Originally posted by ImaginaryReality1984
Having a response to such things doesn't mean you will act upon them. There are people who are celebate after all and anyway you are comparing a
criminal activity to a legal one. I don't mean the arousal is illegal but anyone acting upon their attraction to children would of course be
committing a crime.
Yes, i understand this.
What i am saying is you presented this response as evidence that homosexuality is an ingrained, part of who those people are. You are implying that
because they were "created" this way, that it makes their sexual deviancy acceptable.
I am asking that if such logic is used in the case of homosexuality, why would the same logic not be applied to other sexually deviant behavior?
Keep in mind, by "deviant" i only refer to the deviation from the "normal". As well, i only ask this because you brought it up, and it is
something that struck me as worthy of discussion.
I'm struggling to see your point i'm afraid. A gay person has sex with another, of age, consenting gay person and so no one is harmed. A paedophile
has sex with a child, by force or manipulation and the act can/does have long term, psychologically and often physically damaging effects.
A gay person has sex with another, yes. Lets put aside legality for the time being. As well, lets put aside morality. Each of these issues is what
we are trying to determine, and thus our prejudices cannot predetermine without risk of falling victim to circular logic. In short, we are playing
devils advocate here (something i am fond of).
Don't take this conversation personally.
Sex is a procreative tool. "Normal" use is in childbearing pursuits. Any sexual act that does not follow this would be classified as deviant. We
are comparing these two things on the basis of this one aspect: deviation from "normal".
You have established that erectile response is a legitimate measurement of sexual predilection. You are asserting that this predilection is not a
choice, but a part of how we are made. I am drawing a parellel between the legitimate measure that you assert legitimizees homosexuality, and asking
if it then would not legitimize pedophelia.
No, i don't believe this to be true.
I have no point. I am only raising a question, based on the above.
Really strange twisting of the situation because you don't mention the other possible alternatives. Like homosexuality is an acceptable behavior and
paedophilia is neither acceptable nor healthy. Paedophilia leads to direct harm of a human child. Homosexuality leads to no harm, other than the
persecution an ignorant society lumps upon the homosexual.
From the viewpoint of devils advocate, it could be said that your lack of imagination regarding the possible damage done does little to validate the
prior assertion that erectile response legitimizes homosexual behavior.
No i don't really unless you twist it as you have. Just because someone has an erectile response does not mean they will act upon their desires. A
gay person can act upon there desires because it is not illegal to do so.
We are not discussing this as a legality. We are discussing your evidence used to legitimize homosexual behavior.
The erectile response is the crux of this argument. If we can present it as a "test" to show that someone is born gay, wired gay, and created gay,
then we can assume that the same response would show that they are born pedophile, etc.
Now, obviously this has ramifications from a law enforcement and rehabilitation viewpoint.
Many paedophiles do not act upon their desires. From the research i have read there are a number of reasons for that, the fear of prosecution is a
minor one, not wanting to cause harm seems to be a larger one.
How about we put it another way. Serial killers are said to be a mix of genetics and environment. The genetic factor is key. So should we let them
off? Of course not, they commit a crime and we imprison them.
Seriously your whole argument here is deeply flawed.
No, it isn't flawed. I am applying your logic for one deviant sexual act to another deviant sexual act. If that logic fails then perhaps THAT is
the logic that is flawed.
It brings up a whole 'nuther set of problems. Consider it. Really.
How do you "punish" someone for being the way they are made to be? What if homosexuality were currently illegal (which, technically, it is in some
states)? Would you argument of "legality" really even matter?
At the bottom of it all, if finding children attractive were determined to be an ingrained, part of what they are....how do we handle this?
I know what i think. I think morality be damned, we still go after them with both barrels, but i live in an increasingly liberal society that waffles
on such matters. I am only wanting to discuss this because i can see it as an issue in the future. It is already along the lines of the argument
that NAMBLA uses to justify what they do.
I know that people can exert self control. I hope that lots of people use this control. Being of the buddhist faith, i find self control to be a
But if you do not act on your latent desires, you likely are not a "pedophile", and thus not what we are discussing. Lets not
start to mix apples in with the oranges. it is a confusing enough topic.
Yes deny ignorance so why are you comparing a criminal action with a non criminal action? Why are you comparing somethign which causes direct harm to
a child (paedophilia) to something which causes no harm (consenting homosexuality)?
You're going to have to explain your logic a little better.
because we were not discussing legality, we were discussing the evidence legitimizing homosexuality as a way that people are made, and not a
If a measurement is used, one would expect some level of equality in the way that measurement is applied. If it doesn't hold up as a true
measurement in all situations, then it is likely that it is a flawed measurement.
Without even realizing it, you backed into using the exact same argument that NAMBLA uses: that they can't help it, they are made that way.
I hope that you understand better where i am coming from.