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?
__________________ John 17:1-26
Galations 5:19-25 1 Corinthians 13:1
Condemnation and analyzing human behavior are two different points, but people that are in sexual immorality tend to get outraged!
As you well know they tend to do one or the other. Become convicted and repent or become outraged. 9 x 0ut of 10 they come after your character! In a character assassination!
The issue of pedophilia is an issue of consent. Children are too young to understand the significance of sex, and thus cannot make an informed decision, which is why it's called statutory rape even if there is "consent".
Two adult homosexuals are more than capable of making the decision themselves. (not to be confused with them having a choice regarding their sexual orientation, which of course they don't)
__________________ "We can easily forgive a child that is afraid of the dark, the real tragedy is when people are afraid of the light"
-Plato
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.
The difference really is that minors are not considered old enough to make a choice about having sex, and are too easily led by adults. It can have detrimental mental effects on a child even if they give their verbal consent. Homosexuality involves two consenting adults, who are deemed old enough to make up their owns minds. You may as well have asked why is a heterosexual relationship okay, and a relationship between an adult/child not.
It seems to me though, that when you have to consult scripture to find out if something is wrong as what so often happens here, you're not really forming your own opinion on why that thing is wrong. I don't know why anyone would want to be a sheep.
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.
The difference really is that minors are not considered old enough to make a choice about having sex, and are too easily led by adults. It can have detrimental mental effects on a child even if they give their verbal consent. Homosexuality involves two consenting adults, who are deemed old enough to make up their owns minds. You may as well have asked why is a heterosexual relationship okay, and a relationship between an adult/child not.
It seems to me though, that when you have to consult scripture to find out if something is wrong as what so often happens here, you're not really forming your own opinion on why that thing is wrong. I don't know why anyone would want to be a sheep.
First off what is dating? Courtship to marriage, morally~! Also people mature differently! Age wise .....
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.
Time to break out the science stick.
*whack*
16 is older teenager, which is ephebophilia, which is acceptable for young adults. 16/24 is frowned upon, but in a year, it is likely to be legal, and in six years, many won't think much of it at all.
So, is this considered OK by people who are such champions of the homosexual community?
Considering the age of consent is quite close to 16, as long as they wait till she is old enough, I don't see why one would have a problem except that it makes them fill uncomfortable.
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.
Pedophilia (and ephebophilia as in this case) is probably just as genetic as the more 'normal' forms of sexuality (though in fact 99% of every 18-21 year old are ephebophiles).
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?
Just because someone likes small breast does not mean that they like the male form.
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).
No duh it is uncomfortable. Especially with the media constantly saying that the attraction WILL lead to something illegal (which is false).
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.
For a general rule, 11/12 and under is pedophilia, 12/13 - 15 is hebephilia, 15/16-19 is ephebophilia.
As for why it is not accepted, because alot of people don't know he difference between attraction and action.
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?
You probably get a flier when ever a sex offender, be they offending against adults or children, move into town. Big difference between the two.
Does anyone else see it as a little hypocritical to be so opposed to one sexual preference, yet so accepting of another?
Yes. Which is why I think society should be accepting of the attraction (NOT the action) of such people. Not to mention it will help us faciliate couselling to those who fear they are losing self control, which will result in less children being harmed.
__________________
.
..:
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 of pedophilia is an issue of consent. Children are too young to understand the significance of sex, and thus cannot make an informed decision, which is why it's called statutory rape even if there is "consent".
Except accepting pedophilia (an attraction) is different from accepting the actions based upon those desires.
Two adult homosexuals are more than capable of making the decision themselves. (not to be confused with them having a choice regarding their sexual orientation, which of course they don't)
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.
__________________
.
..:
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.
It seems to me though, that when you have to consult scripture to find out if something is wrong as what so often happens here, you're not really forming your own opinion on why that thing is wrong. I don't know why anyone would want to be a sheep.
The funny thing is the Bible says very little about not having sex with children, especially in the parts where it list who (and what) you can and cannot have sex with in detail. Seems God was a bit forgetful there, no?
__________________
.
..:
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 of pedophilia is an issue of consent. Children are too young to understand the significance of sex, and thus cannot make an informed decision, which is why it's called statutory rape even if there is "consent".
Two adult homosexuals are more than capable of making the decision themselves. (not to be confused with them having a choice regarding their sexual orientation, which of course they don't)
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")
__________________ John 17:1-26
Galations 5:19-25 1 Corinthians 13:1
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.
Then why bring it up?
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!
There are animals that have sex purely for pleasure. The way I see it, sex may have originally been for procreation, but it's gained some other "reasons" as time goes on. And you're seriously basing this entire argument on my word choice? You know exactly what I meant, and yet you choose to argue semantics.
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!"
Well considering that this does happen, it's really not my place to interfere in their personal lives, or make wide sweeping statements about their relationship being wrong or imply that they're sexually perverted.
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."
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.
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"
I don't understand why people throw the word homophobic around as much as they do. Honestly, most "homophobes" are not afraid of gay people. No one goes running and screaming at the sight of a gay pride parade, it's a stupid overused phrase, I agree.
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, and so there's really no reason to be dissaproving. The only reasons I can think of to dissaprove of homosexuals is a) they're different, or b) religion, neither of which I think are good reasons.
__________________ "We can easily forgive a child that is afraid of the dark, the real tragedy is when people are afraid of the light"
-Plato
Linear Mode
