NAMBLA's goal is to end the oppression of men and boys who have mutually consensual relationships.
Since when did 'boys' become developmentally capable of having a mutually consensual relationship with a grown man??? Nambla should be courageous and say what it really means, the relationship between grown men and the boys they manipulate (ewww, no pun intended) into accepting the relationship and keeping it secret from the mean old adults who might try to interfere. Nambla's main goal is to legitimize sex with little boys of all ages, despite the obvious developmental differences between men and boys - the physical, mental and emotional immaturity of the boys which makes them incapable of entering into such a relationship. Period. That's why we (still) have laws to protect them.
Society doesn't just want to oppress the relationship they 'want' to have, but oppresses, and rightly so, these so-called men capable of harming little boys in this way and justifying it. For the protection of these boys and all children. It's revolting that a group can openly claim this as a goal and have a nationally recognized 'club' and magazines and books...
"In my book The Death of Right and Wrong I warn about the sexualization and targeting of children by the radical gay fringe...
Do not be cowed with arguments that if you’re against this you’re a “homophobe.” In fact, the unforgivable crime is if we remain silent allowing children to be sacrificed on the altar of political correctness, as we sit and watch gay malignant narcissists make a wild grab for children. Well, it won’t be done in my name, and I contend that every decent hetero- and homosexual person out there should be equally outraged by this hideous action.
Not all of this, however, is inexplicable. As I outline in detail in DRW, there is a sick movement among the homosexual academics and the radical gay fringe to change the age of sexual consent in this nation to 12-years-old. As sexually transmitted diseases for both hetero- and homosexuals increases and HIV/AIDS runs rampant, the goal by some to have access to children (untouched virgins, free of disease) has increased...
Think about it: we’re talking about children who are not psychologically mature enough to decide what to have for dinner, let along comprehend the intricacies of sexuality and all its physical and psychological repercussions. But the Gay Elite want us to believe that somehow these children know they prefer to have anal sex or need their breasts removed to find their “true” selves. Yeah, and I’m Anna Nicole Smith.
I cannot even begin to express my rage at a radical gay fringe and leftists who now are openly and willingly sacrificing children in a vain and self-obsessed drive to quench their own appetites for the young. That’s all this amounts to—adults indulging themselves, and others made too mute by political correctness to step up and say "No."
"Pedophilia Chic" Reconsidered (The taboo against sex with children continues to erode)
"This social consensus against the sexual exploitation of children and adolescents, however—unlike those against, say, animal sex or incest—is apparently eroding, and this regardless of the fact that the vast majority of citizens do overwhelmingly abominate the thing. For elsewhere in the public square, the defense of adult-child sex—more accurately, man-boy sex—is now out in the open. Moreover, it is on parade in a number of places—therapeutic, literary, and academic circles; mainstream publishing houses and journals and magazines and bookstores—where the mere appearance of such ideas would until recently have been not only unthinkable, but in many cases, subject to prosecution...
Two examples from the last few weeks will suffice to show the double standard here. In the November 12 New York Times Book Review, a writer found it unremarkable to observe of his subject, biographer Gavin Lambert, that when "Lambert was a schoolboy of 11, a teacher initiated him [into homosexuality], and he 'felt no shame or fear, only gratitude.'" It is unimaginable that New York Times editors would allow a reviewer to describe an 11-year-old girl being sexually "initiated" by any adult (in that case, "initiation" would be called "sexual abuse"). Similarly, in mid-December the New York Times Magazine delivered a cover piece about gay teenagers in cyberspace which was so blasé about the older men who seek out boys in chat rooms that it dismissed those potential predators as mere "oldies." Again, one can only imagine the public outcry had the same magazine published a story taking the same so-what approach to online solicitation, off-line trysts, and pornography "sharing" between anonymous men and underage girls...
Of course, this opus that "gay studies" bookshelves now reserve space for did not spring from nowhere. The book itself grew out of two issues of the American Journal of Homosexuality (Vol. 20, Nos. 1/2, 1990) dedicated to the pondering of "male inter-generational love." Here again, an ostensibly mainstream gay vehicle was put to the service of advocating pedophilia. In fact, the case of the Journal of Homosexuality is particularly interesting as a case study of how a pernicious idea can spread. The editor of this reputable gay journal, John P. DeCecco, is a psychologist at San Francisco State University. DeCecco is favorably quoted in the introduction to Male Inter-Generational Intimacy for having praised the "enormously nurturant relationship" that can result from pedophile-boy contact. DeCecco is also on the editorial board of Paidika..."
"Psychiatrist Jeffrey Satinover reflects on the Journal of Homosexuality's "Male Intergenerational Intimacy":
"This special issue reflects the substantial, influential, and growing segment of the homosexual community that neither hides nor condemns pedophilia. Rather they argue that pedophilia is an acceptable aspect of sexuality, especially of homosexuality. Indeed, the San Francisco Sentinel, a Bay Area gay-activist newspaper, published a piece arguing that pedophilia is central to male homosexual life" (7).