However, I am concerned that as these weirdos begin coming out of the woodwork, (websites, messageboards, meetings) the media will begin to give them much more coverage. As their organization continues to grow, they will start having lobbying power…Then it’s just a matter of time before we see age of consent laws being lowered, and so on.
Ridiculous you say?
Black rights, gay rights, women’s rights…All of these were against the law, or frowned upon at some point in american history.
How long before NAMBLA makes an impact? 20 years? 30? 50?
What will it take to stop this trainwreck from starting?
You mistake being seen in public with gaining public support. One of the great things about freedom of speach is that bad ideas get exposed to the general public, and people recognize and reject them.
Not to bring Godwin’s Law into play, but neo-Nazis have been active in the US due to freedom of speach, but their ideas have not spread beyond the small group of nutjobs nor does it show any sign of doing so.
I don’t know much about this group, but do we know who the members are? If not, then I say we let them get all the publicity they want and then arrest all of these sick freaks at once. One big homosexual pedifile round-up.
And we’re arresting these ‘pedifiles’ because we know if they espouse the idea of lowering the age of consent law then the must be molesting children, right?
As to the OP, what is the debate here? Is it your contention that because civil rights laws eventually passed then so will laws that lower the age of consent?
That sure is what it sounds like to me. They want to have sex with children. The age of consent laws are in place to protect children from this sort of thing. Are you going to try to tell me that young boys are mentally equiped to fend off older men who are trying to “love” them?
I doubt it.
I was not talking about arrest without cause. I am talking about investigations and whatnot. Though being a part of an organization which is trying to gain the right to practice what we would currently term “molestation” sounds like a probable cause to surveil to me.
SMUsax, you may not have been ‘talking about arrest without cause’ but that’s what you said:
I don’t think anyone’s arguing against the fact that NAMBLA members want to have sex with children. Their desire is clearly stated in the name of their organization.
I’m not advocating to have the age of consent lowered legally. So, no, I’m not trying to tell you young boys are mentally or emotinally equipped to handle sexual relationships with men.
Hmmm… the fight against race/gender/adult sexual orientation-based discrimination, putting aside more extreme schools of thought on each, has to do mostly with people who were not white male heterosexuals (WMH) being excluded from a set of goods, services, and opportunities that were perfectly legal and even sanctioned as good and desirable things by society, and even provided willingly by businesses and governments but only when sought by the WMHs – such as, voting, education, property ownership, housing, employment, equal pay, insurance for your domestic partner, living w/o fear of rape/lynching/bashing, etc. In the case of gay rights (and sexual emancipation of women, too!) it also had to do with exposing a double-standard under which some people could enjoy their kinks as long as it was “discreetly” closeted.
OTOH the general society/culture DOES NOT consider OK, never mind good or desirable, for grown men in our “ruling class” to fool around with 10-year-old boys, with a wink-and-a-nod “double standard” that says yes, this guy, being “our kind” can get the benefits of pedophilia but this other guy, being an “other” can’t (certain bonehead Church authorities being an aberrant exception to the general US culture), nor, perhaps more importantly, is the ability to openly engage in pederasty considered to promote a sharing in political and economic power. The only “right” society denies a pedophile is that of sticking his naughty bits into those of a child (legally presumed to be unable to truly consent to this happening, and which studies strongly indicate harms the child) just like the only “right” society denies a cannibal is that of sampling his neighbor’s liver “with faba beans and a nice chianti” (which studies strongly indicate harms the neighbor).
As to ages of consent, across the US sub-national jurisdictions they already run the gamut from as low as 12 (for some cases) up to 18 for everything (most common: 16), this being usually for hetero contact since gay sex is still (nominally) flat out illegal in many of them. In any case, for the AoC to be lowered to the point that would please the likes of NAMBLA or the (AFAIK, extinct) René Guyon Society ( “sex by eight or it’s too late” :eek: ) first there would have to be decades of consistent good scientific literature to the effect that AS A RULE, rather than an exception, such young’unss ARE capable of freely giving fully informed consent about their sexuality and the sex is harmless or beneficial to them. Even in the face of studies on early sexual/emotional maturation, the AoC will not be abolished until we have a way of reading minds and knowing if each individual is making fully mature decisions. Otherwise we have to draw a line somewhere where we expect the average person to have got to that point. And it will probably remain set at some age after the average onset of puberty, if only for the sake of keeping the partners at least physiologically in some sort of “level ground” .
Now, honest research, study, and social evolution may indeed lead to the AoC standardizing some day at age “N” = less than what you or I may FEEL comfortable with. That is entirely another story than if it’s driven in that direction by groups with an agenda; and I can live with it just fine.
If the age of consent is lowered, I’ll be applauding - not because I want to have sex with children, but because age discrimination is wrong.
However, I think an association with NAMBLA can only hurt the cause (“youth rights? ain’t that one o’ them ped-o-phile thangs?”), and if they do any lobbying, I hope they keep their name out of the papers so voters won’t freak out.
I don’t think we have any real risk of age of consent being lowered. Currently we’re pushing back age requirements, not lowering them. (Look at alcohol.) I personally believe that this is a bad trend. If you are legally an adult, you should have all of the rights of any other adult.
I also don’t think it would be a horrible crime if the age of consent were lowered, albeit not much. I think it’s a bit ridiculous to call an 18 year old having consensual sex with a 17 year old rape. We should have other means to decide what is abuse (because the person simply can’t be old enough to give consent) and what is simple paternalism (we don’t want you to give consent).
How many infants do you know who can reach the pedals and pass a driver’s test?
I believe that a 13-year-old who is able to safely drive a car should be issued a driver’s license. More apropos of this thread, I also believe a 13-year-old who understands the potential consequences of sex and the necessary precautions should be allowed to have sex.
You can’t have justice unless you treat people as individuals. Even if we know that most drivers in the city at 2:00 AM on New Year’s Day are drunk, we don’t just assume they’re all drunk and arrest everyone who’s driving at that hour; we pull over drivers who appear drunk and test them individually.
Similarly, even if we could reach a consensus on what it means to be capable of giving informed consent to sex, and even if we had evidence that most minors below a given age are incapable, it still wouldn’t be appropriate to assume that all minors below that age are incapable. But this is exactly what “age of consent” laws do, and it’s a poor substitute for actual justice.
From a quick look at the link, I’m not sure exactly what “their way” is. Would you conclude that NAMBLA has gotten their way if the age of consent in every state is lowered to 16, or to 12, or only if it’s eliminated entirely?
By no means do we all agree that what NAMBLA preaches is ‘protected speech’.
Why not have a Burglars Association or Society of Rapists? What NAMBLA is all about is illegal, to say the least. I see no reason why their speech should be in anyway protected by our laws.
But I do see your point. Yet another perversion, and is it just a matter of time before it goes from perversion to ‘lifestyle choice’.
I hope not. But given the sheer idiocy of so many aspects of our legal system, I can see NAMBLA pimping its views via the courts, and not too far into the future. (Heck, all they need is one ‘progressive’ judge to really do some damage).
Why couldn’t we? Is there anything about our legal structure preventing such an organization from forming and disseminating information?
You say why, you don’t say how.
Can you name another such perversion, and then demonstrate how said perversion is on an equivalent moral plane as sexual abuse of minors? Please use number 2 pencils, be sure to write within the margins of your blue book, and remember Telemark’s point: We don’t need laws to protect us against inherently bad ideas. Just because something we find offensive is mentioned/discussed/debated in public, doesn’t automatically mean that it will pass into the realm of acceptable behavior.
The question is not of worth but of freedom. If individuals want to create these groups, they should be free to do so.
Things should not be illegal just because you think they are a bad idea or they bother you. They should be a demonstrable harm. Allowing free speech does not present such a harm. Would you think it fair if we said that you should not have a right to speak either, because of your medieval views of human sexuality (see below)? I doubt it.
**
We are not allowed to discuss removing laws that we think are unjust? I don’t agree with NAMBLA, but what about pro-marijuana groups? Should abolitionist groups and groups against Prohibition have been silenced because they wanted to change the law?
**
I’m sure that you can see how this statement is inflammatory and worthless to this discussion. Your crude views about homosexuality belong elsewhere.
If you cannot see the difference between acts between consenting adults and between adults and children, then you are even more simple than your post above implies.
**
Oh, sure. We liberals are just in favor of everything that betrays your sense of morality, so we wouldn’t mind sacrificing a few children’s well being just to irritate you. Oh, and why stop there? Why shouldn’t we allow cannibalism and bestiality, just, you know, to be all ‘progressive’ and new?