[kasperl]

Wolf: Ah, so I'm not the only one thinking something was wrong...

Actually, the Dutch newspaper NRC has an article on this:
http://www.nrc.nl/binnenland/article336311.ece


And unlike what most of Europe might appear to think, the Dutch populace is NOT happy about this. Most people really think that this should be stopped ASAP.

[aldo_14]

Wolf: Ah, so I'm not the only one thinking something was wrong...

Actually, the Dutch newspaper NRC has an article on this:
http://www.nrc.nl/binnenland/article336311.ece


And unlike what most of Europe might appear to think, the Dutch populace is NOT happy about this. Most people really think that this should be stopped ASAP.

82%, according to the original (top link) article, I believe.

[karajorma]

And that's just the ones who believe the government should be stop the party from forming. The other 18% probably believe in the most part that the party has no legal reason not to form but that they should simply not be voted for.

Of course the real irony here is that by coming out in the open like this anyone connected with the party has basically lost any chance of presenting a "I don't even think of children in that way" defence in court should they ever come up on charges.

[Flipside]

No offence to anyone, but 2000 year ago, Christianity was a fringe group. Homosoxuality is between 2 consenting adults and was held back by societies taboos. Paedophilia involved a parter who is unable to truly know whether they are ready or not, not 2 consenting adults.
I think the reason the article doesn't make the news is exactly for the reasons I stated in my first post, why glorify it basically?

[aldo_14]

I must've missed the bit of the sermon on the Mount that went

"oh, and love thy father and thy mother.  And treasure they world, and respect each other as thou would respect I.  Be kind, be charitable and good to your fellow man.", spoketh Jesus. 

"But what", rose a voice from the crowd, " of the gays?". 

"Oh, don't get me started on the gays!  With thine flowery robes and thy camp mannerisms.  The gays shalt deserve to be treated horribly, and without thy tolerance.  Cruciify the lot, I sayeth."

[wolfdog]

Actually, the Dutch newspaper NRC has an article on this:
http://www.nrc.nl/binnenland/article336311.ece

And unlike what most of Europe might appear to think, the Dutch populace is NOT happy about this. Most people really think that this should be stopped ASAP.

Wonder how I missed that... I stand corrected then. Wonder if this is going to be another political drama....

[aldo_14]

Actually, the Dutch newspaper NRC has an article on this:
http://www.nrc.nl/binnenland/article336311.ece

And unlike what most of Europe might appear to think, the Dutch populace is NOT happy about this. Most people really think that this should be stopped ASAP.

Doubt it.  I mean, you wouldn't tolerate the 'legalise rape party', would you?

Wonder how I missed that... I stand corrected then. Wonder if this is going to be another political drama....

[Goober5000]

Yeah, but you can draw the same parallels between acceptance of slavery, lack of democracy, lack of universal suffrage, acceptance of sending kids down the mines; or the converse lack of acceptance of crimes like theft, rape, murder, etc for many, many decades and centuries.  There are clear differences between the actual 'content' of homosexuality and paedophilia, namely in the capacity for consent, and drawing any sort of direct parallel in this manner would be purely idiotic as they are clearly not equatable acts.

I'm not making a judgement on any of those behaviors at this time.  However, consider the following:

100 years ago, the vast majority of Westerners considered homosexuality completely unacceptable.

Today, the vast majority of Westerners consider pedophilia completely unacceptable.

Isn't it possible that in 100 years, the vast majority of Westerners may consider pedophilia acceptable?

Pedophiles today say that they're "misunderstood" and that, although the two participants are of different ages, they are two consenting human beings, and age should have nothing to do with it.  Homosexuals of 50 years ago were fighting for acceptance in the same way that pedophiles appear to be fighting for acceptance in the Netherlands today.

Giving the shifting views of society over time, what are the odds that the general consensus on morality today is 100% correct?  Shouldn't we consider that, because society of the past got a few things wrong that we now get right, it might be possible that they got a few things right that we now get wrong?

Just trying to get people to think.

[aldo_14]

Yeah, but you can draw the same parallels between acceptance of slavery, lack of democracy, lack of universal suffrage, acceptance of sending kids down the mines; or the converse lack of acceptance of crimes like theft, rape, murder, etc for many, many decades and centuries.  There are clear differences between the actual 'content' of homosexuality and paedophilia, namely in the capacity for consent, and drawing any sort of direct parallel in this manner would be purely idiotic as they are clearly not equatable acts.

I'm not making a judgement on any of those behaviors at this time.  However, consider the following:

100 years ago, the vast majority of Westerners considered homosexuality completely unacceptable.

Today, the vast majority of Westerners consider pedophilia completely unacceptable.

Isn't it possible that in 100 years, the vast majority of Westerners may consider pedophilia acceptable?

Pedophiles today say that they're "misunderstood" and that, although the two participants are of different ages, they are two consenting human beings, and age should have nothing to do with it.  Homosexuals of 50 years ago were fighting for acceptance in the same way that pedophiles appear to be fighting for acceptance in the Netherlands today.

Giving the shifting views of society over time, what are the odds that the general consensus on morality today is 100% correct?  Shouldn't we consider that, because society of the past got a few things wrong that we now get right, it might be possible that they got a few things right that we now get wrong?

Just trying to get people to think.

So you are comparing homosexuality to paedophilia?

[Flipside]

Indeed, but Homosexuality has been in and out of 'vogue' repeatedly over a lot of generations. There are entire societies that found it perfectly acceptable. Paedophilia has, to my knowledge, always been, if not reviled, then at least an 'underground' and not 100% accepted. Even Ancient Greek culture, which was heavily into homosexuality, never really mentions Paedophilia at all. I can't think of any societies offhand which openly accepted it, though I'll admit, that's by no means confirmation there hasn't been one.

The odd thing, I suppose, is that 4 generations ago, 12 years old was a marrying age, but then, 30 years was considered old-age, so both the goalposts moved, as it were.

[aldo_14]

Indeed, but Homosexuality has been in and out of 'vogue' repeatedly over a lot of generations. There are entire societies that found it perfectly acceptable. Paedophilia has, to my knowledge, always been, if not reviled, then at least an 'underground' and not 100% accepted. Even Ancient Greek culture, which was heavily into homosexuality, never really mentions Paedophilia at all. I can't think of any societies offhand which openly accepted it, though I'll admit, that's by no means confirmation there hasn't been one.

The odd thing, I suppose, is that 4 generations ago, 12 years old was a marrying age, but then, 30 years was considered old-age, so both the goalposts moved, as it were.

Mm... the Greeks were into pedastry, actually; being young was seen as a 'beautiful' thing, although I'm not sure what exact age range it was (from early teens, I think).

EDIT; I'm using wikipedia because, frankly, I don't want to search this in google.  Erk.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pederasty_in_ancient_Greece

[Flipside]

Yup, the age of consent in Greek society is estimated at around 11-12, so, by comparison to modern day society it would be considered Paedophiliam but since they only lived to around 25-35 years old, it sort of changes the perspective. Whilst a 'young boy' or 'young woman' was considered desireable though, a 'young child' was not, and that, I think is where the problem is. Pedophiles are aroused not by looks or, strictly speaking, by physical form, but by knowing that their partner is a child. I'm not certain that was accepted, even in Greek society.

[karajorma]

Incidentally I've always found this amusing.

[aldo_14]

Yup, the age of consent in Greek society is estimated at around 11-12, so, by comparison to modern day society it would be considered Paedophiliam but sice they only lived to around 25-35 years old, it sort of changes the perspective. Whilst a 'young man' or 'young woman' was cosidered desireable though, a 'young child' was not, and that, I think is where the problem is. Pedophiles are aroused not by looks or, strictly speaking, by physical form, but by knowing that their partner is a child. I'm not certain that was accepted, even in Greek society.

Yeah.  I mean, you have to also look at this from a modern perspective when analyzing it, too; society has moved away from the concept of asserting what might be termed a 'lifestyle dominance' of enforced moral values or simply physical strength, and more towards a system where the concepts of individual consent matters.  The same reasoning that allows homosexuality as a perfectly legal and fine part of society is the same that bars rape, paedophilia, and slavery.   The only think paedophilia really has in common with homosexuality as far as I see is, is that it involves 'sex'; if you can ever term the abuse of a child to be that (and I don't think that you can, anyways).  The connotation that the 2 are somehow related has always struck me as simple bigoted homophobia trying to scrabble for some moral advantage; but there's no more in common between, say, homosexuality and the abuse of (eg) a boy by his uncle, than there is between hetrosexuality and the abuse of (again, eg) a girl by her dad.

[Goober5000]

Indeed, but Homosexuality has been in and out of 'vogue' repeatedly over a lot of generations. There are entire societies that found it perfectly acceptable. Paedophilia has, to my knowledge, always been, if not reviled, then at least an 'underground' and not 100% accepted. Even Ancient Greek culture, which was heavily into homosexuality, never really mentions Paedophilia at all. I can't think of any societies offhand which openly accepted it, though I'll admit, that's by no means confirmation there hasn't been one.

Pederasty appears to be, if not quite the same thing, close enough that it might be considered pedophilia.  So that would mean the ancient Greeks accepted both homosexuallity and pedophilia.

So, given that certain practices go in and out of vogue, what's unacceptable this generation may be acceptable a few generations later on, and then it may flip flop again.  This is what happens with a morality based on relativism or populism.

EDIT: It looks like part of this was covered while I was typing my post.

[aldo_14]

Indeed, but Homosexuality has been in and out of 'vogue' repeatedly over a lot of generations. There are entire societies that found it perfectly acceptable. Paedophilia has, to my knowledge, always been, if not reviled, then at least an 'underground' and not 100% accepted. Even Ancient Greek culture, which was heavily into homosexuality, never really mentions Paedophilia at all. I can't think of any societies offhand which openly accepted it, though I'll admit, that's by no means confirmation there hasn't been one.

Pederasty appears to be, if not quite the same thing, close enough that it might be considered pedophilia.  So that would mean the ancient Greeks accepted both homosexuallity and pedophilia.

So, given that certain practices go in and out of vogue, what's unacceptable this generation may be acceptable a few generations later on, and then it may flip flop again.  This is what happens with a morality based on relativism or populism.

EDIT: It looks like part of this was covered while I was typing my post.

The whole point is that modern morality, thanks to the intermixing of culture and global inter-communication, is less and less about relativism and more about, for lack of a better term, universal concepts of human rights and the capacity for consent and responsibility.  It's why we don't generally kill people for having a different religion.

[Flipside]

Oh indeed, maybe in a few generations time Paedophilia may well be reviewed again, it will never really go away, and will have to be faced up to at one point. But at our current level of knowledge regarding the child's phsyche, and our current level of Tolerance, it's a dangerous, and unwanted pastime.

Our current society took long enough to accept Homosexuality, and the only issues there was the 'mental comfort' of people who were nothing to do with it, Pedophilia suddenly involves the needs and wants of a child, which is why, in my opinion, it will be a lot lot harder to deal with properly.

[aldo_14]

I've never understood the sort of 'destroying society' homophobia; what the hell 'danger' does same-sex-sex actually pose?  It's not exactly contagious, it doesn't make people go out and become thieves, it doesn't result in spontaneous human combustion or terrorism, what's the fear?

[Flipside]

There are people out there who, alas, genuinely think that the 'Ultimate Homosexual Agenda' is to make humanity homosexual, or to re-create the Greek idealogy of Free Bisexuality. Part of me is scientifically interested to see, if you created a society without these sexual taboos being ground in from birth, what would be considered acceptable to such a society and what would not, it'd probably give us an excellent view of humanities early development of society, and break about 15 International laws, but still...

[aldo_14]

There are people out there who, alas, genuinely think that the 'Ultimate Homosexual Agenda' is to make humanity homosexual, or to re-create the Greek idealogy of Free Bisexuality. Part of me is scientifically interested to see, if you created a society without these sexual taboos being ground in from birth, what would be considered acceptable to such a society and what would not, it'd probably give us an excellent view of humanities early development of society, and break about 15 International laws, but still...

What is wrong with free bisexuality, though?  I mean, I'm firmly hetero and all, but the only viable arguement I can think of against homosexuality is that it doesn't naturally bring itself to reproduction (although it doesn't make it impossible on a biological and instinctual level; just need to grab a willing partner or go through artificial means), but that is completely inapplicable to bisexuality.  You could perhaps make the accusation bisexuality and / or non-reproductive sex lends itself to multiple partners (again, this would be entirely misrepresenting the situation because it applies as much to heterosexual flings and we are effectively a polygamous species anyways) and thus the transmission of sexual diseases, but that's not applicable as soon as you bring protection/precautions into the mix and as in brackets, it's easily applicable to every sexual orientation anyways.