Well que amanrah and his reasoning why you are a right wing conservative nut job who is trying to find a way to stop people from being happy. I am sure that he will say it better and give you some left wing nuts reason why you are wrong. Or he will just jump to some other issue like why talk about this and not _____.

Yah lets throw him and everyone else who had a bad thought in their life, in jail. Its funny Kerry, on a different thread you had no problem keeping someone in their job who's behavior had been inappropriate, though not illegal. And now you imply that want to throw this guy in jail because of his inappropriate thoughts, even though he's done nothing illegal. You kill me.

How about we throw anybody who threatens the life of another person, in prison for murder.

And how about throwing people in jail for thinking about having sex out of marriage, or committing adultery.

Lets lock all the mentally ill up, because despite their medicine they might have psychotic thoughts.

Better lock up all those woman thinking about an abortion to. Give them life!

What a wonderful Orwellian world it would be.

I knew ahmanrah would jump to the defense of this sick pervert.

You never disappoint.

Kerry,

You are mistaken, the guy is clearly a sicko, but arrest a person for what they thinking, and not what they are doing, is a very slippery slope. For all you truly know, the guy could be saying what he's saying just to get attention, and not because he means it. Are you going to start arresting people for playing a joke on you? He might also be a perfectly normal person out to prove a point about pedophiles and the current laws. Are you going to lock him up for life, if that truly is what's on his mind.

Fact is actions prove intent, not thoughts. Until you can truly probe a person's mind, this guy could just as easily be a sicko, a joker, or personal crusader out to prove a point, and you honestly can't tell which.

Oh and Kerry, I'd be careful about passing a law that allows someone to be arrested for their words and thoughts, as it might be turned against you at some point in the future when you make comments that could be construed as threats toward abortionists, and gays.

"Are you going to start arresting people for playing a joke on you?"

Hmmmm. Like a bomb threat? Or the false allegation of a crime?

Gee....yes.

You seem to miss the point. The reason we both can't do anything about this nut AND have him on our hands in the first place is that we have failed to control him through the natural mechanism of public condemnation. The ordinary channels of social control--peer pressure, societal condemnation, social intervention, and the law--have failed us here, because we have lost our ability to regulate the public morals.

And you ignore the secondary point--which is that there is no argument for the moral tolerance of homosexuality that doesn't serve just as well to justify repealing the unjust laws that oppress this poor soul.

Why shouldn't we let this man express his natural inclinations fully, by repealing the unjust laws against pedophilia? After all, possession of child pornography isn't really an action, is it? Why is it illegal? How can we forbid this man from viewing whatever he wants to? And how dare we maintain laws that prevent him from loving, even marrying, the object of his innate desires?

Those are not rhetorical questions. They are serious questions we will have to deal with in the law before much longer.

What say you?

After all, possession of child pornography isn't really an action, is it? Why is it illegal?

Sure its an action because you are facilitating someone else's exploitation of a child, either by paying for the porn, or simply by giving the guy an audience that could easily lead to him continuing to exploit that child or others.

Like a bomb threat? Or the false allegation of a crime?

A bomb threat can lead to people being injured, similar to yelling fire in a theatre. And alleging a false crime, costs law enforcement time, ties up valuable resources, and may injure someone who is falsely accused. A guy thinking about girl in his head is not comparable, because frankly whether he's imprisoned or not, he can still think about girls...which mean he can perpetually commit the crime forever, but the only thing incarceration will do is prevent him from acting on his thoughts, which is what incarceration is intended for, but until he actually commits, or attempts to commit an act, you can't say for certain whether he would have ever actually committed the act. Same for murder. Everyone is capable of murder whether they talk about it or not, but can we lock everybody up on the chance that one day they might commit such an act?

Are you seriously saying that it should be legal for someone to run an internet site which has as its purpose the dissemination of information about the best way to commit crimes (like child molesting)?

And you still refuse to deal with the problem of separating pedophilia as a sexual preference from homosexuality as a sexual preference in any legally meaningful way.

If psychiatrists decide to buy into the notion that intergenerational sex may be exercised in a benign and loving way, how are you going to argue against them? Or are you?

If psychiatrists decide to buy into the notion that intergenerational sex may be exercised in a benign and loving way

You are getting a bit carried away. This will never happen.

Are you seriously saying that it should be legal for someone to run an internet site which has as its purpose the dissemination of information about the best way to commit crimes (like child molesting)?

How about arresting those who published website, with no intention of helping others commit a crime, but the information they provided online gets misused. Perfect examples are people who publish details of how to hack computers (trying to get the software developer to clean up its act) or someone who puts up a homemade recipe for rat poison, that someone uses to kill a person?

Are we going to start arresting TV and movie directors for publishing documentaries and fiction that come very close to providing all the details needed to commit the crimes described.

Unless the law you have in mind is very well written, alot of unsuspecting people could get targeted unfairly. Just imagine a family demanding the imprisonment of a Hollywood director for showing someone getting pushed off a building, because somebody watching the movie got ideas and did it themselves?

I mean even a real-life documentary like the one that came out recently about jumpers on the Golden Gate Bridge could be targeted for giving some messed up person ideas.

So ultimately what I am saying is this guy sounds like real sicko, but if you aren't extremely careful how a law is written that targets people based on their thoughts and statements, it could come back to bite alot of people including yourself, or people you know and care about.

And I suspect a law will be written eventually to deal with these twisted bastards but I hope they do it right, because a bad law written in haste is worse than nothing at all, and I suspect they know that.

"You are getting a bit carried away. This will never happen."

It is already happening.

"How about arresting those who published website, with no intention of helping others commit a crime, but the information they provided online gets misused."

It depends. Is there a justification for the publication of the information, and could the publisher have had a reasonable expectation of the consequences?

"Perfect examples are people who publish details of how to hack computers (trying to get the software developer to clean up its act) or someone who puts up a homemade recipe for rat poison, that someone uses to kill a person?"

You've already provided a reasonable explanation. There is no societally useful reason for a person to explain how to evade the police in order to more effectively molest children. And to publish that information with the reasonable expectation that it will be acted on is, arguably, a criminal act.

"Are we going to start arresting TV and movie directors for publishing documentaries and fiction that come very close to providing all the details needed to commit the crimes described."

No, because they are producing material with redeeming social content. A website devoted to telling criminals better ways to commit a crime is not.

"Unless the law you have in mind is very well written, alot of unsuspecting people could get targeted unfairly."

That's why writing laws takes a long time.

Just imagine a family demanding the imprisonment of a Hollywood director for showing someone getting pushed off a building, because somebody watching the movie got ideas and did it themselves?"

Or a jury awarding damages for someone whose child committed suicide based on the depressing songs of a band? It's been tried, though not yet successfully. But it's still a valid legal theory--just haven't found the right jury yet.

"I mean even a real-life documentary like the one that came out recently about jumpers on the Golden Gate Bridge could be targeted for giving some messed up person ideas."

"Socially redeeming value" is the legal standard the keeps you out of obscenity. Don't know why it wouldn't work here.

"So ultimately what I am saying is this guy sounds like real sicko, but if you aren't extremely careful how a law is written that targets people based on their thoughts and statements, it could come back to bite alot of people including yourself, or people you know and care about."

If people I "know and care about" are child molesters in training, I want them institutionalized and treated.

"And I suspect a law will be written eventually to deal with these twisted bastards but I hope they do it right, because a bad law written in haste is worse than nothing at all, and I suspect they know that."

Then we agree? There should, in fact, BE a law? You don't want to cover this with a First Amendment blanket?

Kerry,

Heck no. And actually this guy in a twisted sort of way is helping society by broadcasting his sickness to the world before he strikes. Law enforcement doesn't always get that chance. I'm sure they are just waiting for him to unknowingly slip up, and they will have a mountain of related information to help put him away.

Just curious, but what kind of law is being proposed in this discussion? As always, the devil is in the details.

Its about nailing a pervert who has studied the fine edge of the law as far pedophilia goes. Kerry has discussed making it illegal to develop websites that discuss a person's desire to engage in pedophilia...even thought that person has not been physically caught in the act.

My position is its a fine edge, that we need to be careful about, because creating laws that allow the arrest of people for "expressed thoughts" rather than actions is a dangerous road.

"Heck no. And actually this guy in a twisted sort of way is helping society by broadcasting his sickness to the world before he strikes. Law enforcement doesn't always get that chance. I'm sure they are just waiting for him to unknowingly slip up, and they will have a mountain of related information to help put him away."

I agree. Unfortunately, the result of such an arrest--absent pure confession or airtight evidence--would be a smart lawyer accusing the police of carrying out a vendetta against someone until they found a reason to prosecute him. The Court doesn't much like that kind of thing. It's called "harassment" and "discrimination" and "profiling" and a "violation of my client's First Amendment rights."

Remember, until the Patriot Act was passed, intelligence agencies couldn't even go to public events or on the Internet to collect evidence against people conspiring to commit crimes.

There is no absolute right to publication on the Internet. The best thing would be for the "industry" to adopt voluntary guidelines, but if they will not, the law will have to step in.

SF asks what kind of law is being discussed here. At the moment, there is none; that is the discussion. What can/should be done. First, I am attempting to find a consensus that there is something wrong with the way things are. Is it a problem that someone like this cannot be shut down because what he is doing somehow is not illegal--even thought our common sense says it should be.

Assuming that, I am asking how we can condemn one set of sexual perversions and accept another, and pointing out the fact that there are no successful arguments for the acceptance of one that can't be used in defense of the other. The point there being, having abandoned a moral structure, we have no basis left on which to prevent some acts to which large majorities of the citizenry object.

Assuming that, I am asking how we can condemn one set of sexual perversions and accept another, and pointing out the fact that there are no successful arguments for the acceptance of one that can't be used in defense of the other.

You're going off the rails, here. The law says that children are fundamentally incapable of giving their consent to having sex, and I agree. The law recognizes the difference between children and adults. So there we have it. Homosexuality between two consenting adults is acceptable, and sex with children (who cannot consent) is not. Even as a heterosexual, I find it to be truly disrespectful and inappropriate to compare homosexuals to those who would prey on children (regardless of gender).

By the logic of your argument, anything you find distasteful can be outlawed. And that is extremely distasteful to me. Frankly, this is a disturbing argument and shouldn't be taken seriously.

And what's this business about building a consensus? You're coming to a political blog to build a consensus? And then what, we all sign it and you mail it to congress? Just propose what you think the law should say.

"Homosexuality between two consenting adults is acceptable, and sex with children (who cannot consent) is not. "

Why? If the only issue is consent, there are countries where the age of consent is 12. Is that acceptable to you? If not, why not?

More to the point, if you read the literature, there is beginning to be some controversy as to whether children are truly not able to consent to sexual activity, particularly of the nature that is categorized by the literature as "visionary," or what we might, call "educational" (with quotes and a look of horror.)

"The law says that children are fundamentally incapable of giving their consent to having sex, and I agree."

NOW the law says it, and fortunately for you, you agree. But suppose the law said something else. The law once said that homosexual activity could be against the law. I assume at that point you didn't agree. But your agreement doesn't affect the law; it doesn't care whether you agree or disagree.

A UK court just ruled--against all traditional viewpoints on the subject--that an adult woman could consent to sexual activity, despite the fact that she was falling-down drunk. That's an interesting interpretation of "consent." I don't see any reason we shouldn't expect the APA to eventually buy the benign pedophilia argument, and the courts to go along.

My point is that the lines were once much clearer, and based on a Judeo-Christian ethic. Sexual behavior outside of marriage was wrong--be it homosexuality, lesbianism, incest, pedophilia, bestiality, adultery, or whatever. It was clear.

Now, we have invented "functional" reasons to make things illegal. The problem with that is that things tend to be similar in category that we don't want to admit are similar in kind. In other words, once we make allowances for one form of sexual immorality, we don't really have a leg to stand on, logically or legally, to condemn the others.

What will you do when the law decides (perhaps soon, in Germany) that you can't ban incest, or when it decides that you can't discriminate in hiring against pedophiles?

"By the logic of your argument, anything you find distasteful can be outlawed."

No, it's not about "distaste." It's about common moral consensus--one we used to have and apparently now do not. The moral laws on which the nation was founded have not changed--but the nation has. So now, if we want to continue to hold some of those morally-inspired positions, we have to find amoral reasons for them. The problem is that some things are just wrong, and there's no good way to explain why.

"And that is extremely distasteful to me." Of course it is. Because you favor one form of sexual immorality and disfavor another. Therefore, the argument of the category annoys you.

"Frankly, this is a disturbing argument and shouldn't be taken seriously."

Of course it is a disturbing argument--which is precisely why we have to take it seriously. If the law is not founded on morality, then we must find another way to outlaw things that are immoral. But what is that way?

"And what's this business about building a consensus? You're coming to a political blog to build a consensus? And then what, we all sign it and you mail it to congress? Just propose what you think the law should say."

I'm not proposing what the law should say. I'm inviting a discussion of what it should say--and what it could say. As for consensus, I don't think there's much use in having the discussion if the discussants don't think there's a problem. So that's the first order of business. Finding out if we agree that there IS a problem. At that point, it becomes more likely that the discussion might help us come to a solution.

Why? If the only issue is consent, there are countries where the age of consent is 12. Is that acceptable to you? If not, why not?

Because a person of 12 years of age is still a child.

But suppose the law said something else.

Then I would disagree.

But your agreement doesn't affect the law; it doesn't care whether you agree or disagree.

So what? That's tangental my point. My point is that these ideas are extremely entrenched, for reasons that I happen to agree with.

The law once said that homosexual activity could be against the law. I assume at that point you didn't agree.

Why assume that? I happen to disagree with that.

A UK court just ruled--against all traditional viewpoints on the subject--that an adult woman could consent to sexual activity, despite the fact that she was falling-down drunk.

Again, I happen to agree with that (although I thought I had heard the opposite). If you can consent to pick up a drink and stay in a bar, and you're still capable of speech, then you're responsible for what you agree to. If you don't want to get into that situation, stay home and sober. It's about being an adult.

I don't see any reason we shouldn't expect the APA to eventually buy the benign pedophilia argument, and the courts to go along.

Not familiar with the APA. If you think the courts will go along with such arguments, you are huffing paint. It's a typical conservative sky-is-falling nightmare scenario. We're talking about the difference between consensual sex between adults and sex with children. Your slippery slope ends in a brick wall.

In other words, once we make allowances for one form of sexual immorality, we don't really have a leg to stand on, logically or legally, to condemn the others.

I think your mindset prevents you from seeing the 'leg' so to speak. Simply put, we should allow adults to hurt themselves. Otherwise, freedom is meaningless. Now, I don't think gay sex is necessarily harmful (any sex can be harmful), but once again, "two consenting adults".

The whole problem with this argument is that you're drawing a line in the sand. You imagine that any movement away from this line will lead towards anything and everything being licensed. But that imagines there are no other inhibitions on our actions than visceral distaste. That's a very unimaginative basis for morality.

It's about common moral consensus--one we used to have and apparently now do not.

Well, the consensus these days is that homosexuality should be legal (I'm not even getting into gay marriage here). "Consensus" doesn't (and never did) mean that everyone agrees. It means that the bulk of us informally agree. And we do. Get used to living outside the consensus.

My point is that the lines were once much clearer, and based on a Judeo-Christian ethic. Sexual behavior outside of marriage was wrong--be it homosexuality, lesbianism, incest, pedophilia, bestiality, adultery, or whatever. It was clear.

You think it was clear, but things have been changing since before any of us were born. These norms and mores have been shifting through time and space since whenever. And yet, some things change less, and are more ingrained in our culture. And when things change, they don't always go one way, down a slippery slope. It's more like a slippery plateau.

That's why it's important to have principles behind your morals. If your morals are based on the "yuck" principle, then no surprise, they are going to shift over time. However, if they are based on well-defined principles of harm and freedom, those ideas are less subject to change. You don't seem able to imagine how these principles can play a role in regulating sexuality.

The truth of the matter is that attitudes towards sex and marriage change over time. You'd like to freeze things in time, but that's not realistic. If you'd like to intervene in this process, it's good to have a real reason. Like, keeping children from being horribly traumatized. On the other hand, telling people what they can or can't do because you don't like it...don't be surprised if people who don't share your tastes resist vigorously.

What will you do when the law decides (perhaps soon, in Germany) that you can't ban incest, or when it decides that you can't discriminate in hiring against pedophiles?

Not go there?

The problem is that some things are just wrong, and there's no good way to explain why.

Well, since I don't agree and you can't explain, you have zero chance of convincing me. I think you are highlighting the whole difficulty with the anti-homo agenda. You guys will continue to lose, because at the root of it, the only real motivator is disgust for the act itself. All the other claims are just rhetorical window dressing. Such arguments will only sway the rest of the choir.

Of course it is a disturbing argument--which is precisely why we have to take it seriously.

It's a disturbing argument because you are equating homosexuals with child molesters. I might as well equate fundamentalists with fascists.

As for consensus, I don't think there's much use in having the discussion if the discussants don't think there's a problem.

Oh, gimme a break already. Everybody agrees that child molesting is a problem (DUH!!!). If you want to have a discussion, propose something, and we'll discuss it.

""Why? If the only issue is consent, there are countries where the age of consent is 12. Is that acceptable to you? If not, why not?""

"Because a person of 12 years of age is still a child."

Not in those locations where the age of consent is 12.

""But suppose the law said something else.""

"Then I would disagree."

Good for you. But the question is, what SHOULD society do?

"But your agreement doesn't affect the law; it doesn't care whether you agree or disagree."

"So what? That's tangental my point. My point is that these ideas are extremely entrenched, for reasons that I happen to agree with."

And I'm telling you that they aren't that entrenched. There are in fact people who disagree with these laws and would like to see them changed. And we have left ourselves no legal or logical argument on which to prevent such a change.

""The law once said that homosexual activity could be against the law. I assume at that point you didn't agree.""

"Why assume that? I happen to disagree with that."

You think homosexuality should be illegal? Or was I unclear in my wording of that?

""A UK court just ruled--against all traditional viewpoints on the subject--that an adult woman could consent to sexual activity, despite the fact that she was falling-down drunk.""

"Again, I happen to agree with that (although I thought I had heard the opposite). If you can consent to pick up a drink and stay in a bar, and you're still capable of speech, then you're responsible for what you agree to. If you don't want to get into that situation, stay home and sober. It's about being an adult."

Not in American law. In American law, you can't legally consent if you are drunk.

""I don't see any reason we shouldn't expect the APA to eventually buy the benign pedophilia argument, and the courts to go along.""

"Not familiar with the APA."

The American Psychiatric Association. The agency which decided in 1973 that homosexuality was no longer considered a "disorder" and paved the way for the entire movement to decriminalize, normalize, and, ultimately, protect homosexuality as a civil right.

"If you think the courts will go along with such arguments, you are huffing paint."

No, I'm not. I'm reading the history of the law and the trends of society. There's no roadblock to it, if the medical establishment jumps on board with it. And, since there is a good deal of sympathy for most deviant behavior in the older literature of psychiatry and psychology, and liberals just love to romanticize and recover the seamier aspects of history, I don't find it an unlikely development.

"It's a typical conservative sky-is-falling nightmare scenario."

You mean, like when we said you would eventually be able to perform abortions three inches and three seconds from birth? Or when we said in the 1970s that people would be pushing to legalize physician-assisted suicide? Or when we told you that tampering with genetics in unethical ways would eventually bring about the cloning of human beings?

Yeah. None of that happened.

"We're talking about the difference between consensual sex between adults and sex with children. Your slippery slope ends in a brick wall."

Not if you begin to accept the notion that some children might be capable of consent, as well as the idea that "intergenerational sex" could in some cases be beneficial.

""In other words, once we make allowances for one form of sexual immorality, we don't really have a leg to stand on, logically or legally, to condemn the others.""

"I think your mindset prevents you from seeing the 'leg' so to speak. Simply put, we should allow adults to hurt themselves. Otherwise, freedom is meaningless. Now, I don't think gay sex is necessarily harmful (any sex can be harmful), but once again, "two consenting adults"."

And suppose they decide that children can legally consent. What then? Is your ONLY objection to the age of consent?

"The whole problem with this argument is that you're drawing a line in the sand. You imagine that any movement away from this line will lead towards anything and everything being licensed. But that imagines there are no other inhibitions on our actions than visceral distaste. That's a very unimaginative basis for morality."

But I'm talking about arguments of law. There is no argument of law in defense of a decriminalization of homosexuality that can't be used in defense of pedophilia, except the consent argument. As long as that is in place, you will be happy. BUT if--as some are arguing for--the age of consent, or the very notion of consent, changes, you will have to have a plan B, or explain just why you are opposed to pedophilia.

""It's about common moral consensus--one we used to have and apparently now do not.""

"Well, the consensus these days is that homosexuality should be legal (I'm not even getting into gay marriage here). "Consensus" doesn't (and never did) mean that everyone agrees. It means that the bulk of us informally agree. And we do. Get used to living outside the consensus."

And what happens when the APA decides that pedophiles are no longer disordered?

""My point is that the lines were once much clearer, and based on a Judeo-Christian ethic. Sexual behavior outside of marriage was wrong--be it homosexuality, lesbianism, incest, pedophilia, bestiality, adultery, or whatever. It was clear.""

"You think it was clear, but things have been changing since before any of us were born. These norms and mores have been shifting through time and space since whenever."

This is simply historically untrue. Things have been changing since the 1960s and accelerated markedly after 1973.

"And yet, some things change less, and are more ingrained in our culture."

Why?

"And when things change, they don't always go one way, down a slippery slope. It's more like a slippery plateau."

I don't even know what you mean by that.

"That's why it's important to have principles behind your morals."

Right. The Judeo-Christian moral structure.

"If your morals are based on the "yuck" principle, "

...which they're not...

"then no surprise, they are going to shift over time. However, if they are based on well-defined principles of harm and freedom, those ideas are less subject to change."

Like what?

"You don't seem able to imagine how these principles can play a role in regulating sexuality."

Like what?

"The truth of the matter is that attitudes towards sex and marriage change over time. You'd like to freeze things in time, but that's not realistic. If you'd like to intervene in this process, it's good to have a real reason. Like, keeping children from being horribly traumatized."

The people I linked you to don't believe they are necessarily being "horribly traumatized."

"On the other hand, telling people what they can or can't do because you don't like it...don't be surprised if people who don't share your tastes resist vigorously."

It's not things I don't like that are immoral. It's things God doesn't like--even when I do.

""What will you do when the law decides (perhaps soon, in Germany) that you can't ban incest, or when it decides that you can't discriminate in hiring against pedophiles?""

"Not go there?"

Moral suasion has no borders.

""The problem is that some things are just wrong, and there's no good way to explain why.""

"Well, since I don't agree and you can't explain, you have zero chance of convincing me. I think you are highlighting the whole difficulty with the anti-homo agenda. You guys will continue to lose, because at the root of it, the only real motivator is disgust for the act itself."

You keep saying that. That's not the case.

"It's a disturbing argument because you are equating homosexuals with child molesters. I might as well equate fundamentalists with fascists."

How? Homosexuality and child molesting are, biblically, equally immoral. They are actually in a category of similarity. You have to make an argument, not just assert an equivalence.

I think I may have figured out why people don't like the equation of homosexuality and pedophilia. Whenever the link is made, liberals go totally insane and accuse us of "hating" homosexuals. This can only be because they think we must hate pedophiles, which we don't. But, since liberals make a distinction between sins they want to practice and sins they don't want to practice, they assume that if we put something in a forbidden "box," it means we hate the people who do that sin.

Nope. It doesn't work that way.

You think that way because you hate pedophiles, and not homosexuals. Whereas, the Biblical view is to hate pedophilia and homosexuality, but neither pedophiles nor homosexuals.

""As for consensus, I don't think there's much use in having the discussion if the discussants don't think there's a problem.""

"Oh, gimme a break already. Everybody agrees that child molesting is a problem (DUH!!!). If you want to have a discussion, propose something, and we'll discuss it."

Good. Then we have a basis for reasonable discussion. How can the law protect society from this man, given that he has not yet acted out on tendencies that, if acted on, would be criminal, and given that he advocates that criminal behavior?

And how can we do so without encroaching on other aspects of sexual behavior?

My point is that the lines were once much clearer, and based on a Judeo-Christian ethic. Sexual behavior outside of marriage was wrong--be it homosexuality, lesbianism, incest, pedophilia, bestiality, adultery, or whatever. It was clear.

And yet you notice the ones you harp on the most, aren't the ones committed by most people (aka adultery, and sex outside of marriage). I'm waiting for you to urge these people be locked up, or denied the privilege of having sex or getting married. I know of course why you go after homosexuals, because they are a small minority that are easy to pick on. Adulterers and people living in sin are far more common and damaging to the family structure of America, but you'd have a hard time convincing the average person to condemn them, discriminate against them, or throw them in jail...because they are the average joe.

Hi Kerry,

I’ve been reading this thread for several days. I came on to distinguish the difference between paedophilia and homosexuality.

But you seem to have pushed the envelope a little.

OK some basics, since you seem to need them.

When two gay people have sex they are both mutually consenting adults. When a paedophilia has sex in this mans argument it’s between a man (I don’t know his age but I assume his over 20) and a child between the age of 3 and 11. I don’t believe a child between the age of 3 and 11 wants to have sex. I can see gay men march and say this is acceptable but I haven’t seen a group of seven year old girls march demanding to change the law and allow them to have sex with someone over 20. This is from my point of view a group of people who say we might be able to persuade 7 year olds to have sex with us. Quite different from gay men and women who have broken down barriers and said yes these are people we love and want to sleep with and they find partners who feel the same.

You say gay people should be worried that paedophiles are using they same tactics – well the only groups who think paedophiles and gays are moral equivalents are the Christian right and paedophiles – you think in the same way they do and YOU want to give a warning. You should be ashamed.

Most profoundly even within your own beliefs you are pushing a view more than the bible does. The bible barely mentions homosexuality and yet from the Christian Right this is screamed as if that’s all that is in the bible. I question whether your interest is in the bible or whether you are trying to prove your beliefs from an old book you have studied. Seriously you should be ashamed your views have so little to do with Christianity and so much more to do with what you think is right – I have not problem with you pushing your views but pleased don’t dressing it in Christian garb.

WB,

But the point you are missing here is that the two criteria you want to use to distinguish between homosexuality and pedophilia as orientations are MUTUALITY and CONSENT.

The problem is that there are psychiatrists who are saying that children may be benefited by "intergenerational" sex, and that they may be capable of mutual consent.

What I'm saying is that pedophilia is about to cross the line into what you yourself have defined as acceptable, and I would advise that we as a society come up with some better criteria fast--since "because it's wrong" just doesn't work anymore.

When you set up subjective check-boxes to get into the game ("Is the activity a) mutually pleasurable and b) consensual?") you'd better have a secondary plan to keep out things you don't like that fit the criteria anyway.

See, it will work if you are willing to say, "Sex with children is wrong because they are children, and it is wrong to have sex with children." Because, unless you permit the re-definition of the word "child," you will always be able to legislate against it.

But when you frame it as "sex with children is wrong because they can't consent," then you have the problem of dealing with data and theoretical positions that claim that they can consent--and therefore your law must be struck down.

"And when things change, they don't always go one way, down a slippery slope. It's more like a slippery plateau."

I don't even know what you mean by that.

I mean that things change, and they don't always change in one direction. Your assumption that permitting homosexual behavior will lead to pedophilia is based on the idea that once you allow one thing that you don't like, you have to allow them all. I'm saying that one does not necessarily lead to the other.

"then no surprise, they are going to shift over time. However, if they are based on well-defined principles of harm and freedom, those ideas are less subject to change."

Like what?

Like the idea that we should let adults harm themselves as long as its voluntary, and otherwise restrict activities that are clearly and obviously harmful AND involuntary.

Yes, my notion of consent is crucial here. Children cannot give sexual consent, because they're not mature enough to make those kinds of decisions. The law treats minors like this in many ways. There are a few people who disagree with that? What else is new? Find me an idea that every single person can agree on.

My point is that not all ideas are created equally. An underlying principle of modern society is the idea that people should have liberty to act freely amongst themselves, as adults. That's actually why society is moving away from your brand of sexual hang-ups over time...it's an inevitability of modern civilization, over the long haul. On the other hand, the idea that children are not capable of making adult decisions is also highly entrenched. These are more fundamental principles than your stance of homosexuality.

Right. The Judeo-Christian moral structure.

Ah, something that has historically had a single interpretation...an excellent choice! Oh I know, you have a privileged awareness of the correct interpretation. I await your support for a return to polygamy and stoning adulterers.

The bible barely mentions homosexuality and yet from the Christian Right this is screamed as if that’s all that is in the bible. I question whether your interest is in the bible or whether you are trying to prove your beliefs from an old book you have studied.

Yes, this is what I was talking about when I suggested that these arguments were all rationalizations for the "ick" factor. The same part of the bible that mentions homosexuality also discusses the eating of shellfish and witchcraft. The religious right obviously picks and chooses a lot more selectively than their fundamentalist credentials would suggest.

"You think it was clear, but things have been changing since before any of us were born. These norms and mores have been shifting through time and space since whenever."

This is simply historically untrue. Things have been changing since the 1960s and accelerated markedly after 1973.

And they were fixed before that? Put down the paint. I really don't know where to start, so I'm not going to.

Is your ONLY objection to the age of consent?

You're confusing the law and morality. My "only" objection to pedophilia is that it's a horribly destructive thing that is done to a child, whether or not they agree to it. Not only is a child lacking the maturity to make such decisions, but nobody could be said to freely make a decision when there is such an imbalance of power and knowledge as there is between a pederast and his would-be prey.

"Yes, this is what I was talking about when I suggested that these arguments were all rationalizations for the "ick" factor. The same part of the bible that mentions homosexuality also discusses the eating of shellfish and witchcraft. The religious right obviously picks and chooses a lot more selectively than their fundamentalist credentials would suggest."

You seem to be unaware of the fact that Peter's vision of the unclean animals releases us from the dietary laws. Also, witchcraft is still considered a "bad" thing.

"You're confusing the law and morality."

Morality is the only justifiable basis for law.

"My "only" objection to pedophilia is that it's a horribly destructive thing that is done to a child, whether or not they agree to it."

That is not what the research I am speaking of here says. It says the opposite.

"Not only is a child lacking the maturity to make such decisions, but nobody could be said to freely make a decision when there is such an imbalance of power and knowledge as there is between a pederast and his would-be prey."

Again, not a position shared by the theorists and researchers I am talking about here. Nor, in some readings, by Freud himself.

Your "opinion" of the issue here is still in the majority. However, it is only a matter of politics that keeps it there. When the APA decides to change its tune on the social danger and damage of pedophilia (they are pretty close now on ephebophilia [attraction to adolescents]). I don't see it as unlikely that eventually they will define the "disorder" in such a way as to include only those who fall into the Krafft-Ebing taxonomy as "sadistic," except those within other categories that commit ancillary crime.

In other words, one of these days the child-consent advocates will win, and age per se will not be a legal justification to prohibit "consensual" sexual activity.

And then what will we do?

(By the way, you may consider your position to be a "moral" one, but (as you wish were the case in history and law) there is no justification in psychiatry to use personal "morality" as an excuse for the restriction of the behavior of others.)

In other words, one of these days the child-consent advocates will win, and age per se will not be a legal justification to prohibit "consensual" sexual activity.

Not going to happen. Again I have to ask the question, why is so much emphasis placed on the behavior of pedos, and homosexuals, when there is several more orders of magnitude damage done by adulters, people having sex outside of marriage, and those who got married to early.

Also, witchcraft is still considered a "bad" thing.

Sure, but I don't hear you guys complaining about it. Isn't it the case that you aren't supposed to "suffer a witch to live"? You guys have been sliding since the Salem Witch Trials, and we're yet to see bloody altars in the streets.

In other words, one of these days the child-consent advocates will win, and age per se will not be a legal justification to prohibit "consensual" sexual activity.

It is only the fact that you put these on the same plane that makes you able to imagine things this way. For the rest of us, who see this as vastly different moral qualities, they are not, and the same process could not happen in both cases. That's why society treats them as radically different from each other...because we don't think of them the same way. Since you come at this issue from a purely Biblical angle, I can't think of any way to make this clear to you. You're basically locked-in, and you don't have the space to even contemplate alternatives.

"Since you come at this issue from a purely Biblical angle, I can't think of any way to make this clear to you. You're basically locked-in, and you don't have the space to even contemplate alternatives."

Are you dyslexic? I'm not coming at this Biblically. I'm coming at it from the perspectives of the law and certain factions of the psychiatric community. MY objection to pedophilia is Biblical, but psychiatry treats it as a disorder for specific reasons, which are gradually being eroded in large part because of the successful arguments that removed homosexuality from that category. The Courts react to the information that "experts" bring to it, and laws are sometimes changed based on the assumptions of social science, regardless of the history of law or the technical precedents of the issue.

There will be a challenge to the laws against pedophilia. It will come, and probably in your lifetime (unless you are very much older than I think.) Now is the time to solidify the law and to make sure that folks like NAMBLA never control the conversation to the extent that they can be considered a "reform" movement.

Culture wars are not won in one sweeping motion. They are fought, little by little, over and over, pushing one side or the other into the majority in the population. Abortion, for example, remains a draw. The traditionalist side still has the edge in gay marriage, though perhaps not in the assessment of the orientation, per se. Transsexuals are gaining ground, though it will be a few years before their arguments are fully validated in the law and the Courts. Slavery took a very very long time to shift from one perspective to the other, and racism still has not completely been beaten (though it has reverted to the stage at which "decent" people find it shameful).

My point is merely to shine a spotlight on a deficiency in the law that will make it difficult to maintain social restrictions on a particular behavior if the academic vanguard of reform for that behavior ever wins their battle in the culture war.

You just seem to think that everyone will forever believe that pedophilia is wrong, even though "wrong" has become a shifting standard. I don't think that's very realistic, historically speaking.

You just seem to think that everyone will forever believe that pedophilia is wrong, even though "wrong" has become a shifting standard. I don't think that's very realistic, historically speaking.

No, I wouldn't go as far as the "forever and always" claim. My claim is rather that the cultural normalization of homosexuality (relatively speaking) is almost completely detached from the prospects of culturally normalizing pedophilia. For the vast majority of people, there are significant moral differences that make them highly distinct issues.

And that's what I'm talking about when I say you come at this Biblically. The equivalence you see between homosexuality and pedophilia is only made, as brit said, by those on the extremes (i.e. you and the pedophiles). And this distinction is going to remain, for very fundamental reasons which I've been trying to explain.

That is not to say that pedophilia is a something that will never ever be legalized or normalized in the course of history. What I'm saying is that it is too morally different from homosexuality for the two issues to have much to do with each other. Yes, they both share an "ick" factor, but for the vast bulk of us, there's a lot more at stake.

Culture wars are not won in one sweeping motion.

The problem here is that nobody is fighting this war. Who is coming to the legal aid of these people? Even in the depths of your most bile-filled partisanship, you must recognize that even the fringe of the left wing doesn't support such a thing.

Of course, there IS a cultural war on the right that insists on grouping all these things together. All the better to horrify people into a Puritanical lifestyle and mindset. That's the only group fighitng a war over this issue, unless you count the sad, pathetic pederasts themselves.

As far as I can tell, the only people out there who support legal pederasty are not just pedophiles, but the sickest of pedophiles. To be honest, I have sympathy for those pedophiles out there who have this attraction, but manage to suppress it. However, it does not sound like this website is anything so innocent...these people should be doing everything they can to avoid temptation.

But that's besides the point. I maintain that your supposed equivalence between homosexuality and pederasty is just plain offensive and inaccurate (for reasons I've already explained at length). It appears to me that this is Biblical rationalization of the "ick" factor, and part of your side's culture war against people who don't want to live the way you want them to.

"My claim is rather that the cultural normalization of homosexuality (relatively speaking) is almost completely detached from the prospects of culturally normalizing pedophilia."

But what is that based on? All you've offered is mutuality and consent, which I've shown you is under attack in the psychiatric community.

"For the vast majority of people, there are significant moral differences that make them highly distinct issues."

Which are what?

"And that's what I'm talking about when I say you come at this Biblically. The equivalence you see between homosexuality and pedophilia is only made, as brit said, by those on the extremes (i.e. you and the pedophiles). And this distinction is going to remain, for very fundamental reasons which I've been trying to explain."

No, you haven't explained any "fundamental reasons" that can't be overcome by alternative thinking in the social sciences.

"That is not to say that pedophilia is a something that will never ever be legalized or normalized in the course of history."

"Course of history?" It's too late for that. We've already got historical cultures to rely on for our evidence of alternative norms.

"What I'm saying is that it is too morally different from homosexuality for the two issues to have much to do with each other."

How? And what?

"Yes, they both share an "ick" factor, but for the vast bulk of us, there's a lot more at stake."

You keep saying "ick factor," but you have no evidence for it. What makes you think that has any effect on either side?

"The problem here is that nobody is fighting this war. Who is coming to the legal aid of these people?"

Lawyers. Who do you think? And now there are voices in the psychiatric community laying the groundwork for them to win.

"Even in the depths of your most bile-filled partisanship, you must recognize that even the fringe of the left wing doesn't support such a thing."

I suppose that depends on what you mean by "fringe." There's NAMBLA, of course, and then there are psychiatrists pursuing and publishing research on the subject. I'm not sure that's "fringe."

"Of course, there IS a cultural war on the right that insists on grouping all these things together. All the better to horrify people into a Puritanical lifestyle and mindset. That's the only group fighitng a war over this issue, unless you count the sad, pathetic pederasts themselves."

You seem to think that their status as pedophiles somehow negates their influence as opinion leaders. Most, in the current climate, hide their orientation. But, upon discovery, they are not generally found to be "sad" or "pathetic." Many (especially those who pursue the hobby of "sex tourism") are in fact people of great wealth and influence, and come from all walks of life.

Wasn't it, after all, homosexual psychiatrists and their political lobby that brought about the change in 1973? What makes you think similarly situated pedophiles could not pull off a similar victory--given that you do not know who they are or how much power they may have?

"As far as I can tell, the only people out there who support legal pederasty are not just pedophiles, but the sickest of pedophiles."

Now is now. Give it more time, more research, more articles in the American Journal of Psychiatry and an intense push on the part of those publishing in the specialized field. Add a few celebrities willing to defend the practice--Michael Jackson leaps to mind--and a few grownups willing to testify that their early sexualization did them no harm. Stir in a lawsuit brought by a pedophile claiming that he is being discriminated against solely on the basis of his orientation--and, voila! We have a very difficult to defend position in law.

"To be honest, I have sympathy for those pedophiles out there who have this attraction, but manage to suppress it. However, it does not sound like this website is anything so innocent...these people should be doing everything they can to avoid temptation."

You're just trying to suppress the natural tendency God gave them. How dare you judge them?

"But that's besides the point. I maintain that your supposed equivalence between homosexuality and pederasty is just plain offensive and inaccurate (for reasons I've already explained at length)."

No, you still haven't.

"It appears to me that this is Biblical rationalization of the "ick" factor, and part of your side's culture war against people who don't want to live the way you want them to."

Don't be such a clod. The religious sanctions on certain behaviors aren't about "ick." In most cases, quite the opposite. Drinking, smoking, going to topless bars, lying, gossiping--all those things aren't wrong because they're "icky." In fact, they're mostly very attractive and a lot of fun. They're wrong because God said so. We refrain from doing them solely on the basis of their wrong, regardless of how attractive or repulsive we may find them to be.

If the "ick" factor were a real motivation for law, it would be illegal to make sausage or perform surgery.

"But that's besides the point. I maintain that your supposed equivalence between homosexuality and pederasty is just plain offensive and inaccurate (for reasons I've already explained at length)."

No, you still haven't.

You're not paying attention. You keep asking for clarification of an argument I laid out in the begining. The differences are two. One is the obvious and serious harm that is caused by pedophilia. The other is the voluntary nature of it.

You are really missing my argument with this last comment. My point is not, once again, that pederasty will never be legal (or never was, or isn't elsewhere). My point is that it has nothing to do with homosexuality. They are two different issues, and to MOST of us, the only thing they have in common is a reaction of visceral distaste. Distaste is not enough to outlaw something, and sorry, but neither is "the Bible says so". That might be enough for you, but it's not enough for the rest of us in this secular (not non-religious!) society of ours.

Now, you keep asking for my explanation of what are the fundamental differences between pedophilia and homosexuality. I've said it before, and I just said it again, so there shouldn't be anymore need to answer this.

You're just trying to suppress the natural tendency God gave them. How dare you judge them?

If this is sarcasm, it's a bit misplaced given my religious (non-) beliefs.

No, you haven't explained any "fundamental reasons" that can't be overcome by alternative thinking in the social sciences.

If you read what I wrote, you'll realize that this isn't what I claimed. I claimed there was are crucial differences between homosexuality and pedophilia, not that pederasty will never be legal.

Kerry,

Just because there are folks publishing articles about the legitimacy of pedophilia, doesn't mean its going to be mainstream. Alot of what Freud wrote has been decidedly dismissed, and he was considered a mainstream revolutionary at the time.

There are folks publishing on the fringe of every science, like the wackjobs getting funded by the oil companies to discredit global warming, but the majority of the science community put them in their proper place, even if lay society doesn't.

All,

Here's a beautiful piece of commentary, that touches on alot of the problems I see with the hypocritical religious right. It goes straight to the heart of this thread. Why such a singular focus on gays, pedos, and abortion when there are alot of other, far more damaging issues that are being ignored...but shouldn't be by supposed people of faith.

Commentary: What would Jesus really do? http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/04/04/martin.jesus/index.html

"You're not paying attention. You keep asking for clarification of an argument I laid out in the begining. The differences are two. One is the obvious and serious harm that is caused by pedophilia. The other is the voluntary nature of it."

But there is now research evidence by serious psychiatrists that "intergenerational sex" MAY not result in "obvious and serious harm," as well as the possibility that minors MAY be capable of voluntary and informed consent--which would mean they are not different in kind, only exercised by a different group of people.

Ahmanrah, I'm surprised you would bother to read the CNN article, since it's about internal matters of the Christian faith and has nothing to do with you. In addition, there are significant errors in it concerning the positions of the people he referenced, so I would be very wary of using this opinion piece as a way of learning about what Jesus would do about anything.

By the way, did you miss the fact that he said that we SHOULD object to abortion and gay marriage? Are you just attracted by the idea that he just wants to dump them into a bigger pot? Does it occur to you that what he's arguing for is a GREATER Christian influence in public life, not a lesser one? He's talking about imposing Christian values on ALL issues. Why doesn't that bother you? Because you mistakenly believe that the Bible will turn out to be on your side?

Snort. Good luck with that.

Kerry, You seem to have I forgotten, that I said (like this guy) that I would have a far less of a problem with the right going after gay's and abortion if it also spent as much energy going after adulters, people living in sin, and the religious pressure that make the Bible Belt have one of the highest divorce rates in the nation. If you were truly concerned about defending marriage, and family values you would be hammering these a hell of alot harder than gays and abortion, because far more families are destroyed by the issues I have cited than will ever been harmed by gays and abortion. And the fact that you aren't tells me, the right isn't doing this because of their religious values, but because of the "ick" factor. Its alot easier to pick the low hanging fruit, than it is to tackle issues that require joe six-pack bible thumper to look in the mirror or call out neighbors cheating spouse and have him thrown in jail.

You want to truly defend marriage, go after the masses who defile it repeatedly. I'm waiting and so is God.

"You seem to have I forgotten, that I said (like this guy) that I would have a far less of a problem with the right going after gay's and abortion if it also spent as much energy going after adulters, people living in sin, and the religious pressure that make the Bible Belt have one of the highest divorce rates in the nation. If you were truly concerned about defending marriage, and family values you would be hammering these a hell of alot harder than gays and abortion, because far more families are destroyed by the issues I have cited than will ever been harmed by gays and abortion."

What is it you think we're not doing?

We're hammering adultery and cohabitation as hard as the law allows. We're pushing for "covenant marriage" laws. We're creating marriage enrichment, marriage restoration, and divorce recovery programs. A large group of our local evangelical pastors have signed an agreement not to marry people who have not been through pre-marital counseling, which includes a wide variety of education--including financial counseling and parenting classes.

We're against cohabitation, and vocally so. We're against adultery, and vocally so. We're also against homosexuality and gay marriage--and vocally so. We oppose abortion in every legal manner we can.

We also get involved in issues of poverty, prison ministry (in and out of incarceration), crime, substance abuse, child care, foster parenting, and all kinds of other things--wherever people are under attack, we fight back. There's nothing on that list from the gentleman from CNN that my denomination isn't already working on, one way or another.

The difference is that abortion and gay marriage are issues the non-religious want to fight us on, so they see them. The other issues are those they agree with us on--but since they're not doing any of the work, they don't know that we are.

Kerry,

What is stopping you from launching constitution amendment campaigns against adultery, cohabitation...when I start seeing news headlines about such activities I will know you are putting as much effort into those efforts as you are your anti-gay and anti-abortion tirades.

But I know it won't happen, why because it would essentially be like pissing in the wind. The tide is to far against you, where as the gays and people who want abortions are easy targets, just like the disabled, the blacks, the Chinese, and the Japanese were before society matured.

"What is stopping you from launching constitution amendment campaigns against adultery, cohabitation...when I start seeing news headlines about such activities I will know you are putting as much effort into those efforts as you are your anti-gay and anti-abortion tirades."

Do you make no distinction between preventing something from becoming legal and making something illegal?

Gay marriage is ILLEGAL. Marriage protection legislation is aimed at keeping it that way.

The exception with abortion is this: it is always right to attempt to stop murder.

Kerry,

Listen to yourself, you are worrying about gays, when one of the ten deadly sins is legal?

Where are your priorities.

Ahmanrah is right of course because one sin is legal all sins should be. Since one is deemed (wrongfuly) ok then all should be and no one should say anything about it.

"Listen to yourself, you are worrying about gays, when one of the ten deadly sins is legal?"

It's the "SEVEN deadly sins." And, actually, ALL of them are legal (lust, gluttony, greed, sloth, wrath, envy, and pride.)

Perhaps you mean the "ten commandments?" Most of the behaviors addressed there are legal, too. No one is trying to make sins ILLEGAL. We are trying to prevent the state from declaring them to be MORAL.

Advocates of "gay marriage" are trying to invent something that has never existed before and which cannot, under the current and traditional definition of "marriage," exist at all. Proponents of marriage protection legislation are trying to prevent that invention from becoming accepted as a legal concept.

Look, everyone is really working on the same concepts, but with different definitions of the component parts. Traditionalists use the absolute authority of the Bible as their objective standard (or, for those who are not religious, the cultural traditions that emerged therefrom.) Liberals use the shifting standard of personal whim or cultural atmosphere.

Example. Everyone agrees that "murder" is wrong. Traditionalists believe that abortion is "murder" and therefore should be illegal. Liberals, within the past half-century or so, decided that abortion is not "murder" and therefore should not be illegal.

Traditionalists and liberals agree that "discrimination" is wrong, and most will even go so far as to agree that "perversion" is wrong. The problem is that traditionalists see homosexual behavior as "perversion" (as it is called an "abomination" in the Bible and was officially considered a mental disorder until 1973, one can see why.) They want the state to refrain from endorsing such behavior by equating it to the institution of holy matrimony. Liberals see that very belief as "discriminatory" and want to make the belief--or at least the behavioral antecedents thereof--illegal.

We actually agree on the foundations--but since we derive them from different sources, we disagree completely on the specifics.