The anti Christian bias gets ever more visible

[Omnedon]

Anyone who looks back and reads our posts will see the truth. Under the pretense of differentiating thought and action, he was, in effect, saying "hey - pedophilia's okay. It's only looking."

He was not saying that - not at all.
And that is precisely why you are a liar.

 

[Jet Black]

hey everybody, please don't fall for BCs equivocation of pedophilia (attraction to children - a thought) and pederasty (molestation - an action) or you'll just end up agreein with him, and that is what I was trying very carefully not to do.

BC, you never did answer me,

is attraction a thought, or not?

 

[Outspoken]

hey everybody, please don't fall for BCs equivocation of pedophilia (attraction to children - a thought) and pederasty (molestation - an action) or you'll just end up agreein with him, and that is what I was trying very carefully not to do.

BC, you never did answer me,

is attraction a thought, or not?

So the thought is okay? Not getting your connection here.

 

[Jet Black]

So the thought is okay? Not getting your connection here.

he stated that

1) thought should not be a crime.
2) attraction to children should be a crime.

however as I said, attraction is a thought, so his position is contradictory.

 

[Outspoken]

hmm..good question. Is it really attraction until it is acted out?

 

[Jet Black]

hmm..good question. Is it really attraction until it is acted out?

well it is a "desire to have", so yes.

 

[Jet Black]

I actually spared him mention of the fact that in America (at least as far as the press is concerned), pedophilia and pederasty are the same thing.

the same is true in the UK too. I believe that the media needs educating on it's use of words.

 

[Outspoken]

well it is a "desire to have", so yes.

So you think attraction is just a thought not to be acted out?

 

[Jet Black]

So you think attraction is just a thought not to be acted out?

be a little careful of definition there:

attraction in this case is a desire for something. It does not necessitate action, but it does not deny it either.

e.g. I can be attracted to a woman, but it is entirely up to me to cheat on my girlfriend to be with her, or not (as it happens I choose not)

 

[Outspoken]

be a little careful of definition there:

attraction in this case is a desire for something. It does not necessitate action, but it does not deny it either.

e.g. I can be attracted to a woman, but it is entirely up to me to cheat on my girlfriend to be with her, or not (as it happens I choose not)

Hmm..but your over all attraction to women is acted out. I see the gray line..could you clear it up?

 

[Jet Black]

Hmm..but your over all attraction to women is acted out. I see the gray line..could you clear it up?

only because I made the choice to be with my girlfriend in the first place. If there was a compelling reason for me to not choose to act on my attraction for her, then I would not have done. For example, if she had a boyfriend, I would not have acted on my attraction.

does this clear it up?

 

[Outspoken]

only because I made the choice to be with my girlfriend in the first place. If there was a compelling reason for me to not choose to act on my attraction for her, then I would not have done. For example, if she had a boyfriend, I would not have acted on my attraction.

does this clear it up?

Nope, are you talking about specific attractions, or sexual attraction as a whole..I thought it was the latter.

 

[Jet Black]

Nope, are you talking about specific attractions, or sexual attraction as a whole..I thought it was the latter.

I see. In this case I am talking about a specific attraction, but the same rule applies. If there was a compelling reason for me to not act on a more general attraction, then I would not.

(I wasn't sure what you meant by grey line, sorry if I cleared up the wrong grey line)

 

[Outspoken]

I see. In this case I am talking about a specific attraction, but the same rule applies. If there was a compelling reason for me to not act on a more general attraction, then I would not.

So your attraction to women is defined only in your thought and not action at all? then what is proof of your attraction? Once you show it then you've acted it out, or speak on it, you've acted out the attraction.

 

[Jet Black]

So your attraction to women is defined only in your thought and not action at all? then what is proof of your attraction? Once you show it then you've acted it out, or speak on it, you've acted out the attraction.

My attraction is in itself only defined by my thoughts, yes. It is unimportant whether I show it, speak it, or act on it.

There does not need to be proof of an attraction, it is merely a thought. Are you saying that heterosexuals are only heterosexuals when they have sex with someone of the opposite sex?

 

[Outspoken]

My attraction is in itself only defined by my thoughts, yes. It is unimportant whether I show it, speak it, or act on it.

There does not need to be proof of an attraction, it is merely a thought. Are you saying that heterosexuals are only heterosexuals when they have sex with someone of the opposite sex?

So how do you know its attraction then? The behavior you see as attraction can't be proven until its acted out. Thus the gray..? You're asking my question..LOL. So lets try and clear this up...You're saying that you can be a homosexual without acting upon it?

 

[Jet Black]

So how do you know its attraction then? The behavior you see as attraction can't be proven until its acted out. Thus the gray..?

As I said, proof of an attraction is not required, since attraction is simply a desire for something. You know if you are attracted to someone or not don't you, or do you have to try it out to find out?

 

[Outspoken]

You need to read my WHOLE post, I added something

 

[Jet Black]

I addressed both points

1) how do you know it is attraction (it is a desire, if you desire something, you are attracted to it.)
2) the necessity for proof (there is none.)

 

[Outspoken]

I simply am looking for the one thing you didn't address...

You're saying that you can be a homosexual without acting upon it?