I was watching O'Reily and saw this youtube clip. The concern is since other sexual orientations such as homosexuality, and bisexual are acceptable, does this also mean that bestiality can walk into the scene? I remember making this argument on bestiality/homosexuality a long time ago, and well...many gay and lesbian advocates were sore-offended. The truth is that if you allow one sexual perversion to pass, the door will be open for all other sexual perversions to enter in the guise of [i]'sexual orientation'[/i]. I believe this is why the ol' "Pedophilia Protection" act is under so much fire, rightfully so. Now the video is disturbing,(and kind of funny), but can one say that the message isn't making sense? What say ya. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EXPcBI4CJc8

I am going to marry my boat.

lol no

The thing is, two consenting homosexuals are capable of consent. Animals don't really understand the risks involved in having sex with a human, and they're unable to be taught them, so while a dog might like to hump your leg they're acting on impulse for the most part. Considering homosexuality to be acceptable does not mean you also have to accept non-consensual acts or sexual abuse, that's just absurd. Some people might think of it that way, but it's simply not the case. Pedophilia and bestiality are not considered sexual orientations, they're considered paraphalias, as in, abusive sexual practices. Under the law it was previously made clear that pedophiles are not protected as a sexual orientation like gays and lesbians are, though anti-gay folks like to make you think that if you protect gays you're somehow also protecting child molesters which is of course a lie. Sadly if I hop over to furaffinity you might actually find some people who are okay with raping their dogs

also you do realize this video is a parody right? It's [b]making fun[/b] of that slippery slope argument, not supporting it, hun.

[quote] Considering homosexuality to be acceptable does not mean you also have to accept non-consensual acts or sexual abuse, that's just absurd. Some people might think of it that way, but it's simply not the case. Pedophilia and bestiality are not considered sexual orientations, they're considered paraphalias, as in, abusive sexual practices. [/quote] Yes, the definition of paraphilia describes unusual sexual behaviors such as pedophilia, and bestiality---which can also be a person's sexual orientation. AND according to a pending hate crime bill dubbed as "the pedophile protection act", the bill plans to end violence, and prejudice based on gender, race, sexual orientation, religion, gender identity, disabilities, "philias", and fetishes. IN SHORT, if a person's sexual orientation is pedophilia, necrophilia, or even sadism, the pedophilia protection act will ensure that they are not in the wrong! So, yeah...sexual orientation covers for many other paraphilias. Also, homosexuality is also an abnormal sexual orientation to begin with. And to the video being a parody, I'll admit that it is a parody, and it's also disturbing...but the truth of the matter is that this is the end result when you allow one sexual orientation to pass. The truth...is often disturbing. [b]And I'd TRULY appreciate it if you wouldn't call me "hun." [/b]

[quote]Yes, the definition of paraphilia describes unusual sexual behaviors such as pedophilia, and bestiality---which can also be a person's sexual orientation. AND according to a pending hate crime bill dubbed as "the pedophile protection act", the bill plans to end violence, and prejudice based on gender, race, sexual orientation, religion, gender identity, disabilities, "philias", and fetishes. IN SHORT, if a person's sexual orientation is pedophilia, necrophilia, or even sadism, the pedophilia protection act will ensure that they are not in the wrong! So, yeah...sexual orientation covers for many other paraphilias. Also, homosexuality is also an abnormal sexual orientation to begin with. And to the video being a parody, I'll admit that it is a parody, and it's also disturbing...but the truth of the matter is that this is the end result when you allow one sexual orientation to pass. The truth...is often disturbing. [b]And I'd TRULY appreciate it if you wouldn't call me "hun." [/b][/quote] This is why you're wrong: THE HOUSE APPROVED federal hate crimes legislation (H.R. 1913), by a decisive 249- 175 margin. But in a shocking move, Democrats killed language that would have excluded pedophiles from receiving protections afforded in the measure. Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa) added the amendment during Judiciary Committee hearings, which stated that sexual orientation in the bill specifically be defined as not including pedophiles. According to Ted Pike, director of the National Prayer Network, Rep. Tammy Baldwin (D-Wisc.) objected, saying that King’s amendment was “unnecessary and inflammatory.” Ms. Baldwin claimed that sexual orientation, as defined by the Hate Crimes Statistics Act of 1990, means consensual heterosexual or homosexual sex. That definition, she claimed, is sufficient to exclude pedophiles, Pike added. From the Hate Crimes Statistics Act of 1990: As used in this section, the term ‘sexual orientation’ means consensual homosexuality or heterosexuality.As used in this section, the term ‘sexual orientation’ means consensual homosexuality or heterosexuality. From http://www.americanfreepress.net/html/vote_gives_child_molesters_176.html

"And I'd TRULY appreciate it if you wouldn't call me "hun." " And I'd appreciate it if you'd quit jumping into non-sequitors and claim they are absolute truth without providing [b]valid[/b] evidence but I doubt that's gonna happen =) Just because -YOU- see homosexuality as being the same thing as baby and doggy rape, doesn't mean other, more sane people, do as well. Paraphalias are not sexual orientations just because you think they are. They are not defined that way just because you want them to be. The -fact- and -truth- of the matter is, homosexuality is placed in an entirely different category than pedophilia and bestiality under all [i]sane[/i] governments of the world. You're saying if we stop discriminating against gays, we'll eventually allow child molesters off too, which is nothing more than a scare tactic and a baseless assumption. There have -always- been certain people who thought pedophilia and bestiality were okay even when homosexuality wasn't, they just didn't have things like the Internet back then to easily find out about those sorts of people. I've met idiots who think that bestiality is okay [b]as long as it's with an animal of the opposite sex.[/b] There are even countries that make it legal to have sex with an animal so long as the animal is of the opposite sex. Clearly they don't have to think homosexuality is okay in order to "open the door" to bestiality.

I seriously would stop bothering if I were you. She's been told a lot of this stuff before but it just refuses to register.

[quote]I seriously would stop bothering if I were you. She's been told a lot of this stuff before but it just refuses to register.[/quote] Oh, I know, I've had enough dealings with her on DeviantArt to be perfectly aware of this, but I can't help myself but to correct her when she starts spewing ignorance and logical fallacies like projectile vomit.

[quote]Oh, I know, I've had enough dealings with her on DeviantArt to be perfectly aware of this, but I can't help myself but to correct her when she starts spewing ignorance and logical fallacies like projectile vomit.[/quote] lol, I tried that here. I'm not masochistic enough to continue, but you keep fighting the good fight.

[quote]This is why you're wrong: THE HOUSE APPROVED federal hate crimes legislation (H.R. 1913), by a decisive 249- 175 margin. But in a shocking move, Democrats killed language that would have excluded pedophiles from receiving protections afforded in the measure. Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa) added the amendment during Judiciary Committee hearings, which stated that sexual orientation in the bill specifically be defined as not including pedophiles. According to Ted Pike, director of the National Prayer Network, Rep. Tammy Baldwin (D-Wisc.) objected, saying that King’s amendment was “unnecessary and inflammatory.” Ms. Baldwin claimed that sexual orientation, as defined by the Hate Crimes Statistics Act of 1990, means consensual heterosexual or homosexual sex. That definition, she claimed, is sufficient to exclude pedophiles, Pike added. From the Hate Crimes Statistics Act of 1990: As used in this section, the term ‘sexual orientation’ means consensual homosexuality or heterosexuality.As used in this section, the term ‘sexual orientation’ means consensual homosexuality or heterosexuality. From http://www.americanfreepress.net/html/vote_gives_child_molesters_176.html[/quote] Didn't you read the title of the article you gave me? The title clearly says, "249-175 House Vote Gives Child Molesters Hate Crime [u]Shield[/u]". As the article reads, the House of representative [b]approved[/b] federal hate criminal legislation H.R. 1913 with the help of the Democrats. [i](American Free press. Issue # 19, May 11, 2009)[/i] In other words, the bill passed into H.R. [b]without there being any changes to pedophile protection.[/b] The bill is now called Senate Bill S 909. On June 9th, 2009, World Net Daily reported that the bill is still pending in the Senate Committee with no action. The Senate received more than 560,000 letters from citizen protesting the bill during the current hold up. Even American Free Press encourages its readers to call our senators. As seen on the very site you gave to me, [b]"Call 1-877 851-6437 toll free and tell your Senators in Congress to vote against this bill."[/b] Thanks for giving me that site. With you trying to debunk my argument, you actually helped me. :D Steve King (R-Iowa) proposed an ammendment SUGGESTING that sexual orientation, as used in S-909 or any other amendments related to the act, does NOT include pedophilia. A majority of democrats still disagreed, as seen on American free press, Issue # 19. In fact, Rep. Alcee Hasting, D-Fla and supporter of the 'hate crimes" said this in regards to the bill, "This bill addresses our resolve to end violence based on prejudice and to guarantee that all Americans regardless of race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability or all of these 'philias' and fetishes and 'ism's' that were put forward need not live in fear because of who they are." (Posted: June 09, 2009, 9:22 pm Eastern © 2009 [i]WorldNetDaily[/i] http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=100614 ) Rep. Louis Gohmert, R-Texas, former judge had this to say in regards to the hate crime bill, "Having reviewed cases as an appellate judge, I know that when the legislature has the chance to include a definition and refuses, then what we look at is the plain meaning of those words," explained Gohmert. "The plain meaning of sexual orientation is anything to which someone is orientated. That could include exhibitionism, it could include necrophilia (sexual arousal/activity with a corpse) ... it could include urophilia (sexual arousal associated with urine), voyeurism. You see someone spying on you changing clothes and you hit them, they've committed a misdemeanor, you've committed a federal felony under this bill. It is so wrong." As I said, nothing has changed about the bill. I'm hoping and praying is that the bill doesn't pass at all, because despite it being a hate crime law supposedly protecting people from 'thought crimes', it is on the other hand, criminalizing others who preach against homosexuality, pedophilia etc.

[quote] You're saying if we stop discriminating against gays, we'll eventually allow child molesters off too, which is nothing more than a scare tactic and a baseless assumption.[/quote] Yeah, but what exactly is your idea of hate crimes towards gay and lesbians anyway?

Meh, stupid link isn't working. You can google World Net Daily. Once you're there, go to the search engine and type in 'Hate crimes' strategy? Slip through as amendment'.

[quote]Didn't you read the title of the article you gave me? The title clearly says, "249-175 House Vote Gives Child Molesters Hate Crime [u]Shield[/u]". As the article reads, the House of representative [b]approved[/b] federal hate criminal legislation H.R. 1913 with the help of the Democrats. [i](American Free press. Issue # 19, May 11, 2009)[/i] In other words, the bill passed into H.R. [b]without there being any changes to pedophile protection.[/b] The bill is now called Senate Bill S 909. On June 9th, 2009, World Net Daily reported that the bill is still pending in the Senate Committee with no action. The Senate received more than 560,000 letters from citizen protesting the bill during the current hold up. Even American Free Press encourages its readers to call our senators. As seen on the very site you gave to me, [b]"Call 1-877 851-6437 toll free and tell your Senators in Congress to vote against this bill."[/b] Thanks for giving me that site. With you trying to debunk my argument, you actually helped me. :D[/quote] The guy who wrote the article shoved his opinion in there to say that it’s protecting child molesters, but the truth is that neither side thinks that the bill should include child molesters, they’re only debating on whether or not it’s necessary to specifically exclude pedophiles. It isn’t, because sexual orientation is defined as being –consensual.- Didn't YOU read what I pasted there? Just because it's a biased website that takes your side doesn't mean that the facts he provided help your side. "As I said, nothing has changed about the bill. I'm hoping and praying is that the bill doesn't pass at all, because despite it being a hate crime law supposedly protecting people from 'thought crimes', it is on the other hand, criminalizing others who preach against homosexuality, pedophilia etc." No, it protects them against VIOLENCE. "Yeah, but what exactly is your idea of hate crimes towards gay and lesbians anyway?" Why don't you try reading the bill and finding out for yourself?

[quote]The guy who wrote the article shoved his opinion in there to say that it’s protecting child molesters, but the truth is that neither side thinks that the bill should include child molesters, they’re only debating on whether or not it’s necessary to specifically exclude pedophiles. [/quote] [i]"the truth is that neither side thinks that the bill should include child molesters,"[/i] If that were true, then H.R.1913 wouldn't have passed to the Senate Committee. Way to go, Democrats. [i]It isn’t, because sexual orientation is defined as being –consensual.- Didn't YOU read what I pasted there? Just because it's a biased website that takes your side doesn't mean that the facts he provided help your side.[/i] I read what you posted, but sexual orientation has a broad variety of definitions. As Rep. Louis Gohmert, R-Texas said in the World Net Daily article, [i]"Having reviewed cases as an appellate judge, [b]I know that when the legislature has the chance to include a definition and refuses, then what we look at is the plain meaning of those words,"[b] explained Gohmert. [b]"The plain meaning of sexual orientation is anything to which someone is orientated. [/b]That could include exhibitionism, it could include necrophilia (sexual arousal/activity with a corpse) ... it could include urophilia (sexual arousal associated with urine), voyeurism. You see someone spying on you changing clothes and you hit them, they've committed a misdemeanor, you've committed a federal felony under this bill. It is so wrong."[/i] And I agree, and I also agree with American Free Press. Once again, thanks for sharing that site with me. I might add it to my favorite's list. :) ...And I find it funny how the site you gave to me is suddenly BIAS to you. It wasn't bias when you introduced it to me. BUT ANYWAY, moving on. [i]"No, it protects them against VIOLENCE." [/i] So lemme ask you something. If a child molester is caught in the VERY act of molesting your young niece, daughter, brother, etc, will you not physically attack the pervert? Or will you be all, "Oh, well the hate crime law says that I can't hurt him." Basically, the law will take the side of the molester than the victim. You know why? Because the pervert can cry that he is being attacked because of his sexual orientation. And I would like for you to answer my question. What exactly are considered as hate crimes to gay and lesbians to you anyway?

I didn't mean for all the bold print. Ma'bad. ^^;

[quote]I seriously would stop bothering if I were you. She's been told a lot of this stuff before but it just refuses to register.[/quote] That's because I prefer the truth. :D

[quote][i]"the truth is that neither side thinks that the bill should include child molesters,"[/i] If that were true, then H.R.1913 wouldn't have passed to the Senate Committee. Way to go, Democrats.[/quote] Why wouldn't it have? "[i]It isn’t, because sexual orientation is defined as being –consensual.- Didn't YOU read what I pasted there? Just because it's a biased website that takes your side doesn't mean that the facts he provided help your side.[/i]" "I read what you posted, but sexual orientation has a broad variety of definitions." Maybe they vary between person to person, but they don't vary when it comes to their scientific and legal definitions. Pedophilia bestiality etc are paraphilias, types of sexual dysfunctions classified as mental disorders. In no way are they considered sexual orientations. A sexual orientation is –consensual.- Pedophilia and bestiality are non-consensual and therefore sexual abuse and therefore illegal. "As Rep. Louis Gohmert, R-Texas said in the World Net Daily article," Just because a politician said something does not make it true. You of all people should know that. Does Louis Gohmert have a psychology degree? "the site you gave to me is suddenly BIAS to you. It wasn't bias when you introduced it to me. BUT ANYWAY, moving on." I knew the site was biased against my side when I linked it. I linked it because it contained facts that actually hurt their own side. One person's opinion, however, doesn't equate to fact. Judge it by the facts, not what the guy's opinion of them were. The fact of the matter that whether or not you specifically exclude pedophiles in the bill won't matter because they will won't be protected as sexual orientation is a consensual thing. People are just freaking out because people like you won't stop using scare tactics. "daughter, brother, etc, will you not physically attack the pervert?" This has nothing to do with the argument, because protecting people against violence for their sexual orientation (I.E, whether you prefer males females or both) and gender identity (transgendered people) has nothing to do with attacking someone to stop them from committing an illegal act against a child (molestation) ""Oh, well the hate crime law says that I can't hurt him."" Except, it doesn't. It says sexual orientation, as in your personal sexual orientation, not the act of molestation or sexual abuse. Maybe you could see that if you weren't, well, illiterate. "What exactly are considered as hate crimes to gay and lesbians to you anyway?" Again, go look up the definition for a hate crime, and I already answered this question several times. It's VIOLENCE against an individual driven by the motivation that they belong to a certain group. It's attacking a person of a particular group for the sole reason that they belong to said group and thus they are targeting an entire group of people through a single attack. That's why you get charged harsher with a hate crime. Because while you can technically call a situation where a guy kills some other guy who slept with his wife a "hate crime," it's still more of an isolated and personal incident. While if you kill somebody -just because- they are gay, what's there to stop you from killing anyone else who's gay as well for the same reason?

[i]Why wouldn't it have?[/i] Because S-909 is advocating pedophilia, and other "philias" in the guise of a hate crime law. [i]Maybe they vary between person to person, but they don't vary when it comes to their scientific and legal definitions. Pedophilia bestiality etc are paraphilias, types of sexual dysfunctions classified as mental disorders. In no way are they considered sexual orientations. A sexual orientation is –consensual.- Pedophilia and bestiality are non-consensual and therefore sexual abuse and therefore illegal.[/i] I would want to agree that pedophilia is not considered as a sexual orientation, but it is; this is exactly why s-909 is under so much fire whether you want to believe it or not. This bill could careless if we're talking about consensual sex. Again, Democrat Alcee Hasting described what the bill addresses, "This bill addresses our resolve to end violence based on prejudice and to guarantee that all Americans regardless of race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability or all of these 'philias' and fetishes and 'ism's' that were put forward need not live in fear because of who they are." (2009, [i]World Net Daily[/i]) Might I add that S-909 is supported by President Obama, as well. [i]This has nothing to do with the argument, because protecting people against violence for their sexual orientation (I.E, whether you prefer males females or both) and gender identity (transgendered people) has nothing to do with attacking someone to stop them from committing an illegal act against a child (molestation)[/i] No, the question I asked has a lot to do with this argument. Besides, you said that the hate crime law is protecting these folks from VIOLENCE. And not to mention, this is the main reason why people want to do away with S-909. For some reason you are blatantly ignoring all the facts I gave you in regards to "The peodphile protection act." All you're saying is "OH, IT'S CONSENSUAL, It doesn't mean what you think." I showed you that over 560,000 people mailed their senators in an attempt to get the bill destroyed, and I gave you actual quotes on what the democrats want out of this bill. To sum it all together, wolf, you're just in denial. To that, all I can say is too bad. You can still answer the question if you want to though. XB [i]Again, go look up the definition for a hate crime, and I already answered this question several times. It's VIOLENCE against an individual driven by the motivation that they belong to a certain group. It's attacking a person of a particular group for the sole reason that they belong to said group and thus they are targeting an entire group of people through a single attack. That's why you get charged harsher with a hate crime.[/i] So what type of violence is this? Is this the same violence that causes Christians and Catholics to go to jail or get fined for preaching against homosexuality? Remember the reports I gave you in the other thread? Whereas the Christians and Catholics were charged with HATE CRIMES simply for preaching the gospel? Because if this is the case, then the S-909 will cause many Christians, and catholics to go to jail for their freedom of religion and speech.