[konvictz0007]

Firstly these are my views. I have the right and I am entitled to have my views regarding this subject especially as it is always under constant mass scrutiny. Just because you do not agree with me does not mean my rights should be compromised. It is my intention to promote positive discussion of the topic and my points.

Some argue homosexuality is not a choice, one does not choose their sexual orientation. I disagree with that statement because this can also apply to other situations. A lot of people including some scientific researchers also say paedophilia is not chosen by an individual. My issue with this is if society is to accept homosexuals on the basis that they have no choice, then why punish and criminalise paedophiles as they also have no choice?

Humans are limited in their choice, we 'cant' decide what we want. We are designed in a way, this information is stored in our DNA. Society can also have a strong say. Two siblings, a brother and a sister, cannot have a sexual relationship because it goes against etiquette of society and science. He cannot just say 'oh I love my sister, its not affecting you so whats your problem if i go out with her'. I therefore believe choice alone is not justification for homosexuality.

Furthermore if we are to accept the argument 'gays are born gay' we must investigate that claim and examine what it means for humanity. Under the assumption that the argument that they are born gay holds, then it is something which is affecting their ability to reproduce (as they are not attracted to the opposite sex). Then, it is in my belief that by definition of continuity of the human race we must find a way to prevent it as it is, technically speaking, a negative genetic mutation and must be addressed by doctors and medical researchers to preserve continuity.

These are some subjects which I feel strongly about. I am willing to debate issues regarding psychology, health and hygiene, communication, social impacts etc.

This topic is constant in media, social and professional circles. There will always be support for and against, I am simply against due to some points I outlined above. I should not be down voted because of my views (there are plenty of groups which are allowed to have a say no matter how 'wrong' some people think they are such as BNP EDL Extremist Muslims), rather I would like TSR to assess my points. This issue must be discussed if were are to find an eventual solution. I welcome feedback and further discussion.

***************************

A lot of people are saying that paedophilia and homosexuality cannot be compared and the comparison is not relevant. You cannot just say it is not relevant without any sort of justification. I am saying it is relevant and will pursue to argue the case. Wikipedia also agrees with the relevancy with a cited source, to quote directly from Wikipedia:

Paedophilia can be described as a disorder of sexual preference, phenomenologically similar to a heterosexual or homosexual sexual orientation because it emerges prior or during puberty, and because it is stable over time.

Further to this my point is society in general is vastly negative towards paedophiles. If a paedophile is known to the authorities they are punished, criminalised and jailed. How is this fair if we are saying both circumstances are through no choice of their own? Nature has come up quiet frequently. Some users are saying homosexuality is natural and paedophilia is not - where is the evidence I ask to accept one and reject the other of being natural?

People are discussing incest as being not natural. A common consensus for the acceptance of the homosexual community is the argument where two practising consensual adults are free to do what they desire as long it is not harming anyone else. One (or two) can maintain an incestuous sexual relationship in this manner as it can be said they are not harming anyone. Many users have rejected the idea of incest on the basis that children produced from an incestuous couple will be disadvantaged from a weaker gene pool, but why are users making the assumption that all incestuous relationships will directly lead to a child I ask? Homosexuality and incest can be practised without procreation so I ask again, why is the idea of incest constantly rejected by society?

Many people have tackled my negative gene issue about human continuity by stating homosexuals will promote a negative population growth and will help issues of over crowding. I cannot express in words how offended I am by that statement. So because we want to control the population does that mean we should abandon research and development in preventing cancer and other forms of life threatening illnesses? By that logic we can say we should have more illegal wars as it will bring down the mortality levels and help control population?

***************************

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.

[Elwyn]

De ja vu anyone?

[konvictz0007]

Yes my previous thread was deleted with untrue claims. I have done nothing wrong. I should not be punished for having an opinion.

[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.

[Tommyjw]

Couldnt find any actual structured logical point in that tbh

[Miracle Day]

Because paedophillia damages people, and homosexuality doesn't?

[maxcartwright]

In your post you compare being gay to incest and paedophilia. You are correct in saying that you have a right to hold certain view and opinions, but we can't help it if they are ignorant and completely wrong. Also, I don't think the existence of gay people stops the straight one's from getting it on, so your fear for the future of the human race is pointless.

[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?

[mmmpie]

You haven't said anything new, nor anything which hasn't been ripped to shreds repeatedly.

As for an 'eventual solution', doesn't leaving people to get on with their lives occur to you?

[Lumos]

there is a difference between respecting your right to have and express your opinion, and respecting your opinion. I do not respect your opinion. I think your views are disgusting and out-dated, with no logical backing. please don't reproduce.

[NYU2012]

You, my friend, have presented horrible 'arguments' which are irrelevant and trivial; all of which have already been completely destroyed.

Your 'opinion' is not founded in logic, reason or scientific research - it's founded in blatant bigotry and ignorance.

How about you actually do some research and learn about the topic rather than present yourself as completely ignorant on the subject and thereby make yourself look like an utter fool?

[maxcartwright]

(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 begin gay doesn't 'damage' or 'destroy' anyone, it is a relationship between two consenting adults.

[Tommyjw]

(Original post by konvictz0007)
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?

Homosexuality is natural, paedophilia isnt.

We are designed not to be 'partaking' in paedophilia thus showing it is a disorder, it is not the same for homosexuality.

There are no other reasons needed.

Seems people cant read a dictionary, bless (:

[duharvalgt]

(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?

It's quite obvious, one is consenual and one is not...

[konvictz0007]

(Original post by maxcartwright)
because begin gay doesn't 'damage' or 'destroy' anyone, it is a relationship between two consenting adults.

What if a brother and a sister were to have a sexual relationship? They can be assumed to be adult and consenting. Would you be against or for that specific situation?

[chickenonsteroids]

Go away.

[Borderline]

You do realise that the world's population growth rate is a BAD thing, right?

[XxelliexX]

(Original post by konvictz0007)
Firstly these are my views. I have the right and I am entitled to have my views regarding this subject especially as it is always under constant mass scrutiny. Just because you do not agree with me does not mean my rights should be compromised. It is my intention to promote positive discussion of the topic and my points.

You do have the right to your views, but you do not have the right to dictate what two consenting adults should be allowed to do behind closed doors.

(Original post by konvictz0007)
Some argue homosexuality is not a choice, one does not choose their sexual orientation. I disagree with that statement because this can also apply to other situations.

I have not chosen my sexuality, and if I could, I would choose to be heterosexual. Point disproved.

(Original post by konvictz0007)
A lot of people including some scientific researchers also say paedophilia is not chosen by an individual. My issue with this is if society is to accept homosexuals on the basis that they have no choice, then why punish and criminalise paedophiles as they also have no choice?

Wow... good evidence there.
The main difference between homosexuality and peadophiles:
The act of homosexuality is between two consenting adults, peadophilia isn't
It can well be argued that peadophiles do not have a choice in being attracted to children. However, they do have a choice regarding whether or not to act on these impulses. If a homosexual acts upon his/her homosexual impulses with a willing adult, there is no harm done. If a peadophile were to act upon his/her impulses with a child, there will obviously be a lot of harm done. Comparisons cannot be made between the two.

(Original post by konvictz0007)
Humans are limited in their choice, we 'cant' decide what we want. We are designed in a way, this information is stored in our DNA.

Doesn't that contradict what you said about homosexuality?

(Original post by konvictz0007)
Society can also have a strong say. Two siblings, a brother and a sister, cannot have a sexual relationship because it goes against etiquette of society and science. He cannot just say 'oh I love my sister, its not affecting you so whats your problem if i go out with her'. I therefore believe choice alone is not justification for homosexuality.

Firstly, saying that something 'goes against etiquette of society' is not a valid reason to disregard something. Once upon a time, it was also 'against etiquette of society' for women to have rights... are you saying that the change is a bad thing? Secondly... what you have said is not applicable to homosexuality, and is completely unrelated.

(Original post by konvictz0007)
Furthermore if we are to accept the argument 'gays are born gay' we must investigate that claim and examine what it means for humanity. Under the assumption that the argument that they are born gay holds, then it is something which is affecting their ability to reproduce (as they are not attracted to the opposite sex). Then, it is in my belief that by definition of continuity of the human race we must find a way to prevent it as it is, technically speaking, a negative genetic mutation and must be addressed by doctors and medical researchers to preserve continuity.

Haven't you heard of a little thing known as over-population? Our world's resources are stretched enough as it is, surely having a percentage of the world as homosexuals is a good thing? Also, by that logic, are you saying that couples who have no desire to procreate should be not be allowed?

[SamF1992]

You can accept homosexuality and not paedophilia, because paedophilia involves forced sexual activity without consent, homosexuality does not (except in cases of rape and so on, but rape isn't a homosexual specific issue, far from it). Similarly, with incest, any children born out of it are at a very high chance of genetic issues due to the narrow gene pool involved.

You seem to be acting from a position that homosexuality is inherently negative, whether people are born gay, or it's down to environmental factors, or a mix of both, it doesn't really matter, it's not an inherently negative thing, and is a completely natural phenomena.

[mud19]

Have you made this thread just to antagonise people?