Where the rubber meets the road.

[Chameleon]

Pedophilia Is A Sexual Orientation Under CA Bill | rethink societyrethink society Since there has been a lot of discussion about evolution/atheism/theism lately I thought I'd share this article. Don't get me wrong, I could care less if they let gays marry and think we should just leave them alone. But this is not about gays, THIS IS ABOUT PEDOPHILIA! If you think this is wrong, I'd like to know why and how you defend your position. Mine is simple: Crick, a Nobel laureate , discovered DNA is the product of an intelligent cause. Of all the possible intelligent causes, I don't believe in the same Intelligent cause Crick does. I believe the one who created life is a higher authority than my opinion regarding pedophiles. If you believe life "evolved", why is one opinion more valid than another???

[Akitu]

Re: Where the rubber meets the road.

For the sake of discussion... I read the article. It implies that there is a legislative attempt to protect the rights of ones sexual orientation from any type of "conversion therapy". Let's keep a score tally here for it from the article...

We'll say the legislative attempt to protect the rights of a person's sexual orientation from "conversion therapy" gets +1.
The wording used to define "sexual orientation" as it ties to this movement is far too broad and includes other things such as pedophilia, -1.
There was an amendment added to remove certain "orientations" eg. pedophilia from this protection list. +1
The amendment was struck down. -1
The article defends the rights of the children. +1
The article agrees pedophilia should not be protected because sexual intercourse in our society is between two consenting adults, and logically, a child with no knowledge of what is going on can't truly consent. +1
The broad terminology protects a vast array of "taboo" fetishes etc., that were not covered in the article. Necrophilia and coprophilia would also be protected under this bill. -1

Does it mean society is crumbling? No. It means society is attempting to make an effort to protect the rights of everyone which recently includes a number of new gay rights that were denied for a long time. Is it a good effort? Yes. Does it need some work before it can be seen as acceptable? Yes. Was shooting down the amendment that protects pedophiles the wrong move? Absolutely. Would it be the same case if the age of consent was much lower than it is presently? There's a pretty good chance.

The fact the bill was presented was a large step forward that was necessary, the fact it is as broad as it is is the only fact that needs to be adjusted to conform to both sociological views and present laws and definitions.

[Chameleon]

Re: Where the rubber meets the road.

Was shooting down the amendment that protects pedophiles the wrong move?Absolutely.

why? You think pedophiles are right then?

[Akitu]

Re: Where the rubber meets the road.

why? You think pedophiles are right then?

I typed that incorrectly. Shooting down the amendment that excluded them from the bill was the incorrect motion. They have no right to be protected.

[Chameleon]

Re: Where the rubber meets the road.

They have no right to be protected.

So you say, but that is just an opinion. Who says they don't have the right?

[Akitu]

Re: Where the rubber meets the road.

So you say, but that is just an opinion. Who says they don't have the right?

The rest of the society that deemed a child is incapable of knowing the gravity of the situation the pedophile is forcing upon them. As of right now, it is a law and not just an opinion. The rights of one person cannot infringe on the rights of another, is that not in the US constitution somewhere? I think it is... The pedophile is violating the child's rights and therefore in violation of the law.

Speculation, speculation, speculation...

[Chameleon]

Re: Where the rubber meets the road.

The rights of one person cannot infringe on the rights of another

Soo true. But who defines those rights the state or God? If the states define them they can change. What happens when this law goes to the supreme court and they uphold it? Pedophiles will be granted rights and the state then says pedophiles are right. Are they?

[Akitu]

Re: Where the rubber meets the road.

Soo true. But who defines those rights the state or God? If the states define them they can change. What happens when this law goes to the supreme court and they uphold it? Pedophiles will be granted rights and the state then says pedophiles are right. Are they?

There's a coalition of people known as the Geneva Convention that decide mandatory human rights between the United Nations. I don't think I need to explain further on that.

Evidently you're grasping for straws because as soon as this bill was introduced it saw immediate problems with the broad wording. For similar recent cases, see CISPA, ACTA and SOPA that saw immediate opposition despite being heavily lobbied for and were not passed. This bill is no different, and while it may pass for the obvious positives of ensuring the safety of a recognized valid sexual orientation, it will very likely be amended or reworded and possibly reintroduced as another bill with more specific wording so things like pedophilia, necrophilia and coprophilia will not be protected.

[Darren King]

Re: Where the rubber meets the road.

So you say, but that is just an opinion. Who says they don't have the right?

How can there be a discussion when you seem to be arguing both sides? Are you for, or against?

[mrwho]

Re: Where the rubber meets the road.

My view on sexual orientations - or anything in life, for that matter - is very simple:

- Whatever you want to do to yourself, as long as it doesn't affect anyone else, you're free to do it;
- Whatever you want to do with/to someone else, as long as the other person is a consenting adult, you're free to do it.

So, to me, almost any form of sexual preferences (or deviations, if you want) are fine - pedophilia is not.

[Chameleon]

Re: Where the rubber meets the road.

Jerry Sandusky has the opinion what he did didn't harm anyone, he loved those boys in a good way. Just so we are all on the same page here: I am totally against pedophiles. I know why they are wrongopinions I am well aware of. I will concede killing, rape and stealing seem to be self-evident. Which is why I bring up pedophiles, where the rubber meets the road. I am playing the devils advocate here because pedophiles think it is not rape and they are not hurting children they are loving them. They think our laws prevent them from Life, Liberty and their pursuit of happiness and it is merely our opinion they are wrong. My wife used to be a social worker and knows firsthand this is true. Society/laws/Geneva convention has the opinion Jerry did do something wrong. Why is the opinion of society any different than the opinion of a pedophile? Before you answer think about this: Evolution says: survival of the fittest. Some guy kills another guy, is he right? Of course not. When you bring up society and laws as the reason he is wrong, these are the product of religion. The very thing evolutionist and atheists want to get rid of. If an evolutionist says murder is wrong, he is saying survival of the fittest (evolution) is wrong. He contradicts his own beliefs. Atheism says: life is an accidentsomething does matter. The only reason life matters is because there is a God.

[mrwho]

Re: Where the rubber meets the road.

Are you implying that an atheist, by definition, can't tell right from wrong? If someone needs god to tell them what's right and what's not, then that person's a dangerous person.

[Darren King]

Re: Where the rubber meets the road.

Jerry Sandusky has the opinion what he did didn't harm anyone, he loved those boys in a good way. Just so we are all on the same page here: I am totally against pedophiles. I know why they are wrongopinions I am well aware of. I will concede killing, rape and stealing seem to be self-evident. Which is why I bring up pedophiles, where the rubber meets the road. I am playing the devils advocate here because pedophiles think it is not rape and they are not hurting children they are loving them. They think our laws prevent them from Life, Liberty and their pursuit of happiness and it is merely our opinion they are wrong. My wife used to be a social worker and knows firsthand this is true. Society/laws/Geneva convention has the opinion Jerry did do something wrong. Why is the opinion of society any different than the opinion of a pedophile? Before you answer think about this: Evolution says: survival of the fittest. Some guy kills another guy, is he right? Of course not. When you bring up society and laws as the reason he is wrong, these are the product of religion. The very thing evolutionist and atheists want to get rid of. If an evolutionist says murder is wrong, he is saying survival of the fittest (evolution) is wrong. He contradicts his own beliefs. Atheism says: life is an accidentsomething does matter. The only reason life matters is because there is a God.

I'm not an atheist, but neither do I believe that knowing the difference between right and wrong has to be laid at God's feet. Most people when they reach a certain level of maturity know the difference. It doesn't mean they always choose the right path though.
Being involved in religion does not make a person moral. Some of the most "religious" people are the least moral.
I'm not sure why you chose pedophilia as the make or break between creationism and evolution, but, neither one has ever been proven and neither one can ever be proven, so, pick one and live with you choice.

[Chameleon]

Re: Where the rubber meets the road.

Are you implying that an atheist, by definition, can't tell right from wrong? If someone needs god to tell them what's right and what's not, then that person's a dangerous person.

That is exactly what I am saying. Case and point: Jerry Sandusky, a fairly dangerous person right?? His "morality" inside him said this was "the right thing to do". He reached a certain point of maturity in his life and thought having sex with boys was his way of loving them. He loved them, the harm didn't come from him, it came from those pesky people with morals that brought shame. Don't misunderstand me, an atheist can tell good from bad. An atheist can say killing that person was bad. An atheist can say raping that woman was bad. Hurting other people is bad. Consensual sex is good. For those of you who don't know pedophiles almost always have the consent of the children and pleasure is involved. As soon as an atheist or evolutionist says Jerry is wrong he is contradicting his beliefs. He is saying "a line does exist". Either something is wrong because people say(opinions) so or it is wrong because it is intrinsically(God) wrong. Jerry lived exactly what he believed. All an atheist/evolutionist can say is they have a different opinion than Jerry. A theist can say He was wrong.

[mrwho]

Re: Where the rubber meets the road.

For those of you who don't know pedophiles almost always have the consent of the children and pleasure is involved.

That's the reason why the expression "consenting adult" is used instead of "consenting person".

And, with all that said, where you type "atheist", I can erase and type "christian", "muslim", or every other faith you can think of. I see no relation of god - or godlessness - to the discussion. My previous statement still stands: someone who needs god to learn what is right and what is wrong is a very dangerous person. Remember that most of the terrorists say god tells them it's the right thing to do.