pedophilia and pederasty - our new sexual orientation

[SomeRandom]

"This is done because we are talking about historical perspectives of how gender relations and different types of sexual orientations have existed in history,” said BOUSD Assistant Superintendent of Curricula Kerrie Torres

No... it was never taught as "sexual orientation". It is taught as "deviate behaviors". it is breaking news.

What are you talking about? No where in the video you linked to, did I hear from the horse's mouth that it was being taught as a type of sexual orientation.
(I mean given the current specific scientific definition, I suppose one could argue it fits. Though again, doesn't magically erase informed consent as a specifically agreed upon concept. And the very obvious reason why they will remain illegal regardless.)
The lady literally said it was taught in a historical context, as a phenomenon that happened in historic societies. And that has been the norm in Western education for like the last 100 years!

 

[sooda]

Just a matter of changing laws... after all, who determines what is legal and what isn't?

Don't be ridiculous. .. and stop projecting.

 

[HonestJoe]

"This is done because we are talking about historical perspectives of how gender relations and different types of sexual orientations have existed in history,” said BOUSD Assistant Superintendent of Curricula Kerrie Torres

I’m not convinced a casual statement from one individual definitively determines and entire organisations policy or practices.

No... it was never taught as "sexual orientation". It is taught as "deviate behaviors". it is breaking news.

Don’t you believe something could be defined as "sexual orientation” and "deviant behaviour"?

I’m not convinced it should be taught as either and would need to see evidence of the curriculum and materials to support any such assertions but I don’t see presenting paedophilia as a "sexual orientation" would automatically imply any kind of defence or acceptance.

 

[sooda]

Bestiality will be next... "Well, as long as the dog doesn't mind."

Bearing false witness is a sin.. You do know that, don't you?

 

[Father Heathen]

The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing.

It's best to keep our foot on their throat then give them a chance to grasp the smallest amount of air.

I don't care about the peds.

I am only interested in protecting the children.

So the first amendment should be repealed?

 

[columbus]

Bearing false witness is a sin.. You do know that, don't you?

Christians aren't perfect, they're forgiven.

Tom

 

[Enoch07]

So the first amendment should be repealed?

No

They are free to express their opinions. Just as we are free to say "No, keep your dirty paws off our kids". Come near my kids and you will get to find out what rem oil taste like.

 

[Father Heathen]

No

They are free to express their opinions. Just as we are free to say "No, keep your dirty paws off our kids". Come near my kids and you will get to find out what rem oil taste like.

Of course. If they victimize a child, then castration and imprisonment.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Bearing false witness is a sin.. You do know that, don't you?

If there are not two witnesses, nothing happened to that lying dog.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

So says a school district in California:

Who knows, maybe the next step is that it is a bigotry if you don't agree?

I have no forgiveness or mercy for pedophiles, but I do not see that this short video is providing evidence for their defense. It seems like a semantic argument rather than one of what is actually going on.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

"This is done because we are talking about historical perspectives of how gender relations and different types of sexual orientations have existed in history,” said BOUSD Assistant Superintendent of Curricula Kerrie Torres

No... it was never taught as "sexual orientation". It is taught as "deviate behaviors". it is breaking news.

Deviant behaviors are an orientation. That does not imply defense of a deviant behaviors. How do you know that she was not trying to be polite in her phrasing. It seems like you are reading a lot into this choice of phrase. Is there some actual evidence that this curriculum is speaking in defense of pedophiles?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Whether this is true doesn't change what I said. If a grownup's dominant romantic and sexual interest is for children or animals that's a sexual orientation.

I do not know of any evidence that animals can consent to human sexual advances. I do not know of any evidence that indicates that children can knowledgeably consent to the sexual advances of an adult.

I would be curious to hear why you would question the truth of that.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

A grownup with a predominant sexual interest in children has a sexual orientation. What else is it? A preference for animals is also an orientation. Whatever your preferred partner is that is your orientation. It doesn't matter what you think of it. Instead of demonising, perhaps we should humanise.

I do not see any reason that these cannot be described as orientations. Doing so does not defend the commission of an act.

Clearly, they should be treated as people, with rights, but the nature of the acts and the victims that such perpetrators prey on is particularly difficult to deal with objectively. I would not make a good judge of the sentencing for such criminal acts.

 

[Kenny]

Deviant behaviors are an orientation.

I disagree.

That does not imply defense of a deviant behaviors.

Depends on who you talk to. NAMBLA would disagree with your position and would defend it.

How do you know that she was not trying to be polite in her phrasing. It seems like you are reading a lot into this choice of phrase. Is there some actual evidence that this curriculum is speaking in defense of pedophiles?

Maybe I am reading into it... but with what she said, which was clear, and SB 273 which says

SECTION 1.
Section 297.1 of the Family Code is amended to read:


297.1.
(a) A person under 18 years of age who, together with the person with whom he or she proposes to establish a domestic partnership, otherwise meets the requirements for a domestic partnership other than the requirement of being at least 18 years of age, may establish a domestic partnership upon obtaining a court order granting permission to the underage person or persons to establish a domestic partnership.
(b) (1) The court order and written consent of the parents of each person under 18 years of age or of one of the parents or the guardian of each person under 18 years of age, except as provided in paragraph (2), shall be filed with the clerk of the court, and a certified copy of the order shall be filed with the Secretary of State with the Declaration of Domestic Partnership.
(2) If it appears to the satisfaction of the court by application of a person under 18 years of age that the person requires a written consent to establish a domestic partnership and that the minor has no parent or guardian, or has no parent or guardian capable of consenting, the court may make an order consenting to establishing the domestic partnership. The order shall be filed with the clerk of the court and a certified copy of the order shall be filed with the Secretary of State with the Declaration of Domestic Partnership.

It basically doesn't give a bottom line of age... just under 18. So it certainly seems to follow the thought.

California law barring child marriage met with resistance

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I disagree.

Then we disagree then. How is orientation insufficient in describing a particular state?

Depends on who you talk to. NAMBLA would disagree with your position and would defend it.

I would not know.

Maybe I am reading into it... but with what she said, which was clear, and SB 273 which says

SECTION 1.
Section 297.1 of the Family Code is amended to read:


297.1.
(a) A person under 18 years of age who, together with the person with whom he or she proposes to establish a domestic partnership, otherwise meets the requirements for a domestic partnership other than the requirement of being at least 18 years of age, may establish a domestic partnership upon obtaining a court order granting permission to the underage person or persons to establish a domestic partnership.
(b) (1) The court order and written consent of the parents of each person under 18 years of age or of one of the parents or the guardian of each person under 18 years of age, except as provided in paragraph (2), shall be filed with the clerk of the court, and a certified copy of the order shall be filed with the Secretary of State with the Declaration of Domestic Partnership.
(2) If it appears to the satisfaction of the court by application of a person under 18 years of age that the person requires a written consent to establish a domestic partnership and that the minor has no parent or guardian, or has no parent or guardian capable of consenting, the court may make an order consenting to establishing the domestic partnership. The order shall be filed with the clerk of the court and a certified copy of the order shall be filed with the Secretary of State with the Declaration of Domestic Partnership.

It basically doesn't give a bottom line of age... just under 18. So it certainly seems to follow the thought.

California law barring child marriage met with resistance

Yes. I think you have read way too much into it.

 

[Epic Beard Man]

So says a school district in California:

Who knows, maybe the next step is that it is a bigotry if you don't agree?

The problem with your YouTube source is that it comes from: Liberty Sentinel

"Liberty Sentinel Media, Inc. is a Christian company guided by biblical principles. We strive to uphold the highest levels of integrity, honesty, and diligence in all that we do. And we do it all for the Lord."

Source:About The Liberty Sentinel

Pedophilia is not a sexual orientation for one and I don't know why this is even taken seriously.

 

[Epic Beard Man]

A grownup with a predominant sexual interest in children has a sexual orientation. What else is it? A preference for animals is also an orientation. Whatever your preferred partner is that is your orientation. It doesn't matter what you think of it. Instead of demonising, perhaps we should humanise.

Eh, I disagree. There is something inherently wrong ethnically and morally of finding sexual interest in children and acting upon it especially when children do not have the mental agency to consent let alone understand sexual intercourse. Pedophilia very much should be demonized.

Whether this is true doesn't change what I said. If a grownup's dominant romantic and sexual interest is for children or animals that's a sexual orientation.

Regardless, it is not the normative form of what we consider sexual orientation.

I just recently did a case where two young kids ages 3, and 4 were brought in to my emergency room to be examined. We found out that both kids had dried semen on their face, the mother admitted that their father is the culprit. I don't give a damn what orientation this individual is, this was uncalled for

 

[sooda]

Whether this is true doesn't change what I said. If a grownup's dominant romantic and sexual interest is for children or animals that's a sexual orientation.

I agree.. Its aberrant but it is "sexual orientation".

 

[Twilight Hue]

Neither children nor animals can consent.

Except for that dog humping your leg.

 

[FragrantGrace]

So says a school district in California:

Who knows, maybe the next step is that it is a bigotry if you don't agree?

I'm more than happy to wear the moniker, pederastphobe.
Beats being a pederast enabler and defender.

And to be fair, it is California. People are moving from there and NY in great numbers now due to the whackadoo government that operates on the fringe.
This isn't a surprise.
The woman in the video who is confronted with the question about teaching pederasty failed in trying to clad this teaching in the context of historical perspectives on sexual identity and orientation.
So yes, it does appear that that pervert in the suit is hoping to teach that pedophilia is a sexual orientation. It is actually a disorientation that is prosecutable by law.

I just pray she doesn't have children.