Is the normalization of pedophillia/pederasty already well underway? [Archive]

Denali

03-30-13, 23:48

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2013/jan/03/paedophilia-bringing-dark-desires-light

Is this the new holy grail of political correctness for north American democrats/marxist/leninists? I'd say that its starting to look like a big YES!

This is radical stuff. But there is a growing conviction, notably in Canada, that paedophilia should probably be classified as a distinct sexual orientation, like heterosexuality or homosexuality. Two eminent researchers testified to that effect to a Canadian parliamentary commission last year, and the Harvard Mental Health Letter of July 2010 stated baldly that paedophilia "is a sexual orientation" and therefore "unlikely to change".

The reclassification of paedophilia as a sexual orientation would, however, play into what Goode calls "the sexual liberation discourse", which has existed since the 1970s. "There are a lot of people," she says, "who say: we outlawed homosexuality, and we were wrong. Perhaps we're wrong about paedophilia."

GeorgiaBoy

03-31-13, 00:09

Fringe/hardcore leftists may be more approachable to the "acceptance" of pedophilia.

But "normalization" amongst western society? Not in a million years.

An Undocumented Worker

03-31-13, 00:20

Sounds like it's time to make being Canadian a capitol offense.

Magic_Salad0892

03-31-13, 00:28

Sensei

03-31-13, 00:34

Belmont31R

03-31-13, 01:19

I may sound odd here but it's actually a recent trend to classify a 19 or 20 year old guy who has sex with a 15 or 16 year old with a sex crime. People used to get married much younger than that even here in the US. When I did home installs I met a lady who got married at 15 right here in Texas. Of course the laws have changed since then, and now her husband would be labeled as a pedophile.

I may be wrong but I was taught the Roman's were getting married at 13/14/15.

Obviously the life expectancy was a lot different in the past but is being attracted to a female of child bearing age a mental disorder?

Would I want to be now? No. They are so annoying the sex wouldn't be worth it. My SIL is 19, and it's nothing but drama 24/7 with her. I would shoot myself before we rounded 1st base knowing her, and where I'm at now.

The social dynamic has changed but I wouldn't call someone a pedo because they thought a 17 year old was hot. You'd have to be dumb to date one though because before at 17 they would be able to take care of themselves now at 17 their lives are nothing but ****ing drama and being as slutty as possible for a bunch of a dumb ass metrosexual males.

jpmuscle

03-31-13, 01:34

After some of the conversations I've had with clinicians in recent years it seems they we are well on are way to the point of accepting it as normal behavior for some since after all their just wired different due to mental aberrations and therefore are unable change who they are. Sadly though I think that the more mainstream this line of thinking becomes the understanding society will eventually become as well.

I mean look at whats happening in states like Colorado who steadfastly refuse to increase the severity of punishments for sex offenders all because of this fanciful belief that these types of people can be somehow rehabilitated :rolleyes:

moral relativism is a bitch..

Belmont31R

03-31-13, 01:48

After some of the conversations I've had with clinicians in recent years it seems they we are well on are way to the point of accepting it as normal behavior for some since after all their just wired different due to mental aberrations and therefore are unable change who they are.

I mean look at whats happening in states like Colorado who steadfastly refuse to increase the severity of punishments for sex offenders all because of this fanciful belief that these types of people can be somehow rehabilitated :rolleyes:

moral relativism is a bitch..

I agree but it depends on whats classified as a sex crime.

Like I said I met someone who was MARRIED at 15. Back then they would have laughed at you but now every child is a special flower and needs to go to college and have a career.

Kinda makes you think when looking back at people.

I think its mostly social and its absurd people are catching sexual offender status' because it.

Magic_Salad0892

03-31-13, 01:54

jpmuscle

03-31-13, 01:56

I agree but it depends on whats classified as a sex crime.

Like I said I met someone who was MARRIED at 15. Back then they would have laughed at you but now every child is a special flower and needs to go to college and have a career.

Kinda makes you think when looking back at people.

I think its mostly social and its absurd people are catching sexual offender status' because it.

No I agree with you there. I just seems society as a collective tends to go off the rails from time to time. But you can probably thank the feminists for the problems with the types of scenarios you mentioned. Men exploiting women and what not.

SteyrAUG

03-31-13, 01:58

This is radical stuff. But there is a growing conviction, notably in Canada, that paedophilia should probably be classified as a distinct sexual orientation, like heterosexuality or homosexuality. Two eminent researchers testified to that effect to a Canadian parliamentary commission last year, and the Harvard Mental Health Letter of July 2010 stated baldly that paedophilia "is a sexual orientation" and therefore "unlikely to change".

The reclassification of paedophilia as a sexual orientation would, however, play into what Goode calls "the sexual liberation discourse", which has existed since the 1970s. "There are a lot of people," she says, "who say: we outlawed homosexuality, and we were wrong. Perhaps we're wrong about paedophilia."

I actually agree. I don't think it is a "choice", I don't think anyone chooses to be homosexual or a pedophile or a predatory serial killer. I think it is simply who and what some people are.

I don't think you can cure or fix a homosexual or a pedophile or a serial killer. And I think all qualify as abnormalities. In cases where it includes only consenting adults I don't think there are any issues. It's not "normal" but neither is huffing gold spray paint out of a paper sack and people do that too.

But with pedophiles and serial killers the action leads to victims and not consenting adults. So neither should be tolerated at all. And quite honestly, neither should be free. For a pedophile or a serial killer to attempt to repress their natural instincts would be about like anyone on this forum to try to never have sex again or never go shooting again. Right now there are registered sex offenders living in virtually every neighborhood (and I don't just mean the kind that got caught pissing in the park at night) and they like to **** young children as much as you like to shoot your AR and as much as I'd like to **** Monica Bellucci.

Check your zip code.

http://www.nsopw.gov/?AspxAutoDetectCookieSupport=1

I have 13 in a one mile radius from my house.

Belmont31R

03-31-13, 02:01

The Romans also engaged in pedophilia quite regularly from what I understand. Also, I'm talking more about violating a 9 year old. That's ****ing horrific. A 19 year old sleeping with a willing 16 year old isn't that bad.

The classes I have taken pegged the age at 13/14 for Roman marriages. Some younger, some older...

I've not read about any western common practices of marriages of 9 year olds, and I've read a lot of history books. I don't want that to get confused with that I said earlier. NOT what what I saying.

SteyrAUG

03-31-13, 02:06

The Romans also engaged in pedophilia quite regularly from what I understand. Also, I'm talking more about violating a 9 year old. That's ****ing horrific. A 19 year old sleeping with a willing 16 year old isn't that bad.

Yeah pretty much. And it has more to do with development and puberty.

I think it is more wrong for a 15 year old to have sex with a prepubescent 13 year old than it is for a 14 year old to have sex with a 12 year old who has gone through puberty and developed.

It's a messy issue like abortion where there isn't an obvious place to draw the line and make the rules. Too far to one side and you have adults ****ing children, too far to the other and you have kids going to jail because they ****ed. Add in things like moral expectations vs. personal freedom and it's somebody nobody wants to wade into the middle of. And that is why these issues sometimes get passed.

SteyrAUG

03-31-13, 02:11

The classes I have taken pegged the age at 13/14 for Roman marriages. Some younger, some older...

Quite a bit of that had to do with that being the age for successful breeding and making sure they got married into the correct social class of family before they reproduced with just anyone.

And in most cases they didn't have to go to school, get a degree and buy a house before they could start a family. The requirements of modern society to be prepared to start a family are what actually prevents most people from being married until they are at least in college if not already graduated.

Belmont31R

03-31-13, 02:16

Quite a bit of that had to do with that being the age for successful breeding and making sure they got married into the correct social class of family before they reproduced with just anyone.

And in most cases they didn't have to go to school, get a degree and buy a house before they could start a family. The requirements of modern society to be prepared to start a family are what actually prevents most people from being married until they are at least in college if not already graduated.

Which is why I said it's a social thing not a mental disorder to be attracted to a teenager like a 17 year old (without knowing their age). Does 'college' suddenly make tens of thousands of years of human urge a crime or a mental disorder?

SteyrAUG

03-31-13, 02:29

Magic_Salad0892

03-31-13, 02:33

Yeah pretty much. And it has more to do with development and puberty.

I think it is more wrong for a 15 year old to have sex with a prepubescent 13 year old than it is for a 14 year old to have sex with a 12 year old who has gone through puberty and developed.

It's a messy issue like abortion where there isn't an obvious place to draw the line and make the rules. Too far to one side and you have adults ****ing children, too far to the other and you have kids going to jail because they ****ed. Add in things like moral expectations vs. personal freedom and it's somebody nobody wants to wade into the middle of. And that is why these issues sometimes get passed.

I hypothesize that the extremes should be made illegal, and the moderate/gray areas need to be decided on a case by case basis. Like you said. It's like abortion, and it's a hard issue to make hard rules about.

Magic_Salad0892

03-31-13, 02:35

The classes I have taken pegged the age at 13/14 for Roman marriages. Some younger, some older...

I've not read about any western common practices of marriages of 9 year olds, and I've read a lot of history books. I don't want that to get confused with that I said earlier. NOT what what I saying.

I'm not super well versed on Roman marriage, and wasn't referring to marriage specifically. I was talking about sexual acts in general.

FromMyColdDeadHand

03-31-13, 02:38

I actually agree. I don't think it is a "choice", I don't think anyone chooses to be homosexual or a pedophile or a predatory serial killer. I think it is simply who and what some people are.

I don't think you can cure or fix a homosexual or a pedophile or a serial killer. And I think all qualify as abnormalities. In cases where it includes only consenting adults I don't think there are any issues. It's not "normal" but neither is huffing gold spray paint out of a paper sack and people do that too.

But with pedophiles and serial killers the action leads to victims and not consenting adults. So neither should be tolerated at all. And quite honestly, neither should be free. For a pedophile or a serial killer to attempt to repress their natural instincts would be about like anyone on this forum to try to never have sex again or never go shooting again. Right now there are registered sex offenders living in virtually every neighborhood (and I don't just mean the kind that got caught pissing in the park at night) and they like to **** young children as much as you like to shoot your AR and as much as I'd like to **** Monica Bellucci.

Check your zip code.

http://www.nsopw.gov/?AspxAutoDetectCookieSupport=1

I have 13 in a one mile radius from my house.

5+ pages in my zip code

Belmont31R

03-31-13, 02:57

I'm not super well versed on Roman marriage, and wasn't referring to marriage specifically. I was talking about sexual acts in general.

Marriage basically means sex. Which is why I said its a very recent thing that sex with a 15/16 year old is now a crime and means you have a mental disorder.

I feel odd saying it because it I'm in my 20's but after talking to older people it was common not that long ago. I met my wife when she was barely 20. If we had met 2 1/4 years earlier Id be a pedo. So stupid. People are delusional if they can accept history.

Belmont31R

03-31-13, 03:10

5+ pages in my zip code

Not defending anyone of them but there have been cases where someone was put on the registry for statutory rape and been married to the person they 'raped' for 20+ years. Yet they are now a sex offender when 20-30 years ago it was perfectly legal and was normal for thousands of years before that?

Part of this is just challenging the norm we have today but like I said I met that lady who married at 15, and if you do some basic research on ages of marriages it is a very recent thing to get wait until late 20's and into 30's to get married. Hell by early 30's women are more likely to birth children with defects than early 20's or even as late teens.

Just arguing from the biological and historical aspect here. My mom had me when when she was 36, and even back then in the 80's it was known to women in their 30's have a lot higher percentage of birth problems.

GeorgiaBoy

03-31-13, 03:12

Marriage basically means sex. Which is why I said its a very recent thing that sex with a 15/16 year old is now a crime and means you have a mental disorder.

I think the key thing in situations like that regarding mental disorders is the question of are you ONLY attracted to 14/15/16 year old girls/boys. If you are attracted to ALL age groups from puberty on up (yeah maybe not 60+) I think it's harder to say that someone has a "disorder".

Moose-Knuckle

03-31-13, 03:14

Is the normalization of pedophilia/pederasty already well underway?

I would contend emphatically YES given our current trajectory.

We have become a nation of sheep, SCOTUS has ruled that rape/sexual assault does not meet the criteria for capital punishment. As we circle the bowl here in Mamby Pamby Land it is only a matter of time before our view of pedophiles is manipulated to the point where there will be a progression of classifying them from criminals as they are currently to being mentally ill and lastly misunderstood disenfranchised victims themselves. They will then obtain the same protection/acceptance as other sexual degenerates do in our society. After all they're "born that way" it’s only "natural" for them to "love" those children. Calling them perverts and child molesters will be construed as hate speech. They will receive a protected class of their own as other “victims” of society have. We will be told that this is a natural progression of our evolution and that they have always been with us.

Sensei started a thread on the subject, maybe mods can merge them?

https://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=115008

SteyrAUG

03-31-13, 03:23

Which is why I said it's a social thing not a mental disorder to be attracted to a teenager like a 17 year old (without knowing their age). Does 'college' suddenly make tens of thousands of years of human urge a crime or a mental disorder?

I wasn't disagreeing with you, just elaborating. Not sure what happened to my original reply but that is also why age of consent varies in this country.

http://www.webistry.net/jan/consent.html

STATE
AGE
Alabama
16
Alaska
16
Arizona
18
Arkansas
16
California
18
Colorado
15
Connecticut
15
D.C.
16
Delaware
16
Florida
16/18 (bill pending)
Georgia
16
Hawaii
14
Idaho
14
Illinois
16/17
Indiana
16
Iowa
18
Kansas
16
Kentucky
16 - [1]
Louisiana
17
Maine
16
Maryland
16
Massachusetts
16/18
Michigan
16
Minnesota
16
Mississippi
16 - [2]
Missouri
17
Montana
16
Nebraska
16
Nevada
16
New Hampshire
16/18
New Jersey
16/18
New Mexico
17
New York
17
North Carolina
16
North Dakota
18
Ohio
16
Oklahoma
16
Oregon
18
Pennsylvania
16
Rhode Island
16
South Carolina
14/16
South Dakota
16
Tennessee
18
Texas
17
Utah
16/18
Vermont
16
Virginia
15
Washington
16
West Virginia
16
Wisconsin
18
Wyoming
16
Puerto Rico
18

FOOTNOTES:
[1]Age 16 if the man is 21 or older.
[2]If the female is over 12, the status applies only to virgins.

Belmont31R

03-31-13, 03:31

I think the key thing in situations like that regarding mental disorders is the question of are you ONLY attracted to 14/15/16 year old girls/boys. If you are attracted to ALL age groups from puberty on up (yeah maybe not 60+) I think it's harder to say that someone has a "disorder".

Well yes but its a societal thing which Ive said like 3 times now.

The /boys thing doesn't apply because what Ive said isn't the same meaning. This isn't Paterno covering for Sandusky. Im saying a 20 year old marrying a 16 year old. Should be illegal? Not? People who got married 30 years ago are now pedos? 5000 years of humanity is now illegal?

GeorgiaBoy

03-31-13, 03:48

Well yes but its a societal thing which Ive said like 3 times now.

I'm well aware. I'm simply stating that disorders like pedophilia/hebephilia/ephebophilia are party diagnosed because the person is SOLEY attracted to people of that age group.

The /boys thing doesn't apply because what Ive said isn't the same meaning. This isn't Paterno covering for Sandusky. Im saying a 20 year old marrying a 16 year old. Should be illegal? Not? People who got married 30 years ago are now pedos? 5000 years of humanity is now illegal?

The /boys was to represent the female attraction to younger boys/men... Not man on boy.

To answer your question, I see nothing wrong with a 20 y/o marrying a 16 y/o. Just not the smartest thing to do.

Magic_Salad0892

03-31-13, 03:56

I think that the age of consent being 14 thing is strange as shit.

jpmuscle

03-31-13, 06:29

I'm well aware. I'm simply stating that disorders like pedophilia/hebephilia/ephebophilia are party diagnosed because the person is SOLEY attracted to people of that age group.

The /boys was to represent the female attraction to younger boys/men... Not man on boy.

To answer your question, I see nothing wrong with a 20 y/o marrying a 16 y/o. Just not the smartest thing to do.

Fwiw the clinical criterion in the DSM is a bit more extensive than that.

platoonDaddy

03-31-13, 07:27

Leftists may try and rationalize pedophilia.

But the fact is.... no. Westerners will never accept it. Because pedophilia, no matter what way you cut it, is rape.

Even most "progressives" won't touch it.

A few years back progressives wouldn't touch same sex marriage, but here it is at the foot of the supreme court. I also believe pedophilia will be arriving shortly, friggin society is NUTS!

The same goes for polyamory, but it is now creeping into prime time shows, following cut from Rush on Friday"

ABC'S "Wife Swap" Mocks Tea Party, Promotes Polyamory

RUSH ARCHIVE: There is a movement in this country that you don't hear much about called polyamory. Our caller Art said, "Oh, no, no, no. No, no, no. That's where I draw the line." You can't have more than two people get married. Well, there's a movement for that, and the proponents are being urged to shut up about it and just do it.

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2013/03/29/abc_s_wife_swap_mocks_tea_party_promotes_polyamory

montanadave

03-31-13, 07:56

SOWT

03-31-13, 09:57

If it's normal do all those Priests get pardoned?
:lol:

skydivr

03-31-13, 10:09

How can anyone not see this coming? Another "unintended consequence" of opening Pandora's box. I'm particularly sensitive about this issue since I've got a 11 YO girl, and will rain hell fire upon anyone who even looks at her cross-eyed.

kwelz

03-31-13, 11:36

Never mind. I just can't get the wording right.

People who harm children should die a painful slow death. I think we all agree on that.

kwelz

03-31-13, 11:49

A few years back progressives wouldn't touch same sex marriage, but here it is at the foot of the supreme court. I also believe pedophilia will be arriving shortly, friggin society is NUTS!

The same goes for polyamory, but it is now creeping into prime time shows, following cut from Rush on Friday"

ABC'S "Wife Swap" Mocks Tea Party, Promotes Polyamory

RUSH ARCHIVE: There is a movement in this country that you don't hear much about called polyamory. Our caller Art said, "Oh, no, no, no. No, no, no. That's where I draw the line." You can't have more than two people get married. Well, there's a movement for that, and the proponents are being urged to shut up about it and just do it.

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2013/03/29/abc_s_wife_swap_mocks_tea_party_promotes_polyamory

I have to disagree strongly here. I watched the episode. Neither family was all that great. The Loudons were pretty messed up. Her whole "there are dark forces at work here" comment was just the icing on the cake. And the Envys were a bit... Well lets just say I don't go for the whole sit on my ass and be served upon way of life.

Neither family was all that great. But as for the Polyamory portion of it.. So what? If that is the way they want to live then what is the problem. What is wrong with more than two people being in a loving relationship? Worried about the kids? Why. There are enough children out there who only have one parent. We should be thrilled that some actually have more than two.

I can't believe I am about to do this....

Guess what guys. My wife and myself are Polyamorous.

I love my wife with all my heart. I live and breath for her. Without her I don't know what I would do with my life. However we also have a girlfriend. Not a live in like in the story linked here but someone we date. Our GF is married and her Husband is just fine with us dating her.

My last serious relationship before my wife was with a married woman. Her husband became a good friend of mine and approved of the relationship. Their kids were almost like my own. And while we didn't work out long term for other reasons it was not because of the dynamics of the relationship being poly. To this day we are all still friends and spend time together when we can.

Being Poly isn't about whoring around. It isn't about swinging. It is about loving someone. A parent with multiple children doesn't just love one of them. By that same token it is possible to love more than one woman.

I am pretty sure I just ruined my rep on here. But honestly I don't care. This is an issue that is as important to me as gun control.

Armati

03-31-13, 12:03

WV has what is called 'close-in-age exemptions'. In WV it is 4 years. Meaning, that a 14yo can consent to a relationship with an 18yo.

Of course, throughout most of human history, it was not uncommon for girls as young as 12 to be married to much older men. This situation is found throughout most of the Bible. I am sort of curious how Christians are able to pick and choose what parts of the Bible they agree with?

Armati

03-31-13, 12:06

I can't believe I am about to do this....

Guess what guys. My wife and myself are Polyamorous.

About about 1 billion people in the world are. Most of them are Muslims but in the overall scope of human behavior it is not unusual.

montanadave

03-31-13, 12:06

Dammit! I told the mods we needed one of those popcorn-munching smileys a month ago. :D

a0cake

03-31-13, 12:14

Dammit! I told the mods we needed one of those popcorn-munching smileys a month ago. :D

Kwelz, you've not lost any reputation by my lights. Good, honest, consenting adults have the right to be left alone.

But I second montanadave and only add...

http://cache.blippitt.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/Popcorn-11-Eddie-Griffin.gif

rdc0000

03-31-13, 12:34

dumbass

kwelz

03-31-13, 12:35

dumbass

You add so much to the discussion.

Sensei

03-31-13, 12:39

I love my wife with all my heart. I live and breath for her. Without her I don't know what I would do with my life. However we also have a girlfriend. Not a live in like in the story linked here but someone we date. Our GF is married and her Husband is just fine with us dating her.

This that the only verb that you do with this girlfriend?

chadbag

03-31-13, 12:43

Of course, throughout most of human history, it was not uncommon for girls as young as 12 to be married to much older men. This situation is found throughout most of the Bible. I am sort of curious how Christians are able to pick and choose what parts of the Bible they agree with?

I find it more indicative of your misunderstanding of what the Bible is and says.

-

Armati

03-31-13, 13:59

I find it more indicative of your misunderstanding of what the Bible is and says.

-

Ok, so help me out.

The Bible is full of these stories. Up until the last 100 years or so, girls as young as 12, and certainly as young as 14 were married off to older men throughout Christendom. So who got it wrong? When was this historical practice amended, why, and by whom?

kwelz

03-31-13, 14:53

This that the only verb that you do with this girlfriend?

A gentleman never tells.

The_War_Wagon

03-31-13, 15:19

Yes. :(

polydeuces

03-31-13, 15:19

Belloc

03-31-13, 16:27

Nothing new from the unhinged lunatic-left.
http://www.spiegel.de/international/zeitgeist/the-sexual-revolution-and-children-how-the-left-took-things-too-far-a-702679.html

Denali

03-31-13, 16:28

Why is no one calling it what it is?
This just a ****ing semantic bullshit game they're playing.

We're not talking about horny teenagers, or a equals in a mutually consenting loving relationship -whatever form this may be.

Let's call this animal by it's ugly name and go from there:
Adult predators wanting to **** children.

Nothing good sane or justifiable about it, lleast of all...MISUNDERSTOOD.....:bad:

It's a sickness - and not even remotely in the same universe as being gay or straight.
Wanting to make that comparison is like saying perhaps we misunderstood Charles Manson.

http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=is02e3

A thing almost totally unreported(keeping in mind the radical far leftist orientation of the pop-culture/media apparatus controlled by the democratic party machine) is the prevalence of pederasty within the homosexual underworld. Pederasty is not pedophillia, rather it is the sexual pursuit, cultivation, and ultimate exploitation of adolescent males between the ages of twelve to eighteen!

By all accounts, its endemic to the homosexual lifestyle, consider, a former US congressman was indirectly implicated in this practice, but was miraculously cleared of any wrongdoing when his boyfriend took the wrap for operating a homosexual brothel staffed by young males(13-24), the brothel was being run out of the congressmans home!

MALE HOMOSEXUALS COMMIT A DISPROPORTIONATE NUMBER OF CHILD SEX ABUSE CASES

Homosexual apologists admit that some homosexuals sexually molest children, but they deny that homosexuals are more likely to commit such offenses. After all, they argue, the majority of child molestation cases are heterosexual in nature. While this is correct in terms of absolute numbers, this argument ignores the fact that homosexuals comprise only a very small percentage of the population.

The evidence indicates that homosexual men molest boys at rates grossly disproportionate to the rates at which heterosexual men molest girls. To demonstrate this it is necessary to connect several statistics related to the problem of child sex abuse: 1) men are almost always the perpetrator; 2) up to one-third or more of child sex abuse cases are committed against boys; 3) less than three percent of the population are homosexuals. Thus, a tiny percentage of the population (homosexual men), commit one-third or more of the cases of child sexual molestation.

Belloc

03-31-13, 16:40

The evidence indicates that homosexual men molest boys at rates grossly disproportionate to the rates at which heterosexual men molest girls. To demonstrate this it is necessary to connect several statistics related to the problem of child sex abuse: 1) men are almost always the perpetrator; 2) up to one-third or more of child sex abuse cases are committed against boys; 3) less than three percent of the population are homosexuals. Thus, a tiny percentage of the population (homosexual men), commit one-third or more of the cases of child sexual molestation.

Or as Ann Coulter perhaps best put it:

Despite the growing media consensus that Catholicism causes sodomy, an alternative view -- adopted by the Boy Scouts -- is that sodomites cause sodomy. (Assume all the usual disclaimers here about most gay men not molesting boys, most Muslims being peaceful, and so on.)

It is a fact that the vast majority of the abuser priests -- more than 90 percent -- are accused of molesting teen-age boys. Indeed, the overwhelmingly homosexual nature of the abuse prompted The New York Times to engage in its classic "Where's Waldo" reporting style, in which the sex of the victims is studiedly hidden amid a torrent of genderless words, such as the "teen-ager," the "former student," the "victim" and the "accuser."

And let's not forget that Hollywood is arguably the pedophile/pederast world capital.
http://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/corey-feldman-pedophilia-problem-child-actors-contributed-demise/story?id=14256781

Sensei

03-31-13, 19:00

A gentleman never tells.

I suppose.

More evidence that homosexuals are not the only ones redefining the meaning of marriage.

Gutshot John

03-31-13, 19:48

Marriage, gay or otherwise = Contract between two consenting and informed adults.

Pedophilia = Exploitation of a child who has no understanding of the consequences of their actions nor the ability to give consent. A child cannot engage in a contract to marry any more than they can sign a lease on a car.

The notion that gay marriage equates to, or leads to pedophilia is not only wrong, but pretty much ****ing retarded.

chadbag

03-31-13, 19:57

Marriage, gay or otherwise = Contract between two consenting and informed adults.

Not really.

Marriage == social construct 1000s of years old developed to provide for stability for the rearing and raising of children and providing for the welfare of the social unit/tribe/family.

Pedophilia = Exploitation of a child who has no understanding of the consequences of their actions nor the ability to give consent. A child cannot engage in a contract to marry any more than they can sign a lease on a car.

The notion that gay marriage equates to, or leads to pedophilia is not only wrong, but pretty much ****ing retarded.

I don't think this thread is equating so-called "gay marriage" with pedophilia directly. I think they were equating the logic that since homosexuality seems to have a biologic component for some people, ie, they are born this way, so it must be ok and natural; that the other "born this way" claims will also soon be given the same treatment, including that which underlies at least some pedophilia. It is not an aberration, but a normal gene-induced orientation and should be seen the same.

So, not that so-called "gay marriage" itself equates with pedophilia, but the logic that brings some to the acceptance of so-called "gay marriage" can also be used to show that pedophilia is also normal.

--

chadbag

03-31-13, 20:11

Ok, so help me out.

The Bible is full of these stories. Up until the last 100 years or so, girls as young as 12, and certainly as young as 14 were married off to older men throughout Christendom. So who got it wrong? When was this historical practice amended, why, and by whom?

The Bible has many facets.

Besides being a record of God's interactions with men (== humans, not only males) through His prophets, the Bible is also a plain historical record of some peoples who lived in the area generally called "the Middle East" and/or Mediterranean area.

So, just besides something is in the Bible, does not mean it is automatically God-approved. (I am not saying that in this case older men marrying young girls is or is not God approved -- just that the notion that being in the Bible means it is God approved is wrong. Things that are in the Bible from a purely historical perspective have no seal of approval (or disapproval). They merely are historical records. God's words to His prophets are different -- those are the seal of approval)

In short, God commands us to be chaste and respect virtue. He sets basic limits and borders. If man sets more stringent limits, say, through societal evolution, that does not conflict with God's commandments. [But if societal evolution loosens the limits, that is sinful and not acceptable before God.]

So if God says we should live chaste and virtuous lives, we should do so. If society and cultures at the time, for whatever reasons, had it as customary that girls were marriageable after a certain age [plus being sexually developed/mature] (which you see in lots of cultures, ancient as well as today in "primitive" cultures), God's commandments would have been given within that environment. Absent God's word to his prophets specifically condemning the practice, it would have been fine for those cultures. So screwing around and being non virtuous would have been bad outside of marriage, which in those days was often with teenage girls. Many of the social and cultural reasons that existed back in those days were economic and biologic [life span] and others which no longer exist today. Since conditions today are different than they were then, society has evolved new norms for the age at which men and women marry today. God's commandment for being chaste and virtuous has not changed, but the conditions of human existence have changed. Societal evolution that falls outside God's commandments would still be sinful, of course.

--

kwelz

03-31-13, 20:12

So, not that so-called "gay marriage" itself equates with pedophilia, but the logic that brings some to the acceptance of so-called "gay marriage" can also be used to show that pedophilia is also normal.

--

Not really. Some people are also born sociopaths or evil. This is indeed how they are born. However that doesn't mean that we should allow them to harm others.

chadbag

03-31-13, 20:14

Not really. Some people are also born sociopaths or evil. This is indeed how they are born. However that doesn't mean that we should allow them to harm others.

Agreed.

However, who gets to define what is evil? If the logic that leads to acceptance of homosexuality also leads to pedophilia or other evils doesn't that say something about the logic?

--

RogerinTPA

03-31-13, 20:40

With the constant erosion of religion and morality out of our collective lives over the past few decades, I'm sure it will be 'normalized' within our life times, just like homosexuality.

kwelz

03-31-13, 20:44

Agreed.

However, who gets to define what is evil? If the logic that leads to acceptance of homosexuality also leads to pedophilia or other evils doesn't that say something about the logic?

--

Already been covered. Homosexuality has no impact on others and the people involved can consent. Not so with the topic at hand here.

chadbag

03-31-13, 20:47

Already been covered. Homosexuality has no impact on others and the people involved can consent. Not so with the topic at hand here.

That is supportive logic re: homosexuality.

The logic being put forth by many in defense of homosexuality IS directly the "it's in the genes" and therefore normal.

--

Magic_Salad0892

03-31-13, 21:22

I can't believe I am about to do this....

That was a brave thing to admit. I know I couldn't do it. I'm the jealous type.

Gutshot John

03-31-13, 21:26

Not really.

Marriage == social construct 1000s of years old developed to provide for stability for the rearing and raising of children and providing for the welfare of the social unit/tribe/family.

Let's keep things focused on the here and now as we cannot pretend that even with the "institution" of marriage that the social/tribe/unit has done a great job at rearing children over millenia or taking care of its welfare. Plenty of orphans, plenty of ****ed up parents, plenty of divorce. We can go on foreover chasing our tails on that one, so let's keep things to how the legal consent is given in our system.

In our society (America, for the last two hundred +years) Marriage like any other contract is between two informed and consenting adults.

Children cannot consent to a contract, any more than they can consent to buying a car, getting a credit card, or consent to sex.

Plenty of people in this thread have equated tolerance to gay marriage as an opening the to pedophilia. It is a completely dishonest argument given the legal status of children. It's also a complete absence of logic.

By legal definition, you cannot have a contract with someone unable to comprehend the ramifications of the contract. It would be null and void.

If you don't support gay marriage? Great. I don't care, I disagree, but I don't care. The "logic" that acceptance of gay marriage leads to an acceptance of pedophilia is dubious at best. Many would call it ****ing stupid.

GeorgiaBoy

03-31-13, 21:38

That is supportive logic re: homosexuality.

The logic being put forth by many in defense of homosexuality IS directly the "it's in the genes" and therefore normal.

--

No one truly knows what causes homosexuality over heterosexuality, genetics are only one possible factor/influence.

It is more of the current consensus that it is linked to fetal development, and is similar to the determination of right or left handenedenss, but this has also not been truly proven. Environmental factors after birth are also considered.

Homosexuality is not considered a "disorder" or "illness" anymore because it has been observed in hundreds of species and is not considered damaging to human psychology, behavior, health, or sociality. There are 4 types of observed sexual orientations in nature : hetero, homo, bi, and asexual. Pedophilia is NOT a sexuality and therefore is differentiated from homo/bi sexuality.

Magic_Salad0892

03-31-13, 21:41

Homosexuality is not considered a "disorder" or "illness" anymore because it has been observed in hundreds of species and is not considered damaging to human psychology, behavior, health, or sociality. There are 4 types of observed sexual orientations in nature : hetero, homo, bi, and asexual. Pedophilia is NOT a sexuality and therefore is differentiated from homo/bi sexuality.

Pedophilia is a behavior not found in other species, and it is damaging to human psychology, behavior, health, and sociality.

This is why it shall always be treated differently. As it should be.

Gutshot John

03-31-13, 21:47

Magic_Salad0892

03-31-13, 21:53

I'm pretty sure that's exactly what he was saying.

You're right. I'm pretty sure I just got an award of some sort for missing the entire point of his post.

a0cake

03-31-13, 21:58

That is supportive logic re: homosexuality.

The logic being put forth by many in defense of homosexuality IS directly the "it's in the genes" and therefore normal.

--

Right, and this would be an example of the naturalistic fallacy, also known as the is-ought problem and Hume's Law.

If homosexuality proponents are using homosexuality's appearance in the animal kingdom or its possible genetic and physical root as a basis for arguing that homosexuality ought to be morally permissible, they are committing a logical fallacy.

But rather, what I think they are doing in most cases is actually reacting to the argument that says "homosexuality is unnatural" and therefore wrong. This too is an example of the naturalistic fallacy, just coming from the opposite direction. So the proper thing for the homosexuality defender to do here is to dispute the argument that homosexuality is unnatural, bot NOT then take a leap to saying it is morally acceptable. That would require a completely different move.

In any case, these "arguments from nature" simply will not do when discussing morality. This is why philosophically educated people argue about it in completely different terms.

GeorgiaBoy

03-31-13, 22:05

a0cake

03-31-13, 22:09

For the record, my post was not intended to some how "moralize" homosexuality, which is indeed the "naturalistic fallacy". (Assuming you believe in Moore's belief)

My point was two-fold:

1. Correct that scientific consensus behind the development of homosexuality is that it is not rooted only in genetics.

2. Explain why homosexuality is not considered a mental disorder/illness while pedophilia is.

Yeah I'm tracking what you're saying. I think homosexuality's origin is an important question as well. Whatever its cause happens to be just has no bearing on whether it is "right" or "wrong" in my opinion (not that you've said you disagree).

chadbag

03-31-13, 22:17

Homosexuality is not considered a "disorder" or "illness" anymore because it has been observed in hundreds of species and is not considered damaging to human psychology, behavior, health, or sociality. There are 4 types of observed sexual orientations in nature : hetero, homo, bi, and asexual. Pedophilia is NOT a sexuality and therefore is differentiated from homo/bi sexuality.

At the moment it is not considered a sexuality.

There seem to be trends that point to that goal however.

That is the whole purpose of this thread.

--

chadbag

03-31-13, 22:26

Let's keep things focused on the here and now as we cannot pretend that even with the "institution" of marriage that the social/tribe/unit has done a great job at rearing children over millenia or taking care of its welfare. Plenty of orphans, plenty of ****ed up parents, plenty of divorce. We can go on foreover chasing our tails on that one, so let's keep things to how the legal consent is given in our system.

Except that is not what marriage is or has been or where it comes from.

Btw, there is a logical fallacy in your argument that because some marriages fail in the child rearing, that makes marriage as an institution for child rearing dubious.

That is similar to saying that because some people abuse the right to keep and bear arms, the right to keep and bear arms is dubious.

In our society (America, for the last two hundred +years) Marriage like any other contract is between two informed and consenting adults.

I don't disagree that we have formalized marriage to include a contract. That however, does not define what marriage is. It merely describes one aspect of the modern implementation of such.

Children cannot consent to a contract, any more than they can consent to buying a car, getting a credit card, or consent to sex.

I'm tracking.

Plenty of people in this thread have equated tolerance to gay marriage as an opening the to pedophilia. It is a completely dishonest argument given the legal status of children. It's also a complete absence of logic.

Yes, it was brought up. However, it is not the prime argument put forth in .0

This is radical stuff. But there is a growing conviction, notably in Canada, that paedophilia should probably be classified as a distinct sexual orientation, like heterosexuality or homosexuality. Two eminent researchers testified to that effect to a Canadian parliamentary commission last year, and the Harvard Mental Health Letter of July 2010 stated baldly that paedophilia "is a sexual orientation" and therefore "unlikely to change".

The reclassification of paedophilia as a sexual orientation would, however, play into what Goode calls "the sexual liberation discourse", which has existed since the 1970s. "There are a lot of people," she says, "who say: we outlawed homosexuality, and we were wrong. Perhaps we're wrong about paedophilia."

By legal definition, you cannot have a contract with someone unable to comprehend the ramifications of the contract. It would be null and void.

I don't disagree on the "cannot have a contract with someone unable to comprehend the ramifications of the contract."

If you don't support gay marriage? Great. I don't care, I disagree, but I don't care. The "logic" that acceptance of gay marriage leads to an acceptance of pedophilia is dubious at best. Many would call it ****ing stupid.

chadbag

03-31-13, 22:27

There are 4 types of observed sexual orientations in nature : hetero, homo, bi, and asexual. Pedophilia is NOT a sexuality and therefore is differentiated from homo/bi sexuality.

There ARE "experts" who are testifying that it IS a sexuality. See the .0

--

xjustintimex

03-31-13, 22:39

Belloc

04-01-13, 01:08

Pedophilia is a behavior not found in other species, and it is damaging to human psychology, behavior, health, and sociality.

This is why it shall always be treated differently. As it should be.

Actually, pedophilia is found in nature, incest as well.

Homosexuality is not considered a "disorder" or "illness" anymore by most researchers because it has been observed in hundreds of species and is not considered damaging to human psychology, behavior, health, or sociality, although many researchers in fact disagree with this.
Fixed.
You may also want to look into the fact that an ever increasing number of researches are publishing papers claiming that pedophilia and pederasty may not be "damaging to human psychology, behavior, health, or sociality" either. Are you saying that you would have no problem with pedophilia and pederasty if their view became as mainstream as homosexual behaviour has?

There are 4 types of observed sexual orientations in nature : hetero, homo, bi, and asexual. Pedophilia is NOT a sexuality and therefore is differentiated from homo/bi sexuality.
Incest seems to be quote natural in a great many species, and you will find pedophilia "in nature" as well.

If you chose to classify homosexual acts as an orientation or a "sexuality" simply because it is found in nature, then why are not incest and pedophilia orientations since they are also found in nature?

Belloc

04-01-13, 01:14

But rather, what I think they are doing in most cases is actually reacting to the argument that says "homosexuality is unnatural" and therefore wrong. This too is an example of the naturalistic fallacy,

That rather depends. If they are claiming it is unnatural because it is not found in nature, they are in error. However if the claim is that it is unnatural for us as rational creatures, or for us as rational creatures made in the image and likeness of God, to wilfully engage in homosexual acts, then the claim is not a logical fallacy.

GeorgiaBoy

04-01-13, 01:35

Fixed.
You may also want to look into the fact that an ever increasing number of researches are publishing papers claiming that pedophilia and pederasty may not be "damaging to human psychology, behavior, health, or sociality" either. Are you saying that you would have no problem with pedophilia and pederasty if their view became as mainstream as homosexual behaviour has?

Pedophilia is vastly different than homosexuality for many reasons, (primarily for victimization), and a few fringe researchers trying to accomplish a goal of pedophlia being reclassified as a true sexual "orientation" does not say much. It is far from mainstream, and for cultural issues it simply won't happen. People got over homosexuality because they realized they shouldn't care what two consenting adults of the opposite sex that aren't related to each other do.

Pedophilia will ALWAYS have a victim assuming actions are carried out and that it is why it will never become accepted socially. It is vehemently opposed by nearly all cultures...

If you chose to classify homosexual acts as an orientation or a "sexuality" simply because it is found in nature, then why are not incest and pedophilia orientations since they are also found in nature?

Because the definitions of sexual orientation do not allow pedophilia or incest to be called an "orientation". It would be a "subset" of either heterosexuality or homosexuality, as orientation deals with which gender you are attracted to.

Preferred User

04-01-13, 01:48

I just read a bunch of these philosophical posts, historical reference posts, and some random thoughts and all I can say is wow, you have no clue about the reality of pedophiles.

In my career I have worked hundreds of CP cases (I hate to think it has been thousands, but it may have been) and to say these people are sick is an understatement.

And just because they are sick does not make what they do less of a crime.

Every time I get in front of a jury made up of the peers of a pedophile and show them a MPG of a guy jamming his finger in a little two year old boy or girl while they scream and writhe in pain there is not one person on that jury that finds it acceptable.

When I show them a video of a guy gagging some little kid with his tiny dick there is not one person on the jury that finds it acceptable.

When I show them the guy has terabytes of those kinds of movies not one juror finds it acceptable.

And while the people that trade in those videos do not think it hurts anyone, they are dead wrong. There is a little kid somewhere in the world that was hurt so that guy could get his jollies.

Worse is when we get the producers of CP in court. The guy that was molesting his girlfriends 6 year old, the guy that was molesting the boy he babysits for, the grandpa, worse yet is the rare occasions when a woman is involved to help groom a little kid because it is what her man wants. And they all take pictures or videos so they can share. And no juror ever finds it acceptable.

Now you can hypothesize about the fringe case where the 18 year old is convicted of statutory rape of his 16 year old girlfriend, but that is only making the news because it is the fringe case.

You can say things have changed since ancient times.

The reality is that when people are forced to deal with pedophiles as they are when they are on a jury, no one finds it acceptable.

So continue to speculate, post about how things are in nature, or whatever else you want to say, but when you have to face the reality there is no expert, no psychologist, no one that is going to make raping a child acceptable.

chadbag

04-01-13, 03:30

Pedophilia is vastly different than homosexuality for many reasons, (primarily for victimization), and a few fringe researchers trying to accomplish a goal of pedophlia being reclassified as a true sexual "orientation" does not say much. It is far from mainstream, and for cultural issues it simply won't happen. People got over homosexuality because they realized they shouldn't care what two consenting adults of the opposite sex that aren't related to each other do.

Pedophilia will ALWAYS have a victim assuming actions are carried out and that it is why it will never become accepted socially. It is vehemently opposed by nearly all cultures...

Because the definitions of sexual orientation do not allow pedophilia or incest to be called an "orientation". It would be a "subset" of either heterosexuality or homosexuality, as orientation deals with which gender you are attracted to.

Well, these "fringe" researchers and "experts" are no longer in the fringe and are testifying in front of parliaments, etc.

--

R0N

04-01-13, 04:08

Fringe/hardcore leftists may be more approachable to the "acceptance" of pedophilia.

But "normalization" amongst western society? Not in a million years.

They said the same thing about homosexuality 40 years ago.

Belloc

04-01-13, 04:12

Pedophilia is vastly different than homosexuality for many reasons, (primarily for victimization), and a few fringe researchers trying to accomplish a goal of pedophlia being reclassified as a true sexual "orientation" does not say much. It is far from mainstream, and for cultural issues it simply won't happen. People got over homosexuality because they realized they shouldn't care what two consenting adults of the opposite sex that aren't related to each other do.

You rather very deliberately did not respond to the question. IF someday soon the majority of researches conclude that "intergenerational intimacy" is not harmful, and also an orientation, would you then also support it for the same reasons you now support homosexual acts? Namely 1. It is found in nature, and 2. it is now researcher approved.

Belloc

04-01-13, 07:41

Because the definitions of sexual orientation do not allow pedophilia or incest to be called an "orientation". It would be a "subset" of either heterosexuality or homosexuality, as orientation deals with which gender you are attracted to.

But as we see, and as you defend, definitions are not fixed objective things.
If researchers in the field are now increasingly claiming that small percentage of people's "orientation" to sodomise children is in fact a sexual orientation, in much the same way a small percentage of people's orientation to sodomise others of the same sex, is a sexual orientation, how exactly do you claim that you personal opinion trumps those of the researchers?

Safetyhit

04-01-13, 08:29

Marriage, gay or otherwise = Contract between two consenting and informed adults.

Why do you or anyone else get to define marriage as being between two consenting adults only? Why not three adults? How about four tops...no five. Yeah, five is good.

And come to think of it, if a man wants to marry his adult dog because he really loves it that much, who are we to stand in the way of their happiness? Just because some may not like it obviously doesn't mean it's not right, correct? Or would you argue the dog may be coerced?

Lastly, I'd say incest should now be considered. Adult man, adult woman who happen to be brother and sister or father and daughter. It was fairly common in ancient times, why not now? Because someone somewhere doesn't like it? Sure it may create a disadvantaged child here and there, but not most of the time so that shoud be no issue.

Again, who are "they" to tell two or more consenting adults who or what they can marry?

Alex V

04-01-13, 08:33

Just to add some levity to the conversation;

In the words of Dov Davidoff:

"First it was the priests, then the thing with the boy scouts, and then it was Michael -- no it's the priests. It seems like every time adults are really hanging out with these boys -- if this stuff is so prevalent, maybe we should stop pointing fingers at the adults, start looking at these sexy-ass boys."

:happy:

Do you guys really think that gay marriage is a slippery slope to the acceptance of pedophilia? Come on guys.

Belloc

04-01-13, 08:42

Do you guys really think that gay marriage is a slippery slope to the acceptance of pedophilia? Come on guys.

Can you name even one culture where homosexuality was openly practiced and promoted and pederasty wasn't?

Arik

04-01-13, 09:16

This has nothing to do with leftist/communists. Its just some nut jobs who think pedophilia is ok and HAPPEN TO BE leftist.

I grew up in a hard core communist country and if one was found to be a pedophile or rapist they would soon find themselves with a government paid .30 cal in the back of the head.

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk 2

Gutshot John

04-01-13, 09:25

Why do you or anyone else get to define marriage as being between two consenting adults only? Why not three adults? How about four tops...no five. Yeah, five is good.

Sorry but that's just plain dumb. The above argument is almost as insipid as the pedophilia argument.

Cultures define marriage, yes in some nations (even ones that share our biblical traditions) polygamy is openly practiced and condoned.

Marriage in western culture will always be monogamous.

That's why infidelity is grounds for divorce (i.e. breaking the contract).

No one is advocating changing the laws to make polygamy or pedophilia acceptable culturally. Ask the Mormons how well the former worked out.

Do you see any liberal, homosexual, gay marriage advocate even remotely advocating for polygamy? Pedophilia? or child marriage?

It certainly would help if people arguing against gay marriage would keep their points within the confines of reality and basic common sense.

Gutshot John

04-01-13, 09:36

Can you name even one culture where homosexuality was openly practiced and promoted and pederasty wasn't?

Causation fallacy moreover you've set up a field of straw men. Homosexuality has always existed. So have pedophiles. One doesn't cause the other.

Define "openly practiced", define pederasty (because it doesn't always mean pedophilia).

In response to your question...I can name one culture where homosexuality is legally accepted, and pedophilia isn't...Most of western culture, including the USA, ca. late 20th, early 21st centuries.

My ironic tone notwithstanding you're also historically wrong. I can't think of a culture where homosexuality was openly expected of members or "promoted" with the possible exception of the Sacred Band of Thebes. To my knowledge, there was no pedophilia. They were also a glaring exception to the rest of Thebian culture.

Likewise the notion that Romans openly practiced homosexuality is pretty much dead wrong. Likewise their reputation for licentiousness is vastly overstated. With the exception of a few emperor "gods" and nobles, Romans were big on what we would call "family values."

However, let's turn the question back on you.

Never mind homosexuality, please tell us a culture where pedophilia was openly promoted, sanctioned, and practiced by anywhere near a sizable minority of citizens?

Safetyhit

04-01-13, 10:10

Sorry but that's just plain dumb. The above argument is almost as insipid as the pedophilia argument.

You keep calling people dumb while providing no evidence to support your claims but your own perspective. Whatever makes you feel up on others today I suppose.

Cultures define marriage, yes in some nations (even ones that share our biblical traditions) polygamy is openly practiced and condoned.

Think we are talking about American laws and values here, hence the current supreme court deliberations and so forth.

Marriage in western culture will always be monogamous.

Says who, you?? You already mentioned the Mormons, who will be next in line waiting for their oppression and discrimination to end. Hell maybe America will be the springboard for western polygamy in 20 years at this point. You don't think it will happen, but you sure as hell don't know.

No one is advocating changing the laws to make polygamy or pedophilia acceptable culturally...Do you see any liberal, homosexual, gay marriage advocate even remotely advocating for polygamy? Pedophilia? or child marriage?

Not yet, but again who are you to dictate what our increasingly enlightened societies next step will be? What supreme visionary power allows you to be convinced that these are not stepping stones along a very long path? You don't think it will happen and to be honest neither do I, but neither of us can be certain anymore.

It certainly would help if people arguing against gay marriage would keep their points within the confines of reality and basic common sense.

Again, pure perspective. Fifty years ago a serious discussion about two men getting married would have fallen into the same category as monogamy or incest. Ridiculous and unthinkable. Spin and speculate adamantly all you like, you know just as little about where this country will be (if anywhere) in 50 years as I do.

The point is that nature only allows for a man and a woman to create other human life and subsequently marriage is a fundamental aspect of the male/female/family relationship. You want to talk about dumb, I feel pretty friggin dumb explaining this to anyone. Let two men be happy together, I swear I don't care in the least. But if they can also marry then most likely so can any consenting adult eventually in any fashion or capacity they choose.

We make the same argument about most new gun laws being stepping stones, that principle may one day soon apply here. We simply do not know, primarily regarding polygamy.

kwelz

04-01-13, 10:20

Again, pure perspective. Fifty years ago a serious discussion about two men getting married would have fallen into the same category as monogamy or incest. Ridiculous and unthinkable.

And so would a black man and a white woman getting married. What is your point?

The point is that nature only allows for a man and a woman to create other human life and subsequently marriage is a fundamental aspect of the male/female/family relationship.

Marriage is not a fundamental aspect of a family unit in nature. It is an artificial construct that has been around before there was any abrahamic religion and possibly any religions at all.

You want to talk about dumb, I feel pretty friggin dumb explaining this to anyone. Let two men be happy together, I swear I don't care in the least. But if they can also marry then most likely so can any consenting adult eventually in any fashion or capacity they choose.

Ok and what is the problem here? If you had left out the consenting adults then you may have a point. But otherwise I fail to see the problem.

We make the same argument about most new gun laws being stepping stones, that principle may one day soon apply here. We simply do not know, primarily regarding polygamy.

There is irony here. The gun laws we all decry and hate are restrictions on freedoms. The things talked about in this thread is also a restriction on the freedoms of law abiding adults in this country. The difference is that many people here support the restrictions.

Gutshot John

04-01-13, 10:37

You keep calling people dumb while providing no evidence to support your claims but your own perspective. Whatever makes you feel up on others today I suppose.

Pot meet kettle.

I'm not the one claiming gay marriage leads to polygamy, pedophilia...the 'end of civilization as we know it.'

The burden of proof is on you to support those claims, not on me to disprove it.

So what are you providing but your own perspective?

Yep, I didn't think so, which is why the notion that gay marriage equals acceptance of pedophilia is just plain stupid.

Show me your evidence.

Says who, you?? You already mentioned the Mormons, who will be next in line waiting for their oppression and discrimination to end.

Reaalllly????

I guess you missed the point that POLYGAMY WAS NEVER ACCEPTED IN OUR CULTURE AND HASN'T PRACTICED IN THE MORMON CHURCH FOR OVER 100 YEARS!!!!!

Similarly the leader of the sect that practiced it, has been put in jail.

How is that condoning polygamy?

Thank you for playing.

chadbag

04-01-13, 10:48

Sorry but that's just plain dumb. The above argument is almost as insipid as the pedophilia argument.

Cultures define marriage, yes in some nations (even ones that share our biblical traditions) polygamy is openly practiced and condoned.

Marriage in western culture will always be monogamous.

That's why infidelity is grounds for divorce (i.e. breaking the contract).

No one is advocating changing the laws to make polygamy or pedophilia acceptable culturally. Ask the Mormons how well the former worked out.

Do you see any liberal, homosexual, gay marriage advocate even remotely advocating for polygamy? Pedophilia? or child marriage?

It certainly would help if people arguing against gay marriage would keep their points within the confines of reality and basic common sense.

Sorry, GSJ, but there are people out there advocating for plural marriage (polygamy/polyandry), and they're using exactly the same arguments as are used for so-called "gay marriage."

Culture defines marriage so we will never have polygamy? So why are we getting so-called "gay marriage" rammed down our throats even when overwhelmingly rejected by the people in most every state where it has come to a vote?

The typical "agitprop" groups out there pushing for it, trying to shut off debate and force people to accept it, or be labeled as "bigots" (which most are not), and have other uncouth ways of behaving.

--

chadbag

04-01-13, 10:51

Marriage is not a fundamental aspect of a family unit in nature. It is an artificial construct that has been around before there was any abrahamic religion and possibly any religions at all.

If it has been around since like forever, how is it not a fundamental aspect of a family unit? Very strange claim. Marriage evolved societally as THE fundamental aspect of a family unit. (Marriage = recognized pairing off of man and woman as a family)

Btw, lots of research points out that children do best when raised in intact families with both a mother and a father.

--

sadmin

04-01-13, 11:07

And so would a black man and a white woman getting married. What is your point?

In all fairness that is apples and oranges. Same sex marriage is a step beyond a social equality issue that needed to take place in order to provide a general natural born right. This isnt something that used to exist, then "old-fashionedness" or religion crept in and suppressed it; its never been commonplace in America at any point in time with any culture.

markm

04-01-13, 11:09

To all the "never in western society" posters I say.... several years back, I wouldn NEVER have believed a muslim could be elected president in the wake of a muslim terror attack on the scale of 9/11....

I'd NEVER have guessed that this same administration would ARM drug cartels and cost hundreds/thousands of human lives in order to advance a gun control agenda...

So to say the least... The idea that pedofiles are next in line to fight for ****ing equality would not shock me in the slightest. And the mentally deranged leftist nut jobs in this country will be right there to support this sickness.

GeorgiaBoy

04-01-13, 11:13

"Muslim be elected".

Are you kidding me?

Littlelebowski

04-01-13, 11:17

"Muslim be elected".

Are you kidding me?

50% chance, yeah. Don't take him too seriously. Oh, and this is LL not subscribing to another train wreck in GD :D

skydivr

04-01-13, 11:21

A thing almost totally unreported(keeping in mind the radical far leftist orientation of the pop-culture/media apparatus controlled by the democratic party machine) is the prevelence of pederasty within the homosexual underworld. Pederasty is not pedophillia, rather it is the sexual pursuit, cultivation, and ultimate exploitation of adolescent males between the ages of twelve to eighteen!

By all accounts, its endemic to the homosexual lifestyle, consider, a former US congressman was indirectly implicated in this practice, but was miraculously cleared of any wrongdoing when his boyfriend took the wrap for operating a homosexual brothel staffed by young males(13-24), the brothel was being run out of the congressmans home!

Sick-ass Barney Frank, if I recall...yet he continues to be celebrated as some kind of 'hero' by the left - and he's nothing more than a sick pig that I hope someday rots in hell.

GeorgiaBoy

04-01-13, 11:21

50% chance, yeah. Don't take him too seriously. Oh, and this is LL not subscribing to another train wreck in GD :D

Well that's good... I know Markm to be the jokester, but his post seemed to be more in the serious side this time. ;)

Safetyhit

04-01-13, 11:32

Ok and what is the problem here? If you had left out the consenting adults then you may have a point. But otherwise I fail to see the problem.

Right. Look you admitted to a wanna-be polygamous lifestyle with your wife and another man's wife (however that works) and here you are saying "Why not that too"? Now you feel empowered to not only talk about it, but I've got ten to one odds your signing the petition advocating polygamy if it comes your way. Even if you wouldn't take a second wife it's apparent you would vote in favor of such practice being legal.

Therefore you are in essence exactly what I am talking about and solid proof of my point.

Safetyhit

04-01-13, 11:43

I'm not the one claiming gay marriage leads to polygamy, pedophilia...the 'end of civilization as we know it.'

I also agree that at worst the age of consent may be lowered eventually and that you will almost certainly never be able to marry a pre-pubescent child. Regarding your undaunted stance on our collective views against polygamy, take a moment to observe Kwelz's posts in this thread.

Or maybe you just see him as one in a million. Or hope he is one in 5,000. Ok, maybe just one in...(Gutshot fills in with desired number).

Kevin I don't advocate your lifestyle but for what it's worth I don't dislike you for it. If you folks keep any kids from getting screwed-up or whatever then by all means enjoy yourselves. However personally I would never want to see this behavior become commonplace or generally accepted.

Gutshot John

04-01-13, 11:46

Sorry, GSJ, but there are people out there advocating for plural marriage (polygamy/polyandry), and they're using exactly the same arguments as are used for so-called "gay marriage."

There are people advocating for declaring the moon to be made out of green cheese. So what?

If the standard is no one ever discusses or argues for polygamy, your standard is absurd. They've been discussing polygamy well before gay marriage came around. It went and continues to go nowhere. It's been overtly outlawed and not a single state is arguing to allow it any more than they allow pedophilia.

People outside of the gay community are increasingly supportive of gay marriage primarily because they know gay people, they are their children, their siblings, their friends. These people think they should be able to enjoy the legal protections in a committed, adult, monogamous relationship. This is happening not because gays want it, but because society is changing. The notion that it's going to keep changing to allow pedophilia and polygamy is without a shred of evidentiary support. We change the definition all the time, even within most peoples' here lifetime. Interracial marriage anyone?

I can't think of anyone who supports gay marriage who believes or otherwise advocates pedophilia. It's basically a reductio ad absurdum claim.

The growing acceptance of gay marriage, hasn't led to single percentage point increase in support of polygamy, pedophilia or whatever.

This overtly disproves the notion at hand.

If you don't like gay marriage, fine, argue those positions. That people are walking around saying "I'm not against gays, I'm against gay marriage because it leads to pedophilia" is completely disingenuous, in addition to being a non-sequitur.

Alex V

04-01-13, 13:14

Can you name even one culture where homosexuality was openly practiced and promoted and pederasty wasn't?

Im no historian by any means, but honestly, saying that because homosexuality is okay pederasty is okay is like saying that if heterosexuality is okay than its okay for a 50 y o dude to bang a 10 y o girl.

Come on... really?

I really can't believe that educated people in today's society would reason in such a manor.

Maybe it's because of the field I'm in having been in classes with gay people, taught by gay people and work with them as well I just don't see them as evil, and don't see them banging little kids...

Belloc

04-01-13, 13:25

Causation fallacy
This is rather the problem with people who have never actually studied philosophy, they throw out this or that logical fallacy as if they have the first clue as to what they are even talking about. We see again that mistake, ad nauseam, here.

moreover you've set up a field of straw men. Homosexuality has always existed. So have pedophiles. One doesn't cause the other.
Since that was never even remotely asserted, you are simply using a straw argument while at the same time attempting to hide behind the very same tactic which you are projecting.

In response to your question...I can name one culture where homosexuality is legally accepted, and pedophilia isn't...Most of western culture, including the USA, ca. late 20th, early 21st centuries.
Which is why I did not use the term pedophilia but pederasty, and the leftist pseudo scientific push to normalise that has in fact begun, hence this and other threads and this the very issue.

Gutshot John

04-01-13, 13:31

This is rather the problem with people who have never actually studied philosophy, they throw out this or that logical fallacy as if they have the first clue as to what they are even talking about. We see again that mistake, ad nauseam, here.

Ad hominem. Patronizing, and in all other ways incorrect. I was a philosophy minor. Ooops.

Since that was never even remotely asserted, you are simply using a straw argument while at the same time attempting to hide behind the very same tactic which you are projecting.

Would help if you remembered what you actually wrote, and read my response.

Your question was "name even one culture where homosexuality was openly practiced and promoted and pederasty wasn't?"

The straw man in question is that because a culture condones homosexuality, it must also condone pedophilia.

Even still, I've listed several that condoned homosexuality, with no indication at all that pedophilia was condoned or encouraged, in fact you still haven't produced a single culture that condones pedophilia. You asked a question, now answer it.

Which cultures condone pedophilia?

Which is why I did not use the term pedophilia but pederasty, and the leftist pseudo scientific push to normalise that has in fact begun, hence this and other threads and this the very issue.

Pseudo-intellectual gobbledegook. You've yet to produce a shred of evidence that this culture is moving to condoning pedophilia, either in fact or as a result of homosexuality or gay marriage.

You're going to have to do better.

Belloc

04-01-13, 13:31

Im no historian by any means, but honestly, saying that because homosexuality is okay pederasty is okay is like saying that if heterosexuality is okay than its okay for a 50 y o dude to bang a 10 y o girl.
Again, you very deliberately and steadfastly refuse to actually answer the question.

Come on... really?
Are you actually under some sort of absurd impression that this is in any way an adult response?

I really can't believe that educated people in today's society would reason in such a manor.
Because "come on...really" is how "educated people" reason in your opinion?

Belloc

04-01-13, 13:38

Got an "A", I was a philosophy minor. Ad hominem.
Your professors preferred to rather grade on a bell curve apparently.

Your question was "name even one culture where homosexuality was openly practiced and promoted and pederasty wasn't?"

The straw man in question is that because a culture condones homosexuality, it must also condone pedophilia.
For whatever reason you are simply again using a straw man argument so as to hide behind erroneously claiming a straw man, as well as switching the term I used pederasty, for pedophilia.

Pseudo-intellectual babble.
That does seem to be something you are in fact quite familiar with. :rolleyes:

Gutshot John

04-01-13, 13:43

Your professors preferred to rather grade on a bell curve apparently.

I see you've given up on any pretense of supporting your idiotic statements.

Fair enough, I refuse to have a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent.

You keep insisting that Alex answer your question, but you refuse to answer one posed to you.

Name one culture or society that condones pedophilia, especially in regards to gay marriage?

If you can't answer that, than he certainly can't answer you...it's this crazy thing called logic.

You must have skipped that day at college.

GeorgiaBoy

04-01-13, 13:48

You rather very deliberately did not respond to the question. IF someday soon the majority of researches conclude that "intergenerational intimacy" is not harmful, and also an orientation, would you then also support it for the same reasons you now support homosexual acts? Namely 1. It is found in nature, and 2. it is now researcher approved.

The answer is "no". Pedophilia is not remotely related to homosexuality in terms of being morally right or wrong. One is conducted between consenting people, the other naturally requires a non-consenting CHILD to be the victim of an older persons wishes again the child's will, often causing extreme emotional and/or physical trauma.

I think the main point is, these "people" that are trying to push pedophilia as a sexual "orientation" are not necessarily doing it to condone the actions of pedophiles, they are just wanting "sympathy" for them. I think pedophile's actions will nearly always be condemned in western society, its something that simply can't change. Homosexuality was condemned forever primarily because of religious beliefs concerning its sinful nature. Pedophilia goes beyond being just a "sin" because it involves victims, homosexuality does not.

We might not agree with gay marriage, but I think we can both agree that pedophile's actions make them the scum of the Earth.

a0cake

04-01-13, 13:50

Time to lighten the mood -- albeit at someone's expense.

1) Click "View All Posts" by Belloc

2) CTRL+F (search on page) for the word "rather" and notice how often it appears.

3) Hit enter to scroll through them.

4) Absorb the pretentiousness and affectedness of the use of the word "rather" while reading the sentences in a bad British accent.

Don't get mad Belloc. It's rather funny, to me at least.

Belloc

04-01-13, 13:52

The growing acceptance of gay marriage, hasn't led to single percentage point increase in support of polygamy,

Upon what are you basing this assertion?
http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2013/03/30/gay-marriage-equality/2028619/
http://christiannews.net/2012/11/16/feminist-professor-says-polygamy-is-the-next-marriage-civil-right/
http://www.wnd.com/2012/08/love-american-style-polygamy-gets-sizzle/

GeorgiaBoy

04-01-13, 13:55

But as we see, and as you defend, definitions are not fixed objective things.
If researchers in the field are now increasingly claiming that small percentage of people's "orientation" to sodomise children is in fact a sexual orientation, in much the same way a small percentage of people's orientation to sodomise others of the same sex, is a sexual orientation, how exactly do you claim that you personal opinion trumps those of the researchers?

I simply don't see the consensus on pedophiles changing like they have for homosexuals, for obvious reasons. There are always groups of people wanting to change something, and it doesn't always pick up steam.

If anything, pedophiles may gain more "sympathy" or "acceptance" for who they are, assuming they don't act on their urges. It doesn't mean the actual acts of pedophiles are going to become more accepted.

Belloc

04-01-13, 13:55

Gutshot John

04-01-13, 14:02

Upon what are you basing this assertion?
http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2013/03/30/gay-marriage-equality/2028619/
http://christiannews.net/2012/11/16/feminist-professor-says-polygamy-is-the-next-marriage-civil-right/
http://www.wnd.com/2012/08/love-american-style-polygamy-gets-sizzle/

I guess you didn't actually read anything I wrote, asked and answered. You really should keep up.

For your edification...

There are people advocating for declaring the moon to be made out of green cheese. So what?

If the standard is no one ever discusses or argues for polygamy, your standard is absurd. They've been discussing polygamy well before gay marriage came around. It went and continues to go nowhere. It's been overtly outlawed and not a single state is arguing to allow it any more than they allow pedophilia.

You will always have idiots arguing for numerous things, especially in the national media. Show me increased PUBLIC acceptance.

While support for gay marriage has seen remarkable increases in public support, I don't know of any poll that demonstrates that people are even the least bit more accepting of pedophilia.

This dearth of evidence doesn't stop people like you from making idiotic claims to the contrary.

Gay marriage didn't come about because of a handful of gay activists decided it was ok, gay marriage has come about because of increasing support for gay rights as people have children, friends, siblings and coworkers who come out of the closet and they understand that they don't want their child to be not entitled to the same legal protections, and the fulfillment of a committed monogamous relationship and supported it publicly. When there is widespread, non-homosexual, support gay rights things change. There is no equivalent in support of polygamy/pedophilia, nor is any likely. Therefore claiming that gay marriage leads to polygamy/pedophilia doesn't logically follow.

These people aren't boogeymen. And so you when you conflate them with pedophiles, or polygamists, you blow up your own argument.

Ultimately the notion that those who oppose gay marriage are protecting it as an "institution" rings hollow as I'm a child of divorce.

Heterosexuals have done far more "damage" to the institution of marriage than even the most profligate homosexual could imagine in a century of Sundays.

Spare me the moralistic preening and patronizing bullshit.

Belloc

04-01-13, 14:05

I see you've given up on any pretense of supporting your idiotic statements.
Pretend whatever you like. I would never deny you the pleasure you seem to derive from playing to your apparently one strength.

Fair enough, I refuse to have a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent.

Good to hear. One would hate to see you repeatedly punching yourself in the face.
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-DpQ6XCendfQ/T8DfZbzb2zI/AAAAAAAAayY/GiWGTiIZOA8/s1600/FightClub_213Pyxurz.jpg

Name one culture or society that condones pedophilia, especially in regards to gay marriage?

Again, why the deliberate switch from the term I used, pederasty?
Yet another straw man perhaps?

Belloc

04-01-13, 14:10

Attempt 2.

The growing acceptance of gay marriage, hasn't led to single percentage point increase in support of polygamy,

http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2013/03/30/gay-marriage-equality/2028619/
http://christiannews.net/2012/11/16/feminist-professor-says-polygamy-is-the-next-marriage-civil-right/
http://www.wnd.com/2012/08/love-american-style-polygamy-gets-sizzle/

You are claiming as an absolute historical fact that there has not been even a single percentage point increase in support for polygamy because of any of this, not even one single percentage point. Upon what are you asserting this claim?

Belloc

04-01-13, 14:16

Ultimately the notion that those who oppose gay marriage are protecting it as an "institution" rings hollow as I'm a child of divorce.
Heterosexuals have done far more "damage" to the institution of marriage than even the most profligate homosexual could imagine in a century of Sundays.
Spare me the moralistic preening and patronizing bullshit.

Well that perhaps explains your intrinsic hostility and aversion to sense and reason, and your projecting of logical fallacies. Might I suggest you go and dry your eyes and then come back and try at this with a bit more sense than you seem either able or willing to display presently?

Gutshot John

04-01-13, 14:18

Again, why the deliberate switch from the term I used, pederasty?
Yet another straw man perhaps?

Damn you are obtuse.

I had presumed that you were using pederasty as the homosexual equivalent of pedophilia. I'm actually giving you more room to answer.

Why do you need to distinguish between them?

You're certainly cannot be saying that it's not ok to sleep with little boys if you're a grown man, but it is ok to sleep with little girls?

You asked him to name a culture that did not promote "pederasty" but also did condone homosexuality (presumably between adults)?

For him to answer there have to be certain logical preconditions:

1. There must be cultures that condone homosexuality.
2. There must be cultures that condone pedophilia.

It's a Venn Diagram, where you're trying to find the overlap. If there are no cultures that condone pedophilia. How can he answer the question?

Guess you wasted your time and money at school

Gutshot John

04-01-13, 14:22

Well that perhaps explains your intrinsic hostility and aversion to sense and reason, and your projecting of logical fallacies. Might I suggest you go and dry your eyes and then come back and try at this with a bit more sense than you seem either able or willing to display presently?

No it explains my intrinsic disgust with morons and hypocrites. Don't sell me on your sanctimonious protection of marriage bullshit. If marriage failed as an institution in this country, it failed long before gay marriage.

That this is the best retort you could proffer, indicates pretty clearly that you understand the paucity of your logic.

kwelz

04-01-13, 14:24

Right. Look you admitted to a wanna-be polygamous lifestyle with your wife and another man's wife (however that works) and here you are saying "Why not that too"? Now you feel empowered to not only talk about it, but I've got ten to one odds your signing the petition advocating polygamy if it comes your way. Even if you wouldn't take a second wife it's apparent you would vote in favor of such practice being legal.

Therefore you are in essence exactly what I am talking about and solid proof of my point.

My lifestyle is not a Wanna-be Polygamous lifestyle. Polyamory is not polygamy.

Historically Polygamy was a very one sided system where women were not given much choice in the matter. This I do object to.

However yes I do have no problem with more than two adults being in a relationship together. Do tell how that has any impact on your marriage or dating life.

I don't approve of a lot of the BS I see people talk about on this form. But I don't come on here and say that it should be illegal.

Don't like my lifestyle? Good for you. Don't live it. Don't like the lifestyle of someone who is gay then don't date guys. It is the same thing we say to people about owning a gun. Don't like a gun, then don't own one. Don't like red cars then don't own one. Why is this so difficult for people?

The reason that you will not see Pedophilia or Beastiality legalized is because they involve non consent. Just like you will never see rape legalized.

I know a lot of gay people. I would say that about half of my friends practice some sort of alternative lifestyle whether it be Homosexual, Poly, BDSM, or some combination of the above.

Within that community there are three things that are not only not allowed but actively and aggressively stomped out and exposed.

Anything to do with children.
Anything to do with animals.
True non consent.
(Snuff could be listed as well but I mean come on. even that goes without saying).

Anything even looking like any of those will be brought to the attention of authorities faster than you can blink.

Feel free to attack me. Your tone was pretty obvious from your writing style. But do you think any of this is easy? I lam forced to live with half my life hidden because of bigots who would judge my worth as a person by my family choices. However this is something that is as important to me as my gun rights so I am tired of having to hide. I am a member of this forum. I am friends with many people here. I have trained with many people here who I respect and would step right up to the line and fight for even if we disagree on some subjects.

When it comes down to it that is really the crux of the whole thing. I believe in the rights of people in this country to live as they wish. Want to own a gun? Good then you should. Want to be married to a woman? Great send me an invite. As a guy, want to marry another guy? Well great for you. Not my thing but I support you. Want to go to church? Also not my thing but good for you.

But. Want to tell me what I can and cannot do as a lawful, free adult in this country.. Well then we have a problem. I don't care if you use religion, or the cycle of the moon to determine what is right or wrong.
You have no right to tell others what they can and can not do as long as they are not infringing upon your rights by doing so.

Now I have also seen a lot of people decrying the original article because these people were given some face time before parliament.

So what? Radical fringe groups get face time with governments all the time. Sometimes as part of their own agenda, other times it is as part of something else where they have wormed their way in. It doesn't give them anymore validity than they had before. NAMBLA could go in front of congress and argue for something. It doesn't mean it makes what they want acceptable in any circle.

Belloc

04-01-13, 14:24

I had presumed that you were using pederasty as the homosexual equivalent of pedophilia. I'm actually giving you more room to answer.
Why do you need to distinguish between them?
Because they are not the same thing, by definition.

Your feeling of smother constriction by forcing yourself to be confined to the actual definition of terms is not a universal sentiment. Although sadly an increasing one.

Belloc

04-01-13, 14:27

No it explains my intrinsic disgust with morons and hypocrites.
Then your self-hatred and loathing must be a rather (there you go a0cake) heavy cross to bear. I pray you find the strength to one day set it down.

Gutshot John

04-01-13, 14:28

Because they are not the same thing, by definition.

Who told you that genius? Just because an apple isn't an orange, IT'S STILL FRUIT.

Why do you feel the need to distinguish between pederasty and pedophilia? Unless of course one is acceptable and one is not.

Nevermind, that's just it, you never said what your definition is. I tried to give you the most expansive and forgiving definition I could, to give you the benefit of the doubt. You simply refuse because you know you've already lost the argument.

Your feeling of smother constriction by forcing yourself to be confined to the actual definition of terms is not a universal sentiment. Although sadly an increasing one.

Still not answering the question.

Check.

Belloc

04-01-13, 14:30

Attempt 3.

The growing acceptance of gay marriage, hasn't led to single percentage point increase in support of polygamy,

http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2013/03/30/gay-marriage-equality/2028619/
http://christiannews.net/2012/11/16/feminist-professor-says-polygamy-is-the-next-marriage-civil-right/
http://www.wnd.com/2012/08/love-american-style-polygamy-gets-sizzle/

You are claiming as an absolute historical fact that there has not been even a single percentage point increase in support for polygamy because of any of this, not even one single percentage point. Upon what are you asserting this claim?

xjustintimex

04-01-13, 14:32

This thread reminds me of inception for fallacies.

Belloc

04-01-13, 14:34

Nevermind, that's just it, you never said what your definition is. I tried to give you the most expansive and forgiving definition I could, to give you the benefit of the doubt. You simply refuse because you know you've already lost the argument.
.
Again, if you really find it just that comforting to call NeverLand home..,

Gutshot John

04-01-13, 14:40

You are claiming as an absolute historical fact that there has not been even a single percentage point increase in support for polygamy because of any of this, not even one single percentage point. Upon what are you asserting this claim?

No genius.

I'm arguing that the burden of proof is on you to prove the claim that homosexuality leads to pederasty/pedophilia.

To do that, at "first blush" you have to a:

1. Demonstrate a historic example of a culture that condoned both pedophilia/homosexuality simultaneously.

2. Demonstrate that one led to the other.

3. Demonstrate a significant uptick in modern popular support for pedophilia in this country as a result of homosexuality.

You set the standard, you made the claim, you prove it.

If you can't answer the above prima facie questions your argument falls apart.

I can't prove something doesn't exist. I would have thought they would have covered that in logic/philosophy as an impossibility.

montanadave

04-01-13, 15:04

And the award for "Most Condescending Pedantic Prick in General Discussion" goes to ...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sfv3kBzJZgU

Alex V

04-01-13, 15:19

Again, you very deliberately and steadfastly refuse to actually answer the question.

Are you actually under some sort of absurd impression that this is in any way an adult response?

Because "come on...really" is how "educated people" reason in your opinion?

The "come on" comments was my trying to illustrate my disbelief in your line of thinking.

I answered your question, I am not a historian so I can not point to a historical fact showing that societies that embrace homosexuality also embrace pederasty. Without facts, I believe that both practices were prevalent in ancient Greece, but I can not say factually whether or not pederasty was an acceptable practice in ancient Greece.

I still don't see the correlation between the two practices, and as others have expressed, one occurs between two connecting adults, the other is a victimization of a child. Not the same to me.

Im no gay rights activist, but that type of thinking just seems very odd to me.

I have encountered plenty of gay people going to Architecture school and working in NYC, none of them (that I know of) wanted to have sex with little kids. Obviously not a scientific observation but still, your line of thinking just seems very odd to me.

To each his own I suppose.

Safetyhit

04-01-13, 15:27

Sensei

04-01-13, 15:30

My lifestyle is not a Wanna-be Polygamous lifestyle. Polyamory is not polygamy.

Historically Polygamy was a very one sided system where women were not given much choice in the matter. This I do object to.

However yes I do have no problem with more than two adults being in a relationship together. Do tell how that has any impact on your marriage or dating life.

Well, it impacts your marriage by effectively invalidating it. Fundamental to the marriage contract between a man and a woman is the concept of a monogamous relationship. This is not exclusive to sex since emotional infidelity is also very damaging. Thus, you may have a marriage license, ring, and file your taxes jointly, however your mutual acts of emotional infidelity (and probably physical), while consensual, distort your relationship to the point that it no longer fits the definition of marriage. Unless of course you change the definition to something that accommodates what makes you feel good - a very common sentiment these day.

Hey, look on the bring side. While you may have effective destroyed your marriage, you have achieved a level of greatness in your dating life that most teenagers can only dream about...:cool:

BTW, a common sentiment around here is the notion that "victimless" acts should not be illegal. In other words, if I'm not hurting anybody, then the government should legitimize my behavior by making it legal. I suppose this line of thinking conveniently overlooks the ordered society as a victim when everybody is running around screwing their neighbor. Well, that libertarian utopia has never, and will never exist. We are a representative republic built on Judeo-Christian values. Unless you believe in a progressive federal government, states and municipalities have the right to pass certain morality laws to advance their notion of an ordered society. On the other hand, you get to choose to live in a state with laws that best fit your desired lifestyle.

sadmin

04-01-13, 15:32

Are you two still at it? Am I the only one wondering what the hell these two otherwise intelligent individuals have wasted so much negative energy for today?

Belloc these elongated, dog after it's own tail discussions are a trademark of GJ. Don't fall into the same trap.

its teh gay. its ruining their lives, dont let it infect you. :nono:

Belloc

04-01-13, 15:33

No genius.

I'm arguing that the burden of proof is on you to prove the claim that homosexuality leads to pederasty/pedophilia.

You asserted as historically factual:

The growing acceptance of gay marriage, hasn't led to single percentage point increase in support of polygamy

Were you simply lying here? Or is the compulsion for you to display breathtaking ignorance a perpetual one?

Belloc

04-01-13, 15:40

Are you two still at it? Am I the only one wondering what the hell these two otherwise intelligent individuals have wasted so much negative energy for today?

Belloc these elongated, dog after it's own tail discussions are a trademark of GJ. Don't fall into the same trap.

Sensible and prudent counsel. Still, his argumentum ad ignorantiam stratagem has been good for the odd laugh or two.

Safetyhit

04-01-13, 15:49

Sensible and prudent counsel. Still, his argumentum ad ignorantiam stratagem has been good for the odd laugh or two.

That may be the case for some, but surely most are wondering what the frig both of you are still yapping about. You ain't changing his mind and likewise. The public has absorbed your primary respective viewpoints, now we move on.

And heck I have said this to my friend John (who I'm sure isn't idolizing me right now) that he tends to do this too much. Delighted to see his often valuable inputs here again, but sensibility should always prevail.

Gutshot John

04-01-13, 15:52

Were you simply lying here? Or is the compulsion for you to display breathtaking ignorance a perpetual one?

Chickenshit dodge. I'm not aware of a single credible poll or anything that indicates increasing popular support for pedophilia caused by toleration of homosexuality. If you have something I'm not aware of please share. Until then, tautologically, there is no evidence.

I even tried to make it easy for you, spelling out how to disprove my argument, and you wouldn't even answer the first half of the first question. Obviously this has nothing to do with marriage for you. For you this is about homosexuality.

Fair enough, that makes it easy to understand your position. You dislike gays. Just admit it. It's a perfectly defensible position had you taken it honestly. People dislike each other, but it remains that your argument was based on emotion rather than logic.

I can't beat emotion, so it's easy/peesey. I'm done.

Mjolnir

04-01-13, 15:55

Fringe/hardcore leftists may be more approachable to the "acceptance" of pedophilia.

But "normalization" amongst western society? Not in a million years.

It's a bit more serious than many perceive it to be.

http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Evils%20in%20America/Sodomy/homosexuality101.pdf

I'm no "holy roller", Dispensationalist or proselytizer an I speak out against "radical Christianity", radical Judaism, radical Islam and any other radical forms of religious belief.

There are ties to Marxism in the homosexuality movement.

Do a web search.

In short, YES, it's a real threat but many "cannot see it" ad inevitably will allow it to grow - just as we have with the Anti-Second Amendment folk and numerous others.

Stand NOW or forever be silent.

Belloc

04-01-13, 16:00

I'm not aware of a single credible poll

That's pretty much what I thought.

The growing acceptance of gay marriage, hasn't led to single percentage point increase in support of polygamy,

You were in fact simply very deliberately lying here. Patent dishonesty as a debate tactic is what you learned in your philosophy course? Well played. :rolleyes:

Proving yet again true a dear old professor who once quipped "It seems all but impossible to move someone away from a position using logic and reason that they did not use logic and reason to arrive at in the first place."

Gutshot John

04-01-13, 16:11

That's pretty much what I thought.

You were in fact simply very deliberately lying here. Patent dishonesty as a debate tactic is what you learned in your philosophy course? Well played. :rolleyes:

Oh my God are you really that obtuse?

You're the one arguing that homosexuality leads to support of pedophilia.

So far you haven't shown a SINGLE poll to indicate even a single percentage point increase to demonstrate that claim...or even bothered to provide evidence of any other prima facie question necessary for your claim to be true.

THE BURDEN OF PROOF IS ON YOU TO PROOVE YOUR CLAIM...NOT ON ME TO DISPROOVE IT!!!!!!

Why is this such a hard concept for you to grasp? I mean you did go to college right?

I always find it interesting when someone can't compose a rational argument and so they call someone else a liar without any proof. It's a sure sign of bad faith and a shallow mind.

I'm done with you.
.

Belloc

04-01-13, 16:22

You're the one arguing that homosexuality leads to support of pedophilia.
Yet another flagrant lie. So you are even willing to sacrifice honour itself in your irrational histrionic incoherent blather.

THE BURDEN OF PROOF IS ON YOU TO PROOVE YOUR CLAIM...NOT ON ME TO DISPROOVE IT!!!!!!

You are the one making statements as historically factual:

The growing acceptance of gay marriage, hasn't led to single percentage point increase in support of polygamy,

I always find it interesting when someone calls someone else a liar
Considering the disgraceful dishonesty and utter contempt for honour you have exhibited here, I am not the least surprised that your honesty is frequently called into question.

Gutshot John

04-01-13, 16:23

I'm sorry but your words are no longer worth consideration.

Good luck.

Sensei

04-01-13, 16:24

Oh my God are you really that obtuse?

You're the one arguing that homosexuality leads to support of pedophilia.

No, he is arguing an uncomfortable association between homosexuality and pedophilia which is different than causation. He has provided a number of links demonstrating that homosexuals disproportionately engage in pedophile behavior. You have ignored those.

What do we do with this? I'm not sure. On one hand, I'm not for the persecution of homosexuals. At the same time, I'm not going to ask that lovely gay couple across the street to babysit for my 10 year old boy.

RancidSumo

04-01-13, 16:25

Oh my God are you really that obtuse?

You're the one arguing that homosexuality leads to support of pedophilia.

So far you haven't shown a SINGLE poll to indicate even a single percentage point increase to demonstrate that claim...or even bothered to provide evidence of any other prima facie question necessary for your claim to be true.

THE BURDEN OF PROOF IS ON YOU TO PROOVE YOUR CLAIM...NOT ON ME TO DISPROOVE IT!!!!!!

Why is this such a hard concept for you to grasp? I mean you did go to college right?

I always find it interesting when someone can't compose a rational argument and so they call someone else a liar without any proof. It's a sure sign of bad faith and a shallow mind.

I'm done with you.
.

He is a "highly educated" philosopher which apparently means evidence is not necessary to support his claims.

Belloc,
Since you are so keen on talking about your education and professors, how do you think it would go for me if I took your approach in my engineering classes and made wild claims with no supporting evidence and then called everyone who disagrees with me an idiot and a liar without addressing any of their questions? I don't know how it works for philosophy majors but in engineering and economics that wouldn't cut it.

Belloc

04-01-13, 16:28

I'm sorry but your words are no longer worth consideration.

Good luck.

Confronted with the undeniable fact that you have lied now twice, what else can you do but skulk away in deserved cowardly shame.

Lie 1.

The growing acceptance of gay marriage, hasn't led to single percentage point increase in support of polygamy,

Lie 2.

You're the one arguing that homosexuality leads to support of pedophilia.

Gutshot John

04-01-13, 16:30

He has provided a number of links demonstrating that homosexuals disproportionately engage in pedophile behavior. You have ignored those.

I've seen those studies, the ones I've read are fairly suspect. The overwhelming majority of pedophiles are heterosexual.

That said, so what? Pedophilia is a crime. If they get caught...they go to jail. This is the antithesis of condoning a behavior.

Men disproportionately engage in pedophilia as a whole. Gay or straight. So?

How does that equate to people's attitudes condoning pedophilia as a result of condoning homosexuality?

kwelz

04-01-13, 16:40

Can we just all agree that Pedophiles, regardless of their sex or the sex of their victim, are subhuman scum and should be removed from society. Preferably in a painful torturous way.

Belloc

04-01-13, 16:40

No, he is arguing an uncomfortable association between homosexuality and pedophilia which is different than causation. He has provided a number of links demonstrating that homosexuals disproportionately engage in pederastic behavior. You have ignored those.

I actually have not seen any studies indicating that pedophilia is disproportionate among those who also deliberately engage in homosexual acts. However the links have reported disproportionate pederastic abuse among those who engage in homosexual acts wilfully.

Pedophilia is the sexual abuse of pre-pubescent children, those under 10-11 (thereabouts). While pederasty is the sexual abuse of pubescent and post-pubescent children.

The "love that dare not speak it's name" quote of homosexual Oscar Wilde? He was talking about "intergenerational love", i.e. pederasty.

The brilliant homosexual philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein? Pederast.

And as I already posted from Ann Coulter:

"Despite the growing media consensus that Catholicism causes sodomy, an alternative view -- adopted by the Boy Scouts -- is that sodomites cause sodomy. (Assume all the usual disclaimers here about most gay men not molesting boys, most Muslims being peaceful, and so on.)

It is a fact that the vast majority of the abuser priests -- more than 90 percent -- are accused of molesting teen-age boys. Indeed, the overwhelmingly homosexual nature of the abuse prompted The New York Times to engage in its classic "Where's Waldo" reporting style, in which the sex of the victims is studiedly hidden amid a torrent of genderless words, such as the "teen-ager," the "former student," the "victim" and the "accuser."

Belloc

04-01-13, 16:51

I've seen those studies, the ones I've read are fairly suspect. The overwhelming majority of pedophiles are heterosexual.

So if you are not outright deliberately lying, your tactic is to try to obfuscate the truth.

Of course the overwhelming majority of pedophiles are heterosexual. Heterosexuals are over 95% of the population. The percentages of homosexuals and heterosexuals who engage in pedophilia are statistically the same however. Or are you aware of some new study?

And considering your blatant dishonesty, breathtaking ignorance, and histrionic irrational petulant whining, it is not the least surprising that any studies that you simply don't like because they contradict you, are all of a sudden "suspect". :rolleyes:

Littlelebowski

04-01-13, 16:58

Sure is strange to see a guy delete most of his gun related posts on here and then focus on arguments in General Discussion.

GeorgiaBoy

04-01-13, 16:59

The "intellects" are out in full force today. Nothing but a "measuring contest".

Why is this thread still open?

Belloc

04-01-13, 17:04

Sure is strange to see a guy delete most of his gun related posts on here and then focus on arguments in General Discussion.
Registration in my home state is not only a very real possibility, but pretty much a certainty. Make of my actions what you will.

glocktogo

04-01-13, 17:21

MountainRaven

04-01-13, 18:20

Registration in my home state is not only a very real possibility, but pretty much a certainty. Make of my actions what you will.

OT: You do know that once something is posted to the internet it never goes away, right?

HES

04-01-13, 18:34

Leftists may try and rationalize pedophilia.

But the fact is.... no. Westerners will never accept it. Because pedophilia, no matter what way you cut it, is rape.

Even most "progressives" won't touch it.

And they shouldn't. Pedophilia is wrong, and I feel retarded for even having to type that sentence. That's just something everybody should know. And it's a total goat**** that you can't put somebody on death row for pedophilic acts.
When it comes to social issues I am a solid libertarian. I have learned that there are a lot more grays and fewer black and whites in life. However there are just some lines that you do not cross. This is one of them. If it isn't between consenting adults it's wrong.. I think that most people (99.999%), regardless of political affiliation, I will rail against any attempt to rationalize pedophilia beyond saying it is an incurable mental illness, not a sexual orientation. I will never ever in a million years condone, let alone accept it. Groups can try to get pedophilia into "acceptance" status until they are blue in the face. As much as I have little faith in humanity, I think it's a safe bet that it will rail against any and all attempts at "normalization."

However as Belmont and others bring up, there are some questions as to what qualifies as pedophilia. The 19 year old hooking up with the 17 year old isn't in my book. The 19 yo with the 12 yo or the 35 year old with the 16 year old qualifies in my book. So the definition is cultural to a degree and does need to be addressed.

Guess what guys. My wife and myself are Polyamorous.
You ain't that unique :D But this is a side bar that some have grabbed onto, the topic at hand is pedophilia. I believe that we can all agree that Pedophiles, regardless of their sex or the sex of their victim, are subhuman scum and should be removed from society. Preferably in a painful torturous way. So now that it's out of the way, time for other nits to be picked I guess.

Belloc

04-01-13, 18:36

OT: You do know that once something is posted to the internet it never goes away, right?
Yes. Still.

Sensei

04-01-13, 18:46

I don't know if pedophelia or pederasty will ever gain opan acceptance here in the US. However, if it does, I sure hope shooting pedophiles and pederasts in the face gains the same level of acceptance. After all, shouldn't ALL of our unique differences be tolerated in that case? :D

I think that pederasty is to the Western word what violent jihad is to the ME. It is something that mainstream Americans never openly accept, but it grows in various subcultures beneath the waters. Some subcultures foster it more than others just like certain sects of Islam tend to be more prone to violent extremism.

Can I prove that the homosexual counterculture (i.e. militant gays who disrupt church services in San Fran) in America has a problem with pederasty? No, anyone trying to commission such a study would be drummed out of academia simply for entertaining the hypothesis. However, my bigoted gut tells me that there is some loose relationship between pederasty and homosexuality just like my gut tells me to be on guard when a Muslim male sits next to me on an airplane.

Magic_Salad0892

04-02-13, 00:45

Sure is strange to see a guy delete most of his gun related posts on here and then focus on arguments in General Discussion.

I noticed that too, a few days ago. If he isn't taking part of technical discussions about firearms, then I do not understand why he is here.

Belloc

04-02-13, 03:43

Here's a question:

Pedophilia is a behavior not found in other species,

That isn't actually true, and you would have known that. So why did you then deliberately post something known to be untrue?

Arctic1

04-02-13, 06:42

Here's a question:

That isn't actually true, and you would have known that. So why did you then deliberately post something known to be untrue?

Pedophilia is not seen in animals, as it is a human term describing a mental disorder:

pedophilia or paedophilia is a psychiatric disorder in persons 16 years of age or older typically characterized by a primary or exclusive sexual interest toward prepubescent children (generally age 11 years or younger, though specific diagnosis criteria for the disorder extends the cut-off point for prepubescence to age 13)

Source: DSM-IV-TR® Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders

Child sexual abuse and pedophilia are not the same thing. A pedophile can of course be guilty of the former, but pedophilia is not the act of sexually molesting a child.

In the animal kingdom there have been examples of species engaging in sexual activity with infants/children. It is however, not proven that these sexual acts are forceful in nature, or not. This does not, however, equate pedophilia. It is not proven if the animal doing it is actually aroused because it is an infant/child.

Arctic1

04-02-13, 07:13

The main thing here is culture, and what age is deemed morally and ethically right to be defined as the age on consent. The age of consent is determined by two factors; sexual maturity; reached full sexual development, and mental maturity; able to understand what the physical act entails and being able to set limits for one self.

In Norway, the age of consent is 16. Some sexual therapists are arguing that it really should be 14, based on sexual maturity alone. Personally I feel that 16 is ok, as the mental maturity is adequate.

In so far as the justice system is concerned, we have two laws; one is general and covers sexual activity with a person under the age of consent. The other deals with sexual intercourse with a person under the age of 14. The only part pedophilia plays is regarding punitive measures, repeat offender risks and so forth.

montanadave

04-02-13, 07:31

Deleted.

Belloc

04-02-13, 08:25

Pedophilia is not seen in animals, as it is a human term describing a mental disorder:
So you are actually claiming that when "homosexual" was a human term describing a mental disorder, because of that fact, it was not seen in animals?

In the animal kingdom there have been examples of species engaging in sexual activity with infants/children. It is however, not proven that these sexual acts are forceful in nature, or not. This does not, however, equate pedophilia. It is not proven if the animal doing it is actually aroused because it is an infant/child.
Forceful has nothing to do it. Pedophilia is pedophilia whether or not the child is forcibly raped or not. And claiming that pedophiliastic behaviour is in fact seen in other species, means but one thing, that other species engage in pedophiliastic behaviour.

Perhaps this will make it easier for you:
In other species, do we see what in humans is classified as homosexual behaviour? Yes.
In other species, do we see what in humans is classified as incestuous behaviour? Yes
In other species, do we see what in humans are classified as pedophiliastic/pedoastic behaviour? Yes.

In any case, read his comment again:

Pedophilia is a behavior not found in other species, and it is damaging to human psychology, behavior, health, and sociality.

This is why it shall always be treated differently. As it should be.

He was claiming that pedophiliastic behaviour, i.e. sexual activity between adult members of a species and pre-pubescent members, "is a behaviour not found in other species".

Thus again my question to him. Since what he posted is not actually true, and he would have known that, why did he then deliberately post something he knew to be untrue?

Arctic1

04-02-13, 09:21

First, your interpretation or understanding of pedophilia is incorrect.

Pedophilia is not the act of having sexual relations with a prepubescent child. That is called child sexual abuse. Pedophilia is about the sexual interest in children by adults over the age of 16. Both are repulsive, but there is a difference.

Second, your typical MO of straw man arguments is not surprising:

So you are actually claiming that when "homosexual" was a human term describing a mental disorder, because of that fact, it was not seen in animals?

That is not what I stated or claimed. I said that pedophilia is not seen in animals, because of what the accepted definition is:

Pedophilia is used for individuals with a primary or exclusive sexual interest in prepubescent children aged 11 or younger.

So, unless you can prove that individual animals target infants/children of their same species because they are sexually attracted to them solely because they are infants/children, your argument does not hold water.

Thirdly, sexual maturity is reached at different ages for different species. Comparing humans and animals isn't really conducive to the correct understanding of pedophilia.

Also, regarding homosexuality, research accepted in todays society has proven that homosexuality is a natural variation in the human species, and not dysfunctional or unnatural. What was believed before really holds no relevance. You are free to dislike homosexuality, but that still doesn't make it dysfunctional or unnatural.

So, instead of hiding behind your supposed academic and intellectual superiority, how about you provide som evidence for your statements, rather than make claims based on "you say so". You are very adept at calling others liars, and saying they are wrong. At the same time you lack convincing arguments to counter people's points.

Magic_Salad0892

04-02-13, 09:33

Here's a question:

That isn't actually true, and you would have known that. So why did you then deliberately post something known to be untrue?

It's not untrue. Pedophilia/pederasty is the arousal of one by children.

Human beings and dolphins are the only animals I know of who have sex for means other than reproduction. And if it were up to certain religious types, then it'd only be dolphins.

The point is, pedophilia is a mental disorder/sickness/whatever that is the arousal/interest in children. Animals are incapable of this.

ETA: Arctic1 cleared it up.

Belloc

04-02-13, 10:23

It's not untrue. Pedophilia/pederasty is the arousal of one by children.

Human beings and dolphins are the only animals I know of who have sex for means other than reproduction. And if it were up to certain religious types, then it'd only be dolphins.

The point is, pedophilia is a mental disorder/sickness/whatever that is the arousal/interest in children. Animals are incapable of this.

ETA: Arctic1 cleared it up.

So when you see homosexual behaviour, incestuous behaviour, and pedorastic behaviour in other species, you are saying you know for certain what is and is not "inspiring" them to have sex?

Why is there homosexual behaviour in other species if "human beings and dolphins are the only animals who have sex for means other than reproduction"?

Belloc

04-02-13, 10:36

So, unless you can prove that individual animals target infants/children of their same species because they are sexually attracted to them solely because they are infants/children, your argument does not hold water.
By your own admission, it is simply unknown why other species engage in pedophiliastic behaviour. i.e. sex with pre-pubescent members of their own species.

Also, regarding homosexuality, research accepted in todays society has proven that homosexuality is a natural variation in the human species, and not dysfunctional or unnatural. What was believed before really holds no relevance. You are free to dislike homosexuality, but that still doesn't make it dysfunctional or unnatural.
Except for the fact that even though the majority of researchers no longer classify homosexual orientation as disordered (and lets not forget that a minority still do) that does not mean they are any more right than when the majority classified it as a disorder. When it comes to majorities and science, historically speaking, it has meant very little in regards to being correct.
Let's also not forget that now many, and an ever increasing number, of researchers, are now beginning to classify pedophilia as a naturally occurring orientation, hence the very reason for this thread.

So, instead of hiding behind your supposed academic and intellectual superiority, how about you provide som evidence for your statements, rather than make claims based on "you say so". You are very adept at calling others liars, and saying they are wrong. At the same time you lack convincing arguments to counter people's points.
If you are now claiming that the lies I pointed out are not actually lies, then by all mean demonstrate how they are not in fact lies.
And at this point it almost goes without saying that anyone so unhinged from reality and sense so as to equate males wilfully sodomising each other to the bond between a man and his wife, stands utterly unable to be convinced by any of the tools of reason.

skydivr

04-02-13, 10:40

GeorgiaBoy

04-02-13, 10:44

Both girls look like they are around 18 to 20....

kwelz

04-02-13, 10:54

Here is an example from FB. The pro-same sex marriage bunch is now trying to use the 2A argument to their advantage. What disturbs me the MOST is that the girl holding the rifle appears to be a minor to me (intentional?). Yes, it's underway, it's all around us. Look at the sexualization of young girls now, and tell me it's not people trying to make it 'acceptable'....

You really need to be more careful what you acuse people of. That is a photo by Oleg Volk. He is a Pro 2A activist and used to own TheHighroad.org before it was stolen form him by an admin. He currently runs a site called GunRightsmedia.com

He is a photographer who does a lot of Pro 2A photography as well as a lot of other types. So please by all means accuse him of trying to use the 2A to his advantage. He has done more to promote and defend the 2nd Amendment than most people can even dream of.

http://www.gunrightsmedia.com/
http://www.olegvolk.net/
http://olegvolk.net/blog/

skydivr

04-02-13, 11:11

Both girls look like they are around 18 to 20....

My 11 year old could pass for her...

kwelz

04-02-13, 13:27

Test message

Arctic1

04-02-13, 13:46

@Belloc:

I really hate quote competitions, so I'll adress your points in a coherent post instead.

First, you cannot attribute pedophilic behavior to animals because pedophilia is a specific human mental illness, covering sexual attraction towards prepubescent children by adults.

And again, pedophilia is NOT the act of having sex with prepubescent children, it is a term describing the mental illness of a person leading them to be sexually attracted to children. It is a sexual preference disorder. Homosexuality is not, not matter how hard you insist it is.

As far as the status of homosexuality, although it has no bearing on this discussion, it is not considered a mentall illness. There has been lots of research on the subject, and here is what the APA has to say:

Is homosexuality a mental disorder?
No, lesbian, gay, and bisexual orientations are not disorders. Research has found no inherent association between any of these sexual orientations and psychopathology. Both heterosexual behavior and homosexual behavior are normal aspects of human sexuality. Both have been documented in many different cultures and historical eras. Despite the persistence of stereotypes that portray lesbian, gay, and bisexual people as disturbed, several decades of research and clinical experience have led all mainstream medical and mental health organizations in this country to conclude that these orientations represent normal forms of human experience. Lesbian, gay, and bisexual relationships are normal forms of human bonding. Therefore, these mainstream organizations long ago abandoned classifications of homosexuality as a mental disorder.

http://www.apa.org/helpcenter/sexual-orientation.aspx

This is what is valid today, and until someone proves irrefutibly that these observations are wrong, then that is what I believe. I am an atheist, by the way, in case you were wondering.

Science changes as we learn more. It is still pretty commonplace that scientific research and findings increases our understanding of something, so to say that people who said gay people were mentally ill previously were correct isn't really a valid argument. Logic would dictate that what we know today, after loads of reaseacrh is more correct than previous interpretations.

Also, a debate about pedophilia perhaps being a sexual orientation does not equal it being granted that status. I think it's highly unlikely that pedophilia will gain acceptance as normal sexual behavior. Tbe topic isn't even new, here is an article from 2007, where the same hypothesis is mentioned:

http://www.abusewatch.net/pedophiles.pdf

Then, to your final point about me being unhinged from reality and sense. Respectfully, you hold the contrarian point of view. I can site source upon source that shows that no research has proven homosexuality is deviant behavior. Homosexuality and bisexuality are natural variations in human sexuality, and not unnatural.

Sexual orientation is influenced by many factors; there is no one specific deciding factor. Genetics, hormones and environmental (biological and social) factors all play a role. There are also physical differences between homosexuals and heterosexuals.

By all means, you are entitled to your opinion that homosexuality is morally and ethicall wrong. But don't expect everyone else to take your word as fact based solely on your perception of knowing what is correct.

Where are your studies or references that proves your view? The Bible does not count.

And since you brought up sodomy; do you include oral sex between men and women when you use that word?

Belloc

04-02-13, 14:32

And again, pedophilia is NOT the act of having sex with prepubescent children, it is a term describing the mental illness of a person leading them to be sexually attracted to children. It is a sexual preference disorder. Homosexuality is not, not matter how hard you insist it is.

It actually is a disorder, no matter how hard you insist that it isn't.

In philosophy we begin with defining our terms. What do you mean by homosexuality is "normal?" Some have argued because it is found in nature it is normal. But incest and cannibalism are found in nature as well. So the 'found in nature' argument fails miserably. The 'there have always been people who have engaged in acts of homosexuality' argument fails as well, and for the same reason. There has always been rape, and murder, and incest, etc, as well. The, there is nothing wrong with it because it has always happened is as trite, hollow, and patently nonsensical as it sounds.

As for the morality of males wilfully sodomizing each other and science:

Same-Sex Science
[Why] the social sciences cannot settle the moral status of homosexuality.

http://www.firstthings.com/article/2012/01/same-sex-science

"...Evelyn Hooker, in her 1957 study, was careful to reject only the claim that homosexuality is always pathological. She never made the logically distinct assertion that homosexual persons on average are just as psychologically healthy as heterosexuals. It is well that she did not, because the consistent findings of the best, most representative research suggest the contrary, despite a few scattered compatible findings from smaller studies of less representative samples. One of the most exhaustive studies ever conducted, published in 2001 in the American Journal of Public Health and directed by researchers from Harvard Medical School, concludes that “homosexual orientation . . . is associated with a general elevation of risk for anxiety, mood, and substance-use disorders and for suicidal thoughts and plans.” Other and more recent studies have found similar correlations, including studies from the Netherlands, one of the most gay-affirming social contexts in the world. Depression and substance abuse are found to be on average 20 to 30 percent more prevalent among homosexual persons. Teens manifesting same-sex attraction report suicidal thoughts and attempts at double to triple the rate of other teens. Similar indicators of diminished physical health emerge in this literature."

You are perfectly free to reject the minority opinion of researchers that homosexual orientation is disordered, but you cannot pretend that it does not exist.

And the researcher most responsible for taking homosexuality off the list of disorders was viciously attacked and maligned for even attempting to begin research into the area of actually treating homosexual orientation disorder. There is precious little research in this area because the fascistic lunatic left have deliberately used political correctness to make it politically incorrect to event suggest researching treatment for this disorder.

Arctic1

04-02-13, 15:09

Well congrats on not adressing one single thing regarding the topic we are discussing, namely pedophlia. Can you not make a valid argument to counter my point, so you change the subject?

Ok, you hate gay people and find it morally and ethically disgusting. Good for you. Personally I don't care if people are gay or not, as it does not interfere with my day to day life, or in any way or form restrict my way of life.

I am not denying that many people dislike homosexuality, and find it morally and ethically wrong. That does not equate to it being a disorder, unnatural or deviant. Again, prove it.

I have also not used the "found in nature" argument. I countered your pedophilia argument, because it was plain wrong, but I don't think the correlation/similarities between human and animal behavior actions are really relevant when discussing sexual orientation. Or any other type of behavior, for that matter. To be clear, I don't think the fact that a male dog humping another male dog explains homosexuality in humans.

And to the word sodomy, like I asked you in my last post; do you include oral sex between a man and woman when using that term?

Anyways, I really have no interest in discussing this with you; pedophlia or homosexuality. I just got annoyed at your suppression techniques and your propensity to call people liars when they post something you don't agree with. Seriously, make a proper argument citing sources; articles, studies etc. Stop with the name calling and personal attacks.

Denali

04-02-13, 15:10

You are perfectly free to reject the minority opinion of researchers that homosexual orientation is disordered, but you cannot pretend that it does not exist.

And the researcher most responsible for taking homosexuality off the list of disorders was viciously attacked and maligned for even attempting to begin research into the area of actually treating homosexual orientation disorder. There is precious little research in this area because the fascistic lunatic left have deliberately used political correctness to make it politically incorrect to event suggest researching treatment for this disorder.

The facts are the vast majority of the psychology behind the advancement of the homosexualization/radical sexualization of American children, has been firmly rooted in lunatic fringe leftism, and then used by committed marxist/leninist democrats, to destabilize, and ultimately supplant the traditional western concepts of family! Almost all of the people published, literally 99% are either leftist, or far leftist....

http://www.christianpost.com/news/study-reveals-anti-conservative-discrimination-among-psychologists-79642/

Denali

04-02-13, 15:17

Bannered all over the www just today an upcoming article in the Journal "Pediatrics,"
http://www.everydayhealth.com/kids-health/0401/consensual-sex-typically-doesnt-begin-before-teen-years-study-finds.aspx?xid=aol_eh-news_7_20130401_&aolcat=HLT&icid=maing-grid7%7Cmain5%7Cdl7%7Csec3_lnk3%26pLid%3D292034

The study also looked at the use of contraception and found that older children were more likely to use it, including the 15- and 16-year-olds who can't get the Plan B contraceptive over the counter.

"The people who are most affected by that policy are the ones most likely to be having sex: 15- to 16-year-olds are far more likely than the youngest adolescents, the 10- to 11-year-olds," Finer said.

One never needs to read the entire article to arrive at the agendas, which are always the same!

Sensei

04-02-13, 15:29

@Belloc:

Is homosexuality a mental disorder?
No, lesbian, gay, and bisexual orientations are not disorders. Research has found no inherent association between any of these sexual orientations and psychopathology. Both heterosexual behavior and homosexual behavior are normal aspects of human sexuality. Both have been documented in many different cultures and historical eras. Despite the persistence of stereotypes that portray lesbian, gay, and bisexual people as disturbed, several decades of research and clinical experience have led all mainstream medical and mental health organizations in this country to conclude that these orientations represent normal forms of human experience. Lesbian, gay, and bisexual relationships are normal forms of human bonding. Therefore, these mainstream organizations long ago abandoned classifications of homosexuality as a mental disorder.

http://www.apa.org/helpcenter/sexual-orientation.aspx

This is what is valid today, and until someone proves irrefutibly that these observations are wrong, then that is what I believe. I am an atheist, by the way, in case you were wondering.

Show me where those observations were irrefutably proven to be correct. Neither side of this argument has proven anything with these case control and cohort studies. Those are one professional organization's positions and that organization is far left leaning.

Now, would you like to accept the APA's recommendations on preventing gun violence? Before you answer, understand that they have links to the John's Hopkins Bloomburg Center for Gun Policy and Research on their website.

kwelz

04-02-13, 15:48

Show me where those observations were irrefutably proven to be correct. Neither side of this argument has proven anything with these case control and cohort studies. Those are one professional organization's positions and that organization is far left leaning.

Now, would you like to accept the APA's recommendations on preventing gun violence? Before you answer, understand that they have links to the John's Hopkins Bloomburg Center for Gun Policy and Research on their website.

I trust the APA when it is something within their sphere of knowledge. Gun control isn't. The topic of conversation here is.

Sensei

04-02-13, 16:19

I trust the APA when it is something within their sphere of knowledge. Gun control isn't. The topic of conversation here is.

Bull Shit - violence is one of the major areas of "research" for the APA and they have snuggled right up Obama's ass after Sandy Hook. Granted, not hard to do since the APA was practically hugging his balls long before Adam Lanza was a twinkle in his dad's eye. The vast majority of these organizations are far left leaning and push an agenda. Look no further than the AMA's stance on Obamacare - arguably in their sphere of knowledge, and proving to be a disastrous mistake for their constituents and the country at large.

People who think that medical professional organizations have the final word in judging social issues need to wake the hell up and look at who is in academia. These same people, who tout themselves as discerning connoisseurs of knowledge, conveniently fail to notice the glaring lack of citations behind the assertions in these papers. That is what those of us who know how to read scientific papers call a clue.

Arctic1

04-02-13, 16:34

Show me where those observations were irrefutably proven to be correct. Neither side of this argument has proven anything with these case control and cohort studies. Those are one professional organization's positions and that organization is far left leaning.

Now, would you like to accept the APA's recommendations on preventing gun violence? Before you answer, understand that they have links to the John's Hopkins Bloomburg Center for Gun Policy and Research on their website.

A couple of articles:

http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/facts_mental_health.html
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/homosexuality/

I have no knowledge of the political leanings of the authors or schools.

Belloc

04-02-13, 16:59

I just got annoyed at your suppression techniques and your propensity to call people liars when they post something you don't agree with.

Oh for the love of.., well congrats, that itself is a lie. :rolleyes:

Lie 1.

The growing acceptance of gay marriage, hasn't led to single percentage point increase in support of polygamy,

Lie 2.

You're the one arguing that homosexuality leads to support of pedophilia.

These are the two lies of GJ that I pointed out.
I have also already challenged you once to even attempt to demonstrate how they are not lies.

Arctic1

04-02-13, 17:05

I'm out. Going to continue staying out of GD.

Gutshot John

04-02-13, 17:14

Now, would you like to accept the APA's recommendations on preventing gun violence? Before you answer, understand that they have links to the John's Hopkins Bloomburg Center for Gun Policy and Research on their website.

The notion that because they don't share your gun control views means that you know better than they what constitutes a mental disorder is not only highly suspect, it's also yet another logical fallacy.

What are your credentials in psychiatry?

Belloc

04-02-13, 17:16

I'm out. Going to continue staying out of GD.

You steadfastly claimed I resorted to actually labelling people as liars for no other reason than they disagreed with a stated point of view. Quite the scurrilous accusation. And when you are charged with defending your insult, you flee. No worries mate, I rather imagined not more from you.

GeorgiaBoy

04-02-13, 17:34

Meanwhile.... In General Discussion.......

Arctic1

04-02-13, 17:44

No, I didn't flee. I joined the board because I am interested in firearms, training, tactical issues etc. I did not join to discuss homosexuality, pedophilia or other non firearms related subjects.

And quite frankly I'm not going to spend time looking for sources that proves if the statements are lies or not. Can you prove they are lies?

Here is one that supports Gutshot Johns post about homosexuality and child molestation/pedophilia:

http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/facts_molestation.html

Be my guest, knock yourself out.

Belloc

04-02-13, 18:06

And quite frankly I'm not going to spend time looking for sources that proves if the statements are lies or not.
Which means simply and undeniably, that you yourself deliberately and maliciously lied with your puerile insult. Well played.

Here is one that supports Gutshot Johns post about homosexuality and child molestation/pedophilia:

Lie 2, (again)

You're the one arguing that homosexuality leads to support of pedophilia.

You will not find on this thread anything from me claiming "homosexuality leading to support of pedophilia". He simply lied. For whatever reason, you then decided to compound his lie with one of your own. Again, well played.

Arctic1

04-02-13, 19:14

Can you name even one culture where homosexuality was openly practiced and promoted and pederasty wasn't?

One can certainly see where he got the idea.....you are insinuating it, although using the word pederasty.

As far as the "lie" regarding studies showing gay marriage increasing support for polygamy, he clearly stated that he did not know of any studies. The links you provided hardly prove him wrong.

Still, the way you make arguments is quite tiresome. Instead of insulting people and calling them liars, why don't you make proper arguments?

See, I can call you a liar based on many statements you have made in this thread, if I used your logic:

Pedophilia is the sexual abuse of pre-pubescent children, those under 10-11 (thereabouts).

Actually, pedophilia is found in nature

Both of these statements would be regarded as lies, by your logic.

Isn't it more conducive to argue the subject?

Anyways, can we just leave it be? You have your views, rock on with your bad self.

skydivr

04-02-13, 19:26

You really need to be more careful what you acuse people of. That is a photo by Oleg Volk. He is a Pro 2A activist and used to own TheHighroad.org before it was stolen form him by an admin. He currently runs a site called GunRightsmedia.com

He is a photographer who does a lot of Pro 2A photography as well as a lot of other types. So please by all means accuse him of trying to use the 2A to his advantage. He has done more to promote and defend the 2nd Amendment than most people can even dream of.

http://www.gunrightsmedia.com/
http://www.olegvolk.net/
http://olegvolk.net/blog/

Then his photo has been stolen for a use other than it's intended purpose. If it were promoting 2A rights, I'd see no problem in it, but it's been edited to mean something entirely else. I would not accuse the photographer unless that was his original intent; instead I accuse those that used his photo without permission. I will post up where I saw this at.

Sensei

04-02-13, 20:50

What are your credentials in psychiatry?

Board Certified in Emergency Medicine which means that about 30% of my practice involved dealing with someone's personality disorder, substance abuse, drug seeking behavior, depression, bipolar, or schizophrenia. The percentage approaches 50% if you consider IBS and fibromyalgia to be psychiatric disorders.

Since there are no psychiatrists in most EDs, I'm responsible for providing the First Exam and Involuntary Commitment paperwork on virtually all patients that require admission to a psychiatric institution. In other words, I'd say that I've got a firm grasp on the basics.

What are your credentials?

Gutshot John

04-02-13, 22:48

Board Certified in Emergency Medicine which means that about 30% of my practice involved dealing with someone's personality disorder, substance abuse, drug seeking behavior, depression, bipolar, or schizophrenia. The percentage approaches 50% if you consider IBS and fibromyalgia to be psychiatric disorders.

Since there are no psychiatrists in most EDs, I'm responsible for providing the First Exam and Involuntary Commitment paperwork on virtually all patients that require admission to a psychiatric institution. In other words, I'd say that I've got a firm grasp on the basics.

What are your credentials?

Not nearly as good as yours but then, I'm not the one making a claim in clear opposition to everything the psychiatric profession says about homosexuality.

I've also spent a good bit of time in Emergency Rooms and running the streets as a paramedic. I've run into those people as well. It's really not that hard to tell when someone has a mental disorder.

The homosexuals I know are professional, well-adjusted individuals, except, like everyone else, they have to deal with assholes, bullies and bigots. They go to work, pay their taxes and bills. They care for their families and friends and have longstanding caring relationships. Most of the ones I know go to church regularly, and otherwise contribute a great deal to their communities. You're not going to convince me that these people have a mental disorder. It's too transparently false to be believable.

Now that you mention it, I can't think of a professional/credentialing medical association that doesn't support gun control. I'm guessing you don't use those for CME.

By your logic, they know no more about medicine, than the APA knows about pyschiatry?

But how can that be?

It's pretty ****ing laughable.

You don't like queers? Just say so dude, I really don't care, I don't even think you're a bad person. You're entitled to your opinion. But let's not pretend there's a scientific basis for this bullshit.

glocktogo

04-02-13, 23:08

I'll admit that I have a pretty fair interest in this subject matter from an abuse prevention standpoint. What I can't understand is the emotional investment some of you seem to make in it on a gun forum. :confused:

I also wonder how much of this talk about intertwined homosexuality is based on the misapplication of sexual deviancy and addiction. Because let's face it, there are gay sex freaks and fiends and there are straight sex freaks and fiends. Correlation does not imply causation and whatnot.

Either way, can we drop the BS gentlemen and stay on topic?

http://images5.fanpop.com/image/photos/25100000/Drama-is-bad-mmkay-mr-mackey-25108921-310-310.gif

Magic_Salad0892

04-02-13, 23:27

So when you see homosexual behaviour, incestuous behaviour, and pedorastic behaviour in other species, you are saying you know for certain what is and is not "inspiring" them to have sex?

I'm saying that you cannot verify that these pedophilic acts even occur in animals, due to our definition of "child" and "pederasty/pedophilia".

Why is there homosexual behaviour in other species if "human beings and dolphins are the only animals who have sex for means other than reproduction"?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/5550488/Homosexual-behaviour-widespread-in-animals-according-to-new-study.html

Necessary biological adeptation, apperantly.

Belloc

04-03-13, 01:45

I'm saying that you cannot verify that these pedophilic acts even occur in animals, due to our definition of "child" and "pederasty/pedophilia".

Not being able to verify or confirm something as happening is quite different from stating as an absolute certainty that it is not.

Would you not agree?

Belloc

04-03-13, 02:00

One can certainly see where he got the idea.....you are insinuating it, although using the word pederasty.
Pederasty, by definition, is a different thing than pedophilia. I in no way "insinuated" anywhere that homosexuality leads to support for the rape and sexual abuse of 7 year old children. It is becoming increasingly apparent that lying may simply be pathological to you.

As far as the "lie" regarding studies showing gay marriage increasing support for polygamy, he clearly stated that he did not know of any studies. The links you provided hardly prove him wrong.

Claiming something as true that is not, or something as absolutely undeniably true when you know full well, and later even admit, that you have absolutely no idea about, are both lies.

Still, the way you make arguments is quite tiresome. Instead of insulting people and calling them liars, why don't you make proper arguments?

See, I can call you a liar based on many statements you have made in this thread, if I used your logic:

Actually, no, you can't. Yet again you demonstrate that your are apparently habitually a less than honest person.

Belloc

04-03-13, 02:06

Not nearly as good as yours but then, I'm not the one making a claim in clear opposition to everything the psychiatric profession says about homosexuality.

Nor is he. He is simply agreeing with the minority scientific opinion regarding homosexual orientation disorder. You can pretend with your wording that the opinion of these researchers does not exist, but you have already been proven someone who lies rather easily, so this is no great surprise.

Magic_Salad0892

04-03-13, 02:29

Not being able to verify or confirm something as happening is quite different from stating as an absolute certainty that it is not.

Would you not agree?

That depends. When you propose something, you're the one who has the burden of proof.

Also, what is your problem with gays? Seriously, this thread was about pedophiles, and you come in here dragging gays into the argument like always. You're not gay, are you?

I respect you, and all. But seriously. This argument had absolutely nothing to do with gays until you brought them in.

Belloc

04-03-13, 04:03

That depends.
No it doesn't. Not being able to verify or confirm something as happening is different from stating as an absolute certainty that it is not.

When you propose something, you're the one who has the burden of proof.

Then why do you propose things as proven when they in fact are not?

Pedophilia is a behavior not found in other species,

Is the behaviour found in other species. Absolutely. Is the pathology? No one knows. However if now the line of reasoning is that while the pedophiliastic behaviour is found in other species, but not pedophilia itself, then you invite the logical extrapolation that while homosexual behaviour is found in other species, homosexuality itself is not.

This argument had absolutely nothing to do with gays until you brought them in.
Really, I "brought them in"? You really want to stand by that accusation or go back and research the thread and then come back and retract it?

Sensei

04-03-13, 04:32

Not nearly as good as yours but then, I'm not the one making a claim in clear opposition to everything the psychiatric profession says about homosexuality.

I've also spent a good bit of time in Emergency Rooms and running the streets as a paramedic. I've run into those people as well. It's really not that hard to tell when someone has a mental disorder.

The homosexuals I know are professional, well-adjusted individuals, except, like everyone else, they have to deal with assholes, bullies and bigots. They go to work, pay their taxes and bills. They care for their families and friends and have longstanding caring relationships. Most of the ones I know go to church regularly, and otherwise contribute a great deal to their communities. You're not going to convince me that these people have a mental disorder. It's too transparently false to be believable.

Now that you mention it, I can't think of a professional/credentialing medical association that doesn't support gun control. I'm guessing you don't use those for CME.

By your logic, they know no more about medicine, than the APA knows about pyschiatry?

But how can that be?

It's pretty ****ing laughable.

You don't like queers? Just say so dude, I really don't care, I don't even think you're a bad person. You're entitled to your opinion. But let's not pretend there's a scientific basis for this bullshit.

I think you need to step back and re-read my posts. Here is a brief summary of my position:

1) The homosexual community has a pederasty problem within in its ranks. The fact that you can't discuss this without being called a bigot or religious zelot means that the problem will not get fixed anytime soon.

2) Despite the assertions of many in the mental health field, homosexuality is not the equal of heterosexuality. People who have homosexual attractions are more likely to be maladjusted than their heterosexual counterparts. Male homosexuals who choose to engage in anal intercourse incur higher rates of adverse health events than heterosexuals.

3) Because homosexuality cannot propagate the species, an ordered society has no vested interest in supporting such a lifestyle choice. This does not mean that homosexuals should be persecuted, but society should not bend its institutions in some misguided attempt to be inclusive of a lifestyle that is less advantageous. It also means that our educational institutions should not be encouraging homosexual experimentation as part of the curriculum or otherwise attempting to normalize homosexual sex acts.

Arctic1

04-03-13, 04:33

Is the behaviour found in other species. Absolutely.

For the umpteenth time, this is not correct. Pedophilia is not the act of having sexual relations with a child, that is child sexual abuse or child molestation. Pedophilia is defined as the sexual interest or preference in prepubescent children by adults.

pedophiliastic

This is not a word; the correct term is pedophilic.

Magic_Salad0892

04-03-13, 04:39

For the umpteenth time, this is not correct. Pedophilia is not the act of having sexual relations with a child, that is child sexual abuse or child molestation. Pedophilia is defined as the sexual interest or preference in prepubescent children by adults.

Just to provide a little backup/source:

http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/pedophilia

ped·o·phil·i·a (pd-fl-, pd-)
n.
The act or fantasy on the part of an adult of engaging in sexual activity with a child or children.

pedo·phile (-fl) n.
pedo·phili·ac (-fl-k) adj. & n.

pedophilia
[ped′əfil′ē·ə]
Etymology: Gk, pais, child, philein, to love
1 an abnormal interest in children.
2 (in psychiatry) a psychosexual disorder in which the fantasy or act of engaging in sexual activity with prepubertal children is the preferred or exclusive means of achieving sexual excitement and gratification. It may be heterosexual or homosexual. Also spelled paedophilia. Also called pederosis. See also paraphilia. pedophilic, adj.

pe·do·phil·i·a (pē'dō-fil'ē-ă),
In psychiatry, an abnormal attraction to children by an adult for sexual purposes.

And that list goes on with pretty much the same definition over, and over again.

Magic_Salad0892

04-03-13, 04:43

No it doesn't. Not being able to verify or confirm something as happening is different from stating as an absolute certainty that it is not.

I said that animals do not display pedophilic behavior. This is because we cannot diagnose animals with mental disorders. Pedophilia is a mental disorder. I never said that animals did not sexually abuse their young. I said that they were not pedophiles. Then you dragged gays into the argument because you insist that they're just as bad as pedophiles for some reason. And then tried to ask me why homosexuality was displayed in animals? (Which I provided a legit reason for.)

Then why do you propose things as proven when they in fact are not?

I didn't. That I recall.

Is the behaviour found in other species. Absolutely. Is the pathology? No one knows. However if now the line of reasoning is that while the pedophiliastic behaviour is found in other species, but not pedophilia itself, then you invite the logical extrapolation that while homosexual behaviour is found in other species, homosexuality itself is not

That's kind of a stretch, but I see what you're getting at. However that still falls flat because of the explanation of why that homosexual behavior exists in animals.

Really, I "brought them in"? You really want to stand by that accusation or go back and research the thread and then come back and retract it?

You dragged them into the argument. I believe Sensei was the first to mention them in this thread.

Sensei

04-03-13, 04:55

You dragged them into the argument. I believe Sensei was the first to mention them in this thread.

And you would be wrong yet again. Homosexuality was compared to pedophilia in the OP's article. It was expounded on by Steyr in his first post (#11) which really got the ball rolling.

Nice try.

Magic_Salad0892

04-03-13, 04:56

And you would be wrong yet again. Homosexuality was compared to pedophilia in the OP's article. It was expounded on by Steyr in his first post which really got the ball rolling.

Nice try.

I wasn't trying anything. Or directing an attack at you.

I went and reread the thread looking for the words "homosexual" or "gay" and yours was the first I found. I'll go re-read it then I guess.

Derp: You seem to be right. I take back what I said about you bringing it up.

Belloc

04-03-13, 05:59

I said that animals do not display pedophilic behavior. This is because we cannot diagnose animals with mental disorders. Pedophilia is a mental disorder. I never said that animals did not sexually abuse their young. I said that they were not pedophiles. Then you dragged gays into the argument because you insist that they're just as bad as pedophiles for some reason. And then tried to ask me why homosexuality was displayed in animals? (Which I provided a legit reason for.)

Posted BY you:

ped·o·phil·i·a (pd-fl-, pd-)
n.
The ACT or fantasy on the part of an adult of engaging in sexual activity with a child.

That act takes places in other species as well. A fact which you have tried to repeatedly deny.

I didn't. That I recall.
Yes you did.

That's kind of a stretch, but I see what you're getting at. However that still falls flat because of the explanation of why that homosexual behavior exists in animals.
And what explanation is that? You have already stated that according to you only humans and dolphins have sex for reasons other than procreation.

You dragged them into the argument. I believe Sensei was the first to mention them in this thread.

Great, now you have decided to lie as well. I had thought you better than that. I did not "drag" anyone into anything, I was responding to another post, and your "belief" about Sensei is also simply untrue.
So let me ask you this. Why? Why lie? What do you hope to gain from it? Anyone can read the first three pages of this thread and see that what you are posting is simply not true, so why do it? What could possibly motivate you to be deliberately deceitful?

Belloc

04-03-13, 06:04

For the umpteenth time, this is not correct. Pedophilia is not the ACT of having sexual relations with a child,

Ahem:

Just to provide a little backup/source:

http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/pedophilia

ped·o·phil·i·a (pd-fl-, pd-)
n.
The ACT or fantasy on the part of an adult of engaging in sexual activity with a child.

Belloc

04-03-13, 06:18

Pedophilia is a behavior not found in other species,

I also think that it is rather patently obvious that you in fact meant with this post exactly what you said, that the behaviour, i.e. act, of adult members of other species engaging in sexual contact with the young of their species 'is not found'. Not true. Simply not true.

Magic_Salad0892

04-03-13, 06:20

Posted BY you:

ped·o·phil·i·a (pd-fl-, pd-)
n.
The ACT or fantasy on the part of an adult of engaging in sexual activity with a child.

Oh my ****ing God.

http://www.psychologytoday.com/conditions/pedophilia

Pedophilia is considered a paraphilia, an "abnormal or unnatural attraction." Pedophilia is defined as the fantasy or act of sexual activity with prepubescent children. Pedophiles are usually men, and can be attracted to either or both sexes. How well they relate to adults of the opposite sex varies.Perpetrators often delude themselves into viewing their actions as helpful to children. They might tell themselves they are contributing to a child's development or that the child is enjoying the act; however, they do tell their victims not to alert their parents or authorities.An estimated 20 percent of American children have been sexually molested, making pedophilia the most common paraphilia. Offenders are usually family friends or relatives. Types of activities vary and may include just looking at a child or undressing and touching a child. However, acts often do involve oral sex or touching of genitals of the child or offender. Studies suggest that children who feel uncared for or lonely may be at higher risk.

Yes. There is such a thing as a pedophilic ACT. However, there can only be a pedophilic ACT if the psychological disorder is present.

That act takes places in other species as well. A fact which you have tried to repeatedly deny.

I never said that there were not sexual acts toward child-phase animals that were abusive in nature. I said that they were not pedophilic.

Yes you did.

Then please quote it.

And what explanation is that? You have already stated that according to you only humans and dolphins have sex for reasons other than procreation.

Really?... You even quoted the post that contained that response.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/5550488/Homosexual-behaviour-widespread-in-animals-according-to-new-study.html

Great, now you have decided to lie as well. I had thought you better than that. I did not "drag" anyone into anything, I was responding to another post, and your "belief" about Sensei is also simply untrue.
So let me ask you this. Why? Why lie? What do you hope to gain from it? Anyone can read the first three pages of this thread and see that what you are posting is simply not true, so why do it? What could possibly motivate you to be deliberately deceitful?

I was not intentionally dishonest at any point, and I corrected myself when Sensei pointed out that homosexuality was mentioned in the OP. And I retracted my statement that you, or him dragged gays into the argument.

Magic_Salad0892

04-03-13, 06:23

I also think that it is rather patently obvious that you in fact meant with this post exactly what you said, that the behaviour, i.e. act, of adult members of other species engaging in sexual contact with the young of their species 'is not found'. Not true. Simply not true.

Then you missed the entire point. Pedophilic behavior would be the specific attraction to children.

These are all things that have been defined, both by law, and by psychology.

Behavior, doesn't imply direct action.

Magic_Salad0892

04-03-13, 06:25

Ahem:

Congradulations on finding the ONLY definition I found that had the word act in it. However, that definition fits the definition I outlined as well. Which supports my/Arctic1's claim as well, and not yours.

Belloc

04-03-13, 06:39

Yes. There is such a thing as a pedophilic ACT. However, there can only be a pedophilic ACT if the psychological disorder is present.
Wrong. You are simply trying to hitch your wagon to an in-motion train wreck. Bad idea.

I never said that there were not sexual acts toward child-phase animals that were abusive in nature. I said that they were not pedophilic.
No, you said that the behaviour, i.e. the act, itself was not found in nature.
And that is simply wrong.

Then please quote it.

I have, multiple times.

I was not intentionally dishonest at any point, and I corrected myself when Sensei pointed out that homosexuality was mentioned in the OP. And I retracted my statement that you, or him dragged gays into the argument.
That only means that you hurl accusations without first even having the courtesy and decency to even bother finding out if they are actually true or accurate.
Not really much of an improvement.

Magic_Salad0892

04-03-13, 06:48

Wrong. You are simply trying to hitch your wagon to an in-motion train wreck. Bad idea.

And you're not doing anything to actively prove me wrong.

No, you said that the behaviour, i.e. the act, itself was not found in nature.
And that is simply wrong.

Not according to the legal/psychological definitions that were drafted with human acts in mind, and the definitions that I have provided. Which are backed by several sources.

That only means that you hurl accusations without first even having the courtesy and decency to even bother finding out if they are actually true or accurate.
Not really much of an improvement.

Whatever. I was wrong. I can live with that. That doesn't give you validity over me.

Arctic1

04-03-13, 07:00

Ahem:

Ahem right back at you:

F65 DISORDERS OF SEXUAL PREFERENCE
G1. Recurrent intense sexual urges and fantasies involving unusual objects or activities.
G2. Acts on the urges or is markedly distressed by them.
G3. The preference has been present for at least six months

F65.4 Paedophilia
A. The general criteria for F65 Disorders of sexual preference must be met.
B. A persistent or a predominant preference for sexual activity with a prepubescent child or children.
C. The person is at least 16 years old and at least five years older than the child or children in B.

http://www.who.int/classifications/icd/en/GRNBOOK.pdf

Yes, there are pedophiles who act on their urges, but they only do so because they have the mental disorder called pedophilia.

No one is denying that some animals perform sexul acts on their offspring, but you cannot seriously call that pedophilia if it isn't at all probable that they do it because they are children. That is the definition of pedophilia.

Here is a good article on pedophilia:

http://www.abusewatch.net/pedophiles.pdf

By diagnostic criteria of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition, a pedophile is an individual who fantasizes about, is sexually aroused by, or experiences sexual urges
toward prepubescent children (generally <13 years) for a period of at least 6 months. Pedophiles are either severely distressed by these sexual urges, experience interpersonal difficulties because of them, or act on them.3 Pedophiles usually come to medical or legal attention by committing an act against a child because most do not find their sexual fantasies distressing or ego-dystonic enough to voluntarily
seek treatment.3

Sensei

04-03-13, 07:13

And you're not doing anything to actively prove me wrong.

Not according to the legal/psychological definitions that were drafted with human acts in mind, and the definitions that I have provided. Which are backed by several sources.

Whatever. I was wrong. I can live with that. That doesn't give you validity over me.

A few quick questions.

1) Due you think that the gay community has a disproportionate number of constituents who are attracted to post-pubescent juveniles and engage in pederasty? I'm not saying that homosexuality causes pederasty or that a majority of gays engage in this behavior. I only want to know if you think that this behavior is over-represented in the gay community which is generally less than 5% of the population.

2) Do you think that homo and heterosexuality are equals? Does society derive the same benefit from homosexuality as hetero?

Arctic1

04-03-13, 07:30

1) Well, the premise of your argument is flawed, seeing as pederasty IS the homosexual relationship between an adult male and an adolescent male. So yes, it would only seem logical that pederasty is over-represented in the gay community. Based on that definition you would be hard pressed to find pederasty outside of the gay community.

2) I think a better question is how does homosexuality detract from society? How does the fact that people are gay/lesbians detract from the lives of heterosexuals? How does homosexuals negatively affect society by being homosexuals?

Safetyhit

04-03-13, 08:23

Any chance that those who want to talk pedophilia and homosexuality all day can go to the appropriate forum? Or maybe this over-extended, useless thread can just be closed?

Glad we're keeping watch over things and all, but there is no place left to go here but around and around.

Arctic1

04-03-13, 08:28

Or maybe this over-extended, useless thread can just be closed?

Agreed.

I was foolish to get involved....

Koshinn

04-03-13, 08:29

2) Do you think that homo and heterosexuality are equals? Does society derive the same benefit from homosexuality as hetero?
Does society derive the same benefit from fertile people as sterile people? In your opinion, should people who cannot or will not voluntarily conceive children be given the same benefits as those who have or have the will and biological capability to have children?

Also assuming that we're in dire need of new children and don't have an abundance of children that need adopting and an abundance of parents that are biologically capable but otherwise unsuitable to have children.

Belloc

04-03-13, 09:35

Ahem right back at you:

And with a backhand...

Pedophilia is a behavior not found in other species,

MS is stating as factual two things here.

1. Pedophilia is a behaviour, i.e. an act.
2. This act, i.e. behaviour, is not found in other species.

He did not say pedophilia is a human psychological disorder and as such it is thus by definition utterly impossible for other species to demonstrate it.
He was claiming that this: http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=6622478 never happens.

I am not saying that incest happens in the animal kingdom because some male of a species is turned on by a female because that female is his sister, just that incest does happen. And from the definition given by MS himself on pedophilia:
"The ACT or fantasy on the part of an adult of engaging in sexual activity with a child."
we plainly see that this act also takes place in other species.

Thus in other species we see sexual activity between members of the same sex, between members of the same family, and between adults members of the species and the very young.

Again, if it makes it easier for you:
In other species, do we see what in humans is classified as homosexual behaviour? Yes.
In other species, do we see what in humans is classified as incestuous behaviour? Yes
In other species, do we see what in humans are classified as pedophiliastic/pedophilic behaviour? Yes.

And if you have decided not to apologise for your puerile and scurrilous lie that I 'insinuated' that homosexuality leads to the rape of 7 year old children, well again, from the beginning it was clear not to expect all that much.

Sensei

04-03-13, 09:54

Does society derive the same benefit from fertile people as sterile people? In your opinion, should people who cannot or will not voluntarily conceive children be given the same benefits as those who have or have the will and biological capability to have children?

No, society does not derive equal benefit from those couples who are sterile. However, I'd argue that society derives more benefit from sterile hetero couples than homo couples. For example, 2 equally loving and capable couples want to adopt a child. However one couple is gay while the other is straight. Does the child fare better with the gay or straight couple?

1) Well, the premise of your argument is flawed, seeing as pederasty IS the homosexual relationship between an adult male and an adolescent male. So yes, it would only seem logical that pederasty is over-represented in the gay community. Based on that definition you would be hard pressed to find pederasty outside of the gay community.

2) I think a better question is how does homosexuality detract from society? How does the fact that people are gay/lesbians detract from the lives of heterosexuals? How does homosexuals negatively affect society by being homosexuals?

I don't see my question as being flawed if homosexuals engage in sexual relationships with post-pubescent juveniles at rates significantly higher than heterosexuals. Belloc has previously cited studies that suggest (not prove) that they do. I'm not so sure, but my gut leads me to believe he is correct just like my gut tells me that Islam has a Muslim extremist problem.

Although you did not answer my second question, I'll answer yours. Individuals who engage in consentual homosexual behavior have little negative effect on society. There are a few problems with higher STD transmission rates, anal cancer, etc., but these are not enough for me to support anti-sodomy laws. The harm comes on a population level when societies shifts from genetically advantageous social constructs to disadvantageous ones, and normalizes the disadvantageous in the process. Homosexuality is by definition genetically disadvantageous when applied to humans.

Belloc

04-03-13, 09:58

Not according to the legal/psychological definitions that were drafted with human acts in mind, and the definitions that I have provided.

Posted BY you:

ped·o·phil·i·a (pd-fl-, pd-)
n.
The ACT or fantasy on the part of an adult of engaging in sexual activity with a child

Whatever. I was wrong. I can live with that.

Not only was homosexuality mentioned in the OP, but in at least 2 other posts before mine, including the one right above mine.
I could accept that you missed it once, maybe, but doubtfully, twice, but certainly not three times. That simply means you posted something you knew to be untrue, or at the very least did not care enough to find out if it were true before you posted it. And that is just about as bad, as well as disappointing.

That doesn't give you validity over me.
I am not even going to pretend to have any idea, whatsoever, as to just what the hell that even means.

Arctic1

04-03-13, 09:58

Did you even see the definition that I posted, that is the official definition used in health care?

And MS' statement is true, because pedophilia is sexual attraction exclusively because the victim is a child. So, you cannot claim that pedophilia is seen in nature, because the sexual activity most likely stems from other functions, like play or biology (ie earlier sexual maturity).

You cannot show correlation by using homosexuality or incest as examples either, because those sexual acts are much easier to define:

Homosexual - same sex
Incest - own child

These have nothing to do with explaining how the mind of a pedophile works, or that pedophilic activity is found in nature. Sexual acts against young members; sure, no one has denied it. Sexual acts deliberately performed on young members exclusively because they are children? Nope. If you keep on insisting, prove it.

And I am not going to apologize to you for shit, seeing as you are totally unable to hold an adult conversation about a topic without resorting to suppression techniques or ad hominem attacks on others' character, like you are a 2 year old who doesn't get your way.

RancidSumo

04-03-13, 10:14

You steadfastly claimed I resorted to actually labelling people as liars for no other reason than they disagreed with a stated point of view. Quite the scurrilous accusation. And when you are charged with defending your insult, you flee. No worries mate, I rather imagined not more from you.

That is exactly what you did in the last (now locked) thread

Belloc

04-03-13, 10:27

Although you did not answer my second question, I'll answer yours. Individuals who engage in consentual homosexual behavior have little negative effect on society.

Active homosexuals, only about 1.2-1.8% of the general population, are responsible for almost 50% of all new cases of HIV infection every year according to the CDC.

Some 650,000 people have died in the US as a result of Aids.

The financial cost to the country and taxpayer is now well over $1 trillion and every year costs an additional estimated $40 billion.

Google homosexuals and STD rates of infection, and homosexual promiscuity.

http://www.xtra.ca/public/Toronto/Drugresistant_gonorrhea_highly_prevalent_in_gay_community-13035.aspx

Belloc

04-03-13, 10:30

That is exactly what you did in the last (now locked) thread
Well, no, actually it isn't. :rolleyes:

RancidSumo

04-03-13, 10:33

Well, no, actually it isn't. :rolleyes:

Liar.

Belloc

04-03-13, 10:33

Homosexual - same sex
Incest - own child

Pedophilic- Adult child.

You can cry "nuh-uh" all you want, it changes nothing.

Belloc

04-03-13, 10:35

Liar.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection

Sensei

04-03-13, 10:40

Active homosexuals, only about 1.2-1.8% of the general population, are responsible for almost 50% of all new cases of HIV infection every year according to the CDC.

Some 650,000 people have died in the US as a result of Aids.

The financial cost to the country and taxpayer is now well over $1 trillion and every year costs an additional estimated $40 billion.

Google homosexuals and STD rates of infection, and homosexual promiscuity.

http://www.xtra.ca/public/Toronto/Drugresistant_gonorrhea_highly_prevalent_in_gay_community-13035.aspx

I'm aware of the impact on STDs on the homosexual community and acknowledged them in my last post. As bad as they are, I still do not support anti-sodomy laws. However, you and I agree on the larger points discussed in this thread. However, I am trying to stay out of the name calling mess - no matter who started it.

Belloc

04-03-13, 10:51

I'm aware of the impact on STDs on the homosexual community and acknowledged them in my last post. As bad as they are, I still do not support anti-sodomy laws. However, you and I agree on the larger points discussed in this thread. However, I am trying to stay out of the name calling mess - no matter who started it.

I understand, I was only commenting on this part of your post:
"Individuals who engage in consentual homosexual behavior have little negative effect on society."

I would say that the negative effect has been substantial. Then again so has divorce, abortion, general promiscuity in society, absentee fathers, etc. etc.

VooDoo6Actual

04-03-13, 10:59

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection

100% spot on regarding this specifically.

VooDoo6Actual

04-03-13, 11:01

"Individuals who engage in consentual homosexual behavior have little negative effect on society."

I would say that the negative effect has been substantial. Then again so has divorce, abortion, general promiscuity in society, absentee fathers, etc. etc.

+1 100% spot on. It's the comprehensive totality et alia. It opens a Pandora's Box as to other forms of anomalies & abberational deviant behaviors that now get addressed. Such as what SCOTUS is attempting to iron out. What about LBGT's, polygamy, 3 or more people or even "one", other secular beliefs etc. et al. It's changes the normalcy bias & cult of personality in a society not in a good way according to history.

Koshinn

04-03-13, 11:55

For example, 2 equally loving and capable couples want to adopt a child. However one couple is gay while the other is straight. Does the child fare better with the gay or straight couple?

No difference whatsoever.

Gutshot John

04-03-13, 12:14

Wow, from congenitally stupid to idiotically absurd to pathological dishonesty.

Sensei

04-03-13, 12:15

No difference whatsoever.

So, it sounds like we need to cancel Mother's and Father's Day and replace it with Parent 1 and Parent 2 Day. ;)

Probably a minority opinion among people who have raised children, but at least you are intellectually consistent.

Sensei

04-03-13, 12:16

Wow, from congenitally stupid to idiotically absurd to pathological dishonesty.

I hope that is directed at the post above yours and not at me?

Gutshot John

04-03-13, 12:19

Its directed at the tactics and statements made as a whole by this ongoing bullshit of trying to find scientific justification for gay bashing.

Disingenuous was maybe a better word, but Im amazed that people lack the courage of their convictions and just admit that this is their religious morality and nothing at all to do with science.

Yes I find it dishonest.

Arctic1

04-03-13, 12:20

Pedophilic- Adult child.

You can cry "nuh-uh" all you want, it changes nothing.

No, that is the definition of a child molester. Most child molesters are not pedophiles.

A pedophile is a person suffering from a mental disorder displayed through exclusive sexual attraction towards prepubescent children. Child molesters do not have that preference, their main focus is availability.

Unless you can prove that animals engage in sexual activity with their young specifically because they are young, then you are wrong.

djmorris

04-03-13, 12:20

No difference whatsoever.

What are you smoking? A child needs a father figure and mother figure, which they cannot get from a gay/lesbian couple - contrary to what the homosexuals will tell you. I understand there are some cases out there where the child grew up relatively well with gay parents but I can also guarantee you that there are many more cases of the child having serious mental issues.

I work with gay people, I have friends that are gay, and family that are gay. Every single one of them also have other underlying mental issues - which would explain a lot, I suppose. Of all the homosexuals I know, every single one of them suffers from things like depression, bipolar, drug addiction, etc. Most are very severe cases too, not at all 'mild' cases.

Worst of all a child that grows up with gay parents is going to be a raging progressive liberal which in my book is reason enough to ban gay couples from adopting :big_boss: Better yet, if the child is old enough then let's explain the reality of the situation to them and then let them decide from the get go if they want to have homosexual "parents".

Sensei

04-03-13, 12:33

You don't like queers? Just say so dude, I really don't care, I don't even think you're a bad person. You're entitled to your opinion. But let's not pretend there's a scientific basis for this bullshit.

Its directed at the tactics and statements made as a whole by this ongoing bullshit of trying to find scientific justification for gay bashing.

Disingenuous was maybe a better word, but Im amazed that people lack the courage of their convictions and just admit that this is their religious morality and nothing at all to do with science.

Yes I find it dishonest.

These statements are the closest anyone has come to gay bashing in this thread. Go ask some gay friends how they like being referred to as queers. Oh, I get it. You are on their side, so you can use slurs. I've seen how that game is played with another protected minority.

In case you try to downplay the term "queer," here is the first paragraph in Wikipedia:

Queer is an umbrella term for sexual and gender minorities that are not heterosexual, heteronormative, or gender-binary. The term is generally controversial because it was reappropriated to an extent in the 1990s from its use as an anti-gay epithet. Furthermore, some LGBT people disapprove of using queer as a catch-all because they consider it offensive, derisive or self-deprecating given its continuous use as a form of hate speech.

Gutshot John

04-03-13, 12:40

Sorry if I find limp insinuations of pedophilia, disease mongering, and mental illness, in clear contravention of all accepted scientific researc, to be gay bashing, but I do. Res ipsa loquitur.

I just dont understand why you guys wont admit that its a biblical thing and debate it honestly on those terms. My guess is that you know that's a loser.

Actually I'm not sorry at all. If the shoe fits...

Gutshot John

04-03-13, 12:43

Funny my gay friends call themselves queer all the time. That said, do you think these people take greater offense at being called "queer" or being called pedophiles?

That said if irony is lost on you, tough cookies.

Belloc

04-03-13, 13:54

+1 100% spot on. It's the comprehensive totality et alia. It opens a Pandora's Box as to other forms of anomalies & abberational deviant behaviors that now get addressed. Such as what SCOTUS is attempting to iron out. What about LBGT's, polygamy, 3 or more people or even "one", other secular beliefs etc. et al. It's changes the normalcy bias & cult of personality in a society not in a good way according to history.

Yep.
http://www.touchstonemag.com/archives/article.php?id=23-01-028-f#ixzz2OU2YyUJ4

THE AUDACITY OF THE STATE

Naked Before the State

"...Though most people have not yet realized it, the advent of same-sex marriage has transformed marriage from a pre-political institution conferring “divine and human rights,” as the Roman jurist Modestinus put it, into a mere legal construct at the gift and disposal of the state. The legal terrain has thus changed dramatically, along with the cultural—something I have tried to show in a little book called Nation of Bastards. The family is ceasing to be what the Universal Declaration of Human Rights confesses it to be, viz., “the natural and fundamental group unit of society.”

Replaced by a kaleidoscope of transient sexual and psychological configurations, which serve chiefly to make children of adults and adults of children, the declining family is ceding enormous tracts of social and legal territory to the state. At law, parent-child relationships are losing their a priori status and privilege. Crafty fools ask foolish fools, “What harm does same-sex marriage do to your marriage, or to your family?” The truthful answer is: Same-sex marriage makes us all chattels of the state, because the state, in presuming to define the substance rather than the accidents of marriage, has made marriage itself a state artifact."

Belloc

04-03-13, 14:02

Wow, from congenitally stupid to idiotically absurd to pathological dishonesty.
Great. Admitting you have these problems is in fact half the battle, as they say.
Although it is your pathological lying that may be the more treatable, as it seems that your congenital stupidity and idiotic absurdity are hard wired into your DNA.
Still, hope springs eternal.:)

Belloc

04-03-13, 14:07

do you think these people take greater offense at being called "queer" or being called pedophiles?

Or even "these people".
:rolleyes:

Belloc

04-03-13, 14:18

What are you smoking? A child needs a father figure and mother,

Indeed.
http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2010/08/1490/

Same-Sex Marriage and the Assault on Moral Reasoning

"It is something of a consolation, albeit a small one, that the best arguments advocates for a constitutional “right” to same-sex marriage can muster are so transparently bad. Disconnected from nature, from history, from the canons of legal reasoning, and even from the standards of logic itself, their arguments betray themselves at every turn, as acts of the will and not of reasoned judgment. When the advocate advancing the arguments wears a black robe and sits on the federal bench, of course, even falsehood and fallacy have a decent chance of ultimate victory.

...Perhaps the most surprising thing in the judge’s opinion is his declaration that “gender no longer forms an essential part of marriage.” This line, quoted everywhere within hours with evident astonishment, appears to be the sheerest ipse dixit—a judicial “because I said so”—

...And now watch carefully, for here the fallacious reasoning enters the equation. When “the genders” are no longer “seen as having distinct roles,” it is revealed that at marriage’s “core” there is ample space for same-sex couples too. Since “gender no longer forms an essential part of marriage,” indeed since it never really did, “plaintiffs’ relationships are consistent with the core of the history, tradition and practice of marriage in the United States.” There, you see? There is something eminently conservative about the admission of same-sex couples to the marital bond. What could we have been thinking, denying them this right for all these centuries?

Judge Walker seems to have committed the fallacy of composition—taking something true of a part and concluding that it is also true of the whole of which it is a part. If it is true that “gender” no longer matters as it once did in the relation of husband and wife, he reasons, therefore it no longer matters whether the relation is one of husband and wife; it may as well be a relation of husband and husband or of wife and wife, since we now know that marriage is not, at its “core,” a “gendered institution.” But restated in this way, it is quite plain that the judge’s conclusion doesn’t follow from his premises. To say that the status of men and women in marriage is one of equal partners is not to say that men and women are the same, such that it does not matter what sex their partners are. The equalization of status is not the obliteration of difference, as much as Judge Walker would like to pretend it is."

VooDoo6Actual

04-03-13, 14:41

Yep.
http://www.touchstonemag.com/archives/article.php?id=23-01-028-f#ixzz2OU2YyUJ4

THE AUDACITY OF THE STATE

Naked Before the State

"...Though most people have not yet realized it, the advent of same-sex marriage has transformed marriage from a pre-political institution conferring “divine and human rights,” as the Roman jurist Modestinus put it, into a mere legal construct at the gift and disposal of the state. The legal terrain has thus changed dramatically, along with the cultural—something I have tried to show in a little book called Nation of Bastards. The family is ceasing to be what the Universal Declaration of Human Rights confesses it to be, viz., “the natural and fundamental group unit of society.”

Replaced by a kaleidoscope of transient sexual and psychological configurations, which serve chiefly to make children of adults and adults of children, the declining family is ceding enormous tracts of social and legal territory to the state. At law, parent-child relationships are losing their a priori status and privilege. Crafty fools ask foolish fools, “What harm does same-sex marriage do to your marriage, or to your family?” The truthful answer is: Same-sex marriage makes us all chattels of the state, because the state, in presuming to define the substance rather than the accidents of marriage, has made marriage itself a state artifact."

Make no mistake. This not happening by concidence. This is a deliberate pre-planned agenda to create not only diversion but foment
Cultural, religious, secular/sectarian, societal etc. friction. Watch it unfold.