Salon Reveals the Left's Next Play, Normalization of Pedophilia

[tulc]

Sorry but it doesn't work that way. You are the one trying to move the goalposts. The facts are very, very clear. A Transgender is not to be excluded from entering a ladies locker room, shower facility or bathroom

That would be the law, not the post I was addressing. That post only mentioned womens bathrooms. If you'd like to go look at the post again you'll see later on the person who posted it said that's what his post said as well. I adressed his post, now you're trying to make my post about something I never addressed. That means you're moving the goalpost not me.
tulc(is just sayn')

 

[tulc]

[snip)

Then link one, and lets see if your claim about conservatives is correct.

If you're interested you can find it, I'll be over here dealing with this thread while you look. Oh, did you click on the link to the actual article about the speech I provided? The reason I asked was because you seem more interested in distracting from my point then addressing it.
tulc(just something he noticed)

 

[tulc]

Handlers...

Handlers?
tulc(is starting to feel like he's a conspiracy not just a poster)

 

[tulc]

I'm still searching for facts in your statements.

Well, let me know if you find some you think you can address and not just pretend aren't there.
tulc(is going to find some more coffee)

 

[SimplyDawn]

Am I the only one who doesn't see anything particularly "left-wing" in having sex with children? I mean...of all the institutions that have had problems with that, probably the one that is foremost in people's minds is the Roman Catholic Church, and (recent Pope excepted, to some people) would anyone define the Roman Catholic Church as particularly 'liberal'?

Also, one of the criticisms I most often hear of Christianity from young people has to do with the equation of "traditional marriage" with marriage as presented in the Bible, since so-and-so (Biblical figure) had harems, and so-and-so married a child, and so on. So it would seem that if there's one prohibition that is less-than-likely to change, it's the one against pedophilia, since it's associated even in the minds of the aggressively secular and atheistic with the "stone age" morals of the Bible, which they view as responsible for sanctioning such things and hence immoral. You might see an attempt to humanize those with pedophiliac tendencies (which...I dunno...they're certainly humans; they're just not humans I would trust around children), but as far as an actual change in the law code, I don't see it beyond what is already allowed in certain states (variations in the age of the consent, and so forth). The difference between this and gay marriage is that marriage -- gay or not -- still has minimum age requirements for both parties to be considered to be willingly and freely entering into it, failing some kind of extraordinary circumstance (parental or a judge's approval to get married at a younger age, which is a lot more rare than people freaking out about this probably think it is).

The default argument of pointing to the Catholic church is redundant.

 

[dzheremi]

Can no one in this thread actually read? This is mind-boggling.

 

[redleghunter]

How is that taking a shot at Catholics? The Roman Catholic Church has had problems with pedophilia. I don't think this is anything that Catholics themselves even try to deny. They admit it and have set up various committees and published new guidelines to deal with it. It's a statement of fact, not a 'shot', and anyway the point of bringing it up isn't to take a shot at anyone, but to say that if an institution as (relatively) conservative on matters of morals can have such a problem, then I don't think such problems can be said to be unique to "the left" (a designation which doesn't even make sense outside of the USA anyway).

Please why don't you ask the Catholics who post here if they support pedophile and pederast priests.

 

[Albion]

Am I the only one who doesn't see anything particularly "left-wing" in having sex with children? I mean...of all the institutions that have had problems with that, probably the one that is foremost in people's minds is the Roman Catholic Church.

The RCC has had its problems with it, but it has not advocated pedophilia. The political Left, however, is committed to breaking down conventional moral standards, marriage, the family, religion, national sovereignty, etc.

 

[redleghunter]

If you're interested you can find it, I'll be over here dealing with this thread while you look. Oh, did you click on the link to the actual article about the speech I provided? The reason I asked was because you seem more interested in distracting from my point then addressing it.
tulc(just something he noticed)

You are sending @Sistrin on a wild goose hunt which does not exist?

 

[redleghunter]

Well, let me know if you find some you think you can address and not just pretend aren't there.
tulc(is going to find some more coffee)

Understand you will substantiate your assertions.

 

[Bethany35]

I don't condone paedophilia however I know a little bit about psychology.
It isn't about normalisation, the unfortunate fact is most paedophiles were abused themselves by children and have felt helpless when it came to breaking the chain of abuse.
This can be sorted often through therapy but the process is incredibly difficult.
The best thing they can get when in prison is a lot of therapy to help threm through things and back perhaps into normality.

 

[tulc]

Which biblical figures would those be? Moses had 1 wife. Abraham had 1 wife, it was Sarah that circumvented G-d's plan by convincing Abraham to impregnate her handmaiden.... All of the prophets either were single or had one wife. Yeshua (jesus) was single. The apostles all were married to 1 wife or in the case of Paul were single.

KINGS had concubines but that was common all throughout the entire world during that age. All of them with the exception Solomon and David were not authors of scripture. In each case where there is more than 1 wife, bad things happened. Abraham impregnates Hagar Sarah's handmaiden and Ishmael is born and is the father of what today are the muslim nations. Ishmael's offspring would throughout the biblical account be a thorn in the side of Israel. Solomon had many concubines and it is they who lead him away from Adonai Elohim. David sinned with Bathsheba and the first born died as a result according to G-d as spoken to David via the prophet for his sin. David's other son instigated a coup against David and defiled David's concubines by sleeping with them. In fact, I can not think of one incidence where multiple wives spoke about in the bible ended up resulting in anything that wasn't bad.

So, contrary to your supposition the BIBLE does NOT endorse harems, concubines or multiple wives. Genesis is very clear. It is for this cause a man shall leave his mother and father and cleave unto his wife and they shall become one flesh. It is due to the hardness of heart that G-d allowed Israel to have a King and G-d warns Israel that by doing so that these kings would take from them wives and concubines. Sin is never ideal and polygamy caused many, many problems.

So...God could make Laws to tell people not to eat bacon or do yard work on Saturday but He couldn't tell people to not have more then one wife? They were His people if He didn't want them to have more then one wife why not just say "Only one wife!" Instead He made laws about having more then one wife. It doesn't sound like He was all that against having more then one.
tulc(won't even get started about having to marry a dead brothers wife)

 

[tulc]

You are sending @Sistrin on a wild goose hunt which does not exist?

Nope, Sistirns the one who wants to make this about CF posters talking about the Duck Commander while I was pointing out a conservative hero who advocated marrying 15 and 16 year old girls. If Sistirn wants to look it up I have no problem with that. That Sistirin wants me to find it? That's nothing I'm interested in.
tulc(found more coffee!)

 

[dhh712]

I don't see our society ever accepting this.

Give it a few decades. I'm sure in the 1950's most people would have said that they'd never see society accepting homosexuals. You allow one sin to be accepted, it sets up a slippery slope. Same with marriage laws. A slippery slope has been initiated with same-sex marriages. There really is no basis for not accepting any kind of marriage between two objects. The thing to learn from all this is to go against what God has established for us is to open the door to all kinds of absurdity. It's best to stick with objective truth as it is revealed to us in the word of God.

 

[redleghunter]

So...God could make Laws to tell people not to eat bacon or do yard work on Saturday but He couldn't tell people to not have more then one wife? They were His people if He didn't want them to have more then one wife why not just say "Only one wife!" Instead He made laws about having more then one wife. It doesn't sound like He was all that against having more then one.
tulc(won't even get started about having to marry a dead brothers wife)

Show me the law.

 

[redleghunter]

Give it a few decades. I'm sure in the 1950's most people would have said that they'd never see society accepting homosexuals. You allow one sin to be accepted, it sets up a slippery slope. Same with marriage laws. A slippery slope has been initiated with same-sex marriages. There really is no basis for not accepting any kind of marriage between two objects. The thing to learn from all this is to go against what God has established for us is to open the door to all kinds of absurdity. It's best to stick with objective truth as it is revealed to us in the word of God.

Actually it can happen much faster with an executive orders abusing president unchecked by an activist court and sycophant legislature.

 

[tulc]

Understand you will substantiate your assertions.

Ok how about this: some 8 States allow for girls (mostly) under the age of 16 to get married with parental consent, the rest allow 16 to 17 year olds with consent. Been here?: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_marriage_in_the_United_States
Those laws have been on the books for years, long before same sex marriage was even being discussed let alone allowed. Now someone in this thread brings up how what a shame it is that boys of that age could be marrying older men, what I thought was "How is that worse then allowing girls of that age to marry older men? Why are conservatives suddenly outraged over this when it's been around for a very long time?" I then pointed out how a conservative hero (with supplied links) thought men should start marrying 15 and 16 year old girls because by the time they're 20 "they've been spoiled into wanting your money!".
tulc(hopes that helps)

 

[tulc]

Show me the law.

Here's two:
Exodus 21:10
If he takes another wife to himself, he shall not diminish her food, her clothing, or her marital rights.
Deuteronomy 21:15-17
“If a man has two wives, the one loved and the other unloved, and both the loved and the unloved have borne him children, and if the firstborn son belongs to the unloved, then on the day when he assigns his possessions as an inheritance to his sons, he may not treat the son of the loved as the firstborn in preference to the son of the unloved, who is the firstborn, but he shall acknowledge the firstborn, the son of the unloved, by giving him a double portion of all that he has, for he is the first fruits of his strength. The right of the firstborn is his.

here's a Scripture where the Lord told David He'd given all of Sauls wives to him:
2 Samuel 12:8
And I gave you your master's house and your master's wives into your arms and gave you the house of Israel and of Judah. And if this were too little, I would add to you as much more.

and then there were the Laws about marrying the women captured in battle:
Deuteronomy 21:10-14King James Version (KJV)
10 When thou goest forth to war against thine enemies, and the Lord thy God hath delivered them into thine hands, and thou hast taken them captive,

11 And seest among the captives a beautiful woman, and hast a desire unto her, that thou wouldest have her to thy wife;

12 Then thou shalt bring her home to thine house, and she shall shave her head, and pare her nails;

13 And she shall put the raiment of her captivity from off her, and shall remain in thine house, and bewail her father and her mother a full month: and after that thou shalt go in unto her, and be her husband, and she shall be thy wife.

14 And it shall be, if thou have no delight in her, then thou shalt let her go whither she will; but thou shalt not sell her at all for money, thou shalt not make merchandise of her, because thou hast humbled her.

I've found this to be a little helpful:

tulc(hopes it helps you also)

 

[redleghunter]

Ok how about this: some 8 States allow for girls (mostly) under the age of 16 to get married with parental consent, the rest allow 16 to 17 year olds with consent. Been here?: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_marriage_in_the_United_States
Those laws have been on the books for years, long before same sex marriage was even being discussed let alone allowed. Now someone in this thread brings up how what a shame it is that boys of that age could be marrying older men, what I thought was "How is that worse then allowing girls of that age to marry older men? Why are conservatives suddenly outraged over this when it's been around for a very long time?" I then pointed out how a conservative hero (with supplied links) thought men should start marrying 15 and 16 year old girls because by the time they're 20 "they've been spoiled into wanting your money!".
tulc(hopes that helps)

What has any of the above to do with "normalizing " pedophilia?

 

[BornAgainChristian1]

Homosexuals have always been in the bathrooms. I'm at more danger than a heterosexual man than a "homosexual."

It's not my fault that you just proven just how dishonest homosexuals have always been?