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

[redleghunter]

If I'm reading your post correct: it's only wrong if 50 year old gay person wants to marry a "15, 14, 16 etc" boy, but not if a 50 year old man wants to marry a "15, 14, 16 etc" girl? Because heck, conservatives already advocate for men to marry 15, 16 year old girls?
tulc(is just wondering)

I'm wondering where you got your invalid comparison?

 

[redleghunter]

It is a bold faced lie to say that "the left" encourages pedophiles. An absolute lie.

Encourage? Would be inaccurate. Enable their agenda? Yes, watch it unfold. Salon is the first.

 

[BukiRob]

I don't see our society ever accepting this. It is a monstrous act, but he is right that he is human. There are some who are attracted to children who never act on it. Those who do are threats to society, extremely selfish and should be locked away permanently so they do not endanger more children.

A society that says it is OKAY for a genetically born male to go into the locker rooms, showers and bathrooms of women because he "feels like a woman", a society that redefines marriage as not just the union of a man and a woman but, includes the union of 2 women or 2 men to each other is capable of accepting anything.

 

[tulc]

Typically I refrain from arguing with sock puppets. However:

It's doubly cute to complain about someone "breaking a CF rule" and then to actually break a CF rule by claiming someone is a sock puppet.

That isn't the claim the headline makes.

uhmm...

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

could you point out where that headline said "some" or "a few" people on the left?

But you managed to kill two birds with one stone with your reply, moving the goalpost and proving my point.

You do understand the difference between making a claim "moving the goalpost and proving my point." and actually proving your claim, right? Because what I'm seeing is I showed you why I said what I said, and you then basically said "nuh uh!" and thought it answered my points.

Not everyone follows entertainment news.

That's good,because I didn't find it entertaining. He was speaking at a conservative sportsmen conference. and they seemed to like it. And since the headline seems to imply that what one group of people on the left may support all groups on the left support I thought the same was true of conservatives. How does that big brush taste now?

Was there a thread started concerning that story? If so I am sure you will find opposition.

I remember several threads about it here on CF.
tulc(was also wondering who's sock puppet he was supposed to be?)

 

[BukiRob]

I was under the impression women's bathrooms were all made up of stalls not urinals, so I'm not sure why they're going to
tulc(is just curious)

You think this does not extend to locker rooms and showers?

 

[redleghunter]

With the President issuing nationwide dictates governing bathroom usage, pedophiles recognize the opportunity the liberal/progressive left has handed them on a golden platter

Indeed on the above.

 

[redleghunter]

uhmm...those States had those laws about marrying young people in place long before the whole same sex marriage debate started, hence my confusion about where all the conservative "will no one protect the children?" complaints were then?



Do you think it might be because you're posting in thread who's headline claims all people on the left support pedophilia? Also do you happen to remember this gentleman? http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...rry-underage-girls-newly-unearthed-video.html
I don't remember where all the outrage from our conservative friends was back then.

Who said all liberals.

Here's the title:

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

 

[tulc]

You think this does not extend to locker rooms and showers?

I was answering the post I quoted which specifically said bathrooms. If you're wanting to move the goalpost to make my response include locker rooms and showers you should wait and see if I post in response to that instead of trying to make my post cover things it never addressed.
tulc(just a thought)

 

[tulc]

I'm wondering where you got your invalid comparison?

Those laws predate the debate on Same Sex Marriage, right? I'm wondering why conservatives didn't seem to have a problem with them when it only seemed to be about older men marrying young girls and not for older men marrying younger boys? I also pointed out one of the hero's of the conservative movement suggested men needed to start marrying 15 and 16 year olds and avoid marrying 20 year olds and above. I'm not seeing where it's invalid to bring up actual facts about my points.
tulc(could use some more coffee)

 

[civilwarbuff]

I don't see our society ever accepting this. It is a monstrous act, but he is right that he is human. There are some who are attracted to children who never act on it. Those who do are threats to society, extremely selfish and should be locked away permanently so they do not endanger more children.

Until about 130 years ago the age of consent was generally 10-12 across the US (Delaware was 7). And with current immigration from cultures that accept what we consider "underage marriage" it may not be unexpected to see a push to accomodate such practices in the future.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ages_of_consent_in_the_United_States

 

[BukiRob]

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).

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.

 

[Albion]

I don't know of any major gay rights group that advocates for normalization of pedophilia.

I don't see a slippery slope. That implies some kind of collusion and conspiracy where none exists. A few ivory-tower academics might have their opinions, but they don't represent a political movement.

Ever heard of the Man-Boy Love Association?

 

[BukiRob]

I was answering the post I quoted which specifically said bathrooms. If you're wanting to move the goalpost to make my response include locker rooms and showers you should wait and see if I post in response to that instead of trying to make my post cover things it never addressed.
tulc(just a thought)

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

 

[redleghunter]

The Hollywood crowd doesn't help ...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/201...p-of-child-abuse-scandal-similar-to-jimmy-sa/

Thanks for posting. Hollyweird is the propaganda arm for leftist messaging.

 

[dzheremi]

So, contrary to your supposition the BIBLE does NOT endorse harems, concubines or multiple wives...

This reply is totally unnecessary and redundant. You didn't read the post you're replying to very carefully...

 

[redleghunter]

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).

Just had to take an opportunity to take a shot at Catholics. Pitiful.

 

[dzheremi]

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).

 

[redleghunter]

Those laws predate the debate on Same Sex Marriage, right? I'm wondering why conservatives didn't seem to have a problem with them when it only seemed to be about older men marrying young girls and not for older men marrying younger boys? I also pointed out one of the hero's of the conservative movement suggested men needed to start marrying 15 and 16 year olds and avoid marrying 20 year olds and above. I'm not seeing where it's invalid to bring up actual facts about my points.
tulc(could use some more coffee)

I'm still searching for facts in your statements.

 

[Uncle Siggy]

I'm wondering where you got your invalid comparison?

Handlers...

 

[Sistrin]

...could you point out where that headline said "some" or "a few" people on the left?

Can you point to where it says all?

I remember several threads about it here on CF.

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