Homosexuality

[thegreatkazoo]

So, as promised, I pored over the threads and made comparisons as necessary. Dre, if you think I'm out to witch hunt, I'm not. So, here's hoping this can be a learning experience for all involved in the debate.

So as not to lose a lot of typing, this will be filled in over the course of several hours. I wouldn't want my laptop to crash and lose all the work.

I don't believe humans evolved from apes.

Here is a paragraph from a recent essay I did, it basically argues that humans are superior to animals. It also shows why humans can do 'wrongs' or unnatural things, whereas animals can't (unless manipulated by humans).

Metaphysical jib jab

Wrong!

I'm bad @ putting all this into words, but AronRa (on Youtube) did a pretty extensive video on this showing how humans are apes. Check it out here.

The transcript is here.

SuperBowser it has been.

Catholic organisations have converted people into heterosexual Catholics.

Even if it couldn't be corrected, that doesn't weaken the argument, because it's still hugely evident that whilst homosexuality isn't consciously chosen, it's still psychologically influenced.

And even if it weren't psychological, that doesn't mean it isn't a defection, because things like down syndrome are still defections and that's a a chromosonal corruption.

Shpw us the peer-reviewed work that people can be turned straight. Proof or it didn't happen.

I've included a post from Shade613. I'd like someone to say there are no parallels between the two.

If its not a choice than it seems like a mental problem because homosexuality is useless to humanity as a species.

This is further paralleled on your other two posts here and here.

That's all I got from this thread alone. I know there's more on the Center Stage thread, but I don't another six hours.

So, feel free to give you thoughts all!

EDIT: Found this to be similar to some early arguments that Dre posted.

 

[Sucumbio]

I find Shade613's attitude to be typically ignorant and fairly immature in general. As such it's easily dismissed, and argued against. Dre.'s... heh well he compares homosexuality to down's syndrome -_- calling them both "defects." While the latter is certainly classified as a chromosomal defect, homosexuality is definitely not classified as such, nor is it classified as any other kind of systemic or biological imperfection or issue.

Both people fail to see the real picture in the argument. Instead of focusing on the sexual act of same-sex sex, they should be taking a macrovisional approach, so as to understand the differences between animal sex acts in a same-sex nature, and Humans who are homosexual. This difference cannot be examined, however, so long as the act is at the forefront of deliberation. Ultimately there will be no convincing such individuals that homosexual people are "normal" because the idea of it is sickening on some level; or foreign, alien, just so not-like-themselves that it -has- to be wrong. No amount of logical approach will change their mind, especially considering the deep amounts of effort they've gone to themselves to prove their own side of the case. In Dre.'s case we have homosexuality being a corruption of natural law (as if there was such a thing). The idea on the surface seems convincing but when you look at it closely it's really a smoke screen for bigotry, and has been used by others in the past to bash gays.

 

[Dre89]

Show us the peer-reviewed work that people can be turned straight. Proof or it didn't happen.

You seemed to have left out the part where I said that married men have also turned gay in middle age. The point of that argument was to show that people change sexuality at different ages, when they already have a developed sexually, for various subconscious reasons. Surely I don't need to show you evidence that people change sexuality at different ages.

I've included a post from Shade613. I'd like someone to say there are no parallels between the two.

This is further paralleled on your other two posts here and here.

That's all I got from this thread alone. I know there's more on the Center Stage thread, but I don't another six hours.

So, feel free to give you thoughts all!

EDIT: Found this to be similar to some early arguments that Dre posted.

But you’re making out as if I only had three posts, where I said homosexuality is wrong because it is unnatural and then made no justification for it at all, which is wrong.

I find Shade613's attitude to be typically ignorant and fairly immature in general. As such it's easily dismissed, and argued against. Dre.'s... heh well he compares homosexuality to down's syndrome -_- calling them both "defects." While the latter is certainly classified as a chromosomal defect, homosexuality is definitely not classified as such, nor is it classified as any other kind of systemic or biological imperfection or issue.

Both people fail to see the real picture in the argument. Instead of focusing on the sexual act of same-sex sex, they should be taking a macrovisional approach, so as to understand the differences between animal sex acts in a same-sex nature, and Humans who are homosexual. This difference cannot be examined, however, so long as the act is at the forefront of deliberation. Ultimately there will be no convincing such individuals that homosexual people are "normal" because the idea of it is sickening on some level; or foreign, alien, just so not-like-themselves that it -has- to be wrong. No amount of logical approach will change their mind, especially considering the deep amounts of effort they've gone to themselves to prove their own side of the case. In Dre.'s case we have homosexuality being a corruption of natural law (as if there was such a thing). The idea on the surface seems convincing but when you look at it closely it's really a smoke screen for bigotry, and has been used by others in the past to bash gays.

I expected this sooner or later, where someone would start making assumptions about me with no grounding at all. Here’s a few facts for you-

1. I had no problem with homosexuality until I was about 18 and thought about it for myself rather than just blindly follow what the culture tells me, so it had nothing to do with the way I was brought up.

2. I’ve had gay friends before, so no they don’t disgust me, I have nothing against them personally.

3. When evidence was presented of animal homosexuality I said I would reconsider my position, so yes I am open to being wrong.

Why is it that seculars must always attack the person rather than the argument? It’s like you guys just can’t accept that someone has a sensible reason for holding a view that conflicts with your own, so you have to make assumptions about that person’s disposition and neurological function. Even an atheist himself said he was ashamed to be apart of the community where people always attribute offensive traits to theists simply because they hold a different position.

I never make assumptions like this about you guys, why can’t I put my arguments across without being labeled something negative just because my opinion differs from the culture’s? Honestly for a debate hall it’s pathetic.

 

[blazedaces]

I expected this sooner or later, where someone would start making assumptions about me with no grounding at all. Here’s a few facts for you-

1. I had no problem with homosexuality until I was about 18 and thought about it for myself rather than just blindly follow what the culture tells me, so it had nothing to do with the way I was brought up.

2. I’ve had gay friends before, so no they don’t disgust me, I have nothing against them personally.

3. When evidence was presented of animal homosexuality I said I would reconsider my position, so yes I am open to being wrong.

Why is it that seculars must always attack the person rather than the argument? It’s like you guys just can’t accept that someone has a sensible reason for holding a view that conflicts with your own, so you have to make assumptions about that person’s disposition and neurological function. Even an atheist himself said he was ashamed to be apart of the community where people always attribute offensive traits to theists simply because they hold a different position.

I never make assumptions like this about you guys, why can’t I put my arguments across without being labeled something negative just because my opinion differs from the culture’s? Honestly for a debate hall it’s pathetic.

Dre, while I agree with you that these things are wrong, I feel you are hypocritical at times. You often dismiss people who disagree or don't understand your position as automatically wrong/unfamiliar with the topic.

You are also being defensive, assuming that this is something that only occurs by seculars against non-seculars. But the same assumptions, name calling, and immaturity is seen going both ways. I've experienced it personally.

And honestly mate, Christianity? Has there been a religion with more power in this world before? It's like you're yelling at a black man that they always have something against white people...

-blazed

 

[thegreatkazoo]

You seemed to have left out the part where I said that married men have also turned gay in middle age. The point of that argument was to show that people change sexuality at different ages, when they already have a developed sexually, for various subconscious reasons. Surely I don't need to show you evidence that people change sexuality at different ages.

No, you're right about that. However, I just didn't buy the part where you say the Catholic Church has, time and again, "switched over" gay men, like it was a choice or something.

But you’re making out as if I only had three posts, where I said homosexuality is wrong because it is unnatural and then made no justification for it at all, which is wrong.

No, but it does mirror the similarities between you and the other poster. I'm showing this so that you can avoid, instead of flowering up the diction and making it sound better.

 

[rvkevin]

However, I just didn't buy the part where you say the Catholic Church has, time and again, "switched over" gay men, like it was a choice or something.

Those programs have a different definition of gay. They treat it like a lifestyle choice, so if they stop having homosexual partners and have a heterosexual partner, that counts as "switching over" even if they still have homosexual inclinations and their orientation remains the same.

 

[SuperBowser]

You seemed to have left out the part where I said that married men have also turned gay in middle age. The point of that argument was to show that people change sexuality at different ages, when they already have a developed sexually, for various subconscious reasons. Surely I don't need to show you evidence that people change sexuality at different ages.

You kind of do. Reading a christian magazine doesn't count.

These ''companies'' that convert people are just despicable liars. The success stories they use are all failures. When these gay men inevitably realise the therapy made no difference and try to speak about it or say they are not comfortable with their face being used as an advertisement for the company, serious legal action is taken against them. These men are bullied into fear and silence.

As I said earlier, don't make stupid claims unless you will back them up. There's a rather large community of gay people on smashboards. Go ask them what they think. I bet they'll all laugh at your assertions - these married men were always gay.

 

[Dre89]

You kind of do. Reading a christian magazine doesn't count.

These ''companies'' that convert people are just despicable liars. The success stories they use are all failures. When these gay men inevitably realise the therapy made no difference and try to speak about it or say they are not comfortable with their face being used as an advertisement for the company, serious legal action is taken against them. These men are bullied into fear and silence.

As I said earlier, don't make stupid claims unless you will back them up. There's a rather large community of gay people on smashboards. Go ask them what they think. I bet they'll all laugh at your assertions - these married men were always gay.

You do realise that even if I was wrong, it would have no effect on my argument at all right?

The only way you could consider my argument to be flawed is if you deny that married men run off with male partners in middle age. You would also have to deny that people formulate their (homo)sexuality at various ages, and that sexuality never changes, which it clearly does.

I wasn't trying to prove that homosexuality can be 'cured', I was just trying to show that sexuality is not permanent, and the coversion things is just one example amongst many, so refuting that makes no difference really.

Dre, while I agree with you that these things are wrong, I feel you are hypocritical at times. You often dismiss people who disagree or don't understand your position as automatically wrong/unfamiliar with the topic.

You are also being defensive, assuming that this is something that only occurs by seculars against non-seculars. But the same assumptions, name calling, and immaturity is seen going both ways. I've experienced it personally.

And honestly mate, Christianity? Has there been a religion with more power in this world before? It's like you're yelling at a black man that they always have something against white people...

-blazed

Blazed you're continuously saying that I consider any argument that opposes mine to be a result of under-education, and that I never credit any opposing argument. You just have to ask people like Naci and Rvkevin and they'll tell you that I've complimented their arguments before, despite the fact they oppose mine.

In the DH Social Thread, I also said that Alt is probably a better debater than me. Awhile ago in a debate with Eor, I admitted that from a neutral standpoint I was defeated, and even in this thread I've contemplated reconsidering my position as a result of evidence placed in front of me.

So I find it misleading to label me as a person who deals with the opposition by considering them under-educated to be in a debate with me. I've only said it to select people like BPC (sorry to pick on you) because he clearly hadn't studied the issue at an advanced (and therefore debate hall) level. One of the implications of this was that he began to mix Protestantism with Catholicism. To his credit, he admitted his mistake and that he was under-educated on the issue, his position probably hasn't changed but I give credit to him for his maturity.

I also find it strange that despite all this, you pick on me, when there were plenty of people telling me that I couldn't argue against atheism, a philosophical issue, because I lacked sufficient scientific knowledge, when no scientific knowledge was required for what I was debating.

 

[rvkevin]

The only way you could consider my argument to be flawed is if you deny that married men run off with male partners in middle age. You would also have to deny that people formulate their (homo)sexuality at various ages, and that sexuality never changes, which it clearly does.

There is such a thing as being bi-sexual. Just because they were married does not mean that they never were attracted to members of the same gender. Nor does it mean that their orientation has changed. This doesn't even consider the possibility that they got married for the sake of appearing "normal" to their parents or society and have always been homosexual. I think a more specific example would be needed, perhaps where the individual explicitly states that their orientation has changed, in order to demonstrate your claim that orientation can switch mid-life.

 

[SuperBowser]

The only way you could consider my argument to be flawed is if you deny that married men run off with male partners in middle age. You would also have to deny that people formulate their (homo)sexuality at various ages, and that sexuality never changes, which it clearly does.

I don't know how to respond. These married men were always gay. Or bisexual. Nothing changed. I don't see the point in continuing this though.

Honestly, Dre., I haven't made a personal attack on you once. But are you surprised at the reaction you received? One of your first arguments in this topic uttered homosexuality and paedophilia in the same sentence. There are much better ways to get your point across.

 

[Dre89]

No, I didn't put homosexuality and ****** children in the same sentence, that was just another straw-man you guys did on me.

I put sexual attraction to men and sexual attraction to children in the same sentence because they both corrupt the natural act.

I obviously think ****** a child is alot worse than having sex with another man.

I don't see any difference in looking at a man lustfully and looking at a child lustfully. If someone is attracted to children, but does not act upon it and does not **** them, I don't really see the difference. They both have sexual attractions that don't contribute to the natural act, yet one is tolerated and the other is despised, even if the person does not violate children.

 

[SuperBowser]

I put sexual attraction to men and sexual attraction to children in the same sentence because they both corrupt the natural act.

People are naturally offended by such a comparison.

It's obvious why one thought is despised. One of those people thinks about ****** children. I didn't bother responding to the argument because it was silly. Who cares what somebody thinks about? I'm not going to control their thoughts, I only care about their actions - people worry about paedophiles because they believe them to beat risk of ****** a child. Or, as was pointed out earlier, that these people will support the production of child pornography. The thought itself is not the problem because it's not something that could ever affect anybody else. You wouldn't even know it existed.

 

[blazedaces]

Dre, what do you say though to the idea that when one is at the age of let's say 15, it is perfectly "natural" and "normal" to be attracted to others at that age... but according to the law this would be statutory **** and any viewing of naked under-18 years of age pictures is considered child pornography and illegal as well.

-blazed

 

[rvkevin]

but according to the law

-blazed

Moral v legal, therefore its irrelevant.

 

[blazedaces]

Blazed you're continuously saying that I consider any argument that opposes mine to be a result of under-education, and that I never credit any opposing argument. You just have to ask people like Naci and Rvkevin and they'll tell you that I've complimented their arguments before, despite the fact they oppose mine.

In the DH Social Thread, I also said that Alt is probably a better debater than me. Awhile ago in a debate with Eor, I admitted that from a neutral standpoint I was defeated, and even in this thread I've contemplated reconsidering my position as a result of evidence placed in front of me.

So I find it misleading to label me as a person who deals with the opposition by considering them under-educated to be in a debate with me. I've only said it to select people like BPC (sorry to pick on you) because he clearly hadn't studied the issue at an advanced (and therefore debate hall) level. One of the implications of this was that he began to mix Protestantism with Catholicism. To his credit, he admitted his mistake and that he was under-educated on the issue, his position probably hasn't changed but I give credit to him for his maturity.

I also find it strange that despite all this, you pick on me, when there were plenty of people telling me that I couldn't argue against atheism, a philosophical issue, because I lacked sufficient scientific knowledge, when no scientific knowledge was required for what I was debating.

I apologize if my accusation was a bit out of line.

That being said I still stand by my statement that regardless of who does so, accusing the other person of lacking the sufficient knowledge is not an acceptable practice in the debate hall. I don't care if it's you, Alt, Goldshadow, or even CK.

-blazed

 

[Sucumbio]

Check and mate.

Now I'm going to demonstrate clearly one of the biggest problems with your "debate style," Dre. and this is in NO WAY meant to be offensive, or to slight your opinions, it's merely a criticism of your posting ability. This observation I have made since day one of your arrival here, and I still think that there must be some language gap involved, because a lot of this back and forth between you and others ends up reading as such. IS English your first language, Dre.? It's perfectly fine if it's not, but to know it's not, helps me formulate -my- posts in a way that may be better suited to your natural language.

Okay, on with the show: (I'll highlight the parts that -should- connect but ultimately fail to do so)

I find Shade613's attitude to be typically ignorant and fairly immature in general. As such it's easily dismissed, and argued against. Dre.'s... heh well he compares homosexuality to down's syndrome -_- calling them both "defects." While the latter is certainly classified as a chromosomal defect, homosexuality is definitely not classified as such, nor is it classified as any other kind of systemic or biological imperfection or issue.

Both people fail to see the real picture in the argument. Instead of focusing on the sexual act of same-sex sex, they should be taking a macrovisional approach, so as to understand the differences between animal sex acts in a same-sex nature, and Humans who are homosexual. This difference cannot be examined, however, so long as the act is at the forefront of deliberation. Ultimately there will be no convincing such individuals that homosexual people are "normal" because the idea of it is sickening on some level; or foreign, alien, just so not-like-themselves that it -has- to be wrong. No amount of logical approach will change their mind, especially considering the deep amounts of effort they've gone to themselves to prove their own side of the case. In Dre.'s case we have homosexuality being a corruption of natural law (as if there was such a thing). The idea on the surface seems convincing but when you look at it closely it's really a smoke screen for bigotry, and has been used by others in the past to bash gays.

I expected this sooner or later, where someone would start making assumptions about me with no grounding at all. Here’s a few facts for you-

1. I had no problem with homosexuality until I was about 18 and thought about it for myself rather than just blindly follow what the culture tells me, so it had nothing to do with the way I was brought up.

2. I’ve had gay friends before, so no they don’t disgust me, I have nothing against them personally.

3. When evidence was presented of animal homosexuality I said I would reconsider my position, so yes I am open to being wrong.

Why is it that seculars must always attack the person rather than the argument? It’s like you guys just can’t accept that someone has a sensible reason for holding a view that conflicts with your own, so you have to make assumptions about that person’s disposition and neurological function. Even an atheist himself said he was ashamed to be apart of the community where people always attribute offensive traits to theists simply because they hold a different position.

I never make assumptions like this about you guys, why can’t I put my arguments across without being labeled something negative just because my opinion differs from the culture’s? Honestly for a debate hall it’s pathetic.

Is this in any way unclear? Your post was directly after quoting me, which signifies that one is a response to the other. However, there is hardly any direct correlative between your points, and mine. Why? I don't know! It's YOUR post, I can't jump into your head and try to figure out what you were trying to say, but the fact that your response is only 1/2-related to what I was saying = an incoherent post, and therefore should have been revised before posting it. This isn't a DH rule or anything, again it's just a suggestion from an experienced debater.

This brings us to the real point. Are you actually trying, or are you hiding behind something in an effort to frustrate other members. This would be why someone accused you of being a "smart troll" because in point of fact, your posts can sometimes seem on the surface like you're participating in debate, but in actuality you're not.

Also you keep using the term straw-man, I think you need to review the definition of this logical fallacy.

"A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position. To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by substituting a superficially similar yet weaker proposition (the "straw man"), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position."

Hey wait a sec. Isn't that what YOU do? ...................... alright, I promised this wouldn't be an attack on you directly, so I'll stop there. But I hope you at least take into consideration what I've said. I enjoy the fact that you provide an antithesis to many of the other posters' ideas, and I appreciate your background in philosophy. What I caution is your method. It's not as if you're not typing a lot, so since you're capable of typing so much, type things that are more directly related to what's being said, and we'll see some improvement on the attitudes towards you around here.

 

[Sieguest]

Moral v legal, therefore its irrelevant.

But aren't laws just morals accepted by the general populace?

Legality would just be an extension of morality.

 

[KrazyGlue]

Trying to as fair as possible here.

On one side:

Dre, you are making generalizations about everyone in the Debate Hall. Many of us haven't even called into question your posting style. However, you tend to make sweeping statements about debate hall members and seculars, which can be interpreted as offensive, especially to those who haven't even been calling your style into question. Also I can see why you're offended by certain comments, but everyone here means well and just wants to enjoy debating, and they really just want to give out constructive criticism. The internet is impersonal, so it can make it seem like they are attacking you, but most people here are just trying to help.


On the other side:

We shouldn't be trying to "checkmate" Dre or try to bring him down in any way. Sometimes I think some of us get irked by the way he responds to us, and end up trying more to "beat" him then to give constructive criticism. This is why we get in these arguments.




Anyway, I'm going to try to work on a "Debate Hall Etiquette" thread, where we establish an accepted list of common courtesies that help keep debates on topic, friendly, and mature.


--------------------------------------------

By the way Dre, not trying to rush you at all, but when you get the chance could you please respond to this post: http://www.smashboards.com/showpost.php?p=10639719&postcount=360

Thanks.

 

[blazedaces]

But aren't laws just morals accepted by the general populace?

Legality would just be an extension of morality.

Law is based more on president (past laws) than on morality. Though no one would say that morality doesn't at least affect laws...

-blazed

 

[Sucumbio]

@KG

"...this is in NO WAY meant to be offensive, or to slight your opinions, it's merely a criticism of your posting ability..."

and I meant it, I do not harbor any ill will towards Dre. or am seeking to bust him up, out or down or anything, but I DID seek out to prove categorically that his posts are too oftentimes mislead, misleading, or just outright irrelevant to what's being said. It's like trying to argue with a schizophrenic. I purposefully laid out a simple and somewhat caustic post that I knew he'd respond to just to see -how- he'd respond, and in kind, he did, and as expected. By "check and mate" I mean that he's got some explaining to do, and/or when he posts in the future he's really gotta work on making absolutely sure his post is actually relevant to the discussion! In the DH proper he's still doing the same thing, but he's not getting nearly the lee-way he'll get here. In the PG I'm here to HELP him, and I want him to freely and openly admit that 1.) he could use some constructive guidance 2.) take that guidance.

 

[KrazyGlue]

Right, I mentioned in the part addressed towards him that people are trying to help. I'm just observing that, in general (not pointing any fingers), the longer these arguments go on the worse they get. I agree that he should welcome constructive criticism, and that for the most part people are trying to help. But I'm just noting, to be fair, that occasionally he has been treated unfairly, with passing comments such as "in a world where Dre makes sense". It's sarcastic and immature, and certainly not worth wasting a post to say. Comments like that serve only to make the situation worse, and provide no constructive criticism whatsoever.

 

[rvkevin]

But aren't laws just morals accepted by the general populace?

Legality would just be an extension of morality.

When modeling morality, its OK to find some things immoral that are currently accepted as moral. For example, you might find that eating animals is immoral and that everyone should be vegetarians, even though that is not the norm. Alternatively, it is OK to find some things moral that are currently accepted as immoral. Maybe there is no reason to ostracize certain activities that have become culturally taboo, polygamy comes to mind as well as the subject at hand. So, even if the law equates to what is considered moral at the time, it is still subject to change. Saying something is illegal doesn't give justification for why it is wrong, one must bring up the moral precepts that played a role in establishing the law and argue for them as being superior to the ones being presented against it.

 

[Sieguest]

Law is based more on president (past laws) than on morality. Though no one would say that morality doesn't at least affect laws...

-blazed

All right.

When modeling morality, its OK to find some things immoral that are currently accepted as moral. For example, you might find that eating animals is immoral and that everyone should be vegetarians, even though that is not the norm. Alternatively, it is OK to find some things moral that are currently accepted as immoral. Maybe there is no reason to ostracize certain activities that have become culturally taboo, polygamy comes to mind as well as the subject at hand. So, even if the law equates to what is considered moral at the time, it is still subject to change. Saying something is illegal doesn't give justification for why it is wrong, one must bring up the moral precepts that played a role in establishing the law and argue for them as being superior to the ones being presented against it.

Yes, so then bringing up the law is not irrelevant from the issue of morality.

I'll refer to one of blazes's posts:

Dre, what do you say though to the idea that when one is at the age of let's say 15, it is perfectly "natural" and "normal" to be attracted to others at that age... but according to the law this would be statutory **** and any viewing of naked under-18 years of age pictures is considered child pornography and illegal as well.

-blazed

The legality of the issue is saying that it's "wrong" for 15 year olds to be attracted to each other. While the attraction is perfectly "natural" and considered "right" by natural law. The precepts behind the law concerning statutory **** must be in conflict with natural law. Just as our own ideas happen to come into conflict behind it.

Just as we were discussing the legality issue of homosexuality in Uganda. We are saying that it is wrong that Uganda declared passed a law saying homosexuality is illegal, while Dre. has argued that they are justified. We then went to boil down the ideas behind it.
Does that mean the initial post of this discussion was irrelevant because it mentioned the legality of an issue?

 

[Dre89]

Dre, what do you say though to the idea that when one is at the age of let's say 15, it is perfectly "natural" and "normal" to be attracted to others at that age... but according to the law this would be statutory **** and any viewing of naked under-18 years of age pictures is considered child pornography and illegal as well.

-blazed

The life expentancy of an acient Egyptian peasant was 35, so for people before that it was probably even less That explains why we're sexually mature at such a young age, because we needed to have children young otherwise we'd die before they are old enough to fend for themselves. Superbowser if someone is attracted to kids but would never harm them, how us that different from being attracted to men? Sucumbio I know you mean well but my post was a response to your claim that I have something against gays, or that I assumed the practice was wrong before I had premises for it. Blazed I appreciate your maturity in accepting you were out of line, thanks for that.

 

[SuperBowser]

Superbowser if someone is attracted to kids but would never harm them, how us that different from being attracted to men?

I know what your point is but I don't think you get mine. When you speak about a paedophile, the first thoughts that enter a person's mind are not what you are talking about. People don't like paedophiles because they view them as a serious threat to children, not some notion of unnaturalness. You can't just separate a paedophile's thoughts from their actions because that is not the reality. Therefore your example is disingenuous.

It's akin to comparing somebody who downloads a music file to somebody who beats up an old lady and takes her purse.

Please read what I said before. There are much better ways to get your point across. Ways that don't immediately offend your audience. Therefore, you wouldn't need to complain about being strawmanned.

 

[Dre89]

Not all paedophiles **** children though, the public just seems to think that because the only paedophiles that are portaryed in the media are rapists, anyone who's attracted to kids must have the same ambition as well.

Paedopilia just means a love of kids, in this case sexual attraction. Because it is a sexual perversion, and there are many others in existence, there are probably alot of people who have it, but don't admit it because they'd get outcast, bashed etc. Now alot of them are probably good people who realise it's sick and would never **** a kid.

Like how there are many people who probably achieve sexual highs off harming women, but are too considerate to ever inflict such harm on a woman.

So my point was that the actual attraction to men is no different to the actual attraction to children. The two acts are in entirely different leagues of course.

 

[SuperBowser]

I don't feel like you read what I write; you basically repeated what I said. You even acknowledge that the general public believe anyone with an attraction to children must wish to **** them. That is why your analogy was poor. There are much better ways to get your point across.

 

[Dre89]

But the only reason why the public has such an opinion is because the only paedophiles we hear of are the rapists.

I also at the time made it clear I was talking about just the attraction, not ****** them, but then people just misread it and assumed I was talking about rapists.

 

[SuperBowser]

double post

 

[SuperBowser]

...if you think it is appropriate to enter a homosexuality rights topic and talk about gay people and paedophiles in your opening post, go ahead.

 

[Dre89]

So I'm not allowed to say that is no difference between going on youtube, to watch harmless videos of men, and harmless videos of kids for lustful reasons? (Harmless in that they are non-sexual videos of them just playing around or something like that).

But really, what is the difference? If the guy is getting off on the things the kid is doing in the video (just playing around for example), he is not envisioning having sex with a child, he is envisioning what is happening in the video, because that's what gets him off.

He isn't harming anyone, he is merely attaining pleasure at no one's peril.

So tell me, what's the difference? I just used the exact same critieria for why you guys endorse homosexuality, yet all of a sudden when it goes from a 18 year old to 14 year old the same criteria no longer applies anymore?

Telling me not to say something like that is like telling me not to use a good argument.

 

[SuperBowser]

It's like talking to a brick wall. Are you capable of reading anything I say or do you just like to respond to arguments made up in your head? I'm going to have to ask the same question as Succumbio - is english your first language?

You could have made the exact same argument with a less inflammatory, less insensitive example. If you do not see the merits of such practices, then carry on as you are. I'm just saying there are much better ways to get your point across.

edit: your question is stupid anyway. This topic is about a gay person's right to have sex. Not a paedophile's right to think about having sex. Don't try and blur the lines here. Perhaps that is why nobody had a clue what you were talking about.

 

[Dre89]

Could you give me an example of a 'less sensitive' example?

How could I give a less sensitive example anyway? The whole point was to pick a practice that modern society despises, it's this hate that makes the topic sensitive. So to pick a topic that isn't sensitive I'd be picking a practice society doesn't despise, which would render my argument pointless.

I was tyring to show you guys that the criteria you guys established allows for homosexuality.

The same criteria also allows for attraction to children (not ****** them), yet you guys don't accept that.

I've just shown a contradiction in your logic, and you resort to criticising me, and conveniently avoid the question.

If you can't show me how the two examples are different, and that it's ok to endorse one and despise the other, all your criticisms of me are moot.

But yes I'm curious to see you demonstrate how I could have provided a more sensitive example without comprimising my argument. Something gives me the feeling though your example would have in fact comprimised my argument, hence why I used one which you consider 'less sensitive'.

 

[rvkevin]

Your example would be like saying whats wrong with someone wearing a mask when entering a bank even if he has no ill intentions of robbing the place. Nothing is wrong per se, but it makes it more difficult to differentiate between people with good and bad intentions; in this sense, the practical way to stop such actions is to condemn the acts that lead up to them. In your example, if the person does not desire to actualize those states of affairs, then it is not wrong, but I think it would be unwise and probably inaccurate to say that any noticeable percentage of people who perform those actions would not have those already mentioned desires. There is no corresponding negative desire associated or correlated with the viewing of homosexual material, which is where the analogy disconnects.

 

[Dre89]

Your example would be like saying whats wrong with someone wearing a mask when entering a bank even if he has no ill intentions of robbing the place. Nothing is wrong per se, but it makes it more difficult to differentiate between people with good and bad intentions; in this sense, the practical way to stop such actions is to condemn the acts that lead up to them. In your example, if the person does not desire to actualize those states of affairs, then it is not wrong, but I think it would be unwise and probably inaccurate to say that any noticeable percentage of people who perform those actions would not have those already mentioned desires.

I actually think that most people with that perversion probably wouldn't actuate the state of affairs they desire, the reason we think otherwise are because the only ones we hear of are the ones who have actuated those affairs.

Nevertheless you make a good point. The problem is, where do you draw the line at where pre-emptive action ceases?

By the critieria you guys established to endorse homosexuality, you are still wrongfully (by your critieria) infringing on the rights of the good-willed pedophile who just wants to have a right to sexual pleasure like everyone else.

If you're going to remove that right from him, prior him being guilty of any wrongdoing, more questions have to be asked. Should we ban guns and sharp objects incase people intend malice? Should we ban gays from having sex incase they contract Aids? Should we ban sex outside of marriage incase the girl is impregnated?

In depriving the potential offender (the pedophile in this case) of rights before he/she is guilty of wrongdoing, this is is the precedent you are setting.

Ultimately, either you accept that pretence and universalise pre-emptive action on everything, which severaly surpresses society, or you continue contradict your criteria which allows for both homosexuality and child attraction, by endorsing the former and despising the latter.

Either way, your argument has negative implications.

 

[SuperBowser]

By the critieria you guys established to endorse homosexuality, you are still wrongfully (by your critieria) infringing on the rights of the good-willed pedophile who just wants to have a right to sexual pleasure like everyone else.

If you're going to remove that right from him, prior him being guilty of any wrongdoing, more questions have to be asked.

Hahaha, this is ridiculous. You are responding to arguments in your own head. I have never made the assertion people should be banned from thinking. What an absurd notion.

Ultimately, either you accept that pretence and universalise pre-emptive action on everything, which severaly surpresses society, or you continue contradict your criteria which allows for both homosexuality and child attraction, by endorsing the former and despising the latter.

Either way, your argument has negative implications.

What are you talking about?! A paedophile and a homosexual can think about whatever the hell they like. Only the homosexual can actually have sex with who they want. Nothing is contradicted here.

I'll repeat this again: Do not blur the lines here. We are talking about a gay person's right to have sex. Not the right to think.

 

[rvkevin]

The same criteria also allows for attraction to children (not ****** them)

What is attraction other than the desire to fulfill those states of affairs? This is the bad desire that we have pointed out before that makes this case not analogous to homosexual desires. Desires are the reasons for action, to say that they won't act on it is to disregard what a desire is.

By the critieria you guys established to endorse homosexuality, you are still wrongfully (by your critieria) infringing on the rights of the good-willed pedophile who just wants to have a right to sexual pleasure like everyone else.

Can you point out this implication? I don't see how this follows. It has been said that homosexual desires have no negative outcome while pedophilia desires do. This is the nature of their desire, it tends to thwart the fulfillment of other desires, which makes it a bad desire. The criteria used to endorse homosexuality is not that everyone has the right to sexual pleasure, because that is definitely not the case.

Nevertheless you make a good point. The problem is, where do you draw the line at where pre-emptive action ceases?

When one has a bad desire, you might say that pre-emptive action is necessary, even morally obligatory, even if they have not acted on said desire, yet. Your examples have nothing to do with desires, so I fail to see how they are relevant. Do people who own sharp objects have desires to cut people? No. Do people who have an attraction to children have a desire to have sex with them? Yes. This should be adequate to show the difference between the two situations.

 

[Dre89]

Rvkevin le me ask you this- What the pedophile does not desire sexual intercourse with the child? What if the seuxal gratification is achieved through seieng the child do something harmless?

Like fetishes for example, the gratification there is not achieved through the reuglar ac of sex.

Society would still havething against the person who gets sexual pleasure from seeing kids do some form of harmless thing, and not desire sex with them.

Another question- Even if the desire was sex, why is that bad if it will never be actuated? Alot of men probably watch gory movies becuase they get a sexual fix from seieng women get harmed sadistically, but would never actuate it.

 

[rvkevin]

Rvkevin let me ask you this- What if the pedophile does not desire sexual intercourse with the child?

It would depend on what the desire in question is, but for all intensive purposes, I don't see in what sense you could call them a pedophile.

What if the sexual gratification is achieved through seeing the child do something harmless?

I have trouble believing this represents even a small minority of the pedophile demographic. Even then, it is not so clear that the desire itself is harmless.

Society would still have something against the person who gets sexual pleasure from seeing kids do some form of harmless thing, and not desire sex with them.

You are implying that young children would be unharmed by seeing someone getting sexual pleasure from watching them do mundane tasks. I don't think this is the case, but I could be wrong. I'm particularly ignorant of research or even if there is research pertaining to the psychological effects of young children who are involved in these very specific types of situations, but I suspect, as it is with other forms of sexual harassment and abuse, it would be negative.

Also, I don't put so much weight on what society would say in situations so to cite it like an authority is largely unimpressive. To say that society would condemn X does not mean that X is wrong. Society has been wrong before and society should always be open for improvement, which means that we need to accept the possibility that society is not correct now.

Another question- Even if the desire was sex, why is that bad if it will never be actuated? A lot of men probably watch gory movies because they get a sexual fix from seeing women get harmed sadistically, but would never actuate it.

To say it will never be actualized is unrealistic. Desires are reasons for actions, so as long as there is a desire for some state of affairs, there is potential for action. The only reason some people may have some desire for something and not actualize is because they have some other stronger desire at the moment, such as the desire to read a book or the desire to stay out of jail. When these other desires are diminished (for the latter, all is needed is the belief one will not be caught, which is not inconceivable), this bad desire reigns supreme and the action becomes actualized. To say that it will never be actualized completely ignores reality.

 

[Xsyven]

No, I didn't put homosexuality and ****** children in the same sentence, that was just another straw-man you guys did on me.

I put sexual attraction to men and sexual attraction to children in the same sentence because they both corrupt the natural act.

I obviously think ****** a child is alot worse than having sex with another man.

I don't see any difference in looking at a man lustfully and looking at a child lustfully. If someone is attracted to children, but does not act upon it and does not **** them, I don't really see the difference. They both have sexual attractions that don't contribute to the natural act, yet one is tolerated and the other is despised, even if the person does not violate children.

Alright, alright, let's back up here.

Children aren't consenting adults. Age is a huge ****ing deal. Heterosexuals and Homosexuals can both be pedophiles. Not all heterosexuals and homosexuals are pedophiles. There's a large difference between being attracted to a certain age than a certain gender. Love between two consenting adults is perfectly healthy, love between a man and a kid is not.

I agree with you that a pedophile who never harms a child is in fact, not a bad person, but holy ****, how thick do you have to be to not see the difference between lusting after a child, and lusting after an adult?

This has absolutely nothing to do with natural order and gender, and everything to do with age, consent, and common sense-- a trait you seem to have a hard time grasping.