View Poll Results: Should NAMBLA be tolerated?

Voters
1. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes, they have rights and should be affirmed, by the courts if neccessary.

    0 0%
  • No, we should knock their teeth out & send them to prison.

    1 100.00%
  • No, we should hang them from the nearest lamppole.

    0 0%
  • Who cares. I don't have any kids to worry about.

    0 0%
Results 1 to 18 of 18
  1. #1
    What, me worry? piece-it pete's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Cleveland Ohio
    Posts
    717

    Poll: Should NAMBLA be tolerated?

    For those who don't know, NAMBLA is this organisation (from their official website):

    WELCOME! The North American Man/Boy Love Association (NAMBLA) was formed in 1978. It was inspired by the success of a campaign based in Boston's gay community to defend against a local witchhunt.

    NAMBLA's goal is to end the extreme oppression of men and boys in mutually consensual relationships by:

    building understanding and support for such relationships;
    educating the general public on the benevolent nature of man/boy love;
    cooperating with lesbian, gay, feminist, and other liberation movements;
    supporting the liberation of persons of all ages from sexual prejudice and oppression.
    Our membership is open to everyone sympathetic to man/boy love and personal freedom.
    NAMBLA calls for the empowerment of youth in all areas, not just the sexual. We support greater economic, political and social opportunities for young people and denounce the rampant ageism that segregates and isolates them in fear and mistrust. We believe sexual feelings are a positive life force. We support the rights of youth as well as adults to choose the partners with whom they wish to share and enjoy their bodies.

    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.

    NAMBLA is a political, civil rights, and educational organization. We provide factual information and help educate society about the positive and beneficial nature of man/boy love. Become an active member! You can help in this historic struggle!
    _________________

    Ill yet? There is also the "Womens' auxiliary of" devoted to Women/girl "love".

    Another quote from NAMBLAs' home page, very pominently displayed:

    Freedom is indivisible. The liberation of children, women, boy-lovers,
    and homosexuals in general, can occur only as
    complementary facets of the same dream. David Thorstad
    _______________

    Nice dream!!

    Pete
    Last edited by piece-it pete; 06-09-2004 at 12:44 PM.
    I fear explanations explanatory of things explained.
    Abraham Lincoln

  2. #2
    Color me gone... Resident Loser's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Nueva Jork
    Posts
    2,148

    Well, it's certainly not political...

    ...yet...

    The four choices of the poll are somewhat limiting...I firmly disagree with the first...the second is not necessarily a downside for some...there is enough trash around already for the third to be viable...and while I don't have kids, this sort of thing is just indicative of how we are going to he!! in a handbasket in the guise of defense of "personal freedoms"...

    jimHJJ(...but I think you get my drift...)

  3. #3
    JSE
    JSE is offline
    MIA - Until Rich is back! JSE's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Denial
    Posts
    1,929
    I'm thinking we should knock their teeth out then hang them from a light pole. So I guess options 2 and 3. But hey, I am sure we can come up with more punishments.

    JSE

  4. #4
    What, me worry? piece-it pete's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Cleveland Ohio
    Posts
    717
    Hey, if there is an option I left out just post it!

    Pete
    I fear explanations explanatory of things explained.
    Abraham Lincoln

  5. #5
    Forum Regular Woochifer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    SF Bay Area
    Posts
    6,883
    So, with options 2 and 3, you're basically saying that anyone who is a member of the organization or says that they are into young boys should be beaten up, thrown in jail, and/or lynched, even if they haven't ever acted on it or done anything illegal? Big difference between someone believing in an unpopular (and IMO sick) cause versus somebody who actually goes around exploiting young boys.

    There are plenty of laws out there prohibiting inappropriate contact between minors and adults, and if people want to change those laws, then why would they not have that right to try? I seriously doubt that any legislator in their right mind would ever advocate eliminating statutory rape or child pornography laws, and the courts have repeatedly affirmed these types of child protection laws.

  6. #6
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Posts
    400

    What they advocate is freedom, but it's a bogus...

    ...freedom, without discipline, or uplifting principles. The influx of such people into the Libertarian movement (which was co-opted by the Republicans, now that's odd bedfellows, no pun intended) is one major reason I left in disgust.

    BTW, my ex used to be a big fan of the Libertarian Neal Boortz, until she found that his web site linked to NAMBLA's web site. I found that his site also linked to porno sites. She told me that NB reported that a certain Mrs. Clinton was seen at a NAMBLA function.

    Hmmmmm.....

    Laz

  7. #7
    Forum Regular karl k's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Wichita, Kansas, N America, Sector 001
    Posts
    254

    Based on the 1/2 dozen or so laws...

    Quote Originally Posted by piece-it pete
    For those who don't know, NAMBLA is this organisation (from their official website):

    WELCOME! The North American Man/Boy Love Association (NAMBLA) was formed in 1978. It was inspired by the success of a campaign based in Boston's gay community to defend against a local witchhunt.

    NAMBLA's goal is to end the extreme oppression of men and boys in mutually consensual relationships by:

    building understanding and support for such relationships;
    educating the general public on the benevolent nature of man/boy love;
    cooperating with lesbian, gay, feminist, and other liberation movements;
    supporting the liberation of persons of all ages from sexual prejudice and oppression.
    Our membership is open to everyone sympathetic to man/boy love and personal freedom.
    NAMBLA calls for the empowerment of youth in all areas, not just the sexual. We support greater economic, political and social opportunities for young people and denounce the rampant ageism that segregates and isolates them in fear and mistrust. We believe sexual feelings are a positive life force. We support the rights of youth as well as adults to choose the partners with whom they wish to share and enjoy their bodies.

    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.

    NAMBLA is a political, civil rights, and educational organization. We provide factual information and help educate society about the positive and beneficial nature of man/boy love. Become an active member! You can help in this historic struggle!
    _________________

    Ill yet? There is also the "Womens' auxiliary of" devoted to Women/girl "love".

    Another quote from NAMBLAs' home page, very pominently displayed:

    Freedom is indivisible. The liberation of children, women, boy-lovers,
    and homosexuals in general, can occur only as
    complementary facets of the same dream. David Thorstad
    _______________

    Nice dream!!

    Pete
    that I am familiar with, I would say number 2 would be an appropriate response. Even if you can't make the act of abuse, there is also a law that does the same for pursuit or promotion and that should get something. Still, the real issue behind most of the child laws is the malicious removal of "innocence" by another who has none. It does make life a little more interesting however, when it's that "innocent" which is pursuing the adult. It is also interesting how, to some degree, we as a society are willing to overlook consentual teen on teen sex and the loss of innocence by each or both but not consentual teen on adult for the same reason/result. Not saying it's right to do so, just not sure I have the right to say you can't. How many of you, when you were in highschool would have turned down an oppurtunity to "make it" with the single, hottie, 25-30yr old teacher you had a thing for? Sure, she would let you down softly, but what if she didn't have to?

    Would any of you be prepared to accept the organization(Uh-huh-huh-huh) and their goals of a healthy relationship with boys if the goal of sex was removed? Can such a relationship exist and be socially acceptable given societies assumption that when a boy and a man(which is not his father) are that close there's something not right?
    Karl K.

    The shortest distance between two points is a straight line... in the opposite direction.

  8. #8
    Color me gone... Resident Loser's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Nueva Jork
    Posts
    2,148

    Well, there are...

    ...some organizations that do not espouse sexual contact...but that alone does not eliminate the underlying motivations of the adults who paricipate...I am of the opinion that any adult male who spends inordinate amounts of time with children other than his own should be viewed as suspect. That stance may seem arbitrary and kneejerk, but that's my take on things...I prefer to err on the overcautious...

    jimHJJ(...you really can't equate statutory rape with pedophilia...)

  9. #9
    What, me worry? piece-it pete's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Cleveland Ohio
    Posts
    717
    Well,

    I really didn't expect anyone to be for it!

    Any guesses on how this came up ?

    Wooch, I understand your point of view, however there is the charge of conspiracy, which IMO applies to ANYONE belonging to these groups. Perhaps just publishing their names (members, not caught) publicly would do the trick. I'm not sure about that, though.

    They are vermin that need to be stamped out, a threat to kids everywhere. Not PC but I'm not, either!

    You'd think putting them in jail would be a blessing in disguise for some of them, but they might as well have "pedophile" tattooed on their foreheads - I doubt they'd live a year, and that would be one miserable year.

    Peace out.

    Pete

    PS Laz, if that's true, and comes out, that's the end of her politically. I hope it's not. I don't like her (understatement) but that is awful.
    I fear explanations explanatory of things explained.
    Abraham Lincoln

  10. #10
    Color me gone... Resident Loser's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Nueva Jork
    Posts
    2,148

    In answer to your question...

    ...some recent posts here maybe?

    jimHJJ(...good flanking maneuver, Pete...)

  11. #11
    Forum Regular Woochifer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    SF Bay Area
    Posts
    6,883
    Quote Originally Posted by piece-it pete
    Well,

    I really didn't expect anyone to be for it!

    Any guesses on how this came up ?
    Uh, lemme guess "Don't Feed The Trolls"?

    Quote Originally Posted by piece-it pete
    Wooch, I understand your point of view, however there is the charge of conspiracy, which IMO applies to ANYONE belonging to these groups. Perhaps just publishing their names (members, not caught) publicly would do the trick. I'm not sure about that, though.

    They are vermin that need to be stamped out, a threat to kids everywhere. Not PC but I'm not, either!
    Problem with your definition of conspiracy is that in their bylaws, they advocate CHANGING the law, and last time I checked there's a huge distinction between advocating changes to laws versus conspiring to break them. You're welcome to call them sick f**ks or what not for believing in what they do, but until they translate that belief into action, there's not a thing you can do about it short of breaking the law yourself.

    It's no crime for somebody to belong to a hate group either, and until that hate translates into illegal actions against individuals or groups, there's no basis for arresting anybody or getting medieval on them. If you feel that belonging to a group is enough probable cause to arrest people or dish out vigilante justice, then that would require changes to the law and most likely, the Constitution itself because my understanding is that the current doctrines allow for freedom of association.

    The vermin are the guys who actually prey on children (doesn't matter to me if it's boys or girls, middle aged guys have no business hitting on school aged kids). We're not at a stage where we can arrest people or take justice into our own hands just because someone believes in a cause that we find abhorant. If they do something illegal, or conspire to do so, then that's cause for the system to act. But, until then we're each free to think however we want. Or, at least that's how I interpret our Constitution.

  12. #12
    Forum Regular karl k's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Wichita, Kansas, N America, Sector 001
    Posts
    254

    Don't make me out to be someone I'm not!

    Quote Originally Posted by piece-it pete
    Well,

    I really didn't expect anyone to be for it!

    Any guesses on how this came up ?

    Wooch, I understand your point of view, however there is the charge of conspiracy, which IMO applies to ANYONE belonging to these groups. Perhaps just publishing their names (members, not caught) publicly would do the trick. I'm not sure about that, though.

    They are vermin that need to be stamped out, a threat to kids everywhere. Not PC but I'm not, either!

    You'd think putting them in jail would be a blessing in disguise for some of them, but they might as well have "pedophile" tattooed on their foreheads - I doubt they'd live a year, and that would be one miserable year.

    Peace out.

    Pete

    PS Laz, if that's true, and comes out, that's the end of her politically. I hope it's not. I don't like her (understatement) but that is awful.
    You can try all you want to make things out to be cut and dried, but in the end, life is rarely cut and dried. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for addressing the "act" of child abuse in any form. My point was only one hypothetical case where the adult would NOT be in a position of cohersion(as many will envision when the subject is brought up) and thus not constitute abuse. The laws are broad and reflect the abuse that typically occurrs with such a relationship(if you can call it that) but I don't know that age should be the only deciding factor. After all, what about the 15yr old that is in college? Or the retarded 25yr old that has a 9th grade mentality? All I'm saying is that there are usually exceptions to every rule and that the "act of sex" MAY not automatically constitute abuse.(though it usually does and the law would apply) BTW, the exception I'm in reference to absolutely couldn't include children who would not normally be sexually active anyway as that would fall under cohersion.IMHO Maybe we are splitting hairs here... maybe what you cite would be more along the line of pedophilia and mine would be closer to statutory rape?

    Anyway, you and Wooch both have good points, I would agree with you though that the conspiracy charge would probably be upheld by a jury in a court(if it came down to it) but I think the prosecution would have the burden of proving the organization and it's petition to change the law would or did promote the act of a crime directly... which may not be so easy. And even then, I doubt the organization would see jail time as opposed to being disbanded and monitored.

    It is interesting the conspiracy charge would be a sort of "catch 22" where you couldn't change the law without breaking it.(by attempting to change the law, you are promoting the act of breaking the law)

    Maybe instead of spending all this energy(and tax money) preventing the verbal expression of others, we should spend it educating our kids about the fact that these people exist, their motives are not always noble, and how to recognize when they are in the presence of such a person.
    Karl K.

    The shortest distance between two points is a straight line... in the opposite direction.

  13. #13
    What, me worry? piece-it pete's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Cleveland Ohio
    Posts
    717
    Wooch,

    We are actually in 100% agreement, this is why I hate hate crime laws. I believe your take on the Constistution is correct.

    But society can decide outside of gov't what they will tolerate. The late great Mike Royko, discussing the flag burning issue, said we don't need an amendment, just punch the guy in the nose .

    I have issues with anyone who advocates child abuse/porn. I would have the same sort of issues with anyone advocating, say, ..... forget it. I can't think of anything worse. Letting these people go around spouting their filth helps give them credibility. Tolerance is a mistake, IMHO.

    I'd be happy to pay any fine for the assult charge. The broken nose/teeth would be worth it, and I doubt you'd find many judges outside of Mass. or California that would be too harsh about it.

    Pete
    I fear explanations explanatory of things explained.
    Abraham Lincoln

  14. #14
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Posts
    236
    I have issues with anyone who advocates child abuse/porn. I would have the same sort of issues with anyone advocating, say, ..... forget it. I can't think of anything worse. Letting these people go around spouting their filth helps give them credibility. Tolerance is a mistake, IMHO.
    Sounds so simple. But, what is porn? The courts can't agree, that's for sure. Take the case of the photograhper in the 90's who had the court battles about his nude child photography books(sorry, I can't remember his name) and he won. THe conditinos/pictures he was shooting were not pornography IMO. But not everyone will agree, that's for certain. So... what is porn?

    Concerning the issue of consentual relationships, well, in retrospect of other legal issues, I find it hard to swallow that a general sweeping age limit can be set to make something a crime vs. a non crime. I would think that the only logical method is to analyse each case and then decide if the minor was psychogically adequate. For example, this is the method used to decide if a minor person is put to trial as an adult or minor. Individual psychological analysis is performed on each case. Let's say the court deemed a 16 year old psychologically responsible for a murder, and shall be trialed as an adult. So, that person is responsbiel enough to decide of they can murder, but not so to decide if they can consent to sexual activity? I noted that one person asked what about chariging minors vs. minors. IN fact, some states do. Refer to Georgia. They do not discriminate, they will charge and convict two minors for having any sexual activity with each other, just the same as they would for an adult and a minor.

    -Chris

  15. #15
    Forum Regular Woochifer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    SF Bay Area
    Posts
    6,883
    Quote Originally Posted by piece-it pete
    I have issues with anyone who advocates child abuse/porn. I would have the same sort of issues with anyone advocating, say, ..... forget it. I can't think of anything worse. Letting these people go around spouting their filth helps give them credibility. Tolerance is a mistake, IMHO.
    Yeah, but if they advocate legalizing those things and don't abuse kids or possess or look at child porn, then they haven't actually broken any laws. Spreading the filth so to speak with kiddie porn -- what are you referring to? Advocating that the laws be changed, or actually distributing child porn? Difference is that the former is protected by the first amendment, while the latter is a federal crime. Huge distinction between tolerating someone's right to make unpopular statements, versus tolerating actual acts that are already illegal. Just as there would be a big difference between advocating for legalization of slavery, and actually owning slaves; or between saying that all Arabs must be exterminated, and actually going out in the street and killing Arabs. One action is an exercise in constitutional rights, while the other is illegal in all 50 states.

    Quote Originally Posted by piece-it pete
    I'd be happy to pay any fine for the assult charge. The broken nose/teeth would be worth it, and I doubt you'd find many judges outside of Mass. or California that would be too harsh about it.
    Assault is assault, whether or not you feel it's justified. Unless it's in self-defense, it's still a crime. And again, if you're talking about breaking someone's nose just because you disagree with their views, you've basically lost any moral justification that you might claim. Nice to talk tough on a message board, but are you really committed enough to your perspective to follow through?

  16. #16
    What, me worry? piece-it pete's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Cleveland Ohio
    Posts
    717
    Wooch,

    We all really don't know each other very well, after all. I spent time growing up in a number of places most people wouldn't go into in broad daylight.

    Yes, if someone told me they belonged to NAMBLA I would punch them in the nose. And I would feel justified. And I would still feel moral. Even sitting in jail .

    Pete
    I fear explanations explanatory of things explained.
    Abraham Lincoln

  17. #17
    What, me worry? piece-it pete's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Cleveland Ohio
    Posts
    717
    Quote Originally Posted by karl k
    You can try all you want to make things out to be cut and dried, but in the end, life is rarely cut and dried. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for addressing the "act" of child abuse in any form. My point was only one hypothetical case where the adult would NOT be in a position of cohersion(as many will envision when the subject is brought up) and thus not constitute abuse. The laws are broad and reflect the abuse that typically occurrs with such a relationship(if you can call it that) but I don't know that age should be the only deciding factor. After all, what about the 15yr old that is in college? Or the retarded 25yr old that has a 9th grade mentality? All I'm saying is that there are usually exceptions to every rule and that the "act of sex" MAY not automatically constitute abuse.(though it usually does and the law would apply) BTW, the exception I'm in reference to absolutely couldn't include children who would not normally be sexually active anyway as that would fall under cohersion.IMHO Maybe we are splitting hairs here... maybe what you cite would be more along the line of pedophilia and mine would be closer to statutory rape?

    Anyway, you and Wooch both have good points, I would agree with you though that the conspiracy charge would probably be upheld by a jury in a court(if it came down to it) but I think the prosecution would have the burden of proving the organization and it's petition to change the law would or did promote the act of a crime directly... which may not be so easy. And even then, I doubt the organization would see jail time as opposed to being disbanded and monitored.

    It is interesting the conspiracy charge would be a sort of "catch 22" where you couldn't change the law without breaking it.(by attempting to change the law, you are promoting the act of breaking the law)

    Maybe instead of spending all this energy(and tax money) preventing the verbal expression of others, we should spend it educating our kids about the fact that these people exist, their motives are not always noble, and how to recognize when they are in the presence of such a person.
    Karl,

    May I call you Laz?? (Aacchhh, talk about feeling like an idiot!!)

    This might sound familiar:

    A misunderstanding: I did not intend to cast anything on you, the statement "I really didn't expect anyone to be for it!" was intended to mean, that I didn't think anyone would be for it and no one was (or at least didn't have the guts to post it!). My apologies if it came across otherwise.

    After all our "highly intelligent, insightful conversations" :lmao: I would have been shocked at that.

    ______

    I understand what you mean, as I understand were Wooch is coming from. In most cases I would even agree, to a degree. But this is worse than most cases, IMO. I think it's "when to say when".

    Pete
    I fear explanations explanatory of things explained.
    Abraham Lincoln

  18. #18
    Forum Regular karl k's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Wichita, Kansas, N America, Sector 001
    Posts
    254

    Don't forget Pete...

    Quote Originally Posted by piece-it pete
    Letting these people go around spouting their filth helps give them credibility. Tolerance is a mistake, IMHO.Pete
    Taking away someones ability to express may reduce your credibility to maintain the arguement for those still deciding which way to go.
    Karl K.

    The shortest distance between two points is a straight line... in the opposite direction.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •