...."It's about the Kids." It is, and much more. It's also about the adults. Aaron have you noticed how much attention these articles get?

My first thought is that we should figure out how to enforce the laws we have before we pass new one. How are we going to pay for the full implementation of this law? When the social programs that affect children and the elderly are first on the list of federal budget cuts, what happens at the state level. The cycle continues and the children still suffer.

I know we must deal with the criminals. This problem requires more than words on paper. Are politicians willing to see how budget cuts affect children?

Budget cuts do not affect children nearly as poorly as being raped by pedophiles does, so I think your priorities are more then a tad askew.

I just want to make sure I'm getting this part clear. You're making up ficticious budget cuts as too much of a price to pay for ensuring our children are not abducted, raped, sodomized and murdered?

See clearly, I don't think so.

I'm not making anything up. Go look at the budget, see what has been cut. Try to see how it affects or may affect children. Social programs are for everyone, especially children. This includes what they have for meals each day, where they go to school, who they stay with after school(childcare), and basic needs that are provided.

Try to see "clearly" how budget cuts have affected law enforcement. On any given night the state of Oregon has 7-8 highway patrolmen on duty (per shift) in the entire state. This is Homeland Security at it's best. Take this to all branches of law enforcement, and try to see clearly.

Punishment is the last resort. Try to se "clearly," prevention.

Is this another pink tail in the squirrel analogies? Try to see clearly that you even care!!

Russ, is english your first language? Seriously? Is 'try to see clearly' some unfamiliar expression with a meaning lost in translation? What the bloody hell ARE you talking about?

Is what another pink tail analogy? I don't see any analogies being presented at all.

As far as the tangent into the amount of on-duty police officers in oregon, can we try to keep on subject? I realize, and I hope you do as well, that if one prattles off about all the ills of the world, virtually ANY issue can be made to seem trivial in comparison. If that was a basis for not taking action on any given issue, we would be bound from doing practically anything, ever.

Why don't you give me some statistics about how many children are suffering from fatal malnutrition due to a lack of money, if you are concerned child starvation is a more pressing issue to invest our funds toward ending. Do that, and we'll see how that stacks with children getting abducted and murdered, and see which has more lives in more dire need of a few bucks.

What I don't get is why does the new law state that the satellite monitoring is for offenders who have molested children between the ages of 12 and 15. If a guy is young enough when he molested a child younger than 12, and gets sent up for 25 years, he will be free of the monitoring device when he gets out, and will then be able to prey on another young child. How are we going to pay for it. There's an intelligent question, that was MY first thought. Yes,Russ, that is the main thing.

MJohnson, I don't think english IS Russ's first language. I have been struck before as to how he writes in a very confused and convoluted fashion. Nothing against him if that's the case , mind you. But, it does make him hard to decipher.

Try to see "clearly" how budget cuts have affected law enforcement. On any given night the state of Oregon has 7-8 highway patrolmen on duty (per shift) in the entire state. This is Homeland Security at it's best. Take this to all branches of law enforcement, and try to see clearly.

No, no, no Russ...."Homeland Security" has NOTHING to do with how many State troopers a state has on the roads. That's a "State" issue....see the 10th Amendment clearly

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Yes, Yes, Yes... :-) When the Feds dictate how HS will be implemented, and they go code yellow or orange without sending funds, then the money has to come from someones budget. Sure it's the states responsibility, but the Feds expect the states to adhere to HS policy. HS hasn't been funded to protect dams, bridges and tunnels, etc.

Think baseball...

If you don't understand, or care to understand what I post, then don't!!

If you can't remember for more than a couple of seconds what your previous post was about then don't ask me to explain it to you.

You stated: "I just want to make sure I'm getting this part clear. You're making up ficticious budget cuts as too much of a price to pay for ensuring our children are not abducted, raped, sodomized and murdered?"

My comment: "See clearly, I don't think so." was in response to your first sentence.

Exactly what do you want to get clearly?

I don't think you really care about children, period! I don't think you have children. It's obvious in your posts.

Anytime I respond to you I am on topic, because your overall logic has always been about; "I have an opinion and I want to be heard." It doesn't really make a difference to you if you are talking about vaginas or painted pink tails on squirrels.

The only time you are not on top of the "village idiot" posting list, is when Lisa or Red chooses to boot you off. You can see that "I'll say yes to anything right-wing" Lisa, just saved your dead ass one more time.

If you don't think english is my first language, that's really OK. Rather than put someone down, step out of your narcissistic self and do something good for society.

When you choose to wag your tail, and it feels heavy.....don't look back, it's just Lisa. If you doubt me, look in the archives. It's right about now that Lisa will chime...Thaaaaat's not a nice thing to say Ruuusssssss!

PS. Laws that are not enforced mean nothing. We have thousands of laws like this across America ie. "No Child Left Behind"

Gee MJohnson, I didn't know I was "saving your dead ass" when I posted. Glad to be of service. I did say Russ, that if english wasn't your first language, I wasn't holding anything against you for it. I thought you were all about not judging people?

If you have an original thought, speak, don't just wag your tail.

FYI; call it judging if you wish. I'm human and I would like someone to respond without always looking for a way to put someone down. Contrary to what you may choose to believe, I'm not a "wuss."

Lisa, you have never, and I put emphasis on NEVER, substantiated a comment that you have posted here. I'm thinking parrot. If you think I'm judging MJ then look at his posts again. In the "I Love my Vagina" post he thinks the young lady is wrong and it's inappropriate that she wear the button, but he doesn't know why. It seems obvious from his post that he didn't read the article in it's entireity. Then to do a flip-flop in "The Runaway Bride" he doesn't see that she broke the law and deserves punishment. Then back here again, he would like me to believe he has regained consiousness, pink squirrel tails and all.

A new law creating longer sentences and ankle bracelet monitoring is political BS. From me to you, have you ever looked at the number of crimes committed against women and children? I would like to add, start here by looking at the topics posted, and do your own survey/poll. To follow, we have a new topic regarding a pregnant girl, and from where, noneother than the state of Florida. The same state that just passed a new law to protect children. The same state that spent how much keeping Terri connected to a feeding tube.

Whenever this subject comes up I'm always a little sad that all the focus goes on punishment. I can understand how locking people up for a long time means they cannot offend while they are isolated, but this occurs only after someone has offended and there is a victim.

I want there to be action before someone offends. The desire to view children as sexual objects seems to be strong in some people. There are I suspect people who feel this desire and yet don't act on it. These people remain invisible - they aren't picked up for breaking the law and they don't come forward and volunteer their desires for fear of condemnation. If we could encourage people to come forward who have this desire we should I believe be able to support them to not offend.

Right now I don't know who these people should contact in the UK and I suspect the situation is the same in the US. How much is the US government putting into supporting potential sex offenders not becoming actual sex offenders. Confidentiality would be essential to encourage people to come forward and there wouldn't be great victories as the people who don't become victims wouldn’t be identifiable.

Threats of terrible punishment obviously don't work on everyone - the punishment sound pretty terrible to me already. It's not just prison these people face it's the condemnation of all those who know them. Plenty of money goes on the stick, but none seems to be spent the carrot. And of course if the carrot works, they'll be no victim who has to suffer and the state won't have to pay to incarcerate the offender.

It would be nice to think of someone dieing at a ripe old age loved by their family and friends who led a happy and good life. Nobody else other than his support group might know that he spent decades battling not to become an offender despite his desires.

Of course for politicians it pays to keeping making the punishment more and more punishing - it makes them appear more determined and shows how much they hate sex offenders. Well I'll take there being less victims and less peoples lives destroyed by their desires which they have difficulty in controlling. So why don't politicians do this? Check out the tone when this is discussed - it's down to us. Rather than everyone shouting how evil these people are a little more quiet reflection and some genuinely new activity might actually reduce the number of victims which is what we want - isn't it?

Well spoken WB, and I agree that the current system has no ROI. These people can't be rehabilitated is the most common statement. I believe someone must try (to rehab)first. The alternative is life without the possibility of parole, because without a serious rehab program nothing changes. The current system has to it's credit; "creating an atmosphere of apathy."

I'm glad to see them use her last name for the law. Using dead young girls' first names for law and bills just didn't/doesn't seem right to me.

its all a publicity stunt.

why else would you have the kids parents over your shoulder while you sign the bill?

yes, of course we're all for preventing such awful crime. but does the punishment do anything to solve the problem? the general public doesn't seem to care too much - we just want someone that is "tough on crime!"

that reminds me, i need to invest in the prison system.

Ok...I stopped reading Russ's ridiculous rants halfway though, I'm sure you'll let me know if I missed anything incoherant, right Russ?

Think baseball? What the hell are you talking about? Russ! Man! Wait for the drugs to wear off before you post!

While you question my motives, allow me to question yours. I think you're speaking gibberish on purpose to divert attention away from the debate until someone gets hooked on one of your ridiculous tangents.

The language question was not meant to be an insult, I was (as I stated) dead serious. However, I've asked the question about 5 times now, and each time it is meant with either irrateness of flipancy without ever being addressed, so I must assume that english IS your first language.

In which case, I CAN hold it against you. If English is your first language, Russ, you are retarded.

Go put your bicycle helmet on Russ, the short yellow bus is waiting.

Russ...you're trying to make a causality statement between Homeland Security and the CHOICE of Oregon to have a small state trooper force on the highways. It's just not there. Oregon applied for an ODP federal grant to cover Homeland Security costs and received part of the $347.7 MILLION that the FedGov had granted through the 2003 fiscal year. AND Portland received $6.77 million from the '03 budget....which included nearly $4 BILLION given to the States from fiscal year '03. AND Oregon got $32.5 million for '04. Now, that money is going SOMEWHERE in those states and if they're not paying for their troopers, then that's THEIR problem. PLUS, you're ignoring the fact that about 129 officers were laid off in January 2003 after voters rejected a measure that would have increased income tax rates for three years in order to make up for STATE revenue shortfalls.....DUE TO THE RECESSION (which had nothing to do with Bush OR Homeland Security).....the PEOPLE CHOSE a smaller force instead of a higher tax.

Where exactly did you get that number of 7-8 troopers per night anyway? Are you listening to too much Mikey Moore? I smell F-9/11...

Brit, we can't force people to do anything if they haven't commited a crime. The psychiatric associations can (may be, 'have') declared such conditions disorders, and therefor, have treatment programs, but it is still up to the individual to seek out such help.

Without seriously breaching individual freedoms, and making having certain thoughts illegal to think, the idea that you can go around rehabilitating sex-offenders before they offend is simply not realistic. And what do you do with the NAMBLA types? Do you know what NAMBLA is brit? We've got a whole bunch of people over here on the left that would never abide us trying to act against that.

Sarge, I'll start with this link. It is something that Bush is, and was involved in and it does relate to this topic.

http://www.fcasv.org/

My comment re: OHP and the number on patrol was an example of Bushs' economic genius. Tax breaks, tax cuts and good fiscal planning work well in good economic times. The president has an agenda without a plan. Americans want their public services intact and they want the tax break too.

Sadly, it's public and social services that get the axe first. This is the case in Florida and across the states. How does this new law play out in future cases? Why does it seem that all is happening in Florida and the state is such a mess? How effective the law will be will only be determined by implementation. Will it reduce rape and murder of children? Probably not and it's still portrayed as ploiticians playing with childrens lives. It's not happening just in Fl. it's across America and the world.

I along with you and many others don't like to see tax dollars wasted. Many would slash social programs because they think they are a waste and if they are cut it won't affect them. It's hypocracy to complain about a problem without the desire or ambition to solve the problem.

Where did all the money go in Oregon? HS has put big dents in state budgets, without reimbursments.

PS. For the uninformed, baseball is a positive thing even if your team isn't winning all the games.

Hi Tom,

I agree I don't like children’s names being associated with these laws. Their lives are defined by the way they died, but rather by the way they lived. I also feel uncomfortable with the parents being too involved with the media. They very rarely know more about the problem than the general population - they certainly know more about the pain of dealing with the aftermath, but being parents of a victim doesn't give them great insight in how to stop it happening. The media love to feature them as they provide a human suffering face, but it I doubt it does them much good other than providing a diversion from the tremendous pain they must be feeling. Politicians getting involved should be kept to a minimum. It's not publicity they need it's time and the process to try to recover as much as they can.

Hi MJ,

No I don't want to force anyone I want to give them an incentive (that of being helped to deal with their desires within the law). There are people who struggle with this - I suspect many people feel great remorse after they have offended and I'd like to give them access to this feeling before they offend. I don't know the details of the best way to support them, but I better the professionals can come up with something better than the isolation and feeling of disgust with themselves the current climate forces them into. I want treatment programs to be volunteered for before they offend - so they won't ever offend and I want this to be free. It's wouldn't cost a huge amount I don't think this problem is about huge numbers but the few that do offend cause incredible pain. It won't work on everyone I know, but it will I think work on some and those few it does work with could save hundreds of children.

I’d never heard of NAMBLA and chose not to go to their website. I won’t speak of that which I don’t know particularly since I’m pressed for time. In short however I’m pretty certain I’d be disagreeing with NAMBLA.

MJ,

This comment; "Go put your bicycle helmet on Russ, the short yellow bus is waiting." speaks volumes in regard to the lack of respect and compassion you have for children and the human race.

In regard to you causing any hurt toward me, you can't. Do you realize what a derogatory, hurtfull, comment you have made? Any positive thoughts or attributes projected by you, towards children, have been erased here.

WB, Keep the positive thoughts for a viable solution.

They have been erased here? No, they haven't. YOU ARE INCOHERANT! Shove it up your pompous ass you blistering windbag. You seem wholley uncapable of stringing together full sentances let alone complete thoughts, so why should anyone care what you think of them?

Brit,

It's the North American Man-Boy Love Association. They are a lobby group that is trying to make pedophilia legal, and convince society that it is beautiful and normal. Basically, they're doing everything the Gay Rights lobby did, the exact same way the gay rights lobby did it, a few years later. They're following in the same footsteps so to speak, and the sick thing is, they're getting their way WAY too often BECAUSE of the horrible and ridiculous legal and social precedents and rational set with the gay rights cases. The sad thing is you could see it coming a mile away.

MJohnson - I mean....do I really need to say anything here?

What the hell are you doing comparing NAMBLA with the gay rights movement?

THERE IS NOTHING TO COMPARE.

there is everything to compare.

Hi Russ,

Yes I’ll save my positive thoughts for a viable solution. And while we’re all thinking of one I’d quite like to pursue other ideas that will help. I’ll tell you a true story I heard off the radio on a late night discussion on this topic. The story was told by the mans brother.

There were two brothers who were children and they were sexually abused by a relative. They grew up. One brother married and he had children. Good job, two children and a great wife all in the garden was rosy. However inside this man was going through a crisis, he’d lived with his abuse and seemed to cope but inside him he had mixed feeling between childhood and sex. He’d started having sexual feeling (or maybe they’d been there for years) about children. This terrified him.

He decided to talk to a social worker. Unfortunately the social worker immediately sounded the alarm bells. The police were contacted and he was questioned – well nothing was found he’d committed no crime. His children were put on the “at risk” register by social services – well who wouldn’t it seems the sensible thing to do. For obvious reasons his wife realised something was going on. She found out that her husband was being investigated for potential child sexual crimes and that her beautiful children were now on the “at risk” register because social services were worried their father might abuse them – well what would you do – of course she left him and fought in the courts to prevent him ever seeing them again. The story should end with him abusing children or killing himself right.

It doesn’t it ended there his wife had gone, his family and friends knew why, he was banned from seeing his children oh and you can guess what had happened to that good job. He was alone, virtually friendless and unemployed. That was the state of play when his brother told the story. I don’t know what happened next, but a mans life had been destroyed because he’d become unsure of himself, not committed a crime but realised he was going down a path he didn’t want to – maybe he should have kept his mouth shut - well I’d rather he’d had spoken out. But there wasn’t anyone to speak out to safely. I think a man who was unstable was made more unstable because of his desire to do the right thing.

Many people wouldn’t have said anything – would they have started fantasising, looking at pictures on the Internet, looking at children around them? Paedophiles start somewhere and I want them to be able to seek and get help without destroying their lives. If we destroy someone’s life for seeking help nobody else will try to get help.

I’d set up a phone number, publicise it, hold confidential counselling and support potential paedophiles before they got started. Not as macho as locking them up forever or cutting their balls off – but it might actually stop a career paedophile becoming a career paedophile and stopping one man might save hundreds of children. Saving hundreds, tens or one child being hurt for every success sounds like a good deal to me. This is a great, cheap idea and it’s viable enough to save plenty of kids from harm.

Hi MJ

I googled NAMBLA so I knew what the initials stood for otherwise I wouldn’t have put.

In short however I’m pretty certain I’d be disagreeing with NAMBLA.

I don’t know their methods, but I’m not surprised they adopt some of the tactics used by the gay rights movement. Those tactics were of course moulded and informed by black rights movements tactics. Any groups trying to move from a position of criminality to a position of acceptance would be fools not to have a look at both these groups. If it’s sexual criminality then the gay rights movement would be an obvious template. One of the accusations that gay people have had to face may times is being smeared as paedophiles and I suspect people in NAMBLA have at times hidden within the gay community adding credence to the gay=paedophiles smear.

MJ by relating these two groups you tread on dangerous ground. But you knew that.

However you also say

horrible and ridiculous legal and social precedents and rational set with the gay rights cases

You appear to be saying that the gay rights movement “set horrible and ridiculous legal and social precedents”. Are you? Are you choosing to take a thread on child rape and murder into a discussion on gay rights? Because I’m not comfortable with you doing that, that’s not dangerous ground that’s linking things that don’t genuinely belong together in a rather low way, which I do not expect from you.

Hi mattk,

I do think there are things to compare. NAMBLA’s tactics are bound to be informed by the gay rights movement. This is a reasonable insight into how NAMBLA are likely to act.

There is no comparison ethically between gay people and paedophiles. It’s a slur. Some might try to say the two groups are the same group. Some might just want to say I don’t agree with gay sexual behaviour and I don’t agree with paedophile sexual behaviour, this disapproval and disgust I feel come from the same source and there is a moral equivalence. I disagree with them.

I suspect the source of your anger came from the ethical comparison, but perhaps from connecting the two at all.

Hi Lisa,

mattk made his point – the comparison between these two groups and stated that he disagreed with it. You however just disagreed. If you have something to say please let us hear your thoughts if you have something to say.

I think I've gotten my point across but...

Saying NAMBLA uses tactics from the gay rights movement is like saying Bush uses tactics he learned from Hitler.

I've gotta say that YOU know nothing about both that gay rights movement starting in the early 70's and you know less about Bush and Hitler. In 1972, the National Coalition of Gay Organizations instituted their "Gay Rights Platform" in which one of the "demands" was to repeal ALL laws concerning the age of consent for sex so that homosexual men could freely bugger and butt-ram little boys and nobody could send them away for it. NAMBLA was formed in 1978 and is the off-shoot of those homosexual men that were behind THAT particular movement to remove the age of consent.

As for Bush and Hitler, well, no matter how much you may want to make the comparison, you will only show your ignorance concerning Hitler.

I am not trying to equate homosexuality to pedophilia. I would even go as far as to say I support some of the progress made by the gay rights movement, but what I do not support is the manner in which they achieved their progress. This is why I say horrible precedents...Not horrible decisions in and of themselves, as they pertain to themselves, but horrible methodology that, if it is set as a precedent, and a method by which to examine FUTURE issues, it leads to problems with people like NAMBLA.

There were many people who warned (And are warning) about such things. If the law discriminates against (insert group), the law should be changed by the legislatures or strucken down completely by the judiciary, but if instead of doing either of these, the law is 'reinterpreted' to mean something else by the judiciary, you're opening the door for all sorts of nutjobs to follow in that path.

What I mean by 'horrible precedents' is a case of the end not justifying the means. It is not the end at all which I speak poorly of but rather the method with which it was achieved was the wrong method, for exactly this reason. Because AS a precedent, the logic used has ramifications, BAD ramifications, that go BEYOND the case at hand. I would suggest that in a court of law, no end ever justifies ANY means, because once a method is used it becomes a standard, a precendent, available to be used over and over again. Essentially any successful methodology is vindicated by the courts and approved for further use.

I do not mean to change the subject, but since I was misunderstood I think I need to clarify myself. But so far I have spoken of the LEGAL precedents and I would like to give an example of a social precedent (or perhaps it is both) as an example of the ramifications.

It has become WIDELY accepted that people are born gay. "I was just born this way" or "God made me this way". Well whatever. I don't have a problem with people being gay, but I don't buy that they were born that way at all. Look : sexual preference is not a genetically predisposed trait. As an idea of the precedent, what does it really say? If that is true, then essentially we are saying that all sorts of complex behaviors in grown adults can be the result of pure genetics! It takes the responsibility for ones choices off of the person, allowing them to blaim 'god' or their genes for what they do. "I was BORN genetically pre-disposed to violent acts of rape".

Look, I'm not trying to equate. I'm trying to show a continuation of logic though. If your genetics make you gay or straight, not your social influences and trumping any notion of free will, wouldn't it follow that genetics would also determine the sexual disfunction of a rapist? Might we blaim genetics for little things too? Because if obviously your genes determine your opinions or preferences before you ever born.....

Come on! This is eugenics! This is bullshit science! This is what lead to the holocaust.

And if that's the case, look at the ramifications. One side you have people arguing 'since pedophiles were BORN that way, they can't help themselves, you can't hold them accountable for it.' Meanwhile, you're saying we need to 'help' the pedophiles Brit, but if pedophilia was determined by genetics, we can't change it with therapy (unless it's gene therapy). We CANT reabilitate these men any more then we can make you grow a 3rd leg out of your back. They are, allways were, allways will be, pedophiles. It's in the genes, right?

Now, pedophilia is NOT genetic. That's obvious because it is also obvious that social factors (like being raped at a young age) have very dramatic and observable effects on the chances of an adult being a pedophile. It's not logical to conclude they are, BUT, if you hold that sexual preferences can be determined genetically, (and so you must hold, if you are to claim that homosexuality is genetic and beyond anyones choice) then this becomes the logical extension. How do you rectify those two seemingly opposing facts? Well, I rectify them by saying the genetic predisposition to sexual activity preferences is utter bullshit on ALL accounts.

But OTHER people will come to the other conclusion. And the argument that leads to isn't one I ever want to have (but the way our courts do things, I probably will).

Hi Brit! Just as I was going to respond, Sarge beat me to it!

Hi Sarge,

I wasn't aware of this group but have looked up the "Gay Rights Platform" of 72. I don't accept that this group is definitely representative of all gay rights groups (there are many different groups that disagree massively with each other).

There is a demand as you say to "Repeal of all laws governing the age of sexual consent." but their demands are clearly split into two categories Federal and State level and this is a State level demand and not a Federal level demand. Now I'm not a lawyer and certainly not an American lawyer, but I would guess if these people were a genuine representative gay rights group that this demand was to ensure that a national age of consent wasn't undermined on a state level by making the age of consent on a state level 110 or something similar. In other words so a state couldn't opt out of federal laws. There is no demand for a remove of the age of consent on a federal level so I don't think this was motivated but a desire to "bugger and butt-ram little boys".

So Sarge you appear to be wrong there was no call to repeal ALL laws. As I say I don't know this group, but Sarge from what you've already said I doubt you would be the person to trust in the honest interpretation of their actions or motives. If I'm right in my understanding of this and you knew about the Federal/State split you have acted very disingenuously.

MJohnson - You claim not to be a Christian but you sure the hell tow the party line in great detail.

Why the hell are you bringing genetics into this? And what the hell do you know about genetics and the predisposition of sexual preference? Also, there are many other developmental factors that can alter who we become.

Sex is not a complex behavior! If it was, stupid people wouldn't have children. Sex is something that goes to the very core of our brain, the core of our physical being. (As the brain is also a physical object affected by the body)

The big fucking difference which you seem to miss, but are so happy to equate - is that what two consenting adults do is not a crime while all forms of child abuse are crimes.

I don't care if a pedophile is genetically predisposed to it. Lock him up! Yet we're a long, long way from connecting any genes with particular behaviors. Maybe this keeps you up at night, I don't have trouble sleeping.

You're the only one here confusing a discussion about pedophilia with genetics.

Sarge, I have no idea what you're talking about. However, I know of no gays that are currently working to repeal the age of consent laws. You're just sputtering hateful bullshit.

Hi MJ,

I have read your response - thanks for going into detail. I'm please to see you clarify your position. I am uncomfortable discussing going into gay rights on this thread and I accept it wasn't your intention to do so out of malice. I've got quite a lot to say, however as I'm sure you know it's the day of our General Election and so I'm going to concentrate on more local issues today so don't want to spend a long time analysing what you've said and my response to it. I found the Federal/State distinction on Sarge's point on the first website I looked at when I looked up the "Gay Right's Platform" so it didn't take much time to post my last post. I promise I will get back to you, but I'm going to vote soon and then obsess over British politics so it probably won't be today.

starting in the early 70's and you know less about Bush and Hitler. In 1972, the National Coalition of Gay Organizations instituted their "Gay Rights Platform" in which one of the "demands" was to repeal ALL laws concerning the age of consent for sex so that homosexual men could freely bugger and butt-ram little boys and nobody could send them away for it. NAMBLA was formed in 1978 and is the

Put up or shut up.

UY....fuck off. I don't do what you say...go google it like everything you want everyone else to do....google it like Brit did...you intellectually lazy coward.

matt...kiss my ass, I am in no way hateful of homosexuals. They are my neighbors, my roommates, and a huge percentage of people living in my section of Boston.....but of course you're making your assumption on WHAT I DID NOT SAY, IGNORING WHAT I DID SAY because you somehow really really really feel the need for me to be a gay-bashing Christian redneck (my neck is only red after a good day of flyfishing the flats on Cape Cod on a summy day). Sorry to disappoint your stereotype.

To clear up, as usual, I never said that the CURRENT homosexual agenda is anything of the sort.....just that THAT was part of the stated agenda in 1972 of the National Coalition of Gay Organizatioins.....which NAMBLA (formed in 1978) shares.

Hi Sarge,

I’ve been coming back to this thread when I’ve been logging on despite current distractions because I’ve been looking for your come back. I’m pleased to see your last comment on in no way being anti-gay.

I’ve also had a bit of a look around the Internet – The National Coalition of Gay Organisations were 200 from 85 organisations people who were entirely unelected and represented nobody but themselves. This group also passed a resolution approving group marriage and members of the group also decided to spell America “Amerika”. This was a bunch of nutters. This resolution has been condemned time and time again by gay groups in the US. One of the website I visited also mentioned both the 1972 and 1976 national Republican Party platforms supported abortion. Clearly they were odd days indeed.

The National Coalition of Gay Organisations aren’t representative of gay rights groups in any way. I don’t pick out the most ridiculous view of the most weird Republican groups and ask you to justify them this is a bit of a distraction.

Last Lisa you seem to have something to say, you may as well say it.

.google it like Brit did...you intellectually lazy coward.

No way in fucking hell am I googling NAMBLA.

Sarge - What can your comment about the gay rights movement and age of consent do besides incite hate? What do you think your gay neighbors/roommates/coworkers would say to it? (i'm curious if the ommision of "friends" was purposeful or not.)

Finally, any comments regarding religion were targetted toward MJohnson. Then again, they may or may not pertain to you as well.

Oh, on a smiliar note I'd like to point something out -

The Pope hates Jews!

....incite the TRUTH. Take it as you want because you WANT me to be a homosexual hater....you NEED me to be a homosexual hater. It's the only viable option....I MUST hate homosexuals. Yes, my roommate and neighbors are my "friends"...though I usually keep that label to those I've known for a decade or so, but I have no problem inviting them all for BBQs and beers and general "chewing of the fat" in my back yard.....and upon talking about it last night.....all my roommate had to say is that is was a sad point in the history of the "gay movement/agenda" that he vaguely already knew about(repealing the age of consent)....and that it still exists in the more radical gay groups such as NAMBLA.

Nothing having anything to do with religion should ever be targetted at ME....because I have none.

....and UY, you will NEVER look anything up because you know damned well that it's true and are just being your typically dinkus self. What, do you think that Bush's fascistii police are gonna come for ya if you, OH MY GOD, go on the NAMBLA site and read about them and their fucked up anti-social views? More likely, you'd rather just call "bullshit" on people, regardless of the truth. Move along child, you've typically got nothing to add here.

What, do you think that Bush's fascistii police are gonna come for ya if you, OH MY GOD, go on the NAMBLA site and read about them and their fucked up anti-social views?

Yes.

Sarge - would it be appropriate for me to go around referring to our president as a cokehead and alcoholic?

after all, i'd only be inciting the truth.

Further, just because NAMBLA tries to latch on to a legitimate cause does not mean we should take the connection seriously. NAMBLA is not a gay group.

Mattk, sex IS a complex behavior in the sense that I was using it, and in the sense of genetic memory.

A simple behavor would be, I slam the door shut, you jump up 2 inches in your chair. I blow a whistle loudly, you flinch and turn your head toward the noise. Those are simple behaviors that ARE passed through genes. Instinctual behaviors that are not taught, but people are born with them, and often subliminal, and (arguably) are even impossible to control consciously.

Sex would be an infinitely complex behavior to be passed through genetics, as would drinking orange juice or singing 'oops I did it again'.

Beyond your gross misinterpretation of my word usage, you bring up absolutely nothing.

As far as you questioning my stated religious beleifs again, have fun. I really don't care what you think I beleive. Perhaps someone has a link to a thread a while back where Kerry and Kilarjian got into an argument about evangalism, you'd do well to read it. But I'm not going out of my way to look, as I have nothing to prove. I think your question reflects more poorly upon you then it does on me.

"NAMBLA is not a gay group". Well, it sure as heck isn't a hetersexual one!!

Well, it sure as heck isn't a hetersexual one!

The orientation doesnt matter at all, its the simple fact of the ages they target.

MJohnson - Your use of pseduoscience just doesn't hold water.

What if they found the gene for foot fetishes? Would carriers be allowed to work in a shoe store?

Hi MJ,

Your post does take us into the gay gene debate which I realise is contentious. But I have looked at this a little. Scientists have studied a chromosome segment that when present makes the individual more likely to be gay than when not present. Not all gay people have this gene and not all people who have this gene are gay, but having this gene seems to statistically significantly increase the likelihood of an individual being gay. There is other supporting evidence like a statistically significant increased likelihood of an individual being gay if one of their siblings is gay. These effects have been noted even in groups with different upbringings. With the gene the effect persists if the child is raised away from the mother (it’s a matrilineal gene) that passed the child the gene (in other words the mother who has this gene doesn’t raise her children in a way more likely to produce gay children). With the siblings it has been noted that the statistical significance persists when the siblings are raised together and when they are raised apart. Identical twin research echoes this effect even more strongly than mere siblings. I’ve used the word likely and statistical quite a lot here because we’re talking about probabilities. This isn’t the basic genetics that gives us eye colour but if this gene is having the effect that a number of studies have found it may well be influenced by other “gay genes” reinforcing the effect or straight genes inhibiting it in a very complex way.

It seems likely then that there is a genetic element to people’s sexuality and at the moment it is difficult to tell how strong that is. Given how little we know about the human gene at the moment you might think it surprising that we have already stumbled on a potential gay gene, This may indicate that there are quite a few of them out there and that their effect is quite strong or it maybe an indicator of the level of interest in this subject (personally I’d rather these scientists spent their time looking for cures for genetic diseases – although I understand some may feel this is exactly what these scientists are doing). It shouldn’t be thought that gay people are entirely delighted in the discovery of gay genes, there are a number of vested interests not all of who are backed by this research. It reminds me of a conversation I had with a friend who has brittle bones. Essentially he said it’s all very nice people finding brittle bones genes and testing for this condition during pregnancy but if the tests that are available today were available when I was born my parents may have opted for an abortion. With artificial insemination becoming more frequent this may be seen more and more. After all if a couple have 12 embryos and 4 will be implanted on a cycle of insemination and 2 are found to have a “gay gene” even the most liberal parents might say leave those two until last. Being gay in today’s society is a harder life than being straight – and which parent says yes give my child a harder life please.

BTW There is early research on why this gene isn’t dying out. Any gene that reduces the chance of reproduction should by nature reduce and reduce in the general population, so how has this gene survived. Early research indicates women who have this gay gene (it doesn’t make them more likely to be gay) have a slightly (but statistically significant) higher birth rate than the general population. It hasn’t been determined if this is because they are more fertile or that they desire to have more children or whatever. This is early research so the number of studies is very limited.

Looking at the nurture side of the equations there are other things we can say. It has been established that people brought up with a strict religious background in Utah are less likely to be gay than people brought up in a less religious background in New York. So that tells us that social forces also play a part in people sexuality. I’m not talking about people who see themselves as gay or more gay and suppress this attribute by people being genuinely less gay. There are of course a number of people who suppress or hide their sexuality because of social factors but we aren’t focusing on those. Don’t forget of course that being raised in a more socially excepting environment still means an incredibly “straight” environment virtually all social reinforcements are towards heterosexuality. You just need to see 2 year old kids making friends and the adults around them cooing oh his found himself a girlfriend. They never say with two boys oh they’ve found themselves boyfriends. Advertising, television, adults, their peers, social conventions and structures within society all hugely direct children towards hetro rather than homosexuality.

I have only seen very limited research to indicate what causal factors might make someone less likely to be gay. In fact I’ve already pointed to the only research I am aware of which indicates this sort of effect – that of religion (in particular religions that are unusually hostile to gays) and urban verses rural issues/ What’s going on here it’s difficult to say because these are pretty broad labels. I’ve seen nothing about specific factors like a child being given a red train rather than a blue train in their childhood (substitute whatever you want for the red and blue trains).

So there are definitely elements of both nature and nurture in the determination of sexuality. All this research is very interesting but I don’t care that much. I think that for most people when they turn puberty their sexuality becomes pretty apparent. Gay and Straight people don’t think well I don’t really mind being attracted to boys or girls I think I’ll opt for girls. Indeed given that life is harder for gay people if this were the case many gay people would probably say I’d rather be straight. In fact many gay men report that they have tried to be straight the stories of men coming out in later life or experimenting with straight sex or leading a double life are legion and are sometimes very painful for them and those around them.

So I’d say I don’t really care why someone is the sexuality they are but I do note that currently all the social pressures are towards heterosexuality. This has meant many gay people have tried to be straight over at least the last century and probably before (read “Well of Loneliness” for an early account of an unhappy lesbian). Society has tried to force and coerce (often pretty brutally) gay people have tried not being gay time and time again – yet still gay people can be seen throughout society and history.

You talk about what to do if paedophilia turns out to be genetic – well I’m unaware of any research into this and unaware of any thing to indicate there is a genetic factor. There certainly indicators to show that being abused in childhood increases the chance of becoming a paedophile and I don’t think many would argue with this. However I wouldn’t want to say we should treat gay people differently because there may be a genetic element in paedophiles. No one would suggest we treat people with brown eyes differently if there were a genetic element to paedophiles and I think there is a similar equivalence for gays.

Hi Lisa,

Groups are not either gay or heterosexual. NAMBLA members may have hidden within the gay community – it would from their point of view seem quite a sensible thing to do. I think there will have been people with similar views to the Nazi’s hiding in the Republican Party and Communists hiding in the Democrats over the past. This doesn’t mean they were genuine Republicans or that genuine Republicans were tolerant of them. Fascists and Communists are neither Democrat or Republican. Just as NAMBLA is neither homosexual or heterosexual.

Hi Brit! Love your posts, always so interesting! But, I don't get how you can say that NAMBLA isn't homosexual? It's not called a "man boy OR girl association". What do YOU think they are?

Hi Lisa,

Thanks for the compliment. I suppose it depends on how you define homosexual. If you define it as any Male/Male or Female/Female activity then yes technically NAMBLA is homosexual.

However, I would be cautious of calling it a homosexual organisation. When you give labels to an organisation you normally pick out the pertinent detail. So you could say NAMBLA is a human organisation, but you'd be missing out the vital point about it. That it advocates sex between adults and children. Most human organisations don't do this so saying it's a human organisation is rather missing the point. I know of no other gay group that advocates this activity so it's not typical of gay rights organisations, just as it's not typical of other men's or human organisations. In fact the National Coalition of Gay Organisations who were a very peculiar lot as I pointed out have actually been condemned time and time again by gay organisations and individuals over the last 33 years.

In addition do you insist on calling every case of rape by a man of a woman "heterosexual rape" or every case of child abuse where the criminal and the victim are of different genders "heterosexual child abuse"? If you do then you are being consistent, but I don't know anyone who does insist on using the term heterosexual for these cases. So why is the word homosexual linked to cases when the victim and attacker are of the same gender? Well I think it generally shows the disposition of the speaker. By continually referring to a group like NAMBLA as homosexual people are smearing homosexuals. NAMBLA is also a men's group why isn't it described as this? It's also a group of humans - why don't we focus on this? Well there's no pay off in calling it these names.

If I were to tell people of this organisation in the UK and then continually refer to it as an American organisation my inference would be that look this is what Americans are like. While I would be being technically correct I would be presenting the information to condemn American's in general rather than condemning this particular group. This is why I object to calling NAMBLA a homosexual organisation.

Oh sorry I forgot to answer your question, NAMBLA is a paedophile organisation - that's the pertinent information to what this group is about and I don't smear any other group by saying that. Or do you think I should be calling it an American organisation?

It's not called a "man boy OR girl association". What do YOU think they are?

They are usually Conservative Bush voters.

Brit,

I didn't mean to say that we would treat people differently if there was a gene for pedophiles. What I meant to imply was that we would have to treat pedophiles differently (or, more aptly, many would argue that we should treat them differently) IF there was a gene for pedophilia, because a pedophile can no more be resonposible for his actions in that scenario, then I can be held accountable for being Irish.

Homosexuality comes into play because, if genes determine sexual traits and preferences, if there is a gay gene, then there is no 'if'. Pedophilia will ALSO have a gene, as will heterosexuality.

As far as the search for the 'gay gene' goes, I would like to see some of your research material. What I will say is that I remain HIGHLY skeptical, these genes could easily influence other traits, like over-all sex drive, which IS genetic specifically hormonal, which would have an INFLUENCE on, but NOT DETERMINE sexual preference.

Freud said that everyone has SOME homosexual tendencies. I beleive that he was right about that (Although wrong quite frequently in my opinion). I'm going to try to not make this an enormous post so I'll just leave it here, with one more point.

If you had 800 1 year old boys, and you put them all on a desert island with no interaction with any part of any outside society, and no females or even knowledge of females available to them. Assume (hypothetically) all 800 boys actually survived somehow to the age of 16. Think Lord of the Flies. I bet by the time they're 16, all 800 would be gay.

That's a 100% homosexuality rate, that was induced by environmental (social) factors (the lack of any women). A rate impossible to find among any random sample of people among normal society, and (if this expiriment could be done) I beleive it would be a clear indicator that genetics aren't at play.

Hi MJ,

They research material I've referred to comes from lots of sources over the years. I've read books on genetics (informed laymen level) by both Steven Pinker (Blank Slate) and Richard Dawkins (Climbing Mount Improbable). I routinely read at least one scientific magazine a week and frequently read this sort of article in newspapers. I've also read a number of books specifically on gay issues. This subject even comes up in a rather nice logic book "Bad Thoughts" by Jamie Whyte. I haven't actually got much of this info from the Internet but it all over the place. The trouble is of course that this subject is quite controversial and so opinion can swamp the facts a little. I did have a quick look and found a science article from "The Times" that lays out the research of the gene influencing birth rate in women who have it from Oct 2004 and it gives some other basic details into the research. You can see it here. I also found another article by a scientist who has looked at this area and you can see that here I haven't looked about to much and I'm sure you can find quite a lot more on this subject.

As to whether paedophiles have a genetic root to their behaviour I have never seen any research on this and wouldn't assume that a gay gene means there is a genetic source at all. Would this mean that we should change the way we deal with them - well possible for some it might. However I'd want to see where the science leads first and then use this to inform social policy. I rather like Steven Pinker's approach of not being afraid to say things that upset people, because if the facts lead you there then you should follow them (women's, ethnic groups and gays have all been upset by Pinker at times).