• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Pedophiles want same rights as homosexuals

maquiscat said:
I already posted a new thread about it. You about bloody bit my head off when I noted that we were heading off track with this and was making the new thread. And then you and CC just kept right on going with it in here while my thread fizzled.

For the record here's the thread:
http://www.debatepolitics.com/law-and-order/178848-adulthood.html

And for reference here is where I originally tried to move this derailment:
Click to expand...

So take your own advice.

It degenerated to a silly argument with CC, Him saying that I lost because I don't agree with him. It's unproductive repetitive and pointless. Plus I know better.

You posted something I don't disagree with, the term minor depends on the statute. No statute trumps another.
 
Last edited:
Hamster Buddha said:
There is the 14th amendment that protects the rights of individuals from laws of the state or government (thus passed by the majority).
Click to expand...
I agree completely but as I said the legal definition of individual had changed. That is why we have a supreme court, or a court system at all. They interpret the law and apply it.

It would be nice to not need the courts, but we do.


That is to say that the majority cannot pass laws that infringe on the rights of any individuals.
Click to expand...
Again the term individual has been debated. At one point in our history of you were black you weren't an individual but 3/5s of an individual. That was cultural. We redefined that.
It is from that perspective, where a lot of this argument should be drawn from and why I say the constitution would be a better guide to what is right and wrong. That isn't to say it's a perfect document; what I am saying though it's cornerstone are a much better foundation when it comes to establishing laws that ultimately limit the freedoms of an individual.
Click to expand...
Again it isn't the constitution that rules us it is how it is interpreted by the courts.
 
CLAX1911 said:
I agree completely but as I said the legal definition of individual had changed. That is why we have a supreme court, or a court system at all. They interpret the law and apply it.

It would be nice to not need the courts, but we do.
Click to expand...

Indeed. And with the politicization of the courts nowadays, it really does tear into these rights. Which is why I'm pretty stringent on leaning towards the individual in any of these cases as opposed to the government.

CLAX1911 said:
Again the term individual has been debated. At one point in our history of you were black you weren't an individual but 3/5s of an individual. That was cultural. We redefined that.
Click to expand...

Valid point, which was why I was careful to note that the constitution is and will never be a perfect document.

CLAX1911 said:
Again it isn't the constitution that rules us it is how it is interpreted by the courts.
Click to expand...

We are saying again a lot in these posts...

To conclude... I wish there was a Freedom God that would decide all this stuff.
 
Hamster Buddha said:
Indeed. And with the politicization of the courts nowadays, it really does tear into these rights. Which is why I'm pretty stringent on leaning towards the individual in any of these cases as opposed to the government.
Click to expand...
I am not sure the court can be politicized. We try, but the justices are appointed, not elected, for life. The reason they are is so that the court system is not politicized. I don't really get why you say the court is politicized. Explain how it's politicized.

And again the definition of an individual is ever changing. I agree that it should lean toward the individual, but what is an individual?


Valid point, which was why I was careful to note that the constitution is and will never be a perfect document.
Click to expand...
It doesn't really have anything to do with the constitution but the definition of an individual. The constitution never defined an individual for us. That is left of to the courts, or us.

We are saying again a lot in these posts...

To conclude... I wish there was a Freedom God that would decide all this stuff.
Click to expand...
I am frankly glad there is not a freedom God. If there was we would have no say. We would become subjects or even pets.
 
CLAX1911 said:
So take your own advice.

It degenerated to a silly argument with CC, Him saying that I lost because I don't agree with him. It's unproductive repetitive and pointless. Plus I know better.

You posted something I don't disagree with, the term minor depends on the statute. No statute trumps another.
Click to expand...

Clearly you don't. :2razz:

Totally just messing with you, Clax. One of these days I'll have to look over this thread to see why that particular point was so important. I really can't imagine that you and CC are too far apart on the subject of the thread itself.
 
X Factor said:
Clearly you don't. :2razz:

Totally just messing with you, Clax. One of these days I'll have to look over this thread to see why that particular point was so important. I really can't imagine that you and CC are too far apart on the subject of the thread itself.
Click to expand...
It was simply the use of the word minor when people mean children.

I lost interest in the discussion with CC because it degraded to a school yard bickering.
 
X Factor said:
Clearly you don't. :2razz:
Click to expand...

I have that way about me. ;)

Totally just messing with you, Clax. One of these days I'll have to look over this thread to see why that particular point was so important. I really can't imagine that you and CC are too far apart on the subject of the thread itself.
Click to expand...

Clax and I usually agree in the big picture, but often find some disagreements on finer points of arguments. As for our going back an forth, he was using a specific definition to define generalities, something that was obviously incorrect. I have no idea why he kept going with that.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
I have that way about me. ;)



Clax and I usually agree in the big picture, but often find some disagreements on finer points of arguments. As for our going back an forth, he was using a specific definition to define generalities, something that was obviously incorrect. I have no idea why he kept going with that.
Click to expand...

Dude, I stopped. I don't know why you kept going.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
I have that way about me. ;)

Clax and I usually agree in the big picture, but often find some disagreements on finer points of arguments. As for our going back an forth, he was using a specific definition to define generalities, something that was obviously incorrect. I have no idea why he kept going with that.
Click to expand...

CLAX1911 said:
Dude, I stopped. I don't know why you kept going.
Click to expand...

CaptainCourtesy said:
My post was a response to comments by X.
Click to expand...

CLAX1911 said:
So, my post was a response to comments by you.
Click to expand...

Here we go again folks! ;)
 
This belongs in the Law and Order Section as pedophiles are criminals-this has nothing to do with sex.
 
rhinefire said:
This belongs in the Law and Order Section as pedophiles are criminals-this has nothing to do with sex.
Click to expand...

Depends upon how you want to look at it.

Start with the base words:

Pedo philia

Philia refers to an attraction towards a given thing, in the given context specifically a sexual attraction. Necrophilia would be an attraction to dead objects/individuals (Necro meaning dead). Zoophilia would be the attraction to animals (commonly called bestiality, which more properly refers only to the actual sex act). Thus pedophilia is the attraction to young children, specifically those under the age of 11, although common usage expands that range up to the age of majority depending upon the age of the older individual.

A pedophile then is an individual who is attracted to children sexually. They are not criminals until they have actually attempted or succeeded in sexually assaulting a child. This is the point of the OP. There are pedophiles who recognized their attraction and also recognize it as wrong and in violation of children's rights. They want to seek help but are automatically ostracized because of it. While not exactly an orientation, that is the closest analogy that get across what such a person is like. It is something that is a part of them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom