Talk:North American Man/Boy Love Association

• Talk:North American Man-Boy Love Association/archive1
• Talk:North American Man-Boy Love Association/archive2

Recent edits

There have been recent edits that have been made to include a number of questionable statements.

One is that "[t]here is an annual gathering in New York, and monthly meetings around the country." Really? From whence did the editors pull this information. A reference is in order here, lest the addition be reverted out of the article.

Also, a later part of the paragraph was recently amended to read, "...but an undercover FBI investigation in 1995 discovered that there were 1,100 people on the rolls." Again, where was this information obtained?

I strongly encourage the continued efforts of those who strive to improve the quality of this article. Adding to the article specific information regarding reports and group activities without any sort of verifiable reference is not the way to do this, however.

Additionally, I noticed that our hostile editor has decided to remove a clause from one of the intro paragraphs that mentioned a common criticism of the group (that is a front for the sexual exploitation of minors). The stricken clause was the group's response to this criticism. Whether somebody personally believes that this response is valid or not is irrelevant. It is the way the group responses to the criticism. Full stop. As such, I reincorporated it into the article because if criticism of the group is introduced in the first paragraphs, so should the group's response to that criticism.

Corax 00:36, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Recent edits restored

Sources: Dan Dzwilewski, head of the FBI's San Diego office, quoted in San Diego Union-Tribune, 2-18-05. Also, Fairfax County, Va., detective Tom Polhemus, who went undercover and joined the organization's governing board.

The clause I struck WAS NOT the group's response to the criticism. It was their response to OTHER criticisms (of sex with boys in general, not to the group's promotion of it.) When you ignore this distinction, the opening paragraph suggests that they do not deny promoting criminal acts, and only deny the shamefulness OF those acts. They deny BOTH.

They advocate changing the law. They do not admit breaking it.

Rather than re-strike the clause, I've put "and further" inside it. I'm out of time, I hope someone else can improve it. 68.229.240.32 10:44, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for sourcing the material. silsor 11:09, Apr 30, 2005 (UTC)

The Revere case

I would like to know more about the Revere case from which NAMBLA developed. Corax's original version of this article presented the 24 men arrested in Revere as innocent victims of a homophobic prosecutor, and much was made of the fact that 21 of the men were acquitted. The article has been considerably modified since then, but it still conveys the view that the prosecutions were in some way unjust. The first question therefore is, what about the three who were not acquitted? What were they convicted of? What do these convictions tell us about the innocent victims theory?

Secondly, this article's opening section makes it clear that the house in Revere was being used as a venue for men to have sex with underage boys, so that while the allegations of a "sex ring" may have been exaggerated, they were not completely unfounded. The question then is - what were the men charged with? What defence did they offer? Why were they acquitted? Were they acquitted on grounds of fact - ie, that they had not been at the house or had not had sex with boys under the age of consent? Or where they acquitted on some technicality or other? Someone who has access to contemporary accounts or records might like to do some research on this. Adam 12:20, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

More revere

To the first point: the three convictions tell us NOTHING about the other twenty-one men, regardless of what they were convicted of. But I agree: the information should be included.

To the second: The house was indeed used for sex with underage boys. there were two documented cases of 15-year-old hustlers paid for sex. I'm sorry I can't find the article right now to cite this.

So I suppose, yes, declaring that 24 arrests are just the "tip of the iceberg" of a "sex ring" was not completely unfounded. Similarly, calling me an "unpredictable driver" with a "documented history of reckless behavior" would not be completely unfounded -- since I have two moving violations on my record. And since I was passenger once in a DUI arrest, what does that say about me? 68.229.240.32 15:07, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Page move

FYI, changing an article title is done by using the "move this page link." This article was cut-and-pasted into "North American Man/Boy Love Association" (Note slash instead of dash). That's probably the right name but the wrong way to get there as it loses the edit history. I've undone the move and posted a note asking for an administrator to do it properly. -Willmcw 07:08, May 13, 2005 (UTC)

Done. dbenbenn | talk 17:19, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

Thanks very much. -Willmcw 20:52, May 22, 2005 (UTC)

category "LGBT organizations"

(was "I am disgusted" title changed by --Gbleem 01:55, 28 December 2005 (UTC))

As a gay man I was both disgusted and offended that somebody added this article to the category "LGBT organizations". You need to understand that a LGBT relationship means two adults of either gay, lesbian, bi, or transsexual orientation and has no connection to these disgusting perverts at "nambla". I removed this article from that category.

I think you left out the words "to me". silsor 00:08, May 19, 2005 (UTC)

Leaving aside the anon editor's pejorative language, he is perfectly correct. NAMBLA is not a LGBT organisation, it is either (by its own account) a group which lobbies to repeal the age-of-consent laws, or (by its critics' account) a group of pedophiles and/or pederasts. Adam 00:31, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

If it were not a LGBT organization, it would be the NAMGLA, NAWBLA, or NAACLA. It does specify "Man" and "Boy" though, which makes it a LGBT organization. AlbertCahalan 21:31, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Is the YMCA an LGBT organization? Is Big Brothers and Sisters an incest organization? Eyeon 09:54, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Worst argument ever. Do you remember what the "MBL" in NAMBLA stand for? Here's a hint: MAN/BOY LOVE. silsor 03:32, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)

LGBT organization? Irrefutable yes.

Mainstream LGBT organization? Apparent no.

Perhaps it deserves a separate Category:Radical LGBT organizations or "extreme" or whatever would be least POV by consensus.

--67.142.129.10 05:04, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

So now we're going to create sub-categories within larger categories based solely on one subjective criterion like the radicalness of a group? Let me guess who gets to choose which groups are and are not radical. You? And to what other groups, pray tell, would you grant the esteemed honor of residing in the same category as NAMBLA? My guess is none of the groups you support, which is why you have suggested this ridiculous idea in the first place. Such an exercise reeks of the kind of POV that Wikipedia tries to avoid.

I would sooner suggest you come to grips with the indesputable fact that NAMBLA is an LGBT organization, rather than continue with the charade of creating categories that allow you subtly to convey your disapproval of NAMBLA. I don't think I am being too harsh when I say that nobody cares what you think of NAMBLA, and that no reasonable person is going to endorse your attempts to distinguish perceived good gays from bad gays. Corax 19:59, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yes, if it was the North American Man/Girl Love Association or (NAMGLA) than it would not be an LGBT organization (and I might consider joining it). As "Man/Boy" it is, in fact a organization in self-acknowledged support of homosexual relations. The ages (of the people in the relationships that NAMBLA refers to in its name) are not relevant to the discussion. Other controversial organizations, such as ASFAR, specifically support abolition of age-of-consent laws, but do not specifically promote any particular sexual orientation. Therefore, ASFAR, though it supports some of the same things as NAMBLA, is not an LGBT organization, but NAMBLA is. Besides I think everybody knows that not all LGBT people are pedophiles. Perhaps the category we need is Category:LGBT pedophile organizations, but that might be too narrow. Are there other groups like NAMBLA? — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 12:50, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

Yes, the ages are relevant. "Gays" are men who are attracted to other men. -Willmcw 20:36, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

I believe your logic to be facetious, Willmcw. Are you saying that two young boys who are sexually attracted to each other are not gay? If the mainstream gay community completely disowns NAMBLA fearing (understandably) the extent to which NAMBLA can hurt its credibility, this should be, and is, noted. Denying that NAMBLA is a gay organization simply to paint a brighter picture of gay organizations in general is highly POV. A hotel not approved by AAA is still a hotel. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 05:34, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

There's a "girllove" group too, would it be appropriate to categorize it as a "heterosexual rights organization?" I don't think so. -Willmcw 06:23, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

Interesting you mention that. Why wouldn't we characterize a "girl love" organization as part of a heterosexual rights movement? Because such a movement does not exist. You know what society calls a man who thinks teenage girls are hot? Normal. For example, I used to hear adult males make comments all the time about what they would like to do the Olsen twins when the Olsen twins were still around 15 years of age. This was in public, and nobody so much as batted an eye. Now imagine if a twenty-five-year-old man made salacious remarks about Haley Joel Osment at his current age. There's a reason man/boy love faces so much hostility, and guys talking dirty about the fifteen-year-old Olsen twins does not. It's because of homophobia. Corax 14:14, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Whoa, a strawman! Goody! Personally, I've expressed disgust at grown men who lust after the Olsens, or Hilary Duff, or whoever the jailbait star du jour is these days. So have many other people. Ignoring that fact is intellectually dishonest. Additionally, NAMBLA "targets" not only teenage boys, but prepubescent children, as well. Just a hunch, but that might have something to do with the strong rejection it faces. Hardly homophobia, as I doubt anyone would not be hostile to an adult lusting after the likes of Dakota Fanning.--RicardoC 04:02, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

NAMBLA was originally founded by men who are sexually attracted to adolescent males as an organization promoting the right of men and legally designated minor males to engage in sexual relationships so as long as the relationships are harmless.

In light of this, the gay community - including the contributors to this article who love removing the LGBT category from the bottom of the page -- needs to do some clarifying. It cannot on one hand continue to prove the richness of gay history by citing historical figures like Plato, Hadrian, Von Goethe, Michelangelo, Shakespeare, Beethoven, and others who were predominantly or exclusively attracted to adolescent males, while on the other hand it anathemizes an organization which argues against criminalizing the variety of "gayness" these men experienced and cherished. To do so would be nothing short of hypocritical.

Which is true? If NAMBLA is not an LGBT organization according to gays, gays had better stop using historical pederasts as evidence of gays' contributions to our shared Western history. According to the opinions of the majority of the gay posters here, these pederasts, who would probably be supporters of NAMBLA if they were alive today, are actually "child molesters" and thus "not gay." Corax 06:03, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

In regard to the historical figures, what ages of girls were the hetro men having sex with at those times? Are the pedophiles if they are following the age of consent laws at the time? Should we differentiate between pre and post pubescent? Are we using a legal definition of pedophile? i.e. break the law, or a lay person psych definition, i.e. attracted to teens or little girls.--Gbleem 15:07, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

"Pedophilia" is a medical term, not a legal one, so it doesn't matter what the age-of-conset laws say. Nor is it an action. Somebody cannot be "convicted" of pedophilia (at least not yet). Pedophilia is an attraction. If somebody is attracted exclusively or mostly with prepubescent children, then one is a pedophile. Of course there is an important distinction between prepubescent and adolescent youths. In fact, the term "pedophile" does not refer to people who are attracted exclusively or mostly to teenagers -- although these days anybody who has sex with somebody under the age-of-consent is liable to be labeled a pedophile. Such a person is more appropriately labeled a "hebephile" or "ephebophile" -- neither of which falls under a classification of abnormal or paraphilic sexuality.

Regardless of these distinctions, and regardless of the age of sexually active young women throughout history, it is hypocritical to cite constnatly historical pederasts like so many of the Greeks, Hadrian, and Michelangelo, while simultaneously pretending that their pederastic attracton has nothing to do with homosexuality. Either these figures were gays or they were "disgusting child rapists." Gay rigths advocates cannot and should not be able to have it both ways to suit whatever political agenda they happen to be pushing. Corax 15:48, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

(AHD)

gay

n.

1. A person whose sexual orientation is to persons of the same sex.

(Medical)

gay

n.

1. A homosexual, especially male.

(Wordnet)

gay

n.

1. Someone who practices homosexuality; having a sexual attraction to persons of the same sex.

24 at 16:55, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

The name of NAMBLA is just a clever way of getting grouped with homosexuals. It might as well be "adult/child love". The fact that they specify that it's men and boys and not men and girls or women and girls or whatever is ludicrous - their aim is to abolish all consent laws - not consent laws for boys - which effectively makes them advocates of pedophilia. Now, they can shield it behind some flimsy homosexual pretence all they want but it dosn't change the fact that the most significant part of their profile is sex with children and not specifically homosexual sex although they surely would prefer the debate to take place on those grounds. Celcius 08:31, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Eliminating age-of-consent laws is not the same as setting the age of consent at 0. Thus NAMBLA's calls for the elimination of age-of-consent laws should not be interpreted as calls to legalize pedophilia. All the elimination of age-of-consent laws would do is force the legal system to replace the current rubber stamp regarding the sexuality of minors with a case-by-case mechanism for adjuciating the quality of relationships. Sex with prepubescent boys or girls (which is what a pedophile desires) would presumably and rightfully remain illegal under rape laws, even without age-of-consent laws.

Again, you should remember the context in which NAMBLA formed (by reading the history section of the page). At the time of NAMBLA's establishment, police were harassing teenage boys who had not reached the age of consent but who had been participating in consensual relationships with older partners. This campaign, of which Byrne's round-up constitutes an excellent example, was part of a crackdown on gays in general, fanned by the likes of Anita Bryant. The "boylove" gay subgroup (men who prefer sex with adolescent males) was their obvious target (and still is) because most people had (and still do have) a reflexively negative response to the idea. NAMBLA was formed by the most radical of gay rights activists as a response to this campaign. Many of them stated quite openly thier belief that NAMBLA's battle was a part of a larger battle for gay liberation, claiming that an attack on any gay minority was an attack upon them all.

Only after the right wing was been permitted to relabel everything (for example, renaming the millionaire estate tax the "death tax"), was NAMBLA painted as a trade union of pedophiles. Corax 02:40, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

it would seem to be that lableing Nambla along with LGBT is the equivilant of lableing the Ku Klusx Klan a christian group. While the subsets certainly claim to hold the intrest of the larger group as reasons basis for its ideals, both christianity and Gay/lesbian groups largely distance themselves from those ideals, and do not wish to be associated with these subsets at all

Pickelbarrel 22:22, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

RE: The introduction of the history section

Unfortunately, it seems that Adam Carr has picked up the habit of reflexively reverting every addition I make to the article without taking the time to consider whether the material enriches the article.

Currently, the history portion of the article is incoherent. It mentions that NAMBLA was founded as an extension of the more radical elements of gay liberation, then it makes a disconnected leap to a discussion on how rejection of age-of-consent laws was a part of some gay rights groups' platforms.

Some improvements were obviously in order. I revised the opening section to make the existing fragments of information about radical gay liberation and the 1970s MORE relevant to the article as a whole. The revised version I submitted explains how the gay radicalism which was the more active and vocal strain of the gay rights movemenat the time created an environment in which NAMBLA could emerge. None of it was "self-serving" or false. And if an explanation of how NAMBLA issued forth from the gay rights movement is "irrelevent" to the topic of NAMBLA, then I suppose criminal charges against individual members acting outside of their official capacities with the association are also extremely inappropriate and should be removed from the article as well.

If Adam objects to particular parts of my revision, I would suggest that he discuss which parts he finds unacceptable and why. My revisions were made in earnest with the intent of improving the article. I do not appreciate his penchant for disregarding them by attaching snide little criticisms about their quality, both which are clearly absurd and denote nothing but the hostility Adam has had about anybody who doesn't agree with him on this topic.

Corax 03:18, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Another view is that you removed one source and added some unsourced info. How about providing an explanation for why the one source was inappropriate, and why the other info does not need any source. Thanks, -Willmcw 03:40, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)

I looked back at the edit, and I did unintentionally remove a source which, ironically enough, I myself had added months ago. I have reinstated it.

As for your comment about my adding unsourced info, I was not aware that it would be disputed that one of the most pivotal arguments in the incipient years of the gay rights movement was whether gay culture ought to emulate and be absorbed into the status quo alongside straight culture, or whether gay culture ought to remain distinct. (The debate is apparent in an article I read a few days ago here, coincidentally.)

The Stonewall Riots were propelled by those who ascribe to the latter point of view. Any doubts about this can be assuaged by simply consulting some of the seminal gay works of modern gay history like Don Teal's "The Gay Militants." Regards, Corax 03:58, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. Can you please copy in a relevant quote from Teal about the militant support for lowering the age of consent? That'd be a useful contribution. Thanks, -Willmcw 04:02, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)

Why would I need to provide a quote from Teal about "militant" support for lowering the AOC when the article already mentions that a number of gay rights organizations around at the time of Stonewall openly opposed AOC laws, not just supported lowering them to whatever age? Among the groups mentioned is GAA, which was founded directly as a result of Stonewall. The connection between the radical gay liberation mentality and the opposition to AOC is obvious.

The argument was not just what Peter Tachell writes when he implores gays not to abandon "young queers," but that AOC laws empowered the authorities to harass gays. To the gay community, the Revere incident, the raid on the Canadian gay newspaper "The Body Politic", and the roundup at the Boston public library. all confirmed that the "establishment" was out to persecute them.

Of course, it is also important to remember that at the time, the radical right had yet to reframe the issue so that opposition to the existing AOC laws meant that you supported prepubescent children jumping into bed with Uncle Chester. It was understood within these gay organizations that the liberation being fought for was not liberation for molesters or pedophiles, who would still have been subject to rape, incest, and assault laws. Corax 04:15, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Corax -- I don't agree with your recent edit that removed significant contextual information about the formation of the NCGO. Your recent edit removes properly sourced information I placed earlier in the article that helps to place the NCGO and its formation in proper context. The way it reads now one might assume it was a long-standing national organization of some stature rather than an ad hoc organization formed at the Chicago convention. You also removed important information about who comprised its membership -- it was not primarily GAA and its satellite offices, it was GAA and its satellite offices and numerous small college groups. All of this is important in placing the NCGO in proper context. I am restoring the information. · Katefan0^(scribble) 16:34, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • Your addition: Rather than fighing to mainstream itself into the status quo, the gay liberation movement of the 1960s and 1970s focused more on highlighting and championing the differences between gay culture and the status quo (what some gay rights advocates contemptuously labeled "straight culture"). Consequently, it was not unheard of for these groups to take positions which gay rights groups today reject. I don't know enough about it myself, but since it seems to be controversial and these two sentences make a number of assertions of fact, can you please provide specific sources? Thanks. · Katefan0^(scribble) 16:48, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)

I am not really sure which of these assertions you believe to be so controversial that they require sources. That gay rights groups back then held positions that gay rights groups today do not? All one needs to do to verify this statement is to look at the position of the GAA and the other groups, and view the platforms of gay rights groups today. Notice any difference?

Is there doubt that the gay rights movement has had in the past and continues to have a debate about what form the gay community ought to take -- one that defies convention or one that embraces it? Is there doubt that the early gay rights groups, especially the ones who would adopt positions against age-of-consent laws, would be classified among the more radical former category?

Please tell me which assertions in particular you have difficulty accepting as true, and I will do my best to provide corroborating evidence. Corax 04:35, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Personally, I have no knowledge of the veracity of any of it (this is not meant to pass judgment -- I'm agnostic; I simply don't know). All assertions of fact on Wikipedia should be either sourced or sourceable, or if they are in doubt should be attributed to a source claiming something to be the case. Since this paragraph was challenged in its entirety, it's fair I think to ask for you to provide sources for its assertions. · Katefan0^(scribble) 14:12, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)

Rather than fighing to mainstream itself into the status quo, the gay liberation movement of the 1960s and 1970s focused more on highlighting and championing the differences between gay culture and the status quo (what some gay rights advocates contemptuously labeled "straight culture").

The early gay liberation movement consisted mainly of two organizations: GAA Gay Activists Alliance (whose president, David Thorstad, was a founding member of NAMBLA) and the highly Marxist GLF. As I mentioned earlier, there can be no question that their goals, their orientation, and their platforms were much different than the gay rights groups of today:

There were two major gay liberation groups in 1971, the Gay Liberation Front (GLF), created shortly after Stonewall, and the Gay Activists Alliance (GAA), a more moderate group that broke away just a few months later. [1]

The “conservative” wing of the gay and lesbian liberation movement today is still largely assimilationist: it seeks little if anything more than acceptance and toleration of its “lifestyle” — a “lifestyle” largely parallel to and not very different from the straight mainstream. Conservative gay and lesbian liberationists still contend that “homosexuals” are “just like” heterosexuals in every way but the biological sex of the choice of with whom they “prefer” to “have sex.” This conservative wing is willing to accept and tolerate its own marginalization and subordination in exchange for a limited, fragile, and ultimately elusive and illusory toleration and acceptance by straight society. ... [2]

And, in one of the more lucid and succint descriptions of how the gay rights movement in the US has evolved...

The 1971 GLF Manifesto set out a far-sighted, radical agenda for a non-violent revolution in cultural values and attitudes. It questioned marriage, the nuclear family, monogamy and patriarchy. Making common cause with the women’s, black and worker’s movements, gay liberationists never sought equality within the status quo. We wanted fundamental social change....Oh dear. Look what’s happened now. Whereas GLF derided the family as “a patriarchal prison that enslaves women, gays and children”, the biggest gay campaigns of the last two years have been for partnership and parenting rights. The focus on these safe, cuddly issues suggests that queers are increasingly reluctant to rock the boat. Many of us would, it seems, prefer to embrace traditional heterosexual aspirations, rather than question them. [3]

Corax 15:44, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• • Ok. Thanks Corax. Instead of stating some of these items as statements of fact (particularly the last portion attributed to Tatchell), it may be necessary to attribute them to the authors of these texts as interpretations of events. Adam, do these sources satisfy you, or what is your opinion on their presentation? Thanks all. · Katefan0^(scribble) 18:15, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)

Adds -- question for Corax

It would also later spawn GLAAD and NAMBLA -- Did the GLAAD addition also come from the source you added at the bottom? Thanks · Katefan0^(scribble) July 1, 2005 14:55 (UTC)

Sorry about that. It seems I misread a source. I've reverted the sentence. Regards, Corax 1 July 2005 18:04 (UTC)

Supreme Court Desisions (links) that affect this topic

( please intergrate (edit) these cases into this subject - as your article is one sided)

• ASHCROFT v. AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION

Held: COPA’s reliance on “community standards” to identify what material “is harmful to minors” does not by itself render the statute substantially overbroad for First Amendment purposes. The Court, however, expresses no view as to whether COPA suffers from substantial overbreadth for reasons other than its use of community standards, whether the statute is unconstitutionally vague, or whether the statute survives strict scrutiny. Prudence dictates allowing the Third Circuit to first examine these difficult issues. Because petitioner did not ask to have the preliminary injunction vacated, and because this Court could not do so without addressing matters the Third Circuit has yet to consider, the Government remains enjoined from enforcing COPA absent further action by the lower courts. P. 22.

• ASHCROFT v. FREE SPEECH COALITION

Held: The prohibitions of §§2256(8)(B) and 2256(8)(D) are overbroad and unconstitutional. Pp. 6—21.

• RENO v. AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION

Held: The CDA's "indecent transmission" and "patently offensive display" provisions abridge "the freedom of speech" protected by the First Amendment. Pp. 17-40.]

• Miller v. California
• New York v. Ferber

posted by 152.1.190.148 (talk · contribs)

moved from article space by Willmcw 23:44, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

First of all, I do not see how the article is "one-sided." Perhaps you can explain why you believe think it is, if that is indeed what you think. As you know if you have followed this article for any substantial period of time, the current revision is the product of heated debate, compromise, and careful scrutiny from people are both sympathetic and totally opposed to the group. Your opinion on the article's balance places you in a very small minority.

Second, if you want to integrate the above information into the article, you should probably explain how it is relevant to NAMBLA. I personally fail to see how the cited cases relate to the group in any meaningful sort of way. If you can make a compelling case that they are, then YOU can integrate the information into the text. It is not our responsibility to make your edits for you. Corax 21:27, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Citations

Hi, there are a lot of embedded links in this article that are not in the reference section at the bottom. They need to be as per the policy on citations. It is overall very well cited, as I guess I would expect articles on controversial topics like this to be. But I thought I'd mention the links. --DanielCD 21:49, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Link

• alt.hackers.malicious: The War Against Nambla

An editor removed this link with the comment:

• Removed odd and irrelevant link

I don't see how this link is irrelevant. Please explain. -Willmcw 01:03, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't think I should have to explain why something is irrelevant in order for me to remove it when the person who originally added it did not explain why he added it. If you look at the top of this very talk page, you will notice the suggestion that -- because this article deals with a controversial topic -- all changes should be discussed before being implemented. Accordingly, the person who added the link should have eplained why he wanted to include it before editing it into the article. Because he did not do so, and I could see no compelling reason why the links should be incoporporated into what is already an extremely long list of links, I removed it. Perhaps if there weren't so many links, there would be less reason to be so strict about the addition of new links.

It seems that there is some sort of persistence on your part to include a link at the bottom of the article which in no way enhances or confirms anything discussed in the article. Being that there are already a large number of links (some of which I would probably try to remove if I didn't think people would resist just for the sake of obstruction), including additional links which have zero substantive value is probably the last thing this article needs. As such, I have removed the recently appended link. If anybody hopes to reincorporate it, I suggest he or she explain why below. Corax 01:05, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Since the link is all about NAMBLA, the relevance seems self-evident. As for "odd", that's not a good reason to delete a link. "Zero substantive value" is a good reason, but it hasn't been shown. -Willmcw 01:10, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

The link is not about NAMBLA at all. It's about some vigilante calling for "hackers" to destroy the organization and its members. In the process, it ironically does something that even an organization as hated as NAMBLA has refrained from doing: it has explicitly called for people to engage in illegal activities. Apart from this, the link is nothing but a reptition of the already ubiquitous accusation that the organization is a front for child abusers. Corax 01:15, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Destroying NAMBLA is not about NAMBLA? That seems contradictory. -Willmcw 02:13, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

I am not using the word "about" to mean "relating to." Obviously the link relates to NAMBLA -- insofar as some kook blogsite with fringe right-wingers threatening abortion clinic doctors is "about" abortion. I mean "about" to refer to descriptive/explanatory function that an encyclopedia is supposed to serve. Somebody saying he wants to destroy an organization is not the same as somebody describing or explaining the organization. As mentioned, the only description he offers -- that NAMBLA is an organizaiton which "promotes child abuse" -- is already mentioned in the article. To post the link at the bottom of the article as an explanation that people hate NAMBLA is unnecessary and duplicative. The only unique characteristic of this link which might merit its inclusion at the end of the article is that the blogger has threatened to destroy, and encourages other to destroy, NAMBLA and its members. To reiterate, this distinguishing feature is not "about" NAMBLA. It mentions NAMBLA, but it does not analyze, explain, or describe -- which is what an encyclopedia does when it has articles that are "about" certain topics. As such, it has no place in this article. Corax 06:06, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

I just glanced at the site. I'm not sure what general criteria to use for inclusion. Is it just one guy with a blog or an actual group of people? If one guy we can dismiss it as not notable. If it's a group or organization then we need other criteria. It is only the controversal issues that have us looking at criteria. --Gbleem 17:49, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Messing around with the categorization now?

To Willmcw: Um. How do I say this? You just read how counterproductive and improvident it is to make substantive alterations to the content of the article without first discussing it on the talk page. Then two seconds later, you make a substantive alteration to the article without first discussing it on the talk page. What am I missing here? Corax 01:47, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

We have several articles on organizations that promote pedophilia. It seems logical to have a category for them. -Willmcw 01:54, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia:categorization, we should not put an article (or a category) in both a mother and daughter category. Most of the categories attached to this article are already categorized under the category:pedophile organizations or category:pedophilia. Only categories that are specific to NAMBLA that aren't already covered whould be added (like US organizations). -Willmcw 02:09, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Uh huh. And I suppose that the reason you removed "LGBT organizations" is that it is a mother or daughter category of "Pedophialia Groups"? Let's be honest here. What you're trying to do is months in the making, judging from the other discussions on this talk page. You don't want NAMBLA "affiliated" with LGBT organizations, despite the fact that it is one.Corax 04:14, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Fair enough. NAMBLA is explicitly homosexual while pedophilia in general is not. -Willmcw 07:00, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Sick, dude

groups like this make me not like freedom of speech --TMFSG

Well, NAMBLA thinks you should have the right to freedom of speech and the right as a fifteen-year-old to choose to have sex with whomever you choose, whether it be male or female, young or old -- as long as the other partner is capable of consenting. It also thinks you have a right not to be assaulted by your caregiver, a right to privacy (e.g., not to have school administrators searching your personal belongings without any probable cause to do so). You've apparently come to accept the misinformation describing NAMBLA as an organizaton that advocates "pedophilia" and grown men having sex with toddlers. This is troubling, and perhaps indicates that you haven't read the content of the article. In actuality, NAMBLA's "position" on adult-child sex is reducible to one statement: people who are capable of consenting to sex should not be denied the right to choose to do so simply because of their age. Note that this position is entirely different from the statement, "People of all ages can consent to sex, including young children."

I find it interesting that you would label these positions as "sick." This is especially true since I remember being fifteen not too long ago, and thinking that laws telling me what I could do with my own body were scandalously inappropriate.

In any case, many people think interracial sex is also sick. It certainly used to be illegal. But then again, everybody has a different opinion of what "sick" is, right? Just some food for thought. Corax 13:39, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

(personal attack removed) I'm not misunderstanding anything. North American Man Boy Love Association? What's not to understand? I believe alot in age of consent laws, because kids and teenagers (especially kids) are not able to make choices about this crap. At least not until age 17, probably. And I don't think interracial sex is sick, I'm bi-racial myself. And I believe school administrators should be able to search through personal belongings if they have good reason to (drugs, weapons, etc.). Kids shouldn't have that crap at school anyways. (personal attack removed) --TMFSG

No personal attacks. -Willmcw 01:44, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, yes, yes. You think sex between people of different ages is sick, and some people think that sex between people of different races is sick. What makes your opinion any more valid than theirs? Perhaps you know the old saying, "Opinions are like..." -- ah, nevermind. Corax 04:35, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Corax, you have completely lost your mind. Comparing interacial sex, to this sickness.--NAMBLAbedamned 21:33, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

(if wikipidia was around 100 years ago).... "You've completly lost your mind, comparing pederastry to the sickness that is interacial relationships." But anyways you sorta proved his analogy, that different people have different ideas of what "sick" is

It's a good thing we, as a society, came to our senses about the real sickness. (Personal attack removed).--70.182.219.158 19:58, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Personal attacks are really unnecessary, thanks. Natgoo 20:16, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

GBLT or not?

I couldn't find the old discussion. Maybe I'm getting old. I'm not trying to make a statement just revert vandalism or what I thought was vandalism. --Gbleem 17:40, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Since you participated in a portion of it, I am surprised you don't remember that it is under the "I am disgusted" heading. It's amazing how many people believe they are experts on NAMBLA, edit the article without even checking the discussion page, then have the gall to accuse other people of being "uneducated."

I don't remember a lot of things and I never accused anyone of being uneducated. Insinuated maybe. --Gbleem 01:59, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Ultimately, a majority of the people involved in the prior discussion concluded that, regardless of whether the group was composed mainly of pedophiles or hebephiles, its aim was to offer support for same-sex (in other words, homosexual) relationships. If the LGBT acronym were "ALGBT" (adult-lesbian/gay/bisexual/transgender), then perhaps the people who are incessantly removing this article from its proper category would have a point. Even if you think that a 15-year-old male having sex with a twenty-five-year-old male is an abusive relationship, it is still homosexual in nature. And NAMBLA is still a group that zeros in on a matter related to homosexuality.Corax 18:05, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

"Gay" does not equal, nor include, pedophilia. They are two separate concepts. -Willmcw 21:53, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

What don't you understand about the fact that the word "gay" in no way implies that one is attracted to somebody of roughly the same age? Gay does include pedophilia whenever a pedophile is attracted to children of the same sex. As you state above (but seem to want to recant now), "NAMBLA is explicitly homosexual while pedophilia in general is not." NAMBLA is an LGBT organization, and the category classification stands. Stop playing games with the article, or it will be protected from editing. Corax 01:02, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

What sources do we have to establish it as an LGBT organization? Do they belong groups of LGBT organizations? -Willmcw 01:09, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

There is no authoritative organization which controls a roll of groups which are admitted to the status of "LGBT" organization. As you very well know, the only source we have is the English dictionary, which states that "gay" means "Of, relating to, or having a sexual orientation to persons of the same sex."

Since NAMBLA is a support organization for men and boys who are involved in intimiate relationships, then NAMBLA is a "gay" organization because men and boys are both males -- that is, they are both "persons of the same sex." Thus the purpose of NAMBLA, to be a support mechanism for homosexual men and young males who are involved in cross-generational relationships, places the organization firmly in the LGBT camp. Even if you hate the organization and everything it stands for. Please learn to accept this. Corax 01:13, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Homosexuals
	NAMBLA
	Pedophiles

Sometimes a venn diagram is worth a thousand words. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 07:24, Dec. 28, 2005

Though I lol very much at Willmcw's attempt to say that homosexuality does not inherently equal gayness (???), NAMBLA is trying to abolish the age of consent completely, not just exclusively promoting sex between men and boys. Though it was originally founded by male-attracted pedophiles, and its original intent was declared as "freeing men and boys'," it now also includes female-attracted pedophiles within its membership and its goal is apparently to "support the rights of youth as well as adults to choose the partners with whom they wish to share and enjoy their bodies" (perhaps they realised how perceptibly overt their selfishness was). It is no longer LGBT as it promotes all forms of intergenerational relationships. My view, anyway... // paroxysm (n) 02:16, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

NAMBLA's aim (quoting directly from the index page of their web site) is to "end the oppression of men and boys who have freely chosen, mutually consensual relationships." The means by which they seek to accomplish this is to abolish the age-of-consent laws, which they believe oppresses men and boys who are involved in such relationships. In this respect, it is a gay organization, or an "LGBT" organization. How else would you categorize an organization which aims to "end the oppression" of relationships involving two people of the same sex, if not as a gay organization? A straight organization perhaps?

Furthermore, as for your claim that NAMBLA now contains "female-attracted pedophiles," I would like to see some proof of this before you assert it to be undisputed fact. Corax 04:37, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, paroxysm, please source your statements about NAMbLA branching into other sexual orientations. If true, it would seem advisable for the group to change its name. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 06:23, Dec. 29, 2005

I think the issue here has moved beyond the classification of NAMBLA as an LGBT group - in my eyes the name and the mission statement are clear and until we find a more credible source than either of those two, the group demonstrates itself to be an LGBT organisation. So what then are the issues here? I'm guessing, as it has not been explicitly stated in any of the previous arguments, but it seems to me that the issue is with the conflation of 'homosexuality' and 'paedophilia' in traditional media/society, and the desire of wikipedia editors to ensure that we don't do the same here. If this is the case, the debate needs to move on to discuss the dangers or otherwise of including the article in the Category: LGBT organisations. This reverting back and forth based on the argument that paedophile != gay is futile and time-wasting. Natgoo 13:37, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, I think you are right in identifying right-wingers using the pedophile label to attack gays as being the main reason why we are even having this discussion. However, NAMBLA is not a "pedophile" group. Not all of its members are pedophiles, and its goal is not necessarily related to pedophilia. Therefore seizing upon the issue of non-gender-specific pedophilia, parroting that pedophilia has nothing to do with gays, is a dishonest way of conducting this debate.

As stated before, even if the group WERE only about pedophilia and pedophiles, the pedophiles in question are homosexual/gay. Even if NAMBLA's platform would advance the cause of female-attracted pedophiles, its primary goal is not about them, which is why the group is called "NAMBLA," not "NAACLA" (North American Adult/Child Love Association). But it's not exclusively about pedophiles. Nor is it about some imagined right of pedophiles to have sex with toddlers.

As I have repeated time and again, NAMBLA advocates removing age-based rubber stamps that criminalize sexual relationships based solely on the ages of the participants. At no time has it claimed that all, some or, no prepubescents (or any other demographic group, for that matter) can or cannot consent to sex.

NAMBLA's platform would favor teenagers more than prepubescent children, anyway. That is, it would favor adolescent males and their adult non-pedophile lovers (remember, pedophiles are people who are attracted predominantly or exclusively with pre-pubescent children), since teenagers would generally be far more able to consent to sex than pre-pubescent children. To further emphasize this point, remember that NAMBLA was founded in direct response to men who were jailed for frequenting male teenager hustlers -- hardly pedophiles. So to try to twist this debate into a referendum on pedophilia is disingenuous.

Again, the question that needs to be answered is: how can a group that advocates for "liberating" relationships between men and underage males (two people of the same sex) not be considered gay? I've yet to hear any reason that withstands even a modicum of scrutiny. Corax 15:11, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Exactly my point, which is why I'm trying to move the debate on. There is no valid argument against NAMBLA being categorised as an LGBT organisation, because it is one. What I'm reading here, and what I'd like people to acknowledge and argue in relation to the categorisation of this article, are primarily emotional responses to the inclusion of a group associated with paedophilia in the LGBT community (as represented by a category on wikipedia). It seems that the fact that NAMBLA is a group explicitly and exclusively for gay males just doesn't matter to those arguing against the article's inclusion in the category, and I want to know why. If there's a legitimate argument for not including the article in the LGBT organisations category, despite it being an LGBT organisation, let's hear it. Natgoo 15:34, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

You're right. There is no valid argument against NAMBLA being categorized as an LGBT organization. So why is this debate even taking place? Apparently, because this organization being properly categorized makes some people upset. That is their problem, quite frankly. I don't intend to sound mean-spirited about it, but they really need to learn to cope. Wikipedia should not allow its content to be decided by emotionally energized but factually deficient do-gooders. It will be a dark day indeed if wikipedia ever prefaces its geology-related articles with a disclaimer written by the flat-earth society, just because the flat-earthers would be upset if they didn't get their way.

The NAMBLA article is clear in the fact that NAMBLA, a gay organization, is controversial and triggers equally negative responses from homophobes and almost all mainstream LGBT organizations alike. People are capable of putting two and two together, and seeing that NAMBLA's inclusion in the LGBT category does not mean that the group enjoys widespread support from the gay community. Corax 17:42, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

According to our article, NAMBLA is "a U.S.-based organization that advocates the abolition of age of consent laws." I don't see anywhere on their website where they call themselves an LGBT organization. Nor has anyone provided a source for others calling it one. Decisions of editors that it belongs in a certain category "because we think it belongs there" amount to original research. -Willmcw 19:05, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

If we went to the websites of all the organizations categorized under "LGBT organizations," and cleared the category in question of all the organizations that didn't explicitly identify themselves on their websites as "LGBT organizations," there would be maybe one or two entries left. Your position seems to be a disingenuous attempt to set the threshold for inclusion of NAMBLA much higher than that of other groups in the category -- so high that it is obviously intended to be exclusionary.

I've already explained why it's a gay group. And nobody has shown a flaw in my reasoning. A group which has the stated purpose of ending the oppression of certain forms of same-sex relationships should be classified as a gay group. The only reason that the article opens with the statement that it advocates the elimination of AOC laws is that this is its most popularly known position. Corax 19:55, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

(EC)As I said previously, their mission statement and name make it clear - no other source should be necessary for an organisation as explicitly gay/homosexual/LGBT as to state their mission as activism against 'the oppression of men and boys who have freely chosen, mutually consensual relationships'. I'm still waiting for a compelling argument as to why it shouldn't be included, not why it should. Natgoo 20:01, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Willmcw, NAMBLA has explicitly identified itself as such. A cited paragraph from article itself follows:

Gregory King of the Human Rights Campaign later said that "NAMBLA is not a gay organization ... They are not part of our community and we thoroughly reject their efforts to insinuate that pedophilia is an issue related to gay and lesbian civil rights." ^[4] NAMBLA responded by claiming that "man/boy love is by definition homosexual," that "man/boy lovers are part of the gay movement and central to gay history and culture," and that "homosexuals denying that it is 'not gay' to be attracted to adolescent boys are just as ludicrous as heterosexuals saying it's 'not heterosexual' to be attracted to adolescent girls."^[5]

This is not original research. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 20:28, Dec. 29, 2005

Category request

I'm going to post a request on the catagory talk page Category talk:LGBT for a new subcategory. --Gbleem 18:21, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

A subcategory that will feature how many articles, out of curiosity? This remedy has been raised before, and it was decided it was just another strategy by politically-driven gays to try to distance NAMBLA from the other groups. Many of them should read the Spirit of Stonewall memo that was written a number of years ago. It addressed precisely this kind of knee-jerk reaction by gays toward the "less respectable" members of its ranks. Corax 18:25, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

A category with few members can be useful. In taxonomy there are genuses that have only one species. There are three pedophilia organizations listed on wikipedia. I think Nambla may be the only one currently active. How should the LGBT category be divided? I'm not really sure. I think the overall discussion of subdivisions of LGBT or even the existance of the category should be at Category talk:LGBT --Gbleem 20:31, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm not opposed in principle to the idea of categories within LGBT Organizations; what I am opposed to is the creation of one category specifically designed to remove NAMBLA from the first tier of organizations listed under the LGBT category. So, for example, if there were only one subcategory called "radical gay groups," and such a group featured NAMBLA and maybe a few other marginalized groups, I would be strictly opposed to the change. But if you want to divide up the entire LGBT organizations category into three, four, or five subcategories, I have absolutely no problem with that.

Oh - and for the last time, NAMBLA is not a "pedophile organization." For the umpteenth time, in the post-stonewall gay culture that spawned NAMBLA, "boy" was understood to mean a teenage male. Pedophiles are attracted to prepubescent children. NAMBLA is the only organization that I know of formed specifically to address the issue of sexual relationships between men and teenage males. This is probably because in other countries that have fought for gay rights, the police and Christian fanatics have not used the age-of-consent as a weapon to target gays in the way that they have in the US. Thus, had they been living in another country, the original members of NAMBLA would probably never have had a need to work outside of existing gay groups.Corax 21:35, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

As the article reads now it seems to say that any age is ok. I suspect the platform has changed over the years. --Gbleem 23:27, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Hmmm. Can you point to any specific passage which conveys this idea? I see nowhere in the article that advocates an age of consent of 0, or the idea that "any age is okay." Corax 01:20, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

NAMBLA is an organization of gays that happen to be pedophiles, or pedophiles that happen to be gays, however you prefer to look at it. It is also a rather unique organization in this respect. However, a sub-category with a population of one is fundamentally useless. NAMBLA belongs in both categories as noted in the objectively drawn diagram above. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 18:58, Dec. 29, 2005

NAMBLA is an educational and political organization which seeks to present its perspective on a variety of issues, including youth rights and relationships between adult and minor males. There is no requirement that one be either gay or a pedophile to be a member of NAMBLA. NAMBLA doesn't advocate that anyone have sex with anyone else. It simply tries to put a human face on relationships which have occurred in all societies since the dawn of time, as an opposing point of view to that of the hysterics and puritans, and lately, mainstream gays. Since LGBT organizations include those devoted to gay youth, as well as gay adults, it seems somewhat silly to declare that an organization that does both isn't LGBT, especially given its history as part of the radical gay rights movement which also spawned Stonewall and GLAAD. While NAMBLA is not a good fit to the appeasement agenda of the current gay movement, which seeks to invite the government into the bedrooms of gays under the guise of gay marriage, I don't think any purpose is served by rewriting history to suggest that this was always the case. Hermitian 19:34, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Can you guys please discuss it here instead of in the revision logs? Thanks. Clayboy 21:41, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Can people stop adding NAMBLA to the LGBT category until the issue is resolved?Homey 22:04, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, Homeontherange, but neither GLAAD nor any other "gay rights" organization is the arbiter of what groups are or are not gay-oriented or "LGBT." Whether other groups accept NAMBLA's positions or not, it's a gay group. The question is not about whether NAMBLA has attractive positions, or even popular positions. The question is, is NAMBLA a group that deals with gay issues? Clearly, since NAMBLA's purpose to end the "oppression" of certain forms of same-sex relationships, the answer to this question is yes. It's yes regardless of how many gays this pissess off, no matter how politically incorrect this answer may seem. Corax 22:54, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

When a reasonable, convincing argument is made for not including an article on an organisation focussed on gay relationships between males in the category LGBT organisations, I'll consider it. Natgoo 22:17, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

RFC

In reponse to the RFC, NAMBLA should in no way be viewed as a legitimate LGBT organization. LGBT is understood as referring to adult attraction to other adults, not children. To classify NAMBLA as a LGBT organization would be to equate homosexuality with pedophilia, and would be I believe an intentional smear tactic against LGBT adults.

MSTCrow 09:45, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

This comment assumes bad faith of all those who disagree. It's a legitimate point. They are for homosexual pedophilia, nothing in LGBT makes a presumption of "adult". It should be listed. -- Jbamb 19:40, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Nobody here is equating anything. I think all of us agree that:

1. "Homosexuals" and "Pedophiles" are non-equal sets of people.
2. Most homosexuals are not pedophiles.
3. Most pedophiles are not homosexual.

However, an overlapping subset ("homosexual pedophiles") clearly does exist and NAMBLA is a part of this subset. The article itself states that NAMBLA proclaims itself as such, and this has been discussed at length in former sections of this talk page. The fact that other LGBT organizations (and the majority of people, for that matter) find NAMBLA offensive is rather immaterial. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 10:02, Jan. 1, 2006

NAMBLA claims to be a LGBT organization. Does that make it true? Does this now mean that anything that NAMBLA says is true, including the moral permissibility of child/adult sexual relations? Simply because NAMBLA calls itself an LGBT group does not make it so, and there's no reason to think that it is one.

MSTCrow 10:09, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

The fact that the organisation caters solely, exclusively and explicitly to males in gay relationships is a clear reason to include the article in this category. NAMBLA doesn't have to claim it is an LGBT organisation, as demonstrated by their name (note the MAN/ BOY LOVE part) and their mission statement (note the MEN and BOYS parts) it is one. NPOV, as I interpret its use in wikipedia, dictates that an article on an organisation focussing on homosexual relationships be included in the category. If you feel that the article shouldn't be included in the category despite the fact it describes an LGBT organisation, please let us know why. What do you think the consequences will be, for the encyclopaedia and for society, if we categorise the article this way? Natgoo 15:32, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Child molestation is not the same as "gay relationships". -Will Beback 18:39, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Not when each party is of a different sex. When each is of the same sex, however, then yes, it is a type of gay relationship. I fail to see what child molestation has to do with the inclusion of this article in the category. Natgoo 21:08, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Would you call child molestation a heterosexual activity, since most of it is between males and females? -Will Beback 21:18, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

What kind of argument is that? I think it's clear he's saying he thinks homosexual activities betweens two males are homosexual. Furthermore, it is entirely POV to characterize adult-child sex as child molestion, and your previous argument is thus invalid in the context of Wikipedia. // paroxysm (n) 22:09, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, adult-child sex is either child molestation or statutory rape in most civilized counties of the world. OTOH, Gay sex, sex between consenting males, is legal in most civilized countries. Yes, I have a POV. No, that does not prohibit anyone from editing Wikipedia. -Will Beback 22:22, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

But what bearing does either the legality or moral appropriateness of their activities have on the article's categorisation within the encyclopaedia? If it should be a factor, tell us why. Natgoo 22:32, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

The point is that we don't call men raping little girls "straight sex", nor would we call men raping little boys "gay sex". -22:41, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Agree. But if a gay adolescent boy and a gay man decide to have sex, that clearly is homosexual. NAMBLA are not particularly concerned with "little boys". Clayboy 23:48, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Then why are they against having any age of consent at all?Homey 00:05, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Please read the article. Misrepresenting their position really isn't constructive to the debate at hand. Natgoo 01:23, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, adult-child sex is either child molestation or statutory rape in most civilized counties of the world. OTOH, Gay sex, sex between consenting males, is legal in most civilized countries. Yes, I have a POV. No, that does not prohibit anyone from editing Wikipedia. -Will Beback 22:22, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Let me reiterate: whether or not age-disparate sexual relations should be consider abusive is pure POV, even if it is the opinion of most of the "civilised" world. Sex between a male and a male is homosexual. Age is not a factor of sexual orientation, I'm sorry.

Of course you have a POV, as does everyone else here, you're just not permitted to edit Wikipedia in accord to it, and thus any argument based on your disputable, personal opinion here is unsound. // paroxysm (n) 22:33, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

That is different than the argument you're making elsewhere, where you assert that pedophilia is a sexual orientation. -Will Beback 22:41, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

I like to argue and I can't stand to be agreed with, so don't regard if I flip-flop opinion sometimes. At any rate, was that supposed to somehow refute me? // paroxysm (n) 23:40, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

We're not here to decide the moral permissibility of anything. I don't see how the type of relationship ("Man/Boy") advocated by NAMBLA could be considered "non-LGBT" (i.e. "heterosexual"). — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 10:35, Jan. 1, 2006

Bestiality may be non-LGBT, does that make it heterosexual? Are there only two choices? -Will Beback 18:53, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Bestiality? You couldn't find a more appropriate straw man this early in the debate? Bestiality'd be one of the big guns, surely. Natgoo 21:08, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Brining up bestiality makes a valid point. If an organization advocates human males having sex with male animals, does that make it LGBT? What if it's female animals? Also, many people would consider pedophilia and bestiality morally equivalent, so it's not a straw-man argument.

MSTCrow 00:39, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

It is when we're discussing an organisation for humans. Your point will be valid if there is a need to discuss the categorisation of articles about organisations dedicated to bestiality. Natgoo 01:19, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Bestiality is a red herring in this debate. For the record, there are more than two choices, and zoophilia is obviously one of them. Bottom line:

1. This is an organization that advocates and exists to legalize sexual activity between men and boys.

2. Sexual activity between males (and yes, between females) is, by definition, homosexual.

3. There is no way to define a "legitimate" LGBT organization, unless "LGBT" itself is the name of some kind of federation that requires organizations to register, and NAMBLA is not a member.

4. Since "LGBT" is a genericized moniker for groups organized for the benefit of and/or composed of homosexuals (both male and female), the inclusion of an organization that advocates legalization of a specific type of homosexual activity and is purportedly composed of individuals who practice those homosexual acts, it is appropriate to refer to it as a LGBT organization.

Note: I do sympathize (as do most of those who are on my side, I am sure) with the frustration of people who are opposed to this. I am sure that people who are members of LGBT groups that work for the rights and common good of non-pedophile homosexual people are extremely uncomfortable with their inclusion. However, emotions have no place in this discussion. The fact remains that logically, NAMBLA is a LGBT organization, and it is appropriate to list them as such. Jrkarp 14:29, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Source

MSTCrow, what is the source for saying the NAMBLA calls itself an LGBT organization? I looked on their website and didn't see it. -Will Beback 18:54, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Freakofnurture provides a source in the section above. Natgoo 21:08, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm having trouble tracking it down. Can you please copy it here? Thanks, -Will Beback 21:18, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, it's two sections above, at [6]. The reference is from Gamson, Joshua. 1997. Messages of Exclusion: Gender, Movements, and Symbolic Boundaries. Gender and Society 11(2):178-199. Natgoo 22:19, 1 January 2006 (UTC)(Somehow you deleted this addition with your last edit?)

Apologies if I mistakenly deleted your comment. Thanks for the info, but I can't view that reference. Does anyone here have access to that article who can give us the quotation and context so that we can verifty it? As I mentioned, they don't seem to call themselves a gay organization on their website, and were expelled from the ILGA. -Will Beback 22:48, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Ah, I see that someone from NAMBLA once claimed to be a part of the gay community, while others claim that it is not a part of that community. So it is a disputed claim, even in that source. -Will Beback 22:51, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Is NAMBLA's (wavering) acceptance by the gay community germane to how we categorise the article? If you believe it is the criterion for inclusion, please tell us why. Natgoo 01:13, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Heterosexual organizations

Many pedophilia-advocacy groups promote the relaxing age-of-consent laws for all genders. Should they be categorized both as category:LGBT organizations and category:heterosexual organizations? If they promote straight sex, why not? -Will Beback 22:58, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

NAMBLA is an LGBT organization because they specifically promote having sex with little boys, or molesting them, however you want to put it. That makes them homosexual. A group which promoted kiddiefucking on a broader level, for example MARTIJN, is neither an LGBT organization nor a heterosexual organization. Say it with me: age is not a factor in whether someone is heterosexual, homosexual, or bisexual. It's a simple concept once you get the hang of it. // paroxysm (n) 23:40, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Not true. Most paedophiles have sex with whomever they can get, irrespective of gender. A minority stick (if they can) with one gender. Many psychologists argue that paedophiles aren't really heterosexual or homosexual because they define both as implying adult attraction to other adults, and paedophiles are seen as people with a flawed emotional sexual development. Sceptics suspect that this particular organisation simply played up the man-boy element to attach themselves to a growing lobby, the gay lobby, playing up its victimhood in the hopes that other legitimate supporters of victims of homophobia might fall for its propaganda. In reality it is as reviled among the gay community as are abusers of young girls in the straight community. Indeed it is members of the gay community who have supplied most of the information on the organisation to the police when on occasion NAMBLA tried to link up to gay groups. Calling the group either heterosexual or homosexual is misleading and just swallowing NAMBLA's POV propaganda. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 01:28, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

I'd agree with that entirely. However, as a compromise, I've created Category:Pederasty organizations (and placed it under both Pedophiles and LGBT orgs for starters). Thoughts? -Will Beback 01:35, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

LOL! Can you please provide some evidence for this? I think you might be trying to limn child sex offenders in general, not just pedophiles, especially since most pedophiles remain abstinent for all of their lives (but who cares? it's all their fault they get turned on by children so they should be blamed for something they've never done, amirite?) // paroxysm (n) 02:13, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

The arguments here are pure sophistry. It is the North American Man/Boy Love Association, is there ANY indication that they are in the business of supporting Man/Girl, Woman/Boy relationships? Homo/heterosexual are human relationships, not animal. Bestiality is another category all together. In right-wing politics, conservatives object to the KKK being listed. Left-wing people resent the various left-wing terrorist groups being listed also. Just because the LGBT mainstream doesn't like the kooks on the skirts doesn't mean they aren't LGBT. -- Jbamb 02:27, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Category:Pederasty organizations is the correct and NPOV solution. Well done Will. It avoids all the POV problems. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 02:30, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

No, it's not. It's simply an attempt to pointlessly distance NAMBLA from other homosexual organizations. In the end, it's a subcategory of LGBT organizations, and thus it is, according to you, still a POV issue, as it continues to characterize NAMBLA as gay. There is absolutely no reason for this to be viewed as a point-of-view correction because in reality it is merely a tactic to segregate mainstream opinions from minority. // paroxysm (n) 02:47, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Since we have so many articles on the topic, I've created Category:Pederasty as a parent for the org cat. Why wouldn't NAMBLA be categorized as a pederasty organization? Cheers, -Will Beback 03:12, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

A category of just one entry to simply get your way isn't an acceptable solution. -- Jbamb 03:27, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

It is patently obvious what is going on here. Two users are pushing their own personal agendas and dare not let such minor things as objectivity, encyclopaedic standards or NPOV get in their way. They want to force in a gay link up front and will stop at nothing to do so.FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 03:56, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh, come on. Surely you can give a better argument than this nonsense.

And just out of curiousity, what two users are "pushing their personal agendas," here? I think the LGBT category belongs on this article because other users have convinced me that an organization which promotes homosexual acts is, indeed, a homosexual organization. // paroxysm (n) 04:16, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

It was my understanding that a number of pedophiles are heterosexual in their adult relationships. This would suggest that many of those attracted to boys are looking for a substitute to adult females (or have difficulty forming relationships with adult females) rather than that they are gay. Homey 19:05, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Child sex offenders in general are, in most cases, simply using children as a substitute for adults, because they can not form a relationship with an adult and children are "easy." However, a pedophile is defined as someone sexually attracted, primarily or exclusively, to children. In the cases you mentioned, it is likely they are merely using the adult as a substitute, because, obviously, children cannot be courted. Pedophilia is not a fairy tale. // paroxysm (n) 19:40, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

It's not a fairy tale but there's a lot of evidence to show it's not homosexuality either.

"In fact, some research shows that for pedophiles, the gender of the child is immaterial. "[7]Homey 19:59, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

I've checked that source, and I have come to the conclusion that "Joe Kort" is unmistakably an idiot. He says inane things like "rarely does a pedophile experience sexual desire for adults of either gender," and then contradicts himself lines later with "no true pedophile is attracted to adults, so neither homosexuality nor heterosexuality applies." Of course, both are patently false, as exclusive pedophiles are actually the rarity. He even says "pedophilia can be viewed as a kind of sexual fetish," seemingly unaware of what a sexual fetish is in the first place. This guy calls himself a therapist?

He claims that pedophiles have sex with children simply because one sex is more "accessible" than the other. However, this claim is either made-up, as indicated to me by the use of weasel words, or based on research of child sex offenders in general (as most studies on "pedophiles" are). He makes the distinction at the top of his article, but then seems to forget about it here and there, probably basing his ineptitude on empirical studies of people convicted of child sexual abuse. I would like to see whatever "research" he is referring to, and until then, his propaganda doesn't cut it. I have rarely seen a pedophile that is attracted to both sexes, or at least doesn't strongly prefer one sex over the other. Some boylove bigots even go so far as to denounce the sexual attraction to female children as "impure" and somehow miles different from their own lusts. // paroxysm (n) 20:32, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Opening Line

It is misleading, if not downright innacurate, to characterize NAMBLA as advocating "decriminalization of sexual relationships between adults and children" without further explanation. NAMBLA believes age of consent laws, which criminalize absolutely without the possibility of reasonable exceptions, to be regressive laws. It supports the decriminalization of "otherwise positive" relations between adults and minors, namely those relationships that would be beneficial to both partners absent the mechanical rubber stamp of criminalization that absolute age of consent laws impose. It does not, as its critics try to allege, support legalizing all sex acts between all adults and all minors, which would be absurd.

It opposes absolute age-based consent laws on principle, as a violation of the due process rights of the parties involved. This is completely different than setting an age of consent of zero, or declaring that no sexual activity between adults and minors can be subject to criminal sanctions.

This is a subtle point, but one which people intent on smearing NAMBLA choose to be blind to.

I think it is NPOV to say one of the things NAMBLA advocates is "decriminalization of otherwise positive sexual relationships between adults and children." I don't think it is necessary to include this in the opening sentence, as NAMBLA also advocates other things, which are not mentioned there.

Saying in the open sentence that NAMBLA is an organization that wants to "decriminalize adult/child sex" deliberately lies by omission, as it suggests to the reader that NAMBLA wishes to do away with all criminal penalties for all sex acts between adults and minors of any age, regardless of harm or age-appropriateness.

I hope we can develop a consensus on this point, one way or another, and agree to wording of the opening sentence everyone can live with. Hermitian 05:20, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

I'll have a stab:

NAMBLA is a US-based organisation opposing arbitrary age-of-consent laws, specifically advocating on behalf of adolescent and adult males in mutually consensual, non-exploitative relationships. It has resolved to "end the oppression of men and boys who have freely chosen mutually consenting relationships", and calls for "the adoption of laws that both protect children from unwanted sexual experiences and at the same time leave them free to determine the content of their own sexual experiences." [8].

Natgoo 13:38, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the view of NAMBLA is. I'm guessing it has varied quite a bit over time and from member to member. We may never be able to determine what the early views were if there was not a lot of documentation. The vagueness is what leaves people to conclude the group supports CSA. Where are the documents that specifically describe what kinds of sexual activity should be or not be allowed with what ages of children and under what conditions? I am left to speculate about what they are supporting. --Gbleem 23:23, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

"NAMBLA is a US-based organisation opposing arbitrary age-of-consent laws,"

I thought NAMBLA opposed any age-of-consent law, or is the word arbitrary an attempt to inject your POV on age of consent?Homey 03:58, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

NAMBLA opposes "arbitrary age of consent laws." This means laws which employ age as the sole criteria for criminalizing a relationship, and exclude all other evidence, including the wishes of the people involved. NAMBLA does not oppose laws which use age amongst other factors in making a determination as to whether a relationship is abusive, or which provide a mechanism for reasonable exceptions to be made. Opinions others may have of NAMBLA, particularly ones based on wishful thinking by law enforcement or child sex abuse dillitantes, while interesting reading, do not belong in the opening sentence of the article. I'm reverting back to Natgoo's extremely well-written opening paragraph, and would appreciate it if it is not tampered with without a very good reason being given on the talk page. Hermitian 07:30, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

The term "arbitrary" has a pejorative function. Few people use the term "arbitrary" to describe something they support. Isn't "arbitrary age of consent" rather redundant in any case? How would you have a non-arbitrary age of consent law? If NAMBLA supports close-in-age exemptions as is the case in Holland it should say so but my understanding from reading the Boston Magazine article is that it opposed all age of consent laws ("arbitrary" or not). Homey 16:27, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

The terms "arbitrary" or "absolute" age of consent law merely mean that some legislatively selected age is the sole criteria used for criminalization, with nothing else being considered, and no possibility of exceptions. As an example of a different sort of consent law, consider Holland. The age of consent is 16, but consensual sex between an adult and a minor over 12 cannot be prosecuted unless a complaint is made by the minor or the minor's guardian. This is an age of consent law, but it is not an absolute age of consent law. NAMBLA has stated that they have no objections to the Dutch approach, and were consent laws changed in the US to do the same thing, they would not oppose it. If you think "arbitrary" sounds pejorative towards consent laws, use "absolute" instead. It is unecessary to use the word "claims" before a statement by NAMBLA which is already in quotes. Putting words like "claims", "feels", "thinks", or "believes" before a quote demonostrates POV on the part of the writer against the author of the quote. I vote we change "arbitrary" to "absolute" and lose the "claims." Hermitian 18:20, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

It is traditional to first present a group's views neutrally, and then to neutrally list the criticisms. I've restored the short criticism summary and made it a second paragraph. Though it may seem obvious, NAMLBA is a highly criticized group and that needs to be reflected in the opening. -Will Beback 08:00, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

"specifically advocating on behalf of adolescent and adult males in mutually consensual, non-exploitative relationships."

This is misleading. NAMBLA is made up of pedophiles as well as pederasts and is against any restriction on sexual relationships between children (of any age) and adults. According to Boston Magazine this has been a source of debate within the organization:

The shirtless kid has a huge smile on his face. After all, he's years away from puberty, about 7 or 8 years old, but he's already shaving. He has a razor in one hand and a glob of shaving cream in the other. He looks happy.

Two shirtless boys stand on a beach. The older boy, about 12 or 13, has spiky brown hair and a surfboard tucked under his right arm. He's talking to the younger boy, who looks about 8 and is holding a toy shovel in his right hand.

Those are two of the images from the October issue of the NAMBLA Bulletin. The Bulletin publishes news pieces, opinions, semi-erotic short stories, and pictures of boys, most of whom have not reached puberty. "I never felt very comfortable with how the Bulletin had pictures of so many young kids," says Steve, the NAMBLA founder from an eastern city. "I felt that it was politically stupid."

NAMBLA members have long disagreed over what they are and what kind of unified front they should show the public. Socrates insists that the group is made up of a majority of pederasts (as NAMBLA defines them, people attracted to boys in or after puberty) and a minority of pedophiles (people attracted to prepubescent children). Yet the Bulletin has rarely reflected that, angering many of NAMBLA's members.

"The Bulletin is turning into a semi-pornographic jerk-off mag for pedophiles," NAMBLA cofounder David Thorstad wrote in a December 1996 letter to the magazine. "Has the Bulletin forgotten that NAMBLA has always consisted not only of pedophiles, but also of pederasts? In fact, were it not for the pederasts, there would never have been a NAMBLA. . . . What has happened to the political goals of NAMBLA, which are to struggle for sexual freedom and liberation, not merely for the right of dirty old men to get their vicarious jollies?"

The Bulletin's then-editor, Mike Merisi, replied angrily in print: "I well remember visiting Mr. Thorstad's NYC apartment in the early '70s, and viewing in his library books and magazines . . . [that] featured nude boys apparently between 6 and 16, and I can assume Mr. Thorstad has since shredded these artifacts of our culture, at which time he became a good pederast, only interested in age-appropriate teens, leaving the rest of us bad 'pedophiles' behind, in much the same way as the larger gay movement left him."

Nearly every year at NAMBLA's annual convention, a small faction requested that the organization decide on an age at which the group believed a boy could give consent. Every year, NAMBLA chose not to do so. "Politically, we made a disastrous choice," says Socrates. "We were going to lose with that choice, and we did, big time. And while we could have said, 'Okay, we favor an age of consent at 12 or 14,' that goes against our philosophy that the important issues to consider are coercion, manipulation, and ultimately violence, not age. We hoped we could strike a blow to the core of the problems in society. Philosophically, we know we made the right choice."

The right choice? To everybody except NAMBLA, that choice was dumfounding both politically and philosophically. "They lost everybody who might have supported them by arguing that [prepubescent kids] can consent to sex with adults," says Savage, the sex columnist. "The problem with NAMBLA is that it packages reasonable arguments about teen sexuality and age-of-consent laws with irrational, insane arguments about 7-year-olds. That's why the group is where it is today." http://www.predator-hunter.com/NAMBLA_BS.htm]

The Boston Magazine article is cleverly anti-NAMBLA, and simply reiterates the political distortions employed by NAMBLA's critics, followed by rhetoric that the straw man they have erected around NAMBLA's position is incomprehensible. NAMBLA's opposition to absolute age of consent laws is a principled stand against an ageist and regressive means of determining sexual consent. It is not advocacy of sex between 7 year olds and adults. Suppose instead of "age of consent" laws, we had "hatsize of consent" laws. Peoples heads do get larger as they get older and more capable of consenting, just as their age does, so if you made the hatsize small enough, you could claim you were protecting children from exploitation. Now suppose you had an organization that said "We think hatsize of consent laws are regressive, and we oppose them on principle, and there are better ways of writing laws which protect children from sexual exploitation, and we think absolute hatsize of consent laws should be eliminated in favor of something better, because they are disrespectful of people with small heads." Now, critics of that organization might whine endlessly, "But what should the hatsize of consent be? These people oppose any hatsize of consent. They think even toddlers with tiny heads should be having anal sex with 40 year old men." Such attacks would be missing the point completely. Any organization opposing "absolute hatsize of consent" laws would have to take great care that its position was not twisted in this manner for the purposes of attacking it by its conservative anti-sexual foes, in order to incite hatred against it amongst the members of the general public. You can argue that NAMBLA not modifying its 1970's political platform for the more vicious 1990's and the rise of the right wing was politically naive, but it's a lie to say NAMBLA supports toddler-fucking. I hope that explains the "age of consent" issue to everyone's satisfaction. Hermitian 18:52, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Clearly, from what you say above, you mean the term "absolute" as a description of all age of consent laws rather than a means between distinguishing between some age of consent laws and others. Accordingly, the use of the word absolute (and arbitrary) are POV and do not belong in the article. Homey 20:25, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

"Absolute" means a single age is the sole criteria for consent. See discussion of Dutch system above for an example of age of consent law which is not an absolute age of consent law. Other forms of age of consent laws have two ages, one below which sex is criminal, and one above which consent is presumed, with due process and examination on a case by case basis for persons between those two ages. There are numerous variations on age of consent, with names like "graduated age of consent." NAMBLA opposes "absolute age of consent", and I am restoring that term to the article. Hermitian 20:42, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

It would probably be helpful to have something in the article that reflects the debate described in Boston Magazine between pederasts and pedophiles within NAMBLA and internal criticisms of the organization.

Homey 16:41, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

So if NAMBLA opposes "absolute age of consent laws" what age of consent laws does it support? If it doesn't support any age of consent law then introducing the "absolute" as an adjective is misleading. Does NAMBLA support age of consent laws with "close in age" exemptions? These are not "absolute age of consent" laws but if NAMBLA opposes them as well then you have no business putting in the word "absolute" as a modifier since it's really just an attempt to put in a POV about age of consent. Homey 20:15, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

NAMBLA opposes absolute age of consent laws. It does not oppose consent laws which employ age as ONE FACTOR in determining consent, as long as the laws give the partners in the relationship due process, do not criminalize absolutely based solely on age, and provide the possibility of making reasonable exceptions. Spinning NAMBLA's position as some variation on the "Right of adults to have sex with children" agitprop of the child sex whackos has no place in the article either. NAMBLA Is about mutual relationships, not some invented right of one group of people to use another as sexual toys.Hermitian 21:05, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

You're spinning faster than a top.

"It does not oppose consent laws which employ age as ONE FACTOR in determining consent" So what is NAMBLA's model age of consent law then? And what is your source for your claim regarding NAMBLA's position favouring some sort of consent law?Homey 21:12, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

NAMBLA has not written a model age of consent law, but they have stated that although they oppose absolute age of consent laws on principle, they would certainly not be opposed if the US changed its consent laws to resemble those of Holland. So that's at least one example of an age of consent law NAMBLA would have no problems with, since it safeguards the rights of minors by forbidding prosecution in the case of minors between 12 and 16 unless the minor or the minor's parent or guardian files a complaint. The Dutch approach is far from perfect, by the way, because the police can apply enormous pressure to parents to prosecute, but it's vastly more respectful of minors than the US system, where persons under the AOC are invisibilized by the courts, and jailed indefinitely for contempt if they refuse to cooperate. Hermitian 21:25, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Protection

I see Homey has requested protection, claiming that the term "absolute age of consent law" is POV. Of course this is ludicrous, as "absolute age of consent law," "graduated age of consent law," and other such things are the names of kinds of age of consent laws, not opinions about those laws.

The current text, that NAMBLA seeks "revision of age of consent laws," is fine. I'm not going to request unprotection, as I'm quite happy with the current wording of the article, and the protection will prevent Homey from going on and on about something he calls "the right of adults to have sex with children," which has nothing to do with anything NAMBLA advocates, and is definitely his POV. :) Hermitian 22:15, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Note that page protection is not an endorsement of any certain version. It would be advisable for everyone involved in this edit war to try to come to a solution that is acceptable to all. · Katefan0^(scribble)/mrp 22:17, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

The only thing I'd change in the current article is "sexual relationships" in the opening paragraph to "mutually consensual, non-exploitative sexual relationships," since clearly, as has been pointed out numerous times before, NAMBLA isn't talking about removing all criminal penalties for any kind of sex with any age child. I really don't see anything else in dispute, except the continuing "LGBT Organization" category war. Given that NAMBLA was formed in the gay community, written about in gay publications as a gay organization, and its literature was carried in gay bookstores, I think it qualifies as LGBT for encyclopedic purposes, regardless of whether it would win a vote on that topic amongst gays today. Let's hear what everyone else thinks about the current article. Hermitian 22:42, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

"Mutually consensual, non-exploitative sexual relationships" is clearly POV too, since many opponents claim that there is no such thing as consent from a minor, and that sexual relationships with minors are exploitative simply by being sexual. I would rephrase it to "what they hold are mutually consensual, non-exploitative sexual relationships", or something similar. Clayboy 22:54, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

If opponents hold that there is no such thing as sexual consent by someone as much as one day under the age of 18, which I believe to be the current definition of "minor," I doubt they are very credible opponents. One way of looking at consent is that it is a balance between the risk of harm, and a person's ability to take responsibility for that risk. A 3 year old can consent to a hug from Grandma, because the risk is infinitesimal that he will be harmed. Clearly, activities society considers to be sexual span the complete spectrum of risk from relatively harmless to life-threatening, just as capacity to understand and take responsibilty spans the complete spectrum from clueless to cunning. While ones ability to take risk may have some correlation with ones chronological age, minors are owed greater respect for their civil liberties by society than rubber stamp legislative criminalization based solely on age provides. Are minors asked if they "consent" to being beaten, slapped, religiously indoctrinated, forced to attend school, drafted, or vaccinated? Do the people outraged over the suggestion that minors can consent sexually ever fight over whether minors can consent to anything else that is forced upon them? Can a child consent to spinach? In any case, since we have a second paragraph which states what critics of NAMBLA believe, I don't think it is necessary to dirty the first paragraph on what NAMBLA supports with specious qualifiers like "what they hold" or "what they claim to be." Putting NAMBLA's words in quotes should suffice. Hermitian 23:22, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I see Homey has requested protection, claiming that the term "absolute age of consent law" is POV. Of course this is ludicrous, as "absolute age of consent law," "graduated age of consent law," and other such things are the names of kinds of age of consent laws, not opinions about those laws.

It's not "ludicrous" given the fact that NAMBLA calls for the repeal of *all* age of consent laws, not just "absolute" ones. Therefore, the adjective absolute was meant as a comment on age of consent laws, not as a categorization of them. The current sentence "The North American Man/Boy Love Association (NAMBLA) is a US-based organization that promotes revision of age-of-consent laws" is misleading. NAMBLA isn't in favour of revising age of consent laws (say by lowering them or graduating them), it opposed age of consent laws and calls for their repeal, full stop. As the Boston Magazine article made clear attempts within NAMBLA to pass a resolution calling for simply lowering the age of consent have been unsuccessful. The paragraph, as it now stands, does not reflect this. Homey 06:13, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

An absolute age of consent law with a lowered age is still an absolute age of consent law. If one opposes absolute age of consent laws on principle as regressive laws, then of course one opposes simply plugging in a different age. This is like plugging in a different hatsize into "hatsize of consent." It doesn't address the fact that hatsize of consent is not a smart idea to begin with. NAMBLA has stated it would not oppose an age of consent law like the Dutch have, which balances a minor's right to sexual privacy against the need to prevent victimization. Because of this, saying that NAMBLA opposes absolute age of consent laws is the correct wording. "Revision of age of consent laws" is an acceptable substitute. Why you think "absolute" is some sort of horrible pejorative is unclear to me. It means the laws criminalize "absolutely", and there are no exceptions permitted. Hermitian 07:03, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Where are all of these statements? Can we post the links here so that we can be, literally, on the same page? Thanks? -Will Beback 07:35, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Hermitan, you have yet to source your claim that NAMBLA supports some sort of age of consent law. Without sources the only evidence we have points to them opposing all and any age of consent laws which is rather different from merely favouring their "revision". Homey 08:36, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

LGBT or not? I think it's obvious

In order to expose the poor quality of the arguments being bandied about for why NAMBLA is not an LGBT organization, it will be necessary to pinpoint what the two main arguments are, and demonstrate how they do not provide a sound reason to exlude NAMBLA from the LGBT organizations category.

The most effective argument, in my opinion, is that NAMBLA is an organization devoted exclusively to pedophilia and pedophiles. Since pedophilia is said to be unrelated to the sex of the pedophile's desired partner, and more to do with the age, the proponents of this argument assert that NAMBLA is not legitimately a gay organization.

As has been repeatedly mentioned on the talk page, somewhat implied in the history section of the article, and obviously ignored by some people involved in this discussion, this argument is prone to a serious error. NAMBLA, especially at the time of its founding, focused not on homosexual pedophiles, men who are attracted exclusively to prepubescent males. Rather, it was established to address what it perceived to be injustices being inflicted on relationships between adult men and teenage males. So even the generous assumption that pedophilia is unrelated to issues of gender does not disqualify NAMBLA from the LGBT category.

NAMBLA's contention that absolute AOC laws unnecessarily oppress some relationships between minor and adult males is perfectly compatible with a blanket condemnation of pedophilia, which might still be deemed rape even without absolute age-of-consent laws. After all, absolute age-of-consent laws in some states disadvantage twenty-one-year-old men who have sex with sixteen-year-old young adults just as much as they disallow pedophilic acts. Thus one could agree with NAMBLA on the age-of-consent issue, have a vested interest in seeing NAMBLA's position become law, and NOT even be a pedophile or support pedophilia. Therefore one cannot attack NAMBLA's inclusion in the LGBT category on the basis of NAMBLA's status as a "pedophile" organization.

The proponents of this first argument might wish to extend this argument so that "ephebophilia," an attraction to teenagers, is also orthogonal to the gender of the desired sexual partner. Only, they would then also need to disavow any relationship between homosexuality and historical pederasts like Hadrian, Michelangelo, Tchaikovsky, and other important men from the past that gays loves to cite as examples of the importance of homosexuals in history. Since this is unlikely, it seems that the extension of the pedophile argument into pederasty is unworkable.

The second argument that keeps coming up again and again is that NAMBLA isn't a gay organization because other gay organizations don't like NAMBLA. This argument is so absurd that it bears little remark. Suffice it to say that most people would not take seriously a claim by Republicans that the Democratic party isn't a "political organization" by virtue of its disagreeing with and being disliked by the Republican party. And so they should not take seriously this second argument.

What it all boils down to is that those wishing to exclude NAMBLA from the LGBT organizations must explain how it is not gay-related to advocate repealing laws which criminalize sexual relationships between twenty-three-year-old males and fifteen- or sixteen-year-old males. Until they can do so, I see absolutely no reason why NAMBLA should not be included in the category. Corax 02:51, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Correct me if I am wrong but doesn't NAMBLA also want to decriminalize sex between a any (0-17) year old boy and any adult male?--70.182.219.158 17:33, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

You're wrong. NAMBLA does not advocate for an age-of-consent of zero. NAMBLA does not say all people currently younger than the age-of-consent can consent to sex. NAMBLA's position is that laws which criminalize sexual behavior based solely on whether the participants fall above or below a single age is regressive. Therefore they aim to eliminate absolute age-of-consent laws as a means of "liberating" the affected relationships which are otherwise harmless. At any rate, that really doesn't belong under this header, since this discussion is about whether NAMBLA is LGBT. Corax 18:13, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

What it all boils down to is that those wishing to exclude NAMBLA from the LGBT organizations must explain how it is not gay-related to advocate repealing laws which criminalize sexual relationships between twenty-three-year-old males and fifteen- or sixteen-year-old males.

I realize NAMBLA was set specifically for males, but are they only argueing about age of consent being changed for men and boys only or are they arguing for "sexual freedom" girls as well?

NAMBLA seeks to end the oppression of certain forms of same-sex relationships by advocating the repeal of absolute age-of-consent laws. Although they take no position on lesbian intergenerational relationships, or heterosexual intergenerational relationships, the law change would presumably extend to both sexes. Since I am not a member of NAMBLA, I am not sure. Perhaps you should email the group and ask them.

The reason I want to clarify the age is because 15, or 16 year olds, in some us states already have some "age of consent" rights. So where does NAMBLA feel the cut off should be.--70.182.219.158 18:36, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

And in some states they do not. It is in those cases that NAMBLA's changes would be totally unrelated to pedophilia. That was my point. As far as a cut-off point, I am not sure what you are talking about. Are you asking what NAMBLA feels the cut-off for the age-of-consent should be? I hope you're not asking that this late in the ball-game, after all the discussion that has taken place about NAMBLA's position on aoc laws. Corax 18:54, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

One other question. Is NAMBLA also arguing for the age of consent being changed for boys that want to have sex with older females?--70.182.219.158 18:49, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Again, I have no idea. I think that some of their position statements indicate that they would. But don't take my word for it. These are all interesting questions, but this is a place for discussion about the issues pertaining to the NAMBLA article. It seems you think this is a NAMBLA helpline or something. Nobody here speaks for NAMBLA, and I'm willing to wager that nobody here is a member. Corax 18:56, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

I think that some of their position statements indicate that they would. Forget the age specific question. Since you said above you believe some of their positions also involve Heterosexual relations, shouldn't we classify NAMBLA as a children's right org, instead of a LGBT?

No, I don't believe so. Their main objective is to end the oppression of certain forms of same-sex relationships. The gay nature of the group is in no way dimished by the fact that their means of achieving this objective may at this time also affect heterosexuals outside the scope of the organization's continuing goal. Corax 21:53, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

The North American Man/Boy Love Association (NAMBLA) is a US-based organization that promotes revision of age-of-consent laws, and defends what it asserts to be the right of adults and minors to engage in sexual relationships.

This line was take from wikipedia's own article. Obviously since NAMBLA is run by homosexual pedophiles, it has interest in speciicly ending that "oppresion", but it's own platform relates to all children, male or female. Therefore either wikipedia's article needs to changed to reflect it isn't LGBT, or someone need to provide documentation that NAMBLA, seeks only to change age of consent to boys only. If no evidence can be provided then we must classify NAMBLA as a childlove rights org and not as a LGBT. In other word let's go to the sorce to find the awnser.

Corax, your own awnsers indicate you can't say one way or the other.--70.182.219.158 22:08, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

First of all, I don't think it's a good idea to cite as a credible source the very article whose content is still being contested and debated. Second, I have no idea who runs NAMBLA, much less the sexual proclivities of that person. Neither do you. It's immaterial to this discussion, anyway. Third, whether the proposed changes of the organization would affect heterosexuals or not, the stated, verifiable objective of the organization is to end the oppression of certain forms of same-sex relationships. Although the current means by which they are seeking to do this may affect non-gays, this does not mean that this will continue to be the case at some point in the future.

My only point in refrenceing the article in question was to illustrate that changes need to be made at the begining of the article, so that it can be classified as LGBT. The person or people running NAMBLA is imaterial to the question at hand, what is at hand is what the want to acomplish. They may be gay pedophiles, hope to make the world safe for other gay pedophile but, their own platform, acordinG to wikipedia, make no distinction between sexes. As it stands, the two contadict each other.

I think the appropriate opening would state what's at the top of NAMBLA's web page: that NAMBLA is an organization which aims to end the oppression of intergenerational gay male relationships. And as I said before, this aim is not necessarily related to pedophilia at all. I wonder why you have this obsession with inserting pedophilia into everything. It's almost as if you have a greater fascination with pedophilia than pedophiles do.

I advise you to take a look at the GLBTQ encyclopedia's article on NAMBLA (odd that they would have an article in a gay encyclopedia for a group that supposedly isn't gay!). You will see that it states quite clearly at the beginning, "The aim of NAMBLA's small but determined membership was to attack social and legal proscriptions against sexual relations between adults and pubescent or teenage boys." Thus the group has historically been gay-oriented, and its objective still is -- even if the consequences of the proposed actions would impact non-gays.

I agree and will even concide that NAMbLA was once, in it's begining, a gay only organization. But as you and I know organization shift and change overtime. Take a look at the NAZI party, NAACP, and even the ACLU. All of these organizations began as one thing and have become another thing. Most gay rights orgs, actively distance themselve from NAMBLA. Why would the do such a thing to a fellow "brother in arms" org. Yes NAMBLA began in Stonewall, but the question is what is it now? It's platform is to change "age of consent laws" for all "intergenerational relationships", not just "oppressed" boys and male pedophiles.

I don't see where you come up with the idea that NAMBLA's positions have changed overtime. NAMBLA's main goal and its positions haven't changed at all. As mentioned before (cited in the Boston Magazine article, I think), many of its members and even outsiders have noted how NAMBLA's insistence on maintaining its far-reaching original positions was stupid in light of the changing political mood in the country.

Yes, many gay groups actively distance themselves from NAMBLA. But modern-day mainstream gay groups aren't in control of some imaginary roster listing which groups are and are not LGBT. NAMBLA's platform is to change age-of-consent laws that apply to people of both sexes, heterosexuals and homosexuals, but the only reason it is proposing this change is to end the oppression of gay relationships. That is what makes it a gay group.

What you're saying is the equivalent of arguing that abortion rights groups should not be classified in "women's issues" or "women's rights" categories, because abortions may end the development of male fetuses. It just doesn't fly, no matter how hard you trying to make it. Corax 22:21, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

That a pretty weak analogy.--70.182.219.158 22:55, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

It's a perfectly good analogy. Your argument is that NAMBLA shouldn't be considered a gay rights organization because its current position on the age of consent would impact heterosexuals -- although heterosexual relationships are totally outside the scope of the reason that NAMBLA is advancing its position. The same argument could be made that, because abortions not only affect women but also fetuses, that it would be incorrect to think of abortion rights groups as women's rights groups, or women's reproductive interest groups.

NAMBLA is in gay encyclopedias. It's publications are still found in many gay bookstores like "A Different Light" in Canada; until it was politically damaging for them to do so, gay publications wrote of NAMBLA as a gay organization; and the group formed under the guidance of prominent gay liberation activists, who generated a large amount of support from the gay community in Boston at the time. What the gay community wants to classify it as now is immaterial. For encyclopedic purposes, it is an LGBT organization. Corax 23:14, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Isn't it, more specifically, a pederast organization? -Will Beback 02:26, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

I suppose it is in some respects. And pederasty is a form of homosexuality. Corax 02:29, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

So then this is correctly categorized as a pederast organization, right? -Will Beback 03:09, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Pederasty is a subset of homosexual behavior, so being categorized as pederastic does not exclude it from categorization as LGBT. If you want to categorize it under a "pederast organizations" subcategory of "LGBT organizations", then fine. Just be sure to put all the other LGBT organizations in more specific subcategories. For instance, GLAAD would go under "androphilic organizations," etc, etc. Otherwise, the suggestion is just another transparent attempt to distance one gay group from others just because of the POV most people have regarding the first group's positions. Corax 04:04, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

I've already taken care of that categorization. Now can we please conform to Wikipedia guidelines and remove the redundant category? -Will Beback 07:20, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Excuse me? You've already taken care of which categorization? And which is redundant? I believe the case has been made, and accepted by everybody but one or two stubborn people who can't set aside their POV, that NAMBLA belongs in the LGBT category. It does not belong in some second-tier category for bastard groups that gays want nothing to do with, while all the other gay groups reside in "LGBT organizations." Corax 15:23, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

I know I'm coming in in the middle of this and haven't read everything, but I saw it was up for mediation and would like to venture an opinion. I think the major view of the scientific community as of now is that man-boy pedophilia is not a sexual orientation. I tend to agree, but admit there is some artificiality in human definitions of such muddy things. But still, I don't think it belongs in the LGBT category because the issues are not the same (or at least to the limit of what we know, are not). I am (trying) not imply any judgement about the validity of the actual issue, and I did the best I feel I can for now. I might be wrong, but my opinion is to not put it in that category (but also not to imply it's anything "less" because of that either). Good luck. --DanielCD 19:50, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with you jumping into the middle of the discussion. I do have a problem with you jumping into a discussion obviously without having read what has been said up to this point. If you had, you would know that, even if pedophilia were not a "sexual orientation," that has no bearing on whether to categorize NAMBLA in LGBT. Why? Because NAMBLA's principles do not necessarily have anything to do with adults who are attracted exclusively to prepubescent children. The original post I made in this subthread explains then throroughly rebuts the very argument you are making here. Corax 20:58, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

NAMBLA was created by members in the gay community to provide political advocacy for teens and adults involved in consensual relationships arbitrarily criminalized by absolute age of consent laws. It only got stuck with the "pedophilia" label because it oppposed consent laws on principle, and its critics employed that as a weapon against it. There's a big difference between saying "hatsize of consent" is stupid and saying "we think people with any size head can consent," to return to one of my previous examples. NAMBLA was formed by gays, was a member of various umbrella groups of gay organizations, and all its materials were carried in most gay bookstores, so to say it isn't LGBT is a bit absurd. It wasn't until the US Government started calling political advocacy of any change in the legal consent climate for persons under the age of 18 "advocating pedophilia" and started throwing its weight around, that gays got the idea that gay rights might not happen unless they ditched NAMBLA. The question is not whether you can get the gay movement today to call NAMBLA a LGBT organization. The question is whether it was a gay organization when it was created, and for most of its history. A lot of the original activists for gay rights like Larry Kramer and Harry Hay thought the recent treatment of NAMBLA by organized adult faggotry was reprehensible. For the purposes of this encyclopedia article on the origins and history of NAMBLA, it should be listed in the category of LGBT organizations. Hermitian 20:49, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Also, please PLEASE sign your edits. In these long discussion threads it gets extremely difficult to follow who's saying what when comments are not signed. --DanielCD 19:52, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

OK guys, I clearly stated that I was merely offering an opinion and not getting involved in the discussion. Ya'll are right, It was a premature comment; I'll shut up. Just ignore it. --DanielCD 21:38, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

I thought it was a very salient comment, Daniel, and would be curious to hear more about that research you mentioned. · Katefan0^(scribble)/mrp 21:57, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

We all agree, I believe, that NAMBLA is primarily a pederast organization. If so, then that is how it should be categorized. If user:Corax:Coraqx thinks other organizations should also have more specific categories then that's fine too. -Will Beback 22:00, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Whether "pedophilia" is a sexual orientation is a political question, not a scientific one. It's a fight between various forces that either want to normalize or medicalize sexual feelings they do not approve of, even in the total absence of any behavior that violates the law. It's about winning arguments by owning the vocabulary, and building your conclusions into your definitions, There is no experiment you can perform to determine what sexual attractions qualify as "orientations" versus "diseases" like there are to determine the values of fundamental physical constants. It's a meaningless debate. The people with the most money and lobbying power will win in the end. NAMBLA is first and foremost a gay organisation. If gay youth are gay, and gay men are gay, then relationships between gay youth and gay men are gay, and NAMBLA is gay. If, after correctly identifying it as LGBT, you also want to place it in one or more categories concerned with transgenerational homosexual attraction, fine. But if it's going to be in just one category, that category is LGBT. If you'll bother to read the article, you see how the gay rights movement decided NAMBLA was going to be a casuality of the quest for gay civil rights for gay adults, in order to make gay rights more palatable to the religious and political right wing that was trying to scapegoat the gay rights movement as supporting "recruitment" and "child molesting." Many of those associated with the sexual liberation movement condemned this appeasement, and pointed out that the right wing would happily accept the gay movement's capitulation, and it would not reduce one iota their attacks on it. The ILGA capitulated to the right wing by excommunicating every organization that advocated consent law reform for anyone under the age of 18, which the US government called "promoting pedophilia", and lost its consultative status with the UN anyway. The lessons here are loud and obvious. Hermitian 01:17, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Hermitian 20:49, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

I think the "political" question...is in the least far from obvious. I don't see any of this discussion as really relevant (or coherent). I don't think it belongs in that category. My opinoin, right or wrong. And I think this whole article needs a complete review by someone who can be at least somewhat impartial to the subject. Don't bother to reply as I'm not going to return to this page anytime soon. --DanielCD 17:49, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

"NAMBLA was created by members in the gay community to provide political advocacy for teens and adults involved in consensual relationships arbitrarily criminalized by absolute age of consent laws. It only got stuck with the "pedophilia" label because it oppposed consent laws on principle, and its critics employed that as a weapon against it"

I think you're engaging in some sort of wishful thinking. Are you seriously suggesting that there are no pedophiles (ie men who are sexually attracted to prepubescent boys) in NAMBLA? There is considerable evidence to the contrary. The article should reflect what NAMBLA is, not what you wish it to be.

And Hermitian, you still haven't sourced your other fanciful claim that NAMBLA is not opposed to all age of consent laws but merely wants them "revised". Without proof "revised" goes out of the article as soon as its unprotected and if I have to take the issue to the ArbComm, I will. Homey 02:31, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Whether there are pedophiles in NAMBLA is immaterial. That's like saying because there are child-beaters in the Republican party, that is part of the party's platform. NAMBLA was created for reasons which are clearly documented, and its platform and objectives are clearly described. NAMBLA was created to stop harrassment of relationships between teens and adults in the gay community in Boston. NAMBLA opposes absolute age of consent laws on principle, advises its members against breaking laws, and doesn't want all criminal penalties for harmful or exploitative sexual behavior to be done away with.

In its descriptions of what it opposes about AOC laws, it is clear that NAMBLA is referring to what we now would call "absolute AOC laws." Given their statement that they wouldn't campaign against an attempt to install the Dutch AOC law in the US, I think "absolute AOC laws" is the best wording of what they oppose. "AOC laws" is probably acceptable too. I don't know how much of NAMBLA's position on AOC laws is on the Web to be sourced. Saying they are opposed to "all AOC laws" is a deliberate attempt to mislead, as "AOC law" had a very precise meaning in 1978, and we have laws today which provide for exceptions in a variety of ways that were not available then.

Insisting on terms like "all AOC laws" and innuendos like "what they claim is" before every quote, can only be a stepping stone for someone's personal goal to get the article to contain phrases like "legalized child rape" and "the right of adults to have sex with children," which we all recognize as standard right wing child sex abuse agenda agitprop. Hermitian 03:13, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Fine, then we can just say then that NAMBLA "oppose Age of Consent laws" without inserting either "all" or "absolute" or cliaming that they merely want to "revise" them. Agreed?Homey 04:14, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

It certainly isn't going to ruin my day if the article says "NAMBLA opposes age of consent laws," as long as the rest of the text clearly points out that they oppose them as regressive, don't think they can be fixed by simply plugging in another age, and that their thinking age of consent laws are dumb and disrespectful of minors isn't advocacy of doing away with all criminal penalties for sexual exploitation, as some often try and allege. Hermitian 05:16, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Try to?

Some opponents try to portray NAMBLA as a support group, or even a "training ground" for adults who wish to seduce children

Shouldn't this be:

Some opponents argue that NAMBLA is a support group, or even a "training ground" for adults who wish to seduce children or "allege that"...

"try to" suggests that the opponents view is not sustainable, which is a POV, surely? Camillus (talk) 02:06, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes. You're right. The second version should be the one the article reflects. · Katefan0^(scribble)/mrp 05:03, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm not so sure. NAMBLA advertises itself as a political lobbying and educational organization on the issue of adult/minor male sexuality and other youth issues, serves as a voice to get the real stories about real people involved in such relationships out, and advocates for people who have run afoul of sex laws which punish these people disproportionally vis a vis people who commit comparable non-sexual harm. If someone wants to say NAMBLA is in the tour business, or that it offers "training" to seduce children, I think we need to see a tour brochure or a course listing before giving such claims equal billing with documented facts about NAMBLA. NPOV is not a position midway between truth and nonsense. Hermitian 05:28, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Hermitian, I don't really know what you're talking about. "Try to portray" reflects sneering judgment. "Argue that" is neutral language. A rebuttal can come after. · Katefan0^(scribble)/mrp 05:43, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Scientists "argue that" photons mediate the electromagnetic force. Some Bush supporters "try to portray" that Saddam Hussein was behind 9/11. Suggestions NAMBLA is a travel agency are closer to the second example than the first. Hermitian 20:19, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

That would be all very well, except the passage in the article doesn't didn't say anything about NAMBLA being a travel agency, but that it "is a support group, or even a "training ground" for adults who wish to seduce children, in which men exchange strategies on how to find and groom child sexual partners.", an assertion that seems to be corroborated by the section under "Criminal Allegations". Camillus (talk) 20:31, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Your "evidence" that NAMBLA trains people in the finding and grooming of child sexual partners is what, precisely? That you think an political organization like NAMBLA must surely attract some pedophiles, and when you put more than one pedophile in a room unsupervised, a tutorial on finding and grooming must surely take place? To quote an old line, "Mr. President, it's not what you don't know that worries me. It's what you're absolutely certain of that ain't so!" Everything that you "know" can and has been measured, and the answers aren't what you "know" them to be. Hermitian 22:09, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

NAMBLA is a very well documented organization, which has been the subject of numerous investigations, none of which have found any violations of law on its part. Last night, Bill O'Reilly said NAMBLA runs sex tours for men to molest young Mexican children. Allegations that NAMBLA is a travel agency, publishes a manual called "Rape and Escape," uses the motto "Sex Before Eight," or any number of other equally idiotic claims are simply deliberate lies. NAMBLA is probably the most lied about organization in the United States at the moment, particularly by conservatives. I am willing to use "allege that" for credible allegations against NAMBLA which are the subject of debate. Lies about NAMBLA, on the other hand, which anyone can easily fact-check, are not points of view, and do not deserve equal time in a factual article. Hermitian 02:32, 7 January 2006 (U

Reading the section "Criminal Allegations", it appears to me that there may in fact be some basis for the allegations that "Some opponents try to make". Camillus (talk) 15:47, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Reciting a list of NAMBLA members or supporters who have broken laws misses the essential point here, which is that before the rise of the modern Victimology movement, and the convenient switch by those studying child sexual abuse away from population statistics to hand-picked anecdotes and case studies, it was patently obviously to law enforcement and social scientists studying NAMBLA that when minor-attracted adults joined a political lobbying group and worked for changes in the laws within the system, they were LESS LIKELY, not MORE LIKELY, to break the law.

If you look at the demographics of sex offenders, they have less sex education, less exposure to pornography, fewer appropriate sexual experiences with peers, and are in general isolated and insulted from the moral consensus which shapes the behavior of most of the rest of society.

Interesting. "sex offenders have less exposure to porn"? citation please? Camillus (talk) 21:15, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

So lists of the form "Bob was a member of NAMBLA, and Bob did thus-and-so" are really a subtle form of propaganda, because you probably have "Jim, Frank, and George" who would have done "thus-and-so" if they hadn't joined NAMBLA, and Bob probably would have done "thus-and-so" twice as often.

In a country of 300 million people, you can find a bunch of examples of anything. It's like the difference between Nixon's report on Porn, which said it was harmless, and provided an alternative sexual outlet which probably reduced crime, and Meese's report on pornography, which was a long list of "So-and-so looked at porn, and then did such-and-such," with absolutely no population context or discussions of whether this was typical or outlier behavior.

Decades ago, even the FBI admitted NAMBLA was not in violation of any law, and probably served as a moderating influence on pervs. Now that everyone is in permanent Amber Alert mode, the country has moved to the right, and conservative pundits dominate cable news, NAMBLA has been spun as some pedophile training institute and sex tour organizer.

It's all about as accurate as the Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq. Hermitian 20:52, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

What's the weather like out there on the outer limits of opinion? As can be seen from the article, and the comments above by LGBT Wikipedians, NAMBLA is a pariah association. You don't have to be convervative to think that (I'm not), you don't have to be homophobic to think that (I'm not). The vast majority of people can't see the difference between calling for the legalisation of sexual relationships between men and boys and pedophilia. Sometimes the vast majority are right. It's pretty obvious that even by calling itself the "Man/Boy Love Assoc." then it's going to attract pedophiles, and make them feel validated, far from being a "moderating influence on pervs". Come back in a million years and NAMBLA will still be "out there". Camillus (talk) 21:15, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

90% of all conventional wisdom is horse manure. Wikipedia should simply drop the fiction of Neutral Point of View and admit it's a large disk cache of "Majority Point of View." It's relatively accurate for uncontested provable scientific fact, and Oprah-accurate for everything else. Hermitian 21:58, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

It must be galling for you living in a world surrounded by idiots. Unfortunately, that's democracy. Also unfortunately, the more people who actually find out about NAMBLA, the more opponents they will have, IMO. Camillus (talk) 22:04, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

I think support for NAMBLA would depend on whether one finds out the truth about the organization, or the lies circulated by its detractors. Certainly there's nothing about NAMBLA that involves anything other than people exercising their First Amendment right to publicly disseminate their opinions on a controversial issue. Even people who don't support what NAMBLA is trying to do should support their right to exist and operate. Hermitian 22:18, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

The name says it all "Man/Boy Love Assoc." ie pedophilia. I suppose if we're going to allow Neo-nazis and Fred Phelps to exercise their First Amendment Rights (although I'd remind you that not everyone in the world is American), then we'll let NAMBLA speak. However, I do hope your FBI keeps a tight watch on them. Camillus (talk) 22:26, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry you think teenagers and perhaps younger children determining the content of their own sexual experiences equates to homophobia and Nazis. Do you care what the young people think about all of this, or has God appointed you to substitute your judgment for theirs? Hermitian 22:44, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Who's talking about "teenagers and perhaps younger children determining the content of their own sexual experiences"? We're talking about an organisation of adults here. I haven't heard of any teenagers or younger children coming out in favour of having sexual relationships with old men. As for God, I doubt he'd appoint a heathen like me to do anything.

Having said all this, maybe I'm wasting my time, this is obviously a tiny organisation on the outer limits of opinion, who're bound to stay there. As long as the FBI keeps tabs on them, maybe we can just ignore them. Camillus (talk) 00:37, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Everyone can and has joined NAMBLA, from 12 year olds to nuns. Teens were a big part of Stonewall. International conferences of gay youth have always opposed absolute age of consent laws, and while consent laws still exist, demanded no inequality between the straight and gay ages. You need to get out more. Hermitian 00:46, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Hmmmm...methinks that tis you who has to get out more, perhaps broaden your horizons. Trolling thru' your contributions, I see that this is in fact the only article you've contributed to on Wikipedia, since April last year. Camillus (talk) 00:55, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

I've contributed to a variety of articles, but April was when I registered a username. I've been busy since then, but have taken time out to correct misinformation about NAMBLA because I don't particularly like right wing spin and liars. Hermitian 01:50, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

I see Paroxysm has garduated from arguing the "Childlove" isn't POV to arguing that the term "Holocaust denial" is. How very charming. [9]. Homey 21:24, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

That's very fascinating and all Homeontherange, but I'm not entirely sure how it's relevant to NAMBLA. // paroxysm (n) 21:27, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

I believe it's relevent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Childlove movement where I argued that your preferred euphemism of "Childlove" for pedophilia was akin to neo-nazis using the euphemism of "Holocaust revisionism" for "Holocaust denial". 90% of your edits to wikipedia are related to pedohilia yet suddenly, after the the "Childlove" debate in which the article was renamed "pedophile advocacy" you suddenly develop an interest in Holocaust denial and arguing that that term is POV. I find it hard to believe that that sequence of events is coincidental but hey, if you want to advocate for the positions of both pedophiles and neo-Nazis then be my guest. Perhaps you can form a new organization? Homey 21:44, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

I really think you should not let your personal grudges spill over onto the NAMBLA discussion page. It's cluttered enough as it is. Thanks Corax 21:55, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm promoting following our own policies, not "advocating neo-nazis." You can reply on my talk page. I have no idea why you put this here. // paroxysm (n) 22:03, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Consensus?

I am wonder how Homeontherange arrived at the conclusion that there's a consensus to remove the NAMBLA article from the "LGBT organizations" category. If anything, the majority of people participating on this talk page seem to think that NAMBLA belongs in the category. Corax 21:50, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Poll

Ok, let's have a poll:

Should North American Man/Boy Love Association be listed in "Category:LGBT Organizations"?

Yes

1. Corax 22:09, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
2. Promotes gay sex. Gay organization. QED. // paroxysm (n) 22:11, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
3. Hermitian 22:13, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
4. (Although it would be better in Category:Pedophile Organizations, if such a cat existed)Camillus (talk) 22:18, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
5. Note that Category:Pedophile organizations does exist (caps). This group clearly belongs in both categories, as demonstrated above, as it is an organization of gay pedophiles. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 22:32, Jan. 7, 2006
6. Historical arguments lead me to believe it should be included under Category:Pederasty where it was placed a little while ago by User:Will Beback (if I am not mistaken.) If it can go under this one also that would be fine. From what I have heard, the only reason they agitate for repeal of all age of consent laws is some misguided idealism, not because they focus on prepubescent sex. Haiduc 22:49, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
7. Clearly belongs under LGBT organizations, even if they aren't squeaky politically correct like the rest. Clayboy 23:02, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
8. Most definitely. Natgoo 23:49, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
9. Yes, obviously. It goes in Category:Pedophile organizations too of course. AlbertCahalan 23:50, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
10. They claim to be an LGBT organization, and from reading our article on the subject, their history (especially in the 70s and 80s) appears to be closely intertwined with other LGBT organizations and publications, so it seems absurd to say that they aren't. Nobody is claiming they are "representative of the LGBT movement", or "the correct view of LGBT culture", merely that they are an "LGBT organization", albeit one most other such organizations distance themselves from or outright reject. --Delirium 00:23, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
11. Yes. They were set up as an LGBT organisation and much of the accusations of being a pædophile organisation seem to centre around their support for a reduction in (or the abolition of) the age of consent, which is rather different from promoting that 60-year-olds should be able to have sex with teens or pre-teens, so I don't support them being in Category:Pederasty unless there's a subcategory of it specifically about organisations accused of supporting pederasty or some such. Though might I remind other users that homophobia is not appropriate in such a debate; we're meant to be civil towards other users; plenty of us faggots find it offensive when people start calling us all child-molesters, oddly enough. — OwenBlacker 04:34, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
12. What Freakofnurture said. Johnleemk | Talk 08:44, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
13. Yes while this may no longer be the case, it was originally founded to promote LGBT tolerance of relationships which crossed a seeminly arbitrary age barrier. For the record as a Bi-Sexual male I am extremely upset with how this groups original goal got so sidetracked, however, the fact remains however its origins do fall under LGBT, as such the category belongs.  ALKIVAR™ 12:17, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

No

1. Homey 22:11, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
2. Gay != homosexual. Cultural definitions of LGBT-ness all exclude pedophiles. If the discussion were about Category:Homosexual organizations, I'd be all for inclusion, but this is not about sex acts; it's ideological. Dave 22:54, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
3. NAMBLA is a pederast organization, and so it should be categorized as such. Whether pederasty is the same as Gay sex is a separate issue which should be settled on other talk pages. -Will Beback 22:37, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
4. Would breach both NPOV rules and MoS rules on categorisation. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 22:48, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
5. Per Jtdirl and Will. Mackensen (talk) 23:18, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
6. Pedophilia involves attraction to the prepubescent form, while homosexuality involves adult same-sex attraction; gay men don't want to have sex with little boys, and pedophiles don't want to have sex with adult men. I don't see a common ground here that justifies grouping them together. Madame Sosostris 23:32, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
7. Per Jtdirl and Will. You also can't make something true via a vote and a vote does not trump NPOV. --mav 05:01, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
8. In my experience, the vast majority of homosexuals find this group just as disturbing as the vast majority of heterosexuals find it. Part of the reason the LGBT community has gained broader acceptance in recent decades is because the public at large acknowledges the privacy rights of consenting adults. Durova 07:06, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
9. no. As if.XavierG 07:16, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
10. No Doing so breaks WP:NPOV. Axon (talk|contribs) 13:17, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Comments

• If you think a vote will work, fine. All it will show is that there are a number of people who have given up on making an argument that NAMBLA isn't LGBT, and who have instead resorted to trying to force the issue through by virtue of numerical superiority -- generated, of course, by advertising this "poll" on boards where the majority of people have not been participating and probably have not read the debate on this issue. Corax 22:09, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
• "and who have instead resorted to trying to force the issue through by virtue of numerical superiority" - that sounds to me like you're conceding that the consensus at wikipedia is against you. In fact I've mentioned this poll in two locations, on the relevent RFC page and on the LGBT notice board. Certainly the question is relevent to those who have edited other articles listed in LGBT Organizations. Homey 22:24, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Um, a consensus is a decision reached by a group as a whole, not just a vocal and strident majority which, in this case anyway, has no logical basis for its claims. I suppose we could also hold a poll on whether NAMBLA belongs in a category called "sicko organizations," and the vote would pass overwhelmingly. But that doesn't say much for neutrality. And neither does attempting to remove NAMBLA from the LGBT organizations category just because most modern-day homosexuals hate the fact that the group is used by the right-wing to attack gay rights. Corax 22:30, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Consensus is defined by the opinions wikipedia community as a whole. Not just advocates of one position on one talk page. Homey 22:33, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Right. Not just advocates of your position, and not just advocates of my position. But by everybody as a whole, not just half or even a bare majority. I believe that was my point. Corax 22:36, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

• Soliciting all the gays on Wikipedia to come in here and vote "No" is simply a stunt. The reasons NAMBLA is and has always been a gay organization have been discussed many times. Hermitian 22:34, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

• And yet there's still no consensus. I guess then you could also say that the reasons NAMBLA isn't and never has been a gay organization have been discussed many times. Hrm. Funny how that works. Dave 22:57, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

(A pedophile is someone whose principal sexual attraction is to PRE-PUBESCENT chidren. NAMBLA is not exclusively pedophile, nor was pedophilia the reason which drove its creation. Attraction to sexually mature teens under the age of consent just makes one a "Fag with Good Taste," not a pedophile. Hermitian 22:39, 7 January 2006 (UTC))

According to the article, NAMBLA advocates the repeal of all age-of-consent laws. So what's this about "sexually mature teens"? They're NAMBLA, not NAMTLA. As for your "Fags with Good Taste", I imagine even a lot of LGBT people would find this rather offensive. Camillus (talk) 23:10, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

If one advocates the repeal of age-based laws that cancel drivers licenses after a certain age, it doesn't mean that one is in favor of unconscious old people speeding down the road at 100 MPH. If one advocates the repeal of laws which force airline pilots to retire after a certain age, it doesn't mean one advocates unsafe air travel. If one advocates the repeal of absolute age-based consent laws, it doesn't mean one favors very young children engaging in harmful age-innapropriate sex acts. NAMBLA advocates getting rid of absolute age of consent laws because they are regressive, criminalize absolutely with no possibillity of making reasonable exceptions, allow the minor partner no due process or even the right to have their opinion stated in the judicial record. This has little to do with pedophilia. It's about due process, and the right of everyone not to be invisibilized by the system. Whether or not pedophilia is a good or bad thing is a separate discussion. Hermitian 00:03, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

According to our article on the subjet, NAMBLA's history appears closely involved with the LGBT community, they consider themselves part of it explicitly, and they were a member of the International Lesbian and Gay Association from the late 1970s through 1994. This is certainly enough to make them "an LGBT organization" at least for historical reasons, although the article certainly should (and does) mention that from the mid-1990s they are no longer considered such by most other LGBT organizations, although they continue to consider themselves part of the "gay movement". --Delirium 00:27, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

• Since the organization tacitly allows it while asserting that it does not advocate breaking the law, should we also file The Catholic Church under Category:Pederasty? Adding NAMBLA to the LGBT category, like my example, seems to fit under the heading of "technically accurate but not in good faith". Before setting me on fire, note that I'm not actually advocating doing so, it's just a comparison. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 00:07, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
• Would breach both NPOV rules and MoS rules on categorisation. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 22:48, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

This is not in Category:Pederasty organizations anymore, if you'd notice, and does not breach any MoS rules I know of. Elaborate. // paroxysm (n) 22:51, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Why? Is it not a pederast organization? In any case, being in category:pederasty and category:U.S. organizations has the same effect. -Will Beback 23:02, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Because the category is going to be deleted soon per WP:CFD, for the reasons cited there. Adding it to Cat:Pederasty and Cat:U.S. organizations is obviously not the same as adding it to cat:Pederasty organizations, since neither of those are a subcat of cat:LGBT organizations. I think you are misunderstanding the purpose of categories entirely, and, at any rate, your last reply was non sequitur to your claims that it violates WP:MoS -- as it clearly doesn't. // paroxysm (n) 23:26, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm starting to have serious doubts about your ability to comprehend written text, Will. How many times have we discussed a potential categorization of NAMBLA into a "Pederasty organizations" category? Three or four, I think. And each time, I made it perfectly clear -- and you did not disagree with this -- that placing NAMBLA in a "pederasty organizations" category is okay only if Pederasty organizations is a subcat of LGBT organizations, and only if other LGBT organizations are similarly subcategorized. Yet you continue to persist as if these discussions never happened. Corax 23:22, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Pederasty is categorized under LGBT. I have no problem with other organizations having similar categories. I've communicated both points before. -Will Beback 23:24, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

I see only one subcategory under [Category:LGBT organizations]. And it's not pederasty. Corax 23:58, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

• Pedophilia involves attraction to the prepubescent form, while homosexuality involves adult same-sex attraction; gay men don't want to have sex with little boys, and pedophiles don't want to have sex with adult men. I don't see a common ground here that justifies grouping them together. Madame Sosostris 23:32, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Homosexuality is the sexual attraction to someone of the same sex, full stop. That's it. Gay men can want to have sex with little boys, or teenagers under the age of consent, and pedophiles can want to have sex with adult men, too. Freakofnurture made a nice diagram above which nicely illustates NAMBLA's pedo/gay overlap. // paroxysm (n) 23:35, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

... so heterosexuality is the same -- i.e., adult men can run after little girls and still be legitimately straight? I'm not buying it. If we had an article on something like tkGL.net, I don't think anyone would be rushing to add it to a "straight-rights" category. Madame Sosostris 23:51, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes. "Heterosexuality is the scientific name for sexual attraction and/or sexual behaviour between animals of the opposite characteristic sex." And tkGL is not a heterosexual community, it is a community for anyone, regardless of sex, who is attracted to little girls -- so no, no one would be rushing to do that. // paroxysm (n) 00:00, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Another self-appointed expert on sexuality who hasn't even done the basics of reading the discussion on this talk page. For the one millionth time, NAMBLA is not a pedophile organization, and it does not promote pedophilia. It is an organization founded to decriminalize consensual sexual relationships between adult men and adolescent males. This is a gay issue if there ever were one. Corax 00:01, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Is "gay" the same as "homosexual"?

I noticed that Dave remarked that "gay" is not the same as "homosexual." Yet, when I looked in the dictionary, the only definition relevant to this discussion defined the word gay as follows: "Of, relating to, or having a sexual orientation to persons of the same sex." Then I looked up "homosexual" and found that definition read, "Of or relating to persons who experience a sexual attraction toward, and responsiveness to, members of their own sex."

Hmmm. They seem to mean the same thing according to my sources. I wonder what sources User:Dmlandfair is using. Perhaps he can share. Corax 23:06, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't have any sources to share at the moment. I'm mostly using my queer studies experience from university, and I'm short on books. Men who have sex with men is a starting point, as is [10], an article from the American Journal of Public Health.

Perhaps dictionary definitions aren't the best source for information on complex issues of identity politics? —Dave 01:26, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

And another thing  :-), if the LGBT community as a whole doesn't consider NAMBLA to be an LGBT organization, then what business do we have voting on it? Maybe we need a subcategory like Category:Disputedly LGBT organizations that this would fit into more clearly. Dave 01:32, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, one or two books you might have which explicitly exclude men who are attracted to adolescent males from the label of gay is not what I consider a more authoritative source than webster's dictionary. Corax 03:17, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm not talking about any one or two books I have. I'm talking about broad and general ideas in identity politics, gay culture, and the entire concept of the sexual minority. There's actually an interesting paragraph in that last article that says that sexual minorities are defined based on their consensual sex practices. Check out a few of those for more info. Dave 03:24, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

That's nice. But a movement's identity is entirely POV, and depends on which part of the social movement is doing the defining. Which is the problem here. NAMBLA claims to be part of the gay lib movement (which is why they have tried to participate in gay pride marches), and most gays try to exclude NAMBLA. This is why we must decide which groups are "gay" based entirely on the definition of the English word. This standard English definition is not subject to manipulation by political agendas and "ideologies" as you call them. And according to this definition, gay is equivalent to homosexual, and NAMBLA is homosexual and gay. Corax 05:35, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

I notice that you didn't actually respond to anything I said in my last response to you. That's tricky. Good work.

Dictionaries don't define words. Usage defines words. What dictionaries do is attempt to explain the things people mean when they use words. They don't do it perfectly in the first place, and the fact that they're mostly static and don't change for long periods of time means that language change (which is attestably constant) is not accounted for. Further, dictionaries are edited by people. Real people with real political agendas. Inclusion or exclusion of different meanings of words in a dictionary is a very political action that dictionary editors consider in their work. The dictionary definition argument is a fallacy.

There is no such real thing as "standard English." Chances are we're both from the US. Chances are we were both formally educated by the same US educational system. And chances are we have very different ways of producing and understanding language. The standard English argument is based on a fallacy.

There needs to be a less inflammatory way to do this. Is there any reason not to make a Category:Disputedly LGBT organizations subcat? Dave 06:12, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Dictionaries don't define words. But they are an authoritative source that provides the definitions of words that have already been defined. Ultimately, you're asking people here to substitute the dictionary definition of what "gay" means with your own definition -- one that is entirely premised on POV political machinations. You are entirely free to dispute whether NAMBLA is an accepted member of the gay rights movement, but you are not free to redefine words to suit whatever political agenda you happen to be pushing at any given moment. I'm sure that you think NAMBLA has nothing to do with gay rights.

Oh, and by the way, I notice you haven't actually provided your personal definition of "gay," which you expect everybody here to embrace. That's tricky. Good work. Corax 06:45, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

There's nothing authoritative about a dictionary. They don't even claim to be authoritative, so the argumentum ad verecundiam doesn't work. For a dictionary to claim authority over language use would be prescriptivist, and the entire purpose of a dictionary is to describe the components of a language and how they are used. Check out prescription and description for a better understanding of that concept.

As for what gay means, Gay#Sexual orientation sums it up pretty well, not that I hadn't given some explanation before (thanks for noticing). Anyway, I'm pretty sure I've never contributed to that section, so calling it my personal definition is out for now. I'm all for neutrality; I've even suggested a compromise above, so until pædophila (which NAMBLA does support, though it may not be their sole or even primary purpose) is part of gay culture, pædophile organizations aren't part of the LGBT rights movement. Dave 07:08, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, Dave, but that article does not provide any definition that would allow you to conclude that NAMBLA is not a gay group. All the article says is that some people consider gay and homosexual to be synonymous, while other people consider gay to be a matter of self-identification, while others consider it to mean homosexual adult men. NAMBLA is a homosexual group, self-identifies as gay, and includes adult men who consider themselves gay. So I would like to know how you think there's a definition in that article that would somehow exclude NAMBLA from claiming the gay label. I think an earlier poster summed it up quite well when he said, LGBT includes groups devoted to gay youth, as well as organizations devoted to gay adults so it seems rather silly exclude a group formed to support gay adults and gay youth who choose to have relationships with each other.

In any case, if there's nothing authoritative about the dictionary's definition of gay, then there's certainly nothing authoritative about your preferred definiton (you still haven't clarified which definition mentioned in the sexual orientation article you prefer). In that case, we must look to NAMBLA, which clearly considers itself to be a part of gay liberation and gay rights. As for your claim that NAMBLA supports sex with pre-pubescent children, I would like to see you come up with some evidence to substantiate your assertion. Oh - and this time, please don't skip around the question. Corax 15:44, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

NAMBLA's own website http://www.nambla.org/ clearly excludes them from the gay rights movement in their own words. The "Who we are" page includes the statement that they "cooperate with" gay groups. It doesn't say "other gay groups." It's clearly an exclusive statement that doesn't include them under the gay umbrella. Also, as far as pædophilia goes, they ask for the repeal of all age-of-consent laws. That doesn't mean age-of-consent laws that apply to adolescent boys (a word that usually, like child, implies prepubescence) and not 10-year-olds. Their "Boys Speak Out" page refers to two testimonials from 11-year-olds, who are usually though not always prepubescent. The presence of some 11-year-olds, I concede, does not scream pædophilia, but they're there, and so is their objective of repealing the age-of-consent laws to decriminalize all adult-on-child sex, and what isn't there is any claim that they aren't pædophiles. If they're going to define who they are with the reputation that they have, they would be quick to dispute any misinformation.

I have no idea where this "skip around the question" talk is coming from. If I'm not giving you the answers you want, you're going to need to come up with some better, maybe more specific, questions. There's nothing I'm going to be able to do to answer if I answer your questions and you say I don't. Dave 19:22, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

As has been pointed out in numerous prior posts, wanting to eliminate absolute age of consent laws, because they are regressive laws, and criminalize absolutely with no possibility of making reasonable exceptions, in favor of a legal climate which permits respect for the sexual privacy of minors while at the same time protecting them from coercion, is not an attempt to "decriminalize all adult-on-child sex." By the way, the term "adult-on-child" sex as a description of relations between those under 18 and those over 18, is employed by only the most loony-tune whacko contingent of the anti-porn anti-child-sex radical feminist crowd. Quite frankly, I've never heard it uttered by anyone with a penis before. Hermitian 22:43, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

The question you've skipped around is the question of which definition of gay you are using. I've asked you repeatedly, and all you've done is provide a link to another wikipedia article with several definitions -- none of which are incompatible with NAMBLA's classification as a gay group. Please, let's end this pointless back-and-forth, and tell me what definition of "gay" you are using and how that definition excludes NAMBLA.

Also, it's interesting that you would try to split hairs about the omission of "other" from gay groups - which is hardly an admission by NAMBLA that it is not a gay group - while you completely skip over the fact that on the index page is an article entitled "Man/Boy Love and the Gay Movement" which is quite clear in the fact that NAMBLA identifies 100% as a member organization of the gay rights movement. Either you're not being careful with your investigation of NAMBLA's website, or you're being intentionally dishonest. I'd like to think it's the former.

There have already on this discussion page been numerous explanations of how calls for repelaing absolute age-of-consent laws is not the same as advocating an age-of-consent of 0, or advocating pedophilia -- behaviors which presumably would remain illegal under rape and coercion safeguards. NAMBLA's goal is not to decriminalize all adult-on-child sex, and the fact that you continue to parrot this lie demonstrates that you have leapt into this talk page without having read any of what has been said for the past two weeks above. Saying that age-of-consent laws are regressive is not the same as saying that seven-year-olds should be out having promiscuous anal sex with forty-year-old men. It just means that there are better ways of deciding how to regulate young people's sexual behavior than picking a single arbitrary age and using it as a rubber stamp to prohibit all sex between people who fall on different sides of the age barrier.

I asked where NAMBLA advocates pedophilia, and the best you could come up with was some statement by an eleven-year-old -- who may or may not have been prepubescent. Sorry, but that is not advocacy of pedophilia. That's some eleven-year-old telling his story. And it's also interesting to note that of the two dozen testimonies listed in the book that NAMBLA is selling, 11 is the lowest age of the boys, and that all but a few of the boys are 13 or older. If anything, this should dispell your attempt to cast NAMBLA as a group for pedophiles, and not gay men who are attracted to teenage males. The truth is that you can't show me a single instance where NAMBLA advocates pedophilia, the reason being that NAMBLA does NOT advocate pedophilia. Corax 21:43, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

I've read this whole page carefully. I've looked on the archived talk page some, too, even. I think you need to reexamine your ability to look at this article from a non-biased point of view. Dave 22:43, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

If you had read NAMBLA's page carefully, you would have seen the Thorstad article about the role of so-called "boylovers" and NAMBLA's beliefs in the gay rights movement. If you had read NAMBLA's page carefully, you would be upfront with the fact that it contains no advocacy of pedophilia. If you had read NAMBLA's page carefully, and not taken information out of context, you'd admit that the testimony of one eleven-year-old is part of a book, 99% of which features the views of teenage boys. You telling me to look at this article from a non-biased point of view is like the pot calling the kettle black. Moreover, it totally evades the question you've yet to answer.

Anyways, isn't it time you get to the point and tell me which definition of "gay" you are using, and how that definition excludes NAMBLA? This is maybe the fourth or fifth time I've asked. And I must confess, I am losing my patience. Corax 22:48, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Your insistence on accepting the self-decided description of an organisation in preference to the view of the community it claims membership of is bizarre. If far right wing rascists in the US were to decide to describe themselves as part if the Democratic Party, but the Democratic Party said they weren't, would you link the rascists to the Democratic Party irrespective of the party's views? If Hamas claimed to be Jewish, would you categorise them as that even though Jews would find that definition offensive? Nazis claimed socialist credentials. Socialists universally dismissed the claim as bullshit. According to your definition the Nazis' self description would trump the definition of Socialists. And if I was to proclaim myself the pope, according to your definition that would by definition entitle me to be listed as a pope on Wikipedia. It is a farcical argument that suggests a complete lack of logic, a misunderstanding of encyclopædic standards and frankly, makes we wonder about your agenda in pushing such a theory. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 16:16, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

So what are you saying? That we should take your representation of what NAMBLA advocates over the platform of the organization and its well-documented factual history, the circumstances of its founding, and its activities for the past several decades? I'll take the truth about NAMBLA over what you and Bill O'Reilly say about NAMBLA any day, thank-you. Hermitian 22:23, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Given the homophobic tone of much of your contributions, surprise, surprise! Your comments on this page show your agenda clearly. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 22:32, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Fuzzy-sweatered homosexual sellouts to the political and religious right wing should not be permitted to rewrite the history of the gay movement into an "adults-only" parody of itself, simply in the false believe that appeasement will win them enhanced civil rights.Hermitian 22:51, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for totally misrepresenting my position. I am not arguing that NAMBLA should be classifed as gay only because it identified itself as gay. I am arguing that it is gay because every definition of the word gay I've come across would extend to NAMBLA's goals and membership. Dave keeps citing some phantom definition that he claims would exclude NAMBLA, but he has yet to share what it is on this talk page. Presumably, it's something to the effect of "gay means being homosexual, but not wanting to have sex with males under the age-of-consent, even if those minors are seventeen-years-old and sexually mature." Of course, such a definition of gay would be problematical in light of the differing ages of consent in the different American states, and the fact that minors are also considered "gay."

I merely made the point that if we accept some of the standards laid down in this argument by Dave, words like "gay" have whatever definition a person wants to give them, anybody could use whatever word they wished to describe themselves, and nobody would be able to dispute it. In effect, it is his arguments, not mine, that would lead to the ultimately insane examples that you cited above. It is in that context that I made the observation that NAMBLA defines itself as gay.

For the purposes of my argument, your analogies are extremely poor. The Democratic party is an official organization which can and does control its membership. There is no organization which controls who gets to use the term "gay." The word "Jewish" -- like the word "gay" -- is pretty well established in its meaning despite there being some relatively small areas of disagreement, and the goals and members of Hamas are have absolutely no claim to the word, whatever disputed form of the word "jewish" we look to. Corax 16:35, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Actually they are spot on. You in this case want to take the view of the claims of an organisation over other views. In other cases you'd go ballistic if a similar policy was followed. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 22:32, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

I strongly advise you to pay attention to what people say before citing them indirectly. I did not say that "the view of the claims of an organization" trump "other views." I said that, according to the dictionary's definition of the word "gay", the word clearly describes NAMBLA. After that, Dave asserted that the dictionary's definition of gay was inappropriate in this context, and claimed that "the claims of an organization" (the gay community) trumped the views of English-speakers throughout the world. Only then did I respond that if we're going to look to the people in charge of a community or organization to determine the nature of their organizations, we may just as well look to what NAMBLA calls itself. Please get your basic facts straight if you are going to make such bold claims against people.Corax 22:39, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Irony

I think it's quite amusing that a number of people have manufactured an issue over the categorization of NAMBLA in LGBT organizations, in order for them to advance their political agenda of sweeping controversial gay issues like pederasty under the rug. (Nevermind the fact that NAMBLA has been in this category for almost a year now, and nobody raised any objections until recently.) What's amusing about it is that a gay online encyclopedia -- one where the uninformed and politically motivated masses aren't allowed to dictate content -- considers NAMBLA's classification as a "gay" group to be a closed issue. It includes a lengthy and factual article about NAMBLA because it's obvious that NAMBLA is an LGBT group, albeit an unpopular one. To make matters even more humorous, the name of the encyclopedia is -- what else? -- GLBTQ, literally one letter away from the very category in which many people now claim NAMBLA has no place.

It's instructive to compare a serious, well-vetted encyclopedia written by knowledgable professionals with the Oprah-esque mosaic of lies, sensationalism, and baseless accusations that has become the Nambla discussion page. It really leads me to wonder why I bother. Corax 00:11, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Child sex abuse and sexual orientation

Have any of yall seen this: Child sexual abuse and sexual orientation ?--DanielCD 00:47, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes. Have you read the Rind, et. al. studies which demonstrate that "child sex abuse" is a scientifically invalid concept? Corax 00:57, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Not completely, but I will. My purpose in putting this here is just to let people know it exists, not to express opinons pro or con. --DanielCD 01:14, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Formatting?

Am I the only one who realizes that pages can't have any slashes(/) in them? As it stands, right now, this article is [[/Boy Love Association]], a subpage of [[North American Man]], can this be renamed to something that doesn't have a slash in it's title?--64.12.116.199 05:04, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

That's not a backslash. KVenzke 06:10, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

We both know s/he meant forward slash. Dave 06:12, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

So? KVenzke 06:19, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

There is no North American Man page. This isn't a problem with wiki titles. Dave 06:12, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it is, look again, if you add [[/Boy_Love_Association]] to the talk page of North American Man, you get a redirect back here, try it--152.163.100.199 06:26, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the page is incorrectly located. It should be at North American Man-Boy Love Association, possibly with a "typographical limitation" tag at the top. Wikipedia article titles shouldn't contain slashes, since slashes are used to create subpages. --FOo 06:52, 9 January 2006 (UTC)