Printable View
No you won't have to wait for that one, it's basicly already here, they even tried to found a political party. A scholar in gayness (yes I am serious) already stated how he loves SM because it's finding out what is nice by force, he is a firm supporter for that understanding thingie, and so is a senator of the biojugend party. Ah well never mind change as long as it changes right?Quote:
Originally Posted by Devastatin Dave
I can't speak for Pindar, and I will not argue that anyone will speak for paedophilia if it turns out to be genetic.Quote:
Originally Posted by Adrian II
There seems to be at the very least the fear that something natural will be accepted as good, as Dave just proved, he as well as a couple of others expressed their fear that if it would be considered natural it would be considered acceptable.
Of course, I claimed that that fear actually holds ground, which is a whole lot more difficult I must admit. I doubt anyone will make the explicit argument that natural=good, they'd pretty much lose all credibility if they do, yet implicitly natural=good is a powerful meme in society, you can see this with bio food, with the 'acceptance of homosexuality' where 'they can't help it' is often said by people who support their cause while being unable to identify with the people themselves. I haven' seen eh movie 'march of the penguins' but wasn't something about christian ideals in the natural world ? A lot of christian groups supported it anyway.
Clearly referring to something as 'natural' is a powerful tool to make it seem acceptable, though in the case of pedophilia this would be taking things to the extreme.
Dave, you know I love you, but you're late to the party, and your post makes it sound as though you haven't read the thread.Quote:
Originally Posted by Devastatin Dave
Hmmm, maybe JAG can give us a little insight. If I remember correctly, he's a big supporter of child molestors' rights (not for thier "right" to molest children, but their rights after their bhavious has resulted in the screwing of a child) and could add a lot to this conversation I'm sure. But I would almost think that he WOULD be supportive of these "people" if there was a genetic connection to their "life choice".Quote:
Originally Posted by doc_bean
Does this means we're going steady?:turtle:Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
Do I have to be the turtle?
Man, I shouldn't have been typing last night. I've already caught myself in something like three major typos. Ugh. Anyway:Quote:
Originally Posted by Pindar
I dislike the conflation of pedophilia with homosexuality because it is intellectually dishonest, and is usually made for the sole purpose of making gay people look bad. Pedophiles practice a form of sex that by definition is non-consensual. I'm not aware of a country on earth where intercourse with, say, a six year old is considered consenting. Likewise, pedophilia is universally illegal. Homosexuality, on the other hand, is mostly legal in this world of ours, and involves consenting adults. You're conflating the illegal and non-consenting with the legal and the consensual.
The victims of pedophilia require counseling and treatment, and rarely get it. The victims of gayness require fabulous parties and sparkling conversation, and usually get it. They couldn't be more different.
Do you have to ask?Quote:
Originally Posted by Devastatin Dave
All sides in the debate over homosexuality dabble in naturalist fallacies which is quite amusing. After being shown the prevalence of homosexual acts in the animal kingdom, the anti-gay naturalists mostly switched to moral or pseudo-medical arguments, but the Christian naturalist position can still be found. For instance in this Catholic brochure from the The American Society for the Defense of Tradition, Family and Property:Quote:
Originally Posted by doc_bean
This supreme ordering of human conduct, this moral “blueprint” inscribed by the Creator in man’s very nature, is called “natural law.”
This natural law reflects in man the eternal law, which is simply the Divine Wisdom ruling the universe and establishing a supreme order and governance of all things, visible and invisible, living and inanimate.
As its name indicates, natural law flows from human nature. It is that law which man can know with the light of reason without the aid of Divine Revelation, since God inscribed it in the depths of all hearts as Saint Paul teaches. Since it is inscribed on the hearts of all men, it is the same for everyone, everywhere and throughout time. Thus, natural law is universal.
It is also immutable; time does not affect it. Moreover, there is no dispensation from natural law. All men must observe it.I agree with you. Christian naturalist teaching is irrational and has no credibility at all. ~;)Quote:
Originally Posted by doc bean
I would think that it depends on how someone is using "natural". I can't think of any biological/evolutionary purpose to homosexuality- in that regard, it would seem like unnatural behavior. OTOH, if by "natural", someone means 'occurs in nature', then homosexual behavior certainly would be natural under that criteria.Quote:
Originally Posted by Adrian II
Don't you ever wonder what got into the Good Lord when he instilled his 'supreme order and governance of all things, visible and invisible, living and inanimate' into bonobos? :dizzy2:Quote:
Originally Posted by Xiahou
In this arguement, peadophilia would be natural because many sexually mature animals have sex with non sexually mature animals. Not to mention "rape", "murder", and many other "natural" behaviours. So Adrian, are we being intolerant to rapists, murderers, and, as the subject of the thread , peadophilia. My, are the rosey glasses a little too thick.
So you're opposed to Christian naturalism? You never cease to surprise us.Quote:
Originally Posted by Devastatin Dave
No. I'm sure I must be missing your point though...Quote:
Originally Posted by Adrian II
Aww common, from a christian point of view: human + soul +free will, and thus above all choice to do good or wrong, how hard can it be.Quote:
Originally Posted by Adrian II
Yes I am. Be surprised. Just because I don't think humans should do what animals do doesn't make me a nutcase. Do you sell red herrings cold or fresh BTW...Quote:
Originally Posted by Adrian II
Whoa, I was talking about bonobos. Bonobos would be included in 'all things, visible and invisible, living and inanimate' that are subject to God's 'supreme order and governance of all things'.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
Are you telling me bonobos are humans with a soul and a free will?
Fresh, and by the dozen cause everybody's buying them. I'm having a hell of a thread here. How's yours? ~DQuote:
Originally Posted by Devastatin Dave
Too many bones.:beam:Quote:
Originally Posted by Adrian II
The definition of "Child" is arbitrary.
This definition will change over time to consist of fewer and fewer years of an inability to consent.
You can see a parallel with younger childrens voting, drinking, decision-making lobbying here in the states.
This will be the next to go after the polygamy ban is overturned.
The thought is consitant with the legislation going throught in certain states.
These bans only require legal challenges to fade away.
There's quite a difference between a prepubescent child and an adult, even purely physical, and certainly with boys.Quote:
Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff
Perhaps it is genetic, perhaps not. The point is, is that you should know it's wrong, wether you have a predisposition for it, or not. You will always be held liable for what you do, and how society judges you, not how you're built genetically. That is an inferior excuse, and I would refuse to base any law on that. You do the crime, you do the time... and maybe, just god be mercifully maybe you'll get scissored in the eyes when you're in prison, so that I don't have to know that you exist.
You have made three mistakes:Quote:
Originally Posted by me
- Sarkozy withdrawing a claim does not impact the rhetoric of the original claim. The rhetoric of that initial claim does tie a traditional taboo to genetics.
- There is no categorical mentioned. You have misread: note the use of the article 'a' and verb 'seems'. As regards the one specific mentioned: gay advocates have opted for a genetics equals OK posture.
- Gay marriage is not mentioned. The point speaks to a larger posture of homosexuality vis-a-vis the government though this does inform gay marriage. Moreover, this is simply ignorant of the issue in the U.S. (I can't speak to European gay rhetoric). To assert there is a right of or to homosexuality alone begs the question. A rights claim needs to be grounded. For example, one claiming they have a right to conduct X in and of itself is neither convincing nor coherent. The rights language for much of the Gay Lobby is to ground any rights appeal through natural minority status. This rhetoric attempts to conflate homosexuality with the larger civil rights movement ala. the Black Community (which is a natural minority and given State endorsement). Thus, minority status is seen to turn on identity not simply conduct. The argument is government endorsement is warranted because this is a community that has no choice regarding their identity.
Ah ha, but in the past "homosexuals" had children. This is why I say homosexuality and it's seperation from heterosexuality, is a construct. Under sufficient environmental presure gay men and women will have sex together (i.e. stuck on an island with no one else.) So if a sexually transmitted disease ripps through your population those who have less heterosexual sex are less likely to wind up dead.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xiahou
Theoretically.
Back on topic: If we decide that natural doesn't = good then does that make in ok to be homophobic?
Or do we apply a double standard to preserve our inconsistant moral stance?
That happens to me too.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
Pedophilia is not by definition non-consensual. Pedophilia refers to adult-child sex. Child under the law usually means minor (which would also include any non-adult, peripubsecent and prepubescent children). Thus Catholic priests charged with molesting teenagers were breaking pedophilia laws.Quote:
I dislike the conflation of pedophilia with homosexuality because it is intellectually dishonest, and is usually made for the sole purpose of making gay people look bad. Pedophiles practice a form of sex that by definition is non-consensual.
Is your abhorrence tied to legal status then?Quote:
Likewise, pedophilia is universally illegal. Homosexuality, on the other hand, is mostly legal in this world of ours, and involves consenting adults. You're conflating the illegal and non-consenting with the legal and the consensual.
Does 'it' mean homosexuality?Quote:
Originally Posted by Wakizashi
That's a quirk of the legal system. Have sex with a sixteen-year-old and you're a pedo; have sex with a six-month-old and you're a pedo. Same law broken, even though the difference is massive and obvious.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pindar
Most nations peg the age of informed consent somewhere between eighteen and thirteen. Go under that and there's not a place on earth where you're okay. I don't want to get too deep into age of consent, but it's reasonable to say that a five-year-old cannot give informed acceptance of sex, and that any messing with that child is non-consensual. I would extend that moral stance at least through puberty.
When people talk about pedophilia in the abstract, they're usually referring to the pre-pubescent variety, since that is the most horrible and memorable. Associating consensual sex with rape is, to my mind, misleading. Thus my irritation when homosexuality and pedophilia are conjoined by Rick Santorum or our esteemed Pindar.
The legal code attempts to reflect and reinforce a moral standard, in its blunt, clumsy way. Thou shalt not kill and all of that. You work in int'l law, correct? Then you're only too aware that what's illegal in Denmark may be perfectly okay in Singapore. This is not the case with child rape. It's illegal everywhere. This speaks to a civilized consensus on the subject.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pindar
Just a thought, why do you conclude that consent shouldn't be given regarding sex until after puberty? Are you attempting to define sex as a procreative act only? Legally you have no standing there. When I was a young kid I had my hands down my pants incessantly. Im sure it felt pretty good, otherwise I would'nt done it as much. I was intelligent for my age. my age of reason was said to have been lower than some of my peers. I did impulsive things, but I do impulsive things now and many teenagers were even more impulsive. This may be seen as an arguement? Noooooo... It is banned or shunned by both written law, judicial precedent, most Religious texts and most traditions around the world. I can't even think of one practice that has broken down all of these walls.
The problem I see with the claims that say this behavior or that behavior are 'natural', is that they forget that Humans are not 100% instinctual beings like animals.
Humans are characterised by both genetics but also Socially aquired traits.
So, wither it is proven or not that pedophilia is genetic or not, it is bound to follow social constraints and the individuals that feel are part of the genetically inclined pedophiles, should make a very conscious choice to take care of their genetic impulses.
That being said, as someone mentioned here, the age of children, that is considered "ok" or not, varies in different nations.
An example: http://www2.hu-berlin.de/sexology/BIB/pedochin.htm
I think a safer approach here, in this discussion, to agree that pedophilia is the act between an adult and a child that has not reached puberty.
In many ancient cultures pederasty was not prohibited, and in some, like Spartan culture, it was promoted.
However, that was between adults and children that had reached puberty, not with pre-pubescent children, even in ancient cultures. The athenians sent their children to school from the age of 6-7, yet there were strict laws to insure the safety of these children aswell, 2500 years before our times.
Homosexuality should be left out of the Picture all together, in the discussion, its an intirelly different thing. And it does happen in animals too suggesting strongly its genetic nature.
All in all I agree with this as well.
Quote:
In my view most of the western world accepts that lust is to a large extent genetically predisposed, but that we are equipped to contain it if it's exercise is socially harmful. Socialisation reinforces the latter.
I'm not attempting to "define" sex at all. My focus is on what behavior is appropriate for adults. Grown ups. The big people. We should not, under any circumstances, be having sex with children. If a kid wants to have his hands down his pants and think naughty thoughts, that's entirely outside of my argument.Quote:
Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff
Even if a pre-pubescent child asks you, politely, to have sex with him or her, it is your obligation as an adult to not have sex. The child is below the age that is considered reasonable for informed consent. I can't believe I have to spell this out ...
It is our obligation as adults to not have sex... because of the law, which can be changed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
"We should not" implies that you have moral knowledge that the good folks at NAMBLA and other organizations simply do not. You are imposing your sexual predilections onto others. Just because the law and the majority of the planet says that it is wrong now does't mean that can't change in a few years with lobbying and the right legal precedents.
Well, I already pointed out the singular consistency with which nations abhor adult/child sex. It's a bit of a global norm. So implying that a touch of lobbying here and a lawsuit there will change things is naive to the point of infantility.Quote:
Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff
And yes, I do have superior morals to the folks at NAMBLA. Most people do. I assume you're going somewhere with this?