NAMBLA: What is it really?

[MissTaken]

Is it a group of old pedophiles or is it a concerned group of gay citizens who feel that the law is unjust in not allowing youth the legal ability to consent to sex?

Or is it both?

or Niether?

*******

"We support the rights of youth as well as adults to choose the partners with whom they wish to share and enjoy their bodies"

From "About NAMBLA":
http://www.nambla1.de/welcome.htm

Pederasty and Homosexuality:
http://www.nambla1.de/pederasty.htm

I am casting no stones, but wondered what lit's gay community thought about NAMBLA.

 

[Queersetti]

If NAMBLA was merely an advocacy group that sought to change societies mores and laws regarding the age of sexual consent, I would consider that well within the bounds of social discourse. I don't personally believe that the age of sexual consent should be lowered, but I don't belief our current laws are chiseled in stone either , so perhaps there is a case to be made for changes.

But there is pretty extensive evidence that NAMBLA is more than just an advocacy group, but has actively facilitated adult sexual predation on children, and therefore, I think they deserve the condemnation of all of society, not just the gay community.

 

[glamorilla]

As a gay man I know there's a distinction between homosexuality and pedophilia. It's obvious becouse of the same sex nature the lines often get blurredI posted this early on when I first registered and my ideas haven't changed since.

I'm all for good healthy sex and fantasy role play and as long as it's consensual hey,anything goes...however I do feel there needs to be a separate set of standards for minors under the age of 18...which really is a good ideal age "to come of age" and legally be able to do adult things...with the rules getting more and more strict as the child is younger...just throwing in here...i think we should be protecting our kids so they can grow up to do twisted things to each other!

.

Nambla exists outside the gay community.

 

[Etoile]

It's unfortunate that this group causes many to continue to associate homosexuality with pedophilia. The priests aren't helping, either.

 

[MissTaken]

As a gay man I know there's a distinction between homosexuality and pedophilia. It's obvious becouse of the same sex nature the lines often get blurredI posted this early on when I first registered and my ideas haven't changed since.


.

Nambla exists outside the gay community.

Oh, I am not making any implication about a connection between homosexuality and pedophelia. Truly.

"Nambla exists outside the gay community."

Thanks. I wondered because when I read some of their stuff, it seems they try very hard to be part of the gay community. Or think they are.

Yes, Q, I have heard that the group seems to be a blanket to justify pedohelia. I didn't know if it was true.

Thanks

 

[James G 5]

Oh, I am not making any implication about a connection between homosexuality and pedophelia. Truly.

"Nambla exists outside the gay community."

Thanks. I wondered because when I read some of their stuff, it seems they try very hard to be part of the gay community. Or think they are.

Yes, Q, I have heard that the group seems to be a blanket to justify pedohelia. I didn't know if it was true.

Thanks

They at one point used the slogan "Sex before 8 or else it's too late"
I would call that a blanket MANDATE for pedophilia
They've tried in recent years to take on the trappings of "Gay Rights" to continue their existence int he face of negative publicity & federal kiddie porn/chidl endangerment charges against several members

 

[deliciously_naughty]

NAMBLA is a group that advocates pedophilia. On the other hand, I've yet to meet a gay rights activist who talks about why we should have sex with children.


Pedophilia...sex with children, nonconsent


Homosexual...sex with adult members of the same sex in a consenting manner


see the diff?

 

[PoliteSuccubus]

I think NAMBLA thought it could get more support from the gay community than they were if they gave a gay slant to things; as if they had fallen under the same presumptions most people do about gays* wanting younger men/women.

I always thought it odd that people felt more comfortable with a straight man teaching their nubile daughters than a homosexual one....esp with the research showing that straight men are more likely to be pedophiles.

*using 'gay' for both sides

 

[LarzMachine]

It's unfortunate that this group causes many to continue to associate homosexuality with pedophilia. The priests aren't helping, either.

The Catholics would be a LOT more credible if they weren't simultaneously condemning gays as Hellworthy even as they do their damnedest to protect their pedophile priests. Apparently the Catholic policy on gay sodomy is it's only OK if a man is forcing himself on an underage boy, but if consenting adults want to, they're the worst kind of sinner...

 

[deliciously_naughty]

I think NAMBLA thought it could get more support from the gay community than they were if they gave a gay slant to thingsdes

are you high? Why would we ever support pederasts?

 

[Etoile]

are you high? Why would we ever support pederasts?

Uh, you misunderstood PoliteSuccubus, I think. The suggestion was not that we would support them, but that that's what NAMBLA wanted to happen. Being high has nothing to do with it when you're just quoting somebody.

 

[MzChrista]

are you high? Why would we ever support pederasts?

I think shes right. They thought if they claimed to be part of the gay rights movement they could get some second hand legitimacy.

 

[LarzMachine]

I think shes right. They thought if they claimed to be part of the gay rights movement they could get some second hand legitimacy.

Either that or get their perversion reclassified as a "gay" issue rather than a "sexual predators raping children" issue.

 

[gystex]

Damn, I always thought that NAMBLA was just something that was invented for South Park. Knowing it's real, that's just disturbing.

 

[LarzMachine]

Damn, I always thought that NAMBLA was just something that was invented for South Park. Knowing it's real, that's just disturbing.

Oh, it's real and the ACLU has vowed to defend their "right" to encourage childrape to the death. They're careful to claim they're only defending their free speech rights, but it still comes down to defending their right to preach childrape.

 

[Pookie]

Oh, it's real and the ACLU has vowed to defend their "right" to encourage childrape to the death. They're careful to claim they're only defending their free speech rights, but it still comes down to defending their right to preach childrape.

https://forum.literotica.com/showthread.php?s=&postid=6098695#post6098695

 

[Johnny Mayberry]

You know, I would like to actually take a look at the webpages of groups like this, so I would know exactly what I am condemming...but John Ashcroft scares me too much, so I'll go with the 'pedophilic scum' attack!

 

[Queersetti]

Oh, it's real and the ACLU has vowed to defend their "right" to encourage childrape to the death. They're careful to claim they're only defending their free speech rights, but it still comes down to defending their right to preach childrape.

No, they are defending our right to speak out on gay or lesbian or bisexual or transgender issues, because there are many people who find us as objectionable as NAMBLA, and if they can be silenced for speech that others find objectionable, so can we.

 

[Johnny Mayberry]

No, they are defending our right to speak out on gay or lesbian or bisexual or transgender issues, because there are many people who find us as objectionable as NAMBLA, and if they can be silenced for speech that others find objectionable, so can we.

Exactly...once the government starts curtailing free speech, it becomes much easier to keep doing it until only the majority viewpoint is allowed.

 

[LarzMachine]

No, they are defending our right to speak out on gay or lesbian or bisexual or transgender issues, because there are many people who find us as objectionable as NAMBLA, and if they can be silenced for speech that others find objectionable, so can we.

As far as I know, you're not condoning childrape, nor are most gays. NAMbLA does, and THAT is why the ACLU had to defend them. Regardless of the slippery slope "logic" you're trying to use, NAMbLA is encouraging the abuse of children, and they SHOULD have their free speech rights curtailed. After all, there ARE hate crime laws in effect that do exactly the same thing to racists and homophobes...

 

[Queersetti]

As far as I know, you're not condoning childrape, nor are most gays. NAMbLA does, and THAT is why the ACLU had to defend them. Regardless of the slippery slope "logic" you're trying to use, NAMbLA is encouraging the abuse of children, and they SHOULD have their free speech rights curtailed. After all, there ARE hate crime laws in effect that do exactly the same thing to racists and homophobes...

And there are many people in this country who will say "Gays encourage unnatural behavior and THEY should have their free speech rights curtailed."

You have made mention of hate crime laws before, and I didn't know what in particular you were referring to then, and I still don't.

Would you care to be more specific as to what laws you are referring?

 

[LarzMachine]

You have made mention of hate crime laws before, and I didn't know what in particular you were referring to then, and I still don't.

Would you care to be more specific as to what laws you are referring?

I'll just assume you understand what hate speech is and what hate crime laws are. Restricting hate speech (which happens ALL the time -- can you place a 30 second ad on CBS decrying the evils of "niggers, kikes and faggotts" even if you pay an unholy sum of money? By Bill Maher's definition -- who I know you support -- this is censorship and a violation of the 1st Amendment) IS a restriction on everyone's free speech rights, every bit as much as the slippery slope you present in defense of letting NAMbLA encourage child molestation. You can be fired for "hate speech" quite easily, and it wouldn't be considered wrongful termination. I know a few people it's happened to.

Hate crime laws go even further on your slippery slope by making certain THOUGHTS illegal. Why should someone be subject to a greater sentence just because they thought a certain way, while groups like NAMbLA are defended even as they outright incite people to commit crimes against children?

Which is it? Do we keep hate crime laws that legislate thoughts and extend that to their speech and other actions, or do we abolish every restriction on speech and thought that exists?

And there are many people in this country who will say "Gays encourage unnatural behavior and THEY should have their free speech rights curtailed."

Regardless of how you want to spin it, the people at NAMbLA are encouraging people to commit crimes against children. THAT is the difference between them and most of the gay community. Are gay behaviors still illegal in any but the most backwards states?

If I find a group promoting gay rape, I'll be every bit as much against them as I am against NAMbLA, as will most sane people. I'm against the Klan and similar groups for the same reason. Groups that incite violence or other crimes have no right to their activities, at least in the eyes of sane people. With any luck, people will realize the Bible is the biggest work of hate speech ever written, and cite its numerous incidences of devout worshippers committing crimes on its behalf pretty soon.

FBI info on what constitutes a hate crime: http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/Cius_98/98crime/98cius16.pdf

 

[Pookie]

In 1969, in Brandenberg v. Ohio, the Supreme Court struck down the conviction of a Ku Klux Klan member, and established a new standard: Speech can be suppressed only if it is intended, and likely to produce, "imminent lawless action." Otherwise, even speech that advocates violence is protected. The Brandenberg standard prevails today.

 

[LarzMachine]

In 1969, in Brandenberg v. Ohio, the Supreme Court struck down the conviction of a Ku Klux Klan member, and established a new standard: Speech can be suppressed only if it is intended, and likely to produce, "imminent lawless action." Otherwise, even speech that advocates violence is protected. The Brandenberg standard prevails today.

Rape of children isn't considered a violent crime?

 

[Johnny Mayberry]

I'll just assume you understand what hate speech is and what hate crime laws are. Restricting hate speech (which happens ALL the time -- can you place a 30 second ad on CBS decrying the evils of "niggers, kikes and faggotts" even if you pay an unholy sum of money? By Bill Maher's definition -- who I know you support -- this is censorship and a violation of the 1st Amendment)

Actually, legally you can...no one is stupid enough to run such an ad, though.