Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 57
  1. #21  
    Senior Member Apache's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Tree rats are watching you
    Posts
    7,051
    Quote Originally Posted by Hawkgirl View Post
    Apache, he has no defense, he has a theory, a flawed, naive theory.

    ....
    I know!


    I still have so much touble, asking for a "servant's heart" when it comes to this!
    This is NO JOKE!My life has been set back... yet I still try!


    Hawkers...

    Thanks
    Government is not the solution to our problem, government is the problem.
    Ronald Reagan

    We could say they are spending like drunken sailors. That would be unfair to drunken sailors, they're spending their OWN money.
    Ronald Reagan

    R.I.P. Crockspot
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #22  
    Senior Member Gina's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Western MI
    Posts
    2,360
    Apache you're absolutely correct that the verse quoted doesn't literally mean children, it means young Christians.

    In a couple of places (I Cor and Romans) Paul talks about causing a brother to sin or stumble, that would have been more appropriate here (because using sex for evil is obviously a sin and any unwilling partner is being forced into something sinful).

    I'm sorry for what happened to you.
    Good men sleep peaceably in their beds at night because
    rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.



    Real superheroes don't wear capes. They wear dog tags.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  3. #23  
    Power CUer noonwitch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Warren, MI
    Posts
    12,861
    I think the original article is wrong to state that pedophelia is a sexual orientation. It is a psychological disorder, but not one that is wholly a genetic condition.

    Although the vast majority of children who were sexually abused grow up to not be pedophiles, pretty much every pedophile was molested as a child. So there's one contributing factor, that perhaps put the idea in the person's head to begin with. There are other factors that affect impulse control, both physical and psychological, like a head injury, or a personality disorder.

    Modern psychologists will tell you that there is no way to treat pedophelia. Some tried in the 60s and 70s to no avail, but there is hope that if you catch a sex offender (you can't label someone a pedophile when they are raping children in their own age range) before puberty and treat him or her, you can change the behavior. Incarceration for life is the only way to deal with it short of the death penalty. Whoever came up with the idea that pedophelia is just another sexual orientation is trying to normalize it, which is sick. Or else they are trying to tie pedophelia to actual sexual orientation by gender to connect GLBT people with pedophiles, but in this case, I suspect the former.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #24  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    2,838
    Quote Originally Posted by Hawkgirl View Post
    Apache, he has no defense, he has a theory, a flawed, naive theory.

    Moo, you can copy and paste your PM to me here if you so wish to explain your thinking and be done with it. I suspect you won't find any tolerance or acceptance to your view on this board. You can't compare it to acting on impulse. It's deliberate and manipulative. It's taking advantage of an innocent, UNCONSENTING child. IT's a mental illness. There is no use or benefit of these types of individuals in society.
    What everyone seems to be jumping on is merely the point that if you institute the DP for sexual crimes (no matter how heinous) as a matter of policy, as opposed to LWOP, fewer of the victims will live. If molesting a child carries the same punishment as murder, molesters will start killing children because its harder to prosecute a crime with no witness. That's the argument for making it LWOP as opposed to a "bullet between the eyes."

    It's insane and dishonest to somehow equate this with "defending" pedophilia. It's about protecting the victims from being murdered on top of everything else.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #25  
    Power CUer FlaGator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    The Swamps of N. Florida
    Posts
    22,377
    Quote Originally Posted by Apache View Post
    I don't think that this...
    is taken in the right context, as to the real meaning, of the verse. What I was taught, was that was meant to be the newborn in Christ, not literal children... (FlaGator?)



    Don't anyone even think, for a second, that I accept, condone, or agree with pedophilia... I DO NOT, PERIOD!
    As far as I'm concerned, let the sick bastards rot in a cesspool



    So Nova, is what we've been saying sinking in yet? Or are you STILL in denial, that "gay-rights" are not a slippery slope?
    Since Christ was using a child as the example I believe He was talking about literal children, but it could be applied to both.

    Also you are correct about the slippery slope. Once one deviant behavior has been redefined as morally acceptable then the door has been opened for all of them. Each can make the case that they have been born with these desires and cannot defile their nature by ignoring their feelings

    It is a sham and a lie.

    I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen: not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else.
    C. S. Lewis
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #26  
    Power CUer FlaGator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    The Swamps of N. Florida
    Posts
    22,377
    Quote Originally Posted by m00 View Post
    What everyone seems to be jumping on is merely the point that if you institute the DP for sexual crimes (no matter how heinous) as a matter of policy, as opposed to LWOP, fewer of the victims will live. If molesting a child carries the same punishment as murder, molesters will start killing children because its harder to prosecute a crime with no witness. That's the argument for making it LWOP as opposed to a "bullet between the eyes."

    It's insane and dishonest to somehow equate this with "defending" pedophilia. It's about protecting the victims from being murdered on top of everything else.
    While I don't agree with the death penalty for pedophiles (live in prison works for me), the same argument that you are making as been made for abolishing the life in prison as a punishment. In reality it does not affect the crime rate. People generally don't consider the consequences of their crime when they are committing them.

    I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen: not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else.
    C. S. Lewis
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #27  
    SEAduced SuperMod Hawkgirl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    South Florida
    Posts
    4,067
    Quote Originally Posted by m00 View Post
    What everyone seems to be jumping on is merely the point that if you institute the DP for sexual crimes (no matter how heinous) as a matter of policy, as opposed to LWOP, fewer of the victims will live. If molesting a child carries the same punishment as murder, molesters will start killing children because its harder to prosecute a crime with no witness. That's the argument for making it LWOP as opposed to a "bullet between the eyes."

    It's insane and dishonest to somehow equate this with "defending" pedophilia. It's about protecting the victims from being murdered on top of everything else.

    Your premise is flawed for one simple reason. Pedophiles are not in it for murder. I don't have the statistics, but I would say the vast majority of sexual crimes against children do not result in a murder. You saying that they would murder because of the punishment is absurd because their impulse is sexual sadism not homicide.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #28  
    Power CUer noonwitch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Warren, MI
    Posts
    12,861
    Quote Originally Posted by m00 View Post
    What everyone seems to be jumping on is merely the point that if you institute the DP for sexual crimes (no matter how heinous) as a matter of policy, as opposed to LWOP, fewer of the victims will live. If molesting a child carries the same punishment as murder, molesters will start killing children because its harder to prosecute a crime with no witness. That's the argument for making it LWOP as opposed to a "bullet between the eyes."

    It's insane and dishonest to somehow equate this with "defending" pedophilia. It's about protecting the victims from being murdered on top of everything else.

    I don't think you are defending pedophiliac scumbags. I personally don't support the death penalty for any crime, including this. I think the better argument against it is that children will be more afraid to identify family members who abuse them because they are afraid that person will face the death penalty-they have mixed feelings for people who are also their fathers, uncles or cousins. Families will sometimes shun the victimized child for the perp, especially if the victim is a female and the perp is someone who is employed, or has some kind of "beloved" status within the family. We aren't talking about normal family dynamics here.


    Additionally, there always have been and always will be some offenders who are more violent, and/or more sociopathic than others. Both have tended to kill their victims, whether to avoid identification (a sociopathic move) or during the course of the abuse (impulsive violence against a child who is fighting back, or ruptured internal organs from the abuse itself). The possibility of facing the death penalty for murder has never stopped them from killing their victims.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #29  
    Power CUer NJCardFan's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    16,302
    Quote Originally Posted by m00 View Post
    This whole thing is a confused. Let me break it down...

    1. You probably can't change the fact pedophiles will always be attracted to children. But last I checked we don't send people to jail for thought crimes.
    I take it your unfamiliar of something that is called Hate Crime legislation?
    The Obama Administration: Deny. Deflect. Blame.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #30  
    Power CUer FlaGator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    The Swamps of N. Florida
    Posts
    22,377
    Quote Originally Posted by Gina View Post
    Apache you're absolutely correct that the verse quoted doesn't literally mean children, it means young Christians.

    In a couple of places (I Cor and Romans) Paul talks about causing a brother to sin or stumble, that would have been more appropriate here (because using sex for evil is obviously a sin and any unwilling partner is being forced into something sinful).

    I'm sorry for what happened to you.
    In context

    Mat 18:1 At that time the disciples came to Jesus, saying, "Who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven?"
    Mat 18:2 And calling to him a child, he put him in the midst of them
    Mat 18:3 and said, "Truly, I say to you, unless you turn and become like children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.
    Mat 18:4 Whoever humbles himself like this child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven.
    Mat 18:5 "Whoever receives one such child in my name receives me,
    Mat 18:6 but whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a great millstone fastened around his neck and to be drowned in the depth of the sea.
    Mat 18:7 "Woe to the world for temptations to sin! For it is necessary that temptations come, but woe to the one by whom the temptation comes!
    At the time there were no young Christians for this to reference. However, Christ was speaking both literally about children and about those seeking the Kingdom of God (new and long time believers)and he demonstrated parallels between how they approach the sacred. Christ is telling us to be child like but not childish in our approach to God and that those who lure either a child or a believer to sin is condemning him or her self. There is no difference whether a person forces some to sin or lures (tempts) them in to sinning, they are still self condemned. Rape a child or talk them in to sex it makes no difference.

    I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen: not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else.
    C. S. Lewis
    Reply With Quote  
     

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