My Personal Views On Homosexuality

Scroll to see replies

Are you actually an idiot? It says very clearly in the definition that sexual orientation is based on whether you are attracted to the male sex, the female sex, both sexes or neither sex. Child, no matter how much you moan, is not a sex; the term refers to either a boy or a girl below the legal age of majority. A child can have a sex, clearly, but it is not one within itself, thus paedophilia cannot be a sexual orientation.

Where in the definition does it say the object of attraction has to be a "sex in of itself" to qualify as a sexual orientation? Are you reading something else because it clearly doesn't say that.

Original post by Jester94

Yes, paedophiles do fit into hetero/bi/homosexual categories, for you can have gay paedophiles, straight paedophiles and bisexual paedophiles.

No, because a paedophile may and routinely do have different attractions to sexes for adults and children.

Those categories do not adequately describe a persons sexuality or sexual orientation, you are just drawing arbitrary lines in the sand for a fluid and non-arbitrary phenomenon.

Reply 341

SS7514

Original post by tufc

Thatcher had it right on the issue. She said all these liberals everywhere were teaching children that they had an inherent right to be gay. Let them do what they want, I say, but don't let them adopt children for crying out loud.

Why shouldn't two homosexual's be allowed to adopt children? Sexual orientation has nothing to do with being a good parent and completely irrelevant, I would rather see a child raised by two gay people who love it unconditionally than by people who are going to abuse the child.

Reply 342

Pindar

Original post by Jester94

There is no serious hatred for those who take part in threesomes, no shame by those who take part in it. Having a threesome does not involve manipulating those who are too young to know any better into doing things they are not psychologically prepared for. Having a fantasy does not involve manipulating ANYONE. That is the WHOLE POINT. Having a fantasy does not make you "mentally ill".

Reply 343

Jester94

Original post by Stefan1991

Where in the definition does it say the object of attraction has to be a "sex in of itself" to qualify as a sexual orientation? Are you reading something else because it clearly doesn't say that.

This is the definition from the APA: Sexual orientation refers to an enduring pattern of emotional, romantic, and/or sexual attractions to men, women, or both sexes.

As you can see, the definition says that sexual orientation is dependent on attraction to either sex, or to both, so heterosexual = attracted to opposite sex, homosexual = attracted to same sex, bisexual = attracted to both sexes, asexual = attracted to neither sex.

As you can also see, the sexes are male or female. Child is not included in the list of sexes, because it is not a sex. You seem to be confusing a child having a sex with being a sex. Attraction to children cannot be classified as a sexual orientation, because it is not an attraction to a specific sex, as 'child' is not a sex, it is a term to describe someone under the age of the legal majority, or to describe the offspring of someone.

A) Sorry, didn't realise you were the world authority on paedophilia and paedophiles. Can you actually provide and reputable sources to back up your example?

B) In your example, that would make the paedophile bisexual, because he/she is attracted to both sexes, merely at different ages.

Reply 344

Jester94

Original post by Stefan1991

Having a fantasy does not involve manipulating ANYONE. That is the WHOLE POINT. Having a fantasy does not make you "mentally ill".

If you read the edited post (I posted it accidentally before I finished typing) you will see I go on to say how many paedophiles do manipulate the children involved, whether that is manipulating them into performing sexual acts or into posing for explicit photos. Thus, paedophilia is very different to having a threesome, as you yourself have just agreed by agreeing that threesomes do not involve manipulate anyone.

A long term attraction to children, which is what paedophilia is, is much more than a sexual fantasy. Sexual fantasies might be things you want to try with the person you are in a relationship with, or try with people you are not in a relationship, whatever the case may be, it is different from a long-term attraction to children.

Reply 345

Miracle Day

Original post by Stefan1991

ig·no·ra·mus/ˌignəˈrāməs/
Noun: An ignorant or stupid person.

Synonyms:
know-nothing

Yes, that adequately describes you.

And why would someone's sexual orientation make a difference to you whether you can actually prove what you're saying? What an incredibly prejudiced and bigoted position to take. People like you disgust me, you should be ashamed of yourself.

I'm not going to argue with someone who seems to be taking a position defending paedophiles.

You're the lowest of the low. As proven in this thread already, Paedophilla isn't a sexual orientation because it's an attraction to age, children, not a sex (male or female).

So just stfu idiot.

Reply 346

minimarshmallow

Original post by Stefan1991

However they are, if you are a heterosexual that doesn't mean you are going to be attracted to the same sex in children. That is a fallacy. Paedosexuality is clearly a separate sexual orientation.

Well if you're attracted to male adults and female children then you're bisexual. You're also a paedophile. Stop mixing the two together.

Original post by Stefan1991

But there is no actual study which suggests why it would be universally harmful... you are just appealing to authority (the APA) without any actual evidence to back it up.

You do realise that in order to be fallacious, it has to be an appeal to a false authority, right? The APA is a legitimate authority, therefore presenting their research conclusions is not a fallacious appeal to authority. In fact, unless you actually go out and do the research yourself, anything you present is an appeal to authority.

Reply 347

Pindar

Original post by Jester94

We are not talking about sexual acts, we are talking about sexual fantasies. You are claiming fantasies are inherently harmful and therefore are mental illnesses. I'm pointing out that is ridiculous.

Threesomes are sexual acts, paedosexuality is a sexual attraction. One exists in the mind, one is a physical act. But a fantasy of a threesome is in the mind. Fantasies do not "manipulate" anyone.

Original post by Jester94

A long term attraction to children, which is what paedophilia is, is much more than a sexual fantasy. Sexual fantasies might be things you want to try with the person you are in a relationship with, or try with people you are not in a relationship, whatever the case may be, it is different from a long-term attraction to children.

How exactly is it any different? Both exist in the mind and harm no one.

Reply 348

Pindar

Original post by Miracle Day

You're not going to argue because you don't have anything to argue with. Your ideas aren't based on reality, they're based on prejudice. I just feel sorry for you.

Reply 349

Pindar

Original post by minimarshmallow

Well if you're attracted to male adults and female children then you're bisexual. You're also a paedophile. Stop mixing the two together.

No, because heterosexuality and homosexuality only refer to attractions to adults. Completely ignoring the fact that there is a sexual orientation towards children.

Your logical conclusion is that hetereosexuals are attracted to those of the opposite sex, including children. Which is obviously not the case.

Original post by minimarshmallow

It is if there isn't actually any "research" to back it up. You're claiming there's research. Where exactly is this?

You can't provide any because there is none, that is plainly obvious.

The exact same appeal to authority to the APA was used when they claimed homosexuality is a mental illness, when that was obviously not the case.
Since the EXACT same appeal to authority was false and erroneous, why would it be valid now?

Reply 350

AlmostChicGeek

Original post by Stefan1991

You're not going to argue because you don't have anything to argue with. Your ideas aren't based on reality, they're based on prejudice. I just feel sorry for you.

I feel sorry for you. You haven't managed to come up with a coherent argument against the reasoning that being sexually attracted to children is not a 'sexual orientation', as sexual orientation is gender based.

You also appear to think that homosexuality is comparable to being sexually attracted to children...

Reply 351

Miracle Day

Original post by Stefan1991

You're not going to argue because you don't have anything to argue with. Your ideas aren't based on reality, they're based on prejudice. I just feel sorry for you.

Firstly, I see you haven't responded to my point. Both points actually.

I guess I've won the argument.

Paedophile :colonhash:

Reply 352

Madmia

May I ask why you are 'randomly' posting this?

Reply 353

RandZul'Zorander

Original post by Stefan1991

However they are, if you are a heterosexual that doesn't mean you are going to be attracted to the same sex in children. That is a fallacy. Paedosexuality is clearly a separate sexual orientation.

That says nothing about their sexual orientation however. Besides that if you are heterosexual you would most likely be attracted to children of the opposite sex. That logically follows. And isn't fallacious.

Again Pedophilia cannot be a sexual orientation you don't seem to understand definitions. :colonhash:

Reply 354

Pindar

There is no difference between those sexual orientations and paedosexuality. All of them are sexual attractions towards types of humans which naturally develop which you cannot control.

Reply 355

RandZul'Zorander

Original post by Stefan1991

There is no difference between those sexual orientations and paedosexuality. All of them are sexual attractions towards types of humans which naturally develop which you cannot control.

You really just don't understand that a sexual orientation is only referring to the person's sex do you? It has been stated over and over again. You also don't seem to understand what the word 'sexual' means or what a paraphilia is. A paraphilia is not necessarily a mental illness. In fact in the DSM-V they are most likely changing it so that it has the current definition without the implications of harm. And a paraphilic disorder will be when there is harm.

Reply 356

Lobz

Who cares if paedophilia is a sexuality?! A paedophilic relationship is parasitic; a homosexual relationship is symbiotic.

Reply 357

Jester94

Original post by Stefan1991

Not once have I said that. I am saying that paedophilia is more than just a sexual fantasy in the same vein as having a threesome. I say that having a threesome is a sexual fantasy, which doesn't involve manipulating anybody (which you would know if you read our posts properly, instead of seeing what you want to see).

Original post by Stefan1991

No, because heterosexuality and homosexuality only refer to attractions to adults. Completely ignoring the fact that there is a sexual orientation towards children.

Um, no they don't, they refer to which gender you are attracted to.

Reply 358

Pindar

I asked "how is sexual activity universally harmful?" You answered by attacking the idea that children can consent. :rolleyes:

Two completely different questions.

Do you? If so, please state them. I have yet to encounter any. Please enlighten me :rolleyes:

Except those studies actually exist, unlike the studies suggesting the opposite which you keep referring to, and the criticisms are actually more criticised than the actual study because they are without basis.

You actually already know this, yet you continue to ignore reality. You are suffering from what is known as cognitive dissonance and confirmation bias. You ignore evidence which does not fit your prejudices and make up the existence of evidence to support it :lol:

Internally conflicted over their sexual attractions? In the exact same way homosexuals once were? That's called social conditioning. You should read about it. In the same way Christians are made for no reason to feel more guilt for having sex to the point where they can't enjoy it.

Homosexuals stopped being persecuted and began being accepted, so then they stopped as much "internal conflict" as society had changed it's mind on whether those thoughts are moral and had stopped telling homosexuals that they should be feel dirty and ashamed of themselves.

No u fail.

Reply 359

minimarshmallow

Original post by Stefan1991

No, you're wrong again.
Heterosexuals are attracted to the opposite sex. Typical individuals are attracted to adults of the opposite sex. Paedophiles are also attracted to children.
They're separate.

My logical conclusion is that heterosexuals are attracted to those of the opposite sex. If they are also paedophiles, they are attracted to children of the opposite sex.

What part of this aren't you getting?