In case you don't know, NAMBLA stands for North American Man/Boy Love Association. In other words, its a shoddily disguised, disgusting, non-profit organization dedicated to the sheer sexual exploitation of little boys, sometimes as young as 5 years old.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not anti-homosexual. But the mere mention of this organization is enough to make me physically sick. I want to hear your thoughts on it.

Website NAMBLA

The reason i mentioned the illegality of it in my previous post was to show the organization's support of something illegal. (Obvious, yes) clpo asked "has NAMBLA done anything illegal" I define support of an action as an equal to the action itself, in this case. That was my reason for bringing any of it up.

If i could, I would develop a device that could detect maturity levels and rid the use of ages. But until then, we must rely on age as an indicator of maturity/ responsibility.

To put it in short, its not my logic, it's that of society. I agree with barkid, though.

Teen pregnancy, in most cases, is a result of irresponsability. A 16 year old knows the invention of birth control.

This is such a personal thing...most teenagers are indeed nothing more but ignorant self-absorbed morons, but then there's your wiser breed. Unfortunately law in all cases is based on "you all pay the same regardless of the details".

quote:

Heh. Sex with minors. It's only wrong because they're 16 and not 18. Nice logic.

Because as a society we have used our collective intelligence to figure out that indeed, 16 year olds generally do not have the emotional capacity to deal with sexual relationships with each other, let alone with someone older whom is taking advantage of them. Ever heard the phrase "teen pregnancy"? That phrase exists because there are a bunch of young kids that get tied up in the moment and get pregnant. An adult is usually a bit smarter about these things.
This is once again the issue where a 16 year old thinks they know everything when in actuality all they have is, at best, a few years of real rational thought under their belt. Who are we as adults to try and protect these developing young people?!?
Anyone here whom is now over 18 can probably look back to when they were 15 or 16 and say "wow, I really thought I knew everything but in reality I knew very little about the world". As a matter of fact most people will look from their 30's to their 20's and say the exact same thing. Age is not only a number but a general measure of life experience and knowledge. Of course some 16 year olds are going to be very mature, but most aren't, that's just how it is. While we can't protect 16 year olds from sleeping with each other, we can protect them from adults whom would take advantage of their lack of knowledge and hurt them, physically or emotionally.

Heh. Sex with minors. It's only wrong because they're 16 and not 18. Nice logic.

Taken from the nambla.org site.

quote:

Read finally found that longed-for relationship, at thirteen years old, with an adult neighbor named “Rich,” which, he attests, “saved my life.” He feels that this, and other intergenerational relationships in his youth, greatly contributed to his sexual development, and goes into some detail on the subject. He states:

If it hadn’t been for sex at such a young age, my questioning phase could have stretched on for years, and would have gotten really tedious.
Sex with an older man probably sped up my coming-out process by years. If it hadn’t been for Rich, I might have turned into a mopey Goth kid. The horror, the horror. Had our relationship been discovered, Rich could have done time in jail. During the time we were having sex, it never dawned on me that he was literally risking his freedom over me.

American culture’s only frame of reference for sex with minors is abuse. I don’t deny that abuse occurs, but it should be addressed on a case-by-case basis. A blanket approach that criminalizes all sex between adults and minors undermines the fact that for many gay teenagers, sex with an adult can be a beautiful, life changing experience. It was for me.

This is an all too seldomly heard sentiment today, and his fresh, rational honesty, especially coming from a non-boylover, is greatly appreciated.

Think what you want.
I think its sick.
The organization is supporting illegal acts of sex with minors. That's just as bad as directly commiting the crime, in my opinion.

quote:

Doesn't looking at pictures of naked young boys fall under child pornography or something?

No. Not all pictures online of nude children fall into the porn category.

I am not against pedophilia if you're say, 15 or older, but 11 or something? No.

They give gay people a bad name.

Quadruple post, impressive.

I hope this only posts one time.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by clpo13:

I can't condemn something that hasn't done anything wrong, even if it is technically "wrong" by moral standards. NAMBLA is about consensual love between men and boys. If it wasn't consensual, then I'd have to say something.


There's a statutory issue here, and it jumps out at you just reading the name. A 'boy' is by definition, 'not a man'. Let's assume in most cases, the boy is under the age of 15. If the 'love' involved any act of sexual contact, a prosecutable crime has been committed.

I think the 'same sex' title hurts (to a very minor degree) the chance of a statutory crime being charged, because, historically, there have been two basic rationales for statutory rape laws. The first rationale is the need for
strict accountability to protect young girls ... Further, the history of the offense of statutory rape indicates that
from ancient times the law has afforded special protection to those deemed too young to understand their actions.

I would hope that in every possible instance of an 'good adult' person discovering that a child needs protection from a predator, a charge would be filed. However, In most US jurisdictions, the state may bring charges for statutory rape EVEN when the parents and children involved are AGAINST such an action, and it is irrelevant whether the child agrees with the action.

I wish you would apply common sense to this topic, and you know, it's a bit insulting to assume that 'annoying' you, and a ciriminal act would warrant the same result- a trial. Bad adult behavior should be avoided whenever possible. If something feels wrong, it probably is.


Peace!

-JB

I hope this only posts one time!

[QUOTE]Originally posted by clpo13:

I can't condemn something that hasn't done anything wrong, even if it is technically "wrong" by moral standards. NAMBLA is about consensual love between men and boys. If it wasn't consensual, then I'd have to say something.


There's a statutory issue here, and it jumps out at you just reading the name. A 'boy' is by definition, 'not a man'. Let's assume in most cases, the boy is under the age of 15. If the 'love' involved any act of sexual contact, a prosecutable crime has been committed.

I think the 'same sex' title hurts (to a very minor degree) the chance of a statutory crime being charged, because, historically, there have been two basic rationales for statutory rape laws. The first rationale is the need for
strict accountability to protect young girls ... Further, the history of the offense of statutory rape indicates that
from ancient times the law has afforded special protection to those deemed too young to understand their actions.

I would hope that in every possible instance of an 'good adult' person discovering that a child needs protection from a predator, a charge would be filed. However, In most US jurisdictions, the state may bring charges for statutory rape EVEN when the parents and children involved are AGAINST such an action, and it is irrelevant whether the child agrees with the action.

I wish you would apply common sense to this topic, and you know, it's a bit insulting to assume that 'annoying' you, and a ciriminal act would warrant the same result- a trial. Bad adult behavior should be avoided whenever possible. If something feels wrong, it probably is.


Peace!

-JB

I hope this does not post twice!

[QUOTE]Originally posted by clpo13:

I can't condemn something that hasn't done anything wrong, even if it is technically "wrong" by moral standards. NAMBLA is about consensual love between men and boys. If it wasn't consensual, then I'd have to say something.


There's a statutory issue here, and it jumps out at you just reading the name. A 'boy' is by definition, 'not a man'. Let's assume in most cases, the boy is under the age of 15. If the 'love' involved any act of sexual contact, a prosecutable crime has been committed.

I think the 'same sex' title hurts (to a very minor degree) the chance of a statutory crime being charged, because, historically, there have been two basic rationales for statutory rape laws. The first rationale is the need for
strict accountability to protect young girls ... Further, the history of the offense of statutory rape indicates that
from ancient times the law has afforded special protection to those deemed too young to understand their actions.

I would hope that in every possible instance of an 'good adult' person discovering that a child needs protection from a predator, a charge would be filed. However, In most US jurisdictions, the state may bring charges for statutory rape EVEN when the parents and children involved are AGAINST such an action, and it is irrelevant whether the child agrees with the action.

I wish you would apply common sense to this topic, and you know, it's a bit insulting to assume that 'annoying' you, and a ciriminal act would warrant the same result- a trial. Bad adult behavior should be avoided whenever possible. If something feels wrong, it probably is.


Peace!

-JB

[QUOTE]Originally posted by clpo13:

I can't condemn something that hasn't done anything wrong, even if it is technically "wrong" by moral standards. NAMBLA is about consensual love between men and boys. If it wasn't consensual, then I'd have to say something.


There's a statutory issue here, and it jumps out at you just reading the name. A 'boy' is by definition, 'not a man'. Let's assume in most cases, the boy is under the age of 15. If the 'love' involved any act of sexual contact, a prosecutable crime has been committed.

I think the 'same sex' title hurts (to a very minor degree) the chance of a statutory crime being charged, because, historically, there have been two basic rationales for statutory rape laws. The first rationale is the need for
strict accountability to protect young girls ... Further, the history of the offense of statutory rape indicates that
from ancient times the law has afforded special protection to those deemed too young to understand their actions.

I would hope that in every possible instance of an 'good adult' person discovering that a child needs protection from a predator, a charge would be filed. However, In most US jurisdictions, the state may bring charges for statutory rape EVEN when the parents and children involved are AGAINST such an action, and it is irrelevant whether the child agrees with the action.

I wish you would apply common sense to this topic, and you know, it's a bit insulting to assume that 'annoying' you, and a ciriminal act would warrant the same result- a trial. Bad adult behavior should be avoided whenever possible. If something feels wrong, it probably is.


Peace!

-JB

quote:

Clpo, i thought you to be an intellegent human being but how can you SAY this? LOOK at what she's writing. Do you not see something morally wrong even if it's not illegal? THere's always something that's wrong but never gets caught because it's technically legal, but that doesn't make it right. Get of YOUR high horse and take a look around you.

I can't condemn something that hasn't done anything wrong, even if it is technically "wrong" by moral standards. NAMBLA is about consensual love between men and boys. If it wasn't consensual, then I'd have to say something.

I should probably explain: I don't like the idea of NAMBLA, but I can't condemn it just because I don't like it. If that were true, half the population of the United States would be on trial for annoying me. Show me proof of illegality and I'll help you out. Other than that, sorry.

I visited the NAMBLA website (just to get a look at what the big deal is) and I found out that Harry Potter is gay! I had always suspected that...*sarcasm*

But just because it is wrong doesn't mean you can do anything about it. What they do is perfectly legal, or else they would have been shut down a long time ago. They can't be charged with anything for technically they are doing nothing wrong. That doesn't mean I like it.

Clpo, i thought you to be an intellegent human being but how can you SAY this? LOOK at what she's writing. Do you not see something morally wrong even if it's not illegal? THere's always something that's wrong but never gets caught because it's technically legal, but that doesn't make it right. Get of YOUR high horse and take a look around you.

Has NAMBLA done anything illegal? If so, by all means, do something about it. If not, get off your high horse and find something meaningful to rant about, like the effects of prolonged underwater basket-weaving on humans.

Virulent in all possible aspects of it's existence.

I like Bill Oreilly's attitude towards this group- Exterminate them like the parasites they are. This topic is actually the one exception to the arguement against government infringement of civil liberties which can break any tie with a resonable person. Having a son, I know that I would stop at nothing to protect him from people like this, even if it means directing lead at their specific location. I'll gladly 'do the time' if I can protect an innocent from this kind of abuse, as I'm certain 99.99% of our population would do as well. It makes no sense that this group can be allowed to operate- even in America. You would think that normal people could wipe out an organization like this if access to a member list were made avaliable...or maybe....hacked and posted? Hmmmm......

Doesn't looking at pictures of naked young boys fall under child pornography or something?

it makes me sick too.... Little boys don't deserve to be treated like that.

But they never offended anybody, they are simply looking at pictures of young boys, there is nothing illegal with that. And since they haven't touched boys, then they haven't done anything wrong.