This discussion is now closed.
Check out other Related discussions
- EPQ title help - homosexuality in literature
- gay/bi muslims
- OCR A-Level Religious Studies Paper 2 (H573/02) 19th June 2023 [Exam Chat]
- Psychology 8 marker
- Gay and Muslim
- Edexcel A Level English Literature Paper 3 (9ET0 03) - 16th June 2023 [Exam Chat]
- English Literature - NEA coursework
- OCR A Level Law Paper 3
- is it bad to like mean girls?
- Flatmate is gay, I am Muslim. I want him to know I have no problem with his sexuality
- EPQ Dilemma
- Can a camp man be straight?
- Making Othello statment question-A level english literature aqa b
- self hating lesbian??? (help)
- Narrative Point of View
- closeted gay muslim AMA
- Right lads, pants (underwear) survey.
- International Uni Thoughts
- construction in Kensington Terrace and Park Terrace???
- Spanish books
My Personal Views On Homosexuality
Scroll to see replies
Original post by RandZul'Zorander
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?
If they can't consent then it is coerced and then it is harmful?
No one argues that children cannot consent, children can clearly consent to a lot of things. A 15 or 17 year old clearly is a rational actor capable enough of knowing they want or enjoy certain things. What is argued is whether they are capable of informed consent.
Regardless, not being capable of informed consent =/= coercion. If I accept an ice cream and I enjoy it, I am not "coerced" to accept it just because I might not necessarily know what an ice cream is, I might be from a third world country and not know what an ice cream is.
Original post by RandZul'Zorander
You mean all the ones about child molestation and child sexual abuse?
Refusal to believe until proof is given is a rational position, denial of all outside of our own limited experience is absurd.
Original post by RandZul'Zorander
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.
Original post by RandZul'Zorander
Still blatantly false.
Also still blatantly false.
Also still blatantly false.
Original post by AlmostChicGeek
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.
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.
And neither is paedosexuality.
Homosexuality is not an "act". Don't you even know what "homosexuality" means?
Original post by Stefan1991
And neither is paedosexuality.
Considering paedosexuality isn't a thing, I don't think we should bother saying what it is or isn't...
As a former geneticist I think I should clarify about the incest and potential deleterious outcomes of such pairings. While there is a slight increase in risk factor of certain recessive diseases, there is also what is termed "coupling up" of the good genes. Remember that cousin x cousin pairings is legal. There have been numerous studies involving quails that have shown the birds seek out their cousin for matings, and this has now been shown in numerous other species - close enough to double up on the good genes, but far enough away to (hopefully) prevent recessive diseases raising their heads.
I cannot be bothered to troll through all the postings. The author's statement seems to lack logic and clarity. Society's notion of what is right and wrong is fluid. In the Ancient world homosexuality was widely practiced and accepted. Throughout the dark, middle and enlightened eras homosexuality was barred and outlawed. We have now moved on (or backwards, which ever way you want to look at it) as a society. To echo other posts, homosexuality cannot be viewed in the same context as paedophilia - in gay relationships, they are consensual; in paedophilia they are not, and often with massive longterm consequences on the part of the abused. We as a society have dictated that this is wrong. We have made the distinction.
As for whether homosexuality is a choice or something you are born as - well in 2012 it is both. There is an underlying genetic coding to who we find attractive - this is often due to the MHC (google to find out more). Numerous studies have shown that men who have identified themselves as gay, and who have approved necropsy studies to be performed on them when they decease, have revealed that the majority of these men have certain areas of the brain that are more similar to the brain of a woman. Why is this the case is still under scrunity, it's possible high levels of estrogen during gravity could be the cause/one of the causes. However, it is a choice. A man/woman sexually attracted to ppl of their own sex (whether that is gay or bisexual) have a choice to act upon that. They may chose to be openly gay, or indeed to get married and live a heterosexual life style. That is their CHOICE.
I shall direct your attention to a new set of studies published this week, that has revealed (although there are some limitation to their studies) that people behind anti-gay policies, and theories, are themselves likely to be holding repressed gay feelings. These papers are published in Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.
This is scientific fact. I wish people who are interest in any topic, whether pro or against, read the facts, become educated and then make an informed judgement...otherwise you all just look like uneducated baboons.
I cannot be bothered to troll through all the postings. The author's statement seems to lack logic and clarity. Society's notion of what is right and wrong is fluid. In the Ancient world homosexuality was widely practiced and accepted. Throughout the dark, middle and enlightened eras homosexuality was barred and outlawed. We have now moved on (or backwards, which ever way you want to look at it) as a society. To echo other posts, homosexuality cannot be viewed in the same context as paedophilia - in gay relationships, they are consensual; in paedophilia they are not, and often with massive longterm consequences on the part of the abused. We as a society have dictated that this is wrong. We have made the distinction.
As for whether homosexuality is a choice or something you are born as - well in 2012 it is both. There is an underlying genetic coding to who we find attractive - this is often due to the MHC (google to find out more). Numerous studies have shown that men who have identified themselves as gay, and who have approved necropsy studies to be performed on them when they decease, have revealed that the majority of these men have certain areas of the brain that are more similar to the brain of a woman. Why is this the case is still under scrunity, it's possible high levels of estrogen during gravity could be the cause/one of the causes. However, it is a choice. A man/woman sexually attracted to ppl of their own sex (whether that is gay or bisexual) have a choice to act upon that. They may chose to be openly gay, or indeed to get married and live a heterosexual life style. That is their CHOICE.
I shall direct your attention to a new set of studies published this week, that has revealed (although there are some limitation to their studies) that people behind anti-gay policies, and theories, are themselves likely to be holding repressed gay feelings. These papers are published in Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.
This is scientific fact. I wish people who are interest in any topic, whether pro or against, read the facts, become educated and then make an informed judgement...otherwise you all just look like uneducated baboons.
Original post by Stefan1991 This is the first time I've witnessed the fallacy of appealing to number of Google search results...
This is the first time I've witnessed the fallacy of appealing to number of Google search results...Considering you are rejecting any sane arguments we are rejecting, I felt the need to resort to such basic measures for you. However, I do feel it points out nicely that paedosexuality is not a thing.
Original post by 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
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2128936/Gay-cure-advert-banned-London-buses-Boris-Johnson-TfL.html
And can we now have that in coherent English please?
Original post by Stefan1991
And neither is paedosexuality.
Homosexuality is not an "act". Don't you even know what "homosexuality" means?
Homosexuality is not an "act". Don't you even know what "homosexuality" means?I misspoke you are correct. I meant that they are not comparable, as being homosexual is natural, occurs in many species, and doesn't harm anyone. I.e two males having sex harms no one. Being a pedophile, and acting on these impulses does harm people, as the sex is not consensual.
Still, paedosexuality is a made up word, that has no credible backing, which you seem content to ignore.
Seriously, you are quoting Urban Dictionary as your source? Well done you.
Two of my friends are in a gay relationship, but even if I did have a problem with it (which I don't)
1. It's not harming anyone
2. It's not affecting me
3. It's not my position to impose my own views on them
Here's it put another way-
My mum likes Marmite.
I don't.
However- I certainly do not confiscate all her Marmite and spend my days trying to pass legislation which discriminates against Marmite-eaters
I just let her get on with it
1. It's not harming anyone
2. It's not affecting me
3. It's not my position to impose my own views on them
Here's it put another way-
My mum likes Marmite.
I don't.
However- I certainly do not confiscate all her Marmite and spend my days trying to pass legislation which discriminates against Marmite-eaters
I just let her get on with it
Original post by minimarshmallow
Considering paedosexuality isn't a thing, I don't think we should bother saying what it is or isn't...
It's quite plain to see a sexual attraction does not cause harm in of itself.
Original post by william_vet
However we are talking about paedophilia, which is a sexual orientation akin to homosexuality. The social acceptance of adult-child relationships are a different debate.
It is debatable whether adult-child relationships are inherently unconsensual. I would argue that there is no reason an 18 year old couldn't have a consensual relationship with a 15 year old.
Original post by Jester94
If you actually have any, I'd be happy to hear them.
Paedosexuality is the correct way to describe the romantic and sexual attraction of adults towards children.
Paedophilia is incorrect as it means someone who likes children in a friendly manner, completely ignoring the romantic/sexual components.
Original post by Stefan1991
Umm.. no one have provided any such 'sane' argument for why paedosexuality as a sexual attraction/orientation is any different from homosexuality or heterosexuality.
If you actually have any, I'd be happy to hear them.
Paedosexuality is the correct way to describe the romantic and sexual attraction of adults towards children.
Paedophilia is incorrect as it means someone who likes children in a friendly manner, completely ignoring the romantic/sexual components.
If you actually have any, I'd be happy to hear them.
Paedosexuality is the correct way to describe the romantic and sexual attraction of adults towards children.
Paedophilia is incorrect as it means someone who likes children in a friendly manner, completely ignoring the romantic/sexual components.
This fixation on redefining the jargon around paedophilia is diverting everyone from the topic of this thread, no?
Original post by AlmostChicGeek
Being a paedophile/paedosexual does not harm anyone. Even acting on these natural impulses does not necessarily cause harm, so that argument is defunct anyway.
How exactly is homosexuality natural and paedosexuality not?
That's obviously false. Paedosexuality is naturally occurring in the exact same way as any other sexual orientation is, not that it would make any difference to the argument.Original post by AlmostChicGeek
Erm..... ALL words are made up. God didn't hand languages down on a tablet.
Paedosexuality refers to the romantic and sexual attraction to children, there is no other such word you can use accurately which refers to the same existing reality, people with a romantic/sexual orientation orientated towards children.
Original post by Stefan1991
Umm.. no one have provided any such 'sane' argument for why paedosexuality as a sexual attraction/orientation is any different from homosexuality or heterosexuality.
If you actually have any, I'd be happy to hear them.
Paedosexuality is the correct way to describe the romantic and sexual attraction of adults towards children.
Paedophilia is incorrect as it means someone who likes children in a friendly manner, completely ignoring the romantic/sexual components.
If you actually have any, I'd be happy to hear them.
Paedosexuality is the correct way to describe the romantic and sexual attraction of adults towards children.
Paedophilia is incorrect as it means someone who likes children in a friendly manner, completely ignoring the romantic/sexual components.
Culture and zeitgeist, man. Pedophilia isn't intrinsically wrong, nor homosexuality, nor a lot of things for that matter. It's what we dictate is wrong that is wrong. Pedophilia didn't use to be so taboo, now it is. The only thing wrong about pedophilia (well) is the connotations of violent pedophiles abducting and raping children; taking advantage of them as they are too young to give informed consent. The same cannot be applied to homosexuality. I don't really see the point you're trying to make - well, I do, but it's weak.
(edited 12 years ago)
Original post by mmmpie
This fixation on redefining the jargon around paedophilia is diverting everyone from the topic of this thread, no?
The OP is correct when he suggests that homosexuality and paedosexuality are comparable. They both naturally emerge prior or during puberty, both are fixed, unable to be changed and are stable over time. Both describe sexual attractions to a type of person.
However he comes to the wrong conclusion that because homosexuality is alike to paedosexuality, they are both must be "wrong" when it is obvious all sexual attractions are amoral.
Original post by Id and Ego seek
Culture and zeitgeist, man. Pedophilia isn't intrinsically wrong, nor homosexuality, nor a lot of things for that matter. It's what we dictate is wrong that is wrong. Pedophilia didn't use to be so taboo, now it is. The only thing wrong about pedophilia (well) is the connotations of violent pedophiles abducting and raping children; taking advantage of them as they are too young to give informed consent. The same cannot be applied to homosexuality. I don't really see the point you're trying to make - well, I do, but it's weak.
Not all paedophiles abduct and rape children, in the same way not all homosexuals abduct and rape men. Not all men are rapists.
Neither paedosexuality nor homosexuality involve taking advantage of or harming anyone. They are both merely sexual attractions, that is my point.
Original post by Stefan1991
Not all paedophiles abduct and rape children, in the same way not all homosexuals abduct and rape men. Not all men are rapists.
Neither paedosexuality nor homosexuality involve taking advantage of or harming anyone. They are both merely sexual attractions, that is my point.
Neither paedosexuality nor homosexuality involve taking advantage of or harming anyone. They are both merely sexual attractions, that is my point.
Yeah, and I agree; but why are you comparing them then? The same can said about any sexual attraction, even heterosexuality. What was your point before, i.e. why are you brining this up? Were you defending pedophilia after someone attacked it?
Original post by Id and Ego seek
Yeah, and I agree; but why are you comparing them then? The same can said about any sexual attraction, even heterosexuality. What was your point before, i.e. why are you brining this up? Were you defending pedophilia after someone attacked it?
I was defending the fact that an attraction or sexual orientation is not harmful or immoral in of itself.
I was merely pointing out to some people who say paedophilia is nothing like a sexual orientation and somehow it is a mental illness that they are wrong because there is no evidence that is the case.
Original post by Stefan1991
The OP is correct when he suggests that homosexuality and paedosexuality are comparable. They both naturally emerge prior or during puberty, both are fixed, unable to be changed and are stable over time. Both describe sexual attractions to a type of person.
However he comes to the wrong conclusion that because homosexuality is alike to paedosexuality, they are both must be "wrong" when it is obvious all sexual attractions are amoral.
However he comes to the wrong conclusion that because homosexuality is alike to paedosexuality, they are both must be "wrong" when it is obvious all sexual attractions are amoral.
Yes, they are both sexual preferences, and no they are not matters of conscious choice. I don't think anybody has seriously disputed that. Equally I don't think anybody has failed to grasp the OP's flawed logic in failing to distinguish between sexual preferences and the actions that they motivate, it being only the latter that can be potentially harmful and therefore only the latter (if you accept the harm principle) which can have a demonstrable moral value.
So you've spent five or more pages belligerently arguing with people over jargon and semantics when actually you agree with the majority here. Well done.
Original post by Stefan1991
I was defending the fact that an attraction or sexual orientation is not harmful or immoral in of itself.
I was merely pointing out to some people who say paedophilia is nothing like a sexual orientation and somehow it is a mental illness that they are wrong because there is no evidence that is the case.
I was merely pointing out to some people who say paedophilia is nothing like a sexual orientation and somehow it is a mental illness that they are wrong because there is no evidence that is the case.
Oh... :|
I'm clearly attacking the wrong person here
Sorry.
Related discussions
- EPQ title help - homosexuality in literature
- gay/bi muslims
- OCR A-Level Religious Studies Paper 2 (H573/02) 19th June 2023 [Exam Chat]
- Psychology 8 marker
- Gay and Muslim
- Edexcel A Level English Literature Paper 3 (9ET0 03) - 16th June 2023 [Exam Chat]
- English Literature - NEA coursework
- OCR A Level Law Paper 3
- is it bad to like mean girls?
- Flatmate is gay, I am Muslim. I want him to know I have no problem with his sexuality
- EPQ Dilemma
- Can a camp man be straight?
- Making Othello statment question-A level english literature aqa b
- self hating lesbian??? (help)
- Narrative Point of View
- closeted gay muslim AMA
- Right lads, pants (underwear) survey.
- International Uni Thoughts
- construction in Kensington Terrace and Park Terrace???
- Spanish books
Latest
Trending
Last reply 1 day ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 2 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 2 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 1 day ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 2 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 2 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
