Like we did not see this coming.
Furor in Greece over pedophilia as a disability
By NICHOLAS PAPHITIS | AP
ATHENS, Greece (AP)
Greek disability groups expressed anger Monday at a government decision to expand a list of state-recognized disability categories to include pedophiles, exhibitionists and kleptomaniacs.
The National Confederation of Disabled People called the action “incomprehensible,” and said pedophiles are now awarded a higher government disability pay than some people who have received organ transplants.
The Labor Ministry said categories added to the expanded list
“that also includes pyromaniacs, compulsive gamblers, fetishists and sadomasochists were included for purposes of medical assessment and used as a gauge for allocating financial assistance.”
But NCDP leader Yiannis Vardakastanis, who is blind, warned the new list could create new difficulties for disabled Greeks who are already facing benefit cuts due to the country’s financial crisis.
“What’s happened is incomprehensible. I think there is some big mistake. The ministry should have a different policy on disability,” Vardakastanis told the Associated Press. “The list contains major changes to disability quotients, which could effectively remove many people from access to benefits.”
The new list gives pyromaniacs and pedophiles disability pay up to 35 percent, compared to 80 percent for heart transplant recipients.
“It’s really not serious to grant Peeping Toms a 20-30 percent disability rate, and 10 percent to diabetics, who have insulin shots four or five times a day,” said Vardakastanis.
Greece has been fighting to avoid bankruptcy since 2009. Public spending on health and welfare programs has been sharply cut under austerity measures imposed as a condition for receiving emergency loans from the International Monetary Fund and other countries using the euro currency.
Independently run welfare programs that survived on state grants have been the hardest hit, leaving some disabled groups, including the deaf, facing sudden drops in their standard of care.
The government is also battling widespread abuse in the welfare system, forcing tens of thousands of disabled people to be reassessed.
I remember my first apartment. Across the way, there was this 15 year old girl who lived with her grandmother. She was a bit wild and ended up sleeping with several of the men in the complex. I have met several girls like this in my life. This is where the whole “age of consent” comes into play. How old does the person have to be to choose to have sex with an adult? I remember as a kid, we would joke about sleeping with the hot teacher, but we see this actually becoming more of a reality these days. This is why you see groups like NAMBLA pushing to have the age of consent revoked.
Since people can not control who they are attracted too, it should not be criminal to punish them for it when no one is getting hurt. I believe that is the argument that is made. <smirk>
There is no moral high ground for society when society decides it does not wish to offend anyone or to deny them the right to pursue what makes them happy.
Lady gaga’s new song has been a big hit around the world and has been widely used by the GLBT community as a theme song as such to help spread the message that they are born the way they are so do not punish them for that.
I can see how it is a valid argument but is it really valid for everyone?
Scientists are mixed as to whether or not pedophiles are born with their sexual desires or if they are developed. Is it a valid argument for someone who has an sexual attraction towards people who are not yet of the legal age of consent to claim they are born that way so it is wrong to deny them of their rights to be happy? Now I am not trying to compare anyone who is homosexual to a pedophile as heterosexuals claim to be born they way they are as well. I just want to look at the argument itself.
When one persons interest is restricted by law, is there a right to challenge the law as it is restricting their civil liberties? What happens if they are not “born that way” but can not deny their feelings as being true? Is there a difference there?
When underage people choose to seek out older partners for romantic reasons, is this act wrong? Both partners are willing and no one is being harmed, so why should it be forbidden? What happens when the parents of the underage person is ok with the relationship? Should the law be waived or as society do we consider it wrong out of principal? Why not lower the age of consent so that no one has to be denied their right to be happy if they are willing and consent?
“Sister Wives” is putting a public face on polygamy in the world that does not involve a compound or under age girls being given in marriage to old men. This new loving and personable face is changing the view that many have on polygamy and what the great wrong is with it. So if the people are willing and legally able, why cant the law be modified to allow that sort of legal union?
What happens when family members discover they have romantic feelings for each other? Should the love between a father and daughter, mother and son, or brother and brother be denied just because it is frowned upon by society? Why should they not have the right to choose what is right for them if they are willing and consenting as well? Why does society have the right to dictate what types of love are acceptable and deny others their right to be happy?
These are arguments posed by Franklin Kameny over his many years as an activist. It is a logical to argue for these stances when you have to use the same argument to support your own stances. If you are going to claim that you have a right to be happy and society should not dictate what love is, then you have to figure out how to defend your position when you deny that same right to other people. Kameny is a noted gay activist and has praised by President Obama for his leadership as an activist. Now just because Kameny supports these positions does not mean all homosexuals do. None of my gay friends think any of these positions are acceptable, but they also can not give me a reason why their position is acceptable while the others aren’t.
So what is the valid argument? Does society need to step aside and allow every desire to be explored as long as no one gets hurt? Are there certain things that we must forbid and if so how do we determine what those are? Removing religion from the equation, is there not a reason to allow for all behavior?