It's a good thing we don't live in a pure democracy. Can you imagine how quickly free speech would evaporate if we ran a public referrendum in the US with a list of questions "Do you believe the government should prohibit broadcast and publication of materials that discuss... X, Y, Z, etc.?"
A huge mass of mindless voters, many of whom would be the kind to proudly wave their American flags and speak glowingly of American freedom, would answer those questions, and cast their votes, exactly the same way as if the questions had been "Do you think X, Y, Z, etc. are bad?".
that's what i thought about the flag-burning amendment idea, create an amendment restricting free speech to an object that stands for free speech. that's ironic.
that's what i thought about the flag-burning amendment idea, create an amendment restricting free speech to an object that stands for free speech. that's ironic.
don't have me start on that...i thought it absurb that we couldn't pass an equal rights amendment, yet wanted to pass a law protecting the flag...yeah, over 50% of the population is not entitled to amendment protections, but a colorful piece of cloth does...
plus it would have just increased the flag burnings about 1 million fold...we have sooo few today, pass the amendment and you would have several burned every day in protest...
don't have me start on that...i thought it absurb that we couldn't pass an equal rights amendment, yet wanted to pass a law protecting the flag...yeah, over 50% of the population is not entitled to amendment protections, but a colorful piece of cloth does...
plus it would have just increased the flag burnings about 1 million fold...we have sooo few today, pass the amendment and you would have several burned every day in protest...
oops
back to topic
g
Flag burning is good for the economy. In order to burn a flag, one must either buy one or make one from purchased materials. If someone wants to forage the wilderness and create their own cloth, dye, needles, and thread, more power to him.
Edit: Well, I guess you could steal a flag. Of course that's illegal anyway.
In a democracy, everyone has the right to organize and petition for the change of laws. Every group that opposed Prohibition was an "arguably criminal organization on its face" by your definition. So was every group opposing sodomy laws until last June.
NAMBLA's right to protest laws they don't like and try to get them changed must be protected, or YOUR right to do the same becomes endangered.
The fact of the matter is that civil liberties are more important than your children. Or any children. They are more important than our lives. That's why we have soldiers who fight and die for them. If the words of the Constitution weren't worth more than human life, then America could never morally go to war. That's the cold, hard reality. You may hate it. But that means you hate America.
Kirk
Did you even look at their site?
They are encouraging men to have sexual relationships with minors
If all they were doing was fighting to change the law I would have no beef with them or the ACLU defending them.
So if someone disagrees with you about age of consent laws, they have no right to publish their opinions or form groups with other like-minded individuals?
Kirk
Once again, that is not the only purpose of this group. I would hove no problem if that was their only purpose. They are encouraging men to have sexual relationships with minors.
Once again, that is not the only purpose of this group. I would hove no problem if that was their only purpose. They are encouraging men to have sexual relationships with minors.
Have you even read their website? From what I can tell, NAMBLA is intent on exposing the arbitrary ages for sexual consent as they pertain to homosexual relations. In other words, what if a 17 year-old homosexual wants to have sex with a 30 year-old? Under current law, it is child abuse and molestation and rape, whereas if the same thing happens in a heterosexual relationship, it is a matter of statutory rape.
Here:
Quote:
We condemn sexual abuse and all forms of coercion. Freely-chosen relationships differ from unwanted sex. Present laws, which focus only on the age of the participants, ignore the quality of their relationships. We know that differences in age do not preclude mutual, loving interaction between persons. NAMBLA is strongly opposed to age-of-consent laws and all other restrictions which deny men and boys the full enjoyment of their bodies and control over their own lives.
NAMBLA does not provide encouragement, referrals or assistance for people seeking sexual contacts. NAMBLA does not engage in any activities that violate the law, nor do we advocate that anyone else should do so.
We call for fundamental reform of the laws regarding relations between youths and adults. Today, many thousands of men and boys are unjustly ground into the disfunctional criminal justice system. Blindly, this system condemns consensual, loving relationships between younger and older people. NAMBLA's Prisoner Program, with limited resources, works to provide a modicum of humanity to some of these people. Click here to find out more.
What about those who worked to overturn prohibition?
Kirk
What about them. They won the fight. But if they had encouraged or helped people drink or had a drinking party in those days he would have been doing something that could be criminally charged.
Comparing those people with Nambla is like comparing peppers and oranges.
I read somewhere that inside the Nambla circle they proclaim "Eight is too old." I don't think they are just wanting to lower the consent law a couple of years!
Have you even read their website? From what I can tell, NAMBLA is intent on exposing the arbitrary ages for sexual consent as they pertain to homosexual relations. In other words, what if a 17 year-old homosexual wants to have sex with a 30 year-old? Under current law, it is child abuse and molestation and rape, whereas if the same thing happens in a heterosexual relationship, it is a matter of statutory rape.
Here:
Cheers
Scott
Um, that is fine and good but they have a "Boys Speak Out" book page where they quote 11 year old boys stating how good this and that is.
I say to that quote you gave, That is their official stand, but the rest of the crap on their pages say otherwise. Just look at the links, it is shameful.
I say to that quote you gave, That is their official stand, but the rest of the crap on their pages say otherwise. Just look at the links, it is shameful.
You know, the FBI is tracking your web usage and they'll be knocking on your door soon...
...and it will sound like such a weak defense when you say "But I was only trying to explain to other people how disgusting it is! It was research!"
Welcome to the New USA. Freedom for good people. Jail* for bad people.™
*Where we encourage homosexual rape and do nothing to control it so we can wink and look the other way while adding defacto cruel and unusual punishment to our "justice" system. That'll show 'em!
Comments
A huge mass of mindless voters, many of whom would be the kind to proudly wave their American flags and speak glowingly of American freedom, would answer those questions, and cast their votes, exactly the same way as if the questions had been "Do you think X, Y, Z, etc. are bad?".
Originally posted by superkarate monkeydeathcar
that's what i thought about the flag-burning amendment idea, create an amendment restricting free speech to an object that stands for free speech. that's ironic.
don't have me start on that...i thought it absurb that we couldn't pass an equal rights amendment, yet wanted to pass a law protecting the flag...yeah, over 50% of the population is not entitled to amendment protections, but a colorful piece of cloth does...
plus it would have just increased the flag burnings about 1 million fold...we have sooo few today, pass the amendment and you would have several burned every day in protest...
oops
back to topic
g
Originally posted by thegelding
don't have me start on that...i thought it absurb that we couldn't pass an equal rights amendment, yet wanted to pass a law protecting the flag...yeah, over 50% of the population is not entitled to amendment protections, but a colorful piece of cloth does...
plus it would have just increased the flag burnings about 1 million fold...we have sooo few today, pass the amendment and you would have several burned every day in protest...
oops
back to topic
g
Flag burning is good for the economy. In order to burn a flag, one must either buy one or make one from purchased materials. If someone wants to forage the wilderness and create their own cloth, dye, needles, and thread, more power to him.
Edit: Well, I guess you could steal a flag. Of course that's illegal anyway.
Originally posted by BR
Flag burning is good for the economy.
The Korean economy maybe...
Originally posted by Kirkland
In a democracy, everyone has the right to organize and petition for the change of laws. Every group that opposed Prohibition was an "arguably criminal organization on its face" by your definition. So was every group opposing sodomy laws until last June.
NAMBLA's right to protest laws they don't like and try to get them changed must be protected, or YOUR right to do the same becomes endangered.
The fact of the matter is that civil liberties are more important than your children. Or any children. They are more important than our lives. That's why we have soldiers who fight and die for them. If the words of the Constitution weren't worth more than human life, then America could never morally go to war. That's the cold, hard reality. You may hate it. But that means you hate America.
Kirk
Did you even look at their site?
They are encouraging men to have sexual relationships with minors
If all they were doing was fighting to change the law I would have no beef with them or the ACLU defending them.
Not that I agree with this NAMBLA movement but it is a common strategy in non-violent protest.
Originally posted by Kirkland
So if someone disagrees with you about age of consent laws, they have no right to publish their opinions or form groups with other like-minded individuals?
Kirk
Once again, that is not the only purpose of this group. I would hove no problem if that was their only purpose. They are encouraging men to have sexual relationships with minors.
Originally posted by NaplesX
Once again, that is not the only purpose of this group. I would hove no problem if that was their only purpose. They are encouraging men to have sexual relationships with minors.
Have you even read their website? From what I can tell, NAMBLA is intent on exposing the arbitrary ages for sexual consent as they pertain to homosexual relations. In other words, what if a 17 year-old homosexual wants to have sex with a 30 year-old? Under current law, it is child abuse and molestation and rape, whereas if the same thing happens in a heterosexual relationship, it is a matter of statutory rape.
Here:
We condemn sexual abuse and all forms of coercion. Freely-chosen relationships differ from unwanted sex. Present laws, which focus only on the age of the participants, ignore the quality of their relationships. We know that differences in age do not preclude mutual, loving interaction between persons. NAMBLA is strongly opposed to age-of-consent laws and all other restrictions which deny men and boys the full enjoyment of their bodies and control over their own lives.
NAMBLA does not provide encouragement, referrals or assistance for people seeking sexual contacts. NAMBLA does not engage in any activities that violate the law, nor do we advocate that anyone else should do so.
We call for fundamental reform of the laws regarding relations between youths and adults. Today, many thousands of men and boys are unjustly ground into the disfunctional criminal justice system. Blindly, this system condemns consensual, loving relationships between younger and older people. NAMBLA's Prisoner Program, with limited resources, works to provide a modicum of humanity to some of these people. Click here to find out more.
Cheers
Scott
Originally posted by Kirkland
What about those who worked to overturn prohibition?
Kirk
What about them. They won the fight. But if they had encouraged or helped people drink or had a drinking party in those days he would have been doing something that could be criminally charged.
Comparing those people with Nambla is like comparing peppers and oranges.
I read somewhere that inside the Nambla circle they proclaim "Eight is too old." I don't think they are just wanting to lower the consent law a couple of years!
Originally posted by midwinter
Have you even read their website? From what I can tell, NAMBLA is intent on exposing the arbitrary ages for sexual consent as they pertain to homosexual relations. In other words, what if a 17 year-old homosexual wants to have sex with a 30 year-old? Under current law, it is child abuse and molestation and rape, whereas if the same thing happens in a heterosexual relationship, it is a matter of statutory rape.
Here:
Cheers
Scott
Um, that is fine and good but they have a "Boys Speak Out" book page where they quote 11 year old boys stating how good this and that is.
I say to that quote you gave, That is their official stand, but the rest of the crap on their pages say otherwise. Just look at the links, it is shameful.
Originally posted by groverat
The birthing process is a painful thing.
It's ok, NaplesX, I went through it as well.
Um, my wife might agree with you. I just watched and she squeezed my hand. So, I guess it was painful.
Originally posted by kneelbeforezod
The Korean economy maybe...
And the Korean economy is good for our economy.
Originally posted by NaplesX
I say to that quote you gave, That is their official stand, but the rest of the crap on their pages say otherwise. Just look at the links, it is shameful.
You know, the FBI is tracking your web usage and they'll be knocking on your door soon...
...and it will sound like such a weak defense when you say "But I was only trying to explain to other people how disgusting it is! It was research!"
Welcome to the New USA. Freedom for good people. Jail* for bad people.™
*Where we encourage homosexual rape and do nothing to control it so we can wink and look the other way while adding defacto cruel and unusual punishment to our "justice" system. That'll show 'em!
Originally posted by shetline
...and it will sound like such a weak defense when you say "But I was only trying to explain to other people how disgusting it is! It was research!"
Hey, it worked for Pete Townsend.