MaddogCT Posted November 5, 2004 Share Posted November 5, 2004 Originally posted by Art If homosexuality is born to someone, obviously, pedophilia is as well. So, while we currently define the age of consent differently, can't we just agree, there's no real harm in sex between an adult and a six-year-old, because, afterall, the adult shouldn't have law impact his sexual orientation, right? WHAT???? Homosexuality is something you are born with. Pedophilia is not. By your statement you are implying that homosexuality and pedophilia are one in the same. Well, you are wrong. Almost all pedophiles are HETEROSEXUAL. Even the ones who commit their crimes against children of the same sex. The thing about pedophilia is that is a crime with a known cause and effect. Nearly ninety percent of convicted pedophiles were victims of pedophilia as children. (That does not mean 90 percent of pedophilia victims become pedophiles) They never got the support and counseling they needed because unlike today, it was something that was not talked about. A lot of kids were not believed by their parents, (imagine that pain) or even if they were, they were told just to forget about it. And the attacker was still walking around in the neighborhood. Why? Because most victims of pedophilia know their attacker. It's usually a family friend, uncle, minister, or neighbor. Stranger attacks on children make for dramatic movies on TV or sell newspapers, but it's the exception and not the rule. Because there is a cause and effect relationship between being a victim of a pedophile and becoming one, steps must be taken to prevent that from happening. Parents should listen to their children if they say something about being "touched" The children should receive counseling to help them deal with pain and humiliation of what happened to them. They need to understand that they were not at fault for what happened. They need to regain their since of power and of not being helpless. Other wise the cycle can continue. No, pedophilia is not a sexual choice or fetish. We are not talking high heels here. It's a crime against the innocence of children and to equate it with homosexuality is a mistake. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MaddogCT Posted November 5, 2004 Share Posted November 5, 2004 Theres a little bit a truth in this: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
codeorama Posted November 5, 2004 Share Posted November 5, 2004 Art, I totally agree that Pedophilia could very well be something you are born with, just as some mental defect that could cause some people to be murderers. However, there is a big difference and you know it. A pedophile is violating someone elses rights. 2 gays over 18 that are in agreement over their actions are not. Rape happens and it is usually with adults, what is rape? It's sex with someone without their permission. Rape is a crime, molesting a child is a crime, if 2 concenting adults want to have sex, regarless of their own sex, who's the victim? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skinsfan1966 Posted November 5, 2004 Share Posted November 5, 2004 Originally posted by RomeoPoe WHAT???? Homosexuality is something you are born with. Pedophilia is not. By your statement you are implying that homosexuality and pedophilia are one in the same. Well, you are wrong. Almost all pedophiles are HETEROSEXUAL. Even the ones who commit their crimes against children of the same sex. The thing about pedophilia is that is a crime with a known cause and effect. Nearly ninety percent of convicted pedophiles were victims of pedophilia as children. (That does not mean 90 percent of pedophilia victims become pedophiles) They never got the support and counseling they needed because unlike today, it was something that was not talked about. A lot of kids were not believed by their parents, (imagine that pain) or even if they were, they were told just to forget about it. And the attacker was still walking around in the neighborhood. Why? Because most victims of pedophilia know their attacker. It's usually a family friend, uncle, minister, or neighbor. Stranger attacks on children make for dramatic movies on TV or sell newspapers, but it's the exception and not the rule. Because there is a cause and effect relationship between being a victim of a pedophile and becoming one, steps must be taken to prevent that from happening. Parents should listen to their children if they say something about being "touched" The children should receive counseling to help them deal with pain and humiliation of what happened to them. They need to understand that they were not at fault for what happened. They need to regain their since of power and of not being helpless. Other wise the cycle can continue. No, pedophilia is not a sexual choice or fetish. We are not talking high heels here. It's a crime against the innocence of children and to equate it with homosexuality is a mistake. Gays make up about 3-5% of the population, so to be proportional they would make up about 3-5% of all pedophiles. While there are more hetrosexual pedophiles, they are not 95% of all pedophiles. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Art Posted November 5, 2004 Share Posted November 5, 2004 Originally posted by codeorama Art, I totally agree that Pedophilia could very well be something you are born with, just as some mental defect that could cause some people to be murderers. However, there is a big difference and you know it. A pedophile is violating someone elses rights. 2 gays over 18 that are in agreement over their actions are not. Rape happens and it is usually with adults, what is rape? It's sex with someone without their permission. Rape is a crime, molesting a child is a crime, if 2 concenting adults want to have sex, regarless of their own sex, who's the victim? Code, I was replying to the belief that sexual orientation should not have any legislation against it in our system of laws. The only reason we view pedophilia as a negative thing is because we feel there's value in protecting our children. As a society, we believe it's normal, and right to protect our children. In many other societies, the age of consent is far different. The societal norm we have placed is that children, even those going through their sexual growth and urges, are to be protected from those who are older. Yet, even these values are not consistent. In some states, a 16-year-old is deemed ok for an older person to be with, while in others, they are not. I agree with our societal views on normalcy with regard to protecting our children. But, as we adopt some sexually deviant behavior, like homosexuality, as acceptable and "normal" there is an inevitable deterioration in the societal norms that will ultimately compel the change in laws we currently have to protect our children. As sexual behavior and expression become more and more part of the culture, more and more people will see little wrong with their younger daughter hooking up with an older man. Some -- myself -- already see little harm in a younger son hooking up with an older woman, especially if she's a hottie, like that teacher in Florida (said to piss Die Hard off). Eventually, in a generation or two, we'll wonder at our prudish nature with regard to protecting a 12-year-old from an adult, because, what's the harm in letting that child explore his/her budding sexuality anyway? We may be dead before it happens, but it will happen. I believe, ultimately, we'll always protect our younger children. But, even that would be something that may not be as safe as you might now think. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Art Posted November 5, 2004 Share Posted November 5, 2004 Originally posted by SkinsNumberOne Hm. About gay marriage/homosexual behavior: A friend of mine made a comment that it's interesting when people seem to need direct exposure to something in order to see a perceived error in their thinking. His comment was based on Cheney... he was wondering what stance Cheney would have on gay marriage if his daughter was heterosexual. At what point does homosexual behavior cease to be a "deviancy" ? Does it need more exposure on MTV other than (although certainly it's not limited to this) annual cast members of Real World? Does it need more national attention than various critically acclaimed movies (one example: Boys on the Side)? Or perhaps, in order for you to view it differently, you need more direct exposure? (Although, I do believe that anyone who steadfastly opposes gay marriage probably does view homosexual behavior as a deviancy, whether they admit it or not... so I appreciate that you're more forthright than others, although I think you're "forthright" only because you're ultimately completely convinced that your stance is correct). About the Patriot Act... I think there's a reason that local jurisdictions are deciding on their own that parts of the Patriot Act infringe on rights... (googled and found this link at the top: http://www.lewrockwell.com/ips/lobe80.html) Ding. A sexual deviancy is simply something that is against societal norms. That's all it is. That's why the movement by gays and those allied to them is so disturbing. We could, right now, agree in most places that civil unions are an acceptable option for gays. The concept of civil unions, though, is more acceptable among the straight population than it is among the gay population. Gays, by in large, don't want civil unions. They want marriage. They want society to make their behavior normal in the sense that society on the whole deems it so. Marriage would do that. Civil unions would not. It is, though, only a matter of time before homosexual behavior ceases being deviant behavior. This isn't an opinion, though, where there is any real debate. Homosexuality IS deviant. One day, it won't be. But, today, it remains. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
codeorama Posted November 5, 2004 Share Posted November 5, 2004 Originally posted by Art Code, I was replying to the belief that sexual orientation should not have any legislation against it in our system of laws. The only reason we view pedophilia as a negative thing is because we feel there's value in protecting our children. As a society, we believe it's normal, and right to protect our children. In many other societies, the age of consent is far different. The societal norm we have placed is that children, even those going through their sexual growth and urges, are to be protected from those who are older. Yet, even these values are not consistent. In some states, a 16-year-old is deemed ok for an older person to be with, while in others, they are not. I agree with our societal views on normalcy with regard to protecting our children. But, as we adopt some sexually deviant behavior, like homosexuality, as acceptable and "normal" there is an inevitable deterioration in the societal norms that will ultimately compel the change in laws we currently have to protect our children. As sexual behavior and expression become more and more part of the culture, more and more people will see little wrong with their younger daughter hooking up with an older man. Some -- myself -- already see little harm in a younger son hooking up with an older woman, especially if she's a hottie, like that teacher in Florida (said to piss Die Hard off). Eventually, in a generation or two, we'll wonder at our prudish nature with regard to protecting a 12-year-old from an adult, because, what's the harm in letting that child explore his/her budding sexuality anyway? We may be dead before it happens, but it will happen. I believe, ultimately, we'll always protect our younger children. But, even that would be something that may not be as safe as you might now think. LOL... Ok, sorry, I misunderstood you. We disagree in principal about gayness being a choice, but I just want to clarify that if people are born pedofiles or killers or what ever, the fact remains that they are violating someone else's rights, where as a homosexual is not. They are in a consentual situation, and to clarify, you must be an adult to give consent. But I totally agree about the system muddying the issue, for example, saying a 16 year old can be tried as an adult etc... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinsNumberOne Posted November 5, 2004 Share Posted November 5, 2004 Originally posted by Art Ding. A sexual deviancy is simply something that is against societal norms. That's all it is. That's why the movement by gays and those allied to them is so disturbing. We could, right now, agree in most places that civil unions are an acceptable option for gays. The concept of civil unions, though, is more acceptable among the straight population than it is among the gay population. Gays, by in large, don't want civil unions. They want marriage. They want society to make their behavior normal in the sense that society on the whole deems it so. Marriage would do that. Civil unions would not. It is, though, only a matter of time before homosexual behavior ceases being deviant behavior. This isn't an opinion, though, where there is any real debate. Homosexuality IS deviant. One day, it won't be. But, today, it remains. Yes, I do understand what deviancy means. I am on the side of removing the word marriage from the legal vernacular, and from *this* post of yours, it seems you would be ok with that too. And yet, past posts indicate you would want marriage legally defined as between a man and a woman. As for your comments on homosexual behavior being deviant, again I have to point out that society has at the very least begun to accept homosexual behavior as normal, and at the very most has actually accepted it. Certainly, in some areas it's accepted (although I grant that in the majority of *areas* it seems to not be accepted). I'll wonder again, though- I wonder where Dick Cheney would stand on this issue if his daughter were heterosexual. I wonder if he thinks it's a deviant behavior. I've noticed in other posts you're bringing up the slippery slope argument. Yes, I understand the argument, but it's basically an argument that says "We have our lines drawn correctly now- no more moving." In other words, no more changing of laws; I think it's a pretty naive way to be. Society always chooses to draw lines somewhere... age of consent... alcohol age... we always draw lines. When 21 was defined to be the age people were allowed to drink, we didn't continually move the age down, it stayed at 21. We don't need to fear change, we have to guard against slippery slopes - sure - but we also have to guard against closing our minds. Societies CHANGE. Morals CHANGE. Beliefs CHANGE. Think about what people believed or what the law allowed 50 years ago. Think about 100 years ago. Think about 150. You get my point, I hope. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bird_1972 Posted November 5, 2004 Share Posted November 5, 2004 Originally posted by SkinsNumberOne Yes, I do understand what deviancy means. I am on the side of removing the word marriage from the legal vernacular, and from *this* post of yours, it seems you would be ok with that too. And yet, past posts indicate you would want marriage legally defined as between a man and a woman. As for your comments on homosexual behavior being deviant, again I have to point out that society has at the very least begun to accept homosexual behavior as normal, and at the very most has actually accepted it. Certainly, in some areas it's accepted (although I grant that in the majority of *areas* it seems to not be accepted). I'll wonder again, though- I wonder where Dick Cheney would stand on this issue if his daughter were heterosexual. I wonder if he thinks it's a deviant behavior. I've noticed in other posts you're bringing up the slippery slope argument. Yes, I understand the argument, but it's basically an argument that says "We have our lines drawn correctly now- no more moving." In other words, no more changing of laws; I think it's a pretty naive way to be. Society always chooses to draw lines somewhere... age of consent... alcohol age... we always draw lines. When 21 was defined to be the age people were allowed to drink, we didn't continually move the age down, it stayed at 21. We don't need to fear change, we have to guard against slippery slopes - sure - but we also have to guard against closing our minds. Societies CHANGE. Morals CHANGE. Beliefs CHANGE. Think about what people believed or what the law allowed 50 years ago. Think about 100 years ago. Think about 150. You get my point, I hope. :applause: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Art Posted November 5, 2004 Share Posted November 5, 2004 Originally posted by SkinsNumberOne Yes, I do understand what deviancy means. I am on the side of removing the word marriage from the legal vernacular, and from *this* post of yours, it seems you would be ok with that too. And yet, past posts indicate you would want marriage legally defined as between a man and a woman. As for your comments on homosexual behavior being deviant, again I have to point out that society has at the very least begun to accept homosexual behavior as normal, and at the very most has actually accepted it. Certainly, in some areas it's accepted (although I grant that in the majority of *areas* it seems to not be accepted). I'll wonder again, though- I wonder where Dick Cheney would stand on this issue if his daughter were heterosexual. I wonder if he thinks it's a deviant behavior. I've noticed in other posts you're bringing up the slippery slope argument. Yes, I understand the argument, but it's basically an argument that says "We have our lines drawn correctly now- no more moving." In other words, no more changing of laws; I think it's a pretty naive way to be. Society always chooses to draw lines somewhere... age of consent... alcohol age... we always draw lines. When 21 was defined to be the age people were allowed to drink, we didn't continually move the age down, it stayed at 21. We don't need to fear change, we have to guard against slippery slopes - sure - but we also have to guard against closing our minds. Societies CHANGE. Morals CHANGE. Beliefs CHANGE. Think about what people believed or what the law allowed 50 years ago. Think about 100 years ago. Think about 150. You get my point, I hope. No where in my reply here is it hinted at or suggested that we remove marriage from the vernacular. Not even close. The possibility of allowing civil unions for gays doesn't mean I would wish the end of marriage. That you, or anyone, would be on the side of removing the term from society scares me. But, such is the fever those who've adopted the gay lobby will go. Take from all what all won't give your currently acceptable sexual deviancy. That'll teach 'em. Instead of finding a way to address the concerns you may feel gays have with not being granted legal standing in their relationships, you'd rather eradicate precious societial values to further make your issue "normal". At no point have I indicated that where we have our laws now must not move. In fact, I openly admit there's constant movement within our laws. What can not change, however, is that marriage is a union between a man and a woman. That's what marriage is. Changing the law to make it something else won't change what marriage is. However, several generations of living under a different norm might. The dangers of that norm worry me. The dangers of your new normal cut far more deeply against the culture that made us great than you seem willing to recognize. That you'd equate the raising of the drinking age with the abolition of marriage as an option for all people suggests a lack of appreciation for what values are important. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinsNumberOne Posted November 5, 2004 Share Posted November 5, 2004 Originally posted by Art No where in my reply here is it hinted at or suggested that we remove marriage from the vernacular. Not even close. The possibility of allowing civil unions for gays doesn't mean I would wish the end of marriage. That you, or anyone, would be on the side of removing the term from society scares me. But, such is the fever those who've adopted the gay lobby will go. Take from all what all won't give your currently acceptable sexual deviancy. That'll teach 'em. Instead of finding a way to address the concerns you may feel gays have with not being granted legal standing in their relationships, you'd rather eradicate precious societial values to further make your issue "normal". At no point have I indicated that where we have our laws now must not move. In fact, I openly admit there's constant movement within our laws. What can not change, however, is that marriage is a union between a man and a woman. That's what marriage is. Changing the law to make it something else won't change what marriage is. However, several generations of living under a different norm might. The dangers of that norm worry me. The dangers of your new normal cut far more deeply against the culture that made us great than you seem willing to recognize. That you'd equate the raising of the drinking age with the abolition of marriage as an option for all people suggests a lack of appreciation for what values are important. I did understand that your post didn't say what I said - I meant that if one simply read that post, one could interpret what I said from it, but I knew what you thought from previous posts, and you haven't deviated. Art, I sometimes forget you're an agnostic. I can better understand your position as an agnostic who feels the way you do. Personally, I'd prefer marriage was something allowed for consentual adults, but this may be too contentious an idea for right now. I'll isolate the one thing that separates our viewpoints, I think, and it's something that isn't really debatable, as it's too central to what we each appear to believe. I believe that gay people should be allowed to be married, and I think it's bigotry to believe otherwise (bigotry is a loaded word, but its definition is applicable in my opinion). That doesn't mean I don't understand your (and others') viewpoints on the matter. You seem willing to allow civil unions for gays, to allow their relationships to have similar legal footing, but unwilling to allow them to marry. You believe that if gays marry, then the institution suffers, and something very basic in society will be broken, which could lead to unforeseen problems. And there you have it. Correct me if I'm wrong about that. (Btw, "acceptable social deviancy" seems to be a contradiction in terms, as a deviancy is something that is not accepted by society...) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.