NationStates Jolt Archive

Legalize man/boy love? Does anyone really think harm is caused by these relationships? Don't you think it is time we moved beyond our puritanical beginnings and accepted something the ancient Greeks and Romans had no problem with? I don't support it myself, but I think making love of any kind illegal is wrong. Don't you?

hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha......this is a joke right?



One line is plenty, Bogstonia. Don't spam.

Legalize man/boy love? Does anyone really think harm is caused by these relationships?

Yes, haven't you heard of not being able to consent? Come on, entire classic works of literature doubling as anti-consie psychological weapons have been written on this.

Don't you think it is time we moved beyond our puritanical beginnings and accepted something the ancient Greeks and Romans had no problem with?

The Greeks and Romans had no problem with slavery, either.

I think this is what is known as the common house troll. ;)

I think this is what is known as the common house troll. ;)

I could have sworn I put out the traps. *sigh*

Hello is this the North American Marlon Brando Look-Alikes meeting... oh shit, its the other NAMBLA

Legalize man/boy love? Does anyone really think harm is caused by these relationships? Don't you think it is time we moved beyond our puritanical beginnings and accepted something the ancient Greeks and Romans had no problem with? I don't support it myself, but I think making love of any kind illegal is wrong. Don't you?


Are you a priest?

I could have sworn I put out the traps. *sigh*
They learn to avoid them. What you need is a cat.

Legalize man/boy love? Does anyone really think harm is caused by these relationships? Don't you think it is time we moved beyond our puritanical beginnings and accepted something the ancient Greeks and Romans had no problem with? I don't support it myself, but I think making love of any kind illegal is wrong. Don't you?
I think you should be hanged.

I think this is what is known as the common house troll. ;)
*turns on his megaphone*
"Please do not feed the troll!"

I think you should be hanged.
Naw, jail for life.
Trust me, what happens to child molestors in jail is way worse than hanging. Somehow I doubt the guards will be overly sympathetic either.

They learn to avoid them. What you need is a cat.

Last cat we had around here clawed up the Paradise Club and used the NS Pictures thread as its litter box. It was a terrible mess.

:( I sure do miss that kitty ... but it was yummy.

Michael Jackson...

Please take some other name. Deaniacs should not be associated with you or NAMBLA. :gundge: :headbang:

Keruvalia, please don't eat the cats. It's obvious we need them. ;)

Legalize man/boy love? Does anyone really think harm is caused by these relationships? Don't you think it is time we moved beyond our puritanical beginnings and accepted something the ancient Greeks and Romans had no problem with? I don't support it myself, but I think making love of any kind illegal is wrong. Don't you?
That is a disgusting idea. I think we're better than the Greeks and Romans.

I AGREE

That the statement is funny. Ewww.. :p

Are you a priest?
LOL...now ROTFL...and in honor of our host Howard Dean...AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA.

Look, like I said, I don't support the idea, but how do you protest it, rationally? The age of consent? That varies all over the place, with girls as young as 9 being married in Afganistan, and what is the age of consent in Britain? 14? In America it is only 16, I think. The point is they are arbitrary, and if you want to be truly liberal in your ideas, you have to tear down barriers which can't be supported, even if you agree with them.

That varies all over the place, with girls as young as 9 being married in Afganistan,

Iran, not Afghanistan.

and what is the age of consent in Britain? 14?

16.

In America it is only 16, I think.

Varies by state.


The point is they are arbitrary, and if you want to be truly liberal in your ideas, you have to tear down barriers which can't be supported, even if you agree with them.
Yup, I still think you should be hanged from the tallest yardarm.

How do you support your position, without being arbitrary?

Keruvalia, please don't eat the cats. It's obvious we need them. ;)

Hey! Someone who didn't read a filthy connotation into what I wrote. Almost as soon as I sent it, I figured I'd get an oral comment or two. :D

How do you support your position, without being arbitrary?
My moral opposition to premarital relations aside, children do not have the mental capacity to make this kind of choice properly.

My moral opposition to premarital relations aside, children do not have the mental capacity to make this kind of choice properly.
Say we legalize same-sex marriage (which we should). Then what are you defining as the minimum age of consent? To marry that is.

i think most people agree that Howarddeanisgod is not only a fallacy, but that the NSer bearing that name should be castrated, hanged, and left out for the crows. And even the liberals would probably agree with that one. Remember, his death is "for the children"

Say we legalize same-sex marriage (which we should). Then what are you defining as the minimum age of consent? To marry that is.
Government-sanctioned marriage is in viloation of the 1st amendment - for all intents and purposes, I consider marriage a religious institution. The government has overstepped its limits by giving anybody, be it opposite or same-sex couples, the right to marry.

i think most people agree that Howarddeanisgod is not only a fallacy, but that the NSer bearing that name should be castrated, hanged, and left out for the crows. And even the liberals would probably agree with that one. Remember, his death is "for the children"
This is flaming, at its very worst. I'll report you to the mods if it continues.

How do you support your position, without being arbitrary?
Howard, we don't need to support the status quo. Why should we change it?

Howard, we don't need to support the status quo. Why should we change it?
Because it is an arbitrary boundary, which might be restricting some people from their nature. Some people are naturally gay, some are naturally straight, some are probably naturally pedophiles, although that word has a bad connotation.

What is sexually acceptable depends on the person and the culture. In some cultures, sex is acceptable at the advent of puberty. In others, not until you are a certain age, or not even until you are married.

However: just because a culture decries a form of sexuality doesn't mean an individual has to agree. A single person can find a certain aspect of sexuality to be totally acceptable, while his/her neighbors could be shaking their heads.

We cannot argue NAMBLA from a moral standpoint, as that will get us absolutely nowhere. We can however, argue them on a LEGAL standpoint.

At this point in time, what NAMBLA is doing is illegal.

Should it be legalized? I say no. Even if a child is ready for sex physicaly, that does not mean they are ready mentaly. They need to be informed, they need to be instructed, they need guidance. That guidance NEED NOT be hands-on (get your minds out of the gutter!).

At such a young age children are trying to discover themselves. Sex at a young age can confuse them, which leads to overall low self esteem.

Guys and gals, let's try to remember: Attack the argument, not the poster.

It is a legitimate question and is of worthy debate. Turning it into a flame war will only get the thread locked.

We cannot argue NAMBLA from a moral standpoint, as that will get us absolutely nowhere. We can however, argue them on a LEGAL standpoint.
At this point in time, what NAMBLA is doing is illegal.
At such a young age children are trying to discover themselves. Sex at a young age can confuse them, which leads to overall low self esteem.Part of what they are doing is illegal, when they assist in breaking the law. But lobbying isn't illegal, and they do that too. And I disagree with your point. If you hold to a particular set of morals, you should argue based on them. If you think morals are relative, then you are right, and you can get anywhere.

This is flaming, at its very worst. I'll report you to the mods if it continues.
Haha, this is someone with what, 8 posts? I have 380+ and I still consider myself a noob unfit for flame citations. Give me a break...

Haha, this is someone with what, 8 posts? I have 380+ and I still consider myself a noob unfit for flame citations. Give me a break...
I've given you one. I won't give you another. Post numbers don't give you the right to say what you did. Keruvalia was right.

Because it is an arbitrary boundary, which might be restricting some people from their nature. Some people are naturally gay, some are naturally straight, some are probably naturally pedophiles, although that word has a bad connotation.
So, obviously, what the troll is trying to point out in his/her poorly thought out strawmanish/slipperyslopish parody here is that if we argue that homosexuality should be equal because it is in thier nature, then since pedophilia is 'in peoples nature' that it to should be equal.

The problem is:
1) Homosexuality is no more related to pedophilia than heterosexuality.
2) Consent.

Now, in order to make this little parody work s/he has to argue that the line is arbitrary, but it is not. Being different in different areas is not and indication of arbitraryness (if thats a word). It's an indication of differing conditions/enviroment. We have a standard of consent, and that line is argued, considered and adjusted based on what we are able to learn and the capacity to understand the decisions and responsablities at hand.

So, it is not arbitrary. The standard of consent is based on psychological harm done to the participant, and thier ability to understand the decision.

Allowing for same-sex marriages and relationships does not mean that the slope leads to legalizing pedophilia.

And the final note, the parody is childish and demeens us all. But hey, your choice.

Because it is an arbitrary boundary, which might be restricting some people from their nature. Some people are naturally gay, some are naturally straight, some are probably naturally pedophiles, although that word has a bad connotation.
Natural desires are not the foundation of a moral society. We have to recognize the difference between right and wrong. Because I want to be wealthy, doesn't mean that I can take wealth by force, that's the government's job. No, I mean that would be wrong.

Consenting adults have rights and responsibilities that can't be conferred onto children. Supposedly, adults can exercise these rights due to the experience they have gained in eighteen, or twenty-one years. Children have not got the experience or the responsibility to exercise consent to sexual acts.

1) Homosexuality is no more related to pedophilia than heterosexuality.True. I didn't say they were related. I said the issues were. They are all three different forms of expressing sexual desire.
I agree that the differences are not signs of arbitrariness, the sign of arbitrariness is the sharp distinction at say, 16. Or 9 in some poorer countries.

Consenting adults have rights and responsibilities that can't be conferred onto children. Supposedly, adults can exercise these rights due to the experience they have gained in eighteen, or twenty-one years. Children have not got the experience or the responsibility to exercise consent to sexual acts.

Precisely comrade.

Precisely comrade.
I knew I'd find that turnip eventually.

Natural desires are not the foundation of a moral society. We have to recognize the difference between right and wrong. Because I want to be wealthy, doesn't mean that I can take wealth by force, that's the government's job. No, I mean that would be wrong.

Consenting adults have rights and responsibilities that can't be conferred onto children. Supposedly, adults can exercise these rights due to the experience they have gained in eighteen, or twenty-one years. Children have not got the experience or the responsibility to exercise consent to sexual acts.
So what do you think we should do with all the 14 year olds who are sleeping with each other as they begin high school? Throw them in jail? Because they haven't reached some silly age of consent? Or is is just that once you get past some randomly chosen age, you suddenly have the ability to know everything, and then you go to jail for having sex with someone under that random age?

True. I didn't say they were related. I said the issues were. They are all three different forms of expressing sexual desire.
I agree that the differences are not signs of arbitrariness, the sign of arbitrariness is the sharp distinction at say, 16. Or 9 in some poorer countries.
See, troll, they are not. The issues are not related. Taking down a barrier about consenting adults in not related to the relationships between adults and people below the age of consent.

The idea you are trying to parody is the examples of homosexuality in other cultures. Interestingly enough you are tapping sources where the culture is even more intolerant of homosexuality for your age ranges.

The problem is that the citing is more complex than that. It's not enough to say, "They do it," but you are missing the part where it indicates no harm. When the age of consent is very low it is a more traditional society (another thing not taken into acount in your little parody) where the concent isn't so much given by the nine year old, but her parents.

I'd respect you more if you'd step out from your childish parody world and just make your argument.

So what do you think we should do with all the 14 year olds who are sleeping with each other as they begin high school? Throw them in jail? Because they haven't reached some silly age of consent? Or is is just that once you get past some randomly chosen age, you suddenly have the ability to know everything, and then you go to jail for having sex with someone under that random age?
Ground them and be better parents. No. Yes. Yes.
Read what I just posted about consenting adults and the inability of kids to exercise adult responsibility.

Ok, I give up. Stephistan and others were sort of right on this one. I started this to see what the most far out position I could defend was (after all, I came here to debate) and I can't do this one anymore. Even trying to defend it is making me physically ill. (seriously. I think I could vomit) I am impressed with the way right and left came together on this one though. I am done with the satire. Good night.

Government-sanctioned marriage is in viloation of the 1st amendment - for all intents and purposes, I consider marriage a religious institution. The government has overstepped its limits by giving anybody, be it opposite or same-sex couples, the right to marry.

No it's not a violation. Marraige is not an institution that belongs to religion, nor is it an institution that is necessarily religious (although individuals are free to bring whatever religious conotations to their own marraiges as they wish). The government which is a social institution, has not overstepped the mark due to it's recognising and having provision for the social institution known as marraige.

As for children being able to consent, no I dont believe that any significant number of children can form consent to sexual activities. The few that can are like the few that can drive home when drunk without posing a significant risk to others, rare, if they exist at all, and not being particularly harmed by the limitations placed on them, certainly not nearly as harmed as people would be were the limitations not to exist.

Legalize man/boy love? Does anyone really think harm is caused by these relationships? Don't you think it is time we moved beyond our puritanical beginnings and accepted something the ancient Greeks and Romans had no problem with? I don't support it myself, but I think making love of any kind illegal is wrong. Don't you?


God, I thought all the hippies died of drug overdose! Guess i was wrong! Lets all caravan to the dead concert dude. Free sex and drugs. Wooo hooo man

God, I thought all the hippies died of drug overdose! Guess i was wrong! Lets all caravan to the dead concert dude. Free sex and drugs. Wooo hooo man

You're giving a bad name on hippies here.

How's this:

Passed puberty and consenting = ok
Anything else = no

The puberty thing is not simply out of moral decency, but due to a child's capacity to fathom the situation. Also, this is assuming that it's all protected, because I don't want any wackjob impregnating 13 year olds (do you hear that, Jebediah?).

Look, like I said, I don't support the idea, but how do you protest it, rationally? The age of consent? That varies all over the place, with girls as young as 9 being married in Afganistan, and what is the age of consent in Britain? 14? In America it is only 16, I think. The point is they are arbitrary, and if you want to be truly liberal in your ideas, you have to tear down barriers which can't be supported, even if you agree with them.

I read somewhere that the age that most people's decision-making skills mature is around age 20, most times later. In my view, anything younger than that is too young, inexperienced, and immature to think about the consequences and make a clear decision.

I'll try to find the source I read that on.

I read somewhere that the age that most people's decision-making skills mature is around age 20, most times later. In my view, anything younger than that is too young, inexperienced, and immature to think about the consequences and make a clear decision.

I'll try to find the source I read that on.

No, you're right. And in reality most people should wait till they are mentally capable. However, that doesn't happen (those people without self restraint should really be shot, though), and therefor it is necessary to make room for situations where they don't.
It's a sad world when you have to alot for 13 year olds having sex.

Last cat we had around here clawed up the Paradise Club and used the NS Pictures thread as its litter box. It was a terrible mess.

:( I sure do miss that kitty ... but it was yummy.
i don't know, cat's are a little stringy for my tastes.