Comic Genesis Forums

Hollowghoul · Post by **Hollowghoul** » Tue May 30, 2006 11:52 pm

Allow me to be the first to express disgust and loathing for the birth of the first pedophile political party.

Nonetheless, there is a bright side: their identities and locations are known.

Ayame Ex_Goddess · Post by **Ayame Ex_Goddess** » Wed May 31, 2006 1:33 am

I think it's interesting that they think because the Homosexual lifestyle is gradually becoming more mainstream that having sex with children will ever become acceptable. Thing is, both people in a same-sex relationship are legaly consenting adults.

Just....ick.

Mr.Bob · Post by **Mr.Bob** » Wed May 31, 2006 1:33 am

NAMBLA lives!

Dutch! · Post by **Dutch!** » Wed May 31, 2006 1:36 am

I know I've rebuked people who have said they have lost all faith in decent humanity, but in this case, if this pack of ... if they actually get this thing off the ground, I think I'll lose a fair bit of faith as well.

I'm disappointed it's happened in the Netherlands because of family descent, but honestly, if there's a lowest form of human depravity then these guys are jostling for that title.

Anyway...enough said.

Not happy, Jan.

Jackhass · Post by **Jackhass** » Wed May 31, 2006 2:05 am

I forsee this being somewhat less than a stunning success...

Guildmaster Van · Post by **Guildmaster Van** » Wed May 31, 2006 3:42 am

Political parties based on sexual preferences?
What's next? The Demoscats?

Post by **Mercury Hat** » Wed May 31, 2006 4:00 am

It won't get anywhere, you know, and it's not as if it's a new type of organization. I think they also tacked on to the end of their promises something about free train rides, but from what I hear other parties are promising that as well so it won't swing many votes their way

.

MixedMyth · Post by **MixedMyth** » Wed May 31, 2006 7:18 am

Ayame Ex_Goddess wrote:I think it's interesting that they think because the Homosexual lifestyle is gradually becoming more mainstream that having sex with children will ever become acceptable. Thing is, both people in a same-sex relationship are legaly consenting adults.

Just....ick.

Yeah. What really gets me is how many people confuse the two! I mean, they're so utterly different.

McDuffies · Post by **McDuffies** » Wed May 31, 2006 7:23 am

These guys are just stupid, that's all. One-track mind and actual optimism that the idea is going to be accepted. Simply stupid.

Jim North · Post by **Jim North** » Wed May 31, 2006 8:15 am

Mr.Bob wrote:NAMBLA lives!

What do the North American Marlon Brando Look Alikes have to do with this?

TheSuburbanLetdown · Post by **TheSuburbanLetdown** » Wed May 31, 2006 8:36 am

Jim North wrote:
Mr.Bob wrote:NAMBLA lives!
What do the North American Marlon Brando Look Alikes have to do with this?

They're at the root of all the horror.

Rickford · Post by **Rickford** » Wed May 31, 2006 8:58 am

You're telling me that nobody else is at least slightly intrigued as to what constitutes " 'consensual' sex between humans and animals"?

I mean, just how does that work? Stamp once for yes, twice for no?

CaptainClaude · Post by **CaptainClaude** » Wed May 31, 2006 9:00 am

*steers clear of this one*

Rickford · Post by **Rickford** » Wed May 31, 2006 9:05 am

*Pulls into the lane next to Claude and gently (but firmly) rams him back to where he started*

KittyKatBlack · Post by **KittyKatBlack** » Wed May 31, 2006 9:13 am

This doesn't even make sense. There's a difference between sexual preference and simply going beyond the capacity of human development. Children are NOT DESIGNED TO HAVE SEX. They're not developed enough, physicly or mentally, to do this. This really isn't about personal choice at this point, it's about breaking the rules, not of society, but simple human genetics. If a child is not mentally capable of making proper decisions enough to drive, stay home alone, or own a credit-card/bank account, they are SURELY not capable of making proper decisions when it comes to sex. Sure there are some that probably will act like it doesn't bother them, but it'll hit them as they get older. This is not just a bad idea, it's just plain wrong. The drinking age in most places is at least 16, if not 18 or 21. The reason for this is two-fold. One: A child under the age of 16 does not have a fully developed liver capable of handling the same ammount of alcohol that a full grown adult is capable of handling. Alcohol is not actually ment to be consumed by the body, since there's nothing the body needs from it. We're capable of processing it, but not as well as normal food and drink. And two: Children are much more succeptable to dangerous situations, especially under the influence of alcohol. This makes it much more dangerous for them to get drunk. But it's mainly the first reason. That's why rules like this are in place.

In other words, this is not simply a matter of personal choice, it's dentrimental to the biology of humankind. Hell, even making sex with animals legal makes more sence than this, simply because at least then, it's nothing more than a personal choice, and not directly affecting anyone other than you and the animal in question (Unless that animal happens to be owned by someone else... but I won't get into that.). Animals also develop and mature much quicker than humans do, so more often than not, it will be more than willing to cooperate. Animals don't put sex on a pedistal like humans do, and they don't consider it a special event. It's just something that happens when it happens, and when it's over it's over.

Rkolter · Post by **Rkolter** » Wed May 31, 2006 9:34 am

KittyKatBlack wrote:This doesn't even make sense. There's a difference between sexual preference and simply going beyond the capacity of human development. Children are NOT DESIGNED TO HAVE SEX.

Technically they are. Puberty has raised in age over the generations, but until a hundred or so years ago (two hundred years ago?), marrying 14 year olds or 12 year olds was commonplace. By 16 if you hadn't had kids you were getting to be an old maid. It's our modern society that has allowed children the freedom to be children, not biology.

This group is doing this in the Netherlands... possibly one of the only places in the world where they wouldn't be stoned to death.

Too bad.

Post by **Kisai** » Wed May 31, 2006 9:37 am

I'm going to make a few points and then lock this topic because this is really a flamebait thread.

1. No age of consent ever has a bearing on wether people will have sex or not
2. No law will ever prevent someone from having sex with someone or something else
3. No matter how hard society plays the ignorance is bliss card, if kids don't learn about sex from their parents or their teachers, they will learn it themselves and then you'll have 13 year olds with newborn babies.

4. "Child porn" on the internet is usually the result of non-consensual sex between old men and young boys or girls UNDER the age of 12, between the age of 12 and 18 it usually is consensual sex or no sex at all, even if it's illegal, usually refered to as "loli" on the internet. It doesn't change the fact that someone who is older can take advantage of someone younger.

This is why meeting people online is something that should only be done after knowing them for like a year and knowing what they look like, meeting up at a public place to find out if they really are who they are or are really creepy person. People act differently in real life than they do online, and it's completely possible for someone online to be nice and then do evil in real life.

Locking now

Comic Genesis Forums

Nvd

Nvd