Home > Elections > Mark Sanford wins House Seat in Special Election

Mark Sanford wins House Seat in Special Election

May 7th, 2013

SC

Wonders never cease to amaze me.  Republican Mark Sanford has won the House Seat in a special election against Stephen Colbert’s sister, Elizabeth Colbert Busch who is a greenhorn in the political arena.

USAtoday.com:

WASHINGTON — Disgraced ex-South Carolina governor Mark Sanford won his bid for redemption on Tuesday night, defeating Democrat Elizabeth Colbert Busch for his old seat in Congress.

Sanford, a Republican who admitted an extramarital affair in 2009, was ready to quit politics for good if he was not victorious in South Carolina’s 1st Congressional District. He will replace Republican Tim Scott, who was appointed to the Senate.

The former governor — once a rising GOP star considered presidential material — was an early favorite in the Republican district, which Mitt Romney carried by 18 percentage points in the 2012 election. But the revelation that his ex-wife, Jenny, accused Sanford of trespassing at her home caused the National Republican Congressional Committee to withdraw its financial and logistical support and gave Colbert Busch an opening.

Sanford is due in court within the week over trespassing  at his former wife’s home.  So much for family values.  Sanford, while pitiable, really left office in disgrace.  Not only did he leave the country, he also left no way for anyone to get in touch with him while he was gallivanting back and forth to South America.  Sanford lied to his wife and deserted his children at the time.  Sanford failed to call his children on Father’s Day.

Before his fling, Sanford had been a family values politician.  I am surprised the good people of South Carolina are willing to give him  and his  fiance another chance.

 

Categories: Elections Tags:
  1. Starryflights
    May 7th, 2013 at 21:43 | #1

    So much for family values, republican hypocrites. This speaks volumes about the people of South Carolina.

  2. Starryflights
    May 7th, 2013 at 22:07 | #2

    He will make a great member of the Foreign Affairs committee, bwahaha!

  3. Cato the Elder
    May 7th, 2013 at 22:19 | #4

    Starryflights :
    So much for family values, republican hypocrites. This speaks volumes about the people of South Carolina.

    I guess they’d rather have a philandering trespasser than a Marxist rubber stamp. Doesn’t bode well for the far left loons taking back the House in 2014.

    http://rationalwiki.org/w/images/5/50/Waaambulance.jpg

    • May 8th, 2013 at 01:22 | #5

      Why would you think Elizabeth Colbert Busch is a Marxist rubber stamp?

      That just sounds stupid. She is a neophyte to politics.

  4. Wolverine
    May 8th, 2013 at 03:06 | #6

    Hmmm, maybe Paul Boese was right: “Forgiveness does not change the past, but it does enlarge the future.”

  5. Censored bybvbl
    May 8th, 2013 at 06:09 | #7

    I think the WaPo article should have read “Ex-disgraced South Carolina ex-Governor…”.

  6. Scout
    May 8th, 2013 at 07:00 | #8

    The Sanford problem isn’t related to where he stands on the political spectrum. The problem is that he is representative of a far too common political type – self-absorbed politicians who are essentially scam artists and who view the electorate as marks whose purpose is to satisfy the pol’s psychological and, in some cases, employment issues.

    • May 8th, 2013 at 09:02 | #9

      But doesn’t it make you question the hypocrisy? I expect SOME of the folks who elected him will be in Church Sunday getting a good dose of family values that they will be trumpeting when they come out.

  7. May 8th, 2013 at 09:11 | #10

    Sanford is in the eviable position of owning no one anything. The Republicans turned their backs on him. (and probably rightfully so)

    He now goes to Washington as his own man.

  8. Elena
    May 8th, 2013 at 09:17 | #11

    Not long ago I debated a conservative republican on candidate “values”. I wonder now how he views his Republican brethren in South Carolina for voting for a candidate who sexually strayed. I wonder if he will now put down ALL republicans as flawed? Should be interesting to see how this plays out. But hey, I guess when conservatives like Newt and Rush blathering on and on about the sanctity of marriage, certain people will buy into any hypocrisy!

  9. Steve Thomas
    May 8th, 2013 at 09:20 | #12

    Starryflights :So much for family values, republican hypocrites. This speaks volumes about the people of South Carolina.

    It does not surprise me that Sanford won back this seat. The district was redrawn in 2011 and is overwhelmingly Republican. Mitt Romney carried this district by a large margin last November. Did partisanship play a large role? Yes. As Moon pointed out, Colbert-Busch is a political neophyte. I guess it was a matter of “The devil you know, vs. the devil you don’t”.

    I would have rather Sanford lost in the primary, to some other GOP candidate who has less baggage. In defense of the GOP: When a candidate secures the party nomination, the party has a responsibility to support the nominee. That said, the GOP did pull all of its financial support, after Sanford’s wife made her tresspassing complaint. The party’s patience does have its limits, and Sanford will not be afforded much “grace” should questions of ethics again arise in Sanford’s future. We’re not nearly as forgiving as Democrats, afterall.

  10. Steve Thomas
    May 8th, 2013 at 09:24 | #13

    Moon-howler :But doesn’t it make you question the hypocrisy? I expect the folks who elected him will be in Church Sunday getting a good dose of family values that they will be trumpeting when they come out.

    Moon,
    It’s rare that a comment here truely offends me, and even more rare when the comment is made by you…but this one does. Painting with a broad brush regarding Christians, aren’t we? Would it have been offensive if I made the same comments regarding those who attend predominately black churches on Sunday, voting overwhemlinly for Barrack Obama, Abortion and Gay Marriage supporter, on the following Tuesday? I think I would have been excoriated, and to top it off, called a racist.

    • May 8th, 2013 at 10:13 | #14

      No, only those who trumpet and you and I both know the types. I would call it selective trumpeting. Let me be more specific. Some folks will go to church and come out talking about Joe Blow who is cavorting around with Mary Sue and what skunks they both are. Some of these same folks turned a blind eye to Mark Sanford.

      Somehow I don’t think of abortion and gay marriage as part of the family values package in all Christian Churches. My church certainly wouldn’t spend a sermon preaching against these things.

      At any rate, I certainly did not mean to insult you. I absolutely don’t broad brush Christians. That would be rather self deprecating. I am sure people of all stripes are capable of turning a blind eye.

    • May 8th, 2013 at 10:15 | #15

      The comment I made reflects the clarification. BTW, not all churches are Christian, as I have had pointed out to me. In fact, I know of people who do not feel I am Christian and have written me letters telling me so. (Which I thought sort of took elephant nads.)

  11. Starry flights
    May 8th, 2013 at 10:17 | #16

    What truly offends me is Sanford’s actions while he was governor. He lied to everybody when he said he was hiking when in fact he was outside the country with his mistress Then he dumps his wife for his mistress. I find that type of behavior offensive. Apparently the folks down there find his behavior acceptable. There were 17 other republican candidates they could have chosen ,
    But they wanted Mark Sanford to represent them

  12. Rick Bentley
    May 8th, 2013 at 10:39 | #17

    Isn’t it the case though that right-leaning Christians seem to excoriate Democrats who have extramarital affairs (Bill Clinton, Ted Kennedy) but forgive their own more easily (Mark Sanford, Newt Gingrich, Rush Limbaugh, etc.)? I’m not looking to bash anyone by mentioining this; I just find human foibles interesting.

    “Morailty” seems to be something used in the service of pragmatic goals more than used as an end unto itself, in my opinion.

  13. Elena
    May 8th, 2013 at 10:47 | #18

    You know Steve, you were quite judgmental of all Democrats when Gary Studds was re-elected after the page scandal in 1983. In fact, you suggested that all Dems were somehow morally deficient because they were willing to elect such a flawed candidate with no morals or values.

    So, how do you feel about Republicans who were willing to re-elect such a morally flawed candidate.

    The premise Moon was suggesting was that there are many who espouse holier than thou morals and yet don’t practice what they preach.

  14. Rick Bentley
    May 8th, 2013 at 10:48 | #19

    Ted Kennedy does take the cake though. A level of unfitness beyond the others mentioned.

  15. Elena
    May 8th, 2013 at 10:51 | #20

    @Rick

    Fabulous points, I totally agree.

  16. Elena
    May 8th, 2013 at 11:03 | #21

    Rick,
    Don’t forget Livingston, speaker of the house who resigned because his extramarital affair was going to be exposed.

    Really, I don’t care about people’s marriages, that’s their own business. The only reason Sanford falls into a different category is because he went AWOL to HAVE his affair. What if there had been a horrible disaster in his state and he was no where to be found. THAT is a lack of leadership, NOT the affair.

  17. Rick Bentley
    May 8th, 2013 at 11:06 | #22

    Another interesting thing about the reaction to sexually-based escapades is the differing reaction when something “gay” is involved. A Democrat like Barney Frank can survive something as dramatic as fixing a parking ticket for his GAY HOOKER BOYFRIEND. Elena mentioned Gary Studds, who had a sexual relatiknship with a 17-year old male subordinate. But any Republican caught up in some legitimate public scandal with a hint of homosexual behavior to it is out the door.

    For better or worse Democrats bend over backwards (no pun intended) to not appear or to be homophobic, and Repubicans make no bones about being homophobic if and when someone gets forced out of their closet.

    Remember when a male prostitute was found to have access to the Bush White House? They kept that one quiet. Would love to hear Karl Rove talk more about that some time.

  18. Rick Bentley
    May 8th, 2013 at 11:10 | #23

    I remember Livingston, but we’re still not sure WHAT HE DID. Larry Flynt had some goods on him but Livingston’s wife asked him not to make them public, and he didn’t (after Livingston’s resignation). It has to be something more dramatic than a simple extramarital affair I think. One rumor is that it involved phone sex which one would presume is of a bizarre nature and that flynt had recordings.

    Or maybe a “Morgan Freeman” scenario of some type. (Freeman has taken up with his step-granddaughter, E’Dena Hines).

  19. Rick Bentley
    May 8th, 2013 at 11:13 | #24

    (Freeman has eventually publicly denied the story but it’s an obvious thing. He seems to have broken up with the young woman in recent years, and at that point denied a romantic relationship with her).

  20. Steve Thomas
    May 8th, 2013 at 11:48 | #25

    @Elena

    Elena,

    Please do not take my comments as condoning Mark Sanford’s previous behavior. Were I an eligible voter in that district’s primary, I certainly wouldn’t have voted for him, and faced with a special election choice between him and Cobert-Busch, I would have stayed home. As I wrote on a previous thread, while I believe an affair is a personal matter between parties involved (provided they are of-age, and no laws were broken in the process) I have little tolerance for any elected official who flat-out lies to the people, regardless of their motivations, and regardless of their party. I don’t have a different yardstick for Dems and Republicans.

  21. Steve Thomas
    May 8th, 2013 at 11:49 | #26

    @Moon-howler

    Thanks for the clarification. If no affront was intended, then I’ll retract my protest.

  22. Elena
    May 8th, 2013 at 12:24 | #27

    My point Steve was you must now think that there some deficiency with Republicans if they would vote a Sanford into congress. That was the point you made in lumping Democrats as lacking in moral character for re-electing Studds.

  23. Steve Thomas
    May 8th, 2013 at 12:35 | #28

    @Elena
    I do think there was some deficiency with the voters, considering that he was the nominee to begin with. My guess is for all of his faults, he still had some loyal donors, and the biggest name recognition of the primary field. However, I am not surprised that he won the general. The district is very Republican, and Southern Republican at that. A lot of focus here has been directed at “what a terrible candidate Sanford was”, but we outside of the district know next to nothing about Colbert-Busch. “Anybody but Sanford” may have had some effect (he only got 54% of the vote, in a very safe GOP district) Here’s a pretty good opinion/analysis of the race: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013/05/08/truth-about-sanford-victory/

  24. Elena
    May 8th, 2013 at 12:43 | #29

    Steve, you made this assertion:

    Steven Thomas Elena Schlossberg-Kunkel : I’m sorry to say that the democrats have a long, long tradition of permissive attitudes for this sort of behavior: 1983. Two congressmen stand accused of having sexual relations with underage congressional pages, and they both admitted to the conduct. The Republican Dan Crane R-IL was found to have had a relationship with a 16 year-old female page. He was censured, and removed from office by the voters in his majority republican district in 1984. Congressman Gerry Studds (D-MA) was accused of having an affair with a 16 yearold male page, which included taking the young man on a trip to Portugal. Studds was censured, and was given a standing ovation by his democrat collegues as he returned to his seat. He was also rewarded with reelection 6 more times, by his very democratic district. Seems to me democrat politcians and democrat voters are much, much more tolerant of adults having sex with adolecents, as history would indicate.

    I then came back with the example of Foley to which you replied:

    Well, now that you mention Mark Foley, I do believe the GOP booted his but pretty quickly, so, which further supports my assertion that the GOP (as an institution) and GOP voters are much less tolerant of this sort of thing.

    • May 8th, 2013 at 16:58 | #30

      Most democrats dropped John Edwards, Gary Hart, and Gary Condit like a hot potato once their piccadillos came out.

      John Edwards is just a scum bag. gary Hart was running for prez. Gary Condit…well…not sure his name will ever be clear in our minds.

      I am sure there are others. Kennedy could never run for Prez. Would he have become the lion of the senate if he came from any other state than Mass?

      I don’t know. I would kind of doubt it.

      @ Steve and Elena

      @Rick

      Yes, Ted Kennedy was a hell cat in his day and I spent much of my life disliking him. As he approached the twilight of his life, I grew more tolerant when I took him out of political contexts and looked at how he had personally reformed and the good he had done for others. I do believe in repenence.

  25. Elena
    May 8th, 2013 at 12:47 | #31

    I guess what I am trying to relay is that you asserted there was something wrong with Democratic voters because of their vote to keep Studds in office. My point to you was, and remains, that people vote partisan for a myriad of reasons, and to judge an entire group of people based on NOT voting for a candidate due to a sexual affair is unfounded.

  26. Steve Thomas
    May 8th, 2013 at 13:02 | #32

    @Elena
    Ah, but you are taking the argument I was making on that thread completely out of context, which at that time surrounded Alcee Hastings assertion that pedophillia is an “orientation”. We weren’t arguing run-of-the-mill affairs, that morally-weak individuals in both parties succumb to (with an increasingly alarming frequency), the “this sort of thing” we were discussing was what the reasonable man (or woman) would classify as “deviant sexual behavior” involving adolescents, same-sex, and same-sex adolescents. If taken in this context, my argument stands….and I am sure that the voters in SC wouldn’t have elected Sanford had his affair been with an Agentinian teenager (as Senator Melendez of NJ has been accused of), Argentinian male, or male Argentinian teenager.

  27. Elena
    May 8th, 2013 at 13:12 | #33

    Once again, Alcee Hastings was not saying pedophilia was an orientation, but you can keep believing that. It doesn’t change your intent to discredit all Democrats because they re-elected someone who had an inappropriate affair. And the young page was 17, not 16. Not that it makes it any better. But my point to you was that you were more than willing to lump an entire group of people as deficient. If you don’t want to be “brushed with a broad stroke” I would suggest you not do it to other people.

  28. Steve Thomas
    May 8th, 2013 at 14:14 | #34

    @Elena
    I never wrote “deficient”. I do believe the term I used was “tolerant”. Surely you can’t object to the use of the word “tolerant”…isn’t that what folks on your side of the isle are always calling for? “Tolerance”? Isn’t your argument that we on the right are “intolerant”?

    And Alcee Hastings, in his remarks in opposition to the proposed ammendment to the bill (which would make it a federal crime for parents or therapists to attempt to change a minor’s sexual orientation), and his opposition to the proposed ammendment, which specifically stated “pedophilia is not an orientation”, Congressman Hastings stated, and I quote “all alternative sexual lifestyles should be protected under the law”…. It doesn’t get any clearer than this: Congressman Alcee Hastings (D-FL) believes that pedophilia is an ” alternative sexual lifestyle”.

    • May 8th, 2013 at 21:31 | #35

      I don’t believe pedophilia is an ‘alternative life style.’ It is an illegal act because it involves victimizing children.

      I am not ready to say bank robbery is an ‘alternative career choice’ or that rape is an alternative sex choice either.

      Can you direct me to those comments in context? I find it hard to believe that any responsible adult would suggest that.
      @Steve

  29. May 8th, 2013 at 23:03 | #36

    Heh…. I grew up in New Orleans. Re-electing crooks, adulterers, and incompetents….. you mean there are other types of politicians?

    • May 8th, 2013 at 23:27 | #37

      @Cargo

      And we live right down the road from DC….need I say more??????

      How are classes?

  30. May 9th, 2013 at 07:32 | #38

    @Moon-howler
    Done! Straight A’s!

    • May 9th, 2013 at 09:45 | #39

      Congratuations!!!!

      How many teachers did you make quit? [just kidding just kidding]

  31. Steve Thomas
    May 9th, 2013 at 08:38 | #40
    • May 9th, 2013 at 11:04 | #41

      I think we are missing something. There are all sorts of “phelias” including hemophilia. I don’t think he meant to include pedophilia and he doesn’t say he supports it. I am going out on a limb and say I don’t even think pedopheliacs even support it. From what I have read, they abhor that part of themselves–that sickness that creates the monster. Obviously I am not speaking of young under-age women and men who are on the cusp of being adults. That is something else.

      I wish he had chosen a different ‘ending.’ However, if people are uncomfortable that some pedophile might use the amendment to trick society into accepting a crime that 99% of the population views with abhorence, then spell it out.

  32. Steve Thomas
    May 9th, 2013 at 08:47 | #42

    @Moon-howler

    Moon,

    In fairness, I don’t believe the average “Joe and Jane” Democrat believes pedophilia is anything other than deviance, and acting on it is a crime, in otherwords, sick. What I do believe is some on the left are so “open minded” that their brains have fallen out. Also, I believe that some on the right are so “close minded” that their brains have imploded. But, my original assertion still stands. Democrats are much more tolerant of less-than-stellar personal behavior. How else could one explain Marion Barry’s political career, or Alcee hastings being elected to congress, after being impeached and removed from the bench, as a Federal judge. Now, I am not saying the GOP never overlooks a past sin, but we have a tendency to shun those who bring discredit to the party, or the office. As the old saying goes, Democrats “circle the wagons” when one of theirs is caught doing something. Republicans eat their own.

    • May 9th, 2013 at 09:41 | #43

      I never thought I would have an arguement over pedophilia. I am not in the Democrat tolerance discussion but I will agree that in general they are far more tolerant, although not on pedophelia or other crimes against children. I would say that abhorence over these sick MFs pretty much crosses all political boundaries.

      Pedophiles are sexual preditors. That isn’t a alternate life style any more than being a rapist is an alternative life style. It is being a sexual preditor on steroids.

      Speaking of which, I would like to see that Ariel Castro man tortured as he did to those girls. He represents pure evil.

  33. Steve Thomas
    May 9th, 2013 at 10:40 | #44

    @Moon-howler

    “Speaking of which, I would like to see that Ariel Castro man tortured as he did to those girls. He represents pure evil.”

    Ironic, in a sense: Some of us, who oppose “enhanced interrogation”, who believe it to be torture, would permit the torture of a fiend like Ariel Castro, and someone like me, who is pro-life, wouldn’t lose a wink of sleep if Castro was to get the death penalty.

    • May 9th, 2013 at 10:58 | #45

      I told Elena the other day that the problem with the death penalty was that it didn’t include enough infractions to be able to put it to use. This Castro fiend deserves it.

      As for torturing him, the only reason I wouldn’t do it is because I think people who torture lose parts of their soul. the act of torture strips us of part of our humaness or something.

  34. Steve Thomas
    May 9th, 2013 at 11:03 | #46

    @Moon-howler

    Moon,

    I recall a discussion I had with you a few years back, regarding “the line”, “the line” being what the majority of society agrees is “acceptable”, or in other words “local standards of decency”. Recall that I argued that something that might be perfectly acceptable in San Francisco, may not be acceptable in Old Town Manassas. At the time, we were discussing KK’s. I said, there are elements in our society that are always trying to move the line. Sometimes this is for “the betterment of society”, as was the case when Jim Crow and segregation was struck down. In other cases, the “betterment” is more debatable, as in the case of pornography/decency laws. I also pointed out that if the line were moved far enough in one direction, both you and I would find ourselves on the same side of the line, where we both agree, without equivocation that what is on the other side of the line is “bad”. So let’s look at marriage. I oppose gay marriage, you don’t see much wrong with the idea. So elements in society agitate for gay marriage, and after a time, the line is moved, and gay marriage is deemed “acceptable”. Now, the polygamists start agitating, that polygamy should be legal…., even though it is deemed unacceptable, and unlawful at this time, just as gay marriage was a few years ago, and before that, homosexual behavior. So, is it that much of a logical stretch to see NAMBLA advocating for the legalization of pedophelia, in yet another attempt to move the line? How about incest laws, where both parties are adults? Should that be legalized, especially in an age of reliable contraception and availability of abortion eliminates the biggest legal justification for prohibiting incest, that children born of incest have a higher chance of genetic defect? Sure, it wouldn’t happen overnight, but neither did “tolerance” of homosexuals, or gay marriage. No, it happened over time, with interested parties constantly applying pressure, in politics, in the media, in pop-culture, in our schools, until such time as public perceptions have been shaped to a point of acceptance, and then, legalization. Look at Pot laws. Same thing. So, when I see with my own eyes, and hear with my own ears, a congressma, not to mention a former federal judge, calling pedophilia an “alternative-lifestyle”, I can say we are indeed on a very slippery-slope.

    • May 9th, 2013 at 14:34 | #47

      I am not sure what the discussion is even about. I don’t think the ‘phelias’ he suggested meant pedophelia but it was a bad choice of words,, especially this week when Castro is on our minds, and we see three girls who were held prisoner for 10 years. Who actually thinks of bibliophelia, anglophilia or hemophilia at time like this. So I would be willing to put his reference of ‘phiias’ on that imaginary puff of wind that allows people to suck their words back in. Bad choice of words.

      I absolutely do not think he meant to endorse child molesting.

      I grew up in a time when the adults in my world all warned of the dangers of integration. The world would come to an end. Blacks and whites would date, marry, have bi-racial children (a different word was used back then) and other societal ills. Well, our better angels prevailed, segragation was made illegal, and some of those things prognosticated about came to be. Society adjusted and life moved on, to the point that one of those bi-racial children became president.

      So looking at marriage, how does gay marriage possibly hurt you or impact you? I can’t see where it does. The state gives me a contract with my spouse and gives me certain (over 1000) benefits for being married. It doesn’t create a happy or productive marriage for any of us. I just don’t think that one group of people should be entitled to something another group is not entitled to. Latest polls suggest that more people at least have no objection to gay marriage than do. The thought that it would lead to legalizing multiple marriages at the same time is again, a stretch.

      Polygamy already exists. The multiple marriages are church sanctioned just not state sanctioned. I guess as many people who want to can shack up together. Usually wife #1 is legally married and the others are ecclesiastical marriages. If the wives get too young or below the age of state consent, then the residence state should step in and arrest as was done when Warren Jeffs was put in the slammer.

      Incest is another issue that shouldn’t really be an issue unless children are victimized. I don’t know what we really do about relatives who do whatever it is that they do. Restrictions differ from state to state. I personally don’t care about consenting related adults. nothing I can do about it anyway. I care about children.

      So again, how does gay marriage really have anything to do with these things? Would you be more comfortable with civil unions for gay people? How does gay marriage hurt you or your family?

  35. Elena
    May 9th, 2013 at 13:52 | #48

    I simply will not stand silently by while you, Steve, suggest that to accept gay marriage is bringing us down a slippery slope of approving child abuse. Having know both a child molestor and various gay people, I can tell you, they have NOTHING in common.

    Two consenting adults can love each other and its none of your business or mine. I would say that going to war over false pretenses is a hell of a lot more morally offensive than gay people!

  36. Elena
    May 9th, 2013 at 14:01 | #49

    Furthermore, what exactly does bringing Alcee Hasting into the conversation have to do with voters putting people like Sanford into office? What does that have to do with voting Studds into office? Why bring Hastings into the debate, what is the connection?

  37. Rick Bentley
    May 9th, 2013 at 14:23 | #50

    It’s an abuse of power to discriminate against one set of people on the basis that it puts a barrier up against a different group of people. I’ll call that a misuse of law and government.

    IMO pedophilia is not going to gain acceptance in the US Anytime soon (despite differeng levels of acceptance in other countries). We should be able to discuss that issue rationally as we do any other form of crime or abnormal behavior.

    And, it has to be noted that discrimination against gay people (I’m including opposition to gay marriage in that) is implicitly or explictly aimed at getting people to keep their sexuality shrouded “in a closet”. Closeted sexuality, inability to discuss sexuality, association of weird/deviant/alternate sexual behavior as “bad” – these are conditions that pedophiles thrive on.

    • May 9th, 2013 at 16:08 | #51

      Rick just brought up a very important point that needs to be discussed. Pedophiles thrive on secrets and closetedness. They are powerless in the open.

      Pedophiles come in all varieties. The more openess, the less pedophilia.

  38. Rick Bentley
    May 9th, 2013 at 14:30 | #52

    “association of weird/deviant/alternate sexual behavior as “bad””

    What I meant by that is that some molesters get away with things because they seem like “good people”. I worked with a guy like this – churchgoing, friendly, charitable guy. In that context people who knew him better than I presumably asked less questions about his behavior. And eventually he was found to have a huge stash of child porn. BTW when I knew him he was awaiting “full scope” clearance to work in CIA facilities.

    My posts are becoming incoherent – wish I could re-edit the original post. But here’s what I meant. I do think pedophilia’s “bad”. But arguably someone who had those urges but didn’t act on them could be a “good” person. (Particularly, I would think, if they chemically castrated themself). I think that when we label alternative sexuality in general as “bad” that it enables a straight-laced looking pedophile to elude suspicion. Michael Jackson syndrome – millions of people can’t believe that the world’s most obvious pedophile had any sexual attraction to children.

    • May 9th, 2013 at 16:13 | #53

      Email me any time you want to edit. I appreciate your comments. You brought up the flip side of a serious problem. I have had several friends with pedophile relatives. The one I knew about the most closely….you would never suspect this guy.

  39. Steve Thomas
    May 9th, 2013 at 14:44 | #54

    @Elena

    “Furthermore, what exactly does bringing Alcee Hasting into the conversation have to do with voters putting people like Sanford into office? What does that have to do with voting Studds into office? Why bring Hastings into the debate, what is the connection?”

    Elena,

    I didn’t bring Alcee Hastings into the conversation, you did,. See your comment (#29) above.

  40. Steve Thomas
    May 9th, 2013 at 14:50 | #55

    @Elena

    I’m not the one calling pedophillia an “alternative-lifestyle” seeking to provide federal protection from parents and psychological professionals from attempting to treat it in a minor. Congresswoman Jackie Speer (D-CA) and Congressman Alcee Hastings (D-FL) are. Documented. In the congressional record. Slippery Slope.

  41. Steve Thomas
    May 9th, 2013 at 15:12 | #56

    ‘Latest polls suggest that more people at least have no objection to gay marriage than do. The thought that it would lead to legalizing multiple marriages at the same time is again, a stretch. ”

    Moon,

    You prove my point. There was a time (in my lifetime), when some states forbade interacial marriage. The equal-rights movement changed public perceptions over time, and in this case, states began aligning their laws to conform with the public opinion that there is absolutely nothing wrong with a man and woman of different ethnicities from marrying, and having children. There was a time when most gays remained closeted, as society didn’t accept gays, and gays were subjected to all kinds of abuse or discrimination. Gradually, societal perceptions have changed to where states have dropped laws prohibiting homosexual relations, gays have protected status under federal law, anti-hate crime legislation was passed, and nowwe have states that have legalized same-sex marriage. And while I doubt “accepting the pedophile” will be the next big push in the sexual revolution, please explain to me how once the One-man/One-Woman wall is struck down, so as not to exclude same-sex couples, how defending “marriage between two people” will be any more defensible? It won’t be, if the last 50 years of history are any indication. All it will take is one state, Utah or Nevada perhaps, to change their law, and the next big push is on, with no DOM act to stop it.

  42. Elena
    May 9th, 2013 at 15:16 | #57

    Alcee Hastings was part of the quote you used that I provided as context. In fact, I would add that he also wasn’t a part of the original discussion had on facebook either. Alcee Hastings was not suggesting that Pedophilia was an alternative lifestyle. It is republicans who continuously throw that into the same conversation as gay marriage, and I cannot stress this enough, gay people are NOT NOT NOT the same as pedophiles. Seriously, who thinks that? Who believes that a hate crime bill really needs clarification of sexual orientation?!

    But, back to the real conversation, which was, why do you put down democrats for their vote of Studds and yet not put down the republicans who voted for Sanford. That remains my point Steve.

  43. Elena
    May 9th, 2013 at 15:18 | #58

    Watch the entire debate Steve and you will understand that the reaction of dems was to an amendment that repubs were submitting clarifying that sexual orientation did not include beastiality and pedophilia among other stupid examples of illegal acts.

  44. Rick Bentley
    May 9th, 2013 at 15:37 | #59

    Steve, why the fear of polygymy? It’s established practice in much of the world. I oppose it myself; it’s contrary to my view of what marriage is or should be actually. But if it were legalized, I don’t see that it would affect my life very much.

  45. Steve Thomas
    May 9th, 2013 at 15:38 | #60

    @Moon-howler

    Moon, the word is “paraphilia”:

    From Wikipedia
    “Examples include sexual interests that can motivate committing sexual offences—such as pedophilia, zoophilia, sexual sadism, and exhibitionism—but also include many harmless sexual interests, such as transvestism. There is no consensus for any precise border between unusual personal sexual tastes and paraphilic ones, and multiple, overlapping definitions exist. There is debate over which, if any, of the paraphilias should be listed in diagnostic manuals, such as the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) or the International Classification of Diseases.”

    You and Elena really should look at the congressional record regarding the debate on the legislation proposed by Jackie Speire. From the Bill SB 1172:

    “‘Sexual orientation change efforts’ means any practices by mental health providers that seek to change an individual’s sexual orientation. This includes efforts to change behaviors or gender expressions, or to eliminate or reduce sexual or romantic attractions or feelings toward individuals of the same sex”

    Republicans offerred an ammendment, which stated:
    “pedophilia is excluded from the protected behaviors or gender expresions”

    Democrats defeated this ammendment, and Alcee Hastings stated:
    “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 ‘isms’ that were put forward need not live in fear because of who they are. I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this rule,”

    And if you don’t think there’s a movement to get pedophilia classified as an orientation, two psycologists Canada are arguing that it is. Their names are Hubert Van Gijseghem, and Vernon Lewis Quinsey.

    And last but not least, Harvard Medical published this in 2010: :”Pedophilia is a sexual orientation and unlikely to change. Treatment aims to enable someone to resist acting on his sexual urges.”

    So we have legislators writing bad laws, creating all kinds of protected classes based on “orientation”, tearing down core societal institutions left and right and the medical community begining to recognize pedophilia as an orientation….slippery slope.

  46. Elena
    May 9th, 2013 at 15:41 | #61

    Yea Steve, you must be right, Democrats want to protect Pedophiles, you caught us.

  47. Elena
    May 9th, 2013 at 15:45 | #62

    FYI, DSM no longer listed homosexuality as a mental disorder so why do you continue to attempt to conjoin pedophilia with homosexuality?

  48. Steve Thomas
    May 9th, 2013 at 15:57 | #63

    @Elena
    Elena,

    Please go back and read my comments. I do believe I expressed disappointment with the SC GOP voters who chose Sanford in their primary. I also stated that had I been eligible to vote in that election, and my choice was vote for a Democrat or a former GOP governor who publically lied to hide an affair, I’d stay home.

  49. Steve Thomas
    May 9th, 2013 at 16:02 | #64

    Elena :FYI, DSM no longer listed homosexuality as a mental disorder so why do you continue to attempt to conjoin pedophilia with homosexuality?

    I don’t “conjoin them”. Society has changed and now GLBT is “all good”. They even have laws and such that say so, and every day there’s a new law, just to drive the point home. But as I pointed out, in my comment # 58 above, it ain’t just NAMBLA starting to make the “pedophilia is an orientation” argument.

  50. Steve Thomas
    May 9th, 2013 at 16:08 | #65

    Elena :Yea Steve, you must be right, Democrats want to protect Pedophiles, you caught us.

    No Elena, “Democrats” don’t want to protect pedophiles. What they do is write well-intentioned bad laws, which create loop-holes that groups like NAMBLA will try to run through, all in an effort to legislate “inclusivity” “social justice” “economic justice”. Panem et Circensus…

    • May 9th, 2013 at 19:46 | #66

      Just Democrats write bad laws? Hmmmmmm…whatever happened to those committees that write and rewrite laws…you know the ones written by by parties in committees. Isn’t the House still under Republican control? Hell I was only gone about 6 hours yesterday.

  51. punchak
    May 9th, 2013 at 16:16 | #67

    @Steve Thomas
    Nothing to do with the contents but, please, please, use paragraphs! When I
    see a big block of single spaced typing, I turn out and off.

  52. Steve Thomas
    May 9th, 2013 at 16:31 | #68

    Elena :Watch the entire debate Steve and you will understand that the reaction of dems was to an amendment that repubs were submitting clarifying that sexual orientation did not include beastiality and pedophilia among other stupid examples of illegal acts.
    @Elena

    I did, way before you did, clearly. When I first mentioned this, you had know idea what I was talking about. I read the transcript and the congressional record too. I read the proposed bill. What is wrong with clarifying a vague piece of legislation, if the ammended legislation accomplished what you think it is intended to accomplish: offer legal protections against attempts to change a person’s “sexual orientation”, with “sexual orientation” to mean whatever the prevailing view of the term “sexual orientation” to mean? Is “Transgender” an orientation? I thought if a male was attracted to males, that meant “homosexual”, which according to the law is “just fine” Does Transgender mean “body doesn’t match orientation”? Lesbian…woman attracted to woman…recognized orientation, under the law. Harvard Medical says pedophilia is an “orientation”. Proposed law says “orientaton change therapy is bad”. Law gets passed. Some pedophile defies a court order for treatment, arguing this is “orientation” according to Harvard Medical 2010 publication. Federal law says attempts to “change orientation” is illegal. Court finds against defendent. Defendent appeals…wins on appeal when a brilliant legal scholar like (Former, impeached) Federal Judge Alcee Hastings sits on the bench. Precedent for “pedophilia is an orientation” is set. Prosecutor appeals…goes all the way to the SCOTUS…annnnd BAM!

    all because of bad law, written with the best of intentions, to legislate “inclusivity”, defended by a couple of ideologues, to satisfy one segment of society, while opening the door to a whole bunch of other issues…

    So, what next: the guy (or gal) who goes to a therapist because of issues with fidelity. This egg-head says his “orientation” is Polyamory. Well, if that’s his orientation, shouldn’t he be able to live his “polyamorus orientation” to the fullest, enjoying all of the fruits of marriage-equality…he should be able to marry as many women (or men) as he wants…afterall, we don’t want to exclude anybody.

    • May 9th, 2013 at 19:43 | #69

      Oh dear God, you all are making my head hurt….right between the eyes.

      What is the bill in question? I know nothing about it, thank goodness.

      This conversation is not part of any thread I put up. How did you all get to this point?

      What is the original premise? It looks to me like everyone is chasing his or her tail my my point of view.

      If we are back to polygamy, then stop. Polygamy is alive and well. People practice it leaving the state out of subsequent marriages.

      Its very hard to discuss when one doesn’t know the original premise.

  53. Steve Thomas
    May 9th, 2013 at 16:34 | #70

    @punchak

    tough on a phone, but I will try.

  54. Rick Bentley
    May 9th, 2013 at 16:37 | #71

    Pedophilia IS an orientation. We can all choose to remain in denial about that, but it pretty clearly is, arguably just by its definition. God or Mother Nature made pedophiles; sexual attraction to children is not something that most of us do or could have inside us.

    • May 9th, 2013 at 19:52 | #72

      Pedophilia is a crime that victimizes children. I am not ready to say it is an orientation. An orientation is straight or gay. How about sick MOFO proclivity?

      People may have proclivities towards S & M, pedophilia, cross-dressing, animals or a whole bunch of nasty I don’t want to think about. That isn'[t their orientation. I am not going to buy into orientation.

  55. Rick Bentley
    May 9th, 2013 at 16:39 | #73

    IMO being a pedophile is like a curse one is born with. God/Mother Nature burdens some people with it as surely as God/Mother Nature burdens others with blindness, deafness, etc.

    That idea isn’t one that people embrace. We’d all like to ignore ugliness. But when you think this through, it’s pretty obvious.

  56. Steve Thomas
    May 9th, 2013 at 16:44 | #74

    Elena :FYI, DSM no longer listed homosexuality as a mental disorder so why do you continue to attempt to conjoin pedophilia with homosexuality?

    My point exactly. Rightly or wrongly, there was a point in time, where society and the medical community defined homosexuality as a mental disorder. Now they don’t. What is to stop peodophilia from one day getting this same consideration? The law? I’ve just spent considerable effort laying out a logical argument that bad laws get tested and struck down all the time. Same can happen to bigamy laws, and each time this happens, we slide a little bit closer to the edge.

    • May 9th, 2013 at 20:00 | #75

      Bigamy and polygamy are very different. Just ask a Mormon. I got laughed at for not knowing the difference while I was in Utah. Let’s say bigamy became legal. Is that the only thing stopping you from practicing it? I would think probably Mrs. T would pack your lunch and kick you out the door.

      What keeps pedophilia from being the norm? People protect their children. You are taking something most people find abhorent to an illogical conclusion.

      Why did we stop allowing lobotomies? If you look at it that way, life is a slippery slope.

      Regardless of what jerk gets up and postures and blathers about what…it doesn’t make a law bad necessarily.

  57. Steve Thomas
    May 9th, 2013 at 16:50 | #76

    @Rick Bentley

    Rick, there was a time where the “more enlightened, more compassionate” believed the same thing about homosexuals. “who’d want to be born that way, never marrying, sufferring all that discrimination, or legal trouble if one is caught just being who they were born to be?”. So society changed to be more accepting, and now the laws are being changed to match….yep, same thing happend in Rome.

    • May 9th, 2013 at 20:04 | #77

      Regardless of laws, people were still gay. What has changed other than we don’t stone gays hopefully.

      Hmmmmmmm…..gays got more open and started voting as a block. So THAT’s what this conversation is all about. Silly me.

      Be nicer to them Steve, and they might be more willing to vote R.

      One of my best friends is a gay Republican male. I always ask him if he is still contributing to his own oppression. Actually, he sounds very much like you do. But….you have a much prettier spouse than he does!!!!!!

  58. Steve Thomas
    May 9th, 2013 at 17:12 | #78

    Rick Bentley :Pedophilia IS an orientation. We can all choose to remain in denial about that, but it pretty clearly is, arguably just by its definition. God or Mother Nature made pedophiles; sexual attraction to children is not something that most of us do or could have inside us.

    Rick,

    Remember “Don’t Ask/Don’t Tell”? I do. I was serving as a commissioned officer in the USMC when it was passed. The logic was sound, I believed at the time; you will not be excluded based on your orientation, but you will be prosecuted, based on your conduct because homosexual practices are prohibited under the UCMJ. This replaced the law that forbade homosexuals from serving, and they would be discharged if discovered to be homosexual. Less than 20 years later, it (Don’t Ask/Don’t Tell) was repealed based on the argument that people should be free to live their lives according to their orientation, to the fullest extent possible, so now gays and lesbians are free to serve openly. Not my intent to comment on the “rightness or wrongness” of it, but just to cite an example of how a little change in perception here, change in attitude there, change the law to match, and institutions are forever altered, without much consideration as to the unintended consequences. In the case of DA/DT and DOMA, these will collide in June. If DOMA is struck down, gays and lesbians in the military will be allowed to marry. Again, for better or worse, this will have an impact on this institution. When I enlisted in 1984, I never thought gays would be allowed to serve, yet here we are.

    So someday, Pedophiles may be able to serve openly in the military, and the the Gunny can have more than one wife… Yep, I’m crazy to believe that. Never happen they say.

    • May 9th, 2013 at 20:08 | #79

      DOMA was never supposed to really be the law. Clinton compromised to forestall a law that forbade gays in the military.

      I remember it well. He caught it from both sides.

      If pedophiles serve in the military (and I am sure they are there) then can we put them on the front lines and use them as cannon fodder?

      I think its important to differentiate between minority behaviors that have victims vs those that do not. Pedophelia clearly is not a victimless crime.

  59. Censored bybvbl
    May 9th, 2013 at 18:38 | #80

    Steve, your argument ignores “consent” and “minors”.

  60. Cato the Elder
    May 9th, 2013 at 20:40 | #81

    Elena :
    Yea Steve, you must be right, Democrats want to protect Pedophiles, you caught us.

    Wait, what?? You mean you’re not a moderate, independent centrist?!?

    (snicker)

  61. Rick Bentley
    May 10th, 2013 at 08:43 | #82

    “Pedophilia is a crime that victimizes children”

    No. Child molestation is the crime. Pedophilia is the root cause (typically).

    • May 10th, 2013 at 15:07 | #83

      I think it depends on who is asking. Law enforcement has one definition and the APA has another. I would classify someone who collected pictures of prepubescent children as a pedophile also. That’s certainly illegal.

      I think we are splitting hairs. Yes, it is possible for someone to have those interests without acting on it in any way. Hypothetically. I so see what you are saying, I just think it is nit picking.

      Its also a mental disorder.

  62. Rick Bentley
    May 10th, 2013 at 08:50 | #84

    “Rick, there was a time where the “more enlightened, more compassionate” believed the same thing about homosexuals. “who’d want to be born that way, never marrying, sufferring all that discrimination, or legal trouble if one is caught just being who they were born to be?”. So society changed to be more accepting, and now the laws are being changed to match….”

    Yes. I still see no reason in there to treat gay people differently than straights (or asexuals).

    “yep, same thing happend in Rome.’

    Decadence is what leads a society towards acceptance of pedophilia. Indeed we are sliding into decadence – a nation where we increasingly depend on others to do our physical work, and where we feel we’re born entitled, and where we increasingly move to satisfy every urge. And pursue happiness through physical sensations. But I don’t put acceptance of homosexuality in this category. To me, that’s more an awareness of what’s real and a developing sense of morality on our parts. I’d correlate the obesity level in America, or the way we’ve given up on manufactuiring goods, or our spiraling financial mess and level of debt to decadence before i correlate gay tolerance to it.

  63. Elena
    May 10th, 2013 at 08:54 | #85

    Rick,
    Debt to Decadence, WOW, I love that.

  64. Elena
    May 10th, 2013 at 08:56 | #86

    Steve,
    As long as you keep suggesting that Gay people are the “slippery slope” to child molesters, I will keep telling you how incredibly misguided you are in that premise.

    • May 10th, 2013 at 15:11 | #87

      I will join the chorus. Some animals are gay and there were gay cave men. Indians and Eskimos had gays in the tribes. Just is. I certainly don’t think that they are any more inclined to be pedophiles than straight people.

  65. Elena
    May 10th, 2013 at 09:03 | #88

    Steve,

    Alcee Hastings was addressing the hate crime bill legislation, not therapy.

    Alcee Hastings’ remarks were made in reference to the 2009 Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention ACT, which provides federal assistance in prosecuting crimes of violence “motivated by prejudice on the actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability of the victim.”

    Why are you morphing a California issue,California SB 1172, with federal issue, they are not connected.

  66. Rick Bentley
    May 10th, 2013 at 09:07 | #89

    “So someday, Pedophiles may be able to serve openly in the military”

    Well … it’s theoretically possible. But I doubt it. Certainly not within our lifetimes. We in the USA are more disturbed by adult sex with teenagers than most other countries – we’re considered “prudish” by most European countries on this matter. And we are at least as profoundly disturbed by pedophilia as any other country I can think of. I don’t see that changing.

    Over the long term, maybe the age of consent will swing up or down. But pedophilia, involving by definition “pre-teens”, which by anyone’s account has victims, is very much frowned on by every modern society. Increasingly, over time.

    We actually understand pedophilia much better now that we did 30-40 years ago. Back then when someone molested a kid, it seemed like a “bizarre action” that was a random side effect of mental illness or alchohol or drug use. And accordingly, pedophiles would get out of jail. One guy who was in the news a few years back had in the early 70’s hit a very young girl in the head with a hammer, dragged her off and raped her. He did small amount of jail time and was let out – it was thought that he was a promising young man who had made a crazed mistake because of drug use. Now, we understand the problem much better. Because we have researchers who have studied the phenomenon objectively. We understand that the problem doesn’t really mitigate, that the recidivism rate is high. And our laws have evolved accordingly.

    Rational study are not leading to greater acceptance of pedophiles. Once identified as “sexually violent”, they go into a system that they don’t ever really come out of. At worst they’re kept segregated in facilities; at best they’re released but tracked and their identities made public via web sites. It’s harsh but it’s the way it is and the way most of us want it.

    • May 10th, 2013 at 15:13 | #90

      Rick, which is it? You just told me that pedophilia was the proclivity or interest, not the acting upon such interest. Now you are trying to tell me there are no pedophiles in the military.

      Regardless of whose definition we use, there are pedophiles in the military. I actually knew of a case personally.

      ARmy. Pedophiles can be anywhere. They don’t act out in the open.

    • May 10th, 2013 at 20:14 | #91

      I am going to be a real jerk and pull age on this discussion. 34 years ago I was fairly closely concerned as a neighborhood activist with a child abduction/child molestation case. It turns out that the molester was a 16 year old emotionally and mentally handicapped boy. Before he was caught, I went very public in order to help catch this creep. I had all sorts of people calling me. (all friendly I might add) Several of the callers were people who worked with pedophiles/child molesters. they all told me, that regardless of what anyone told me, molesters almost always returned to their old nasty habits, regardless of what was done to them. In other words, rehabilitation was a waste of time.

      The victim was 3 years old. The molester was only put away after repeating his nasty habits on several more little girls. i believe society and the mental health profession knew a whole lot more about this affliction that the court system. The judge and the laws were weak. The prosecutors were great.

      I think it was a matter of the laws catching up to reality. This would have been 1978.

      I can assure you that no one thought of this incident as bizarre. They thought he was one sick mofo. That kid is lucky he didnt end up in the community pool in cement overshoes.

      In his case, he didn’t fit into the realm of normal anyway. However, that’s probably the only reason he got by with what he did. He was deemed unfit to stand trial.

      I think the real area where we have learned a lot of when it is in families rather than abductions. It’s very difficult for families to understand, even today, why Uncle Jonas gropes 10 year olds. There is much denial. I have had 2 friends where this went on. One of these friends never did tell the wife of the groper. It was her aunt.

    • May 10th, 2013 at 20:17 | #92

      I think where it is wrong is when young men get caught up with under age girls and someone wants to make an example out of them. I mean like an 28 year old and a 16 year old. This behavior, in most cases, is not pedophilia. If the kids are prepubescent, that’s an entirely different matter and I don’t think people like that should be allowed free.

  67. Steve Thomas
    May 10th, 2013 at 11:11 | #93

    Elena :Steve,As long as you keep suggesting that Gay people are the “slippery slope” to child molesters, I will keep telling you how incredibly misguided you are in that premise.

    Elena,

    , OK, lemme spell it out for you:

    I don’t oppose legislation that bars discrimination against people, based on their sexual orientation, regarding empolyment by any organization subject to the laws administered by the EEOC.

    I don’t oppose getting rid of laws that were used to make homosexual activity illegal, ie. sodomy laws.

    I don’t opposed the rights of gays to enter into civil unions, or any other private contract, which may be part of a property rights, medical rights, etc, that may have historically been included as part of the civil rights and benefits associated with civil marriage. What I do oppose is any law that would force a church to perform a religious marriage. I would oppose any law that would force one state to recognize a marriage from any other state, if their state prohibited same-sex marriage. Same would apply to polygamous marriages. Look, I can see the writing on the wall, with regards to gay marriage. Some states are going to decide to have it, some will not. Since the states themselves license marriages, let it be left up to the states. However, contract law is contract law. Let any powers of attorney, living-wills or anything else subject to probate be honored across state line.

    In short, I don’t hate gays, or lesbians, or transgenders, or any other broken person for that matter. I pity them. I am sure that along the path of self-acceptance, they at times wished they weren’t born that way.

    But, to get to the point I have been trying to make, all along, is when the government is making laws, the words that make up the legislation matter. Specificity matters. If a CA congresswoman wants to make a law passed in her state a national law, the language in that proposed legislation needs to be clear, specific, and acceptable to those who aren’t in her state. If we are going to make a law intended to protect gays, lesbians, Bi-sexuals, heterosexuals,from attempts to change that which society has defined as “normal and acceptable” , while society is still engaged in defining “orientation” we’d better be very specific, and write this into the law. Don’t leave it purposefully vague, so that someone can use this in the future to defend themselves from legal action, ie. and unintended consequence.

    I have already cited examples of scientists and medical publications defining pedophillia as an “orientation”. You, Elena, say it is not. I use the whole history of the homosexual evolution in our society not to condemn homosexuals, but to simply illustrate a point, with which you can disagree, but you’d be wrong: There was a point in our society’s history, where gays and lesbians were not accepted, and their engaging in sexual relationships was illegal. Now, they are generally accepted, and most of the laws that made their conduct illegal, have been struck down. This is a demonstrable fact, not my opinion.

    Lest we not forget, it’s not the urge, but the action that gets people in trouble. I could have the urge to murder my neighbor, but I haven’t committed a crime until I act on it. Accepting pedophilia as a “natural orientation” and prohibiting treatment to change that, is far different from stricking down the laws that prohibit adults having sex with children. Is the teacher caught sleeping with the 14 year-old charged with “child molestation”? Rarely. Are “age of consent” laws consistantly being defined downward? Heck, if the fed has its way, a 15 year-old girl can go buy morning after-pills, but couldn’t buy a pack of cigarettes (18) or a beer (21). This is why I say our society is standing on a “slippery slope”.

    • May 10th, 2013 at 15:22 | #94

      I don’t think churches should be forced to marry anyone. Different churches have different conditions for marriage.

      I do think marriage laws should be uniform. I think the right to marry (or civil union) is a civil right and civil rights should cross state lines.

      Now, how young, etc can remain with the states.

      As for the queestion of 14 year olds….I believe that pedophilia actually deals with pre-pubescent children. Some 14 year olds appear to be 24 rather than 14. I am not ready to label someone a pedophile if say that person is 18. 40, yes. 18 no.

      Apparently the question becomes definition of pedophilia.

  68. Steve Thomas
    May 10th, 2013 at 11:45 | #95

    @Moon-howler

    Moon, “pedophilia” is not a crime. Child Molestation and acts revolving around child pornography are criminal acts.

    @Censored bybvbl

    Yes, age of consent matters. It matters because it is being defined down. Another slippery slope.

    • May 10th, 2013 at 15:23 | #96

      Same thing as I said to Rick. That is splitting hairs. How many people just think about it in their own brains and never act on it?

      Obviously I meant acting on it. Pedophile acts then.

      This is a blog, not a court of law. no wonder things get twisted.

  69. Cato the Elder
    May 10th, 2013 at 12:18 | #97

    Is Rick Bentley an elected official?

    If not, he needs to be.

  70. Steve Thomas
    May 10th, 2013 at 16:54 | #98

    @Moon-howler
    “That is splitting hairs.”

    And how do lawyers get around laws? By splitting hairs.

    • May 10th, 2013 at 21:32 | #99

      I don’t disagree there. However, we can’t deny civil rights because lawyers split hairs. All envelopes are pushed over most things…the outliers.

  71. Steve Thomas
    May 10th, 2013 at 17:02 | #100

    @Moon-howler

    “Apparently the question becomes definition of pedophilia.”

    Some are defining it as an “orientation”. Then we have to define “child”. When is a “child” a “child”. If a 19 yearold is killed with a gun, they classify it as a “child killed by gun violence”, but if that “child” is married and has a baby, they call that a “teen pregnancy”. Or if a 15 year-old tries to buy a pack of smokes, they get turned away for being a minor, but that same child is permitted to buy oral contraceptives, without consulting a doctor or gaining consent from their custodial parent. Yet the age of consent may be 16, so if an adult has sex with a 15 yearold, gets the 15 yearold pregnant, is the adult a pedophile? Forget “slippery”…we’re living on a freaking ski-slope.

    • May 10th, 2013 at 21:57 | #101

      Perhaps we need to hone in on definitions. You left out ‘child’ being used to describe an embryo.

      Steve, I simply don’t see what point you are attempting to prove. Obviously no one approves of pedophilia or child molesting. Now what do we mean?

      I don’t consider an 18 year old dating a 15 year old a pedophile. I do consider a 40 yer old attempting to date a 15 year old…something…not good. I would probably consider the dude a pedophile. Legally? Not sure.

      Then again, we are always someone’s child. If it were my child killed by gun violence, then they would be my child, even if they were 50.

      Life is a slippery slope. Nothing is laid out in black and white. Hopefully common sense will prevail.

  72. Rick Bentley
    May 11th, 2013 at 16:53 | #102

    I think these definnions are important. We’ll all find more agreement when semantics stop seperating us. So in the service of precise definition –

    Pedophilia is attraction to pre-pubescent children.

    Attraction to teenagers is called ephebophelia. From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ephebophilia :Ephebophilia is the primary or exclusive adult sexual interest in mid-to-late adolescents, generally ages 15 to 19.

    “Chronophelia” encompasses pedophilia and ephebophilia as well as attraction to older age ranges.

    Ephebophilia is something you can see shades of or references to within popular culture. And whole lines of pornography that cater to it – “Barely Legal” etc. By contrast NO ONE I’ve ever met had any interest in or posession of any type of product that presented pedophilia in any light other than serious business. Only exceptions I remember are some art house films that got famously labeled as child porn (“The Tin Drum’, “Sweet Sweetback’s Badass Song”), some underground comic books, and those horrible cartoons in Hustler years back – and all of those things are dated to the 1970’s, not more recently.

  73. Rick Bentley
    May 11th, 2013 at 16:55 | #103

    Though I guess to be fair I’ve seen jokes about it on “sick” humor outlets like “Family Guy” in more recent years.

    But my larger point – frequently obscured by my zigging and zagging – I don’t think we are sliding towards acceptance of pedophilia. And we’ve certainly tightened ourselves up against it from where we were 40 years ago.

Comments are closed.