I read tonight that the ubiquitous Stacy Harp is involved in trying to get google to take down a manboy love site from blogger. When reading their site, I was again struck by the similarity in verbiage and logic in their arguments as compared to the pro-gay arguments.
Now, I am not trying to broadbrush hx as in the same category as manboy love, but I again must remark that they use the exact same language and logic as manboy-love advocates. You might argue that involving a child is wrong, but then again, at what age? 18? 16? 14? I mean, children are sexual before even 14. Who are *we* to judge their "love"?
1. Comparing their plight to other valid human rights issues
Currently “Paiderastia” is being attacked by certain conservative outlets, theocrats that have little respect for rational thought and freedom of speech. It is not only our ideas that offend and ignite these people, but any sort of openness and honest dialogue about fundamental rights for marginalized groups, be they homosexuals, racial minorities or gender issues.
Like every marginalized and suppressed population throughout history, ours is an issue of basic civil rights, not to break the law but to exist.
2. Appealing for progress in sexual preference, and the removal of persecution
There was a time when society was offended that a slave should be a free citizen. There was a time when society was offended that a woman should vote and hold property. The course of civilization is the struggle for justice. Currently boylovers are experiencing oppression akin to the times when society suffered its greatest failures: vigilantism, roundups, ghettos, propaganda, and state sanctioned murder.
3. Trying to divert attention from their own immorality by focusing on that of those who persecute them
Don’t get me wrong. I get angry; I get damn angry when I hear some vigilante is threatening the life of another boylover, or that some guy is making phone calls to the house of a fourteen-year-old boy telling his parents that their son is a pervert and ought to kill himself.
4. Appeal to perennialism – it has been around for a long time, and will continue
Boylove has existed forever. And wherever there is man and boy, the two will fall in love.
5. Appeal to unchosen feelings and inclinations
I never had a relationship with an adult friend. These feelings came to me naturally without any outside interference.
Loving boys is a part of me as true as the color of my eyes and hiding it hurts. If it’s true that we only get one chance at life, wouldn’t it be a shame to spend so much of it being untrue to myself?
6. Portraying the xian church as against sex
(unfortunately, in many instances, backwards churches give that impression by omitting positive teachings on sex, and only dwelling on prohibitions)
And, how does the Church feel about "sex"? Sex is a horrible, dirty, evil, vile act.
7. Re-interpreting the story of Sodom
(in this case, they interpret it to say that Sodom’s sin was being anti-gay! now that’s a new one on me)
When the mob demanded that Job send out the men so that they could have sex with them, wasn’t this simply their way of saying, "send the faggots out"? If there was not even a word for homosexuals in their language, how else would they refer to them, and convey their accusations?? To homosexually rape a defeated opponent after battle was something widely practiced at the time, since it demonstrated the superior strength and manhood of those engaged in the assault….Was the incident at Sodom the first recorded account of gay bashing? Homophobia can legitimately be considered as an exteme form of inhospitality.
How else would they argue?
By the way, I've noticed that your name starts with an, just like Stalin.
Seeker,
Enough! Enough of this nonsense about, “Well, these horrendous people argue the same thing gays do, hence, we can’t allow the gays to win.” I will note that terrorists tend to make exactly the same sorts of cultural arguments that you do, but you don’t see those of on here doing battle with you saying, “We can’t let the Christians win because terrorists are making the same kinds of arguments.”
You seem to have absolutely no intention whatsoever of playing fair here. You will do anything to smear gays – beastiality comparrisons, polygamy comparrisons, manboy comparrisons – and now you’re basing your argument on the issue of the slippery slope. At this point, I’d like like it if you were capable of arguing for your position without suggesting that gays want to rape animals, or children, or whatever.
While I’m at it – at what I wonder, since you’ll apparently never learn the difference between two consenting adults and the victimization of – are these the sorts of “loving” things you say to your gay friends? Or, to put it another way, when Christians make their arguments in all the same ways that these man-boy love people make theirs, do you turn around and implicitly suggest that Christians are child-f*ckers?
Because, once again, I’d never want your love if this is how you define it.
While I'm at it, why can't Stacy Harp find the time to care about more than the boylove people? Why can't she find the time to advocate against the straight abuse of children in heterosexual marriages? Why can't she discuss the intense abuse visited upon children by their allegedly Christian parents? Why can't she find the time to advocate for jail sentences for the Christians who beat their children?
Oh, right, because there's a website somewhere advocating disgusting behavior.
I think the distinction here has to be that in a gay relationship there are two consenting adults, as opposed to a adult/child situation where the child is being exploited, not to mention harmed physically or mentally.
Sam, actually Stacy does work and advocate for a lot of things besides this, she works as a counselor.
Also, are you equating spanking a child with beating and physically abusing a child?
1. You dare to judge others?
First of all, I can't believe that YOU are judging the polygamists, manboy love advocates, and beastialists. Who are YOU to judge them? Your position seems blatantly self-contradictory and hypocritical. You have no room to speak to me the way that you do since you are in the same boat.
2. Your "victim" logic fails on many levels.
a. Polygamy
First, just because some polygamists are abusive doesn't mean that they all are – I mean, hetero marriages can be abusive, but that doesn't mean that there is something inherently wrong with hetero marriage. And they are all of consenting age.
b. Bestiality
As I mentioned previously, some beasts are willing participants. And so WHAT if people want to boink their sheep? I mean, we kill them for food, so what's wrong with a little marinade injection before we roast them? Seriously, though, arguing that the beast is a victim is weak. The better argument is that it is against nature. But then, you don't LIKE that argument, right?
c. Manboy love
Actually, the manboy people bring up a good question. If people can have kids at age 13, and in the past, were allowed to marry at that age, are they really "victims" if they mate with an older person? Again, who are you to judge someone else's sexuality?
In Canada, the age of consent is 14. So why can't the manboy lovers just wait until their boys are 14? Are they turned off by pubic hair?
I note that at least one prominent gay group in Canada support lower age of consent laws – there *is* a link between these two groups. When Canada recently tried to up it's age of consent from 14 to 18, you know who fought it? The gay rights group EGALE.
For the record, I do find manboy love and beastiality "worse" than homosexuality, but I find polygamy no worse, maybe even less morally reprehensible and against nature than homosexuality.
terrorists tend to make exactly the same sorts of cultural arguments that you do
Actually, perhaps you could give examples. But I disagree – while they may make similar moral judgements, they certainly don’t have the same sort of cultural approach.
But I also agree, just because pedophiles use the same arguements as gays doesn’t mean gays are equivalent to pedophiles. I made that clear in my opening, but perhaps I should be more clear about why I bring this up.
The pro-gay argumentation can NOT exclude these other groups, esp. where there is no victim, like in polygamy and polyamory.
why can't Stacy Harp find the time to care about more than the boylove people?
As I've said, because she doesn't share YOUR values hierarchy. Because her evaluation of what harms society is different from yours. Because her evaluation of what needs immediate attention is different.
Perhaps her evaluation of long term consequences makes these issues more critical to her.
Why aren't you out trying to save the unborn, who die at a rate of 5000 per day?
Seeker,
Pro-heterosexuals like yourself can’t be taken seriously because your arguments are exactly the same as pro-manboylove people. I guess we ought to just outright ban marriage, since as far as you’re concerned, either you’re 100 percent for it, or you’re not. Subtlety is simply possible with you – either I support animal rape along with my support for gay marriage, or I’m in a boat with you. Speaking of idiotic arguments…
The issue here is, AGAIN, (as Lonnie says) exploitation of those that cannot legally give consent. 16 year old boys can’t consent to sex (neither can 16 year old girls). That’s the law. Unless that law is changed, the man-boy lovists have no f-ing claim. Gays, as consenting adults, do have a claim. One day, this will make sense to you Seeker. Until then, I’m not sure how I can make it more clear that consenting adults should be treated differently than children, animals, whatever.
Finally, I don’t care the 5000 abortions a day. I simply don’t care. I’m far more concerned with the needs of those who have actually been born than the needs of cells that will eventually, possibly, be born.
How is my argument the same as pro manboy love? Please explain
I'd say that manboy logic is almost identical to pro-gay theology. In fact, it in some sense overlaps since it involves same gender relations.
I'm not saying that your argument intends to be 100% for all types or not, I'm just saying that in reality, it turns out to be the case. My argument is that all of those other sexual relationships are against nature (polygamy excepted – that one may need to be re-examined). The clear design is for male/female human relationships, and perhaps, for monogamy.
The issue here is, AGAIN, (as Lonnie says) exploitation of those that cannot legally give consent.
So whatever is legal is OK with you? If we, like Canada, lower the age to 14, are you cool with a 14 and 24 year old having sex? What if we lower it to 13? Can they marry?
And by the way, you are again confusing criminalization with sanction. It is CRIMINAL to have sex with a minor. Homosexuality is not criminalized. So what are you really asking for? Sanction. Approval. Normalization. Won't happen on my watch.
“And so WHAT if people want to boink their sheep? I mean, we kill them for food, so what’s wrong with a little marinade injection before we roast them?” -Seeker
Ugh, Seeker you are disgusting.
I'm not sure how I can make it more clear that consenting adults should be treated differently than children, animals, whatever.
Then you are for polygamy and polyamorism? Sounds like it. That's my whole point.
Finally, I don't care the 5000 abortions a day. I simply don't care.
Good. Then stop complaining about other people not sharing your hierarchy of values. If Stacy wants to make sure we stop killing innocent children whom you deem as "non-persons", she certainly can. If she wants to stop pedophiles from polluting society, she can.
You're absolutely right Seeker. I take no issue with Stacy Harp's intentions necessarily, but when you use her crusade against a website advocating the sexual abuse of children, and claim that because I support gays, I must then support the sexual abuse of children, that's where I start to get angry.
As for polygamy: I don't care about polygamy as long as everyone involved is involved CONSENSUALLY and was an adult that when that decision was made. In Southern Utah, girls are more often than not forced into these marriages, which is disgusting in the extreme. What I find most horrific is that for these Mormons (who abuse these children under the guise of God's word) is that they're no different from Stacy Harp's manboy advocates. They want access to children sexually, and they're willing use any manipulation to gain access. Of course, I wish Stacy Harp would voice similar objections to the behavior of those people in Utah…
Am I okay with a 14 year old having sex with a 24 year old? No. And I would certainly advocate that the age of consent be raised to 17. But that’s Canada, and we’re not talking about Canada. Good lord, the age of consent elsewhere in the world is even lower. Still, we’re discussing the United States.
And Seeker, you have to know that homosexual behavior was illegal as recent as a few years ago. This was enforced as well. Please don’t pretend that it wasn’t. Finally, who are you to be the final arbiter of what is and isn’t normal? I’d argue that having sex with your wife in the same position for 40 years is downright ABNORMAL, but I’m not going to go around telling you what to do. Just how is that horse you’re riding around on?
Finally, Aaron, as far as I’m concerned, spanking never accomplished anything. That said, do I propose sanctioning parents who spank? No. But I’d rather that parents figured out ways to teach and reteach that didn’t involve physical intervention.
Seeker, I agree and disagree with several of your comments.
(1) Your Against-Nature argument is groundless. There is no defensible reason why an act's morality should be tied to what is most common in nature. And the fact that these acts happen at all is proof enough that they occur in "nature". Nothing is wrong simply because "nature" doesn't approve of it. Nature doesn't have feelings and makes no judgements against us. It's just a label.
(2) You're right about having sex with animals. There's really no reason why people should get upset about animal-human sex if they're not at least going to raise a fuss about the fact that people are also killing these animals and eating them. But, like I said above, bestiality isn't unethical because of any "natural law"; it's potentially unethical because it very likely exploits animals. And the same is true of eating animals or wearing their skin.
(3) There's no reason why we should have laws against consensual polygamy. You repeatedly bring up this argument, as if it were somehow horribly damaging to the pro-same-sex argument. It's not. It's not convincing anyone. If three or four or twenty people want to get married, that's cool with us. As long as it isn't (a) coercive and (b) a farce intended to be some kind of tax-shelter or whatnot, I don't see what's wrong with it. Just stop bringing it up, okay? Leave the poor polygamists alone already.
(4) Age-restrictions of all kinds are always weak determinants. Is 18 a good age to begin voting? Is 16 the right age to drive a car? Should we be able to drink alcohol before 21? There are plenty of great arguments for and against all of these examples, and the reason they're so hard to work through is because there are exceptions to everything.
So, yes, sometimes it's okay for a sixteen year old to get married. Other times — maybe most other times — it's a bad idea. Sometimes it's bad because it's doomed to end awfully, and sometimes it's a bad idea because it's legitimately an act of criminal exploitation. Our laws are, unfortunately, not nearly subtle enough to account for these kinds of differences. As a result we have arguments like yours, playing a game of numbers in order to make a point.
The bottom line is that it's almost always an act of violence to allow an adult to have sex with a young child. We're all pretty clear on that point, I think. Two same-sex adults, on the other hand, are not committing an act of violence against anyone by getting married, and this point is also pretty clear to everyone.
Stop trying to score cheap points by drawing weak comparisons between homosexuals and pedophiles. Yes, pedophiles are trying to take advantage of the success that gay people have had, by using similar language and arguments. That doesn't change the fact that they're pedophiles, and that we all understand that they hurt children.
you have to know that homosexual behavior was illegal as recent as a few years ago.
So rather than de-criminalize it and make the govt neutral, you want to promote/condone it. That's too much of a pendulum swing.
who are you to be the final arbiter of what is and isn't normal?
Like you, I am a citizen arguing for limited government and public morality. I'm not out there trying to push down the age of consent, or get sexual deviancy normalized. I'm trying to prevent the government from getting into things it should stay out of.
I'd argue that having sex with your wife in the same position for 40 years is downright ABNORMAL
Interesting charicature.
There is no defensible reason why an act’s morality should be tied to what is most common in nature.
Actually, I agree. Do you think I made that claim? I actually make the opposite claim – that nature ALONE can not define what is “normal” or “intended”, nor can we merely look at the animal world and determine human morality. We must use the rules of health, design, and societal impact, and perhaps even revealed truth.
There’s no reason why we should have laws against consensual polygamy. You repeatedly bring up this argument, as if it were somehow horribly damaging to the pro-same-sex argument.
I don’t bring it up b/c it is damaging to their argument. I bring it up because they DENY that their argument applies to polygamy, which I think is illogical and hypocritical. And actually, I have been quite nice to polygamists in my posts, and haven’t accused them of anything, unlike Sam.
Stop trying to score cheap points by drawing weak comparisons between homosexuals and pedophiles. Yes, pedophiles are trying to take advantage of the success that gay people have had, by using similar language and arguments.
You are right, those are cheap points, but I bring them up, again, to show the weakness of the pro-gay logic, not to imply guilt by association. Their logic must either be clarified or abandoned.
And I still find the argument from nature (i.e. health, design, social impact, and scripture) against homosexuality (and bestiality) the most compelling.
But because we are not all convinced, I think that govt should remain neutral on homosexuality (and polygamy), neither condemning NOR condoning it. Legal sanction of gay marriage is not acceptable.
Stewart and Seeker, if you are trying to argue for both Natural Law and bestiality, I am going to have to bow out of this conversation.
Eating an animal and using one for a love dumpster is COMPLETELY different. The first is using an animal to survive, as sustinence. Using it as a love dumpster is entertainment, and is demented.
“Love Dumpster?” Heh, Lonnie, you sure know how to turn a phrase. That’s right up there with Seeker’s “marinade” euphemism.
Anyway, I’m not arguing that bestiality should be acceptable; I’m arguing that eating animals shouldn’t be.
The only way to consider bestiality “demented”, while still considering meat acceptable, would be if you weren’t actually concerned with the animal’s welfare at all, and merely with the aesthetic repulsion of human-animal intercourse. You’re welcome to be repulsed by that (most of us are) but that’s not an objective reason to call it unethical.
Raping animals is wrong, but not because of aesthetics. It’s wrong for the same reason that eating them is wrong, which is that it causes the animal to suffer. And as Seeker seems to agree, you can’t get upset about somebody who loves his sheep while you’re eating a chicken stir fry.
Stewart,
I remember this argument from college, way back when :) It was something like…
1. Causing unneeded suffering is wrong.
2. Animals feel pain and suffering.
3. It’s unethical to eat meat because it causes pain and suffering in animals while humans can subsist on other foods.
If you agree with points 1 and 2 then logically you must agree with point 3. However, it’s tough to do in practice for people who have eaten meat all their lives. It can also be expensive. I guess it’s like driving a car when you know it pollutes the environment. Everyone is a hypocrite in one way or another, it’s just a matter of degree. :(
Cineaste,
That ethical argument is great, and looks like one Stewart makes. But he hasn't convinced me that steak isn't deeeeeeeeeee-licious!
I'm not arguing that bestiality should be acceptable; I'm arguing that eating animals shouldn't be.
Then you and I are at a impasse that will proabably never be bridged. :) Life eats life. Always has, always will. Ask a cougar if it feels bad for the deer it kills… or Ted Nugent for that matter.
Lonnie, when was Ted Nugent killed by a cougar? ;)
Cineaste, your objection (if you even want to characterize it that way) is a common one, and it’s one that I totally understand and sympathize with. After all, there are probably thousands of things we each do every day that cause harm to someone, whether to humans or non-humans. And we’re kind of okay with that, in a way, aren’t we?
How many of us go pick up a 48-pack of toilet paper at Wal-Mart and think to ourselves, “Man, I really shouldn’t be shopping here,” or buy a pair of jeans from a company that we’re fairly certain exploits workers somehow?
It’s hard to stop causing harm, even when we know that we’re doing it. It’s especially hard to stop when the world around us keeps telling us that everything is fine. But sometimes, in the back of our minds, we get a glipse of the actual effects of our lifestyles, and then we know better, even if we don’t immediately act on it.
But switching to a vegan lifestyle was easily the best change that I’ve ever made in my life, because it was so radically different that it opened my eyes up to a larger world of ethics that had previously been closed off to me. Once I started looking for ways that I was causing harm, it becomes a sort of addiction. There are (I’m sure) countless ways that I’m still “part of the problem”, but the fact that I’m continuing to seek those behaviors out and creatively repair them is one of the most satisfying and fun parts of my life.
Most people are like Sam, and refuse to even seriously consider the question because they’re not willing to change such a fundamental aspect of their lives. And someone like Seeker or Lonnie would probably dismiss the entire issue of animal-related ethics on the grounds that people have always eaten meat, and that it’s part of nature and design. I don’t believe in biological intention, or intelligent design, so I have to dimiss those arguments and ask hard questions like “Is this ethical?” And when I think about the results of supporting a food industry that brutally and unnecessarily kills billions of animals every year, I find no other answer but an obvious “No.”
What a tangent…
Aaron or Seeker, can we get a “meat is murder” vs “Beef- its whats for dinner” discussion going?
Also, another topic would be Michael Chrichton’s comments on Environmentalism as the new Liberal religion.
:D
Stacy Harp is a hypocrite. She has a website which is all about the persecution of Christians and how wrong that is for their voice to be censored. Simultaneusly, she goes out of her way to seek out and persecute anything to do with Homosexuality and it’s voice.
Her latest target was the Boylove Blog (obviously related to Homosexuality in a way), which did NOT advocate breaking laws (which was her accusation used in the campaign along with links to child porn trading, rape of children, secret groups, etc) if anybody cared to actually read it before screaming at Blogger by email,phone,and letter for it’s removal. I suspect very few people actually read the Blog. Just got sucked in by the spin that was launched by Stacy and her cronies.
None of her accusations were ever proved. Not one iota of evidence was presented. Therefore, the campaign was exposed as nothing but a Conservative Christian crusade to destroy the free speech of a very controversial minority, using the “pretense” of “Saving our Kids”.
Today, the Blog appears to be gone. Nobody knows if it is because of Blogger.com, or because the Blog authors had had enough of this persecution. Nevertheless, the desired result of the persecutors has been met at this current time. Either they were censored and Blogger.com is lying about freedom to share your thoughts, or the authors felt under such threat and flagging of their Blog by the hysterical, that they had to concede.
http://internetfreedomforall.blogspot.com/