All decent people, gay and straight, are outraged at the activity of a group that promotes sexual molesting of children, namely, NAMBLA, the North American Man-Boy Love Association. Some people have alleged that since men molesting boys involves members of the same sex, that gays have a special responsibility to help exterminate NAMBLA.
Of course, the vast majority of sexual molestations of children are men to girls, which would in theory make them heterosexual molestations. So one might argue that there is no reason to identify the problem pedophilic abuse of children with the gay and lesbian community at all.
Does NAMBLA even actually exist as an organization? I have only heard it from the anti-gay bigots trying to lump homosexuality and pedophilia together.
Certainly, in the thread that prompted your question, I took the exact opposite position.
I merely noted that you hold the position that all “good” Muslims, (your quotation marks), should be required take action to stop the “bad” Muslims. However, if you simultaneously fail to hold the position that you placed in the OP, it indicates a serious conflict of logic.
My position is that being the member of a population that includes subgroups that are evil does NOT place a special requirement on an individual to oppose that evil beyond the requirement that all people should resist evil, but with the understanding that everyone has finite resources and understanding regarding what might be evil or what actions could be undertaken.
Why would one even make a connection between gays and pedophiles? Pedophiles are interested little girls, little boys, or frequently both. No doubt gay men have a special hatred for pedophiles because people have confused them with the disgusting activity of child sexual abuse.
Besides, the fight against child sexual abuse has to be fought using laws, in the courts, by social welfare workers, hospitals, etc. Many of those medical personnel, police and others are LGBT by the way.
I donno if it even exists, Curt. I last heard about it from a politically correct Islam apologist who tried to maintain that if I criticised Muslims for not reforming their religion, I had to somehow explain why gays didn’t close down NAMBLA. I think he was just trying to make a cheap point on me because I am gay.
Not really, not anymore. I’m on my work computer right now, so I’m not Googling it, but IIRC, there was a lawsuit in the '80s or '90s that completely bankrupted them. I think there’s one guy who writes a newsletter every couple of years or so, but they’re pretty much finished as a coherent organization.
I’m also gay, and think he made an excellent point. So do you, clearly, otherwise you wouldn’t be going to these lengths to avoid addressing the analogy.
The problem is that you are making false analogies between two very different situations. All Muslims belong under the heading ISLAM, by their own admission. If you ask the leader of ISIS and a Muslim mechanic in Dearborn Michigan what religion they are, they will both say ISLAM. There are to be sure different ranges of opinion within ISLAM, but all of them will say that is their religion.
Gay men, lesbian women and pedophiles do not self-identify under a common title like ISLAM. They do not have a religion, they have a sexual orientation.
Why are you confusing this discussion with comparisons to ISLAM???
You see? NAMBLA has been wiped out by conscientious people, both gay and straight, police, prosecutors, etc, many of whom are members of the LBGT community. All of them pulling together to put down an evil. So there is no real point to my OP, I guess.
The analogy is stupid and is irrelevant. The subject of this thread is whether gays should be responsible for shutting down NAMBLA. Why some of you insist on talking about a religion called Islam and Islamists in connection with that is beyond me:confused:.
And? Do you are do you not identify as homosexual? Would or would not a member of NAMBLA (or any similar group) identify as homosexual? I am pretty sure that you would both identify your sexual orientation as the same.
All you are doing is trying to avoid the clear similarity between the two situations. You want the privilege of condemning a group for not taking action against other members of the same group while avoiding the responsibility (a responsibility that I do not believe exists) to attack other members of your same group. Sexual orientation, religion, politics, economic beliefs: regardless of the unifying agent, I dispute your claim that members of a larger group have some special responsibility to control others who share that agency when they cannot be responsible for how those others entered the group.
As to the guy from ISIS and the guy from Dearborn, most likely the guy from ISIS would claim that the guy from Dearborn was either a heretic or an apostate. Religions are not nearly as monolithic as you wish to pretend.
BTW, the question of whether peaceful Muslims should be doing more to reform the most backward parts of their religion is being discussed on another thread that has been going for many days now. It has nothing to do with the fight of all decent people to exterminate NAMBLA, but I thought you might be interested in that subject as well.
