I have no reason to think they won't, but just in case I'm going to paste it on my blog. This was my comment made to this article on Huffington Post:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bob-cesca/republican-political-hack_b_198326.html
COMMENT:
Democrats wouldn't vote for the bill because the pedophile distinction was made? Is it not obvious that pedophiles, as a group, swing both ways? Therefore, isn't it clear that a pedophile would stand to gain added civil protection under the guise of persecution based on sexual preference? I understand the "consensual" qualifier is there for the purpose of handling just such a scenario, but I see the point of explicitly defining pedophilia as not being a qualified orientation. Why let the distinction rest on the collective presumption of what "consensual" means when you can declare the exception explicitly. After all, the possession or distribution of child pornography, I would have to think, qualifies one as something of a pedophile while never requiring the consent of anyone to obtain the images.
And on a separate note, even if this were some sort of dirty political trick, it is hardly unique to one party.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Of course Huff Po did indeed publish. I got one response from someone who didn't agree with me. Not on principle, only that he or she insisted this sort of "dirty trick" (if it even was one) was primarily the domain of the GOP. Then they attacked me, or something like that.
Post a Comment