My Personal Views On Homosexuality

Yes but a paraphilia you're born with is still not a choice...

I don't have any to hand but I would probably be able to find some using google scholar or google books when it isn't half 5 in the morning.
And non of the studies you have presented are flawless, because no study is. The 5% type 1 error rate is the convention, but would only apply to studies that have absolutely no confounding variables at play. So I don't need 400.
Read the entire post next time.

As I said earlier, did you having sex have no impact on your life whatsoever? I assume you had no feelings for her, and you knew for certain she'd had no sexual contact before you so had no chance of STIs and was infertile so you didn't have to think about pregnancy. No? Well then...

Being gay really isn't a choice and it blows my mind that so many people still think it is! Even if being a paedophile isn't a choice either, you can't compare the two because they are completely different. Gay people don't harm anybody; if two adults both want the same thing, what does it matter if they are both the same gender? Paedophilia is different, simply because there's a unconsenting child in the equation.

You shouldn't 'struggle' to accept homosexuals, because there's no reason not to.

Ok, so if the child consents, then should we allow children to have sex with adults? You'd be saying yes following up what you've said.

And these could just have easily been negatives.
I know plenty of people who had sex underage who got STIs or got pregnant/got their girlfriend pregnant or were used and heartbroken - but couldn't see any of this coming beforehand due to the underdeveloped frontal lobe!

that doesn't make the two comparable. Also...no evidence suggests people are born with paraphilia. It may be that they aren't a choice but that doesn't mean they were 'born with it'.

Me again! But I just cannot get my head around this. How can you think like this? From this one post, you've already disgusted me.

Quick question, you're against gays, what about blacks? Jews? Anyone who's not the same as you? We live in a modern society, and I think it's about time your morals caught up with everyone else. Stop living in the dark ages, and accept people for who they are!

They're not pretending they're gay to piss the likes of you off. Tbh, the majority of homosexuals don't even know you exist. They're gay because that's what they're attracted to. I fail to see how your point of veiw makes a difference to this. If two men fall in love, I say let them! Who the hell are you, am I, is anyone to tell them no? There's no difference in the feeling of two men, or two women, or a man or a woman falling in love.

If two people of the same sex want to get married, let them! If you think you can somehow prevent this with your opinions, then you really are big headed. I think homosexual, and hetrosexual, couples are adorable, and I don't see why anyone has the right to tell them they're not allowed to be together, just because they happened to be born with the same genitalia.

There's a 50% chance you'll be born a girl, 50% chance you'll be a boy. It's just genetics. And two guys, who both happen to have a Y chromosome, should be allowed to be together, without people like you frowning upon them. It's nothing like incest, and nothing like paedophilia. It's just two people in a relationship, possibly having sex. Get the hell over it, and move on with your life.

Ok, so if the child consents, then should we allow children to have sex with adults? You'd be saying yes following up what you've said.

And also, gay people don't harm anybody, but the gender ratio within a successful population is extremely important (1:1.07 to be precise, any serious deviations from this and you've got a problem which perpetuates itself). There are no immediate evident harms, but you have no clue what could happen in the future if homosexuality is accepted as a perfectly normal thing, and it's encouraged, by 'proud' homosexuals advertising it everywhere as they do. It could have serious consequences.

I don't have a problem with homosexuals, not in the least, but no one should be encouraging it as it's being done now. If someone is definitely gay already then fine, but if a teenager growing up is on the cusp between homosexuality and heterosexuality or is bisexual, then wouldn't you rather - for the sake of him, his future etc. - turn out to be straight?

Its a completely arbritrary line drawn by this society. This society as others have set the bar lower.

But one should differentiate between two sorts of underage sex. That with a sexually mature teenager like a 14 year old is very different to that with a sexually immature 8 year old.

Therein lies the problem. You view sexual intercourse as a completely benign entity. Whereas it technically has more risk and consequences than many medical procedures such as taking a bloodtest.

THere are various aspects to consent which require a level of maturity, understanding and dealing with long term consequences.
Its not simple. You don't become competent to consent at a specific age, and not all children will be at the same level of others of the same age.
Again, arbritray lines for 16 were created, with specific tests and rules applied to consent in under 16 years of age.
I can't see a 40 year old guy checking the 12 year old he is about to bang is Fraser competent.

Nobody is trying to say that homosexuality isn't a choice

Exactly this. I wasn't allowed to fill a prescription for antacids when I was aged 15, this carries much less risk than having sex.
Yes there are individual differences and 16 is arbitrary, but it is an average. It wasn't just plucked out of thin air.

I don't believe that sexuality is black and white and I don't like how you suggest that somebody who is confused about their sexuality or somebody who is bisexual should just be straight and have done with it. Why is being gay such a bad thing?

Interesting how you swing your argument when it favours you.

This thread is 30 plus pages long, you have not provided any conclusive evidence that homosexuality is not a choice, you have not provided any evidence that someone is not born a paedophile. So if you are going to make an assumption, at least state your assumptions before making them like I do - otherwise we may get get the wrong impression that you are trying to convey a disproved notion as fact.



Again let us investigate your claims. Adorable is a subjective opinion based term.

Currently it is illegal in the UK for anyone to practise incest in the UK. Most people draw to saying children produced of incestuous relationships will be disadvantaged, I do personally agree with this. However we all know one can maintain a sexual relationship without procreating, secondly incest may also refer to a homosexual incestuous couple.

So explain to me why it is illegal for two adult consenting homosexual siblings to maintain a sexual relationship and not homosexuals? After all they are both adult and consenting, so why is one wrong and one right?

Well, of course I'm going to have a subjective opinion based term, it's my point of view!

I never said it was wrong. And even though I don't agree with it, I don't write posts here saying that they're wrong and stuff. Tbh, I don't really care about what the law says, I'm all for anarchy anyway. All I would say is, if it is herosexual siblings, it is unfair on any offspring they produce, as they have a lesser chance of surviving. I don't judge an entire genre of people though, unless they're biggots, because I have no time for people who can't give all humans equal rights. I wouldn't automatically start saying how disgusting homosexual siblings are, because ther could be lovely people.

All I'm say is don't judge people withought knowing them.

I am sorry, but some members have endlessly tried to and failed to debate homosexuality not being a choice. I am happy that their claims have been founded to be untrue.

Nobody is trying to say that homosexuality isn't a choice and paedophilia is, so there is no invalid argument.

The point was not whether you or I desire according to our opinions.

My point was what the law says and why is one treated different to another (homosexual couple versus homosexual incestuous couple), one is illegal and one is legal, why?

Exactly, I acknowledged the difference between being a similar age, and a 40 year old and an 8 year old. I never said that it 'all was coercive'. The difference is that a 40 yr old is more physically and mentally developed than an 8 year old, and fully understands the consequences, whilst an 8 year old can't understand, and has not yet gone through puberty. You are quite frankly an idiot, if you cannot see the difference.

Of course someone needs a mental capacity in order to have sex, would you have sex with someone in a coma? Or someone with mental health issues, in that they wouldn't understand what was going on? No.

It was the risk that pedophiles would try and defend sexually abusing children, that led them to backtrack.

Do you know what? I can't even be bothered. I find your views astounding, that you think it is okay to have sex with a child that hasn't fully developed mental capacity in order to understand what is going on.

There may be some evidence to back up that not all sexual interactions with children are harmful, but to suggest that it does not matter if there is like a thirty year age gap between adult and child, is abhorrent.

Why is thirteen better than sixteen sorry? Do we want children in second year a t school becoming mothers, when they can't get a job, and many children of that age can barely look after themselves?

Lowering the age is irresponsible, as one of the consequences of sex can be pregnancy. Nothing is 100% effective, and to invite young children to take that risk is completely stupid.

I can see why you hold some of your views, as there has been studies to back up your claims, however you fail to see the bigger picture on the matter. Even if 'we just lowered the age of consent' as you say, there would be huge ramifications to that, as there is the potential to have lots more mothers who are barely in their teenage years, and can barely look after themselves let alone provide for a child. Also, there would be children younger than that, as people would argue 'what is the big difference between 11 and thirteen', as you have said about 16 year olds.

I have had enough of this conversation, it is tiring and we have polar opposite views on the matter, so there is really no point for it to continue. We aren't going to convince each other! Have a nice day.