Printable View
Now that I think about it, it occurs to me that Rick never said anything of the sort...Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
"If the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual (gay) sex within your home, then you have the right to bigamy, you have the right to polygamy, you have the right to incest, you have the right to adultery."
-Pedophilia wasn't mentioned. Not entirely germane to the discussion- just a point of order.
You're quite right, based on some Googling. He equated homosexuality to bestiality, polygamy, incest and bigamy. He saved pedophilia for the big guns: he blames liberalism. And Boston. The town, not the band.
While it is no excuse for this scandal, it is no surprise that Boston, a seat of academic, political and cultural liberalism in America, lies at the center of the storm.
[edit]
Although he comes within kissing distance here:
Yes, but it destroys the basic unit of our society because it condones behavior that’s antithetical to strong, healthy families. Whether it’s polygamy, whether it’s adultery, where it’s sodomy, all of those things, are antithetical to a healthy, stable, traditional family. Every society in the history of man has upheld the institution of marriage as a bond between a man and a woman. Why? Because society is based on one thing: that society is based on the future of the society. And that’s what? Children. Monogamous relationships. In every society, the definition of marriage has not ever to my knowledge included homosexuality. That’s not to pick on homosexuality. It’s not, you know, man on child, man on dog, or whatever the case may be.
[edit of the edit]
And I'm guessing that this is where TuffStuff is going, even if he's taking the long way around the barn:
Santorum, R-Pennsylvania, was questioned about his comments at a town hall meeting by a 23-year-old man who identified himself as “a proud, gay Pennsylvanian” and said he was offended by the remarks—part of an interview with The Associated Press—in which Santorum appeared to compare homosexuality to incest, bigamy and adultery.
“You attacked me for who I am .... How could you compare my sexuality and what I do in the privacy of my home to bigamy or incest,” the man asked Santorum.
Santorum, however, stood by his comments, even as he said they had been taken out of context. He said that if states were not allowed to regulate homosexual activity in private homes, “you leave open the door for a variety of other sexual activities to occur within the home and not be regulated.”
Santorum, a lawyer, said that was not an expression of intolerance. “It is simply a reflection of the law,” he said, saying Justice Byron White articulated that view in a 1986 Supreme Court ruling that dealt with homosexuality.
We have both made three mistakes. ~;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Pindar
- Sarkozy's original words were these: 'Speaking for myself, I would be inclined to think that paedophiles are born. And what bothers me most is that we have no cure whatsoever for this pathology.' Similar for his statement on juvenile suicide which he supposed is often tied to a genetic 'weakness'. So he hasn't stated the genetic origin categorically, and he has not withdrawn his words either.
- You seemed to say that there seemed to be a refrain that all genetically predisposed behaviour is OK. I am glad we have cleared that up and established that there is no such refrain.
Some posters seem to think that Sarkozy wants to legalize paedophilia on the grounds that it is genetically predisposed. He did not say or suggest anything of the kind. Not a single French commentator has made this connection as it speaks for itself that this is not the case.- I didn't mention a 'right to homosexuality' or a natural minority status. Those issues don't bother me at all. But you are right that I'm interested in the full application of article 16 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights as it extends to homersekshules.
Lemur, how about I come over and shoot both Al Sharpton and Rick Santorum for you?
Two for da price a one, eh? C'mon, my cousin Vinnie's dental plan is killing me. :beam:
Human "Rights"... :laugh4:
Sadism is genetically predisposed. As are sociopaths.
So, the above groups are more likely to kill and torture because they either actively desire to, or see no reason why they shouldn't.
Is that OK because it has a genetic link? I'd go inclined to do the opposite. If such individuals are removed from the gene pool we can reduce the incidence of these pathologies occurring.
As with most things in the nature vs nurture debate there is in most cases an element of both. People are extremely adaptable as to what is "normal". At medical school almost everyone started human dissection fairly horrified. By the 3rd week most were joking as they flensed human flesh.
~:smoking:
Who said it's OK? Sarkozy didn't say so, nobody in this thread said so. Heck nobody in his right mind says so.Quote:
Originally Posted by rory_20_uk
Not all behaviour is hereditary, you know; not all hereditary traits are dominant, etcetera etcetera. Besides, our gene pool needs maximum variety if we want to hold up our pants as a species. If we start to clip and crop our own gene pool because we think we know what's best for ourselves, mankind may be headed for God's on Darwin Award if you catch my drift.Quote:
Originally Posted by rory=20=uk
In other words, naturalism doesn't cut it. It is a moral issue.
what about polygamy, Adrian? or incest? are those "morally wrong"?
No, I think they are not as long as they occur between consenting adults. If the incest leads to childbirth with all the known risks there may be a moral issue. But all this is off-topic. If we are going to explore all conceivable moral issues we might as well throw in the death penalty, abortion and drunk driving and watch the entire thread collapse.Quote:
Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff
I doubt being a sociopath is entirely genetical and am quite curious as to what proof you have of that statement. Some of our worst historical characters had gone through quite horrible childhoods, for instance, and children of many bloodthirsty maniacs have come out as wise and just rulers, while their children have in turn ended up maniacs etc. To claim general evilness is 100% genetical is IMO a huge fallacy, since there's a lot of things speaking against that statement. Like periods of wars being able to brutalize entire populations, who have, though initially peaceful, ended up quite bloodthirsty.Quote:
Originally Posted by rory_20_uk
TuffStuff, as I asked earlier, where are you going with this? Do we need to catalog and debate every perversion known to man? Is there a destination in this Q&A session?Quote:
Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff
I think you're trying to agree with Santorum's slippery slope argument, but you haven't really come out and said so.
In other words, if we allow men to walk their dogs in the park, it's only a matter of time before they walk their tigers and bears as well. So let's discuss tigers and bears, and maybe sharks, 'cause that's what this really boils down to.
[edit]
1. A has occurred (or will or might occur); therefore
2. B will inevitably happen. (slippery slope)
3. B is wrong; therefore
4. A is wrong. (straw man)
Which in this case reads as:
1. Homosexuals would like to be treated with respect; therefore
2. Pedophiles, sadists, sociopaths and polygamists will want the same thing. (slippery slope)
3. Pedophiles, sadists, sociopaths and polygamists are wrong; therefore
4. Threating homosexuals with respect is wrong. (straw man)
My dad is a psychotherapist, he told me that the majority of child molestors (wich ≠ pedophiles) were victims of molestation in their youth.
I always figured that people turn pedophile for different reasons; some because of nature, some because of nurture, most through a combination of the two. I'm just giving my uneducated take on it, just as Sarkozy was- I don't see the big deal.
Please define Traditional Familly?Quote:
Yes, but it destroys the basic unit of our society because it condones behavior that’s antithetical to strong, healthy families. Whether it’s polygamy, whether it’s adultery, where it’s sodomy, all of those things, are antithetical to a healthy, stable, traditional family. Every society in the history of man has upheld the institution of marriage as a bond between a man and a woman. Why? Because society is based on one thing: that society is based on the future of the society. And that’s what? Children. Monogamous relationships. In every society, the definition of marriage has not ever to my knowledge included homosexuality. That’s not to pick on homosexuality. It’s not, you know, man on child, man on dog, or whatever the case may be.
According to whose traditions?
Polygamy has been practiced for a longer time than monogamy in History...which one is the traditional then?
Monogamy is a modern Familly standard.
That being said, I agree that the institution of marriage a heterosexual bond, that has as one of its main reasons to procreate, by that definition the institution does not apply to Hommosexuality, in the sence of a religious mariage, civil mariage is a different thing, and the union of a hommosexual couple in that fashion and with all the civil rights that apply to a heterosexual couple in relation to such a union is a better proposition.
Now, society maybe based upon one thing: the future of that society, however, that future is not necessrilly confined within the bounds of procreation. There is many other things that insure the future of society not only making babies. At least in a Human society, in animal society I would agree it is procreation, but we are not animals anymore.
-------------
Now I have to agree with Adrian here about Sarkozy, he does not suggest a legalisation of pedophilia, and only recognises that there is a problem, and by doing so suggests that our view of that problem maybe misplaced. If we see pedophilia as a social construct our solutions to minimised it are then social in nature, while if we see pedophilia as a biological condition, our solutions to it take a whole new dimension and it maybe the way to come to a way to "fix" it by helping those that suffer from it.
And please lets not generalise. Some people have this insatiable habit to put everything in the same boat, whatever seems to go against some social or religious morals is conviniently shoved in the same box. Personally I think each behavior is its own case, and should be approached differently within its own context with its own evaluation of available data.
So lets stick to pedophilia subject, and avoid arguments that put it in line with other behaviors. Each behavior is distinct. And I personally think that Pedophilia (Adult on pre-pubescent children) is not right neither from a biological view neither from a social one. And solutions are needed for it.
Oh no, here come the sibling studies. Clear the deck!Quote:
Originally Posted by Fenring
No offense, Fenring, I appreciate your remarks and this has nothing to do with you. It's just that sibling studies make me seasick, and I feel one coming up. It is just a matter of time now. One mention of a sibling study and I'm out. :dizzy2: :sweatdrop:
You are aware of what the word "predisposed" means, yes?Quote:
Originally Posted by LegioXXXUlpiaVictrix
Where did I say 100% genetics?
Sibling studies are about as good as it gets in determining cause for conditions, since searching for one gene is very tough.
~:smoking:
:stare:Quote:
Originally Posted by rory_20_uk
hm, maybe not. Please explainQuote:
Originally Posted by rory_20_uk
Basically an increased susceptibility to an outcome - but far from a forgone conclusion.
~:smoking:
Just out of curiosity here, what do you mean by "sibling studies"? Experiments with children?
I can treat Homosexuals with respect and still think it's wrong, where exactly is the problem?Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
I do the same to people who pirate software, so I don't really see an issue here.~;)
If two people with downs syndrome can get married, with the risks of DS and all of the accompanying mortal illnesses between 40% and 90% depending on the variable, why can't incestuous couples? You have to consider precedent otherwise you will be unprepared for the future.Quote:
Originally Posted by Adrian II
Also, in your tautology a bit further down, your premise is flawed. The argument is not that the practice is ok but the consequences are dire, it is that the practice is abhorent as are the consequences. Just a reminder that if you let one wolf in, just because it talks like a lamb and listens to showtunes, it may jam a legal foot in the door to let other wolves in. Soon enough you don't know why you live there with all the wolf crap. Ok, the end wasnt part of the analogy.
You mentioned a five year cannot give informed consent. Do you think an eighteen year old can? I'm interested in your statement that pedophilia is by definition non-consensual. This seems problematic.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
I don't know that Santorum has done this. I know I haven't done this. My comments concern associating a social taboo with genetics and that that trope has been used to justify behavior.Quote:
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 that constitutes the 'civilized consensus' is by in large a product of the West ala Pax Britannica/Americana. If you move beyond the Modern Western Model things change. Child brides in India or Arabie are two simple examples both of which reflect old cultural norms (and thereby value systems) that predate any Western imposed jurisprudence.Quote:
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.
~:grouphug:Quote:
Originally Posted by Adrian II
My comment concerned the rhetoric where social taboo X is seen as genetic. This stance then is and has been used to constitute a justification for that X.
Note: Article 16 doesn't mention homersekshules. Further, the Declaration has no authority. It is simply rhetoric.
AdrianII's instincts are correct here, I think.Quote:
Originally Posted by Adrian II
Let's keep to the topic: "Is peadophilia genetic or aquired?", and eshew any journey into other territory, however interesting it might be (I confess that I earlier explored such a tangent; sorry). Such journeys will be better served by separate threads, with appropriate links, citations, and expressed opinions.
So far, by my unscientific estimate, we have a redux of the predestination vs free will debate.
If paedo-ism is genetic, and a 'sufferer' is then predisposed to a stronger temptation to act on his affliction, and does so... how should society react to this violation of its stated (or impled) rules?
Well personally I make a distinction between genetic nature and genetic Defects.
While some sexual behaviors can be genetically natural, confirmed by their existance in the animal kingdom others maybe genetical defects, and if this is the case with Pedophilia, then the first step towards a given remedy would be to confirm that it is genetic or not.
If it is proven that it is genetic defect (to my knowledge Pedophilia does not exist in the animal kingdom) it changes the way we view it socially, and will cause some sort of legal reform as well as prescription to treatment when that is found.
In that case, I had the right idea on what the word meant. My comment on 100% genetical was about moral responsibility, mostly. You seem to imply that if someone has a few percent increased risk of becoming mad if having a horrible childhood, the solution should be to remove them from the gene pool so we can keep horrible childhoods. I'd rather go with the opposite: remove bad childhoods. People who DON'T get mad from a horrible childhood are the odd people. The moral responsibility for triggering madness in people who become mad from having horrible, inhumane childhood lies mostly with society, not with those persons, and most people get mad under such conditions. Your suggestion seems to imply you'd like to see a removal of 99% of all humans from the gene pool. :dizzy2:Quote:
Originally Posted by rory_20_uk
Now to have any moral defense at all for the idea of removing people from the gene pool as you suggest, it would be required that that person has genes that would make them say pedophiliacs, sociopaths or similar even when treated humanely during their childhood and the rest of their lives, i.e. that the moral responsibility for triggering the undesired acts lie with the genes, and not with society. This means we first have the problem of defining what is an acceptable childhood and what isn't. Should we base this on rationality regarding physical damage alone? Probably not, since that would mean a girl growing up with an incestuous father in most cases would be considered irrational for later becoming mad, because most incestuous fathers are eager to not be discovered and therefore try to minimize the physical damages done to the daughter. :dizzy2: It would seem to me that this example is enough to demonstrate, that rationality and physical damage risks alone aren't enough to define an unacceptable childhood. We must probably define bad/good childhood based also on existing psychological characteristics of humans - people with behaviors that aren't rational under all circumstances, but rational in our evolutionary background, namely pre-civilization society, must be accepted. In pre-civ society, you had a situation where most things we have instincts to perceive as threats were indeed dangerous or required a defensive action, whereas in modern society these threat-perceptions occur frequently without a need for a defensive action. So a girl getting abused by her father during childhood feels bad because of the sexual abuse, because such can be dangerous in pre-civilization society and there you also have methods for escaping it, and that is enough reason for us to consider incest to be immoral, and a horrible, inhumane childhood. Nobody is justified to behave evil because they had a bad childhood, but the guilt isn't theirs. I'm not quite sure what logic and moral axioms you're basing your statements of removal from the gene pool on, but if the moral responsibility for horrible actions isn't 100% genetical, I don't think there's any justification for removing people from the gene pool, especially as that would imply removing around 99% of all living humans from it.
You are confusing law, morality and biology. Such confusion is invariably tied to Christian naturalist reasoning, as I tried to demonstrate elsewehre in this thread. The idea that God's moral precepts are somehow embedded in the natural order and discernible by man does not take into account (1) man's incomplete understanding of nature, (2) variety and contingency in natural patterns.Quote:
Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff
I know this sounds pompous, as if I have copied it from a website. That is not the case. It is my own argument. It is also Adrianspeak, the result of a good command of Dutch which doesn't quite translate into English.
@ Suraknar A sibling study is a study that compares outcomes in children with an identical (or near-identical) genetic make-up. Suppose that identical siblings grow up in different environments: one in a caring, safe family environment, the other in a totally dysfunctional family. By comparing outcomes (IQ, social intelligence, character traits, attitudes) one can attempt to establish how much IQ or certain behaviours, traits or attitudes depend on genetic make-up.
@ Pindar My point is obviously that Article 16 should acquire authority, preferably by being incorporated into national law. It does not mention homersekshules and it doesn't have to, it is sufficient that it does not exclude them.
I don't fully understand your response or what you have just accused me of.Quote:
Originally Posted by Adrian II
Law attempts to amalgamate certain types of morality with biology. When law does this, It creates precedents against which similar issues can be weighed.
The law in this issue attempts to allow people with reproductive handicaps to enjoy the relationships enjoyed by traditionally accepted couples. "Fairness" is the moral measuring stick. This fairness can also be applied to other couples that have been considered taboo due, mostly, to the probability of birth defects and religious condemnation. Other qualms with a practice like incest come from personal belief and emotional response rather than legal rationalism.
I'm probably missing something.
It does, there's some sort of sea lion-ish creature where the males start raping the kids if they can't get a female. There are probably other examples, keep in mind that pedophilia is pretty rare even for humans, it's just that there are six billion of us, so even a tiny fraction can be a lot of people, and quite visible.Quote:
Originally Posted by Suraknar
Actually this example can be somewhat related to pedo priests, sexual frustration leading to child abuse (assuming the priests didn't join because they were pedo's). Perhaps the issue is a bit more complex than we've debated in this thread.
Many animals are able to detect when the females are in their reproductive phase, and don't bother if the female isn't. Physical maturity is the only variable.
~:smoking: