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
- Narrative Point of View
- self hating lesbian??? (help)
- 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 AlmostChicGeek
Yes, you shouldn't if you think sexual abuse is beneficial to children.
However that was an important stage in my sexual development into an adult. It gave me confidence and sexual prowess that have served me well in later adolescence and childhood. It benefited me. It was highly enjoyable. People like you who are telling me that I'm in "denial" and that i'm repressing "harmful traumatic memories" are deluded.
Original post by AlmostChicGeek
Wow, you didn't read it all. I said to you to read all of it.
'Dr. David Spiegel, a psychiatrist at Stanford University and a member of the leadership council, criticized the study, saying it had serious methodological flaws and that the researchers "use meta-analysis the way a drunk uses a lamppost -- for support, rather than illumination."
Wow, you didn't read it all. I said to you to read all of it.
'Dr. David Spiegel, a psychiatrist at Stanford University and a member of the leadership council, criticized the study, saying it had serious methodological flaws and that the researchers "use meta-analysis the way a drunk uses a lamppost -- for support, rather than illumination."
President of the APA Raymond D. Fowler stated that due to the controversy the article's methodology, analysis and process by which it had been approved for publication was reviewed and found to be sound.
In September 1999 the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), upon a request by the APA to independently review the article, stated that it saw no reason to second-guess the peer review process that approved it initially and that it saw no evidence of improper methodology or questionable practices by the authors. The AAAS also expressed concern that the materials reviewed demonstrated a grave lack of understanding of the study on the part of the media and politicians and were also concerned about the misrepresentation of its findings
In 2002 a rebuttal to many of the factually inaccurate claims made by critics was submitted to the flagship journal of the APA, the American Psychologist by Scott Lilienfeld
Original post by AlmostChicGeek
Spiegel, who with other researchers hopes to publish a critique of the journal article, said many other studies indicated that sexually abused children can suffer severe consequences. Studies have linked sexual abuse to post-traumatic stress disorder, eating disorders, increased risk of suicide, and gastrointestinal problems.'
Spiegel, who with other researchers hopes to publish a critique of the journal article, said many other studies indicated that sexually abused children can suffer severe consequences. Studies have linked sexual abuse to post-traumatic stress disorder, eating disorders, increased risk of suicide, and gastrointestinal problems.'
Yes, sexually abused children CAN suffer severe consequences. But such studies do not make a distinction between coercive child sexual abuse and consensual child sexual abuse. It's the difference between night and day. The other studies I provided showed that children do not develop problems if their sexual experiences were non-coercive.
Original post by AlmostChicGeek
Thus, it isn't the be all in end all, and was one study, which many experts disagreed with, as it wasn't conducted properly.
Original post by AlmostChicGeek
Oh read this too: 'It is the position of the Association that sexual activity between children and adults should never be considered or labeled as harmless or acceptable. Furthermore, it is the position of the Association that children cannot consent to sexual activities with adults. These inconsistencies between the conclusions the authors suggest and positions of the Association should have caused us to evaluate the article based on its potential for misinforming the public policy process. This is something we failed to do, but will do in the future.'
See when someone asks you to read the whole thing, please do.
Oh read this too: 'It is the position of the Association that sexual activity between children and adults should never be considered or labeled as harmless or acceptable. Furthermore, it is the position of the Association that children cannot consent to sexual activities with adults. These inconsistencies between the conclusions the authors suggest and positions of the Association should have caused us to evaluate the article based on its potential for misinforming the public policy process. This is something we failed to do, but will do in the future.'
See when someone asks you to read the whole thing, please do.
I did read that bit. All it says is that the APA is ignoring the conclusions of it's own research, and being forced to assert that their official position is that ALL child sexual activity "abuse" is harmful and immoral due to the political ramifications of denying this. They acknowledge that their research suggests the opposite.
Their own scientific research contradicts their official position, they admit this.
Original post by ohirome
The difference being that the average heterosexual male doesn't harbour desires to have sex with mentally disabled people.
Original post by ohirome
There are of course exceptions to the rule, but not in comparison with paedophiles. Its certainly not a guarantee that there would be an issue if you did leave your child, but the risk is there. A vulnerable child doesn't pose the same challenge to a paedophile as a grown adult would to you, since the power balance is much different.
Are you saying that if you encountered a unconscious attractive girl you would have no problem with raping her?
Just because the power balance is weighted towards you and someone is vulnerable to your sexual advances doesn't make people automatically become rapists. Speak for yourself?
Original post by Stefan1991
Why would having a mental illness make someone any less sexually attractive? I'm pretty sure most heterosexual males would find attractive girls attractive whether they had mental problems or not.
Are you saying that if you encountered a unconscious attractive girl you would have no problem with raping her?
Just because the power balance is weighted towards you and someone is vulnerable to your sexual advances doesn't make people automatically become rapists. Speak for yourself?
Are you saying that if you encountered a unconscious attractive girl you would have no problem with raping her?
Just because the power balance is weighted towards you and someone is vulnerable to your sexual advances doesn't make people automatically become rapists. Speak for yourself?
Must you turn everything around in such a negative way? You seem hellbent on mocking everything people say to you...its hardly the best way to prove your point.
Im not even going to bother with that. Again, continue your crusade to protect the rights of the misunderstood paedophiles of the world. Im off to watch a horror film. Good night to you sir!
Original post by Stefan1991
According to people like you, I was raped and sexually abused as a child. I had consensual sex with my very attractive 16 year old girlfriend, I was 15.
However that was an important stage in my sexual development into an adult. It gave me confidence and sexual prowess that have served me well in later adolescence and childhood. It benefited me. It was highly enjoyable. People like you who are telling me that I'm in "denial" and that i'm repressing "harmful traumatic memories" are deluded.
President of the APA Raymond D. Fowler stated that due to the controversy the article's methodology, analysis and process by which it had been approved for publication was reviewed and found to be sound.
In September 1999 the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), upon a request by the APA to independently review the article, stated that it saw no reason to second-guess the peer review process that approved it initially and that it saw no evidence of improper methodology or questionable practices by the authors. The AAAS also expressed concern that the materials reviewed demonstrated a grave lack of understanding of the study on the part of the media and politicians and were also concerned about the misrepresentation of its findings
In 2002 a rebuttal to many of the factually inaccurate claims made by critics was submitted to the flagship journal of the APA, the American Psychologist by Scott Lilienfeld
Yes, sexually abused children CAN suffer severe consequences. But such studies do not make a distinction between coercive child sexual abuse and consensual child sexual abuse. It's the difference between night and day. The other studies I provided showed that children do not develop problems if their sexual experiences were non-coercive.
What about the numerous other studies I provided? Nearly all of the criticisms were unfounded, as was detailed in the literature in the following years.
I did read that bit. All it says is that the APA is ignoring the conclusions of it's own research, and being forced to assert that their official position is that ALL child sexual activity "abuse" is harmful and immoral due to the political ramifications of denying this. They acknowledge that their research suggests the opposite.
Their own scientific research contradicts their official position, they admit this.
However that was an important stage in my sexual development into an adult. It gave me confidence and sexual prowess that have served me well in later adolescence and childhood. It benefited me. It was highly enjoyable. People like you who are telling me that I'm in "denial" and that i'm repressing "harmful traumatic memories" are deluded.
President of the APA Raymond D. Fowler stated that due to the controversy the article's methodology, analysis and process by which it had been approved for publication was reviewed and found to be sound.
In September 1999 the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), upon a request by the APA to independently review the article, stated that it saw no reason to second-guess the peer review process that approved it initially and that it saw no evidence of improper methodology or questionable practices by the authors. The AAAS also expressed concern that the materials reviewed demonstrated a grave lack of understanding of the study on the part of the media and politicians and were also concerned about the misrepresentation of its findings
In 2002 a rebuttal to many of the factually inaccurate claims made by critics was submitted to the flagship journal of the APA, the American Psychologist by Scott Lilienfeld
Yes, sexually abused children CAN suffer severe consequences. But such studies do not make a distinction between coercive child sexual abuse and consensual child sexual abuse. It's the difference between night and day. The other studies I provided showed that children do not develop problems if their sexual experiences were non-coercive.
What about the numerous other studies I provided? Nearly all of the criticisms were unfounded, as was detailed in the literature in the following years.
I did read that bit. All it says is that the APA is ignoring the conclusions of it's own research, and being forced to assert that their official position is that ALL child sexual activity "abuse" is harmful and immoral due to the political ramifications of denying this. They acknowledge that their research suggests the opposite.
Their own scientific research contradicts their official position, they admit this.
I never that you were coerced? Where have I said that. Quote it. You two are of a similar age as well, different than a 40 year old trying to get an 8 year old to have sex. You are deluded if you think the two are comparable.
It renounced it, because they don't want pedophiles trying to lie and say that the child agreed to the sex so it is fine. How can an 8 year old fully decide that he/she wants to have sex. They haven't the mental capacity.
How can you possibly prove that a child wasn't coerced? How many studies have been done to prove that point by the way? Two? Not enough to prove the whole field wrong, otherwise they would have changed the 'party line' on the whole thing. If there had been enough prove don't you think they would have changed it? Clearly there isn't, and they don't want to fuel horrible organisations like North American Man-Boy Love Association (NAMBLA), and support what they are doing.
Why should any children be put at risk, on the off chance that it may not damage them, there isn't enough evidence.
Young children haven't the mental capacity to decide, it becomes a 'grayer' area when you are fifteen/sixteen, as you have mentioned. However there needs to be a line, why can't you understand that?
Also, don't have children because you would put them in a high risk situation, and let them be looked after by a pedophile. Why would you do that to the child, or to the pedophile you have been trying to defend? Why tempt fate like that, and put your child at risk, and make it more difficult for the pedophile to control his/her urges? Obviously it is not fact that they would sexually abuse the child, but why risk it?
Original post by Coke1
Personally, I am not a supporter of homosexuality.
But I think people make too much of a fuss over homosexuality, as in like half the population are homosexual, when realistically we are looking are looking at about 5-6% of people. So I don't agree, but I think let them be.
But I think people make too much of a fuss over homosexuality, as in like half the population are homosexual, when realistically we are looking are looking at about 5-6% of people. So I don't agree, but I think let them be.
Where did you get the 5-6% figure from?
Not an attack, a genuine question.
Original post by konvictz0007
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
When paedophiles act on their desires, they are doing it against the child's consent, or the child does not know what is happening, often leaving the child mentally scarred for the long term. Homosexuals have sex with eachother with eachothers consent. BIG difference.
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.
Using that logic, i could say exactly the same about heterosexuality. And when 2 people of the same family have sex it causes inbreeding depression, so again, not a relevant comparison.
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.
There is no concrete evidence that homosexuality is genetic. There has been no 'gay gene' found. There are identical twins where one is gay and one isn't. Genes may contribute to someone becoming homosexual, but what causes someone to be homosexual is all speculation. One study even suggests that a male brought up in a household with older brothers is significantly more likely to become homosexual. It is likely a mix of genetic and environmental factors.
I laugh at when people use the argument that homosexuals cannot reproduce as a reason to be against homosexuality. For one: Homosexuals do not reproduce, as you are already saying. That means they will not pass on their genes. So how exactly, are you suggesting that gays = more gays? Because that's what it sure seems like you're trying to say. Also, the world is suffering a population explosion, the population is rising exponentially, 7 billion and rising, if anything- we need MORE homosexuals....
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?
This paragraph is ridiculous. The author is comparing cutting down on births, to death of the already living. And when has any pro-gay person ever even hinted at the notion that he wants us to abandon research in preventing illness? Why is he/she jumping to this ridiculous conclusion? And he/she also seems to be completely ignoring the fact that over-population IS having a devastating impact in many parts of the world. Preventing births will save needless suffering and prevent more death. I have no respect for this author.
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.
As mentioned above, scientists saying homosexuality is genetic is just speculation. And they are assuming that homosexuals contradict the definition of species? I've never seen a definition which states that a species must fit a criteria that the organism must reproduce in its lifespan. So anyone that do not want kids, who are infertile... contradict the definition of species? Homosexuals are still able to reproduce, so they do still fit the criteria of a species.
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.
The formal definition of disease among the medical community, is something that significantly impacts on the well being of an individual. I don't see how homosexuality fits that definition.
At the end of the day, homosexuals are causing no harm whatsoever to others, unlike a lot of 'accompanying' examples you have provided such as paedophilia and having sex with family members.
I'm all for free speech, as abolishing such a thing would severely damage society as we know it, but as i am also allowed free speech, i am allowed to say that i think the reasoning behind your opinions are illogical and offensive.
(edited 12 years ago)
Original post by ohirome
Must you turn everything around in such a negative way? You seem hellbent on mocking everything people say to you...its hardly the best way to prove your point.
Im not even going to bother with that. Again, continue your crusade to protect the rights of the misunderstood paedophiles of the world. Im off to watch a horror film. Good night to you sir!
Im not even going to bother with that. Again, continue your crusade to protect the rights of the misunderstood paedophiles of the world. Im off to watch a horror film. Good night to you sir!
I'm not "turning everything around" in a negative way. I'm just following your premises to their logical conclusions. That everyone who has the opportunity to rape or is in a position of power (unconscious attractive girl) will do it. Which is demonstrably false.
Enjoy your horror film, and realise that they clearly are misunderstood in the same way homosexuals once were. I do not blame you as everyone has been overly influenced by the incredibly biased depictions, misrepresentations and moral panic in the media fed to them.
However, demonising people solely on account of their sexual orientations is not conducive to a happy, healthy society. Maybe homosexuals now take it for granted that they are not now the targets of such hate. The LGBT movement and pro-paedophile movement used to be one and the same thing, sexual liberation, until they got disowned for political gain. And so the cycle of prejudice and ignorance continues.
Original post by minimarshmallow
Where did you get the 5-6% figure from?
Not an attack, a genuine question.
Not an attack, a genuine question.
I don't remember exactly, but I read it somewhere, and when you think about it, it sounds about right!
Original post by Stefan1991
I'm not "turning everything around" in a negative way. I'm just following your premises to their logical conclusions. That everyone who has the opportunity to rape or is in a position of power (unconscious attractive girl) will do it. Which is demonstrably false.
Enjoy your horror film, and realise that they clearly are misunderstood in the same way homosexuals once were. I do not blame you as everyone has been overly influenced by the incredibly biased depictions, misrepresentations and moral panic in the media fed to them.
However, demonising people solely on account of their sexual orientations is not conducive to a happy, healthy society. Maybe homosexuals now take it for granted that they are not now the targets of such hate. The LGBT movement and pro-paedophile movement used to be one and the same thing, sexual liberation, until they got disowned for political gain. And so the cycle of prejudice and ignorance continues.
Enjoy your horror film, and realise that they clearly are misunderstood in the same way homosexuals once were. I do not blame you as everyone has been overly influenced by the incredibly biased depictions, misrepresentations and moral panic in the media fed to them.
However, demonising people solely on account of their sexual orientations is not conducive to a happy, healthy society. Maybe homosexuals now take it for granted that they are not now the targets of such hate. The LGBT movement and pro-paedophile movement used to be one and the same thing, sexual liberation, until they got disowned for political gain. And so the cycle of prejudice and ignorance continues.
Sorry, but please don't compare or lump us in with paedophiles. Unless you have documented hard evidence to suggest that paedophiles played a strong role in securing equality for the LGBTQ movement, id suggest you leave it there. Even a quick google search brings up nothing.
Original post by Coke1
I don't remember exactly, but I read it somewhere, and when you think about it, it sounds about right!
Precise figures of the prevalence of homosexuality are very difficult to obtain - do you count anyone who has ever had any sexual thought about the same sex (figures would probably look incredibly high if you took this - my uncle who identifies as straight says he would probably snog Johnny Depp given the chance), anyone who'd ever had any sexual experience with the opposite sex - including kissing them (again, still looking quite high), do they have to be currently in a homosexual relationship or currently seeking one, or do people who have previously had same-sex relationships but are currently in opposite-sex relationships?
Do we limit it only to homosexuality? What about bisexuality? Pansexuality? They too do not conform to the 'norm' in terms of sexual orientation.
I don't claim to have any figure, and any research I've done trying to get a figure throws up different results, because of the above problems. I'm just pointing out that your argument that 'Why is it a big deal if its only X% of the population?' is not a strong argument if there are problems with the reliability of your figure of X. Hope you understand.
(edited 12 years ago)
Just because scientists and researchers haven't found a direct 'gay gene' so to speak which fuels people's sexuality, it is not a sufficient enough reason to be ignorant and say that being gay is a choice. I'm gay and i never woke up one day and said to myself 'do
you know what, from now on im gonna be gay', NO! My feelings have only ever been towards guys involuntarily and i've been through hell and back with my family because clearly they're as narrow minded as you. Why can't you (and many others) just accept that people are gay and get over it rather than nit-picking at the reasons behind it. No-one would chose to be bullied, or you wouldn't decide that you'd like to be mugged, and it's the same thing with homosexuality - it is just there from the beginning but gay people realise/come to terms with it at different stages in their lives. Lots of people whine at gay people claiming that they are 'attention seekers' and 'wallow in self pity' but the thing is, if society (by which i mean the narrow minded individuals living in it) could just accept that we're all different and build a bridge and get over this fact, then we wouldn't need to waste time in attempting to prove to other people that we're perfectly normal and that the problem lies within people's backwards attitude to homosexuality and the fact that many rude people feel the need to problemize something which is quite simply the way of nature. I'm gay and proud, got a problem? Go cry a river and drown in it because i don't and never will care!
you know what, from now on im gonna be gay', NO! My feelings have only ever been towards guys involuntarily and i've been through hell and back with my family because clearly they're as narrow minded as you. Why can't you (and many others) just accept that people are gay and get over it rather than nit-picking at the reasons behind it. No-one would chose to be bullied, or you wouldn't decide that you'd like to be mugged, and it's the same thing with homosexuality - it is just there from the beginning but gay people realise/come to terms with it at different stages in their lives. Lots of people whine at gay people claiming that they are 'attention seekers' and 'wallow in self pity' but the thing is, if society (by which i mean the narrow minded individuals living in it) could just accept that we're all different and build a bridge and get over this fact, then we wouldn't need to waste time in attempting to prove to other people that we're perfectly normal and that the problem lies within people's backwards attitude to homosexuality and the fact that many rude people feel the need to problemize something which is quite simply the way of nature. I'm gay and proud, got a problem? Go cry a river and drown in it because i don't and never will care!
Original post by ohirome
Sorry, but please don't compare or lump us in with paedophiles. Unless you have documented hard evidence to suggest that paedophiles played a strong role in securing equality for the LGBTQ movement, id suggest you leave it there. Even a quick google search brings up nothing.
It is well documented that paedophiles were for a long time a significant part of the LGBTQ movement. Now you have achieved acceptance by the status quo you like to be complacent about what are "sexual norms" and "sexual deviancies".
When there are young troubled paedosexuals suffering from the same doubts and tribulations that closeted homosexuals face or once faced, it is not your problem. When they should be accepted and helped to deal with coming to terms with their sexual orientation and comfortable coming out of the closet. However you are content with society persecuting such helpless and misunderstood human beings. Don't you have any compassion as a human being?
Just because they don't share the same sexual orientation as you doesn't mean they're any less human beings.
Original post by AlmostChicGeek
I never that you were coerced? Where have I said that. Quote it. You two are of a similar age as well, different than a 40 year old trying to get an 8 year old to have sex. You are deluded if you think the two are comparable.
Why would it matter if the ages are similar? Why would it matter if a 40 year old is having sex with a 15 year old rather than a 16 year old?
Original post by AlmostChicGeek
It renounced it, because they don't want pedophiles trying to lie and say that the child agreed to the sex so it is fine. How can an 8 year old fully decide that he/she wants to have sex. They haven't the mental capacity.
I agree that is one reason they renounced it, because it would provide a defence to child sex abuse making it more difficult to prosecute. However that does not detract from the fact that it proves child sexual "abuse" is not necessarily harmful.
Original post by AlmostChicGeek
How can you possibly prove that a child wasn't coerced? How many studies have been done to prove that point by the way? Two? Not enough to prove the whole field wrong, otherwise they would have changed the 'party line' on the whole thing.
You really think if a 1000 studies came out which proved beyond doubt that child sexual activity is beneficial it would make a difference to the "party line"? No. It is a politically contentious issue. Politics is what decides the "party line", not science. It was the political backlash which led to the APA backtracking from the study.
In the same way homosexuality was always considered a "mental illness" with no scientific evidence to back it up. Once political pressure was applied and society began seeing it as acceptable, it quickly changed.
And there are many studies, many of which I quoted in large parts a few pages ago which were conveniently ignored. I'm sorry, but it is naive to suggest that people will change their opinions on such a stigmatised issue merely because of scientific evidence. You come out with the scientific truth which contradicts public policy, you lose your career. Look at Professor Nutt when he told the truth about cannabis and MDMA.
Original post by AlmostChicGeek
they don't want to fuel horrible organisations like North American Man-Boy Love Association (NAMBLA), and support what they are doing.
Why should any children be put at risk, on the off chance that it may not damage them, there isn't enough evidence.
Why should any children be put at risk, on the off chance that it may not damage them, there isn't enough evidence.
I don't know why you consider NAMBLA a 'horrible organisation', I guess I don't know that much about them apart that they used to be part of the LGBTQ movement. But I'm not claiming that children should be put at risk, I'm saying people should look past their biases and simply accept the scientific truth and not tarnish all people with a certain sexual orientation with the same brush. You are grateful people don't do that for homosexuals, why do it with paedosexuals?
Original post by AlmostChicGeek
Young children haven't the mental capacity to decide, it becomes a 'grayer' area when you are fifteen/sixteen, as you have mentioned. However there needs to be a line, why can't you understand that?
Original post by AlmostChicGeek
Also, don't have children because you would put them in a high risk situation, and let them be looked after by a pedophile. Why would you do that to the child, or to the pedophile you have been trying to defend? Why tempt fate like that, and put your child at risk, and make it more difficult for the pedophile to control his/her urges? Obviously it is not fact that they would sexually abuse the child, but why risk it?
Not all paedophiles are 'high-risk', the majority would never even come into contact with a child. Studies have shown only about 3% would actually go through with sexual contact with a child if no one found out. Around 90% of child abusers aren't even what can be classed as paedophiles, most child abusers are sexual opportunists. When heterosexuals are convicted of rape, nobody begins to claim that all heterosexuals are "high risk" of raping people.
Original post by notnerdylikeyou
a problem.......well that will be another topic. a more dire question is i take it your atheist?
'Dire'? I do not that that word means what you think it means. Just a pointer.
Original post by Stefan1991
It is well documented that paedophiles were for a long time a significant part of the LGBTQ movement. Now you have achieved acceptance by the status quo you like to be complacent about what are "sexual norms" and "sexual deviancies".
When there are young troubled paedosexuals suffering from the same doubts and tribulations that closeted homosexuals face or once faced, it is not your problem. When they should be accepted and helped to deal with coming to terms with their sexual orientation and comfortable coming out of the closet. However you are content with society persecuting such helpless and misunderstood human beings. Don't you have any compassion as a human being?
Just because they don't share the same sexual orientation as you doesn't mean they're any less human beings.
When there are young troubled paedosexuals suffering from the same doubts and tribulations that closeted homosexuals face or once faced, it is not your problem. When they should be accepted and helped to deal with coming to terms with their sexual orientation and comfortable coming out of the closet. However you are content with society persecuting such helpless and misunderstood human beings. Don't you have any compassion as a human being?
Just because they don't share the same sexual orientation as you doesn't mean they're any less human beings.
While I'm not trying to get involved in the current stage of this discussion, you may find this an interesting way of phrasing things (if you haven't already seen it) - http://www.reddit.com/r/TwoXChromosomes/comments/hhg5n/dae_find_rjailbait_to_be_creepy_as_****_its_a/c1vg636
Original post by Chrosson
While I'm not trying to get involved in the current stage of this discussion, you may find this an interesting way of phrasing things (if you haven't already seen it) - http://www.reddit.com/r/TwoXChromosomes/comments/hhg5n/dae_find_rjailbait_to_be_creepy_as_****_its_a/c1vg636
Thanks for that. That was interesting and informative. It's refreshing to know there are other rational people who think similarly to myself.
Original post by RandZul'Zorander
1. Are you seriously suggesting that homosexuals aren't even of the human species?????!?!?!? 
2. Just because homosexuality isn't a choice doesn't necessitate it being completely or even partially due to genetics.
3. Not allowing/not wanting to breed is not the same as being incapable of producing fertile offspring. Not to mention that your argument would imply that those who are infertile are somehow 'less human' or 'not human' than others. Which is absurd.
Even if you want to claim this it has been. By your own argument infertile people fall into the same category. Human biologists and medical researchers have found ways to allow for these people to reproduce. The same can be said of homosexuals.
Also what did any of this have to do with incestual relations?
2. Just because homosexuality isn't a choice doesn't necessitate it being completely or even partially due to genetics.
3. Not allowing/not wanting to breed is not the same as being incapable of producing fertile offspring. Not to mention that your argument would imply that those who are infertile are somehow 'less human' or 'not human' than others. Which is absurd.
Even if you want to claim this it has been. By your own argument infertile people fall into the same category. Human biologists and medical researchers have found ways to allow for these people to reproduce. The same can be said of homosexuals.
Also what did any of this have to do with incestual relations?
I said if we are to consider homosexuality being a choice then there is a gene of some sort. Of course genetics is not the science I am studying therefore my knowledge in that specific area is limited, as is yours. I said gene of some sort, it may not be a gene but if it is a choice then by your initial definition of orientation then clearly there is something that fixes ones sexual attractions to their own sex. It is that something which I am referring to when I say gene or some sorts. (Of course since we have established there is nothing to conclusively suggest this 'gene of some sort' exists, I am simply investigating the case if it were to exist).
I did not say anywhere that I feel homosexuals were not part of the human species. It was my suggestion that whatever it is that is preventing them from being sexually attracted to the opposite sex is a drawback of some sort which is preventing them from breeding and producing fertile offspring - the definition of a species.
And yes infertile people do fall into this category as they are unable to produce as per the definition of a species. That is why doctors and medical researchers look for solutions to help them achieve the definition of a species. You mention that human biologists and medical researchers have found a way for people in this category to reproduce in this manner which includes homosexuals. You are wrong as is it impossible for homosexuals to interbreed and produce fertile offspring. Try again.
And this previous point had nothing to do with incestuous relationships, it was a separate point - has it become illegal to make more than one point per post? And also I had noticed you intentionally did not respond to that point, you questioned the reasoning of the point rather than addressing the point it self.
Original post by mmmpie
Your problem appears to be that you aren't distinguishing between a person's sexual orientation and the labels that we use to categorise sexual orientation. People don't get tagged as homosexual and then follow some sort of rulebook, people are people and get labeled with whichever category best fits them.
A self-example, and I suspect I'll regret it, but I am gay and have experienced attraction to women (well, one woman) in the past. I consider myself gay and that attraction to be an anomaly because then, as now, my sexual and romantic fantasies were exclusively about men. If I think about sex, it's always with guys. If I think about setting down and living happily ever after, it's still with men and not women. Just because I retain the ability to be attracted to the opposite sex in the case of rare individuals, does not mean I am attracted to the opposite sex in general.
A self-example, and I suspect I'll regret it, but I am gay and have experienced attraction to women (well, one woman) in the past. I consider myself gay and that attraction to be an anomaly because then, as now, my sexual and romantic fantasies were exclusively about men. If I think about sex, it's always with guys. If I think about setting down and living happily ever after, it's still with men and not women. Just because I retain the ability to be attracted to the opposite sex in the case of rare individuals, does not mean I am attracted to the opposite sex in general.
Let us keep this very simple.
Assuming you are male, by what you have stated you are/have been attracted to at least one male and at least one female in your life.
Definition of bisexuality from Wikipedia:
Bisexuality is sexual behavior or an orientation involving physical or romantic attraction to males and females, especially with regard to men and women.
Explain to me why you are not bisexual?
Original post by Chrosson
Let me make sure I'm interpreting you both correctly. You both accept that this organisation is a definitive source of information. You both say that the APA is 'conservative'. But you seem to completely miss that the APA might actually have a reason for being conservative?
You also claim that your stronger statements (that homosexuality is absolutely not a choice) are backed up by the APA when they're not - the APA carefully does not concretely say homosexuality isn't a choice for everyone (which is what you seem to be doing). Of course, it might well not be, and in the next 10 years incontrovertible proof may be found to that effect (in which case 'most' would apply to 'all' etc). Until that point you have to at least accept the possibility (as the APA's wording does) that there may be some element of choice somewhere for some people.
I don't even know why I'm arguing. It's a minor point, but if you're going to cite a source then you should be completely faithful to it, even if your personal opinion is that it's conservative...
You also claim that your stronger statements (that homosexuality is absolutely not a choice) are backed up by the APA when they're not - the APA carefully does not concretely say homosexuality isn't a choice for everyone (which is what you seem to be doing). Of course, it might well not be, and in the next 10 years incontrovertible proof may be found to that effect (in which case 'most' would apply to 'all' etc). Until that point you have to at least accept the possibility (as the APA's wording does) that there may be some element of choice somewhere for some people.
I don't even know why I'm arguing. It's a minor point, but if you're going to cite a source then you should be completely faithful to it, even if your personal opinion is that it's conservative...
A perfect example of the contradictory nature of these individuals you have quoted. My personal mentality - 'let me examine all cases for unbiased argument'. Their mentality - I will use the APA to back up my opinions, but will not consider any of their points which disagree with my opinions'.
I don't really care whether people are homosexual or not, if they're nice to me then i'll be nice to them in return.
“I don't care if you're black, white, straight, bisexual, gay, lesbian, short, tall, fat, skinny, rich or poor. If you're nice to me, I'll be nice to you. Simple as that.”
― Eminem
“I don't care if you're black, white, straight, bisexual, gay, lesbian, short, tall, fat, skinny, rich or poor. If you're nice to me, I'll be nice to you. Simple as that.”
― Eminem
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
- Narrative Point of View
- self hating lesbian??? (help)
- 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 22 hours ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 1 day ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 1 day ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 1 week 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 22 hours ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 1 day ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 1 day ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 1 week 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 ?
