NAMBLA and think that all pornography no matter what the content is protected under the 1st Amendment freedom of speech. We have US college professors now that think that abortion should be an available options up to 2 years AFTER the birth of a child.

So over time your revulsion to this will be slowly chipped away and when more and more people have more "open minded" discussions about this topic you will find it more out in the open. And believe me the discussions are already taking place, in places like colleges where the subject can be "discussed in a non judgemental atmosphere without the usual constraints of the religious repressive organizations like the church" as a barrier for open minded discussion.

And NO I am not defending these people. I am just pointing out the obvious.

good points, but I dont buy it.  Maybe in the netherlands, but not here in the U.S.  Well, at least not while I am alive.

[Steve P.]

I don't buy any of it. Children do NOT have the brains to decide what is best for themselves and many parents are no more than children these days. Take away the laws and innocent CHILDREN will be the ones that pay. We can't control what slips through the cracks now. What do you think would happen to millions of kids if this does happen?? Every channel will be JERRY SPRINGER.........

[73dodge]

I don't buy any of it. Children do NOT have the brains to decide what is best for themselves and many parents are no more than children these days. Take away the laws and innocent CHILDREN will be the ones that pay. We can't control what slips through the cracks now. What do you think would happen to millions of kids if this does happen?? Every channel will be JERRY SPRINGER.........

I agree with you and I have been playing devils advocate this whole argument, I present the arguments that these guys in the Netherlands are presenting to justify their existence. I am just concerned that so-called highly educated professors in American Colleges are starting to breach this subject and other subjects that we should not even be giving ground to. But again once a subject that once was "taboo" gets talked about in academic circles and not bounced off the playing field right away it starts to gain legitimacy and should not. These guys in the Netherlands should have been arrested the minute they announced their party platform. But I find it interesting that they were not run out of the country.

What was intresting that in the article it said that like 81% of the population said the government of the Netherlands should ban this party from taking part in their government, that leaves 19% that don't agree, and believe they should be allowed to exist!

[RD]

I don't buy any of it. Children do NOT have the brains to decide what is best for themselves and many parents are no more than children these days. Take away the laws and innocent CHILDREN will be the ones that pay. We can't control what slips through the cracks now. What do you think would happen to millions of kids if this does happen?? Every channel will be JERRY SPRINGER.........

I agree with you and I have been playing devils advocate this whole argument, I present the arguments that these guys in the Netherlands are presenting to justify their existence. I am just concerned that so-called highly educated professors in American Colleges are starting to breach this subject and other subjects that we should not even be giving ground to. But again once a subject that once was "taboo" gets talked about in academic circles and not bounced off the playing field right away it starts to gain legitimacy and should not. These guys in the Netherlands should have been arrested the minute they announced their party platform. But I find it interesting that they were not run out of the country.

What was intresting that in the article it said that like 81% of the population said the government of the Netherlands should ban this party from taking part in their government, that leaves 19% that don't agree, and believe they should be allowed to exist!

what, it was an either for or against percentage?  there are always people who do not know what to think.. where is that percentage?

[Steve P.]

RD, my answer to that is:  I DON'T KNOW WHAT THESE PEOPLE ARE THINKING.........

[73dodge]

But should it not be like 99.9% against? except for the .1% that think it's OK?

If you figure what 10% of the 19% should have brains enough to say Uhh no we should not have a party that advocates that?

[Steve P.]

But should it not be like 99.9% against? except for the .1% that think it's OK?

If you figure what 10% of the 19% should have brains enough to say Uhh no we should not have a party that advocates that?

Ummmmmm,,, I think ALL should say NO..........

[bull]

I told someone about five years ago that in ten years I expect this debate to become a political issue in the US. I still think that timeline is on track. The sickos have been pushing for pedophilia to be legalized for years and how many other "non-debatable" issues have come up and even been accepted by society in the past 20 years? You had better be ready for the debate to come here, and don't be surprised when a large number of people here go along with it. It used to be "Bring us your tired, your sick, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free..." and now it's "Bring us your felons, your sick-in-the-head, your huddled masses yearing to commit atrocities..." The US has become the dumping ground for many of the scum in the world and criminals have always wanted to make crime acceptable. Put the two together and you've got a recipe for disaster. Until we take a hard stand on immigration they're going to keep moving in and we're going to have to debate issues we never thought we'd have to debate.

[Arthu®]

Hmm the question was if you think the party should be allowed to form or if they should be banned. I would have said yes, don't ban them.

Arthur

[Arthu®]

Let me explain myself a little bit further before I get flamed for this.

I believe they should continue to exist, for one so that the organisation is out in the open. No secret underground society. I would rather see scum than have the fear of thinking they are out there. Than there is always the fact that it is still a democracy. Freedom of speech is very important and I think even though I don't agree with their views or opinions they should be able to express them and if they have enough people that are with them they should be able to form a party. That is how the system works and if that means that there are a lot of sick people out there than well if that is what the people are like. I strongly believe that the government should at least be close to a mirror of how the society is.

Some of you say that pedophilia is a non-debatable subject and that it never has been, they are wrong until a couple of years ago the vereniging Martijn was perfectly discussable and they were left alone as small group of nutcases no one never really cared about or listened to. But in the last decade with the case of Dutroux the hunt for pedophilia was opened and they became cornered, society outcastst that were looked upon with filth. I believe this was crucial to the latest outburst of the groups that support pedophilia. They had to try something, they are being overrun and defeated on all accounts. Childporn and the likes are being researched more than ever and even their trips to south east asia are being spotted and they are hunted down. They never had the urge to make it legal because nobody really cared or thought it was such a big problem. But ever since people started to notice how many of them are out there the publics opinion has drastically changed.

I still don't believe they will make it very far, I am not worried, I never will be even if they score very well. If that is what the public wants than that is what it will get. Don't worry though I don't believe it will get that far, they sure will get a couple of votes but never enough to actually make a difference.

Also I believe Orange Crush clearified it the best that it is not the same thing as with homosexuals. Those decisions are made between two grown adult persons, I strongly believe that children (people under the age of 18) are not fully responsible and certainly do not know what is best for them. I sure know I didn't know what was best for me even 3 years ago even though I believed that what I was doing at that time was the best thing to do. Luckily I had good guidence but just to make the point that girls/boys of the age of 12 can't honestly make the best decision when it comes to pursuing (sp?) a career in the prostitution.

Arthur

[Lowprofile]

This "cornucopia of human dreck" will only exist if people of good common sense & sound moral upbringing [reguardless of religion/or lack of] refuse to allow it to exist in open society. We as Parents, for that matter as human beings, must look out for our children, our elderly, and for each other.......  Because it seems the Monsters are lurking around every neighborhood, every school, all over the internet, and sometimes right under our noses.

The World is quite a different place from when I was growing up. It seems the line between right and wrong is very blurry these days........for some people. It is quite clear to me that the folks who support this "depravity" are in desperate need of couch time or a jail cell.


Just my    for what its worth.

[Orange_Crush]

This "cornucopia of human dreck" will only exist if people of good common sense & sound moral upbringing [reguardless of religion/or lack of] refuse to allow it to exist in open society. We as Parents, for that matter as human beings, must look out for our children, our elderly, and for each other.......  Because it seems the Monsters are lurking around every neighborhood, every school, all over the internet, and sometimes right under our noses.

The World is quite a different place from when I was growing up. It seems the line between right and wrong is very blurry these days........for some people. It is quite clear to me that the folks who support this "depravity" are in desperate need of couch time or a jail cell.


Just my    for what its worth.

The world's not different...just better informed.

I asked my dad (who grew up in the '40s and '50s about this and he told me that there were PLENTY of pedophiles around back then, but, for the most part..."children should be seen and not heard" was the prevailing rule.  and kids who disappeared were, 9 times out of 10, thought to be runaways.

Now we know what's out ther and what can happen and we are, maybe, a little TOO paranoid.

I know that when I'm somewhere and some random guy starts talking to my daughter, I immediately go to DEFCON 4.