Examining the Myth of the Gay Agenda

[DedMoroz]

Originally Posted by Keres

Because a pedophile's desires involve someone who cannot consent, whether they act upon it or not. Therefore, the difference between a homosexual (who desires to have sex with a consenting adult) and a pedophile are clear, and the two should not be equated anymore than a heterosexual (who desires to have sex with a consenting adult) should be compared to a pedophile.

Hmm...You mean a 15 year old homosexual boy “desires to have sex with a consenting adult” male? And a heterosexual boy of 15 “desires to have sex with a consenting adult” female too? Are you certain about it, Keres?
​

It appears that all three of the above mentioned groups might not necessarily think of consent or desire “to have sex” when experiencing sexual attraction. They are just attracted, period.
​

Inserting legal terms (“consent&#8221, while discussing basic biology (“sexual orientation&#8221 doesn’t seem to help very much.
​

Assuming for a moment that sexual orientation is inborn and unchangeable (just an assumption, of course) –

...how do you reconcile your advocacy of discrimination based on sexual orientation against pedophiles and your opposition to the same discrimination against homosexuals?
​

Originally Posted by Keres

The desire to come to my house for a party is not wrong, whether that desire is acted upon or not. The desire to burn my house down is wrong, whether that desire is acted upon or not. The end result of the first desire does no harm, the end result of the second desire does.

Any desire does no harm unless it is acted upon. Desires, thoughts and fantasies don’t do any legally addressable harm. Actions do. And our legal system reflects that.
​

Violating one’s privacy, policing one’s thoughts and judging others by their desires is certainly an effective way to instill fear to control the populace.
​

Why do you think it is something we need to consider when discussing discrimination based on sexual orientation?
​

Originally Posted by Keres

Homosexual sex does not cause harm anymore than heterosexual sex, as both involved consenting adults.

Are you saying that in your view repeated anal intercourse as compared to vaginal intercourse is pretty much identical in its effects on the organs involved (epithelial lining of the rectum , rectal venous plexuses and anastomoses, urinary tract infection risks (if sex is unprotected), trauma to the sphincters,) etc., etc.?
​

Are you sure, Keres?
​

Besides, consent is nothing more that a legally effective assent. Legal does not equate to morally permissible or harmless.

Involving “consenting adults” does not guarantee harm prevention in the least.
​

Here is an extreme example: if one consenting adult asks another consenting adult to splash acid in their face (because they hate themselves so much), the harm will be done and the second “consenting adult” will also be guilty of conspiracy, assault, battery and mayhem if they go ahead and splash that acid.

Regardless of the consent given by both parties the harm clearly exists.
​

Originally Posted by Keres

Child molestation does cause harm, as one of the parties involved is not a consenting adult.

How does one’s sexual orientation (mere attraction) cause harm?
​

You seen to be advocating discrimination based on one’s sexual orientation against pedophiles. Isn’t that what homosexuals are trying to stop - discrimination based on one’s sexual orientation?
​

Originally Posted by Keres

For the reason, pedophilia and homosexuality are incomparable to each other, even if the pedophile and the homosexual remain celibate throughout their entire lives.

On the contrary, pedophilia, homosexuality and heterosexuality are very comparable since they describe different sexual orientations.
​

Not the acts, but the base attractions.
​

If you propose we start discriminating against one of them – we seriously need to consider discriminating against all of them (if only for the sake of being fair and consistent).

Actually, that’s what the 14th Amendment guarantees – “that the government must treat a person or class of persons the same as it treats other persons or classes in like circumstances” (Black’s Law Dictionary).
​

Originally Posted by Keres

Yes, a hypothetically innocent pedophile, who is a pedophile because they desire to have sex with someone who is, by definition, incapable of consent. Inherently different from say, a celibate homosexual, who is a homosexual because they desire to have sex with CONSENTING adults. The difference being CONSENT.

This is somewhat silly, really.
​

How about a “hypothetically innocent” employee who dislikes her boss and wants to punch him, but never does it - she could be dubbed an “assaulto-phile”, right?,
​

Or
​

A “hypothetically innocent” male being strongly attracted to a happily married female across the street, even though he never commits any overt acts based on his attraction -now he’d qualify to be a “rapo-phile”?...
​

Innocent – should probably mean innocent!
​

Without an overt act - we’ve got nothing! ...Just thoughts, attractions, fantasies and sexual desires.
​

Originally Posted by Keres

See, like a homosexual, I only want to have sex with consenting adults. I happen to like consenting adults of the gender opposite my own.[/quote]

Homosexuality (just like heterosexuality or pedophilia) as a term describes one’s sexual orientation.
​

The term doesn’t communicate anything about wanting “to have sex” with someone. It only describes ones attraction.
​

Nor does it imply “to want to have sex with consenting adults”.
​

Originally Posted by Keres

I have absolutely no interest in sex with someone who does not or is incapable of consent.

It is absolutely admirable that your personal moral code happens to align so perfectly with the existing arbitrary legislation. Bravo!
​

Originally Posted by Keres

To have sex with someone who does not or is incapable of consent violates their dignity and their rights.

Which jurisdiction are you referring to?

The age of consent varies dramatically between the states and especially between different countries.
​

Assuming your consent based argument has any merit at all - would the existence of violation of “…their dignity and their rights” become dependent on the place where the aforementioned “sex with someone” occurs?
​

Originally Posted by Keres

Having sex with someone who is capable of and chooses to consent violates nobody's rights or basic human dignity.

Not really.
​

Having sex/ affair with an adult married person, for instance, “who is capable of and chooses to consent”, might do enormous harm to that person’s family; violate their spouse’s and children’s rights and basic human dignity.
​

There you have it.
​

Consent by itself is hardly a guarantee against harm.
​

Although, it may be an effective defense if consent negates an element of the crime.
​

Originally Posted by Keres

But you aren't defending homosexuals. You are demonizing and in-humanizing them by comparing them to pedophiles. You are violating the rights and dignity of homosexuals by such a comparison.

And why would you want to demonize and dehumanize pedophiles?

Because of their sexual orientation?

If we can not legally discriminate against someone based on their sexual orientation – the law should apply to all sexual orientations equally.
​

That’s what equal protection and equal application of laws are about, regardless of our personal feelings about the matter.
​

 

[lawtonfogle]

To drop a bombshell on Keres' argument, in the state of Arizona, children of any age can consent to sex, under limited condition (kinda like how we say you can't be drunk to consent to sex). Of course, these are very strict laws on if they can consent, but legally, a child CAN CONSENT to sex (at least in the state of Arizona).

 

[lawtonfogle]

But you aren't defending homosexuals. You are demonizing and in-humanizing them by comparing them to pedophiles. You are violating the rights and dignity of homosexuals by such a comparison.

I'm sorry, you are demonizing and dehumanizing pedophiles by saying they desire sex with someone who cannot consent. Under Arizona law 13-1407, subsection D, in conjunction with Arizona law 25-102, they too can consent.

So now we see your argument for what it is, hating on pedophiles. Reminds me of the people who say all homosexuals are rapist because no mentally competent person would consent to homosexual sex, thus anyone willing to engage in it is mentally ill to the point they cannot consent, thus anyone who engages in homosexual sex with them is raping them.

Ok, person who says, as I only know of one person who has seriously said that before.

 

[Keres]

Hmm...You mean a 15 year old homosexual boy “desires to have sex with a consenting adult” male? And a heterosexual boy of 15 “desires to have sex with a consenting adult” female too? Are you certain about it, Keres?​

​

how do you reconcile your advocacy of discrimination based on sexual orientation against pedophiles and your opposition to the same discrimination against homosexuals?

I answered that, several times. I even explained it in small words and provided the dictionary definition of longer words.

Any desire does no harm unless it is acted upon. Desires, thoughts and fantasies don’t do any legally addressable harm. Actions do. And our legal system reflects that.

Can you quote me saying that a pedophile who does not act on his desires should be mistreated in anyway?

No?

See above image.
​

Are you saying that in your view repeated anal intercourse as compared to vaginal intercourse is pretty much identical in its effects on the organs involved (epithelial lining of the rectum , rectal venous plexuses and anastomoses, urinary tract infection risks (if sex is unprotected), trauma to the sphincters,) etc., etc.?

Are you sure, Keres?​

Yep. Are you completely unaware of how many heterosexuals engage in anal sex? Or oral sex, for that matter? How exactly have you missed that anal and oral sex are not wholly confined to the homosexual community?

Looked at how many women die from childbirth or pregnancy complications world wide? In some countries, it's around 1 in 16. Really want to try to claim that heterosexual sex is 'safer' and that's why homosexual sex should be banned?
​

Besides, consent is nothing more that a legally effective assent. Legal does not equate to morally permissible or harmless.

Involving “consenting adults” does not guarantee harm prevention in the least.

See, that's the glory of consent. You can agree to it. It's just like getting a tattoo. Technically 'harmful', but if you consent to it, who cares? What right does anyone have to stop you?
​

Here is an extreme example: if one consenting adult asks another consenting adult to splash acid in their face (because they hate themselves so much), the harm will be done and the second “consenting adult” will also be guilty of conspiracy, assault, battery and mayhem if they go ahead and splash that acid.

Here is a real example:

Sex itself.

If all involved consent, good clean wholesome fun. If one person doesn't consent, it's called rape.

Consent by itself is hardly a guarantee against harm.

I didn't say it was. I pointed out that if all parties consent, it's not a violation of their rights or human dignity. I consented to sex and the resulting pregnancy and childbirth. I have lovely scars from the operation where I consented to have my son cut out of me.

How does one’s sexual orientation (mere attraction) cause harm?

​

You seen to be advocating discrimination based on one’s sexual orientation against pedophiles. Isn’t that what homosexuals are trying to stop - discrimination based on one’s sexual orientation?​

See the above image, and all that I have stated in this thread so far, such as all the other times I addressed this issue already. And please stop lying about what I have stated in this thread, I have not suggested anywhere discriminating against pedophiles who have not acted on their desires. I am however, pointing out a pedophile should be discouraged from action on their desires because their desire involves someone who is incapable of consent. Just like a guy who fantasizes about raping women should be discouraged from acting out those actions.

But since a homosexual's desires involve consenting adults, it's incomparable to a pedophile or wanna-be rapist's desires, and the only reason to try to equate them is bigotry towards homosexuals.
​

If we can not legally discriminate against someone based on their sexual orientation – the law should apply to all sexual orientations equally.

Right up until it is acted upon. Now, can you quote me stating a pedophile should be acted against if they have not taken actions? Can you explain to me, for that matter, how I might even know a person is a pedophile until they take those actions?

You've rehashed a lot of arguments that were invalid the first time they were used. Do you have anything new to bring to the table?

 

[lawtonfogle]

Do you have anything new to bring to the table?

Yes.

Under Arizona law 13-1407, subsection D, in conjunction with Arizona law 25-102, children can consent. Due to Arizona law 25-102 and the Full Faith and Credit Clause, other states may have provisions which allow for children to consent, but I have not checked.

 

[OllieFranz]

Keres --

2 points, and then I give up on you. If you don't understand these points, then you are so hung up on the label "pedophile" that you are not thinking clearly.

1) You keep saying that a pedophile cannot in any way be compared to a "normal" homosexual because he cannot obtain consent for his "desires." You are willing to consider a homosexual to be a full, normal human, but not a pedophile.

A normal human being may desire to go to the store and buy milk. There is no problem. But a pedophile may desire to go to the store to buy milk, but you say he can't go because he cannot obtain consent for his desires. Rediculous, of course. This isn't the desire you are talking about, right?

But then, a pedophile can in some ways, in fact in most ways, be compared to a homosexual. That includes the reaction of the general public to the label.

2) Do we think of someone who, due to genetics, the in-utero environment, or some cause in early childhood is biologically "wired" to angry or anti-social reactions beyond the norm as exactly the same thing as a serial killer? Do we call this condition a "desire" to kill, even if the person is aware that he needs to particularly monitor his reactions, and is the most mild-mannered person you know? His "wiring" is not the anger, and his anger is not the violence, and the violence is not the serial killing.

This is the position of my hypothetical innocent pedophile is in. He no more "desires" to have sex with children than you desire to have sex with your 18-year-old nephew (or niece, depending on your orientation). An orientation like homosexuality, and a paraphilia like pedophilia are not desires, they are biologically "wired" "predispositions" to be attracted to certain body types more than others. The "wiring" is not the attraction, and the attraction is not the desire, and the desire is not the act of sex.

 

[Keres]

I'm sorry, you are demonizing and dehumanizing pedophiles by saying they desire sex with someone who cannot consent. Under Arizona law 13-1407, subsection D, in conjunction with Arizona law 25-102, they too can consent.

ROTFLMAO.

Seriously? You are pulling that out of your rear end?

That's the best you can do?

No, actually, they cannot consent, their parents can consent on their behalf.

You keep saying that a pedophile cannot in any way be compared to a "normal" homosexual because he cannot obtain consent for his "desires." You are willing to consider a homosexual to be a full, normal human, but not a pedophile.

Please quote me where I said a pedophile is not a full, normal human.

Yes, a pedophile cannot be compared to a normal homosexual because what a pedophile desires cannot be achieved with consent.

Just like a wanna-be rapist cannot be compared to a normal heterosexual because what a wanna-be rapist desires cannot be achieved with consent.

Or do I get to compare you to a wanna be rapist, because you both want to have sex with members of the opposite gender?

But then, a pedophile can in some ways, in fact in most ways, be compared to a homosexual.

Okay. You then, are the same as a rapist, by every single standard that compares a pedophile and a homosexual.

You are to rapist what pedophile is to homosexual.

Do we think of someone who, due to genetics, the in-utero environment, or some cause in early childhood is biologically "wired" to angry or anti-social reactions beyond the norm as exactly the same thing as a serial killer? Do we call this condition a "desire" to kill, even if the person is aware that he needs to particularly monitor his reactions, and is the most mild-mannered person you know? His "wiring" is not the anger, and his anger is not the violence, and the violence is not the serial killing.

And this has what to do with the argument at hand?

Here, let me repeat something I've already said. Maybe you'll read it this time:

I have not suggested anywhere discriminating against pedophiles who have not acted on their desires.

Hopefully, I won't have to repeat this again. Please do not bring up this strawman again, since I've made it clear, bolded, italicized, and underlined that I am not making the argument that pedophiles should be mistreated, discriminated against, abused, arrested, so on, so forth.

I am stating that their basic desire is different than that of a homosexual, because what the heterosexual desires involves consent. A pedophile, by definition, desires someone who cannot consent. Here, in fact, is the definition of a pedophile:
pe⋅do⋅phile

   /ˈpi

dəˌfaɪl/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [pee-duh-fahyl] –noun Psychiatry. an adult who is sexually attracted to young children.

I'll even provide you with a reference to this definition: pedophile. (n.d.). Dictionary.com Unabridged. Retrieved February 04, 2010, from Dictionary.com website: Pedophile | Definition of Pedophile at Dictionary.com:

Young children are not capable of consent. If you have some other definition of 'pedophile', I'd love to hear it.

A pedophile is more akin to someone who has a rape fantasy. If he acts upon his desire and takes this non-consensual action, he needs to spend the rest of his life in prison. If he doesn't, fine. The thought police shouldn't bust down his door and arrest him.

But a homosexual, one who acts on his/her desires, should be absolutely free to do so. Because he/she is acting upon desires that involve consent.

I've explained it as clearly as I can. At this point, if you don't get it, I have to assume it is willful ignorance based solely on bigotry.

 

[OllieFranz]

ROTFLMAO.

Seriously? You are pulling that out of your rear end?

That's the best you can do?

No, actually, they cannot consent, their parents can consent on their behalf.



Please quote me where I said a pedophile is not a full, normal human.

Yes, a pedophile cannot be compared to a normal homosexual because what a pedophile desires cannot be achieved with consent.

Just like a wanna-be rapist cannot be compared to a normal heterosexual because what a wanna-be rapist desires cannot be achieved with consent.

Or do I get to compare you to a wanna be rapist, because you both want to have sex with members of the opposite gender?



Okay. You then, are the same as a rapist, by every single standard that compares a pedophile and a homosexual.

You are to rapist what pedophile is to homosexual.



And this has what to do with the argument at hand?

Here, let me repeat something I've already said. Maybe you'll read it this time:

I have not suggested anywhere discriminating against pedophiles who have not acted on their desires.

Hopefully, I won't have to repeat this again. Please do not bring up this strawman again, since I've made it clear, bolded, italicized, and underlined that I am not making the argument that pedophiles should be mistreated, discriminated against, abused, arrested, so on, so forth.

I am stating that their basic desire is different than that of a homosexual, because what the heterosexual desires involves consent. A pedophile, by definition, desires someone who cannot consent. Here, in fact, is the definition of a pedophile:
pe⋅do⋅phile

   /ˈpi

dəˌfaɪl/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [pee-duh-fahyl] –noun Psychiatry. an adult who is sexually attracted to young children.

I'll even provide you with a reference to this definition: pedophile. (n.d.). Dictionary.com Unabridged. Retrieved February 04, 2010, from Dictionary.com website: Pedophile | Definition of Pedophile at Dictionary.com:

Young children are not capable of consent. If you have some other definition of 'pedophile', I'd love to hear it.

A pedophile is more akin to someone who has a rape fantasy. If he acts upon his desire and takes this non-consensual action, he needs to spend the rest of his life in prison. If he doesn't, fine. The thought police shouldn't bust down his door and arrest him.

But a homosexual, one who acts on his/her desires, should be absolutely free to do so. Because he/she is acting upon desires that involve consent.

I've explained it as clearly as I can. At this point, if you don't get it, I have to assume it is willful ignorance based solely on bigotry.

So then do you fantasize about having sex with your nephew? My hypothetical innocent pedophile does not desire sex with children and he certainly does not fantasize about raping them. He is merely biologically predisposed either to find those of a certain body type more attractive than those with other body types -- a type that happens to occur mostly in pre-pubescents -- or to judge someone with such a body type to be attractive more often than than the general population.

Simply being a pedophile is no more necessarily potentially raping anyone than you are a potentially committing incest with your 18-year-old nephew.

I give up. You are hopeless.

 

[lawtonfogle]

ROTFLMAO.

Seriously? You are pulling that out of your rear end?

That's the best you can do?

No, actually, they cannot consent, their parents can consent on their behalf.

It requires their consent, the parents' consent, and the court's consent to get married. This is not the parents consenting on their behalf, because without the child's consent, there will be no marriage.

But I was not talking about that, because once they are married, they can consent on their own, their parents cannot, and do not, consent for them.

As to the 'the best you can do' remark, it sure beats what ever you have done. I have given you state law which proves you wrong. Unless you want to go and say that the state law does not say what the STATE'S OWN WEB PAGE ABOUT THE STATE'S LAWS says it says, then go ahead, but I do suggest you attempt to prove such an assertion.

 

[Keres]

My hypothetical innocent pedophile does not desire sex with children

Then he isn't a pedophile. Do you have a real argument?

It requires their consent, the parents' consent, and the court's consent to get married. This is not the parents consenting on their behalf, because without the child's consent, there will be no marriage.

And yet because the child is incapable of consent, it also requires the consent of the parents and the court.

I have given you state law which proves you wrong.

No, you haven't, you've provided a state law that proves what I've been saying. A child is incapable of consent, which is why a child requires their parents and the court system to consent on their behalf, which they will only do if they believe the child is mature enough (aka, not a child anymore) to consent.

Unless you want to go and say that the state law does not say what the STATE'S OWN WEB PAGE ABOUT THE STATE'S LAWS says it says, then go ahead, but I do suggest you attempt to prove such an assertion.

Can a child get married without a court hearing and their parents finding them capable of consent?

No?

So the law has what to do with the argument at hand?

 

[Maxwell511]

It depends what state you are in.

I'm not from the US. We're in Ireland. Homosexuality was only legalised here in 1993. You didn't misread that; 1993.

 

[OllieFranz]

That's still 10 years before the US (Lawrence v Texas, 2003)

 

[Fenny the Fox]

That's still 10 years before the US (Lawrence v Texas, 2003)

Well, most states did repeal anti-sodomy laws before 2003. That was just the point when it was officially made a federal decision.

 

[OllieFranz]

Well, most states did repeal anti-sodomy laws before 2003. That was just the point when it was officially made a federal decision.

True. Thankfully there were only a few states (13 IIRC) that never repealed their general anti-"sodomy" laws and were still enforcing them, particularly them against gays. A handful of others had written their laws exclusively against same-sex "sodomy" and had been federally barred a few years earlier from enforcing them because they were exclusive. One or two of those re-wrote the law and were among the 13 or so affected directly by Lawrence.

 

[The Penitent Man]

Sodom and Gomorrah weren't destroyed because of homosexuality.

This statement is inaccurate. Sodom & Gomorrah were destroyed because of a great many sins *including* homosexuality.

from Genesis 19

"Before they had gone to bed, all the men from every part of the city of Sodom—both young and old—surrounded the house. They called to Lot, "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them."

 

[Supernaut]

This statement is inaccurate. Sodom & Gomorrah were destroyed because of a great many sins *including* homosexuality.

from Genesis 19

"Before they had gone to bed, all the men from every part of the city of Sodom—both young and old—surrounded the house. They called to Lot, "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them."

Um...great link, how does that prove why God destroyed the city? How does that prove that homosexuality had anything to with it?

6 So Lot stepped outside to talk to them, shutting the door behind him. 7 “Please, my brothers,” he begged, “don’t do such a wicked thing. 8 Look, I have two virgin daughters. Let me bring them out to you, and you can do with them as you wish. But please, leave these men alone, for they are my guests and are under my protection.”

Perhaps offering your own daughters to be GANG-RAPED repeatedly might also have something to do with it. But no, Lot was a Godly man...his actions here were just.....right??

 

[The Penitent Man]

think there is definitely a homosexual agenda, and if I were a homosexual I'd probably be part of it. I always try to put myself in the other person's shoes.

And what is the agenda, specifically? Equal rights under the law? An end to discrimination, attack, and hate?

A noble agenda.

But I'll be darned if I know how Christianity and gays will ever be reconciled. Our Lord Jesus Christ hung on that cross for everybody, all people. He bled for the gay man and the straight man alike, for the transgender and the lesbian.

Quite a profound realization, huh?

 

[Supernaut]

A noble agenda.

Agreed. Social equality is a must.

But I'll be darned if I know how Christianity and gays will ever be reconciled. Our Lord Jesus Christ hung on that cross for everybody, all people. He bled for the gay man and the straight man alike, for the transgender and the lesbian.

For me, I look at what Jesus our Lord had to say about gays/homosexuality. He said nothing. That tells me that it was either not an issue at all...or it was not worth being mentioned in any capacity.

I understand the difference between the sin/sinner. But that to me is still a cop out to target the community as a whole.

IMO, to me though it still holds every same sex relationship to the same standards of monogamy and ultimately love and compassion.

Quite a profound realization, huh?

Indeed!!

 

[lawtonfogle]

I'm not from the US. We're in Ireland. Homosexuality was only legalised here in 1993. You didn't misread that; 1993.

Oh, in my state, it was 2003. So year, your country is a decade ahead of my state.

 

[lawtonfogle]

This statement is inaccurate. Sodom & Gomorrah were destroyed because of a great many sins *including* homosexuality.

from Genesis 19

"Before they had gone to bed, all the men from every part of the city of Sodom—both young and old—surrounded the house. They called to Lot, "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them."

Because obviously raping them is no where near as bad as when it is homosexual rape? That story is a clear cut case of rape, it has nothing to do with if the rape was heterosexual or homosexual. Interesting move on lots part though... and by interesting I mean totally despicable.