Senate Hearing Marks Buildup To New Attack on Gay and Lesbian Families

[Pookie]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: State issue

So you're perfectly fine with them defending pedophiles. Nice to see you can try to dodge even this. If you're too blinded by your programming to understand why pedophiles shouldn't be defended, you've only proved how truly depraved you are. See, intelligent people don't let some ridiculous civil rights issue distract us from the fact that NAMbLA is a group dedicated to molesting children. Are you perhaps a charter member? It would certainly explain your dedication to claiming the ACLU is doing the right thing by defending them.

I'm not a member of NAMBLA. Perhaps you're not a believer in our Bill of Rights? The way you would so easily strip people of their rights, you might be more comfortable in someplace like Iran.

You really need to get a grip on reality. I posted in my previous post what the ACLU was defending. They were not defending pedophilia or NAMBLA's beliefs/practices. You're too ignorant to see that though. Whatever. Believe what you want. You're a fool.

 

[Pookie]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: State issue

Absolutely. They're the lowest form of criminal. They have no rights. That's how it works -- you rape children, you lose your rights. Or do ou think they should be held up as shining beacons of all that's good and proper. Oh, that's what you're doing here. I guess you DO think pedophiles are not only acceptable, but also worthy of special protection.

Don't be an ass.

Slippery slope argument. No basis in reality whatsoever. Logical fallacy. Nice to see you've at least found others to use rather than your beloved ad hominem "arguments."

Your opinion, not mine.

Oh, and is "ad hominem" your term for the week. Is your teacher going to give you bonus points on Friday based on how many times you use it? You seem obsessed with that term. Do you jerk off while chanting it or something?

Incidentally, "hate speech" laws could be seen as every bit as much of "strip[ping] away" of "JUST one person's rights," yet I doubt you have a problem with those laws either. So tell me, do you support the Klan, Nazi Party, Black Panthers and other hate groups and their civil rights to the same degree you support the right of NAMbLA?

I don't support the "right of NAMBLA". I support the First Amendment, even your First Amendment right to speak the drivel that you do in your posts.

 

[Queersetti]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: State issue

Absolutely. They're the lowest form of criminal. They have no rights. That's how it works -- you rape children, you lose your rights. Or do ou think they should be held up as shining beacons of all that's good and proper. Oh, that's what you're doing here. I guess you DO think pedophiles are not only acceptable, but also worthy of special protection.



Slippery slope argument. No basis in reality whatsoever. Logical fallacy. Nice to see you've at least found others to use rather than your beloved ad hominem "arguments."

Incidentally, "hate speech" laws could be seen as every bit as much of "strip[ping] away" of "JUST one person's rights," yet I doubt you have a problem with those laws either. So tell me, do you support the Klan, Nazi Party, Black Panthers and other hate groups and their civil rights to the same degree you support the right of NAMbLA?

Did you read your own citation?

The ACLU did not in any way, shape or form defend pedophilia. They defended the right of people who had not been convicted of any crime to voice their opinions, even if those opinions disgust the rest of us. I don't think the distinction is all that different to understand.

What "hate speech" laws are you referring to? People are more likely to respond thoughtfully to actual examples than they will to buzz words.

 

[SensualMan]

Details

It's amazing how those on the left can distinguish the minor technicalities in this case but can't do the same for the Supreme Court intervening in Bush v. Gore. It is good for the ACLU at protect the rights of members of a group like NAMBLA, but it is wrong for the Court to defend the rights of a candidate for President? You can't have it both ways....And stripping first amendment rights is a slippery slope as Larz said...we already do it in this country! I can't go into a theater and yell "Fire"...can I? Can I walk down the street and say "I hate fags and n_ggers and want to kill them all!"? No, I can't, I would be arrested in either case for various reasons. This society already had stripped us of the right to certain speech, so the right is in no way absolute....none of the rights are.

 

[Pookie]

Re: Details

It's amazing how those on the left can distinguish the minor technicalities in this case but can't do the same for the Supreme Court intervening in Bush v. Gore.

What minor technicalities in this case?

Go back to the other thread if you want to rant more about Bush v Gore. Stay on topic.

It is good for the ACLU at protect the rights of members of a group like NAMBLA, but it is wrong for the Court to defend the rights of a candidate for President? You can't have it both ways....

When did the ACLU become part of the Judicial branch of the US Government? When did the US Supreme Court stop being a part of the Judicial branch?

And stripping first amendment rights is a slippery slope as Larz said...we already do it in this country! I can't go into a theater and yell "Fire"...can I? Can I walk down the street and say "I hate fags and n_ggers and want to kill them all!"? No, I can't, I would be arrested in either case for various reasons. This society already had stripped us of the right to certain speech, so the right is in no way absolute....none of the rights are.

So it would be wrong for someone to take away your right to say something that is protected by the 1st Amendment, but it's okay to strip away that same right to say the same thing from someone else, just because you dislike them?

 

[SensualMan]

What?

"So it would be wrong for someone to take away your right to say something that is protected by the 1st Amendment, but it's okay to strip away that same right to say the same thing from someone else, just because you dislike them?


- Just because I dislike them? Their right to free speech should be barred for the same reason that I can't yell "Fire" in a crowded theater....it is reckless and a danger to society. Whether you want to admit it or not, NAMBLA advocates criminal acts against children, mainly rape against young boys. That is a threat and a danger to society! It has nothing to to with the fact that they all disgust me and should rot in jail simply for THINKING about screwing boys....but they actually go out and advocate it! They have established an organization centered around a criminal act...it is a criminal organization......

If I were out advocating the rape of woman and running a group that promoted and gave advice on having sex with 12 year old girls...then I should be shut down. I should not have the right to promote that.

"When did the ACLU become part of the Judicial branch of the US Government? When did the US Supreme Court stop being a part of the Judicial branch?"

- You just made my case...thank you. The Court IS the judicial branch, and if there is anyone in this country charged with protecting our rights...it is the judicial branch. So the Supreme Court not only had the right...but the DUTY to step in and protect Bush's rights. You are making this too easy.

 

[Queersetti]

Classic right wing thinking: that Bush somehow had a "right" to be President.

Why bother with elections at all in that case?

 

[Pookie]

Re: What?

"So it would be wrong for someone to take away your right to say something that is protected by the 1st Amendment, but it's okay to strip away that same right to say the same thing from someone else, just because you dislike them?


- Just because I dislike them? Their right to free speech should be barred for the same reason that I can't yell "Fire" in a crowded theater....it is reckless and a danger to society. Whether you want to admit it or not, NAMBLA advocates criminal acts against children, mainly rape against young boys. That is a threat and a danger to society! It has nothing to to with the fact that they all disgust me and should rot in jail simply for THINKING about screwing boys....but they actually go out and advocate it! They have established an organization centered around a criminal act...it is a criminal organization......

What they had on their website was not illegal in the eyes of the law. NAMBLA does advocate evil things, that goes without question. But what was on their website didn't say what you mentioned. Based on the link provided by Larz, the murderers allegedly looked at the organization’s publications and web site prior to committing the crimes. There was nothing in those publications or web site which advocated or incited the commission of any illegal acts, including murder or rape.

The web site contained materials that advocated for legislative change of age-of-consent laws concerning sex between adults and adolescents and included statements by various writers, including Allen Ginsburg and Camille Paglia, references to academic journals about sexuality, some fiction and poetry, and a clear statement against coercive sex or breaking the law. NAMBLA’s publications, principally the NAMBLA Bulletin, contain the same types of material, interspersed with eroticized depictions of young boys.

ACLUM Legal Director John Reinstein, who is one of the lawyers representing NAMBLA in the suit, acknowledged that "I think it is fair to say that most people disagree with NAMBLA and that many would find its publications offensive. Regardless of whether people agree with or abhor NAMBLA’s views, holding the organization responsible for crimes committed by others who read their materials would gravely endanger important First Amendment freedoms."

So using the "fire in a crowded theater" example (which definitely is illegal) is an incorrect and inappropriate comparison to this case. Apples and oranges.

"When did the ACLU become part of the Judicial branch of the US Government? When did the US Supreme Court stop being a part of the Judicial branch?"

- You just made my case...thank you. The Court IS the judicial branch, and if there is anyone in this country charged with protecting our rights...it is the judicial branch. So the Supreme Court not only had the right...but the DUTY to step in and protect Bush's rights. You are making this too easy.

That's not what you originally said. Here it is, since your memory is so short ...

"It is good for the ACLU at protect the rights of members of a group like NAMBLA, but it is wrong for the Court to defend the rights of a candidate for President? You can't have it both ways."

So the Supreme Court Justices are now the attorneys defending Presidential candidates, instead of being judges? So the Justices were "defend[ing] the rights of a candidate for President", like the ACLU is with NAMBLA's constitutional rights? That was the job of Bush's attorneys. The Justices are either judges presiding over a case, or attorneys trying a case. You can't have it both ways.

 

[MzChrista]

I guess you misread me...didn't you catch the dig at the religious right-wing wackos? I guess that was too subtle for you.

Canada would be a good place to move, don't you think? Gay marriage, decriminalized marijuana, socialized health care...sounds like a paradise for anyone who doesn't buy the nonsense coming from fundamentalist fanatics like Bush.

I thought it seemed pretty clear you were being sarcastic.

 

[MzChrista]

Re: Details

It's amazing how those on the left can distinguish the minor technicalities in this case but can't do the same for the Supreme Court intervening in Bush v. Gore. It is good for the ACLU at protect the rights of members of a group like NAMBLA, but it is wrong for the Court to defend the rights of a candidate for President? You can't have it both ways....And stripping first amendment rights is a slippery slope as Larz said...we already do it in this country! I can't go into a theater and yell "Fire"...can I? Can I walk down the street and say "I hate fags and n_ggers and want to kill them all!"? No, I can't, I would be arrested in either case for various reasons. This society already had stripped us of the right to certain speech, so the right is in no way absolute....none of the rights are.

The presumption of innocence is a minor technicality?

And I got some news for you, dude, people walk around saying they want to kill niggers and fags all the time and they dont get arrested. Stop by the Clues R Us store on your way home from work sometime, nitwit.

 

[SensualMan]

Battel of Ignorance

Seems like Christa has decided to make herself look like the most ignorant person posting here...looks like it is working.

Pookie - So when the mafia uses legal businesses as fronts for money laundering and such, we should not take a look at those operations? Sure the webpage may have appeared legal on the surface, but it is no secret what Nambla advocates. The webpage is just a front for an organization the supports criminal activity, that is the bottom line.

Queer - That was the most ignorant post you have made...and that is saying a lot. No one claims Bush had a right to be President...but he did have the right to a fair recount with uniform standards. The recount that was under way in Florida when the US Supreme Court stepped in was anything but uniform or fair. There should have been a standard established, and a state wide recount done.

 

[Pookie]

Re: Battel of Ignorance

Pookie - So when the mafia uses legal businesses as fronts for money laundering and such, we should not take a look at those operations? Sure the webpage may have appeared legal on the surface, but it is no secret what Nambla advocates. The webpage is just a front for an organization the supports criminal activity, that is the bottom line.

The issue was not what NAMBLA practices. That is clearly not what the ACLU says they were defending in this lawsuit.

Again, since you really seem to have a problem keeping your mind focused ...

The Curley lawsuit seeks millions of dollars in damages against NAMBLA because one of the murderers allegedly looked at the organization’s publications and web site prior to committing the crimes. There was nothing in those publications or web site which advocated or incited the commission of any illegal acts, including murder or rape.

If the "mafia" wants to put up a webpage that doesn't present things that advocate or incite the commission of any illegal acts, they have the right to do so according to the 1st Amendment. The same 1st Amendment that gives you that right as well. The same 1st Amendment that gives Laurel the right to put up Literotica. At issue is not what the mafia or NAMBLA practices. But you seem too mentally challenged to understand that.

I bet those claiming it's cool to strip NAMBLA of their 1st amendment rights would think differently, if that lawsuit had been against a television network, with the plaintiffs claiming the murderers watched some show that alledgedly made them horny.

What if it was discovered that the murders had looked at Literotica? Should Laurel get sued for millions of dollars too? There are nonconsent stories here. There are gay stories here. There are stories depicting intergenerational rape. This website displays much more that could supposedly incite the murders than NAMBLA's website has. So why shouldn't Laurel be stripped of her 1st Amendment rights? Because she is a nice lady? This website is legal. However, I dare say there are many that see Laurel as being the devil, that she advocates things that are disgusting and against God's law, if not man's law. Do you see how dangerous it is to set a precedent for stripping away someone's rights because you don't like them?

 

[SensualMan]

OK...

Pookie - On the specific issue of the website I agree with you. It is protected, as it should be. I was getting caught up in the larger argument about the organization itself. Should we allow an organization with the stated goal of promoting gay rape to spread those ideas? Society has the right, and the obligation, to set standards. I think that most people in this country feel that the actions NAMBLA advocates violate just about everyones idea of what is decent. So while I find myself in agreement on the single point of the website, I find myself in disagreement with you on the larger issue.

As for people being motivated to commit crime by a website, or a tv show, or music...unfortunately I think this society has gotten to the point where no one is responsible for their actions anymore. We are able to blame someone else or go for the quick solution. No longer do we have to face the consequences of our actions. So while I can't condemn the ACLU for defending NAMBLA in this case, I can say I would not do the same.

Ok, before you go getting all excited, thinking you turned me around, I still feel that the ACLU leans very far to the left and sometimes crosses the line. Many of the cases they have been involved with involving the non-existent "seperation of church and state" are blatantly anti-First Amendment. So to say they are ALWAYS in support of civil rights is just wrong, they have an agenda just like every other political organization.

 

[Pookie]

Re: OK...

Ok, before you go getting all excited, thinking you turned me around, I still feel that the ACLU leans very far to the left and sometimes crosses the line. Many of the cases they have been involved with involving the non-existent "seperation of church and state" are blatantly anti-First Amendment. So to say they are ALWAYS in support of civil rights is just wrong, they have an agenda just like every other political organization.

Give me a few examples ... with web links to the cases.

 

[SensualMan]

http://www.aclu.org/ReligiousLiberty/ReligiousLiberty.cfm?ID=10380&c=139

http://www.aclu.org/ReligiousLiberty/ReligiousLiberty.cfm?ID=10355&c=139

http://www.aclu.org/ReligiousLiberty/ReligiousLiberty.cfm?ID=10113&c=139

http://www.aclu.org/StudentsRights/StudentsRights.cfm?ID=8709&c=162

http://www.aclu.org/StudentsRights/StudentsRights.cfm?ID=8663&c=162



There are a few examples right from the ACLU's own website that took me about 3 minutes to find. Every one is an example where one individuals first amendment right to free speech is being infringed upon to protect the feelings of another individual, or small group of individuals. So I am to infer from this that the right to free speech is absolute, unless you want to pray. You can offend those around you any other way you want, and it is protected, but try to pray and you are trying to force your religion on someone else.

And please don't give me the BS about "seperation of church and state"...it does not exist. You can not show me ANYTHING in the Constitution that would prohibit a school choir from singing the Lord's Prayer at a graduation ceremony. Unless of course, you think a school board and Congress are one in the same.

 

[Johnny Mayberry]

http://www.aclu.org/ReligiousLiberty/ReligiousLiberty.cfm?ID=10380&c=139

http://www.aclu.org/ReligiousLiberty/ReligiousLiberty.cfm?ID=10355&c=139

http://www.aclu.org/ReligiousLiberty/ReligiousLiberty.cfm?ID=10113&c=139

http://www.aclu.org/StudentsRights/StudentsRights.cfm?ID=8709&c=162

http://www.aclu.org/StudentsRights/StudentsRights.cfm?ID=8663&c=162



There are a few examples right from the ACLU's own website that took me about 3 minutes to find. Every one is an example where one individuals first amendment right to free speech is being infringed upon to protect the feelings of another individual, or small group of individuals. So I am to infer from this that the right to free speech is absolute, unless you want to pray. You can offend those around you any other way you want, and it is protected, but try to pray and you are trying to force your religion on someone else.

And please don't give me the BS about "seperation of church and state"...it does not exist. You can not show me ANYTHING in the Constitution that would prohibit a school choir from singing the Lord's Prayer at a graduation ceremony. Unless of course, you think a school board and Congress are one in the same.

Obviously, you don't understand religious freedom, either.

 

[SensualMan]

Religious Freedom

OK, show me in the Constitution where it has the phrase "religious freedom"...you can't. All the Constitution says is....

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."

- So if a school board decides that it is ok for a school in their district to have a prayer at a graduation ceremony...how does that violate the First Amendment? The correct answer is that is doesn't.....the First Amendment applies only to Congress....it is in black and white right there. That is why Congress is capitalized, it is a proper noun, referring to the specific legislative body.

Why is it so hard for you to accept that the founders could have envisioned religion playing a part in government? Don't give me the crap about how they fled to the colonies to escape religious persecution...most of the colonies were religious colonies! I think it is very possible that the founders imagined that states could have established religions....but the federal government could not. They wrote the Constitution, if they wanted government free from religion, they would have stated something like...

"No government, federal, state or local, shall make a law establishing religion...."

It is time for you to accept the fact that our founders were deeply religious men and that maybe they did envision religion being an important part in keeping order in this society.

 

[Johnny Mayberry]

Let's see...you hate freedom of religion, freedom or speech, the rights of the accused...any other Amereican ideals bother you?

 

[SensualMan]

Ideals...

"Let's see...you hate freedom of religion, freedom or speech, the rights of the accused...any other Amereican ideals bother you?"

- Let's see...I have been on here arguing that the Supreme Court was right to defend Bush's right to equal protection, I agreed with pookie that freedom of speech should be protected....in all cases, not just in some. As for freedom of religion, I agree with what the COnstitution says about it.

Like a true liberal, when you find yourself cornered, unable to defend your ignorance with fact, you result to personal attacks. Everything I have supported on these threads can be found, may times verbatim, in the Constitution. That must really bug you. The truth is that you liberals hate the Constitution, you just like the parts that protect you, and apply to you. You do not want equal protection under the law, you want protection for your causes. You only want free speech for unpopular speech, not for popular speech, like prayers. You support the rights of a group like NAMBLA, but then oppose the rights of a school board to start their meetings with a prayer. You hold your head high as the defenders of civil rights, but then complain when the Supreme Court acts to protect those very rights in the case of George Bush. You are full of inconsistencies and anyone with a mind of their own sees that. That is why the liberal candidates are a joke this year, half of the country can't even name more than one candidate running on the left! The left has had 40 years to try their ideas and people are starting to see that liberals have no ideas, only rhetoric.

 

[Johnny Mayberry]

Re: Ideals...

"Let's see...you hate freedom of religion, freedom or speech, the rights of the accused...any other Amereican ideals bother you?"

- Let's see...I have been on here arguing that the Supreme Court was right to defend Bush's right to equal protection, I agreed with pookie that freedom of speech should be protected....in all cases, not just in some. As for freedom of religion, I agree with what the COnstitution says about it.

Like a true liberal, when you find yourself cornered, unable to defend your ignorance with fact, you result to personal attacks. Everything I have supported on these threads can be found, may times verbatim, in the Constitution. That must really bug you. The truth is that you liberals hate the Constitution, you just like the parts that protect you, and apply to you. You do not want equal protection under the law, you want protection for your causes. You only want free speech for unpopular speech, not for popular speech, like prayers. You support the rights of a group like NAMBLA, but then oppose the rights of a school board to start their meetings with a prayer. You hold your head high as the defenders of civil rights, but then complain when the Supreme Court acts to protect those very rights in the case of George Bush. You are full of inconsistencies and anyone with a mind of their own sees that. That is why the liberal candidates are a joke this year, half of the country can't even name more than one candidate running on the left! The left has had 40 years to try their ideas and people are starting to see that liberals have no ideas, only rhetoric.

Uh huh...loser.

 

[SensualMan]

Thanks

Thank you for making my point for me...it's almost too easy

 

[Pookie]

http://www.aclu.org/ReligiousLiberty/ReligiousLiberty.cfm?ID=10380&c=139

http://www.aclu.org/ReligiousLiberty/ReligiousLiberty.cfm?ID=10355&c=139

http://www.aclu.org/ReligiousLiberty/ReligiousLiberty.cfm?ID=10113&c=139

http://www.aclu.org/StudentsRights/StudentsRights.cfm?ID=8709&c=162

http://www.aclu.org/StudentsRights/StudentsRights.cfm?ID=8663&c=162



There are a few examples right from the ACLU's own website that took me about 3 minutes to find. Every one is an example where one individuals first amendment right to free speech is being infringed upon to protect the feelings of another individual, or small group of individuals. So I am to infer from this that the right to free speech is absolute, unless you want to pray. You can offend those around you any other way you want, and it is protected, but try to pray and you are trying to force your religion on someone else.

And please don't give me the BS about "seperation of church and state"...it does not exist. You can not show me ANYTHING in the Constitution that would prohibit a school choir from singing the Lord's Prayer at a graduation ceremony. Unless of course, you think a school board and Congress are one in the same.

Lets take the first case ...

http://www.aclu.org/ReligiousLiberty/ReligiousLiberty.cfm?ID=10380&c=139

Shields v. Kiowa County School District No. RE-2

Why was this case ... "one individuals first amendment right to free speech is being infringed upon to protect the feelings of another individual, or small group of individuals" ?

You said ... "Many of the cases they have been involved with involving the non-existent "seperation of church and state" are blatantly anti-First Amendment."

Explain the reasoning in this particular case that supports your claim. Explain how this case fits what you claimed above. Also, explain why "seperation of church and state" is non-existent in the process.

 

[Queersetti]

http://www.aclu.org/ReligiousLiberty/ReligiousLiberty.cfm?ID=10380&c=139

http://www.aclu.org/ReligiousLiberty/ReligiousLiberty.cfm?ID=10355&c=139

http://www.aclu.org/ReligiousLiberty/ReligiousLiberty.cfm?ID=10113&c=139

http://www.aclu.org/StudentsRights/StudentsRights.cfm?ID=8709&c=162

http://www.aclu.org/StudentsRights/StudentsRights.cfm?ID=8663&c=162



There are a few examples right from the ACLU's own website that took me about 3 minutes to find. Every one is an example where one individuals first amendment right to free speech is being infringed upon to protect the feelings of another individual, or small group of individuals. So I am to infer from this that the right to free speech is absolute, unless you want to pray. You can offend those around you any other way you want, and it is protected, but try to pray and you are trying to force your religion on someone else.

And please don't give me the BS about "seperation of church and state"...it does not exist. You can not show me ANYTHING in the Constitution that would prohibit a school choir from singing the Lord's Prayer at a graduation ceremony. Unless of course, you think a school board and Congress are one in the same.

Wrong again.

Every one of your links refers to a case in which the state or an agency of the state attempting to impose a particular religious view on individuals.

Any American can pray any time they want, any where they want. What they can not do is force others to participate, or use public funds to underwrite a pulpit for them.

 

[SensualMan]

Here you go

"...explained that she does not share the religious beliefs espoused by the majority of her schoolmates,"

- Right in the suit it states that most of the classmates share the religious beliefs, so I made the large assumption that most of those students would support a prayer at the graduation ceremony. Yet the ACLU, concerned about this feelings of this one girl, wants to pressure the school into cancelling the prayer. So basically the majority of students, who would support the prayer, are forced to go without it because of the feelings of one girl. You know what that is? Tyranny of the minority. The majority are prohibited from freely expressing their religious beliefs (a Constitutional right) because one girl feels bad. And the school board is not an agency of the state...they are all locally run and reflect the norms, values, and desires of the local community.


Seperation of church and state is a myth....where does it exist in the Constitution? It doesn't, and you know that.

 

[SensualMan]

Even if the school boards were directly run by the Governor of each state....show me in the Constitution where it would prohibit him from allowing a school to open each day with a prayer?