[NYU2012]

(Original post by XxelliexX)
Awesome things full of logically sound things

Thank you for taking the time to point out all of these things. It's greatly appreciated by those of us who are constantly on TSR trying to argue these same things.

[mmmpie]

(Original post by XxelliexX)
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.

Ohai again Just want to expand on this point.

There is some evidence that compelling an paedophile to suppress their sexuality can be deeply damaging to them, just as compelling a gay person to suppress their sexuality can be deeply damaging. In the case of the paedophile however, allowing them to act on their sexuality can be damaging to other people, so suppressing their sexuality is the lesser of two evils. Gay people acting on their sexuality is not damaging to others, so there is no justification for suppressing it.

[Borderline]

Besides, I think you're missing something here, OP. Nobody gives a **** about your opinion. Literally. They are boring, we have heard them all before, we are not interested in your views on gays, or women, or black people, or immigrants. You are wasting your time. We do not care. If you want to talk about this why don't you talk to somebody in real life, not on the internet, if they'll listen to you.
Or you could go post comments on the Daily Mail website. The people there will agree with you, seriously. I am not making a point with this, just a general suggestion as you'll fit in well.

[EffieFlowers]

(Original post by Elwyn)
De ja vu anyone?

Is Elwyn your real name? It's beautiful.

[Boom Boom Pow]

If a paedophile walked into a police station and said they were sexually attracted to children nothing would happen because, although they may find it hard to empathise with him, they haven't done anything wrong. When molestation and pornography come into it of course they are punished for it because someone was harmed from their actions. Comparing the two doesn't really work.

[Chrosson]

(Original post by Tommyjw)
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.

You seem to be implying we are designed to be 'partaking' in homosexuality...?

[xDave-]

(Original post by Miracle Day)
Because paedophillia damages people, and homosexuality doesn't?

It's obvious why one is outlawed and one isn't, there's nothing to be discussed there. I think the point is why is it acceptable to say a paedophile - not an active one, just someone that'd admit to being sexually interested in a child - has a mental illness and a gay person doesn't?

Presumably there is no definition of what is "normal" to be attracted to, as it's unacceptable to say a gay person isn't normal. However, people then bring their own morals into it and say paedophilia isn't "normal"; yet 5 seconds ago there was no definition of normal?

I don't have a problem with gays and I, obviously, don't think paedophiles should be allowed to be in a relationship with a kid, I just find that an interesting question. I think the OP is just trying to wind people up though of course!

[Tommyjw]

(Original post by Chrosson)
You seem to be implying we are designed to be 'partaking' in homosexuality...?

Im implying we arent designed not to be doing it, with a focus on mentally. Whereas studies have shown things such as family members not being attracted the scents of their family members in order to stop inter-family breeding, and stuff like that.

[olucas]

If you are genuinely questioning what is choice and what is inherent then the boundaries go beyond sexuality. What about phycotics or people who have mental disorders and murder people? It's not always done consciously but it doesn't make it justifiable, like pedophilia. Homosexuality, even if it is choice, is something people are rarely ashamed of and will stand by in any situation. I understand your views, but any relationship between consensual adults is perfectly acceptable

[konvictz0007]

(Original post by 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.

Incest may not necessarily produce children, a couple can, just like a homosexual couple, have a sexual relationship without reproduction.

A previous comment said it is not anyone's business what two consenting adults do behind closed doors.

So I ask again if a brother and a sister maintain an incestuous sexual relationship with contraception (condom), is that acceptable under your argument and why?

(It is of personal opinion that I disagree with incest just as I disagree with homosexuality before anyone claims that I am promoting incest. It is just difficult to be against certain practises without being vilified)

[Elwyn]

(Original post by EffieFlowers)
Is Elwyn your real name? It's beautiful.

Why thank you

[XxelliexX]

(Original post by NYU2012)
Thank you for taking the time to point out all of these things. It's greatly appreciated by those of us who are constantly on TSR trying to argue these same things.

Haha, thanks, you're welcome
It just makes me angry seeing people write such ridiculousness and being so obviously convinced that their opinion is right and everybody else should immediately believe what they do...
Everybody's entitled to their opinions, but sometimes you need to know when to keep schtum. You wouldn't shout racial slur in front of a bunch of black people (well... not without being punched in the face...), so why should it be acceptable to preach homophobia to homosexuals?

[NYU2012]

(Original post by xDave-)
It's obvious why one is outlawed and one isn't, there's nothing to be discussed there. I think the point is why is it acceptable to say a paedophile - not an active one, just someone that'd admit to being sexually interested in a child - has a mental illness and a gay person doesn't?

I'll try to shed a bit of light:

Homosexuality is a sexual orientation, whereas pedophilia is a paraphilia. The 'origins', so to speak, of sexual orientation and paraphilias are very different. Namely, paraphilias are learned psychosocial object/action/etc. associations.

Pedophilia is classed as a mental disorder because the pedophile cannot act on their impulses without causing harm to some other party, whereas homosexuals can. Not being able to act on their impulses causes psychological distress. Something which causes abnormal functioning or psychological distress is considered to be a mental illness.

[Miracle Day]

(Original post by xDave-)
It's obvious why one is outlawed and one isn't, there's nothing to be discussed there. I think the point is why is it acceptable to say a paedophile - not an active one, just someone that'd admit to being sexually interested in a child - has a mental illness and a gay person doesn't?

Presumably there is no definition of what is "normal" to be attracted to, as it's unacceptable to say a gay person isn't normal. However, people then bring their own morals into it and say paedophilia isn't "normal"; yet 5 seconds ago there was no definition of normal?

I don't have a problem with gays and I, obviously, don't think paedophiles should be allowed to be in a relationship with a kid, I just find that an interesting question. I think the OP is just trying to wind people up though of course!

"Normal" and "Mental illness" is created Society, according to a Psychologist called Szasz. In our society paedophilles are damaging (I agree) and homosexuals aren't (I agree). And that's probably never going to change. I wholeheartedly believe that Paedophiles, murderers etc are 'Wrong in the head' so to speak but I think they should be locked up for the greater good of society so they can do no more harm.

But I strongly believe the Governments need to invest more into these Psychological differences to help them.

[NYU2012]

(Original post by konvictz0007)
Incest may not necessarily produce children, a couple can, just like a homosexual couple, have a sexual relationship without reproduction.

A previous comment said it is not anyone's business what two consenting adults do behind closed doors.

So I ask again if a brother and a sister maintain an incestuous sexual relationship with contraception (condom), is that acceptable under your argument and why?

(It is of personal opinion that I disagree with incest just as I disagree with homosexuality before anyone claims that I am promoting incest. It is just difficult to be against certain practises without being vilified)

You're trying to compare a sexual orientation to a paraphilia - such comparisons aren't valid because sexual orientation is vastly different from paraphilias.

Paraphilias are learned psychosocial object/action/etc. attractions, whereas sexual orientations are not learned attractions and are, in all cases, very different.

[Joey_jo]

If you are so scared about the continuity of the human race then try campaigning against nuclear weapons and war.. rather than campaigning against love.

[JordanS94]

(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.

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.

I am gay and I respect your opinion
I see what you mean with paedophiles, but I think that they are a danger because some decide to act illegally with their actions, whilst the child does not and they are under the age for anything sexual. It may be unfair for them but people should try and correct what is wrong with them. How ever homosexuality doesn't affect anyone else except for them self and their partner who is willing to engage in sexual contact with them. Homosexuality shouldn't be corrected because if their wasn't any gays then the population would be rising extremely fast. To be honest at this moment in time I think there should be more gays just to control the population, maybe even decrease the population, just to repopulate again in the future without getting overcrowded.

[michael321]

(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. 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?

1) That homosexuality is not a choice is an objectively provable fact. It doesn't matter whether you disagree with it unless you can provide scientific evidence.

2) We criminalise paedophilia because it is deemed harmful, as the children involved are easily manipulated and abused because they are too young to give considered consent. Two consenting gay people are not harming anyone.

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.

This is totally incoherent. Clearly some things are hard-coded into us and some are not. We can't decide certain things (e.g. that we are going to learn to fly) because they are impossible. We can decide others. Once again, the brother-sister example is frowned upon because it is to society's detriment - incest damages genetic diversity and is unfair on the child, because he/she has a far higher chance of developmental problems than normal children.

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.

I believe that's called eugenics...

Another illogical argument. If anything, allowing gays to be gay will actually diminish their numbers, as, rather than repressing their sexuality and having heterosexual relationships and continuing gay genes, they will instead enter homosexual relationships and exit the gene pool.

[SamF1992]

(Original post by konvictz0007)
Incest may not necessarily produce children, a couple can, just like a homosexual couple, have a sexual relationship without reproduction.

A previous comment said it is not anyone's business what two consenting adults do behind closed doors.

So I ask again if a brother and a sister maintain an incestuous sexual relationship with contraception (condom), is that acceptable under your argument and why?

(It is of personal opinion that I disagree with incest just as I disagree with homosexuality before anyone claims that I am promoting incest. It is just difficult to be against certain practises without being vilified)

In my opinion, that would be fine providing everything was consensual.

[mmmpie]

(Original post by konvictz0007)
Incest may not necessarily produce children, a couple can, just like a homosexual couple, have a sexual relationship without reproduction.

A previous comment said it is not anyone's business what two consenting adults do behind closed doors.

So I ask again if a brother and a sister maintain an incestuous sexual relationship with contraception (condom), is that acceptable under your argument and why?

(It is of personal opinion that I disagree with incest just as I disagree with homosexuality before anyone claims that I am promoting incest. It is just difficult to be against certain practises without being vilified)

I have no problem with incestuous relationships. With the possibility of children, there is a genetic risk to be managed, but many people who carry genetic disorders manage similar or greater risks. The relationship itself is not problematic.

This seems rather tangential however. You're diverting the topic to false analogies rather than providing justification for your opposition to homosexuality.