01-05-2004 11:26									#151
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Or an uncontrollable attraction to the opposite gender?

Yes, but the similarities between heterosexual and pedophilic attractions aren't as great as those between homosexual and pedophilic attractions, given that heterosexuality is the socially accepted norm whilst both pedophilia and homosexuality are seen as abnormal attractions.

quote: As Boris already alluded to, use heterosexual relationships as a parallel to homosexual relationships if you want to discuss "uncontrollable attraction."

See above.

	01-05-2004 12:15									#152
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

BK yeah i'm not gonna argue with you. Quite frankly i'm too high at the moment but i'm looking forward to getting into a good old debate with you.

	01-05-2004 17:29									#153
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

quote: Originally posted by Drake Tungsten Yes, but the similarities between heterosexual and pedophilic attractions aren't as great as those between homosexual and pedophilic attractions, given that heterosexuality is the socially accepted norm whilst both pedophilia and homosexuality are seen as abnormal attractions.

You are not talking about the attractions by themselves, but the social acceptance of these attractions. Those are completely different.

BTW, I have read a very interesting site about the state of research on pedophilia (mhamic.org, which is sadly dedicated only to men attracted to boys, and no other form of pedophilia), which indicates many pedophiles choose not to act on their attraction, while many child-molesters aren't pedophiles (aren't specifically attracted to children), but do it for the feeling of power that can be usually found in rapists.

However, don't get me wrong. Unlike homosexuality or heterosexuality, there are very good reasons not to support pedophilia. Pedophilia can seriously mess up the development of the child. The child cannot give an informed consent to the sexual act/relationship (the child can, and often will, give an uninformed consent it has been lured into giving). And in the cases of extremely young children, the sexual act can hurt the victim as hell.

Homosexuality or heterosexuality between adults is based on informed consent. And that's the whole difference between a pedophilic relationship and an adult one: adults are supposed to be emotionally solid and knowledgeable enough to know what they are entering to.
Children are extremely likely to enter a child-adult relationship that will mess them up only out of respect for their superior, out of fear, out of dependance, or out of ignorance of what is next.

	01-05-2004 17:35									#154
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

As I've often said, there should be as many gay men as possible. It should be actively encouraged. It means more skirt for us real blokes!!!

Lesbianism should definitely out though, unless they agree to be filmed.

Sexism just can't be beat.

	01-05-2004 17:57									#155
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

quote: Originally posted by Agathon As I've often said, there should be as many gay men as possible. It should be actively encouraged. It means more skirt for us real blokes!!!

Amen to that!

quote: Lesbianism should definitely out though, unless they agree to be filmed.

Lesbianism is out, period. They can use bisexuals for the porn flicks.

	01-05-2004 17:58									#156
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

Yeah!!! I'm convinced by your impeccable logic.

	01-05-2004 19:45									#157
	Support Apolyton

quote: You are not talking about the attractions by themselves, but the social acceptance of these attractions.

Yeah. So what? All attractions are uncontrollable, so why dwell on that issue. The lack of social acceptance for both pedophilia and homosexuality is what sets them apart from heterosexuality and makes certain analogies between the two useful, which is why I brought it up. I never claimed to be dealing solely with the attractions themselves with no regard to how society views them.

	01-05-2004 21:05									#158
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

quote: Originally posted by Ben Kenobi Right to conscience? That's a bizarre application. How is the desire to **** have anything to do with conscience?

There you go again -- you're obsessed with the sex act, and thus dehumanizing gays as if they cannot be capable of relationships in which sex is only a part of those relationships.

Right to conscience, as in the right to affirm part of what you are (gay) and right of conscience as in the right to choose to enter a relationship with another adult of the same gender.

	01-05-2004 21:12									#159
	Got spare money?

No. I don't recall any concious decision to be heterosexual. I'm just hardwired that way.

	01-05-2004 21:16									#160
	Get a bigger avatar today!

quote: Originally posted by Ben Kenobi So how then are 'theological laws' preventing the right to conscience?

First of all, theological-based laws are unconstitutional because we are supposed to be separating government from religion in United States.

Secondly, theological-based laws are unconstitutional, because they deny people the right to conscience, which I explained to in my immediate above post already.

Thirdly, theological-based laws also deny a person's right to intimate life, or right to freedom of contract with others.

Fourth, theological-based laws are wrong because they apply rules differently and unequally between gays and straights. It's ok for heterosexuals to engage in un-reproductive relationships, but it's suppose to heretical for gays to do the same thing.

Fifth, as I have already said before, theological-based laws also dehumanize gays -- see previous posts.

	01-05-2004 21:26									#161
	Support Apolyton

quote: Originally posted by Drake Tungsten Yes, but the similarities between heterosexual and pedophilic attractions aren't as great as those between homosexual and pedophilic attractions, given that heterosexuality is the socially accepted norm whilst both pedophilia and homosexuality are seen as abnormal attractions.

What's the point? Beyond saying neither are socially accepted, what other correlation is there to make? Being attracted to someone of a different race wasn't (and often still isn't) socially accepted. What relation could we make between interracial attraction and paedophilia? I don't see any more "useful analogies" there than I do with homosexuality.

Plus, this does ignore the majority opinion in psychology that paedophilia is not a sexual orientation or even a true sexual attraction per se, but rather a mental disorder largely based on a power dynamic. Paedophiles aren't, as far as modern psychology has determined, exclusively attracted to children. On the contrary, they more often than not carry on normal sexual relations with adults as well.

	01-05-2004 21:34									#162
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

Some people try to use the fact that homosexuals are "born that way" as some sort of proof that homosexuality is a moral behavior. At such times, bringing up the fact that pedophiles (who almost everyone would agree are not moral individuals) are also probably "born that way" is a pretty effective means of ending a silly argument, ie. that the fact that homosexuals are born gay has any sort of bearing on the morality of their behavior.

Not that I'm saying homosexuality is immoral...

	01-05-2004 21:41									#163
	Full PM-box? Change here!

quote: Originally posted by Ben Kenobi You don't get to choose the attractions. Whether you act on the attractions or not is an entirely different matter.

Oh that's nice! So heterosexuals can have the pleasure of getting married to someone they're attracted to, while gays just have to deal with that horrible "defect" God put them up with? They can either become celibate or marry someone they're not attracted to? Would you marry someone you're not attracted to? Even if you could just as well be together with someone you ARE attracted to, if it weren't for the fact that your family would disown you in that case?

quote: Originally posted by Drake Tungsten I think the argument can be made that an uncontrollable attraction to children is similar to an uncontrollable attraction to members of one's own gender...

I really don't think paedophilia and homosexuality can be compared at all. Homosexuality has to do with gender, but paedophilia has nothing to do with gender, but with age.

I think homosexuality is something people are born with, being genetic or whatever. But I don't think paedophilia even can be. I'd say paedophilia often has more to do with childhood trauma. Or "nurture" rather than "nature" in any case, more like how I'm more attracted to brunettes than blondes. Not how I'm attracted to women rather than men.

Then again, I have nothing to back this up...

	01-05-2004 21:42									#164
	Increase the size of your Attachments

quote: Originally posted by Drake Tungsten At such times, bringing up the fact that pedophiles (who almost everyone would agree are not moral individuals) are also probably "born that way" is a pretty effective means of ending a silly argument,

Only if one provides evidence that paedophiles are such. AFAIK, there is no psychological consensus that paedophiles are "born that way." The same does not hold true wrt to homosexuality. In fact, the consensus among psychologists is that paedophiles are made, not born, through childhood trauma and a cycle of sexual abuse.

Usually, the "born that way" argument is used to counter the claim that homosexuality isn't "natural," which is in and of itself a shite argument that is based on a totally subjective opinion of what is "natural" and what isn't.

	01-05-2004 21:44									#165
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Mercatore Uno I think homosexuality is something people are born with, being genetic or whatever. But I don't think paedophilia even can be. I'd say paedophilia often has more to do with childhood trauma. Or "nurture" rather than "nature" in any case, more like how I'm more attracted to brunettes than blondes. Not how I'm attracted to women rather than men. Then again, I have nothing to back this up...

Read the pscyhological literature on the subject, and you'll find backup, as this is indeed the consensus wrt to paedophillic behavior.

	01-05-2004 21:48									#166
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

quote: I think homosexuality is something people are born with, being genetic or whatever. But I don't think paedophilia even can be. I'd say paedophilia often has more to do with childhood trauma. Or "nurture" rather than "nature" in any case

I would be inclined to agree with you, but I guess I don't really see much of a substantive difference. Whether pedophiles have the attractions they have as a result of nature or nuture, they still probably can't control their attractions any more than homosexuals can. As such, it is pretty clear that simply having an uncontrollable attraction to a non-standard set of partners in no way grants some sort of moral legitimacy to any action taken because of those attractions.

quote: Then again, I have nothing to back this up...

Welcome to the club.

At least you probably have the advantage of being well-rested. I'm up at 1:48 AM after a long Saturday and am not thinking as clearly as I should be...

	01-05-2004 22:27									#167
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

Perhaps, yes... But if it's only about moral legitimacy isn't consent enough legitimacy already?

quote: Welcome to the club.

	01-05-2004 23:45									#168
	Put an end to popups!

Can't wait for Ben Kenobi's justification for unconstitutional, theological-based laws.

	02-05-2004 01:38									#169
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

as for original question:

Ive been living a striaght life for all my life and so far its been good. Ive been enjoying hetero sex. so i dont see why i should go gay anytime soon.

	02-05-2004 04:42									#170
	Support Apolyton

I'm an aggressive advocate for the heterosexual lifestyle.

	02-05-2004 04:52									#171
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

I love heterosexuals. Honestly, some of my best friends are straight. No problems with them whatsoever! Well, except those that just act too straight. Those kind are embarrassing to be around. I mean, why be so obvious unless you're trying to get attention or something?

	02-05-2004 05:04									#172
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

quote: Originally posted by Drake Tungsten Some people try to use the fact that homosexuals are "born that way" as some sort of proof that homosexuality is a moral behavior. At such times, bringing up the fact that pedophiles (who almost everyone would agree are not moral individuals) are also probably "born that way" is a pretty effective means of ending a silly argument, ie. that the fact that homosexuals are born gay has any sort of bearing on the morality of their behavior. Not that I'm saying homosexuality is immoral...

I couldn't believe I could agree with you in a gay thread

It is absurd to base the morality of homosexual behaviour based on the nature vs nurture. This argument is flawed and bound to bite back in the ass.

I think one should look at the morality of homosexual behaviour in the scope of informed consent between adults. Unlike pedophilic behaviour, homosexual behaviour is not supposed to do damage on an unwilling or defenseless victim.

BTW, I don't think any sexual attraction is immoral per se. It's not like there is much room of a choice. However, some sexual behaviours can be immoral, based on the degree of consent and the damage it can do to its targets. I don't think consentual homosexuality between adults is any immoral, because these adults aren't coerced or lured into doing something that will have dire consequences for them.

	02-05-2004 05:11									#173
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

quote: Originally posted by Boris Godunov Read the pscyhological literature on the subject, and you'll find backup, as this is indeed the consensus wrt to paedophillic behavior.

From what I could find (admittedly, I never opened a research book on pedophilic behaviour), every theory so far has been shown to be flawed, including the many psychological theory, and the only biological theory. Science so far seems unable to strongly explain the causes of pedophilic behaviour.

Not that it is that important in the argument here. Whether the causes are nature or nurture, it can be as hard to remove a natural attraction as to remove a nurtured one, once hard-wired. And it don't think the 'naturality' or 'nurturality' of the sexual attraction should be taken into account when weighing its morality. Actual damage or lack thereof should be the main subject of importance.

I mean, is it more moral to be gay when you have felt it since, birth, than when you have 'developed' a gayness based on in-life events?

	02-05-2004 05:20									#174
	Get a bigger avatar today!

to Spiffor for the nurture vs nature arguments.

	02-05-2004 11:20									#175
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

quote: Originally posted by Boris Godunov I love heterosexuals. Honestly, some of my best friends are straight. No problems with them whatsoever! Well, except those that just act too straight. Those kind are embarrassing to be around. I mean, why be so obvious unless you're trying to get attention or something?

I know what you mean -- I cringe with disgust whenever I see a straight couple walking around in PUBLIC, holding hands.

	02-05-2004 11:37									#176
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by Spiffor I couldn't believe I could agree with you in a gay thread It is absurd to base the morality of homosexual behaviour based on the nature vs nurture. This argument is flawed and bound to bite back in the ass. I think one should look at the morality of homosexual behaviour in the scope of informed consent between adults. Unlike pedophilic behaviour, homosexual behaviour is not supposed to do damage on an unwilling or defenseless victim. BTW, I don't think any sexual attraction is immoral per se. It's not like there is much room of a choice. However, some sexual behaviours can be immoral, based on the degree of consent and the damage it can do to its targets. I don't think consentual homosexuality between adults is any immoral, because these adults aren't coerced or lured into doing something that will have dire consequences for them.

This could fit very well with David Richards's "right to conscience" argument in his book, "Identity and the Case for Gay Rights: Race, Gender, Religion as Analogies."

	02-05-2004 14:25									#177
	Tired of ads?

Boy am I glad I live in my isolated little world... some of you are downright scary. It is amazing how living in a country of 30 million polite people shelters you.

	04-05-2004 03:32									#178
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

quote: First of all, theological-based laws are unconstitutional because we are supposed to be separating government from religion in United States.

Agreed.

quote: Secondly, theological-based laws are unconstitutional, because they deny people the right to conscience, which I explained to in my immediate above post already.

No you have not. You have not clarified the connection between this and freedom of conscience. Nor, have you established the connection between these laws and 'theologically based laws.' The reason they are a factor in secular society has to do with the fact that a family provides benefits to society unmatched by any other alternative arrangement.

quote: Thirdly, theological-based laws also deny a person's right to intimate life, or right to freedom of contract with others.

1. There is no expressed right to 'intimate life'. Otherwise, you could sue someone for refusing to sleep with you because they are denying your right to intimate life.

One does not need intimate relations in order to live, it's nice work if you can get it, but you won't die from lacking the contact.

Therefore, any sexual contact cannot be expressed as a right, because such a right would infringe on freedom of conscience, in the right of others to refuse you, and their own right to freedom of association.

Secondly, laws preventing the state from recognising gay relationships do not bar them from associating with each other. Therefore, you are not restricted either in conscience, or in association. Don't confuse the two issues of sodomy regulations and marriage. Just because some arguments work with the latter, does not necessarily mean they work on the former.

quote: Fourth, theological-based laws are wrong because they apply rules differently and unequally between gays and straights. It's ok for heterosexuals to engage in un-reproductive relationships, but it's suppose to heretical for gays to do the same thing.

Presumes that it is wrong for laws to discriminate. Look at it this way. The laws against discrimination do not prevent those actions taken to ameliorate the situation for those who are already handicapped. This is why one can target blind people for instince, to help them with their situation.

Another example would be benefits to vets, not provided to other people. The state does not bar anyone from serving in the armed forces, yet the state provides many benefits to vets only. The same is the case from marriage. No one is prevented from marrying someone of the opposite sex, not even you, Mr. Fun, if this would be your desire.

Also, your argument also fails to the same critique as earlier. To say that the act is 'heretical' is much different than saying that sodomy is illegal. Sodomy is not illegal. Gays are allowed to enjoy relationships with one another under the laws already established.

quote: Fifth, as I have already said before, theological-based laws also dehumanize gays -- see previous posts.

Presumes that who one is is inextricably bound in who one sleeps with. I say that this is false. One is much more than the sum of one's actions. You are not just a gay person, that should your desires change, that you would no longer exist.

	04-05-2004 03:34									#179
	Remove this text

quote: Right to conscience, as in the right to affirm part of what you are (gay) and right of conscience as in the right to choose to enter a relationship with another adult of the same gender.

Again, same old argument.

Who one is is much more than who one sleeps with.

	04-05-2004 03:44									#180
	Increase the size of your Attachments

Mercatore:

quote: Oh that's nice! So heterosexuals can have the pleasure of getting married to someone they're attracted to, while gays just have to deal with that horrible "defect" God put them up with?

So heterosexuals are free of defects? No. The difference is because society does very well with marriage, so to change the definition will likely also change the benefits that society derives from marriage.

Secondly, to argue that homosexuality is a defect requires presuppositions not available to a secular society. I don't mind arguing why this would be 'disordered' behaviour, but this is not the justification for why the state ought to treat the two differently.

Finally, if one believes that homosexuality is disordered, one must also be clear that it is considered disordered behaviour. In order words, one can overcome the behaviour, it is not an inextricable part of your nature.

quote: They can either become celibate or marry someone they're not attracted to?

Again, according to the laws of the church, not of society. You have set up a false dilemma. If they choose to get married, they should do so because they truly desire to do so. If they do not, then they should not get married.

quote: Would you marry someone you're not attracted to? Even if you could just as well be together with someone you ARE attracted to, if it weren't for the fact that your family would disown you in that case?

In my own case? I would marry someone I loved, even if it meant that my family would disown me. If you don't think I'm sincere, the only women my mother said she had a problem with me dating were Catholics. She said that she had no problem if I brought home a guy, but help me if I brought home a Catholic.