The misrepresentation of Sexualities: Homosexuality, Heterosexuality, Pedophilia, etc.

Ive seen a bunny rabbit shag the family cat but that doesn't mean its right.

originally posted by: stargatetravels
a reply to: Ghost147

Sadly you're trying to educate people who don't want to be educated.
Also people who get their morality from 'The Good Book'
It's a futile exercise.

Yes, I realize where their ideology comes from. I find it particularly ironic that they say how damaging "choosing" homosexuality as a "life style" is to a person, when their belief system prevents them from accepting the most mundane, simplistic information because reality is obstructive to their religious views.

originally posted by: khnum
Ive seen a bunny rabbit shag the family cat but that doesn't mean its right.

Right and wrong are subjective to individualistic views. Clearly that is not an accurate way to attempt to define how things should be done. So how do we discover what is acceptable behavior? I think we can all agree that if something isn't consensual it shouldn't be allowed. I think we can all agree that if it is someway destructive or abusive, it shouldn't be allowed. I think we can agree that if it's naturally occurring its existence should be tolerated due to the fact that no one made a conscious choice to be anything.

So considering Homosexuality relationships are as consensual as heterosexual ones, I guess we don't have a problem there. I don't see Homosexuality being any more or less destructive or abusive than heterosexuality, so I guess we don't have a problem there either. We see Homosexuality in thousands of other species, so clearly it's a natural thing. Furthermore, Sexualities in general are all natural forming traits, so again, no reason not to tolerate it, so no problem there.

Exactly what do you view as "wrong"? So far I haven't found any traits that would make Sexuality in general wrong in any way.

Please, Elaborate.

Nothing distressing about this at all. Depends how you might define distress I guess.

Anyway I'm wondering what the hell is going on tonight about this sexuallity obsessivness. As I've said in another thread, couldn't care about who you are or whether you possess 'tackle' or a 'map of tassie', its the person who counts socially.

Now, if you want to 'go over the top' with recounting your sexuallity or preferences expect a sound tap on the nose.

In saying this I'm not about displaying my preferences, particularly in a social scene. People just want to get along with each other and not listen to constant whinging and whining about why they don't get treated the same. To hell with those. Particularly the peodophiles.

Its not the person but the persitant complaining. Peddo's are scum by the way and there are no 'moderates' in that circle.

Anyways, if someone has problems finding a 'norm', that's fine but don't go on and on about it. No wonder those types are left to fend for themselves by others.

To those that are in a flat spot I say, 'Get a grip'. Good aussie saying. Forget yer past transgressions and stop blaming others for yer probs mate.

here's hoping.

Kind regards,

Bally.

originally posted by: Metallicus
Heterosexuality is the norm and anything else is considered a deviancy (deviating from the norm) by definition. I don't care who buggers whom as long as it is consenting sexual activity. I am just saying homosexuality is technically deviant sexual behavior and really you can't argue that point.

I have to disagree. I even go as far as to say that homosexuality is just as normal as heterosexuality. It can't be deviant if it exists in nature.

We can make it 'deviant' through human morals but nature cares not one iota.

The worst thing is though to compare homosexuality and paedophilia.
For obvious reasons. One involves a minor who can't make educated decisions, the other doesn't. Simple as that.

However even paedophilia is natural, undesirable but natural. In the same way murder is natural, yet we want to keep it to a minimum for obvious reasons.

Therefore we may be excused to make laws to reduce murder and paedophilia.

Homosexuality however is more akin to being born with big ears, you personally may not like it but it is basically still only a variation of what exists and is accepted and poses no more danger to society than heterosexuality.

What does the word 'normal' have to do with anything? It's a subjective term and utterly irrelevant in the realm of ethics. Only one factor is relevant when speaking of ethics: does it do harm? Making you feel uncomfortable or disgusted does not count as harm, such a response is entirely your own doing. You may as well say defecation is unethical because you don't like the smell.

Consensual sex is consensual sex, regardless of the parties involved. Their age, gender or even species has no bearing whatsoever on the act itself. Under the skin every living thing is identical, the form you inhabit and the forms you are attracted to are solely the result of your own opinions - which routinely can and do change from one life to the next.

That, of course, leads to another point about age. Your existence did not begin between your mother's legs, nor did that of your offspring. It takes a very long time to get into a human body, so it's safe to assume that your child has had thousands of sexual partners over the eons, at the very least. Hell, there's a 50% chance your child is actually older than you. They may have even been one of your sexual partners in a past life. You want normal? Well, that is normal!

I just have one last thing to say before I leave you to ponder all of that...

And the whole of the law shall be: Do no harm.

a reply to: Ghost147

I only have one underlying principle do no harm so I dont interfere with existing relationships,have relationships where children may get upset i.e your not my daddy etc,my point is that animals act on instinct if a dog in a park meets another dog he probably will either have sex with it or fight it thats instinct,humans also have reasoning which demarcates us from other animals and we should use discernment.

originally posted by: khnum
a reply to: Ghost147

I only have one underlying principle do no harm so I dont interfere with existing relationships,have relationships where children may get upset i.e your not my daddy etc,my point is that animals act on instinct if a dog in a park meets another dog he probably will either have sex with it or fight it thats instinct,humans also have reasoning which demarcates us from other animals and we should use discernment.

Wow, I actually stopped back real quick to add something I've wanted to say for a very long time, regarding just that subject.

Animals view all physical contact as either sexual or violent. It can be both, but never neither. You may not see it that way, but trust me, your cat or dog considers it a sexual act when you pet them.

P.S. I hereby waive any and all responsibility for any awkwardness that may result from reading the above statement. Your pets are cool with it, you're the one with the problem.

a reply to: Ghost147

The Bible says No!!!!!

You can debate sexual orientation vs sexual deviancy until the cows come home, but it's not going to change minds. The desperate need for acceptance and approval for deviant sexual behavior and lifestyles is one of the reasons it will never be accepted by the majority of people as normal. The constant focus on sexual orientation and trying to make an argument for why the masses should accept it as natural is only reenforcing the core values that people already hold dear. It's not helping your case.

If you look on the internet, there's a clear distinction between how people feel about pedophilia and how people feel about homosexuality. Most are quick to say pedophiles must die a painful death. Homosexuality, on the other hand, is one of those "accepted norms" by most, as long as it doesn't affect them personally.

It's when homosexuality affects people personally that it becomes a hot topic. If, in fact, homosexuals make up 2-5% of the population, they are already experience acceptance on a wide scale (again, see internet opinion). They have front and center exposure in movies, TV, commercials and more. I would say there's a disproportionate push to support homosexuality everywhere you look.

Still, it's not enough and it will never be enough, because the debate must continue until every man, woman and child are converted to the wonders of homosexuality and all deviant sexual behavior is accepted as normal. For you see, that's where it's going.

People may have strong opinions today about how to punish pedophiles, but give it a generation or two and just like homosexuality became "mainstream" and "accepted", pedophilia is next. What's after that? Necrophilia? Bestiality?

Your argument is moot and not everyone bases their opinion on sexual orientation on religion. The nature argument doesn't hold water. Humans are self aware.

Try as you must to convince people, it's just going to do the opposite of what you intended. Maybe try keeping the sexuality relevancy debate to yourself and letting people judge by character. It will go a lot farther.

EDIT: (below)

For most people, basic knowledge is enough to formulate an opinion on sexuality vs deviancy:

* That the sperm fertilizes the egg.
* That reproduction only occurs between male and female.
* That male and female have hormones and chemistries that are unique.
* That men and women have different physiques and are wired to be attracted to one another.
* That sodomy is basically entry into an exit point.
* That the human body and mind should be mature for sexual activity.

My opinion above doesn't negate love between two people, but there's overwhelming evidence in the animal world and the human world that without heterosexuality, we would cease to exist and that the normal order of things with nature is to reproduce.

That's pretty much it. I don't think you can refute these facts and I doubt you'll convince anyone who follows basic laws of nature and formulates their moral equivalency on those concepts.

originally posted by: Freth
People may have strong opinions today about how to punish pedophiles, but give it a generation or two and just like homosexuality became "mainstream" and "accepted", pedophilia is next. What's after that? Necrophilia? Bestiality?

Your argument is moot and not everyone bases their opinion on sexual orientation on religion. The nature argument doesn't hold water. Humans are self aware.

Exactly how does the argument that sexuality, regardless of its form, is naturally produced "hold no water"?

originally posted by: Freth
Try as you must to convince people, it's just going to do the opposite of what you intended. Maybe try keeping the sexuality relevancy debate to yourself and letting people judge by character. It will go a lot farther.

I'm not merely attempting to convince people, the reason for this thread, and the reason why people respond to the opposition position is due to education. I think it's pretty evident that education works wonders for humanity. It hardly does the opposite of what it's intended purpose is.

And exactly when do you see people judging solely by character? In a perfect world, sure. But the fact is, people in general judge by appearance, titles, and first impressions. Why not educate them on those subjects instead of just "keeping to myself"?

Your position is ridiculous.

You're missing the point. People don't want to be "educated". See my edit above.

a reply to: Freth

I do agree, most people could care less about being educated. That hardly means we should stop educating just because only a few are susceptible to it's information.

Nevertheless, Sexuality is naturally occurring throughout nature. To answer all your points you've made:

* That the sperm fertilizes the egg: Except for in Parthenogenesis, where growth and development of embryos occur without fertilization. Take a look at Cnemidophorus neomexicanus for example.

* That reproduction only occurs between male and female: Again, this is not the case. Cnemidophorus neomexicanus is an all female species that reproduces through Parthenogenesis

* That male and female have hormones and chemistries that are unique: That is correct. However, when we see individuals with specific sexualities that are not heterosexual, those hormonal and chemical properties change.

* That men and women have different physiques and are wired to be attracted to one another: Again, this is only the case in heterosexual individuals. The gender has nothing to do with it, it is strictly about the neurological properties that individual that determines who or what they are attracted to.

* That sodomy is basically entry into an exit point: Except that male humans have their G-spot in their rectum.

* That the human body and mind should be mature for sexual activity: again, you're speaking about neurological properties. Considering that Biology is not a fixated entity, there is going to be variation to all aspects within it, and to extreme degrees. I'm part of a psychology forum and I've had the chance to interview a lot of interesting individuals, some of which have had sexual urges since they were 3. Of course, condoning such an action is clearly out of the question, never the less, the cases still exist.

originally posted by: Hecate666

originally posted by: Metallicus
Heterosexuality is the norm and anything else is considered a deviancy (deviating from the norm) by definition. I don't care who buggers whom as long as it is consenting sexual activity. I am just saying homosexuality is technically deviant sexual behavior and really you can't argue that point.

I have to disagree. I even go as far as to say that homosexuality is just as normal as heterosexuality. It can't be deviant if it exists in nature.

We can make it 'deviant' through human morals but nature cares not one iota.

The worst thing is though to compare homosexuality and paedophilia.
For obvious reasons. One involves a minor who can't make educated decisions, the other doesn't. Simple as that.

However even paedophilia is natural, undesirable but natural. In the same way murder is natural, yet we want to keep it to a minimum for obvious reasons.

Therefore we may be excused to make laws to reduce murder and paedophilia.

Homosexuality however is more akin to being born with big ears, you personally may not like it but it is basically still only a variation of what exists and is accepted and poses no more danger to society than heterosexuality.

Not so true.
You are talking about nature and then using modern day thinking.

Historically it is VERY common for young teens (12+) to have babies.
Look at the life expectancy of people:
1-1500: 20- 35 years
1500-1800: 30-40 years
1800+: 50-60+

longevity.about.com...

It made sense to start having babies as soon as posable to insure the continuation of your family. Even today in the poor areas of the world it is not unusual to start in the mid-late teens.

The ONLY thing that makes pedophilia "undesirable" is our current morals. And as for minor who can't make educated decisions, I have seen MANY 20+ people that should not have had kids. They are not educated or prepared because we have made a moral choose to do this over the past 75+ years.

Was this the right choose? I don't know. On one hand the life expectancy has gone up and we no longer have to rely on having kids at such a young age to keep the family going. On the other hand the "natural" biological time frame of the human body has not been changed and still prepares both girls and boys to be able to reproduce at that young age, but they no longer have the "life skill" to do so.

Homosexuality on the other hand has no real "biological" purpose other then the physical act itself. Is it wrong? For me it is. Do I care if someone else does it? No. And don't go into the "LOVE" issue, you can love someone VERY much with out the physical act.

originally posted by: Unity_99
a reply to: Ghost147

Pedophilia is a Paraphilia, a Sexuality

Because the 1% say it is a "philia" makes it an actual form. Its not. I am not saying that they do most of the molestations, and there should be more help for those who seek it, and understanding. I think its a kind of fetish or psychological interest in young, and in dark occult 1% circles, a form of ritual and dark spiritual practices. But for ordinary people, this violates nature, is highly damaging and dangerous to children mind/body and soul, and its anything but a variation of sexuality. Its a deviancy.

I don't think you'll find a lot of dark occult circles among people earning a few hundred thousand dollars a year. Are you maybe referring to 0.01%ers?

a reply to: dogstar23

This is very easy:

YOU NEED TO CHANGE THE TITLE OF THE THREAD.
It seems as though you wish to speak about Sexual Orientation, and the various types of sexual orientation that exist.

PEDOPHILIA is not a sexual orientation. It is illegal sexual behavior conducted against a child, consensual or non consensual,
either way, children are minors and Pedophilia is illegal, at least in the U.S. and in most industrialized nations and societies.


CHILD MOLESTATION is not a sexual orientation. It too is illegal and people are not supposed to conduct themselves sexually on children. Children once again are minors.

If you wanted to talk about alternative "sexualities" you should have totally remained and steered very clear of Pedophilia- It is illegal, and should never be legalized.(!!)

If I were you, I would try to start the thread over again, but much more cautiously.. many people are interested in discussing alternative sexual
orientation;

If you're interested in a separate thread concerning criminal behavior against children, under Crime in The U.S./Current Events Forum, then you can start that one separately but please do not confuse the two.

Also, your avatar might set people off to the side a little bit, might be a good idea to find some new self expression that way, just an idea though.

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: Ghost147

originally posted by: ketsuko
Not really.

We are talking about our species. And within our species, heterosexuality is the norm.

There are a lot of behaviors in nature that are far more common than what we see in the human species in terms of behavior, but does that mean we should suddenly alter our behavior to attempt to mimic nature?


What about cannibalism? Or infanticide?

It's not about attempting to mimic nature, it's about the fact that neurological structure is inherently naturally produced. There for Homosexuality is natural.

There are lots of things that are natural, but it is a logical fallacy to conclude that just because you see something in nature that it is a good thing for you to do. Again, I can cite cannibalism and infanticide just to start.

Ghost already told you it's not about mimicking nature, If a person is born to be that way, then it is totally natural.

Also, there are plenty of things that are all-natural and perfectly bad for you, too. You can always ingest a tapeworm for weight loss, after all. Completely natural and completely bad.

Ok.... But homosexuality is completely natural and not bad at all, for those who ''practice'' it.

On the contrary it relieves their stress and anxiety and allows them to enjoy life and sex like the rest of us,
what's not normal about that?

originally posted by: tony9802
a reply to: dogstar23

YOU NEED TO CHANGE THE TITLE OF THE THREAD.
It seems as though you wish to speak about Sexual Orientation, and the various types of sexual orientation that exist.

I assume you're responding to me because Dogstar23 did not make this thread. You are correct however, it is referencing sexual orientation, not strictly sexuality, my mistake.

originally posted by: tony9802
PEDOPHILIA is not a sexual orientation. It is illegal sexual behavior conducted against a child, consensual or non consensual,
either way, children are minors and Pedophilia is illegal, at least in the U.S. and in most industrialized nations and societies.

No, Pedophilia is a sexual orientation, not a behavior. It is described as "an adult or older adolescent experiences a primary or exclusive sexual attraction to prepubescent children, generally age 11 years or younger." (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 5th Edition)

To molest a child is an act of child molestation, not pedophilia.

originally posted by: tony9802
CHILD MOLESTATION is not a sexual orientation. It too is illegal and people are not supposed to conduct themselves sexually on children. Children once again are minors.

I've never claimed that child molestation is a sexual orientation.

originally posted by: tony9802
If you wanted to talk about alternative "sexualities" you should have totally remained and steered very clear of Pedophilia- It is illegal, and should never be legalized.(!!)

Again, pedophilia isn't an action, it is a sexual orientation. You can't make a sexual orientation illegal (anymore at least), only the actions some individuals with specific sexual orientations wish to commit.

originally posted by: tony9802
If you're interested in a separate thread concerning criminal behavior against children, under Crime in The U.S./Current Events Forum, then you can start that one separately but please do not confuse the two.

If you think that both child molestation and pedophilia are actions, exactly what is the difference between the two in your mind?

originally posted by: tony9802
Also, your avatar might set people off to the side a little bit, might be a good idea to find some new self expression that way, just an idea though.

Jeez, you just like to complain and control everything don't you. My avatar exists because I enjoy the artwork of a particular 3d artist. I'm afraid it will have to stay where it is and continue making you uncomfortable.

a reply to: Ghost147

Wow, Mon, when you come out of the cave, you really shine. Good to see you.

I personally don't believe there is a 'choice' that people actually make. I cannot recall every having weighed the options, nor do I know anyone who has. I think we are all born the way we are, and our attractions develop out of our own .......... what to call it....... probability field? Something that encompasses our geneology and cellular constructs. I can remember the magnetic allure between a six-year-old me and the lifeguard -- K.C. -- who presided over our pool. She was amazing, and I had no clue why.

a reply to: argentus

Thank you for your support. It's nice to see you too argentus. Although I've always been here, just quiet

Also (and completely off topic), that avatar of yours wouldnt happen to be Cyclura lewisi would it? Have you ever volunteered for the International Reptile Conservation Foundation?