Which brings us back to the original topic of the thread. If I do not approve of one form of sexual deviance -I- have a problem. However, I'm sure there are quite a few attractions that you would have a problem with?
If a person said they were a necrophiliac... would you have a problem with that? If you suggested that you did not approve of that, could I accuse you of being intolerant and say you "have a problem."
Would there be a problem with YOU for disapproving of beastiality?
I would have a VALID argument against necrophilia and bestiality, all you have is a translation of an old book saying that homosexuality is wrong.
The intent here is... you have legal freedom to take whatever action you wish with another consenting adult... but I'm being discriminated against and repressed for exercising my moral freedom to be offended by such action. That's what I have a problem with.
So this is all about how YOU are being oppressed?
Please get over yourself, when you are actually DENIED rights like marriage or threatened with DEATH then get back to us, till then you are just a whiner.
Which is why they're a perfect correlation. Society as a whole often has a problem with homosexuality (especially between men), but today, people are told that "that opinion is unacceptable, if you have the nerve to disaprove of gays, then YOU have a problem, and YOU are sick."
People changed their thinking when they got over getting there morals from a book and started THINKING about them.
The thing is homosexuality is given liberties beyond what heterosexuals have.
Honestly, if we got together and has a "straight pride parade" chanting our sexual preferences, and saying that gays just need to "get used to it" ... it would be considered hate speech, and we'd be arrested.
You wouldn't be arrested BUT it would be hate speech because there would be no reason for such a parade other then to put down gay people. Remember that gay people do such things because they don't equal rights or standing.
Never did I say that homosexuality should be legally punishable, nor did I approve of discrimination.
Your holy book, the book you claim to get your morals from says that gays should be STONED TO DEATH. Many actions against gays have stemmed from that book and sentiment. So to say that you find homosexuality immoral because of your holy book and then turn around and say that they shouldn't be punished is disingenuous.
But why do I not even have the right to hold a personal opinion of disapproval?
But you DO have that right, it's also OUR right to point out how flawed your point is. Your real problem is that you don't like that we disagree with you and again that is a problem with YOU.
__________________
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. dir="ltr">
"The word god is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this." - Albert Einstein
I can likely find you many minors (aka, 16/17 year olds) who could consent.
I'm sure they would, but could they give informed consent? At that transitionary age, it becomes less clear just how clued up they are (compared to a three year old and a thirty year old, say).
Originally Posted by lawtonfogle
According to the media? Yes. According to the researchers/psychologist? No. Now maybe it has something to do with me wanting to be a researcher/psychologist, but I think I favor their opinion over the other.
But.... but... Fox news told me that paedophiles were out to get my baby!
Originally Posted by lawtonfogle
I was more so confused. In one line, it was as if you were saying the attraction was immoral, then you went and said that it wasn't really. Just sort of confused me what you were trying to say.
I saw that as I was writing it, which is why I added the caveat at the end.
__________________
A scientific man ought to have no wishes, no affections, -- a mere heart of stone.
- Charles Darwin
"I am a scientist... when I find evidence that my theories are wrong, it is as exciting as if the evidence proved them right."
- Stargate: SG1
What can be asserted without reason, can be denied without reason.
- Anon
"A casual stroll through the lunatic asylum shows that faith does not prove anything."
As popularized as homosexuality has become, the term "homophobia" is being cast around more and more.
First, I'd like to point out, based on my understanding of the bible, I believe that a man lying with a man is sinful. The bible also teaches me to hate sin. This does NOT equate to a hatred of sinners. We all fall short, we all have weaknesses, I have plenty of gay friends, and I'm opposed to the mistreatment of gay people, however, I still view the action as wrong.
However, even this understanding is quite often belittled and insulted as homophobic. People suggest "I can't help who I love" ... so get used to it.
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.
So, is this considered OK by people who are such champions of the homosexual community?
If he simply preferred the male form, this would be considered "the way he was born" ... and although much of society considered it a perversion, and unacceptable... if you don't like it, you're intolerant, and that's bad.
But, if his preference for the male form leads him to an attraction to under-developed (and thus under-aged) females... is this not equivalent?
Similarly, when he was in the other mood, the men he was attracted to tended to be feminine scene-kid types, I'm sure some of them were in the same age-group (Although I don't know that it ever went far enough to be "illegal" ... I was certainly uncomfortable by their actions).
So, why is homosexuality more acceptable than an attraction to the under-aged? 16 isn't really that far from 18, of course. But, if that were considered "OK" ... where would we draw the line? 14 isn't that far from 16. 12 isn't that far from 14.
Why is it our society is so accepting of an act many consider to be immoral (homosexuality) to the point that society is UNaccepting of anyone who would question it? Yet, this same society feels so morally strong that I get a flyer any time a pedophile moves within a few miles of me?
Does anyone else see it as a little hypocritical to be so opposed to one sexual preference, yet so accepting of another?
The "age of consent" has changed drastically over the last 200 years, and used to be MUCH lower in the past (even though the onset of puberty took place MUCH later than today).
Take Shakespeare's "Romeo and Juliet", for example. The titular heroine has not yet turned fourteen at the time when the action of the play takes place, and yet the audience wouldn't have wasted a thought on the fact that she gets married (and pursues sexual relations with Romeo).
I wouldn't necessarily consider your friend a pedophile, even though he's clearly breaking laws in pursuing a relationship with a minor. I consider the "magic line" at 18 years of age to be pretty arbitrary - I've known a fair share of utterly immature people who were in their early twenties, and I've also known some exceptional teens whose maturity exceeded their age.
So, I'd judge this on a case-to-case basis.
A 24-year-old guy dating a 16-year-old girl does not strike me as a pedophile. Most sixteen-year-olds are obviously not children any more, although they do tend to lack the maturity necessary to be considered self-responsible adults. It's therefore a grey zone.
And consider this: by the time he's 26, she'll be 18. It's not that big of a difference. Personally, I'm MUCH more baffled by guys past their fifties dating women in their early twenties. (Or rather: I can't understand how any sane woman could end up in such a relationship. They must have some SERIOUS daddy issues - or else are just greedy.)
So, why do I differentiate between homosexuality and pedophilia?
Because children (and I mean children: kids who haven'T reached sexual maturity either physically or mentally, and are incapable of making informed decisions in this regard) cannot truly consent to such acts, and are psychologically harmed by such actions even if the pedophile does not threaten or hurt them.
Pedophiles inflict grievous harm on defenseless victims, and the victims are very likely scarred for life.
None of that applies to homosexuality, where consenting adults pursue a relationship. And that's really all there is to it. To me, the ethical nature of an act depends on its consequences, not on the social norms of a bronze age society, or the supposed disapproval of a supposed deity.
__________________ The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion, but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact, non-Westerners never do. -- Samuel P. Huntington
Fundamentalism in a Nutshell:
"[Obama] focused on health care for everybody and living wages, mostly. No comment about abortion or sodomite "marriage" or anything else that actually matters." --MatthewEV, Rapture Ready
Yes. Other people can be oppressed. The world is not just about you. For example:
People changed their thinking when they got over getting there morals from a book and started THINKING about them.
An example of a small-minded atheists belittling others for believing in something the athiest doesn't understand, and therefore blindly rejects.
I'm not saying you should be "punished" or "treated unfairly" due to your rejection of the bible. But because YOU only see hatred in it, you think it's acceptable to push your perceived hatred onto all of us?
You wouldn't be arrested BUT it would be hate speech because there would be no reason for such a parade other then to put down gay people.
So, if two groups of people acted identically... but one chanted "gay pride" and the other chanted "straight pride" ... one group is committing a hate crime?
Another example of discrimination against straight people solely on the basis of sexual orientation.
Your holy book, the book you claim to get your morals from says that gays should be STONED TO DEATH. Many actions against gays have stemmed from that book and sentiment. So to say that you find homosexuality immoral because of your holy book and then turn around and say that they shouldn't be punished is disingenuous.
That's what happens when you read one out-of-context verse and draw stereotypes on millions of people.
I could similarly point to the fact that at some point in history, a homosexual has raped another person. Therefore all homosexuals are rapists? Or, might there be a bit more to the story?
__________________ John 17:1-26
Galations 5:19-25 1 Corinthians 13:1
I wouldn't necessarily consider your friend a pedophile...
now wait a minute. I said "room mate," not "friend." I really didn't like the guy that much... was it because he was a Jew? No. Because he was a gay? No. Was it because the jerk still owes me 2 months rent? No. Was it because at one point he came home bragging about having bought women's undergarments because he'd decided they were better than men's... AND THEN TRIED TO SHOW ME!? ... no, not even that. ... The guy was a vegetarian... and, I'm just not OK with that.
Personally, I'm MUCH more baffled by guys past their fifties dating women in their early twenties. (Or rather: I can't understand how any sane woman could end up in such a relationship...
$$
Pedophiles inflict grievous harm on defenseless victims, and the victims are very likely scarred for life.
None of that applies to homosexuality
Oh yea? One time I was walking around Berlin (germany) with my girlfriend. I heard some awesome techno music, and was having a jolly time. Apparently I picked a bad day to wear bondage pants and a shirt that said "Girls have cooties" .... after the 5th dude hit on me, I'd realized... it was the Christopher street parade... And the nurse was a dude. And, now I'm scarred for life.
__________________ John 17:1-26
Galations 5:19-25 1 Corinthians 13:1
I'm sure they would, but could they give informed consent? At that transitionary age, it becomes less clear just how clued up they are (compared to a three year old and a thirty year old, say).
The issue is that legally, in some places, even some states, they can, while it others, they cannot. If I wanted to make it personal, there is one country where I still cannot give informed consent (legally speaking).
I don't think anyone here is trying to say that a 3 year old can give informed consent, but when you get 16, 15, even 14, and 13, in some states or countries (countries we generally consider modern), they can give informed consent, while it others they cannot. Problem is the issue is so sticky no one seems to want to give a good look at it.
But.... but... Fox news told me that paedophiles were out to get my baby!
Can't pin that one only on fox. Many if not most of the big media are like that. Some are just willing to play on emotions a bit more.
I saw that as I was writing it, which is why I added the caveat at the end.
Ah, ok.
__________________
.
..:
If history is to change, let it change. If the world is to be destroyed, so be it. If my fate is to die, I must simply laugh.
The past is dead. It was all just a dream...
- Magus
To help protect the sanctity of marriage, please keep all affairs heterosexual.
If no image appears, something has gone wrong. I don't know. Probably run out of squirrels.
The "age of consent" has changed drastically over the last 200 years, and used to be MUCH lower in the past (even though the onset of puberty took place MUCH later than today).
Take Shakespeare's "Romeo and Juliet", for example. The titular heroine has not yet turned fourteen at the time when the action of the play takes place, and yet the audience wouldn't have wasted a thought on the fact that she gets married (and pursues sexual relations with Romeo).
I wouldn't necessarily consider your friend a pedophile, even though he's clearly breaking laws in pursuing a relationship with a minor. I consider the "magic line" at 18 years of age to be pretty arbitrary - I've known a fair share of utterly immature people who were in their early twenties, and I've also known some exceptional teens whose maturity exceeded their age.
So, I'd judge this on a case-to-case basis.
A 24-year-old guy dating a 16-year-old girl does not strike me as a pedophile. Most sixteen-year-olds are obviously not children any more, although they do tend to lack the maturity necessary to be considered self-responsible adults. It's therefore a grey zone.
And consider this: by the time he's 26, she'll be 18. It's not that big of a difference. Personally, I'm MUCH more baffled by guys past their fifties dating women in their early twenties. (Or rather: I can't understand how any sane woman could end up in such a relationship. They must have some SERIOUS daddy issues - or else are just greedy.)
So, why do I differentiate between homosexuality and pedophilia?
Because children (and I mean children: kids who haven'T reached sexual maturity either physically or mentally, and are incapable of making informed decisions in this regard) cannot truly consent to such acts, and are psychologically harmed by such actions even if the pedophile does not threaten or hurt them.
Pedophiles inflict grievous harm on defenseless victims, and the victims are very likely scarred for life.
None of that applies to homosexuality, where consenting adults pursue a relationship. And that's really all there is to it. To me, the ethical nature of an act depends on its consequences, not on the social norms of a bronze age society, or the supposed disapproval of a supposed deity.
Two points, dating someone under the age limit is not legal, though it is creepy. ANYTHING sexual, and it becomes illegal.
Also, you are wrong about homosexuals. Have you never read any of the cases where homosexuals forced themselves on another person? I mean, clearly homosexuals will rape if no one is willing to enter into a relationship with them? Or we could just agree that because you have the attraction does not mean you are going to act on it, so you can stop acting as if all pedophiles actually hurt children.
__________________
.
..:
If history is to change, let it change. If the world is to be destroyed, so be it. If my fate is to die, I must simply laugh.
The past is dead. It was all just a dream...
- Magus
To help protect the sanctity of marriage, please keep all affairs heterosexual.
If no image appears, something has gone wrong. I don't know. Probably run out of squirrels.
The issue is that legally, in some places, even some states, they can, while it others, they cannot. If I wanted to make it personal, there is one country where I still cannot give informed consent (legally speaking).
I'm of the opinion that the law should reflect a) basic human rights and dignities, and b) the moral consensus of the society. Legally, things get a bit mucky when trying to nail down that which doesn't have a definite point (such as when one stops being a minority, or when one acquires human rights).
Out of interest, where can you not give informed consent?
Originally Posted by lawtonfogle
I don't think anyone here is trying to say that a 3 year old can give informed consent, but when you get 16, 15, even 14, and 13, in some states or countries (countries we generally consider modern), they can give informed consent, while it others they cannot. Problem is the issue is so sticky no one seems to want to give a good look at it.
That's political correctness for you. If you dare touch the age of consent laws, you had best be raising them, or else you're a dirty great pedo!
__________________
A scientific man ought to have no wishes, no affections, -- a mere heart of stone.
- Charles Darwin
"I am a scientist... when I find evidence that my theories are wrong, it is as exciting as if the evidence proved them right."
- Stargate: SG1
What can be asserted without reason, can be denied without reason.
- Anon
"A casual stroll through the lunatic asylum shows that faith does not prove anything."
Yes. Other people can be oppressed. The world is not just about you.
Once again…Exactly how are YOU being oppressed?
what “liberties” are those nasty nasty homos getting that YOU personally are denied?
How does your personal prejudice make YOU the victim?
So, if two groups of people acted identically... but one chanted "gay pride" and the other chanted "straight pride" ... one group is committing a hate crime?
What is the difference between a civil rights march led by Dr Martin Luther King and a KKK march led by that organization’s Grand Dragon?
__________________ First they ignore you...
Then they laugh at you...
Then they fight you...
Then you win.
Mahatma Ghandi
Yes. Other people can be oppressed. The world is not just about you.
You really should take your own words to heart.
An example of a small-minded atheists belittling others for believing in something the athiest doesn't understand, and therefore blindly rejects.
I'm not saying you should be "punished" or "treated unfairly" due to your rejection of the bible. But because YOU only see hatred in it, you think it's acceptable to push your perceived hatred onto all of us?
YOU said that you believe that homosexuality is immoral because you read it in a book. Modern society does not view it as immoral because there is no valid reason for it to be immoral, it's as simple as that.
So, if two groups of people acted identically... but one chanted "gay pride" and the other chanted "straight pride" ... one group is committing a hate crime?
Again, not a crime, just a hateful action. And they are not identical actions because the "gay pride" movement is about equal rights, the "straight pride" movement could only be about maintaining the status quo.
Another example of discrimination against straight people solely on the basis of sexual orientation.
You seriously have no idea what TRUE discrimination is do you? People disagreeing with you is NOT discrimination.
That's what happens when you read one out-of-context verse and draw stereotypes on millions of people.
Seriously you are going to try to say that's "out-of-context"? What a cheap cop-out. Please by all means do explain the verse that says that homosexuals should be STONED TO DEATH in it's proper context. Bear in mind that it's in a section that are laid out as laws that were to be followed by "God's chosen people".
I could similarly point to the fact that at some point in history, a homosexual has raped another person. Therefore all homosexuals are rapists? Or, might there be a bit more to the story?
I'm not talking about an individual I'm talking about YOUR HOLY BOOK, the place you claim to get your morality from. It says that homosexuals should be STONED TO DEATH. I'm sure there is a way for you to twist that around and you WILL say that you are not held to that anymore but that is what your holy book says that homosexuals should be STONED TO DEATH.
__________________
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. dir="ltr">
"The word god is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this." - Albert Einstein
Linear Mode
