Some are born gay, some achieve gayness, and some have gayness thrust upon them (1 Viewer)

[John McCain]

I also wasn't discounting the fact that mental disorders are heritable, which clearly, they are.

It really sounds like you did exactly that below:

Hahahah what. Pedophilia is not a genetically-determined sexual preference. Lol wtf

It's a sexual preference. It's genetic. Backpeddelin'...

 

[Kwayera]

So you'll agree that the only substantial difference between homosexuality and pedophilia is that society condemns one and accepts the other? That the classification is based on a value judgement?

Not at all. I think that there is likely to be a futher distinction to be made between homosexuality and other, er, "sexual preference disorders", given apparent lack of heritability of homosexuality, the significant anatomical/physiological differences associated with it, etc.

Which is why I likened homosexuality to being a gene mutation more like having red hair (albeit not heritable) rather than one like that which produces disorders such as skitsophrenia.

 

[epic man]

well, from an ethical perspective, it can be argued that pedophilia is harmful to innocents and homosexuality is not.

you have not paid any attention to my second last post!!

 

[Kwayera]

It's a sexual preference. It's genetic. Backpeddelin'...

Too many uses of the word "genetic", I think, which is an oversimplification of varying mechanisms.

 

[John McCain]

Well, from an ethical perspective, it can be argued that pedophilia is harmful to innocents and homosexuality is not.

As catholics will rush to tell you, you may not be able to choose your sexual preference, but you choose to act on it.

You can be a pedophile and never have sex with children. In which case it is no more harmful than choosing to remain celibate in any other orientation. It would be beneficial if people could be more open about admitting such feelings, and feeling safe in seeking help, rather than being made to feel shameful and repress their feelings.

 

[HumanDichotomy]

I've met 15 year olds who are ten times more mature and uninnocent than 16 year olds. And homosexuality causes Aids. How can you possibly say that pedophilia is more harmful than homosexuality?

Homosexuality does not *cause* AIDS. The HIV virus causes AIDS, which can be transmitted through any sort of unprotected sex, whether homosexual or heterosexual. The issue with pedophilia is that it is not consensual. Whether you have met immature 16 year olds or not is irrelevant. It does not prove how homosexuality is as bad as pedophilia.

 

[epic man]

As catholics will rush to tell you, you may not be able to choose your sexual preference, but you choose to act on it.

You can be a pedophile and never have sex with children. In which case it is no more harmful than choosing to remain celibate in any other orientation. It would be beneficial if people could be more open about admitting such feelings, and feeling safe in seeking help, rather than being made to feel shameful and repress their feelings.

repped

 

[Iheartgays]

Homosexuality does not *cause* AIDS. The HIV virus causes AIDS, which can be transmitted through any sort of unprotected sex, whether homosexual or heterosexual. The issue with pedophilia is that it is not consensual. Whether you have met immature 16 year olds or not is irrelevant. It does not prove how homosexuality is as bad as pedophilia.

So a 15 year old can't consent? So when a 15 year old goes to a friends house, is that kidnapping?

 

[epic man]

Homosexuality does not *cause* AIDS. The HIV virus causes AIDS, which can be transmitted through any sort of unprotected sex, whether homosexual or heterosexual. The issue with pedophilia is that it is not consensual. Whether you have met immature 16 year olds or not is irrelevant. It does not prove how homosexuality is as bad as pedophilia.

Read McCaine's post, he can tell you much better than I.

 

[SnowFox]

I've met 15 year olds who are ten times more mature and uninnocent than 16 year olds. And homosexuality causes Aids. How can you possibly say that pedophilia is more harmful than homosexuality?

Your fucking kidding right?

Origin of AIDS - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Read 'em and weep.

 

[John McCain]

Not at all. I think that there is likely to be a futher distinction to be made between homosexuality and other, er, "sexual preference disorders", given apparent lack of heritability of homosexuality, the significant anatomical/physiological differences associated with it, etc.

Sure, such biological distinctions may exist, but they do not provide clear justification for why one should be classified as disorder and not the other.

The decision to classify a disorder, in this case, is based on sociological evidence, rather than biological.

Which is no terrible thing.

 

[SnowFox]

So a 15 year old can't consent? So when a 15 year old goes to a friends house, is that kidnapping?

Under current law, no, its considered as Statutory Rape or "Romeo and Juliet" Laws.

 

[Kwayera]

Sure, such biological distinctions may exist, but they do not provide clear justification for why one should be classified as disorder and not the other.

The decision to classify a disorder, in this case, is based on sociological evidence, rather than biological.

Which is no terrible thing.

Sure. But there's mounting evidence, especially in the case of homosexuality vs. other "sexual preference disorders", that the distinction could indeed be biological rather than "purely" sociological (which personally I disagree with, though that's just opinion).

 

[Iheartgays]

Sure. But there's mounting evidence, especially in the case of homosexuality vs. other "sexual preference disorders", that the distinction could indeed be biological rather than "purely" sociological (which personally I disagree with, though that's just opinion).

"Mounting evidence" proves nothing. Besides disorder or no, I think we can all agree that gays don't need marriage, as they seem to be coping just fine the way it is.

 

[Kwayera]

"Mounting evidence" proves nothing. Besides disorder or no, I think we can all agree that gays don't need marriage, as they seem to be coping just fine the way it is.

You can't prove anything in biology. Prove, in this context, is a fallacious word.

However, it sure does "prove" something - we can't just dismiss it as a "mental disorder" (as it used to be classified as) because as we do more research we find that it's simply not the case. Perhaps this will eventually redefine what a mental disorder is.

And, incorrect, we can't all agree that "gays don't need marriage". If they decided they didn't we wouldn't really be having this conversation in the first place.

 

[SnowFox]

They want to marry so they can be recognised under government laws as a married couple and receive the same benefits as heterosexual couples.

 

[Iheartgays]

They want to marry so they can be recognised under government laws as a married couple and receive the same benefits as heterosexual couples.

Ever heard of a civil union?

 

[Napstar]

Ever heard of a civil union?

I kind of have to agree.

Several reasons why I don't understand why gays want to get married by the Church

a. Even if it is made legal, the Church officiators can still refuse to marry you. Just like they can refuse to marry a couple if they don't attend those stupid premarital counselling sessions with the priest, or just like they can refuse if you're not a Catholic but you want to get married in a Catholic Church. Canon law or whatever is still separate from our civil law.

b. Why do you want to get married by an institution that calls for your death? The Church doesn't accept you mang. It won't for a long time. Why want it? Even if you're a Christian gay, you're still not accepted.

c. Civil unions are just as binding, they still give you the title of "married" and they don't involve the bullshit Church.

d. As much as I disagree with the Church and its lunatic followers, I have to accept that the church is an institution that is very old and that has a defined moral code or what have you, that governs it. Marriage between a man and a man is strictly forbidden by the Church. I don't agree with forcing the Church to change their laws, as much as I think they're bullshit laws. If you don't like the way they do business, it's fairly easy to ignore them.


So in terms of gay marriage - I am all for the creation of a civil law that allows homosexual couples to be married by the state. I can't agree with forcing the Church, regardless of how despicable it is, to change their beliefs.

 

[Napstar]

Obviously the cause of most of our problems is the Church. Pre Judaeo–Christian Rome, as brutal as it was, was accepting of homosexuality ... The introduction of Christianity/Catholicism and its role as head of state for many hundreds of years, still to this day (regardless of whether the Church and State are now separate, many laws are based on Judaeo–Christian beliefs) has people brainwashed into thinking that homosexuality is a sinful abomination.

Burn the Church imo

 

[Napstar]

"Mounting evidence" proves nothing. Besides disorder or no, I think we can all agree that gays don't need marriage, as they seem to be coping just fine the way it is.

Nobody needs marriage. You can be in a de facto relationship and still reap all the benefits as if you were legally bound as a couple.

You're right. Homosexuals don't need to get married. But neither does anyone else. That's not an excuse to preclude them from being allowed to, if they so wish.