Are you denying the National Association of Man Boy Love Affair member his "constitutional right" to sexually feast on a young male child as along as the child consents legally to molestion and signs an agreement allowing the approach and molestation of his person? Is there a constitutional right for a member of this group to exist? If there are laws in states against molestion and other perverted crimes then why is this organization valid? Is it the right of an illegal or legal man to approach young boys for the sole purpose on seduction? If you believe that this group is approaching young boys "just to talk" about their "unexplainable urges or feelings and beliefs" then you are a fool.
2006-11-02 01:12:27 · 9 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture ➔ Cultures & Groups ➔ Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender
The key word there is "legally". No minor can give legal consent. Period.
I would love for you to post a link that proves your allegation that the ACLU supports the MBLA.
Thanks. I'll be waiting.
2006-11-02 01:16:28 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 9⤊ 1⤋
As a gay man and parent I find NAMBLA repugnant, vile and sickening. Paedophiles are vile creatures who prey on innocence. As stated by another, minors cannot give legal consent so how can the ACLU defend them? If the ACLU is defending them, I personally cannot understand why. I also don't understand how they can continue to exist. Here in Canada they are classified as an illegal organization and are barred. Sadly that does not prevent them from meeting online or clandestinely but at least if caught they are convicted. Sick, just sick.
As for the freedom of speech issue, I cannot argue against that but it still strikes a primal cord in regards to children. Sometimes you have to decide how far you're willing to go I guess.
2006-11-02 09:49:18 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 0⤋
You'd have to ask the ACLU, they also have represented the KKK's right to march in black neighborhoods.
Nambla has been around for decades now, long enough that the boys originally sought out are now men. What people don't seem to understand about pedophiles is that its like rape, its not about sex, its about power and control, sex being the weapon.
I think pedophiles who abuse children(and children cannot give consent, even when they think they do) of any gender, need to be wiped off the face of the earth. And while I don't agree with the ACLU, they have made it a practice of looking at the letter of the law, and not the popular opinion of the society at the time. At least they are consistent.
2006-11-02 09:22:38 · answer #3 · answered by tjnstlouismo 7 · 3⤊ 2⤋
Where did you get such a ridiculous idea?
The ACLU does not support their beliefs.
NEW YORK--In the United States Supreme Court over the past few years, the American Civil Liberties Union has taken the side of a fundamentalist Christian church, a Santerian church, and the International Society for Krishna Consciousness. In celebrated cases, the ACLU has stood up for everyone from Oliver North to the National Socialist Party. In spite of all that, the ACLU has never advocated Christianity, ritual animal sacrifice, trading arms for hostages or genocide. In representing NAMBLA today, our Massachusetts affiliate does not advocate sexual relationships between adults and children.
What the ACLU does advocate is robust freedom of speech for everyone. The lawsuit involved here, were it to succeed, would strike at the heart of freedom of speech. The case is based on a shocking murder. But the lawsuit says the crime is the responsibility not of those who committed the murder, but of someone who posted vile material on the Internet. The principle is as simple as it is central to true freedom of speech: those who do wrong are responsible for what they do; those who speak about it are not.
It is easy to defend freedom of speech when the message is something many people find at least reasonable. But the defense of freedom of speech is most critical when the message is one most people find repulsive. That was true when the Nazis marched in Skokie. It remains true today.
2006-11-02 09:23:35 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 9⤊ 1⤋
In representing NAMBLA, the ACLU does not advocate sexual relationships between adults and children. What we do advocate is robust freedom of speech. This lawsuit strikes at the heart of freedom of speech. The defense of freedom of speech is most critical when the message is one most people find repulsive.
Perhaps you should actually READ what the case was about instead of showing your complete ignorance of the issues and making up your own.
2006-11-02 09:27:47 · answer #5 · answered by IndyT- For Da Ben Dan 6 · 5⤊ 1⤋
Personally, I think the organization and its members are disgusting. Thing is, that fact doesn't mean that those people shouldn't have freedom of SPEECH. Actions are not freedoms, by any means, but what the ACLU defends is their right to speak.
2006-11-02 09:31:39 · answer #6 · answered by Atropis 5 · 4⤊ 1⤋
Since minors can't legally consent to sex with adults, and since pedophilia is a crime, I seriously doubt the ACLU supports NAMBLA. Crimes can't be considered "civil liberties".
2006-11-02 09:23:30 · answer #7 · answered by cheyennetomahawk 5 · 4⤊ 1⤋
Well, when I answered another post else where I did call them idiots.
Equal opportunity idiots!
All they do is take on high profile cases that have a shot at the Supreme Court. They don't care if they win or not, it's about a Supreme Court legacy of controversy.
I once atteneded a radio debate over an anti-pornography bill in which the author of the bill was speaking and the ACLU sent a rank and file lawyer who read from a prepaired sheet and didn't deviate from the text, including for responding to questions.
The author of the bill shot from the hip and talked off the cuff. I opposed his bill, but I got along with him and we had a two hour private conversation in which he admitted many movies would be banned by his bill.
But that illustrates the ACLU mentality.
His preamble was always:
Our position states...
Then he read from the prepaired text.
You don't win in the Supreme Court like that! The Justices all shoot from the hip and they like to take pot shots. They relish it. They have a job for life and even if a Bush or Reason or Carter or Clinton got them in, when push comes to shove they vote as they feel and a lot of what they feel comes from the people facing them and arguing their point of view.
2006-11-02 09:17:56 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 7⤋
I think it is the most horrible group in the world and all members should be castrated and I think NAMBLA is almost as bad as they are.
Ps. NAMBLA is also a horrible institution. I gave them the worst insult I could I compaired them to the ACLU
2006-11-02 09:18:11 · answer #9 · answered by ♂ Randy W. ♂ 6 · 1⤊ 7⤋