PEDOPHILIA: A DISORDER, NOT A CRIME
*
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/06/opinion/pedophilia-a-disorder-not-a-crime.html?rref=opinion&_r=3
TG: Here we go. This is not some "religious-right" publication. This is the New York Times. They are taking child molesting (pedophilia, "minor attracted" persons) down the same path, using the same blueprint, as the sodomite agenda.
"It's not a crime." Get people to feel sorry for the poor victimized pedophiles. Separate being a pedophile from committing child molestation. "Give them compassion, not condemnation."
Where is the homosexual community? Where is their outcry against these child molesters? They told us the "slippery slope" argument was a fallacy. Where are they now?
Perverts promote perversion. It will not stop here.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/06/opinion/pedophilia-a-disorder-not-a-crime.html?rref=opinion&_r=3
TG: Here we go. This is not some "religious-right" publication. This is the New York Times. They are taking child molesting (pedophilia, "minor attracted" persons) down the same path, using the same blueprint, as the sodomite agenda.
"It's not a crime." Get people to feel sorry for the poor victimized pedophiles. Separate being a pedophile from committing child molestation. "Give them compassion, not condemnation."
Where is the homosexual community? Where is their outcry against these child molesters? They told us the "slippery slope" argument was a fallacy. Where are they now?
Perverts promote perversion. It will not stop here.
posted by T.G. @ 10:44 PM
13 Comments:
At 8:10 AM,
Al said…
The so-called "mainstream" sodomites are drooling at the possibility of legalized pedophilia.
At 9:38 AM,
Anonymous said…
You really don't know how to read, do you? The article is not about the "approval" of pedophilia, it's about treating people who experience attraction to children BEFORE, let me repeat, BEFORE they abuse a child. The idea is prevention, not CONDONING. Nobody is saying it's ok to have sex with a child. NOBODY. You're just an imbecile and take any hint of nuance as a sign of the world crashing down around you.
At 2:47 PM,
T.G. said…
First, nobody said "approval". Do you need glasses or is the problem your reading comprehension?
Second, {{ Nobody is saying it's ok to have sex with a child. NOBODY.}}
You haven't been keeping up with the blog, have you? Several posts Do show people who DO say it's okay to have sex with a child. A little honest study would do you some good.
At 5:00 PM,
Anonymous said…
Is this blog obsolete, now that same-sex marriage is legal in Wisconsin? I feel like that isn't really the type of thing that's gonna change at this point, bro.
At 9:56 PM,
T.G. said…
It's not legal. A judge issued an unconstitutional ruling. A judge cannot make anything legal or illegal. They are not legislators.
But even if the judge is allowed to ignore the repeated will of the people and the legislature, all he did was rule against the amendment. That means we revert to what we had before the amendment - and queer marriage was not legal before then. The amendment itself was actually a redundancy.
Moreover, slavery was once legal. Did that mean nobody should've fought it?
At 1:53 AM,
Anonymous said…
"A judge cannot make anything legal or illegal"...dude, Judicial review has been a part of checks and balances since the 18th century.
"But even if the judge is allowed to ignore the repeated will of the people and the legislature"...yeah, that's the point of a judge, to tell the "people" and the legislature to cool it. There was a time when the majority of this country wanted slavery and/or segregation. That didn't make it right.
While we're on the slavery metaphor...in what world is same-sex marriage akin to slavery?
At 1:57 AM,
Anonymous said…
Also the state of Wisconsin never had a law banning same-sex marriage. It only had the constitutional amendment. The legislature voted on it, but the governor vetoed it. So your argument makes no sense. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_Wisconsin#Statute
And even IF Wisconsin had a law banning same-sex marriage before the constitutional amendment was ratified, the court decision deemed any ban on same-sex marriage unconstitutional. The notion that they were only ruling on an amendment, and not the law, is absurd.
At 6:12 PM,
T.G. said…
Prior to this, WI has never had same sex marriage. You're thinking about a different state, maybe the state of confusion.
Lev 18:23 Neither shalt thou lie with any beast to defile thyself therewith: neither shall any woman stand before a beast to lie down thereto: it is confusion.
Coming soon now that one perversion has been allowed.
At 6:17 PM,
T.G. said…
If a judge can overturn something passed twice by both Houses and by the popular vote, it is not a check and balance, it is tyranny. The judge is a dictator.
A judge did not overturn slavery. The legislature and people did that.
At 9:11 AM,
Anonymous said…
"If a judge can overturn something passed twice by both Houses and by the popular vote, it is not a check and balance, it is tyranny. The judge is a dictator." That's actually exactly what checks and balances are for, to keep the legislature/people from doing something egregious.
"A judge did not overturn slavery. The legislature and people did that." I'm well aware. I'm using slavery as an example of an evil that was institutionalized (it was in the Constitution 3 times!). I'm just using it as an example of something that a majority of people at one point in this country. The majority can be wrong.
If you're problem with this is biblical, that's fine. There's nothing I can do to shake that. My whole point is that you really don't have a legal leg to stand on. Legally you're grasping at straws, and you're losing.
At 9:57 PM,
T.G. said…
You don't understand American or western jurisprudence. A judge cannot overrule everybody else. The judicial system has the least responsibilities and scope of power because it is the easiest to be abused.
The legislature and people are to keep rogue justices from doing something egregious - but they keep doing egregious things anyway, because people like you have forgotten their limited role.
Also, a majority of the people opposed slavery in the late 1700's, but it was not a substantial enough majority at the time to do away with slavery. Only a small minority actually owned slaves - and many of them recognized it was problematic, but it was the situation they were born into.
The mentions of slavery in the constitution were because the pro-slave people didn't want to count the slaves as people, but the framers of the constitution DID.
At 4:09 PM,
Anonymous said…
"The mentions of slavery in the constitution were because the pro-slave people didn't want to count the slaves as people, but the framers of the constitution DID." That is simply inaccurate. People who owned slaves (at this point, mostly the Southern states) desperately wanted their slaves counted as people because it would give them more delegates in the House of Representatives and the Electoral College. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-Fifths_Compromise#Enactment
But I digress. You bring up jurisprudence. Where does the power of Judicial Review fit into that? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_review_in_the_United_States
It has been accepted for centuries that the courts in this country have the power to deem a law unconstitutional. Do you disagree with that?
What would you argue their role is?
Again, when it comes to same-sex marriage, I understand your primary objection to be religious. While I certainly do not share your beliefs, I understand that as a separate concern that the legal issue at hand. Frankly, your legal argument of the legitimacy (or illegitimacy) of the appellate and Supreme Court rulings is shaky at best, incoherent at worst.
At 6:10 PM,
T.G. said…
You're right about one point. I got that backwards. It was the hypocrite anti-slave north who didn't want to count slaves as persons.
"Judicial review" is nowhere to be found in the constitution. It's a made up attempt to subvert the constitution.
States used to ignore and resist unjust court decisions. In fact, Wisconsin did just that to the court decisions demanding they return escaped slaves.
The role of courts is to render decisions on specific cases, not to undermine the constitution, legislature, and the people.
The courts can't declare a constitutional amendment "unconstitutional". Next you'll think they can render the 1st and 2nd Amendments "unconstitutional".
Post a Comment
<< Home