Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Why is homosexuality accepted, but not peadophilia? Watch

    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    This thread needs to happen. No one chooses to have the thoughts of a paedophile. Having the thoughts of a paedophile but actively resisting them must be a horrendeous predicament. Imagine having to hide your natural feelings, knowing that if you acted on them you would become a monster. You wouldn't be able to talk about them to anyone, due to the stigma (the response to this thread is proof enough of that). That is on top of the intense self- loathing and disgust you must languish in every minute of every day. Even if you found those wiling to accept that you are fighting to control these feelings, they would be completely powerless in helping you.
    Online

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Chloro)
    I know the author is playing "devils advocate" but its completely unreasonable to compare homosexuality and peadophilia on the same level because one is viewed by the majority of the population as a legal and OK thing, whereas the latter is not accepted because it is quite a heinous crime. For example, in the Netherlands the smoking of weed is accepted because it has evidently few harmful effects, but the snorting of cocaine is not accepted because it causes serious effects to the user's health and is thus widely viewed as dangerous.

    So are you opposed to homosexuality in countries where it is still considered a "heinous crime"?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    The existence of paedophilia as a sexual paraphilia should be acknowledged, and people who cannot control this sexual attraction that they're born with should be treated equally and be respected. And they should be allowed to be open about it, as long as they're not intending to act upon that desire.
    It's better for them to have an outlet, than being completely isolated from the society. People who haven't commited any crimes shouldn't be assumed guilty just because their sexuality, a straight man isn't going to be assumed a rapist for being heterosexual, and this should apply to everyone.
    A paedophile parade? I can see that coming, and frankly, I don't see the harm of having one.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BarackObama)
    I'm quite entertained, actually. I thought I'd get a wave of thumb-downs from people a) who wouldn't even read the full post with a minutely open mind and b) don't like to participate in discussions about touchy topics.

    I'm not promoting peadophilia. Can you even read?

    I merely asked a question. Jesus.

    And no, I'm not a troll. You can just look at the other threads I've posted in to know that.

    "Troll" isn't a magic word to dismiss anyone who posts an unconventional opinion, or an opinion that you disagree with.
    you can expect mindless vote downs for any thread involving this issue.
    But your question is legit, and the similarities are striking.
    I do think there is going to be an upcoming struggle surrounding this issue, and eventually, paedophilia as a sexual attraction will have to be legitimized, there is no other choice.
    Obviously, there will still be an Age of consent in place, and the laws still applies, but the attitude toward people with this inborn attraction has got to change.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cl_steele)
    playing devils advocate here but, says who? because some arbitrary line in the sand has been drawn at the sweet old age of 16?
    yep, and I always like to point out that age is 13 in Spain, 13 in Japan, and 14 in China
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ncsoftlover)
    yep, and I always like to point out that age is 13 in Spain, 13 in Japan, and 14 in China
    Not quite true in Japan, although 13 is the minimum age for the country most regions in Japan do have their own consent limits at 16 or 18.


    Also OP certainly has little idea the importance of consent is. A better topic to discuss would be incest, which in my opinion there is nothing wrong providing both parties are able to consent.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Falcatas)
    Also OP certainly has little idea the importance of consent is. A better topic to discuss would be incest, which in my opinion there is nothing wrong providing both parties are able to consent.
    Thank you.

    Good call on the incest one, actually. I guess the only real issue is the possibility of any children (accidental or otherwise) having, well, defects.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BarackObama)
    Thank you.

    Good call on the incest one, actually. I guess the only real issue is the possibility of any children (accidental or otherwise) having, well, defects.

    Of course, but this would only apply to couples that actually can or want to have children. Plus you could have a similar argument for two non related people who have higher risk of passing genetic conditions etc.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BarackObama)
    Let me clarify: I am not homophobic to any degree (I'd be a hypocrite if I was – I like girls too, hello), but the idea popped into my mind and I know of no better people to discuss this with than, well, the kind of TSRers who lurk on the Debate & Current Affairs forum.

    So, let's just compare the two.

    Paedophilia:
    — viewed as 'unnatural' by some
    — viewed as 'gross' by some
    — is arguably just a natural preference

    Homosexuality:
    — viewed as 'unnatural' by some
    — viewed as 'gross' by some
    — is arguably just a natural preference

    So what's the difference? Do you think in 50 years' time we'll be seeing peadophilic pride matches, for instance?

    I do know and understand that a) most paedophilic relations tend to be forced (i.e. one of the people involved has given no consent or been bribed/blackmailed) and that b) legally, there is no maximum age difference requirement for brides and grooms (?), so obviously the two differ in those respects, but honestly, I haven't been able to get this out of my mind.

    Literally, the only arguments I've ever heard being used against paedophilia are "it's not right" and "it's disgusting" – so, basically, exactly the same as the arguments most commonly used against homosexuality.

    Can someone help me out here? What do you think?

    EDIT: Guys, come on. Why the thumbs-down? Is it not blatantly obvious that I'm playing devil's advocate?

    EDIT 2:
    Okay, so apparently I need to make this even clearer. ASIDE FROM THE CONSENT ISSUE, WHAT ELSE IS THERE THAT MAKES US ACCEPT ONE "NON-TRADITIONAL" SEXUAL PREFERENCE, BUT NOT THE OTHER? Apart from the "ew, it's gross" reaction?

    No, I'm not a peadophile. Calling me one won't make your arguments any more valid. I was just looking to have an interesting discussion. That's all.
    The difference is informed consent. Only adults with full working powers of reason can give informed consent. I think this settles your doubt.

    P.S. If children had the same rational powers as an adult and hence could give informed consent, it would be fine. But they don't and hence they can't.
    Informed consent is the difference between a relationship between equals and a relationship where one of the partners holds power over the other partner.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by monkyvirus)
    Homosexuality is often seen in the animal kingdom so I guess it is pretty natural. Also sperm donation and surrogacy mean gay people can have biological children (not to mention they can adopt/foster children with nowhere else to go). Yay, science!
    Since when do we learn how to live from animals? Humans are much higher up than animals and to justify something simply because an animal does it is just silly to say the least.Who wants to live like an animal, that's usually used as an insult - 'pigsty', 'cow', '*****', 'monkey' - all are often used as insults.

    As for sperm donation and surrogacy, you are taking away a child from his natural mother. Even if the mother agrees to it, as soon as it is being born, the mother and baby form an attachment breaking which would be painful for the child and mother. Why do people turn away from the natural human method of procreation?

    So I guess you won’t have a problem with it now? If everyone was gay the males could donate sperm and the females could carry the children so looks like the human race would survive even if that did happen (which is pretty unlikely as most people are born heterosexual).
    If everyone was gay, then there would be chaos in the world. How twisted would it be for fathers to give sperm to a woman then the child is left without one of the parents - only to find out when he is older that his father lives with another father and his mother with another mother. How strange and backwards. One of the true biological parents would be missing out on his child.

    Everyone is born heterosexual. Your other feeling and attractions develop later in life with the influence of those around and of society.

    Then why does anyone straight get AIDS? Why are babies born with AIDS? I mean giving birth is so very natural according to you. Maybe because it’s a disease and not some sort of punishment made for a specific group of people.
    Not 'anyone' straight gets AIDS. Those engaging in illicit and immoral sexual practices are more prone to AIDS. Babies are born due to the ill practices of their parents, multiple partners, foolish sexual escapades mean that not only the current generation suffers but so does the future generation. That's why we need to work hard to build a beautiful world for the future generation.

    Even if there were totally equal numbers of men and women not everyone would get together. You may never find someone you like, your proposed spouse could die, you may prefer living alone, you may be asexual, you may decide to take a vow of celibacy, etc. Also, you know, lesbians exist.
    Not everyone would get together but more people would. There are loads of fish in the sea as the saying goes. You'll always find someone as they are loads of people out there, your spouse may die but again - many more potential spouses. No one prefers living alone unless they are ill. The proportion of asexuals is like 1%. Celibacy is also unnatural which is way there are so many instances of immoral activity in the churches. And I mentioned lesbians, but why force people to go and be with the same sex when perfectly obvious partners for them exist in the opposite sex?

    How is it better to end up married to summon who finds you sexually unattractive? How soul destroying would that be?
    There are plenty of fish in the sea, there is always someone out there who will love you.

    Comparing homosexuality to terrorism is just ridiculous. One KILLS people the other doesn’t, can you figure out which one?
    I didn't mean to compare them. I wasn't comparing terrorists and homosexuals, I was comparing our attitudes behind them. If we, under the guise of 'human rights' give people the right to do anything they want, they we might as well give extremists the right to do whatever they want.

    You can't defend homosexuality by saying it is there human rights. That was my only point in this regard.

    I hope you can see how your argument is incredibly misguided and not based in any fact.
    My argument is firmly based on the observation of the laws of nature, the history of nations past, human nature, the religious scriptures, the news and research about family life and homosexuality.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    This has already been said before, but the 'condition' (if you want to call it that) of paedophilia arguably can't be helped, but the actions can, and the reason why it's unacceptable is because children cannot consent to a sexual relationship. They are not mature, physically, emotionally or sexually and therefore anyone trying to impose sex upon them is downright disgusting and wrong.

    Homosexuality used to be considered a mental disorder and something unnatural and disgusting. While it does deviate from the 'norm', it is acceptable because it involves two consenting adults. Homosexuality is merely attraction to the same sex. Paedophilia is attraction to children, who, as I said above, are not capable of comprehending a sexual relationship at such a young age, which is why it's unacceptable - not to mention the emotional and psychological turmoil a child who has been sexually abused may undergo.

    It must however be difficult for a paedophile to seek treatment (one who has not harmed children and just has the 'thoughts', of course). How would they go about it? If a paedophile was to go to their GP and tell them of this, I very much doubt the GP would respond warmly and would more than likely alert authorities that the patient would be a danger to society. So it's quite an interesting topic.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    It's strange you never seem to get people questioning the age restrictions on driving...
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    tif49, your argument can be reduced to this, in a nutshell:
    (Original post by tif49)
    If everyone was gay there would be chaos

    Everyone is born heterosexual.

    Not 'anyone' straight gets AIDS. Those engaging in illicit and immoral sexual practices are more prone to AIDS.

    If we, under the guise of 'human rights' give people the right to do anything they want, they we might as well give extremists the right to do whatever they want.

    You can't defend homosexuality by saying it is there human rights.

    My argument is firmly based on the observation of the laws of nature, the history of nations past, human nature, the religious scriptures, the news and research about family life and homosexuality.
    In other words: you're a homophobe. Just come out and say it: you hate me. You hate LGBT people.
    I shall, however, deconstruct your post point-by-point, if you can follow that. (Evidently you are not the brightest spark in the box.)


    (Original post by tif49)
    As for sperm donation and surrogacy, you are taking away a child from his natural mother. Even if the mother agrees to it, as soon as it is being born, the mother and baby form an attachment breaking which would be painful for the child and mother. Why do people turn away from the natural human method of procreation?
    You're not arguing against sperm donation, you're arguing against adoption. You know that straight people can adopt too, right?
    And "why do people turn away from the natural method of procreation" - maybe because they don't fancy the idea of sleeping with the opposite sex? There is nothing wrong with using "artificial" methods of procreation. In fact, I'd argue they are not artificial at all, because they are doing exactly what procreative sex (I know that's not a word) does.

    (Original post by tif49)
    If everyone was gay, then there would be chaos in the world. How twisted would it be for fathers to give sperm to a woman then the child is left without one of the parents - only to find out when he is older that his father lives with another father and his mother with another mother. How strange and backwards. One of the true biological parents would be missing out on his child.
    Why is it better for parents to be biological parents? Surely what matters is who raises the child, not who banged each other. And your vision is not chaotic at all - same-sex parenting is not "chaotic", what an absurd notion.

    (Original post by tif49)
    Everyone is born heterosexual. Your other feeling and attractions develop later in life with the influence of those around and of society.
    1) This is flat-out wrong, please go and learn some basic science.
    2) Even if you were right, so what? That doesn't make being gay a choice. Cancer patients weren't born with cancer but that doesn't mean it was their choice.

    (Original post by tif49)
    Not 'anyone' straight gets AIDS. Those engaging in illicit and immoral sexual practices are more prone to AIDS. Babies are born due to the ill practices of their parents, multiple partners, foolish sexual escapades mean that not only the current generation suffers but so does the future generation. That's why we need to work hard to build a beautiful world for the future generation.
    And not 'anyone' gay gets AIDS either. It's still a tiny percentage of gay people who have AIDS; it's just bigger than that of straight people.

    What do you mean by "illicit practices"? You are 50 years behind schedule if you think gay sex is illegal. And why is it immoral? It doesn't harm anyone.
    Also, people shouldn't be able to have multiple partners? What a joke.

    (Original post by tif49)
    If we, under the guise of 'human rights' give people the right to do anything they want, they we might as well give extremists the right to do whatever they want.
    Am I actually reading this?
    It's very simple: no one else's rights are infringed upon in gay sex. With terrorism, other people's rights are infringed upon. It is a human right to do what you like with yourself, and with other consenting people. It is not a human right to murder people. Do you see the difference there?

    (Original post by tif49)
    My argument is firmly based on the observation of the laws of nature, the history of nations past, human nature, the religious scriptures, the news and research about family life and homosexuality.
    So you've managed to fall for the trap of natural law, you believe what some old book says simply because it says it, you have managed to research homosexuality without finding anything useful out about it, and you must surely read the Daily Mail and nothing else.
    That's impressive.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Treeroy)
    tif49, your argument can be reduced to this, in a nutshell:

    In other words: you're a homophobe. Just come out and say it: you hate me. You hate LGBT people.
    I shall, however, deconstruct your post point-by-point, if you can follow that. (Evidently you are not the brightest spark in the box.)
    Firstly this is my whole argument if you haven't read it already: http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/show...=#post44030953

    Secondly, I am in no way whatsoever a homophone. I don't hate or fear homosexuals whatsoever. I have nothing against you as a person, only the very concept of homosexuality is the issue I have - not you as a person.

    You're not arguing against sperm donation, you're arguing against adoption. You know that straight people can adopt too, right?
    And "why do people turn away from the natural method of procreation" - maybe because they don't fancy the idea of sleeping with the opposite sex? There is nothing wrong with using "artificial" methods of procreation. In fact, I'd argue they are not artificial at all, because they are doing exactly what procreative sex (I know that's not a word) does.
    Adoption is fine, but as I explained in my original argument (see the link above), a child needs both parents male and female to have the best upbringing. There may not be any harm in using artificial means, if and when natural means fails. Otherwise it is unnecessary. Why would you use artificial means when you can adopt natural means?

    Why is it better for parents to be biological parents? Surely what matters is who raises the child, not who banged each other. And your vision is not chaotic at all - same-sex parenting is not "chaotic", what an absurd notion.
    A child and his biological parents have a connection which is of love and it begins while the foetus is developing in the womb. It matters who raises the child and who brings it in the world. Ideally those who bring it in the world have a duty and should also bring it up.
    Same sex parenting is chaotic as a child will always miss out on one of his real parents. Its often the case that adopted children go out and look for their biological parents when they grow up.

    1) This is flat-out wrong, please go and learn some basic science.
    2) Even if you were right, so what? That doesn't make being gay a choice. Cancer patients weren't born with cancer but that doesn't mean it was their choice.
    Everyone is born heterosexual. Your other feelings develop later in life. I was making the argument that just as paedophilia, pornography and sadomasochism is something that develops later, so does homosexuality which is why such feelings should be repressed and condemned so they are weaned out of society.

    Cancer is a disease. If you want to put homosexuality in the same 'disease' bracket then go ahead but I'm not going to do that. I never said being gay is a choice as such, rather it is a very strong desire and attraction to the same-sex. Humans have many strong desires, feelings and impulses many of which should not be pursued or allowed to develop. That's why you should suppress anger, lust, jealousy etc. If allowed to develop and get stronger such feelings can destroy a person and tarnish his natural faculties.

    And not 'anyone' gay gets AIDS either. It's still a tiny percentage of gay people who have AIDS; it's just bigger than that of straight people.
    The fact is though, that the number of homosexuals getting AIDS is rising fast suggesting that by going against the law of nature, nature will eventually punish you.

    What do you mean by "illicit practices"? You are 50 years behind schedule if you think gay sex is illegal. And why is it immoral? It doesn't harm anyone.
    Also, people shouldn't be able to have multiple partners? What a joke.
    Gay sex is something which harms a person morally, physically and spiritually. Once you think you can do it with the same-sex, next you'll go and think you can do it with children, indulge in cruel and twisted sexual practices and become addicted to pornography. All of these things are immoral.

    Multiple partners is another reason AIDS spreads as does teenage pregnancies, abandoned children, single mothers, disjointed households among many others not to mention children being born as *******s to put it bluntly. But it seems today it's all right for children who are born without a father. A taboo and insulting word has now become the norm. Are you proud of kids being born as *******s? Sorry to be so blunt but I feel I have to be so, to explain to you all.

    Am I actually reading this?
    It's very simple: no one else's rights are infringed upon in gay sex. With terrorism, other people's rights are infringed upon. It is a human right to do what you like with yourself, and with other consenting people. It is not a human right to murder people. Do you see the difference there?
    I'm not comparing terrorism to homosexuality. I was simply making the point that people do not have the right to do what they want with themselves. We don't (and rightly so) allow people to commit suicide, suicide bombers or not, harm themselves, drink while under-age etc.

    When you are openly being gay and having gay sex, you are infringing on the rights of the opposite sex by taking away their right to a partner of the opposite sex, you are depriving the world of children who may go on to cure cancer, abolish poverty, bring peace and justice. You are harming yourself and you gay partner in ways you probably don't even know and going against the very laws of nature.


    So you've managed to fall for the trap of natural law, you believe what some old book says simply because it says it, you have managed to research homosexuality without finding anything useful out about it, and you must surely read the Daily Mail and nothing else.
    That's impressive.
    Thank You. Natural law is obvious. The old book is relevant today as much if not more than before and teaches us the true way to live and achieve true greatness - not fall in to the trap of giving in to our low and vain passions and desires.
    Researching homosexuality is as easy as observing the law of nature, using our own mind and logic and seeing the effects it has on people and society.

    And I don't really like the Daily Mail much.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tif49)
    Firstly this is my whole argument if you haven't read it already: http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/show...=#post44030953

    Secondly, I am in no way whatsoever a homophone. I don't hate or fear homosexuals whatsoever. I have nothing against you as a person, only the very concept of homosexuality is the issue I have - not you as a person.
    Yeah, I'm going to jump in here too.


    Adoption is fine, but as I explained in my original argument (see the link above), a child needs both parents male and female to have the best upbringing. There may not be any harm in using artificial means, if and when natural means fails. Otherwise it is unnecessary. Why would you use artificial means when you can adopt natural means?
    Seeing as all couples, straight or gay can use artificial methods of insimination it has no place in a argument like this? Also, for most of my life I have only had one parent, and I turned out just fine. In fact, I think it probably worked out for the best.


    A child and his biological parents have a connection which is of love and it begins while the foetus is developing in the womb. It matters who raises the child and who brings it in the world. Ideally those who bring it in the world have a duty and should also bring it up.
    Same sex parenting is chaotic as a child will always miss out on one of his real parents. Its often the case that adopted children go out and look for their biological parents when they grow up.
    This is where you are wrong. If you meet your biological parents, you feel a mixture of emotions. Love is not one of them. At least not at first. This is quite well documented. Yes, people want to find out who their parents are, but this is more to find out where they came from, and why they were given up. Again, this is the case with both Same sex and opposite sex couples. It is also worth noting that even if you think same sex adoption is not the best environment, it is unarguably better than an orphanage. There are many children who will never get adopted. Adding gay couples to the adoption list means that more children will be. That can't be a bad thing. Besides studies have shown that children with same sex parents differ in no way from those in opposite sex adoptive families. They have the same average intelligence, are bullied no more at school and are just as happy.

    Everyone is born heterosexual. Your other feelings develop later in life. I was making the argument that just as paedophilia, pornography and sadomasochism is something that develops later, so does homosexuality which is why such feelings should be repressed and condemned so they are weaned out of society.
    Humans have many strong desires, feelings and impulses many of which should not be pursued or allowed to develop. That's why you should suppress anger, lust, jealousy etc. If allowed to develop and get stronger such feelings can destroy a person and tarnish his natural faculties.
    Any Psychologist or counsellor worth their salt will tell you that bottling feelings up is an incredibly bad idea. The pressure cooker effect leads to it all escaping at once in a violent outburst, or creates an extremely unstable individual.

    The fact is though, that the number of homosexuals getting AIDS is rising fast suggesting that by going against the law of nature, nature will eventually punish you.
    Well, the number of straight people getting AIDS is also rising, in ever faster numbers. What you also need to factor in is that Sex Education is basicly never taught with respect to gay sex which will inevitably have an impact on the prevalence of STI's.

    [/quote]
    Gay sex is something which harms a person morally, physically and spiritually. Once you think you can do it with the same-sex, next you'll go and think you can do it with children, indulge in cruel and twisted sexual practices and become addicted to pornography. All of these things are immoral.
    Okay, if you're going to link gay sex with paedophilia, then I'm going to link gay sex with straight sex. After all, if you have sex with someone of the opposite sex, what's to stop you doing it with someone of the same sex? Gays are not attracted to kids, so just stop it.
    Multiple partners is another reason AIDS spreads as does teenage pregnancies, abandoned children, single mothers, disjointed households among many others not to mention children being born as *******s to put it bluntly. But it seems today it's all right for children who are born without a father. A taboo and insulting word has now become the norm. Are you proud of kids being born as *******s? Sorry to be so blunt but I feel I have to be so, to explain to you all.
    Again, I'm not sure what this has to do with being gay? If anything it's an argument in the pro column. Afterall, a gay guy isn't exactly likely to get a woman pregnant.


    I'm not comparing terrorism to homosexuality. I was simply making the point that people do not have the right to do what they want with themselves. We don't (and rightly so) allow people to commit suicide, suicide bombers or not, harm themselves, drink while under-age etc.
    The reason we don't allow suicide is because it causes family and friends a lot of stress and grief, and costs the taxpayer to clean up and deal with any messy suicides. Suicide bombers kill others and destroy buildings. Again, mass grief and expense. Drinking while underage is because the body of a child is unable to cope with the effects of alcohol, with a much higher chance of causing liver damage, or death. Homosexuality really shouldn't harm anyone other than those in the relationship.
    When you are openly being gay and having gay sex, you are infringing on the rights of the opposite sex by taking away their right to a partner of the opposite sex, you are depriving the world of children who may go on to cure cancer, abolish poverty, bring peace and justice. You are harming yourself and you gay partner in ways you probably don't even know and going against the very laws of nature.
    How on earth are we depriving people of their right to a partner of the opposite sex? Gay guys don't force straight guys into relationships with themselves. Likewise gay guys do not want to form a relationship with a woman (and indeed are often incapable of doing so), so we're not depriving women of men.

    As for depriving the world of kids, that is also a little on the ridiculous side. You are far more likely to father a mass-murder, a rapist or even neo-hitler than you are to father someone who will cure cancer. Think about it. How many murderers have their been? Uncountable. How many people have cured cancer? None. Cancer is something that has always plagued humanity and research into it has always gone on throughout human history.



    Thank You. Natural law is obvious. The old book is relevant today as much if not more than before and teaches us the true way to live and achieve true greatness - not fall in to the trap of giving in to our low and vain passions and desires.
    Researching homosexuality is as easy as observing the law of nature, using our own mind and logic and seeing the effects it has on people and society.

    And I don't really like the Daily Mail much.
    I'm not getting into a religious debate with you, because I think faith is a great thing. I just think you shouldn't force it down other peoples throats or use it as a reason you think someone's actions are wrong. Why don't really live in a christian state anymore. I have religious freedom to completely ignore the advice of all religious texts.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    I've also had this thought before but the reason is because peadophilia involves children and they are emotionally different (weak almost) and can be taken advantage of much more easily even if they don't actually recognise this fact themselves.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tif49)
    Firstly this is my whole argument if you haven't read it already: http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/show...=#post44030953

    Secondly, I am in no way whatsoever a homophone. I don't hate or fear homosexuals whatsoever. I have nothing against you as a person, only the very concept of homosexuality is the issue I have - not you as a person.
    Well then, if it makes you feel better I'll respond to that travesty instead of this one.

    (Original post by tif49)
    At the end of the day, here are a lot of sick and twisted people out there and likewise there are many different illicit, vile and harmful sexual practices out there. Paedophilia is one, pornography is another as is sadomasochism. These are all extremely harmful, twisted and illicit means of gratifying one's self.
    Opening assertions here: paedophilia, pornography and sadomasochism are "harmful, twisted and illicit". Let's deal with these in reverse order.

    Sadomasochism can probably be said to be illicit, since most S&M practices are of dubious legality in England. Practised responsibly it's harmless, and twistedness is in the eye of the beholder.

    Pornography is certainly not illicit, what with being entirely legal and widely consumed. Consumed in moderation it is, again, harmless. Yes there are issues to do with pornography providing an unrealistic portrayal of sex, with addiction, and with the seamier corners of the pornography industry - but none of these are pornography specific issues. And again, twisted is in the eye of the beholder.

    Paedophilia is very much illicit; it is taboo, it's practice forbidden. With good reason, because paedophilia is by it's nature harmful to unconsenting others. While I'm sure you wouldn't find much opposition to labelling it twisted, that remains a subjective judgement.

    (Original post by tif49)
    One may argue that if a person has these natural feelings and attractions, he can act upon them to fulfil his 'natural' desires. This is absolutely wrong. We humans have the intelligence and ability to control ourselves and regulate our passions, desires and emotions. This separates us from animals who blindly give in to their natural inclinations and don't have the ability or intelligence to regulate and control and develop their attributes as well as humans do.

    Humans have many different feelings and passions and if we were to give in and follow blindly each one, we would live an animalistic existence and eventually die out.
    We have the intelligence and ability to do (or refrain from doing) all sorts of things, but do we have a reason?

    (Original post by tif49)
    So the very purpose of human life is to develop ourselves and regulate our behaviour by not giving in to our low desires and rising above all those base desires,...
    Naked assertion.

    (Original post by tif49)
    ...humans have the power to do that which is why all these vile sexual methods of gratification should be very strongly condemned and spoken against otherwise once a person has even a small sexual feeling he will think that it is all right to watch porn, to engage in sadomasochism and look at naked children with ill intent because society gives him the license to do so.
    It does not follow, even if we accept your assertion about the purpose of human life, that we should therefore refrain from "vile sexual methods of gratification". It would follow that we ought to choose which urges we act upon, and when, and how, and with whom; but that is normal practice. What those choices should be is not yet clear.

    (Original post by tif49)
    Now coming on to homosexuality. It is just another branch of these illicit means of sexual gratification. Where to you draw the line?
    The consensus is that the line is harming others, or involving them without their consent.

    (Original post by tif49)
    After this maybe people will start thinking paedophilia is OK.
    Ah, the slippery slope. It's a fallacy.

    Having made the argument that one thing is okay, it does not follow automatically that another thing is okay. Not unless those things are identical. If you wish to legalise paedophilia, or incest, or anything else then make the argument for it.

    (Original post by tif49)
    It's an obvious and undeniable fact that homosexuality is unnatural. It's blatantly obvious.
    So obvious you neglected to give reasoning for it. In fact it's not obvious at all, it's another naked assertion.

    Homosexuality, as a behaviour pattern, occurs in practically every species we've ever cared to look at. In many examples it's transitory, and bisexuality would be a better term. This lends some credence to Kinsey's theory of innate bisexuality.

    Being gay, as an identity, is obviously a human thing. Identities are constructed. It's no less natural than gender.

    (Original post by tif49)
    A man should remember that it is because of the union of a man and woman that he exists. If his parents were homosexuals, then he wouldn't even exist today.
    Except that's not entirely true either. Parent is primarily a social role, and same-sex couples do parent children. Yes, biologically speaking, the fusion of two sexes is required for procreation, but that says nothing about the sexuality of someone's parents.

    (Original post by tif49)
    The very basic purpose of a relationship between a man and woman is so that they may find comfort in one another and may thereby create offspring who will carry on their works and their name after they have gone.
    I take it you don't see the irony in this statement at all. I'll spell it out for you.

    A gay person cannot find comfort in a person of the opposite sex, at least not in the sense meant here. They may not be able to create offspring, at least not without third-party assistance, but they can certainly raise them and be a family, and in so doing have someone to carry on their works and their name after they have gone.

    Although that last phrase is somewhat telling in it's very old fashioned view of family.

    (Original post by tif49)
    If people start thinking and believing that homosexuality is the norm and acceptable, then every 15 year old going through puberty, who has the slightest feeling of attraction and interest in men will feel as though it is all right to carry that onwards and explore that interest leaving aside women all together.
    Yes, that's a major reason why the LGBT rights movement continues. You have just described a desirable state of affairs.

    (Original post by tif49)
    Are people blind that they can't see the fact that women were made for men as partners.
    I don't believe anybody was made for anybody else.

    (Original post by tif49)
    Yes, no one denies the inherent human need for a mate, yet when one is clearly there in front of you, why look the other way and go after people of the same sex?
    Gay people have relationships with people of the same-sex because I am attracted to people of the same-sex, and not to people of the opposite sex. Bi people are attracted to both sexes. You fail to understand this very simple premise.

    (Original post by tif49)
    Opposites attract and true comfort and fulfilment in a partner can and will only be found in the way nature intended it - between a man and a woman.
    Yet another naked assertion. Your basis for this line of thinking is what? Your utter lack of emapthy?

    (Original post by tif49)
    If you're still not convinced reading this, then what say you about the rising trend in HIV/AIDS in gay men more than any other group?

    November 2012: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-20526380
    February 2013: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-21277450
    HIV is rising amongst many groups.

    (Original post by tif49)
    When you go against nature, nature is bound to punish you and severely.
    And how are people in sub-saharan Africa going against nature? Nature has no intent, it just is.

    (Original post by tif49)
    Imagine if you continue this façade of 'protecting' human rights by giving gay people the right to hinder the procreation process, cease the continuation of progeny and deny any adopted child of the motherly comfort of a woman or the fatherly support of a man.
    Hinder the procreation process? How? Cease the continuation of progeny by raising children?

    (Original post by tif49)
    Yes, a man and a woman are best for bringing up a child well. A mother provides the love, tenderness and motherly instinct to care for the child while the father gives that sturdy moral support, discipline and direction with which a child, girl or boy may fully develop in to a sound minded and upright individual.
    Well, all this is demonstrably false.

    http://www.cpa.ca/cpasite/userfiles/...2006%20(1).pdf
    http://www.psychology.org.au/Assets/...Lit-Review.pdf
    http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastor...7/amicus29.pdf
    http://dx.doi.org/10.1542%2Fpeds.2006-1279
    http://dx.doi.org/10.1037%2F0003-066X.61.6.607
    http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/c...TRY=1&SRETRY=0
    http://www.cpa.ca/cpasite/userfiles/...cacy/brief.pdf

    (Original post by tif49)
    Imagine where the world would end up, the history of nations past bears testimony to the fact that when in any nation, homosexuality became widespread, the wrath of God descended down and destroyed everything in its wake.
    Where in history was that?

    (Original post by tif49)
    The Qur'an as well as the Bible teach this so it is surprising and shocking to hear those prominent Christians including the Pope & Desmond Tutu turning a blind eye to that same book and those same principles for which they supposedly stand for.
    Not everybody follows an abrahamic religion, and not everybody who follows such a religion is as unenlightened as the stone age tribes from whence it descends.

    (Original post by tif49)
    Coming back to the point about human rights. Where is the human rights in depriving the female population of the right of a male spouse? There are more women than men in the world, if more men turn to other men then where are these poor women left to turn to? Or should they also turn to their own sex and leave off men?
    Now, this is why you didn't get many responses to this post originally. We assumed it was a parody.

    It is not a human right to be provided with a spouse.

    (Original post by tif49)
    Where are the human rights in denying a child the benefits of a mother and father upbringing?
    The benefits that have been shown not to exist, you mean?

    (Original post by tif49)
    Where are the human rights in cutting off any future progeny and denying the world children who may end up curing cancer, abolishing poverty, bringing world peace, justice and harmony?
    Hypothetical people do not have rights.

    (Original post by tif49)
    True human rights would be in safeguarding the society and those with homosexual tendencies from the harm caused by going against the very law of nature. True human rights is in protecting people from something harmful even if they insist in doing something that may give some temporary pleasure. A child may want to play with a knife and cry and scream for it, but would a wise mother or father give in to such a child's demands? Most certainly not.
    And why should a child not play with a knife? Because they harm themselves. Homosexuality is not harmful, it's sole disadvantage is that you become the target of people like your good self.

    (Original post by tif49)
    So while it seems giving homosexuals the right to marriage and justifying their relationships is giving them their due human rights, where is the sense in giving a small percentage of people human rights which would then in turn take away the human rights of humanity and the future?
    Precisely what rights are taken from others? List them.

    (Original post by tif49)
    True human rights is protecting people from something that is harmful even if they insist in engaging in it.
    No, that's paternalism.

    (Original post by tif49)
    See, the British government did a great job in the 1930s in crushing extremism and not letting it take root. Thousands supported extremist ideologies yet the government didn't let it take root. Now thousands support homosexuality under the guise of 'human rights'. Well give extremists the 'human rights' and 'freedom of speech' to express their filth, hate and evil. If we're going to to give everyone the 'freedom of speech' and 'human rights' to do and say whatever they like and please then let the child in the school swear, let anti-Semitics deny the holocaust and let the raving mad terrorist express their anger and inner discontent. Where do we stop?

    Yet children aren't aloud to swear in schools because we have laws, rules and principles. We don't let extremists have their way because we have justice, rights and values which protect each individual from harming himself and others. We don't tolerate anti-Semitism because we are a open-minded, fair and egalitarian nation.
    Socially, anti-semitism is frowned upon. Incitement to violence and certain kinds of hate speech excepted, we do let people express their anger and discontent.*

    (Original post by tif49)
    We should help the oppressed and the oppressor. Both are being harmed, one has inherent malcontent and distress and thus is oppressed by his own mind. The other is harmed due to that one's malcontent and evil. A school bully only bullies other innocent children due to his own problems and issues and finds a way to express them through mocking and hurting others. So you help the bully, the problem goes away. But if the bully can't be helped then you help the victim and protect him from the machinations of the bully. We don't say that because the bully or the terrorist has human rights, he can do what he wants.
    This seems somewhat self-sabotaging, coming from you. You're determined to be the oppressor. Everything you've written screams "conform or suffer".

    (Original post by tif49)
    Human rights and the freedom to do what you want stops at the point when you hurt, offend or harm others including yourself. So when we see that homosexuality and the freedom and openness that we give to it ends up harming the individual, the partner, potential legitimate partners, children, society and the future, nation and world at large eventually, then we have to drawn a line and say enough is enough.
    Except that we don't see this. You've neglected to show any harm in homosexuality.

    (Original post by tif49)
    A person goes through many emotions, passions and desire in his lifetime. At one stage he may think about others of the same sex. If that thought is allowed to linger and given legitimacy and freedom to develop then it transforms that person into a homosexual incapable of easily giving up such feelings.
    I've been attracted to the same sex for as long as I can remember, at least since I was six. All you're doing here is betraying a basic ignorance of human psychology. Sexuality develops in the very early years of life; we knew this nearly 200 years ago.

    (Original post by tif49)
    Likewise if we give a small extremist thought or any minor ill feeling or base passion to develop and give it legitimacy in society then once it take root, cutting it off remains a struggle.
    Sexual orientation is not analogous to political inclination.

    (Original post by tif49)
    This is why we must regulate our desires, thoughts, passions and feelings. We should cut out any negative, ill or bad thoughts or feelings before they take root otherwise if we allow them to develop then our very character is put into jeopardy.

    Man has the power and ability to change himself. We are in control of our own selves if we want to be. We don't have to give in to our base desires and passions. We have the power to develop noble and high qualities within ourselves. You are the captain of your ship.

    “Watch your thoughts for they become words.
    Watch your words for they become actions.
    Watch your actions for they become habits.
    Watch your habits for they become your character.
    And watch your character for it becomes your destiny.
    What we think and feel, we become.
    So, what have we learned from this? Well mostly that eloquent ignorant bull**** is still ignorant bull****.

    We have established that you are, indeed, not a homophone: you are not a word which sounds like another word.

    I am however inclined to label you a homophobe, because you display an irrational aversion to gay people. Who and what people are cannot always be separated from one another. It is nonsense to say "only the very concept of homosexuality is the issue I have - not you as a person", especially while simultaneously expounding on why gay people have no right to exist.
    • TSR Support Team
    • Very Important Poster
    • Clearing and Applications Advisor
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tif49)
    A person goes through many emotions, passions and desire in his lifetime. At one stage he may think about others of the same sex. If that thought is allowed to linger and given legitimacy and freedom to develop then it transforms that person into a homosexual incapable of easily giving up such feelings
    You seem to be under the impression that gay people are attracted to the opposite sex first, and then 'develop' homosexuality. This is incredibly inaccurate.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by booooomblastruin)
    This thread needs to happen. No one chooses to have the thoughts of a paedophile. Having the thoughts of a paedophile but actively resisting them must be a horrendeous predicament. Imagine having to hide your natural feelings, knowing that if you acted on them you would become a monster. You wouldn't be able to talk about them to anyone, due to the stigma (the response to this thread is proof enough of that). That is on top of the intense self- loathing and disgust you must languish in every minute of every day. Even if you found those wiling to accept that you are fighting to control these feelings, they would be completely powerless in helping you.
    It's interesting to see so many members of the LGBT community attempt to refute paedophilia in spite of the overwhelming evidence that both are attractions which cannot be helped outside the conventional norm of heterosexuality. I wonder if they realise that in condemning paedophilia they are only doing what homophobes do to them......
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kiss)
    It's interesting to see so many members of the LGBT community attempt to refute paedophilia in spite of the overwhelming evidence that both are attractions which cannot be helped outside the conventional norm of heterosexuality. I wonder if they realise that in condemning paedophilia they are only doing what homophobes do to them......
    I accept paedophilia is something that is out of their control. But given how harmful it can be to he development of a child, I understand why it is illegal. As I have said before, animated child pornography should be legal. The real stuff? No. Those children in those videos are being abused. They have no way to realise the significance of what they are doing until they are much older and are left with the emotional scars. Legalising that would mean it would be made. Animated stuff harms no-one.

    Homosexuality is different. Both parties are able to make the decison, as mature adults.

    I sympathise with paedophiles, I really do. I just think it can never work. I know we were once viewed as one and the same. I mean, just look at this video! But the difference is we hook-up with others like ourselves. We harm no-one.
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Did TEF Bronze Award affect your UCAS choices?
    Useful resources
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.