My Personal Views On Homosexuality

Scroll to see replies

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.

Sexual orientation is not gender based, it is independent of gender. It is the sum of romantic and sexual attractions and where they are orientated towards.

Paedosexuality = sexual attraction orientated towards children = sexual orientation.

Original post by AlmostChicGeek

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

They are both sexual orientations, how exactly are they not comparable? :confused:

Reply 361

RandZul'Zorander

Original post by Stefan1991

Sex = biological sex (Latin: Sexus)
Either of the two divisions, designated female and male, of this classification.

Sexual = sexual attraction (Latin: Sexualis) Eros "relating to sexual intercourse,"
Implying or symbolizing erotic desires or activity.

Different words, different meanings.

Sexual:

adjective
1 relating to the instincts, physiological processes, and activities connected with physical attraction or intimate physical contact between individuals: she had felt the thrill of a sexual attraction.
2 of or relating to the two sexes or to gender: sensitivity about sexual stereotypes.
• of or characteristic of one sex or the other: the hormones which control the secondary sexual characteristics.
• Biology being of one sex or the other; capable of sexual reproduction.

The word "sexual" in sexual orientation has the second meaning of the word. It's very evident.

The definition says no such thing. Try harder.

It does. Please learn to read.

Original post by Stefan1991

Both may be sexual fantasies which don't necessarily cause "psychological distress" :rolleyes:

if they don't actually happen.

Just because I can't instantly have sex with any girl I want to or have a threesome just when I think about it, DOES NOT mean I have a mental illness.

You really don't understand how to argue do you? Having a paraphilia does not make one mentally ill. However if one were to act on such a paraphilia that does cause harm yes it would be a mental-illness. Also it does cause some psychological distress when you can't have sex with the girl you want. That's just basic psychology. But because you can go have sex with another girl the distress is very low as compared to a pedophile because they cannot under any circumstances fulfill their desires.

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.

Where it says to one of the sexes

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.

Sexuality and sexual orientation are two different things. Please learn the difference.

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.

Where does it say that it is only in reference to adults? Sexes are not limited to adults so where does it say that sexual orientation is limited to attraction towards adults?

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

But it's not false. They can be attracted to same sex children but then they aren't really heterosexual are they?

Reply 362

Pindar

Original post by minimarshmallow

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?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semantic_dispute

Arguing semantics is meaningless and pointless. The fact is that there is nothing wrong with a sexual orientation or a sexual attraction. They are arbitrary labels for a non-arbitrary psychological entity.

Reply 363

Jester94

Original post by Stefan1991

First off, ffs, paedophilia is not a sexual orientation, kindly move on.

Secondly, type 'paedosexuality' into Google, you get 3890 results, of which the top three are from Urban Dictionary (i.e. not a real dictionary). Type paedophilia into Google, you get over a million results. Doesn't that tell you something i.e. it is a paraphilia, not a sexual orientation.

Reply 364

Pindar

Original post by Miracle Day

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

I guess I've won the argument.

Paedophile :colonhash:

I think you'll find it's the person who first resorts to an ad hominem who is admitting they've lost the argument.

Don't pretend you even had an argument to begin with! :rofl:

What "points"? :lol:

Where is your evidence?

Reply 365

Pindar

Original post by Jester94

This is the first time I've witnessed the fallacy of appealing to number of Google search results...

Reply 366

minimarshmallow

Original post by Stefan1991

I haven't ever said that paedophilia is inherently wrong, just that acting on it is and that it isn't comparable to homosexuality.
I think you'll find that you started the semantic dispute when you tried to rename paedophilia as paedosexuality and disagreed with an established definition.

Reply 367

RandZul'Zorander

Original post by Stefan1991

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

If they can't consent then it is coerced and thereby harmful. Did you not understand the post I gave to you a while back?

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

You mean all the ones about child molestation and child sexual abuse?

Original post by Stefan1991

Sexual orientation is not gender based, it is independent of gender. It is the sum of romantic and sexual attractions and where they are orientated towards.

Really? Can you really just not understand words? Or do you just pick and choose them how you like? Because sexual orientation still references ones sex.

Paedosexuality = sexual attraction orientated towards children = sexual orientation.

Still blatantly false.

They are both sexual orientations, how exactly are they not comparable? :confused:

Also still blatantly false.

Reply 368

AlmostChicGeek

Original post by Stefan1991

Now, when I look up the definition this is what comes up:

sex·u·al or·i·en·ta·tion
Noun:
A person's sexual identity in relation to the gender to which they are attracted; the fact of being heterosexual, homosexual, or bisexual.

So you are wrong, or is the dictionary wrong? :rolleyes:

Also, when I google paedosexuality, the only thing that comes up are pro-pedophile activism websites, and urban dictionary, none of which are credible or non-biased sources. It appears to be a made up term, not one that is officially recognised.

Try again.

Also, they are not comparable as they are not both sexual orientations, that is why not. Also, even if they were, homosexuality is an act between two or more consensual adults, it is not forcing someone to have sex against their will.

(edited 12 years ago)

Reply 369

Pindar

Original post by RandZul'Zorander

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:

You don't seem to understand that arguing semantics and biased definitions is pointless.

And no, if you are heterosexual that doesn't mean you are likely to be attracted to children of the opposite sex, that is the whole point.

Reply 370

RandZul'Zorander

Original post by Stefan1991

You are the one trying to say that somehow sexual orientation has nothing to do with the sex of the person you are attracted to. Which is just false. We all gave a credible evidence. As Mini already stated.

Based on what logic would a heterosexual not be more likely to be attracted to a child or any person of the opposite sex? :confused:

You aren't making any sense.

Reply 371

notnerdylikeyou

woow leave the guy alone ITS HIS OPINOIN you two-faced liberals.we know live in a world in which you have to agree to everthing liberals demand.look at this following article.its just an advertisement atheist are allowed to make provocative posters.stonewall(pro gay) are also allowed.but not the church

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2128936/Gay-cure-advert-banned-London-buses-Boris-Johnson-TfL.html

Reply 372

Pindar

Since when did "sexual" have anything to do with biological sex? :lolwut:

They come from different words in Latin. Sexual intercourse, sexual attraction, all are to do with things pertaining to sexuality, not biological sex.

No it really does not. Keep telling yourself it does if you wish. I'm not happy to join you in your denial. I like reality, not living in a dream world.

Reply 373

dean1210

I didn't even bother to read past the first paragraph. These are your views and you are entitled to them, but why throw them out in public? Don't complain about people not agreeing with your views - if you don't like that, then just keep it to yourself.

Reply 374

AlmostChicGeek

Original post by notnerdylikeyou

What you have just said is incoherent, maybe try and make it clearer? Also, it is his opinion, which he has chosen to make a thread about, thus inviting a debate to take place, do you not know what a forum is? It is a place to debate different points of view, he has chosen to air his opinion, no one forced him. If he doesn't want contradicted he shouldn't have posted it on a public forum. Simple as that.

Reply 375

minimarshmallow

Original post by notnerdylikeyou

Nobody is saying that anybody is not entitled to their opinion, but we are entitled to challenge that opinion and its foundations.
And if your foundation for your opinion turns out to be false or based on a fallacy then there is no logical reason for you to keep the same opinion.
Do you not know how a debate works?

Reply 376

minimarshmallow

Original post by Stefan1991

Since when did "sexual" have anything to do with biological sex? :lolwut:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semantic_dispute :wink:

P.S. You're still wrong...

Reply 377

Pindar

Original post by minimarshmallow

I haven't ever said that paedophilia is inherently wrong, just that acting on it is and that it isn't comparable to homosexuality.

How is it not comparable with homosexuality? :lolwut:

As psychological conditions go they are one and the same.

Original post by minimarshmallow

I think you'll find that you started the semantic dispute when you tried to rename paedophilia as paedosexuality and disagreed with an established definition.

I'll disagree with a definition if I want to, particularly when there isn't an official definition and all academia defines it differently. Just like when homosexual civil rights activists disagreed with the definition of homosexuality as a mental illness. You however would have agreed with them, which I find appalling.

Reply 378

cuppycake08

First of all, if you talk about paedophelia, there's a certain legal age depending on the laws in different countries. If someone's under that age, you can't have sex with them, no matter how old or young you are, period. And in the case of incest, it's dangerous for the people concerned and their offspring, as it's been biologically proven because the genetic makeup is so similar. And homosexuality, well it has all the regular problems a heterosexual relationship has, like STDs, with the added bonus of being offensive to prudes like you.

Reply 379

minimarshmallow

Original post by Stefan1991

How is it not comparable with homosexuality? :lolwut:

As psychological conditions go they are one and the same.

I'll disagree with a definition if I want to, particularly when there isn't an official definition and all academia defines it differently. Just like when homosexual civil rights activists disagreed with the definition of homosexuality as a mental illness. You however would have agreed with them, which I find appalling.