Arkansas: Home of the vilest, most backward morons in all the land...

It's a Sponge Bob thing...

BTW, "Sponge Bob" in Spanish is "Bob Esponja." Coincidence? I hardly *think* so

Actually, Sponge Bob Squarepants in Spanish is Esponjado Bob Pantalonesquadrados :)

It does not surprise me about this in the South.......but in my homestate of California?

When was the last time you heard of children being taken away from a same sex couple for abuse?

I had a childcare back home in California and I can tell you hands down some of the best parents I had ever had the pleasure of working with were same sex parents.

These people in Arkansas are as usual ignorant.

That's right douglasq, backwards Arkansas did give us Bill Clinton. But it's becoming more enlightened now. Why just this past week, they passed a law making adoption by homosexuals illegal. Things are looking up!

That's enlightened? Sounds like an extremely small, closed mind to me. Sounds like hypocritical religious oppression to me. That's not enlightened. It's just sad.

The usage of the term "sexual partner outside of marriage" is particularly egregious because the state is put in the position of investigating the private lives of people who reside together.

So there are a bunch of perverts who like to watch people? These people are sick! Peeping toms don't have the moral clarity to raise children. ;]

"sexual partner outside of marriage"  REALLY!  The elected reps should be really scared of that one.  I bet Clinton is really glad he doesn't live there anymore

Gnostix1

Since the State has a hand in approving or dis-approving of individule adoption cases, the issue is not a matter of "private lives". The law is passed for the benefit and protection of children, who might otherwise be brought up in home where perverted acts done, giving them the impression that homosexuals are "normal".

Actually from the measuring device. But thanks for asking.

Micro-- who defines "normal." If the legally married sexual partners have a dungeon room for their private entertainment, does that become the state's business?  How 'bout just a pair of handcuffs?  How 'bout a couple of sex toys? What if the lady likes to be on top, contrary to centuries of church teaching (and forbidden in Islam.) Enquiring minds want to know!

The law is passed for the benefit and protection of children, who might otherwise be brought up in home where perverted acts done, giving them the impression that homosexuals are "normal".

Oh My! It's for the children!!! That excuse again. We can't have loving couples subverting the right of all orphan children to be shuttled from foster trailer to foster trailer, can we?

Screw laws protecting the children... I want some laws that protect me from ignorant hicks.

Mike, since this is your seed, and you are openly insulting the commenters, is it safe to assume that the COH is totally out the window here?

who might otherwise be brought up in home where perverted acts done, 

Micrometer, cast not the first stone...

And I liked Huckabee, this should be  brought  up at any attempt for the White House.

Ladyinred1

What will you say when they finally discover a gay gene and parents can selectively abort any unborn child who is gay?

Interesting question. I would assume that you would then be in favor of abortion given you're apparent dislike of gays.

Was the right to have an abortion just equated with eugenics?

Kevin B

No, I would not be in favor of abortion then anymore than I am now. But the question does form an interesting dilemma for liberals who favor both abortion and gay rights.

Oh, and BTW, I don't dislike gays, anymore than I dislike anyone else with a birth defect.

I fail to see any "interesting dilemma". Why would anyone want to abort just because their baby might be gay?

Why just this past week, they passed a law making adoption by homosexuals illegal. Things are looking up!

The law is passed for the benefit and protection of children, who might otherwise be brought up in home where perverted acts done, giving them the impression that homosexuals are "normal".

Sounds like you dislike gays.

Homosexuality is no more a "birth defect" than left-handedness is. Different is not a defect.

What will you say when they finally discover a gay gene and parents can selectively abort any unborn child who is gay?

I would say:  "How typical of them.  They want to dictate what the rest of the world can and cannot do, but when the shoe is on their foot, they want an exception to be made.  I'm sure they'll find some scripture somewhere to rationalize why it's a righteous thing to do."

But the question does form an interesting dilemma for liberals who favor both abortion and gay rights.

Where's the dilemna? OH! I see, since ALL liberals LOVE to get abortions, they would be conflicted if they found the baby was gay. They wouldn't want to abort it, which is their favorite thing to do!

insist09

We have to fight against this tyranny, because today, they'll take away the rights of gay people, and tomorrow they'll be after yours.

They have already started on everyones rights,denying human rights and freedoms...just a repeat of Nazi history.

They first went after the so-called "undesirables".The ones nobody cared or dared to defend...not "MY" problem.Good riddance to those nuances!Gays,homeless,poor,Jews,Immigrants,Gypsies,religous,lawyers,intellectuals,artists,dissenters...etc.

Then they came for your neighbors.And you thanked God you went unnoticed.

Now they come for you.

Human.The hate is for the Human being.It's diversity.It's worth.Value.Sanctity.

Oklahoma City Downtown Public Library banning Smelly People under pretext of Constitutional Rights violations.

Yes, and for those ignos...I shower daily and don't emit an offensive BODY Odor,unless you are offended by the smell of Humanity.lol

Wait a second. You just said "making love to children" should be legalized? Are you serious? I would like to hear more about your stance, before I decide, but I can tell you I am enormously disturbed by your comment.

lerianis needs to be collapsed by the community he is not real or right read his name outloud-but not if there are children in the room. thanks

ALERT ALERT ALERT

Lerianis:

 I am a pedosexual myself

 I push for the legalization of making love with children 

WTF?

lerianis  ,              I know we have freedom of speech but you need your tongue cut out-you are disgusting!

Thank you, dean174!

Mike, where are ya, buddy? We need some support from the owner of this column.

Need some more "inflamatory" votes to collapse that

You may hate what lerianis believes, what he thinks, or what he does, but is the answer to block him from saying it - more "inflamatory" votes to collapse that? What he said wasn't inflammatory. All he said is what he is.

even though I push for the legalization of making love with children

Cut it whatever way you wish - there is no way anyone will convince me or 99% of the population of most Countries that the statement above is acceptable in any way shape or form.  No smoke screen, ideological niceity, stance, body swerving, or any other kind of justification will blind anyone with an ounce of common sense.

I am staggered that anyone can even start to believe, let alone believe that such a statement is acceptable in any way shape or form.  Not only is the activity illegal, it is morally repugnant to just about everyone in the Country.

If there was ever a litmus test by Newsvine on cracking down on extreme views and  incitement to support illegal activities, this is it.  Good luck with going Public - really going Public - with this one.  The wave of revulsion from people in the US would sink Newsvine. This needs deleting now, or Newsvine can kiss goodbye to any kind of stance on morals and extremism.

I agree with you completely, Zydor.

But can you realize that for many in America (like 57% in Arkansas) feel the same way about gay marriage?

Zydor,

You're ranting about a statement - your own words...

there is no way anyone will convince me or 99% of the population of most Countries that the statement above is acceptable in any way shape or form

I am staggered that anyone can even start to believe, let alone believe that such a statement is acceptable in any way shape or form

The statement is ... a statement. Free speech and all that. Everyone has that right and allowing his statement to stand is in no way an endorsement of his activities. In fact, it stands to reveal that this person is morally repugnant.

I find it repulsive that anyone would be in favor of suppressing what someone says because you disagree with their activity. Speech and action are two different things and the right to free speech is at the core of what America stands for.

As micrometer pointed out, a large percentage of the population find homosexuality "morally repugnant". Should we start deleting all of the posts from gays?

Ahhh.... where's the ACLU when we need 'em.

It's a mildly clever ruse, invoking moral indignation over sexual practices in a seed about homosexual rights. And we all know, the one way to make sure that a comment gets read by everyone who visits a seed, is to get it "collapsed by community".

Ahh man, as much as I wouldn't necessarily promote his lifestyle choice, I can't rationalize deleting his comment.

But at this particular point in time and in this country (assuming he is posting from the U.S.), he is not advocating a lifestyle choise but a crime.

he is not advocating a lifestyle choise but a crime.

Not exactly true, per se. He never said that he does, or thinks that people should do it, he said that he is pushing for legislation legalizing it. Yes, child molestation is a crime, but simply being attracted to kids is not. If he is being serious (which I doubt) then it is a little disturbing, but he never directly admitted to or advocated actually acting on those feelings.

As much as I dislike the concept -- I have kids -- the First Amendment is inviolable. Period.

I make no claim as Mike did about the arbitrariness of the Age of Consent. It may be arbitrary, but as it applies to everyone equally it's fair.

I will simply point to The Constitution and remind you that it might be your speech that's unpopular next week, or next month. The first chink in the wall is all it will take to bring it all down. We must never, EVER carve out exceptions for unpopular messages.

Right, but technically Newsvine is a private website, so the First Amendment doesn't apply. I still think that Newsvine should strive to preserve free speech, but if they were to oppress it, it wouldn't;t be a violation of the First Amendment.

Point taken. It's a private site.

But let's be clear: for a site like NV that caters to debate, disrespecting the First would be akin to slitting your wrists.

The PATRIOT act applies to everyone equally, but is spying on American citizens fair?

Nice riposte Mike!

The short answer is that, yes the law IS fair. Unconscionable also. Arguably unconstitutional also.

The definition of fair:

marked by impartiality and honesty : free from self-interest, prejudice, or favoritism

As long as it applies to everyone equally, without prejudice or favoritism, it's "fair".

I take the same stance with this illegal activity as most would take about those who advocate racial hatred.  The later would cause an outcry - and does - if it starts on this Site.  Yet we have a double standard hding behind the first amendment.  That is abuse of the law. 

I fully suport free speech, I have fought for it all my life, and spent 25 years in the military in the UK, much of it operating alongside US Troops, watching some of my friends getting blown to pieces also trying to uphold individuals right of free speech and free association in four Operational Theatres. Dont lecture me about what Free Speech and Free Associatiopn means.

To condone these statements about an activity that is against the Law is not Free Speech, its unspeakable, in the same way condoning an individuals position on racial hatred is unacceptable.  Those are standards I cannot and will not be associated with. I had hoped that the recent change of management in Newsvine would bring back some practical common sense values, in many ways it has - particularly in respect of the constant stupid yelling over Arab/Isreali factors. However, to condone and allow statements such as have been made in that comment is way beyond what ordinary citizens out there would tolerate, and it should not be tolerated here.

I am neither a radical, a ranter, nor extremist, as more than a cursory glance at my column will show. This however makes a mockery of the Law, and I cannot support an organisation that does not back up the Laws of its own Country.  You will not have to eject me, because I will not be returning.

I know I have to be careful here because of the Code of Honor.

Our absolute top priority in life should be the protection of children.  Period.  No argument accepted.  That is our real purpose for being here.

Oh man!  There is so much I want to say but I better just stop right here.

You have definately found the fighting side of me!

I take the same stance with this illegal activity

Speaking (typing) is not an illegal activity. 

The later would cause an outcry - and does - if it starts on this Site

Yes it does. It gets people fired up and arguments pursue. Very few times have I seen people call for the removal of comments that are not in violation of the CoH. There is no double standard. You can be outraged by this person's comments and you may voice that outrage all you want.

I don't support or condone what this person does or what this person believes. But I do support his right - and anyone's right - to say it provided it is done within the terms set forth by this site.

Condoning a person's right to speak is in no way any indication whatsoever of condonation of their activities.

Dont lecture me about what Free Speech and Free Associatiopn means

No one is lecturing you but you apparently aren't getting the difference between speach and action. If this person where to act on his pedosexual preferences than he should be arrested and thrown out of society altogether. That he says it is not cause for such action.

Right, but technically Newsvine is a private website, so the First Amendment doesn't apply

Absolutely correct. If the administrators deem that the comment made is detrimental to the community or to their business (or for what ever reason they want to apply) they have the right to delete the comment.

I think the participants in the discussion also have the right to call for its deletion. But I think it shows a level of hypocrisy if such calls come from anyone who advocates and supports the rights protected by our laws and the philosophy they represent.

Technically this is not a case of "free speech". It's not a government web site, it's a private one. The Supreme Court and the ACLU have nothing to say about it. But the usefulness of the site and of the medium in whole becomes degraded if censorship starts to take hold.

Our absolute top priority in life should be the protection of children.  Period.  No argument accepted.  That is our real purpose for being here.

I agree that protecting children is important, but I think that there is major diagreement as to what protecting them actually entails. Also, I think that such an absolutist statement could lead to some veeeeeery serious problems.

"I think there's a big difference between acknowledging one's pedosexuality and being a child rapist."

Mike, please tell me you are kidding.  Children are not sex toys for adults.  He doesn't "love" children.  He treats them nicely so that he can use them for his own sick pleasure.  I certainly hope that he is not employed in anything involving children.  He's a predator.

Children are not sex toys for adults.

And nobody's suggesting that they are.

He treats them nicely so that he can use them for his own sick pleasure. 

He never said, or implied that he ever has engaged in child molestation or rape (again, I don't think he was being serious, but even if he was, he only admitted to attraction, not acting on it).

Mike - I spent ten years as a detective in criminal investigations and investigated numerous child abuse cases.  Adults having sex with children is illegal, as well it should be.  The tone of Lerianis's post, "I am a pedosexual myself, and everyone around me says that I am MORE loving towards children than their own parents are", certainly suggests that he has been there and done that.  I would hope that you would not be quite so forgiving if he had contact with your children.  If you do not have children of your own then you may not be able to look at this in the proper perspective.  He needs professional help, at the very least.  The consent of a child is not a legal defense.  Children are too easily manipulated.

Your defense of this guy is troubling.  Hopefully our society has not sunk to the level where advocating this sort of behaviour is acceptable.

I would be curious to know who the "everyone around me" is.  Either fellow pedophiles or people totally unaware of what he is up to.

Look up "pedosexual" in the Urban Dictionary.

Your defense of this guy is troubling.  Hopefully our society has not sunk to the level where advocating this sort of behaviour is acceptable.

And I hope that society hasn's sunk so low that we will convict people of thought crimes.

Look, this guy may be disgusting, and you may want to think that he has committed a crime, but I have seen absolutely nothing to convince me that he has. Innocent until proven guilty. Welcome to America.

First, I would like to thank Mike Sifeldeen for his tremendous patience, as this thread has gotten way off-topic.

Having said that, I think the solution to this is to invite lerianis to defend his/her views. There are alot of assumptions being made here, on both sides. To me, the silence is deafening. Either this was a drive-bye "joke" to get everyone stirred-up or it is a classic case of trying to defend the in-defensible.

I would very much like to hear from a psychyatrist or psychologist on this issue of "pedosexuality." Does anyone know one that would be willing to address this issue?

Don't worry, lerianis' constitutional rights are fully intact. Many have advocated for him/her' rights, but I have heard little [in the way of constitutional rights] for children. Poor lerianis. He/she has an uncontrollable urge to have sex with children. Poor, misunderstood wretch. Cast-out from society because we're simply not as sophisticated as the Greco-Roman's, apparently. The Greco-Roman's clearly understood that most children really enjoy engaging in mature sexual acts with their elders, if only given the chance.

In terms of age-of-consent issues. I agree the maturity difference between an 18 year old and a 17.5 year old is, likely negligable. A twenty-year old can't handle their alcohol, but a twenty-one year old can. I suggest the only alternative is to set-up  a new beuracracy that tests everyone every year to determine one's actual maturity. Kinda like reading at a fifth-grade level when you are in third grade, etc.

Again, I invite lerianis to defend his/her comment, if indeed it is a wholly innocent and perfectly defensible stance. Somehow, I doubt we will hear from the all-natural, pedosexual crowd. I know many will say, "well, no wonder he/she won't talk to us, look at the witch-hunt that's going on!" I say, if your lifestyle or political views are something you believe are legitimate and you're willing to admit to them on a busy blog-site, they're worth defending. Perhaps on another thread, but worth defending!

Finally, I recognize lerianis' right to free speech. I also recognize mine. Anyone who would even consider victimizing children, sexually or otherwise, has nothing valid to offer to the human race. Their existence is worthless and embarrassing to the human race. Worst of all, they impede our progress by blunting our children emotionally and physically. Leaving the victims to believe that they deserved the violence wrought upon them for the mere physical gratification of their attackers.

I believe I speak for many parents when I say congratulations on exercising your freedom of speech, lerianis. What freedoms would you provide our children while your constituency "makes-love" to them?

"Awesome. I'll make sure to file that away in my "completely improvable internet posturing" folder."

"Some people really need to take an introductory ethics course. Or maybe Google "meta-ethical relativism"."

Mike Sifeldeen - You question my qualifications, experience, and ethics while defending a pedophile's right to free speech?  Amazing!  I don't suppose you bothered to take the time to look up "pedosexual" on Urban Dictionary.  You were probably too busy thinking up smart responses to legitimate concerns.  Sometimes there is no reasoning with the unreasonable.  You think because this is your seed that it's ok for you to insult me?  Clever.

I'll respect the COH and just leave quietly.  I'm sure you won't miss me anymore than I'll miss you.

No, I don't want to be on your friends list.

I'll respect the COH and just leave quietly.  I'm sure you won't miss me anymore than I'll miss you.

I'd expect a big, tough, perv-busting detective to have thicker skin than that, but go ahead, take your ball and go home.

Protecting children from sexual predators: acceptable, and neccesary.

Demonizing sexual deviants by appealing to taboo and bigotry: unacceptable

twosage, I'm an Arkansan too, and I'm also in that 43%, but you have to admit he has a point.  Our beautiful state is polluted with vile, backward morons who breed and vote, and do both prolifically.

Excuse me Lerianis, aren't you the moron that talked about legalizing making love to children in comment 6.1?  Yet here you are with the audacity to mention abuse of children?  What do you call making love to children, you pervert.  I'll probably get deleted, but it will be worth it.  You are sick, and I seriously suggest you seek professional help with your inappropriate sex issues.  Honestly I'd really like to meet you.  Go to contact this author.

They are morons, to be blunt, EjCanavan. Imagine if the tables were turned, and it was heterosexual parents who were being denied their rights due to all the abuse that THEY have heaped on children over the years.

Um... what can heterosexual parents do that homosexual parents cannot? Yes, I understand that both can provide love and nurturing to a child. I'm not looking for similarities.

Heterosexual parents have been denied rights for things they've done to their kids. The state will take a child from someone irrespective of their orientation.

You still haven't told me WHY they are morons ? I am sure people who live in that state do not appreciate you lumping them all into one big group and assuming they are ignorant because you said so. Heterosexual people are denied rights, especially in the cases of false accusations, abuse and neglect so there are no tables to turn since it has been the norm since CPS came about. Try getting your kid back from the state, parents have gone through hell and back. I can assure you not all homosexual parents are fantastic either and abuse can happen anywhere at any time to any child.

Why not?  What do you think these rubes call same-sex parents?

I think they still call them "queers", don't they?

Why not?  What do you think these rubes call same-sex parents?

You are still trying to lump an entire state under this umbrella of "vile, backward morons."  It's truly not fair.

Actually, this ARKANSAN calls them people, just like everyone else.

I was in the percent that WANTS a child to have a happy home, regardless of sex or maritial situation.

......he is ashamed........and so is his mother.

Or alternatively:

If religious bigots don't like they way they are treated, stop being religious bigots. problem solved.

Passnthru................if it were possible to 'stop being queer'  I guarantee you it would be easier and faster for any homosexual to do so than it would be for you stop being ignorant.

Magic pig pen time.

Problem Solved.

Click!

It's not for judges to legislate from the bench.  

No it's not, but it is ok for them to decide that a law is unfairly discriminatory and toss it out.  That is the case here.  Voters in Arkansas have decided to take away a privilege from a certain group of people, for NO reason other than them being who they are.  They've been good parents, they have not done anything wrong, they have not committed any crimes, they're just gay.  That IS discrimination and it IS wrong and it DOES hurt people, no matter what your level of belief in the Bible is.

And if their 'being queer' bothers you, then stay the hell out of their homes and their lives.  I'm sure they would jump at the chance to be left alone for a change.

Just so you know an individual can not adopt, unless they are from Hollywood. I can't even be a foster parent because I am single and I have more love to give than 2 parents combined to any child that wants it. There are many things in the system that aren't fair.

 I can't even be a foster parent because I am single

That makes no sense either. If you can provide a good home, what's the problem?

Ann Coulter 2.0

 As for gay adoption, the policy process is actually much more complicated. Neither side agrees on anything other than gay adoption is a social experiment that may affect children...

‘a social experiment’??? that may ‘affect the children’???

Who else on the other side (Note version 1.0 doesn't count) actually believes adoption by gay couples is a 'social experiment'?

Really...... I can't even respond to such heartless condescending bull@!$%#.

rofl

Shawn,

It has to do with marriage being a legal contract.  Marriage provides couples with next of kin status.

Sorry Shawn Gordon but marriage is more than procreation.  What about couples who can't procreate or women past menopause?  Are they going to be refused the right to marry because they can't or won't have children?  What about couple's who choose not to have children?  Will they be denied the right to marry?

It's about legal rights of a spouse.  The right to get health benefits, the right to get a portion of Social Security or retirement benefits, the right to sign legal documents or visit your loved one in a hospital but can't because you are not a member of the immediate "family".  The first lesbian couple to marry in California were together for 50 years.  Far longer than any of Rush Limbaugh's, Newt Gingrich, or John McCain's marriages. Sadly, one of the ladies passed away a few months ago but at least they had their loving relationship recognised by the State of California. 

Maybe we should do away with the notion of marriage and just have civil unions for everyone.  If your religion wants to perform ceremonies for male-female couples only then that is their right but it should not make it right to discriminate against people because of the way their brains were hardwired during fetal development.  It's not a choice it's just the way it is.  There are people who were born with absolutely no interest in sex so why don't we pass laws against them because they refuse to procreate.  Who says celebacy is a virtue?  It think it's far more abnormal then being attracted to someone of your own sex.

Thedes

Yes, there are some unfortunates who are born asexual, that is, having no interest in sex. That is another form of abnormal sexual birth defect.

I do believe that homosexuality has both a born and acquired nature. It is a serious reason why (some) straights are opposed to legitimazation of the gay lifestyle, whether it be thru marriage or societal acceptance in any way.

Many young boys have a homosexual or homoerotic experience in their pre-teens. It is part of growing up. They soon realize --or are told--that what they are doing is wrong, and then don't do that any more.

If, at that vulnerable stage, a boy, (and I must assume girls as well) are told that what they are doing is okay, or if they see by example in the home that their behavoir is accepted, they will be converted to full time homosexuals. And that, frankly, is not what nature intended.

It is more natural for a man to be with a physically mature 16 year old girl than with another man. Yet the law defines one as pedophilia, and the other as a normal variation of sexual interest.

That's why I can say I don't hate gays, but I do hate lawyers.

Shawn:

There are a lot of things that are available to married people that are not available to unmarried people.  Some of them, like visitation rights in hospitals or inheritance, can be obtained (at the expense of the couple) via powers of attorney or wills or other legal means.  Others cannot be obtained in any manner.  One great example of this is a friend of mine.  He lives in Baltimore.  His partner lives in Germany.  Under US immigration law, if he had a girlfriend in Germany and they were planning to get married, he would be able to sponsor her for immigration.  But because they are both male, and unable to marry under US federal law, he can't sponsor his partner.  He is probably going to end up moving to Germany in a few years because of this, since they do recognize same-sex marriages as legal and his partner can sponsor him through the german immigration system.  This is but one example out of literally thousands.  And even the ones which can be duplicated using legal means should not be discounted, as the cost for doing them peacemeal in this manner rather than having them be automatically part of a marriage as they are for heterosexuals can be quite prohibitive.