DescentBB

Is here by being scrub from face book. Three cheers for face book. Oh wait it was Evil Fox News who brought the group under fire with face book. N.A.M.B.L.A. and the freaks that are members should be eradicated from the earth.

http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/09/ ... le-groups/

Holy #@$%, those guys are real!??! I thought that was something Southpark invented. How does that group form meetings with out getting shot at? They must be in one of the hippy states.

Sam Colt gave us a way to vote them off the island but the lawyers took over and now look at this place!

That News Article wrote: “N.A.M.B.L.A.,” which said it “advocates the legalization of sexual relations between adult male and under-aged boys" and that it has resolved to "end the oppression of men and boys who have freely chosen mutually consenting relationships," in spite of what it acknowledges is "the fact that such relationships are seen as child abuse where the minor is unable to give consent.”

So, this organization has been around since the seventies. Here's my problem. Suppose we change the definition of "marriage?" Then what?

Discuss.

AlphaDoG wrote:

That News Article wrote: “N.A.M.B.L.A.,” which said it “advocates the legalization of sexual relations between adult male and under-aged boys" and that it has resolved to "end the oppression of men and boys who have freely chosen mutually consenting relationships," in spite of what it acknowledges is "the fact that such relationships are seen as child abuse where the minor is unable to give consent.”

So, this organization has been around since the seventies. Here's my problem. Suppose we change the definition of "marriage?" Then what?

Discuss.

I don't see how it differs from a man wanting to marry an underage girl under the current definition.

The current definition that allows a marriage contract between two people doesn't exempt either party to the contract from other laws like the ones making sex with a minor illegal so there is no reason to think the new definition would provide that.

AlphaDoG wrote:So, this organization has been around since the seventies. Here's my problem. Suppose we change the definition of "marriage?" Then what?

Discuss.

I’m not going to join any more discussions involving marriage, because you guys keep hanging me out to dry when I do.

You know who you are, and you know what I mean.

Will Robinson wrote:

AlphaDoG wrote:

That News Article wrote: “N.A.M.B.L.A.,” which said it “advocates the legalization of sexual relations between adult male and under-aged boys" and that it has resolved to "end the oppression of men and boys who have freely chosen mutually consenting relationships," in spite of what it acknowledges is "the fact that such relationships are seen as child abuse where the minor is unable to give consent.”

So, this organization has been around since the seventies. Here's my problem. Suppose we change the definition of "marriage?" Then what?

Discuss.

I don't see how it differs from a man wanting to marry an underage girl under the current definition.

The current definition that allows a marriage contract between two people doesn't exempt either party to the contract from other laws like the ones making sex with a minor illegal so there is no reason to think the new definition would provide that.

There you go. Current law restricts who a human being over the age of 18 can sign a contract with. In the reverse current law also constrains who a person under the age of majority can enter into a contract with as well.

AlphaDoG wrote:..

There you go. Current law restricts who a human being over the age of 18 can sign a contract with. In the reverse current law also constrains who a person under the age of majority can enter into a contract with as well.

Pardon the pun but..
The two legal positions aren't 'married' to each other.
Are you implying that changing one changes the other or am I just missing the point?
My thinking is you could make the law to allow two guys to marry and maintain the law that disallows any guys to have sex with little boys.

My point also disallows a woman over the age of consent to engage in a contract with a man under the age of consent.

However, once \"marriage\" is defined to be something other than \"marriage.\" Where do we as a society go from there?

Question: \"What does the Bible say about marriage?\"

AlphaDoG wrote:However, once "marriage" is defined to be something other than "marriage." Where do we as a society go from there?

Question: "What does the Bible say about marriage?"

We go from where we are right now to a nightmare bizarro world where loving homosexual people are slightly happier. And that's just terrible.

So you're saying it's ok for N.A.M.B.L.A members to merry the minors they want to have sex with?

Heretic wrote:So you're saying it's ok for N.A.M.B.L.A members to merry the minors they want to have sex with?

Did I? No, I didn't.

You change how marriage is defined and you'll have boys as young as 14 able to marry older men in some states.

null0010 wrote:

Heretic wrote:So you're saying it's ok for N.A.M.B.L.A members to merry the minors they want to have sex with?

Did I? No, I didn't.

What he/she meant to say is, "Trolling motors are cheap."

http://www.trollingmotors.net/

Heretic wrote:You change how marriage is defined and you'll have boys as young as 14 able to marry older men in some states.

If 14 is too young then 14 is too young...

as for the contract: It is possible for the law to also say that since a marriage contract presumes sexual relations no contract can be made if any partner to the contract is under the age of consent. It's not that hard people.

What bothers me are two things:

1)Where are the parents of the children involved, both where pictures are posted and knowing or not knowing who their sons are hanging around with. One thing if boys are 16 or older, quite another if boys are 9,10 or 11.

2)Second thing is the promotion, teaching and approval of being gay in elementary and junior high school. Does this not play right into the hands of NAMBLA?

Heretic wrote:You change how marriage is defined and you'll have boys as young as 14 able to marry older men in some states.

Well, seeing as marriage is a state issue, I think they'll think of that before changing how marriage is defined. (Assuming they change it at all, mind you.)

On that note, if this is a problem for men marrying young boys, why isn't it problematic for men marrying young girls? Where are the protests in the streets and/or the "think of the children"s on televisions?

woodchip wrote:2)Second thing is the promotion, teaching and approval of being gay in elementary and junior high school. Does this not play right into the hands of NAMBLA?

I'm gonna need some kind of source there. I was in elementary and junior and high school and I certainly don't remember any promotion of homosexuality or teaching on how to be homosexuality. I only remember "hey, kids, if someone is gay, it's not cool to make fun of him for it, because that's mean."

Null, just try googling yourself instead of asking others to do it for you you. Also try and read/watch the news as presented by both sides of the political rainbow.

woodchip wrote:2)Second thing is the promotion, teaching and approval of being gay in elementary and junior high school. Does this not play right into the hands of NAMBLA?

Yes, but if we don't, then we'll just be playing right into the hands of the North American Man GIRL Love Association, so obviously we can't win.

Jeff250 wrote:

woodchip wrote:2)Second thing is the promotion, teaching and approval of being gay in elementary and junior high school. Does this not play right into the hands of NAMBLA?

Yes, but if we don't, then we'll just be playing right into the hands of the North American Man GIRL Love Association, so obviously we can't win.

I need to make a confession. I'm a member of N.A.M.W.L.A.

The North American Man Woman Love Association

Insanity

woodchip wrote:Null, just try googling yourself instead of asking others to do it for you you. Also try and read/watch the news as presented by both sides of the political rainbow.

It is not my responsibility to prove my opponent's argument. If you can't give your position support to stand on, then how can it contain any truth?

CUDA wrote:

Jeff250 wrote:

woodchip wrote:2)Second thing is the promotion, teaching and approval of being gay in elementary and junior high school. Does this not play right into the hands of NAMBLA?

Yes, but if we don't, then we'll just be playing right into the hands of the North American Man GIRL Love Association, so obviously we can't win.

I need to make a confession. I'm a member of N.A.M.W.L.A.

The North American Man Woman Love Association

It's ok I'm a lesbian trapped in a mans body

null0010 wrote:

woodchip wrote:Null, just try googling yourself instead of asking others to do it for you you. Also try and read/watch the news as presented by both sides of the political rainbow.

It is not my responsibility to prove my opponent's argument. If you can't give your position support to stand on, then how can it contain any truth?

Not my problem you care to remain ignorant.

woodchip wrote:

null0010 wrote:

woodchip wrote:Null, just try googling yourself instead of asking others to do it for you you. Also try and read/watch the news as presented by both sides of the political rainbow.

It is not my responsibility to prove my opponent's argument. If you can't give your position support to stand on, then how can it contain any truth?

Not my problem you care to remain ignorant.

Okay, here's the thing: I can't find sources for this. I don't know where you got your information. I can't just pluck it out of your head. So, a link would be appreciated.

null0010 wrote:

woodchip wrote:Null, just try googling yourself instead of asking others to do it for you you. Also try and read/watch the news as presented by both sides of the political rainbow.

It is not my responsibility to prove my opponent's argument. If you can't give your position support to stand on, then how can it contain any truth?

I am still waiting for you to prove your side of an argument from another thread.

So does this mean you just babble on and on based off of rumor?

Cuda68 wrote:I am still waiting for you to prove your side of an argument from another thread.

So does this mean you just babble on and on based off of rumor?

Getting the proportions correct is difficult.

woodchip wrote:Null, just try googling yourself instead of asking others to do it for you you. Also try and read/watch the news as presented by both sides of the political rainbow.

He's asking you to google to support YOUR OWN arguement. That's not unreasonable at all. His point in the first half is that there AREN'T protests -- what is he supposed to do, link to all the news reports that AREN'T showing protests? It doesn't make sense. As for the second point, he comes right out and says he hasn't found a source.

I don't see anything at all unreasonable about his post.


As for the hijacked marriage topic, I fail to see any relevancy. "If you call it something else they can marry young kids cause of contracts" doesn't make sense. If they change the name of it, why does that exclude the same legislature from transferring the age limits over? (which, by the way, are quite low in some states)

Stroodles wrote:He's asking you to google to support YOUR OWN arguement.

ok

null0010 wrote:

woodchip wrote:2)Second thing is the promotion, teaching and approval of being gay in elementary and junior high school. Does this not play right into the hands of NAMBLA?

I'm gonna need some kind of source there. I was in elementary and junior and high school and I certainly don't remember any promotion of homosexuality or teaching on how to be homosexuality. I only remember "hey, kids, if someone is gay, it's not cool to make fun of him for it, because that's mean."

Here are just a few examples that support my arguement.

null0010 wrote:

woodchip wrote:

null0010 wrote:

woodchip wrote:Null, just try googling yourself instead of asking others to do it for you you. Also try and read/watch the news as presented by both sides of the political rainbow.

It is not my responsibility to prove my opponent's argument. If you can't give your position support to stand on, then how can it contain any truth?

Not my problem you care to remain ignorant.

Okay, here's the thing: I can't find sources for this. I don't know where you got your information. I can't just pluck it out of your head. So, a link would be appreciated.

You should be embarrassed someone 3x your age can handle a google search better than you. Next time I'll expect better of you.:

"A group of parents in a California school district say they are being bullied by school administrators into accepting a new curriculum that addresses bullying, respect and acceptance -- and that includes compulsory lessons about the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender community that will be taught to children as young as 5 years old."

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,521209,00.html

Okay... so teaching children \"it's not nice to bully others\" is bad?

null0010 wrote:Okay... so teaching children "it's not nice to bully others" is bad?

Selective omissions doesn't win your case:

"The kindergartners will focus on the harms of teasing, while the fifth graders will study sexual orientation stereotypes."

Teaching any sort of "sexual Orientation" is not good and only promotes children into thinking NAMBLA types are not bad people.

\"It's not bad to be gay\" is a far cry from \"sexual abuse of children is permissible.\"

It's not the school's job...

Isaac wrote:It's not the school's job...

If the parents are failing to teach their children how to get along with others, who does it fall to?

Parenting is in a miserable state today.

null0010 wrote:

Isaac wrote:It's not the school's job...

If the parents are failing to teach their children how to get along with others, who does it fall to?

Parenting is in a miserable state today.

PUN!!!

Where?

Oh sorry.

\"Parenting is in a miserable state today\" and you mentioned how it's now the state's job to parent for us. It's a bad pun, yes.

I think any responsible parent would have already had a talk with their children about these subjects before they come up in kindergarten or 5th grade. In which case, congratulations, your kid is ahead of the pack.

I got it.