You are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

comeonpeople ago

You and the right-wing sites are grossly misunderstanding the amendment and the reason for rejecting it. In no way, shape, or form were pedophiles being "protected".

cantsleepawink ago

Please explain. I'm open to hearing your thoughts. (This is not a right-wing site, btw).

comeonpeople ago

The sites I was referring to were the ones used as sources.

The hate crimes bill specifies that "hate crimes" are crimes against the protected groups -- sex, color, religion, sexual orientation. The Democrats said there was no reason to tack on "excluding pedophiles" because pedophiles were -- obviously -- already not one of the protected groups.

It would be like tacking on an amendment to the Civil Rights Act to exclude pedophiles.

Pedophiles are not a protected group, it's that simple. Therefore hate crimes do not apply to them. A crime against a pedophile is just a regular crime, it is not a hate crime.

cantsleepawink ago

Pedophilia is described in the liberal world as a sexual orientation.

comeonpeople ago

There may be some idiots somewhere who say that.

It is certainly NOT a widespread belief among liberals or anyone else, it is not considered so scientifically or by any dictionary definition, and it is certainly not considered so in any law protecting sexual orientation.

cantsleepawink ago

This is called grooming..from the Huff Post... He Is A Paedophile, But That Does Not Make Him A Child Molester

But there are others, whose sexual attraction to children seems to be hard wired. Dr James Cantor of the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health in Toronto, Canada, has been using MRI scans to explore the brains of paedophiles. He says, “Paedophilia is a sexual orientation. Paedophilia is something that we are essentially born with, does not appear to change over time and it is as core to our being as any other sexual orientation is.”

See where they are going with this ?

comeonpeople ago

You mean "he". Not "they".

Sexual orientation is DEFINED as the sex you are attracted to in relation to your own. Children are not a sex, therefore attraction to children is not a sexual orientation. It doesn't matter if it's genetic or not, that has nothing to do with anything.

The day someone attempts to argue a crime against a pedophile was a hate crime because it's a sexual orientation, then you can be concerned about amending the bill to exclude them. Until that (completely imaginary) day, there is no point in adding that exclusion.

cantsleepawink ago

Links please to back up your claims.

comeonpeople ago

What "claims"?

Wiki: Sexual orientation is an enduring pattern of romantic or sexual attraction (or a combination of these) to persons of the opposite sex or gender, the same sex or gender, or to both sexes or more than one gender.

American Psychological Association: (source for above)

U.S. Office of Personnel Management: Sexual orientation means one’s emotional or physical attraction to the same and/or opposite sex.

This is how the medical/scientific community defines it, this is how the dictionary defines it, this is how the U.S. government defines it. Therefore there is no need to add any special language about pedophiles into anything having to do with sexual orientation.

cantsleepawink ago

Here's a link you need as you refuse to provide anything : http://www.truthandaction.org/legalizing-sexual-child-abuse-pedophilia-now-classified-sexual-orientation/

Note: on these matters medical definitions tend to be a fluid thing ..to keep up with the politics. I'm sure you're not that obtuse.

comeonpeople ago

Google "sexual orientation" and you will get all the links you need.

Why do I care what some bullshit website claims the APA says? I just told you what the APA says about sexual orientation, pasted from their own website: http://www.apa.org/topics/lgbt/orientation.aspx Here it is again: "Sexual orientation refers to an enduring pattern of emotional, romantic and/or sexual attractions to men, women or both sexes."

But again, all that matters concerning federal laws is the federal government's definition, which I also already gave you: " Key Definitions: Sexual orientation means one’s emotional or physical attraction to the same and/or opposite sex. "

https://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/diversity-and-inclusion/reference-materials/addressing-sexual-orientation-and-gender-identity-discrimination-in-federal-civilian-employment.pdf

cantsleepawink ago

From wiki, you'll notice that the term is actually very broadly defined:

Sexual orientation is traditionally defined as including heterosexuality, bisexuality, and homosexuality, while asexuality is considered the fourth category of sexual orientation by some researchers and has been defined as the absence of a traditional sexual orientation. An asexual has little to no sexual attraction to people.[4][19] It may be considered a lack of a sexual orientation,[20] and there is significant debate over whether or not it is a sexual orientation.[3][4] Most definitions of sexual orientation include a psychological component, such as the direction of an individual's erotic desires, or a behavioral component, which focuses on the sex of the individual's sexual partner/s. Some people prefer simply to follow an individual's self-definition or identity. Scientific and professional understanding is that "the core attractions that form the basis for adult sexual orientation typically emerge between middle childhood and early adolescence".[1] Sexual orientation differs from sexual identity in that it encompasses relationships with others, while sexual identity is a concept of self. The American Psychological Association states that "[s]exual orientation refers to an enduring pattern of emotional, romantic, and/or sexual attractions to men, women, or both sexes" and that "[t]his range of behaviors and attractions has been described in various cultures and nations throughout the world. Many cultures use identity labels to describe people who express these attractions. In the United States, the most frequent labels are lesbians (women attracted to women), gay men (men attracted to men), and bisexual people (men or women attracted to both sexes). However, some people may use different labels or none at all". They additionally state that sexual orientation "is distinct from other components of sex and gender, including biological sex (the anatomical, physiological, and genetic characteristics associated with being male or female), gender identity (the psychological sense of being male or female), and social gender role (the cultural norms that define feminine and masculine behavior)".[1] According to psychologists, sexual orientation also refers to a person’s choice of sexual partners, who may be homosexual, heterosexual, or bisexual.[21][22][23] Sexual identity and sexual behavior are closely related to sexual orientation, but they are distinguished, with sexual identity referring to an individual's conception of themselves, behavior referring to actual sexual acts performed by the individual, and orientation referring to "fantasies, attachments and longings."[24] Individuals may or may not express their sexual orientation in their behaviors.[1] People who have a homosexual sexual orientation that does not align with their sexual identity are sometimes referred to as 'closeted'. The term may, however, reflect a certain cultural context and particular stage of transition in societies which are gradually dealing with integrating sexual minorities. In studies related to sexual orientation, when dealing with the degree to which a person's sexual attractions, behaviors and identity match, scientists usually use the terms concordance or discordance. Thus, a woman who is attracted to other women, but calls herself heterosexual and only has sexual relations with men, can be said to experience discordance between her sexual orientation (homosexual or lesbian) and her sexual identity and behaviors (heterosexual).[25] Sexual identity may also be used to describe a person's perception of his or her own sex, rather than sexual orientation. The term sexual preference has a similar meaning to sexual orientation, and the two terms are often used interchangeably, but sexual preference suggests a degree of voluntary choice.[8] The term has been a listed by the American Psychological Association's Committee on Gay and Lesbian Concerns as a wording that advances a "heterosexual bias".[

That link you provided is in the context of homosexuality. Pedophilia is not legal so the definition provided by the APA reflects that. You need to understand how the mental health professions operate. Definitions are not fixed in stone and are constantly updated.

Here is an article from 2013 where the APA says they will reword their definition of pedophilia after a public outcry. https://archive.is/4SFFh. That was a few years after the 2009 bill debate. They could always change their minds again. As I said, it's more to do with politics than science as the brain and mental world are still not well understood.

comeonpeople ago

So in other words your argument is based on an opinion by one random guy, and your slippery slope fallacy that the definition is going to eventually go where you think it is.

Is that really more likely than that the federal government's definition is the one that applies to federal laws and the only definition relevant here?

Do you really think this was some huge issue that James was desperate to get settled in his favor? Because it's worth a lot of money to him and other pedophiles that if they get beat up, it's not just assault and battery, but assault and battery plus a hate crime? Do you think gettting a bigger punishment for their attackers is worth the fact that they would have to, you know, out themselves as pedophiles?

Just let it go. You wanted something to be there that wasn't.

cantsleepawink ago

Why are you so invested in this ?

comeonpeople ago

Because you made a thread about something very silly and demonstrably false, I mean we have the federal definition of sexual orientation and it simply, factually, does not apply to pedophilia. Therefore there is no point whatsoever in amending a federal law to exclude pedophiles from something that applies to sexual orientation. It's like if there were a law about ice cream and you wanted to make an amendment that excluded hot dogs. If a law lists the groups it applies to and x is not one of them, there is no point in making an amendment to exclude x.

It's like you guys can't find anything new so you just stretch credibility to the breaking point just for the sake of having a new thread to make.

cantsleepawink ago

Okay, you don't need to tell me why you're so close to this story, I can tell that you're upset. I'm just making sure that people are alert to the warning signals that occur when a political force wants to use the 'slowly slowly' approach of introducing something into law that is unacceptable and will not be tolerated by the vast majority of society.

comeonpeople ago

They weren't "introducing" anything, though. In fact that's exactly the point, the existing bill was just fine as it was. Donna Edwards opposed the "introducing" of new groups to the bill.

cantsleepawink ago

She was opposing a proposed amendment to exclude the category of 'pedophiles' from the protected groups defined within the hate crimes bill.

comeonpeople ago

And what I'm telling you and what you can see for yourself if you look at federal definitions and federal laws is that the federal definition of sexual orientation is "homosexual" or "heterosexual" or "bisexual". Period. Pedophiles are not a protected group, what is so hard to understand about that? Do you think they should propose an amendment to exclude "redheads" from the protected groups? How about "furries"? "Civil War re-enacters"? "White Supremacists"?

You are correct, "protected groups" are defined. Pedophiles are not among them. Therefore, by definition (literally), there is no need to exclude them.