Prove me wrong Phobes, a challenge, I'm calling you OUT.

[ChaliceThunder]

...Mr. Nigel Incubator Jones, Upper Class Twit of the Year.

 

[BigBadWlf]

Sounds like Monty Python's Flying Circus.


...and now for something completely different.

It’s actually from The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy

 

[BigBadWlf]

...Mr. Nigel Incubator Jones, Upper Class Twit of the Year.

"Ford," he said, "you're turning into a penguin. Stop it."

 

[TheDag]

I new I liked girls long before any interest was show to me AND before I was an adult.
This seems like a convenient definition to rule out "orientations" that are embarrassing to gays when arguing for gay rights.

I really don't see it being embarrassing to gays either.

 

[TheDag]

Pedophilia can't be an orientation for two obvious reasons:

1. Consent is required by BOTH individuals. Children cannot give consent therefore it is not an orientation, it is rape.

2. In order for it to be an orientation it would need to go both ways. The adult would have to oriented only to children and children would have to be oriented to only adults. Children are not sexually developed so it is impossible for them to have any sexual orientation at all, which means pedophilia cannot be an orientation since it is one group exerting control over another.

but you still have not proven why consent must exist for it to be an orientation. that is the problem. you have given your theory which to me seems to be based on assumptions. That is fine of course if it is presented as opinion.

I haven't said anything contradictory to that and even pointed out that if a hetero adult molests a child of the same gender that doesn't mean the adult is no longer hetero because pedophilia isn't an orientation.

A gay guy having sex with a woman doesn't change his or her orientation.

You only say that if a hetero adult has sex with a child it doesn't change their orientation because you start with the belief that pedophilia is not an orientation.

You also need to explain yourself better because you said the orientation does not change because it is power that drives it. But what about cases where a gay person chooses to have consensual sex with a female. That is not rape so is it still about power? Why or why not?
Also if having a gay orientation means you are only having relationships with people of the same sex then how can you possibly say a gay guy having sex with a female does not change the orientation.

This all started with the question of why are hetero/homo/bisexuality all orientations but not pedophilia, beastiality, or objectum sex. The difference is clear:consent.

i know how this started. it started from the comment I made in regards to pedophilia then cantata used beastiality etc when expressing her view. So answer the point I made. I'll break it up for you
1. Gay people here claim being gay is not a choice
2. If it is not a choice then it is a natural orientation.
3. For orientation to exist there must be consent between at least two people
4. That consent can only be given if they make a choice towards each other
Therefore being gay is actually a choice according to your logic. So are you saying being gay is a choice? If not then consent is not required for orientation. Simple as that.

Think I explained this above already. Iam not making any assumptions at all. A child has no sexuality because puberty has not happened so the child is asexual at that point in life. An adult tricking a child into sexual activity is not consent. Where do you think the cliche "Do you want some candy little girl?" came from?

So one needs to define what a child is. of course the definition of a child would then need to be constantly reviewed as puberty is happening ealier and earlier these days. People as young as 8 are going through puberty which means at eight years of age they can give consent according to your argument. Of course simply because sex is not consensual does not mean that one or both or however many people involved do not actually have a orientation.

Sexual orientation is a social institution and one that can only be formed by mutually consenting adults. When someone says they are hetero you know that means they have relationships only with other "consenting" heteros. How do you know this? Because there is more than one consenting hetero which then forms a group, or social institution. It's just like if someone says they got busted for "drinking and driving." They don't say "I got busted for drinking alcohol while driving" yet you instantly know they didn't get bust for drinking water or coffee.

actually i do not assume that simply because someone says they are hetero that they are only having relationships with other heteros. I make no assumption about if they are involved in or have ever been involved in a relationship. I take it to mean that they prefer people of the opposite sex.

When someone says they got busted for drink driving I assume it is alcohol because driving under the influence of water is not illegal whereas driving under the influence of alcohol is.

There are tons of links available but the best way to start is reading about rape and why it is about power and not sex. Pedophilia is a specific type of rape, regarding children just like beastiality is a specific form of rape, regarding animals. Not trying to be lazy but I really, really do not feel like providing links only to have them dismissed for X reason. Not saying you "would" do this, only saying iam not taking the chance. It may actually even be a great new thread. But I can say unless rape is understood, pedophilia won't be.

 

[TheDag]

Thanks for helping to prove sexual orientation is innate and not simply a choice. I've seen tons of gays say the same thing about knowing they "liked" the same gender long before they were adults.

Wow you thanking rep daddy for proving this really damages your argument. you ealier claimed kids are not capable of giving consent and that makes it rape. however according to you there must be consent for an orientation to exist. So because orientation does exist in kids as you've agreed here then consent can exist.

 

[TheDag]

Technically the bible calls male on male rape an abomination.
Other abomination include eating shellfish, Pride and the oppression of others…but I’m going to guess you don’t have issues with these abomination

This shows someone doesn't understand how to read the bible

Yet all (and I do mean all) evidence shows that sexual orientation is inborn

So we'll just call certain people freaks shall we? Or shall we call them big fat liars? Or what shall we call them when this does not fit them?

Are you suggesting that homosexuality is caused by demonic possession?

Only if you misunderstand or misrepresent what jph said.

So you follow all the laws of Leviticus? I use Leviticus because you seem happy to use it to attack an entire minority.

So you don’t shave
You don’t allow people wearing glasses into church
You refuse any contact with women during their period
You keep slaves
You kill disobedient three year olds
You don’t plant roses
You refuse to cut your hair

Right?

Or do you compromise the word of God when it is convenient for you to do so?

Only if one ignores numerous passages does one need to compromise when it is convienient.

There are thousands of peer reviewed and legitimately publish studies showing that sexual orientation is inborn…However there are no such studies showing that sexual orientation is somehow a choice.
Please enlighten us as to what would be “enough” evidence

Well firstly i haven't read thousands of peer reviewed studies. I would be very impressed if you had read that many on the topic. if you have then you obviously have more time to sit around reading them than I do. heck the many professors and doctors I come across don't read anywhere near that many on one subject. Of course peer reviewed articles have also stated symptoms for heart attacks in all people and we now know that the symptoms for women are different to the men. Good to see your responding to this after the 5th time I said it wait maybe it was the 6th or 7th time. Oh well better late than never I suppose.

Having said all that can you provide some links for me to full articles. Most of the ones I've come across have in my view made assumptions or poor conclusions. there have been some that seem plausible to me but not enough to sway me.

 

[Trevorocity]

Not to put to fine a point on it but all this chatter about consent is irrelevant to the original point.

Wow you thanking rep daddy for proving this really damages your argument. you ealier claimed kids are not capable of giving consent and that makes it rape. however according to you there must be consent for an orientation to exist. So because orientation does exist in kids as you've agreed here then consent can exist.

 

[cantata]

Not to put to fine a point on it but all this chatter about consent is irrelevant to the original point.

Yes. I still have no idea how consent makes a difference to orientation.

Which is why I don't understand why paedophilia/zoophilia/objectùm-sexuality don't count as orientations.

 

[Trevorocity]

Yes. I still have no idea how consent makes a difference to orientation.

Which is why I don't understand why paedophilia/zoophilia/objectùm-sexuality don't count as orientations.

An interesting debate...for another thread.

 

[DieHappy]

There are thousands of peer reviewed and legitimately publish studies showing that sexual orientation is inborn…However there are no such studies showing that sexual orientation is somehow a choice.
Please enlighten us as to what would be “enough” evidence

Having said all that can you provide some links for me to full articles. Most of the ones I've come across have in my view made assumptions or poor conclusions. there have been some that seem plausible to me but not enough to sway me.

Good luck. The two he quoted earlier aren't available and the abstracts don't match what he claimed they said.

Ignoring the fact that pedophiles are overwhelmingly heterosexual
Jenny, C., Roesler, T. A., & Poyer, K. L. (1994). Are children at risk for sexual abuse by homosexuals? Pediatrics, 94(1), 41-44.
Groth, A.N., & Birnbaum, H.J. (1978). Adult sexual orientation and attraction to underage persons. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 7 (3), 175-181.
Freund, K., Watson, R., & Rienzo, D. (1989). Heterosexuality, homosexuality, and erotic age preference. The Journal of Sex Research, 26 (1), 107-117.

Volume 26 of the Journal of sex research is not available.

Arch Sex behavior says"A random sample of 175 males convicted of sexual assault against children was screened with reference to their adult sexual orientation and the sex of their victims. The sample divided fairly evenly into two groups based on whether they were sexually fixated exclusively on children or had regressed from peer relationships. Female children were victimized nearly twice as often as male children. All regressed offenders, whether their victims were male or female children, were heterosexual in their adult orientation. There were no examples of regression to child victims among peer-oriented, homosexual males. The possibility emerges that homosexuality and homosexual pedophilia may be mutually exclusive and that the adult heterosexual male constitutes a greater risk to the underage child than does the adult homosexual male."

Interesting, I wonder what there is that's 30 years newer?

The pediatrics article would be interesting to read because the abstract seems to indicate that if you factor out related individuals, a stranger committing sexual abuse would be more likely to be gay. Only if you take the overall number of abusers does the gay amount become proportional to the general population of gay individuals, and that's a rather specious way to go about it because of course a family member committing the abuse would be heterosexual.

Alas, you've managed, once again, to provide references that are unreadable.

 

[cantata]

What do homosexuals who are paedophiles have to do with the millions of homosexuals who are not?

 

[DieHappy]

I don't know, and I'm not sure how it even got introduced to this thread. I do know that the studies he introduces don't seem to really be saying what he wants them to say.

 

[Maren]

I don't know, and I'm not sure how it even got introduced to this thread. I do know that the studies he introduces don't seem to really be saying what he wants them to say.

Actually, they do seem to support what he is saying. You claim the references are "unreadable", yet what you mean is that you haven't been able to find them. I think you'd find if you go to a library (though it might need to be a large city or university library) you could read them. So far, most of your complaints have been that you interpret the abstracts differently and that they are old -- though you have come up with none that are more recent.

 

[cantata]

Ignoring the fact that pedophiles are overwhelmingly heterosexual
Jenny, C., Roesler, T. A., & Poyer, K. L. (1994). Are children at risk for sexual abuse by homosexuals? Pediatrics, 94(1), 41-44.
Groth, A.N., & Birnbaum, H.J. (1978). Adult sexual orientation and attraction to underage persons. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 7 (3), 175-181.
Freund, K., Watson, R., & Rienzo, D. (1989). Heterosexuality, homosexuality, and erotic age preference. The Journal of Sex Research, 26 (1), 107-117.

These don't address TheDag's point at all. He wasn't saying homosexuals are paedophiles. He was saying that the fact that something isn't a choice doesn't make it right, because paedophiles don't choose to be paedophiles, but acting out sexual attraction to children is unacceptable.

Reading comprehension ftw.

 

[RealDealNeverstop]

I'm going to start a new thread on orientation, which will undoubtedly include killing the myth that gays are more likely to be pedophiles.

Also, I believe Dag had said something way back when about how I read the story of S + G so here is a link to that thread http://christianforums.com/showthread.php?t=7246196

Sorry for the hiccup and after the other op is done will post a link here to prevent any further derailment (from my way at least!)

 

[Trevorocity]

Tick tock, tick tock... Still waiting for a heterosexual male to prove homosexuality is just a choice by choosing gay. 54 pages in and not one so far...

I'm going to start a new thread on orientation, which will undoubtedly include killing the myth that gays are more likely to be pedophiles.

Also, I believe Dag had said something way back when about how I read the story of S + G so here is a link to that thread http://christianforums.com/showthread.php?t=7246196

Sorry for the hiccup and after the other op is done will post a link here to prevent any further derailment (from my way at least!)

 

[BigBadWlf]

This shows someone doesn't understand how to read the bible

It rather shows that people trying to claim that homosexuality is an abomination are wrong in that claim.

So we'll just call certain people freaks shall we? Or shall we call them big fat liars? Or what shall we call them when this does not fit them?

You seem to be trying to claim that actual legitimate evidence that sexual orientation is a choice exists…but for some strange reason you just can’t be bothered to provide that evidence….hmmmmm…I wonder why….

Only if you misunderstand or misrepresent what jph said.

No it was pretty clear what was said… just providing an opportunity to back down form that hogwash

Only if one ignores numerous passages does one need to compromise when it is convienient.

Yet here people are cherry picking form Leviticus to try to justify their own petty personal prejudices while at the same time ignoring huge chunks of that same book

Well firstly i haven't read thousands of peer reviewed studies. I would be very impressed if you had read that many on the topic.

Then go get started reading

if you have then you obviously have more time to sit around reading them than I do. heck the many professors and doctors I come across don't read anywhere near that many on one subject.

Is not that difficult. A Christian here posts an obvious lie about homosexuality…read a couple articles to confront that lie…that Christian ignores evidence and continues to lie…same thing works when James Dobson makes some claim

Of course peer reviewed articles have also stated symptoms for heart attacks in all people and we now know that the symptoms for women are different to the men. Good to see your responding to this after the 5th time I said it wait maybe it was the 6th or 7th time. Oh well better late than never I suppose.

Maybe you were to busy to notice all the other times

Having said all that can you provide some links for me to full articles. Most of the ones I've come across have in my view made assumptions or poor conclusions. there have been some that seem plausible to me but not enough to sway me.

I notice you didn’t answer the question (I’m not surprised) so once again….just how much evidence would you require?
From your statements here I would guess that there could never be enough evidence and you would reject out of hand any facts that don’t support yoru personal prejudice.

 

[BigBadWlf]

Good luck. The two he quoted earlier aren't available and the abstracts don't match what he claimed they said.

try recounting

Volume 26 of the Journal of sex research is not available.

Arch Sex behavior says"A random sample of 175 males convicted of sexual assault against children was screened with reference to their adult sexual orientation and the sex of their victims. The sample divided fairly evenly into two groups based on whether they were sexually fixated exclusively on children or had regressed from peer relationships. Female children were victimized nearly twice as often as male children. All regressed offenders, whether their victims were male or female children, were heterosexual in their adult orientation. There were no examples of regression to child victims among peer-oriented, homosexual males. The possibility emerges that homosexuality and homosexual pedophilia may be mutually exclusive and that the adult heterosexual male constitutes a greater risk to the underage child than does the adult homosexual male."

emphasis mine

so...gee...it does say that after all.

Interesting, I wonder what there is that's 30 years newer?

maybe the ones your ignoring

Alas, you've managed, once again, to provide references that are unreadable.

So either you have poor reading comprehension…or you are just dishonest….which is it?

 

[SughaNSpice]

Good luck. The two he quoted earlier aren't available and the abstracts don't match what he claimed they said.



Volume 26 of the Journal of sex research is not available.

Arch Sex behavior says"A random sample of 175 males convicted of sexual assault against children was screened with reference to their adult sexual orientation and the sex of their victims. The sample divided fairly evenly into two groups based on whether they were sexually fixated exclusively on children or had regressed from peer relationships. Female children were victimized nearly twice as often as male children. All regressed offenders, whether their victims were male or female children, were heterosexual in their adult orientation. There were no examples of regression to child victims among peer-oriented, homosexual males. The possibility emerges that homosexuality and homosexual pedophilia may be mutually exclusive and that the adult heterosexual male constitutes a greater risk to the underage child than does the adult homosexual male."

Interesting, I wonder what there is that's 30 years newer?

The pediatrics article would be interesting to read because the abstract seems to indicate that if you factor out related individuals, a stranger committing sexual abuse would be more likely to be gay. Only if you take the overall number of abusers does the gay amount become proportional to the general population of gay individuals, and that's a rather specious way to go about it because of course a family member committing the abuse would be heterosexual.

Alas, you've managed, once again, to provide references that are unreadable.

I found the first two… it only took a couple minutes to fine them…I haven’t gone hunting for the third…Can’t imagine it would be any problem to find… Not sure what your problem is…

The first study by Jenny, Roesler and Poyer was an interesting read…well interesting for a scientific paper…and hey!!!!...its less than 30 years old…and that is important because ya know...anything more than 30 years old is obviously wrong.

Thing is the articles listed do back up the original claim…that child molesters are pretty much straight men….(not exactly news to anyone)…again not sure what your problem is or why you don’t like this fact…

I guess that is why its not an orientation…cause these men already have an orientation…I mean how can you have two orientations?

So instead of just attacking why not present countering evidence?...shouting at people who try to show the earth is round doesn’t prove the earth is flat…(can’t use the pictures of the Earth taken by astronauts on the moon cause those are over 30 years old….Why don’t you show us some proof that homosexuality is a choice…or is that asking too much?