60 year old man molests 11 year old, Okay since she's in love

[Greenday]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...urt-rules.html

Brought to my attention on another board by the homophobes hanging out there. (Because allowing gay marriage in America is what leads to accepted pedophilia in other countries) In Italy, a 60 year old man was having a sexual relationship with an 11 year old girl. Originally found guilty, Italy's highest court overturned the conviction stating that she loved him so it's totally cool.

Wtf is wrong with these idiots in Italy? An 11 year doesn't know what romantic love actually is.

[KitterCat]

Sometimes I really wonder what their drinking in my family's former country. Maybe its the pasta. The part that really gets my blood raised is this,

"Pietro Lamberti, a social services worker in Catanzaro in southern Italy, was convicted in February 2011 and sentenced to five years in prison for sexual acts with a minor."

So some pervert in a position where the girl should be able to trust him, being that he's a social worker, gets away with only a 5 year sentence. WTF? At least it was upheld on appeals, its the supreme courts thats ordered a retrial. If this is the norm, whats the problem with their supreme court. Do they not recognize the differences between a child a an adult?

[Andara Bledin]

Wow, that's just sick.

In the US, if you're in a position of authority over another person, the age of consent is a hard 18 with pretty much nothing that will mitigate that. Even in places with Romeo and Juliet exceptions, if authority is involved, under 18 is statutory, full stop.

That they've excused a social services worker from having relations with a pre-pubescent girl with the excuse that "she loves him" is utterly disgusting.

[Gravekeeper]

Wat.

There has GOT to be more to this. Does he have mafia connections or something?

[ebonyknight]

(Because allowing gay marriage in America is what leads to accepted pedophilia in other countries)

This is the part that continues to elude me. Where is the connection between being a homosexual and being a pedophile? While I am neither, it seems that a common belief in this country is that if you are a homosexual, you either have a predilection to or are a pedophile. I've, unfortunately, heard them used interchangeably too many times. I've heard NAMBLA routinely referred to as a homosexual group.

Where does this correlation come from?

In the same vein, why do Gays want to be part of an institution that doesn't want them? I mean, there are laws that make Gay couples equal in the eyes of the law, without marriage. Marriage is a religious practice. A religion that expressly says that homosexuality is wrong. Why be a part of it?

It's like a black person wanting to join the Klan, because he hates blacks, yet ignoring the fact they hate him as well.

Not trying to thread jack, but your comment (not saying you agree with it) struck me.

[Hyena Dandy]

In the same vein, why do Gays want to be part of an institution that doesn't want them? I mean, there are laws that make Gay couples equal in the eyes of the law, without marriage. Marriage is a religious practice. A religion that expressly says that homosexuality is wrong. Why be a part of it?

Hi.

I'm gay.

I'm Christian.

Would be nice if people STOPPED PRETENDING I DON'T EXIST.

[TheHuckster]

In the same vein, why do Gays want to be part of an institution that doesn't want them? I mean, there are laws that make Gay couples equal in the eyes of the law, without marriage. Marriage is a religious practice. A religion that expressly says that homosexuality is wrong. Why be a part of it?

Marriage can be a religious practice, but there are many secular marriages that have no religion in them at all, and the state recognizes them as marriage and not civil union.

[ebonyknight]

Hi.

I'm gay.

I'm Christian.

Would be nice if people STOPPED PRETENDING I DON'T EXIST.

Not sure I understand your response.

BTW, it's a question, not an accusation.

[ebonyknight]

Marriage can be a religious practice, but there are many secular marriages that have no religion in them at all, and the state recognizes them as marriage and not civil union.

You mean as in going to a Justice of the Peace?

[Hyena Dandy]

Not sure I understand your response.

You said Christianity doesn't want gays to get married. That's saying that I don't exist, or if I do, I'm not a REAL Christian.

Marriage is a part of a religion - Maybe. But it's also a part of laws, and laws will be written around it. If you want to argue marriage is religious, I'm okay with that. So let's take marriage out of law altogether. Separation of Church and State, after all. Atheists can marry. We don't have to make straight atheists say they're not REALLY married.

But, let's say it is necessarily religious. Okay. It's not necessarily Christian. Marriage exists in Wicca. It exists in Buddhism. It exists in Shinto. It exists in Hinduism. It's not like Christians invented the idea of shacking up together.

But let's say that, it is religious, and it's CHRISTIAN religious. Okay. There's Quakers. United Church of Christ. Affirming Pentecostal Church of America.The Swedenborgian Church of North America.

There are Christians whose churches perform same-sex marraiges, including mine. When you say that Christianity doesn't want gays to get married, you're saying I don't exist. I'm a Christian, I want gays to get married, who are you to say what's consistent with MY religious beliefs? Not only that, as I listed, there are churches, that are CHRISTIAN Churches, not only kinda-Christians like the UUA, who perform gay marriages, and perform them as a religious rite.

In discussions of Christianity, I'm constantly being told that Christianity doesn't accept gay people. Or it doesn't accept gay sex. Well, I'm Christian, I'm gay, and as some others here can attest, I've got a hell of a drive for sex. And if you say Christianity doesn't want gays, that means that you're saying it doesn't want me. And I don't accept your authority to tell me what my faith is.

[Andara Bledin]

I mean, there are laws that make Gay couples equal in the eyes of the law, without marriage. Marriage is a religious practice.

First: Separate but equal didn't work when we (the country) did it to the blacks, it's not going to work when we do it to the gays. It's a civil rights issue.

Second: Domestic partnerships are not the same as marriage in the eyes of the law. Not even close. They wouldn't be fighting for equality if they already had it. It's a civil rights issue.

Third: Marriage is a secular issue. A legal contract between two consenting adults. Sure, it's also often tied in to a religious ceremony (in fact, dozens of them), but that's utterly irrelevant when we're discussing the law. There is a reason that the Separation Clause is a part of the First Amendment. If it were purely a religious practice, it would have zero legal significance and you wouldn't be able to have a civil ceremony at all and we all know that just isn't the case.

Not sure I understand your response.

BTW, it's a question, not an accusation.

It was in response to the whole "why do Gays want to be part of an institution that doesn't want them?" question. You know, the very thing he quoted in his post.

Aside from the fact that the Bible doesn't say what so many people claim it does about homosexuality, many sects of Christianity not only don't condemn the gay, but embrace them and allow them to join the clergy.

The statement that "[Christianity] doesn't want [homosexuals]" is ignorant of the reality of the matter.

[HYHYBT]

This is the part that continues to elude me. Where is the connection between being a homosexual and being a pedophile? While I am neither, it seems that a common belief in this country is that if you are a homosexual, you either have a predilection to or are a pedophile. I've, unfortunately, heard them used interchangeably too many times. I've heard NAMBLA routinely referred to as a homosexual group.

Where does this correlation come from?

It's natural enough for people who don't understand that pedophilia is an attraction specifically to children to see "man = male, boy = male, therefore man + boy = homosexual." And it's especially easy for those whose goal is to agitate against gay people to encourage that view and the belief that, therefore, it works the other way around too and gay men therefore generally want to molest children. It doesn't make sense once you bother looking through it with a bit of genuine knowledge, but they don't really want to do that and will dismiss the relevant facts, if you show them, as lies and propaganda.

In the same vein, why do Gays want to be part of an institution that doesn't want them? I mean, there are laws that make Gay couples equal in the eyes of the law, without marriage. Marriage is a religious practice. A religion that expressly says that homosexuality is wrong. Why be a part of it?

Because that's not what it's for. Christianity is not supposed to be a club for people who agree on everything; it's the collection of everybody who believes a specific thing which, if true, is far more important than anything we disagree on. (Whether that thing *is* true or not is a separate issue.) Being anti-gay is not core doctrine, and even denominations like the Southern Baptists have significant numbers who don't agree with it. (And even for such denominations, it's mostly a side issue.) I cannot cease believing in God just because many (again, far from all) of his followers are wrong on something that affects me, and I will not again go the solitary route unless it is forced on me. Change is in progress.

Hi.

I'm gay.

I'm Christian.

Would be nice if people STOPPED PRETENDING I DON'T EXIST.

Sometimes I'm not sure which is worse: Christians who insist we do not and cannot exist, or gay-supportive people who insist we ought not exist. But if we're getting it from both sides, we must be doing something right

Edit: two others got better answers in while I was composing mine. So I'll just add agreement on the "equal without marriage" thing: "without marriage" is inherently unequal, if for no other reason than the reasons normally provided for denying us that legal title, which boil down to a need to mark us as outside.

[s_stabeler]

What makes me curious is why the law can't simply say that civil marriages have to be open to everybody, regardless of sexual orientation, and religious marriages are up to the religion in question? In other words, gay people can get married, and get the LEAL rights attendant to such, religions that want to allow gay marriage can, religions that want to be bigots, well, just keep it private.

[ebonyknight]

Edit: two others got better answers in while I was composing mine. So I'll just add agreement on the "equal without marriage" thing: "without marriage" is inherently unequal, if for no other reason than the reasons normally provided for denying us that legal title, which boil down to a need to mark us as outside.

On the contrary, it was the most complete and coherent answer. Thanks.

[Hyena Dandy]

Sometimes I'm not sure which is worse: Christians who insist we do not and cannot exist, or gay-supportive people who insist we ought not exist. But if we're getting it from both sides, we must be doing something right

I've also got that I don't exist. (I'm not really a gay guy, I'm just pretending to be in order to convert them to Christianity.)