Free speech - yes.
Lobbying for legislative changes - yes.
Practising what they preach - no.
Inciting others to do what they preach - no.
If they really want to love “boys” (and here I’m assuming boys not young men) then they can go to a country where that’s legal.
Oh… funny that… I don’t think it’s legal anywhere in the world. Now why might that be? Maybe because it’s SICK and WRONG?
I feel the same. But once you outlaw one type of speach because its repugnant, it could easily open the door to outlaw more speach that you yourself might think is worthwhile.
I think it’s incredibly disturbing. Nevertheless, they still have the right to speak their mind, as long as they don’t actually commit any crimes.
I’m against them simply because the idea of middle aged men having sex with young boys is repugnant to me.
But just to play devils advocate, who knows, maybe they are right and its just our societal attitutes towards “boylove” that causes the real psychological harm from such encounters.
Feel free to prove their “scientific evidence” wrong if you want. If it’s so easy to do so, then they really aren’t much of a threat.
Damn, can’t those NAMBLA freaks just wait until these kids turn 18? I sure as hell wouldn’t want any children in my care to be lured in by this tripe.
Or they can lobby to make it legal in the country where they already live, which is the purpose of democracy.
Kimstu expressed my position perfectly. I despise the practive. I abhor the politics. I pity the victims. But everybosy deserves the right to speak their piece.
That’s exactly the point. I would bet that few who promote the ideas of NAMBLA are merely lobbying to get a law changed. They are a bunch of sick bastards who are extremely likely to have acted on their twisted ideas. They should be watched. Do you imagine that someone who writes a book on how to be a hit man or the host of a website on killing abortion doctors is not being monitored in some way by the authorities?
As Milossarian points out, freedom of speech is not unlimited, nor should it be. You don’t have the right to slander someone. You don’t have the right to incite others to riot. I see no reason why advocating child abuse should be protected speech either. These sick f**ks don’t deserve to breathe, IMHO.(Okay you can drop the “H” from that last. I’m opinionated, but not humble.)
Seems true to me. I doubt that very many non pedophiles would advocate the legalization of sex with children. And yes, it does seem logical to keep an eye on them. But they should be prosecuted for what they actually do, not what they say or write.
Being in an organization like this probably makes things easier for authorities. Likely sex offenders can be scrutinized more closely.
Of course they are.
Advocating the changing of the laws is not a crime. The idea of outlawing even the discussion of changing laws is contrary to the liberty afforded to us by the first amendment.
Hey now… if perverts, pinkos, crooks, and liberals are allowed to just go ahead and suggest changing our precious laws, the terrorists have already won[sup]tm[/sup]! Those laws came direct from God’s hand; who are we to question them?
I think some of us have forgotten to think of the children[sup]tm[/sup]! What would little Timmy say if he knew those fiendish commies were talking about changing the laws that protect him and kids like him? Or worse yet, that some of them even planned to vote for candidates who might actually change the law? :eek:
All this talk of debating laws and voting for change is threatening the security–no, the very values of our precious democracy. The status quo is the only thing keeping this nation from going straight to hell!
You know, I think it is fairly likely that I would murder the man I found raping a child. I am not a violent person, but I think that might well be the thing that did it. Intellect would not stop me, since I have had some very strong personally experience indicating that men who display this aberration do not change their behavior because of consequences meted out by society. And if it were my child, the matter would probably not change significantly because the act was already accomplished, or because society had punished him with prison. Even after the fact, perhaps even long after the fact, I think it very likely that I would eventually murder this man
But that doesn’t mean I would be right to do so. I use the word murder, because that is what it would be. I don’t think it would be right, or good to do it. I just think it is a limit to my own level of civilized behavior. I don’t think that I would be amenable to reason in this regard. I also don’t think that I could act to stop another man from doing the same, or to punish him for having done so. I think that is wrong as well. But I think it is true, of me.
I value my own children, more than the sanctity of law. Civilization is a veneer, in my case, anyway. I would climb the thirteen stairs, rather than walk the same streets as the man who has done this to my child.
Tris
I agree. I would not advocate arresting or prosecuting these people for being members of NAMBLA or for expressing themselves. For that reason I also oppose hate crimes legislation. I hope you didn’t get from my post that I want them rounded up on the basis of their opinions alone.
That said, I think that, to the extent possible, everyone with a NAMBLA background should be investigated. It’s possible, I suppose, to be a pedophile without acting on that inclination, but it seems more likely that such persons pose a real danger to neighborhoods with children in them.
I hope so.
I know that you are right, but I fear that our Constitution, on which we base our legal system entirely and our societal structure to a large extent, may contain the seeds of that society’s destruction. It just seems sometimes as if the bad guys are benefitted more than the rest of us. It’s a cinch that a lot of bad guys know the system very well, and know how to use it against us. No excuse for ignoring the law though.
If we investigate the backgrounds of people simply for belonging to NAMBLA–a political organization–then what’s next? Investigating NRA members because they might own illegal guns? Investigating Green Party members on the grounds that they might be pot-smoking eco-terrorists?
Many thought the same thing during the communist scare. I don’t think our system is so fragile that a few extremists can tear the fabric of society as we know it. I think its stronger than that.
The day that NAMBLA will convince the majority of the voting population that legalizing sex with children is a good idea is the day that hell freezes over. Personally, I’m not going to lose any sleep worrying about that happening, because I don’t see it happening in my lifetime.
In all sincerity, these “bad guys” aren’t really being benefitted much. If the law catches them practicing what they preach, they face lengthy time behind bars with inmates who don’t take very kindly to their type.
Noam Chomsky said something great once,
and I always botch the quote,
but it is something like,
‘if you truly believe in the freedom of speech,
then you stand up for it especially when
you don’t agree with what is being said.’
basically, everyone (including despots) supports
speech when it is something in their favor,
but if you believe that everyone has the right
to say what they feel, then the ultimate test is
standing up for that right when you are morally
repelled by what is being said.
btw, Chomsky passed the test. He defended a
French professor who was fired for writing a book
claiming that the Holocaust didn’t exist.
Since Chomsky is a Jew (atleast by heritage) as
well as a humanitarian, I’m sure it was hard to
openly defend him as he did.
colin
Hmm, well, I support NAMBLA’s right to say what they want. However, the thing they don’t seem to recognize is that basically they are fighting for the right to have sex with someone who has not come into their sexuality yet.
However, I’d like to point out Greek society, and how it was common for warriors to have sex with the adolescent warriors. I don’t think that it will necessarily damage people for life. Morality is just a way for societies to maintain cohesion. As it is so ingrained into our society that sex with boys is repulsive, then it would be psychologically damaging to the young boys. In another society where it is considered a coming of age, such as ancient Greece, it’s probably not going to damage them.
However NAMBLA is just a bunch of people thinking we should legitimize a perversion that is potentially harmful to our society, therefore it is not a good idea for them to get what they want. However I will defend to the death their right to say it.
Erek
(Wow, my first post ever as a SDMB member. Someone congratulate me.)
Someone posted a comparison between NAMBLA’s desire for sexual congress with young boys, and the relationships between Greek soldiers and the adolescents they invited into their tents at night to make a little love while at war. S’far as I know, there weren’t many psychologists back in that particular day to do studies on whether or not this relationship was harmful to the young’uns or not, so the fact that it was a common enough practice can’t really be used in this case. Enough studies have been done in today’s society on the survivors of sexual abuse to verify that no matter what the circumstances, these relationships are inappropriate and damaging to the children they involve. The simple reason is that these kids are not at an age where they are mature enough to enter into a consensual sexual relationship with anyone. They are simply too young and too psychologically vunerable to handle the resulting emotional hurdles.
AFAIK, many cultures sanction the marriage of very young girls to older men, but in most cases the relationship isn’t consummated until the girl reaches sexual maturity. That’s the idea, anyway. Personally, I really don’t care who you want to have a sexual relationship with, my only concern is that it be a consensual one, with a person old enough to reasonably make that decision. IE, someone who has reached sexual maturity. Emotional maturity really might be too much to ask for. (joke)
As for free speech, my patented Theory On Life ™ is that you have every right to say whatever you want. I also have the right not to listen. So whatever swill the KKK, Osama’s Fan Club, or NAMBLA might be spouting, hey, it’s a free country. Most of us have better things to do than listen to the rantings of certifiable loony-toons.
My point with the greek soldiers was more directed at adolescents who are sexually mature after puberty. As for the bit about lack of psychology back then, I think that it’s unfair to use modern psychology as an example because all the studies were done within a society where it is socially unacceptable to have sex with an adolescent. If it were socially acceptable then it might not necessarily be damaging.
Erek
Even when puberty kicks in, humans aren’t fully grown. Their orifices are smaller (“tighter” - hence their attraction) and it can be far more damaging for them to have things shoved up there.
Particularly with anal sex - and here I’m talking about hetero- or homo- anal sex, this is not an anti-gay comment - you have to be a lot more careful. It can be a lot more damaging, the anus is not designed like the vagina to stretch and accomodate. It needs to be a fully informed decision about what you are doing to your body.
I do not think a young child or even young adolescent - male or female - can make such a decision. I also think it is harder for them to understand the full risks in terms of sexual disease, pregnancy (for girls) etc. You only have to read the stunning ignorance displayed by later teens (14/15/16/17) in magazine “advice columns” to realise what a huge learning gap there is.
So it’s not just about emotional damage, it’s also about physical damage.
And the thought of some sick old pervert explaning to a 13-year-old boy, “well, I want to do this to you, but there’s an x-percent chance it might damage your sphincter permanently, and I’ll use a condom but there’s a y percent chance that it might rip and you get hepatitis - are you OK with all that?” - well, words just fail…
Heh, good point Istara. I don’t want to come across as though I am defending NAMBLA. However, in the spirit of the thread, I’ll reiterate that I support their right to say what they have to say.
Erek
It has been pointed out that in this society there is really no chance of any movement like NAMBLA growing large enough to affect the laws of this country. That’s probably true. But, given the knowledge that pedophiles are almost universally despised, it seems to me that anyone sick enough to exercise that freedom of speech and “come out,” as it were, as a pedophile is probably one dangerous sonofabitch to have in your neighborhood. I mean, they’ve got to be crazy to advocate openly something that the entire society hates.
Hmmm, sorry, I’m in the wrong place. I thought this was about the North American Marlon Brando Look Alikes. Good day.
I don’t see how this follows. Having an unpopular, even hated, idea doesn’t make you violent or dangerous. Heck, there are areas in the US where relatively modest ideas (vegetarianism, interracial marriage) are viewed as foolish or laughable at least, actually evil at worst. Having a minority viewpoint and speaking out doesn’t make you crazy.
That being said, these people are espousing an illegal (and, from the majority standpoint, immoral, indecent, and sick) act. It’s not that hard to follow that some of their members will go ahead and violate the law. I simply think this has little to do with whether or not they’re “out” or not. I fear the pedophile who doesn’t speak publicly a great deal more.