First of all I wouldn't really call someone who likes sleeping with 16 year olds a paedophile. 16 is legal in my country, even if it wasn't I suppose technically they might be considered a paedophile, but I'd still think of a paedophile as someone who is attracted to prepubescent boys or girls.
Nope. I knew a guy (no, it's not me, but a friend of the family I'd prefer not to name for his sake) who was looking at porn on this new "internet" thing back in the internet first came out. His house was raided, he was arrested, and sent to jail for about a year because apparently one of those sites was using 16-17 year olds instead of 18 year old ones. They found 2 pictures he had downloaded containing "minors" ... therefore he was a felon and a pedophile. He lost his job as a paramedic (something he'd been doing for 20 years), and no one will hire him since. He's done OK working for himself, but he's got kicked out of a number of houses he's rented because of his history, and was actually homeless for almost a year there... he had the money for a place, but no one rents to a pedophile (AKA someone who downloaded the wrong two pictures 20 years ago).
Of course a child-molester (someone who physically acts upon their urges) is much worse. But simply an attraction to a minor is enough for jail time and life-long consequences. But the sexual deviance of homosexuality is not only "acceptable" but "not accepting it is unacceptable?"
That's the sort of double standard that gets me scratching my head.
You may as well have asked why is a heterosexual relationship okay
As I said in the first post, this is with the biblical assumption that a man laying with another man is sinful.
From a non-theist, legal perspective, sure. But, I mean from a religious perspective. Why so many Christians are jumping on the band-wagon as well.
__________________ John 17:1-26
Galations 5:19-25 1 Corinthians 13:1
So, what about pedophiles? Not people who kidnap children and have their way with them against their will... but my last room mate was 24, dating a girl who had just turned 16. This falls under the category of pedophilia. He happens to be "sexually ambiguous," so his preference in girls are not the epidomy of "the womanly form" ... he tends to like flat-chested, under-developed women
Kidnapping and raping someone is bad. Having a loving relationship with another person, even when there's a big age difference and/or the other person has the same sex as you, is good.
__________________
THIS SPACE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
...That's the sort of double standard that gets me scratching my head.
I do agree with you. Some of the laws against possessing photo's of minors are ridiculously harsh. They should be focusing on catching the people that took them, not tracking down the people who right click.
__________________ "We can easily forgive a child that is afraid of the dark, the real tragedy is when people are afraid of the light"
-Plato
Except accepting pedophilia (an attraction) is different from accepting the actions based upon those desires.
Most don't, but I would think at least one person out there is able to go from homosexual/heterosexual to bisexual, possibly crossing the entire spectrum.
When people think of "homosexuality" too many just think about males. I'm not sure if it's always been this way, but have you noticed how fashionable it is for girls to claim "Oh, I'm bi."
Of course, this is until I start talking to them, then they're gay... until I leave. (I hate my life)
.... then again, with the whole emo/scene kid fad, that's been fashionable for guys as well. Is that over yet, btw?
__________________ John 17:1-26
Galations 5:19-25 1 Corinthians 13:1
Why is one sexual orientation (homosexuality) considered something a person has no control over, and is natural and should be accepted, when others (for example being attracted to minors, animals, or any number of fetishes deemed inappropriate) considered something a person has a choice in, and something people can put their foot down to and say "No, that's immoral, you can't legally do that."
You are conflating a lot of different issues here: control, morality, "naturality" (whatever that´s supposed to mean here), legality.
There is no such argument as "everything that someone has no control over should be legal", as you picture it.
Whereas you completely omit the key question when it comes to the legality/illegality of a behaviour: "Is someone being harmed"?
If someone is being harmed by a certain behaviour, it is the job of the legal system to prevent that (and the question whether the perpetrator has control over it or not is immaterial).
IOW, it is a misconception that our legal system is supposed to punish people for their orientations - it focusses on actions.
__________________
Why I call myself a „non-believer“ or „atheist“:
I can´t relate to any of the god concepts I´m familiar with so far.
Either I´m not convinced by the concept, or
– although not having a problem with the worldview itself -
I see no reason to call one of its elements „God“:
There are already more precise, more common, less loaded and less likely to be misunderstood terms for these elements.
E.g. I prefer to call nature „nature“, the universe „universe“ and everything „everything“.
Which I addressed in my very first post. Pedophiles may very well be naturally attracted to children, and there's really nothing that can be done for that. It's when they decide to take action on that impulse that we put our foot down, because children can't make those decisions on their own at that stage in their life. Children need to be protected, adult consenting homosexuals do not, as they are perfectly capable of making their own decisions.
Then, what about prostitution? Why is homosexuality legal, but prostitution illegal? Even when both parties are consenting adults... if you pay someone for sex, both of you can go to jail.
... even though the entire concept of dating for SOME people is "If the guy buys the girl enough things, she'll sleep with him" ... how that's "not prostitution" I have no idea.
But the reason people are "allowed" to dissaprove of pedophiles more than gays is because their attraction could, if acted upon, lead to serious harm. Gay people however have no such potential
Ever hear of AIDs?
.... yea... I got nothin'
__________________ John 17:1-26
Galations 5:19-25 1 Corinthians 13:1
You are conflating a lot of different issues here: control, morality, "naturality" (whatever that´s supposed to mean here), legality.
There is no such argument as "everything that someone has no control over should be legal", as you picture it.
Whereas you completely omit the key question when it comes to the legality/illegality of a behaviour: "Is someone being harmed"?
If someone is being harmed by a certain behaviour, it is the job of the legal system to prevent that (and the question whether the perpetrator has control over it or not is immaterial).
IOW, it is a misconception that our legal system is supposed to punish people for their orientations - it focusses on actions.
Which is why I specifically wasn't stating that homosexuality should be "illegal" or "punishable." I'm sorry the topic seemed to get skewed, but the question is if homosexuality is "morally acceptable" in a way other sexual deviation is not (from a biblical perspective).
__________________ John 17:1-26
Galations 5:19-25 1 Corinthians 13:1
Then, what about prostitution? Why is homosexuality legal, but prostitution illegal? Even when both parties are consenting adults... if you pay someone for sex, both of you can go to jail.
Yeah I know right. It probably has something to do with laws and values dating back to our puritanical past.
The laws against prostitution are even stupider than those against people possessing underage photo's.
-If you don't pay a person for sex it's ok
-but if you pay them for sex it's wrong
-but if you pay them for sex and film it, then put it on the internet for everyone to see it's ok again.
Ever hear of AIDs?
Yeah, what about it?
__________________ "We can easily forgive a child that is afraid of the dark, the real tragedy is when people are afraid of the light"
-Plato
I'll resist the urge to point out "the significance of sex" being an act of procreation, inherently putting homosexuals (as well as anyone who doesn't want children at the moment, or can't have children for a certain reason) in the same boat as minors... Although it would be on topic, it's not really an honest argument. I understand there is a difference, but someone COULD make that point.
If we're judging the whether or not it's socially acceptable based on the mental capability to understand the significance of sex, a good portion of the adult population should not be allowed to have sex either!
To put it in very politically incorrect terms, if you saw a couple of retards get together and actually have a relationship (including a physical one)... would you really look down on them for it? Or would you think "Well... good for them!"
The main point of the discussion is in response to your last part: "not to be confused with them having a choice regarding their sexual orientation, which of course they don't"
Why is one sexual orientation (homosexuality) considered something a person has no control over, and is natural and should be accepted, when others (for example being attracted to minors, animals, or any number of fetishes deemed inappropriate) considered something a person has a choice in, and something people can put their foot down to and say "No, that's immoral, you can't legally do that."
Keep in mind, I am NOT advocating any such sexual deviance, nor am I suggesting that "being gay should get someone thrown in jail." Only pointing out the correlation to show that "just plain not approving of homosexuality" doesn't necessarily make a person "intolerant and homophobic" any more than "just plain not approving of pedophealia" makes a person "intolerant and pedopheliphobic") (No, I'm not sure that's the right word... but pedophobic would be a fear of children. So, "pedopheliphobic" would be my best guess for "the fear of sexual attraction to minors")
There's more to sex than just procreation. It's a major aspect of it, sure, but it also reinforces pair-bonding, and it's that aspect which can mess people up if something goes wrong.
Small children, as opposed to teenagers, are not ready for that level, neither physically nor emotionally.
We have arbitary ages of consent based on a number of factors to protect children from abuse. A five year old could be coached by their abuser to say that they wanted to have sex, but it won't wash legally because a five year old is not an informed adult.
I rather like the system in some Scandiavian countries, where I believe it's based on age gaps rather than absolute age. So a 14 year old and a 16 year old is legal, but not 14 and 18. Once the hit 18, IIRC, all limits are lifted. They're old enough to enter into a contract, they're old enough to decide who to have sex with.
Strictly speaking, being sexually attracted to children is not illegal. Acting on the attraction is. And that includes looking at child porn, because that is colluding in abuse.
Bestiality is illegal in some places because of the harm done to the animal. In the UK, only penetrative sexual acts with animals are illegal.
Having sex with children and animals is illegal because of the harm done, not because of moral opinions.
Other paraphilias are generally legal, even if viewed as odd and unpleasant, but the main principal is that what two (or more) consenting adults get up to in private is not a matter for the law to concern itself with, as long as underlying laws are not violated (killing and eating a willing partner is still a no-no). S&M scenarios are fine though, as it isn't considered to be assault (unless the Top ignores the safe word).
I would consider that treating a paedophile who is struggling with their attraction to children and who has never acted upon it as a rampant molestor is indeed intolerant and paedophiliphobic (nice word, BTW!).
And letting one's disapproval of homosexuality influence one's behaviour to homosexuals is also intolerant.
And there is a big question to be answered-
Why do people feel the need to disapprove of something that doesn't harm anyone else? If it's not your bag, fine, don't get involved in it. But why bother to spend the mental run time disapproving of it?
I really don't like the idea of sexual watersports, but I don't disapprove of it.
If no-one is being harmed, what business is it of anyone elses?
Linear Mode
