My Personal Views On Homosexuality

Scroll to see replies

I see. Wonderful input there, thanks. You can quote yourself silly, but its not going to make your point any less ridiculous, hence why theres a strong majority here (and of course across the professional psych world) telling you that you're wrong. Its cool though, you're entitled to your opinion however ridiculous it may be. Keep spreading the paedophile love.

I think you might have just quoted the wrong person...

Reply 421

SFsucks

Original post by konvictz0007

I am not comparing homosexuality and paedophilia, of course they are very different. I am comparing society's reasoning to accept one and not the other.

If you can accept one on the basis that it is not of choice, then why is the other being punished on that same basis as it is not their choice?

Because a pedophile who rapes/has sex with a child is a choice, no one is controlling them and most are not retard to realise what they are doing is hurting the child.

Reply 422

Pindar

Yet more denial. First you say "all experts believe what I say" "no experts agree with you". Then I supply a list of almost 20 experts who explicitly disagree with you. :smile:

How many studies and experts who agree with you have you provided? None. So stop pretending you have the science and experts on your side, it's embarassing watching someone make all these outrageous and baseless claims on no evidence at all.

How many experts and scientific evidence will it take to change your mind? I'm guessing no number is enough to change the opinion of someone in denial :rolleyes:

Please roll over and accept you don't know what you're talking about.

Reply 423

ohirome

Original post by mmmpie

I think you might have just quoted the wrong person...

Whoops. Its nearly 3am...my brain isn't functioning too well. I am certainly on your side of the fence by an absolute country mile.

Reply 424

RandZul'Zorander

Original post by konvictz0007

Well you tell me, you seem to have all the definitions and keep changing your story. Your argument is falling to pieces. You say Mr. Fry is only attracted to '2 or 3' women. Since he is attracted to at least one woman it follows that it is possible he may be attracted to many women. 2 or 3 could become 20 or 30 or 200 or 300?

A homosexual is only attracted to their own sex.

Let me make this a little easier for you. Since you seem to love this organisation called the APA, let us use their definition of orientation:

Now by this definition we can conclusively say, under the information presented in his regard, Mr. Fry's orientation is bisexual because he has demonstrated he is attracted to males and females.

1. When have I 'changed my story'? :confused:

2. I know what the APA defines sexual orientation as. It also elaborates into identities and such. Please read up. I already provided you with the link.

Reply 425

Chrosson

I'll boil it down. Why do you not accept the possibility when the APA does?

The APA is stating that there is, at the very least, little to no choice - which includes there being absolutely no choice - in that case, it would be, essentially, a vacuously true statement in the sense that no one ever experienced choice.

I agree. But they have clearly deliberately not made the statement stronger to only mean 'no choice'.

Reply 426

Pindar

Why do you keep mouthing off about the APA? The APA is not the authoritor of divine knowledge you know. It's just some American association which does not reflect the views of psychologists worldwide, that's apart from the fact they're incredibly biased with a paradigm which does not reflect scientific evidence. Only a few years ago they considered homosexuality a "severe" mental illness requiring treatment, and you still consider them credible? :lol:

I guess you'd believe it if George Bush told you there were WMDs in Iran. :rolleyes:

Reply 427

Pindar

I've provided 17, it's good enough. It certainly beats your 0 :lol:

Defintions you provide are meaningless, you need stop ignoring the scientific evidence. The institutions you keep quoting referred to homosexuality as a severe mental illness. They can define anything they want to however they want, despite evidence. Clinical defintions are not absolute. Their definitions are only as good as and have no more meaning than the prejudice which motivated it. Such defintions are unscientific, and merely political.

Homosexuality was once classified as a mental disorder, in such a way. Pedophilia is being persecuted and profited from in much the same way today, many expert psychologists argue that it should be declassified and classified as a sexual orientation as I have shown.

Minor-attracted individuals have no essential characteristics that distinguish them, save that their sexual tendency is strongly directed towards young people. Just as heterosexuals have no other distinguishing characteristics. What we are debating is the activities of an individual, adult or child, not a de-personalised category. Pedophilia has no etymological root in behaviour, it's merely a sexual orientation.

Reply 428

SFsucks

Original post by konvictz0007

I certainly do not agree with incest, I personally feel that it is disgusting. Of course I will personally say it is not natural, but in the current day and age, we cannot object to what to consenting adults do behind closed doors as long as it is not harming anyone, be it homosexuality or incest.

Which lead me to the question why would someone accept homosexuality and not incest, you can say in both cases two people love each other, what has it got to do with you?

Well if its heterosexual incest sex and even if a protection is used if it fails and the women get pregnant from my knowledge there is a high chance of the baby/babies being sickly and could die young along with being in pain.

Reply 429

Friend0007

So this settles this particular argument. There is no conclusive evidence to suggest homosexuality is not a choice.

Reply 430

Friend0007

Original post by SFsucks

What about a homosexual incestuous relationship, is that 'wrong'?

Reply 431

Elwyn

Original post by konvictz0007

So this settles this particular argument. There is no conclusive evidence to suggest homosexuality is not a choice.

Not really up to date on this pathetic debate.

But surely having gay people saying 'I'm not gay through choice is evidence enough?!

Reply 432

SFsucks

Original post by konvictz0007

What about a homosexual incestuous relationship, is that 'wrong'?

Personally incest in general does make me go YUCK but yeah I see your point on homo incest.

Reply 433

Friend0007

Again you have no proof therefore your claim is strictly opinion rather than fact.

If you re read my original post I am not claiming if it is a choice or not, I feel the fair thing to do is examine both cases.

You however claimed it was not a choice therefore I simply asked for evidence to back up your a claim, you have provided none so your argument is invalid.

Reply 434

Reformed2010

Normal Homosexuality. A relationship between two consenting adults of the same sex.
vs
Normal paedophilia. A one-way relationship between a consenting adult and a non consenting child.

Comparing the two isn't even up for debate, seriously grow up.

(edited 12 years ago)

Reply 435

Pindar

Looks like your very own APA agrees with me.

Researchers push for APA to destigmatize pedophilia
http://www.onenewsnow.com/Culture/Default.aspx?id=1413686

http://narth.com/docs/pedcrisis.html
"For many years now, psychology has been locked into a philosophical quandary. Is "mental illness" something that's unhealthy according to an objective, scientifically "neutral" standard? The truth is, there are no universally agreed upon, external validating criteria that can objectively prove most psychiatric diagnoses to be illnesses.

This problem has come to the fore now in the case of pedophilia. Child molestation is illegal and our culture considers it morally wrong--but some clinicians say an attraction to children can't be considered a mental illness."

"In an earlier version of the diagnostic manual (DSM-III) , the American Psychiatric Association contended that merely acting upon one's urges toward children was considered sufficient to generate a diagnosis of pedophilia."
This means someone is only a "pedophile" if they act upon their urges towards children. This means that the vast majority of people who are attracted to children cannot be classified as "pedophiles". Therefore the only suitable term that can be used is "paedosexual".

"But then a few years later, in the DSM-IV, the APA changed its criteria in a way that made room for the psychologically normal type of pedophile. A person who molested children was considered to have a psychiatric disorder only if his actions "caused clinically significant distress or impairment in social, occupational or other important areas of functioning." In other words, a man who molested children without remorse, and without experiencing significant impairment in his social and work relationships, could be diagnosed--at least theoretically--as a "psychologically normal" type of pedophile."

This means that even those who do engage in sexual activity with children do not necessarily have the "pedophile" mental disorder and do not suffer from a paraphilia, as a mental disorder can only be something which causes harm, which is not an attribute of paedosexuality.

"APA said that no matter what the research showed either way about the psychological effects of pedophile relationships--pedophilia remained, in its opinion, "morally" wrong."
This means that the APA considers adult-child relationships "morally wrong" regardless of the scientific evidence pointing to the fact that they are harmless and in many cases "positive". This smacks of prejudice and political bias.

"Morally wrong? This was an odd statement indeed from a scientific organization. What, then, was the APA's moral position on, say...adultery or abortion? What about sexually open relationships? Would APA have an official position on polygamy? The very fact that APA admitted to holding a moral viewpoint on a psychological issue ought to have opened up a broad new challenge to psychology's authority and its moral presumptions as our culture's new secular priesthood."
What gives the APA the authority to be the arbiter of morality and ignore scientific evidence? They view paedophilia as "immoral" yet admit there is no evidence it's a mental disorder, a paraphilia, or causes harm to anyone.

Pedophilia has already been granted protected status by the Federal Government. The Matthew Shephard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act lists “sexual orientation” as a protected class.

Republicans attempted to add an amendment specifying that “pedophilia is not covered as an orientation;” however, the amendment was defeated by Democrats. Rep. Alcee Hastings (D-Fl) stated that all alternative sexual lifestyles should be protected under the law. “This bill addresses our resolve to end violence based on prejudice and to guarantee that all Americans, regardless of race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability or all of these ‘philias’ and fetishes and ‘isms’ that were put forward need not live in fear because of who they are. I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this rule.”

In July, 2010 Harvard health Publications said, “Pedophilia is a sexual orientation and unlikely to change. Treatment aims to enable someone to resist acting on his sexual urges."

Milton Diamond, a University of Hawaii professor and director of the Pacific Center for Sex and Society, stated that child pornography could be beneficial to society because, "Potential sex offenders use child pornography as a substitute for sex against children."

The American Psychiatric Association (APA) released a report in 1998 “claiming that the ‘negative potential’ of adult sex with children was ‘overstated’ and that ‘the vast majority of both men and women reported no negative sexual effects from their child sexual abuse experiences.’ It even claimed that large numbers of the victims reported that their experiences were ‘positive,’ and suggested that the phrase ‘child sex abuse’ be replaced with ‘adult-child sex.’

In fact, some psychiatric leaders, like Dr. Richard Green, who were instrumental in removing homosexuality from the APA’s list of mental disorders in 1973, have been fighting to remove pedophilia as well.

Consider, for example, this statement from the late John Hopkins professor John Money: “Pedophilia and ephebophilia [referring to sexual attraction felt by an adult toward an adolescent] are no more a matter of voluntary choice than are left-handedness or color blindness. There is no known method of treatment by which they may be effectively and permanently altered, suppressed, or replaced. Punishment is useless. There is no satisfactory hypothesis, evolutionary or otherwise, as to why they exist in nature’s overall scheme of things. One must simply accept the fact that they do exist, and then, with optimum enlightenment, formulate a policy of what to do about it.”

1) Pedophilia is innate and immutable.
2) Pederasty is richly attested in many different cultures throughout history.
3) The claim that adult-child sexual relationships cause harm is greatly overstated and often completely inaccurate.
4) Consensual adult-child sex can actually be beneficial to the child.
5) Pederasty should not be classified as a mental disorder, since it does not cause distress to the pederast to have these desires and since the pederast can function as a normal, contributing member of society.
6) Many of the illustrious homosexuals of the past were actually pedophiles.
7) People are against intergenerational intimacy because of antiquated social standards and puritanical sexual phobias.
8) This is all about love and equality and liberation.

Reply 436

minimarshmallow

Original post by konvictz0007

You can never 100% prove anything. You can only provide increasing amounts of support for a hypothesis.
Water being H2O is widely believed to be true, but it can never be proved that H2O is and will always be water (in one of its states of matter). All we can say for certain is that everytime H2O has existed so far it has been water and everytime we've had water it was H2O. Tomorrow we could wake up and that be completely false. Not saying it'll happen, but it could, and then we'd have to get a new theory.
The point is that the current hypothesis is the best, most supported one. And until a substantial amount of research showing the opposite (have to say a substantial amount, because of the possibility of type 1 errors) it will be the current paradigm. That is why the APA is slightly conservative in what they say, and why NYU2012 is being a little bit naughty when he says 100%, but its pretty much 99.999999999999999999% as no research has yet found the opposite in all of the years it's been studied.

Reply 437

Pindar

Original post by Reformed2010

First problem. Neither homosexuality or paedophilia are acts or relationships, they do not refer to behaviours. They refer to psychological entities. Sexual orientations. They exist solely in the mind.

Second problem. The idea that all adult-child relationships are non-consensual is false. Children are in many cases, perfectly capable of consenting to relationships. The question is whether all are capable of informed consent. That is completely different from not consenting, which implies a level of coercion.

Reply 438

Reformed2010

Original post by Stefan1991

Oh crying out loud. Of course there are cases where coercion crops up in homosexual relationships between two men and paedophilia relationships between am adult and child. But let's not pretend here, the vast majority of cases in paedophilia are of a result of coercion at best and rape at worst. Most children have no idea what they are being asked or forced to do. There is little chance of a two way relationship. Just do some research yourself. This is severely diminished between two adult males. Case studies after studies highlight the psychological damage children are left with after experiencing paedophilia. Don't for a second pretend this compares with homosexuality. Because it doesn't and if you think so, then heterosexuality must be in the frame too. :rolleyes:

(edited 12 years ago)

Reply 439

Friend0007

Update

There seems to be mixed opinion on the naturality of incest. How would one assess approval/disapproval of an incestuous homosexual relationship?

We homo sapiens are defined as a species. A definition for a species is:

A group of organisms capable of interbreeding and producing fertile offspring.

If we are to again consider the case that homosexuality is not a choice then we assume there exists a gene of some sort that forces one to be attracted to only their own sex. This is directly contradicting the definition of the human species as it draws one to be sexually attracted to their own sex which therefore does not allow for breeding and production of fertile offspring with their chosen sexual partner.

Hence, just like any other biological disorder inhibiting the definition of our species such as people born with dysfunctional sex organs or paralysis of certain body parts or cancers etc., it must be addressed by human biologists and medical researchers.