Should homosexuality be considered more "okay" than pedophilia?

[shafedog]

I was thinking about this the other day and I wanted to see what you guys thought. My friend swears up and down that homosexuality is by far more "OKAY" than pedophilia, but I just can't agree to that at all. I see them both equally as deviant and I find it difficult to believe one should be more acceptable than the other (intellectually speaking).

Your thoughts?

[zombieman]

Homosexuality harms no-one, its between two consenting adults. Pedophilia destroys lives. Its not difficult to work out, really.

[bermuDa]

you'll have to explain your rationale here... are you a religious person? what moral value is it about homosexuals that you find offensive? Is it just men or are lesbians okay?

exactly HOW are the private acts of consenting adults "equally deviant" as those of an adult and a child who is incapable of consent?

[BoCo]

Pedophilia is worse but they are both deviant in my opinion.

[shafedog]

Homosexuality harms no-one, its between two consenting adults. Pedophilia destroys lives. Its not difficult to work out, really.

Pedophilia and homosexuality do not require the interaction of other people. Why should someone who desires sex with children be less acceptable than someone who desires sex with members of their own sex?

what moral value is it about homosexuals that you find offensive? Is it just men or are lesbians okay?

How is this relevant?

exactly HOW are the private acts of consenting adults "equally deviant" as those of an adult and a child who is incapable of consent?

I never said anything about acts.

Pedophilia is worse but they are both deviant in my opinion.

Absolutely deviant, 100%.

[RAGEAngel9]

How is being gay in any way harmful to anyone?

I'd say the reason why pedophilia is worse than homosexuality is because child cannot consent and do not know what they are doing. It's legally and morally rape, I think. Homosexuality is no different than hetrosexuality if it's between two (or more even, I don't really care) consenting adults. They know what they are doing and it's their business.

[shafedog]

How is being gay in any way harmful to anyone?

How is desiring sex with children harmful to anyone?

I don't think you understand what I'm saying.

[bermuDa]

i forgot to interject my own opinion:

homosexuality is only 'deviant' from the generally accepted social norms. I don't think that gay people in general are subversives or dangerous people. Do you feel threatened by homosexuals? If so, why? I asked about your moral views because I'm trying to understand where you're coming from here.

pedophiles are predators. If they don't act on their impulses then they only want to be predators (The fantasy of having a consenting relationship with a child is a delusion; children aren't aware of the consequences of their actions making them unable to consent, and therefore are easy prey). Watching a kiddie porn is glorifying the act of predation. In short, homosexuality and pedophilia are on completely different planes, I don't see how you consider them on an equal level.

[JStrider]

if someone wants to sit in the shower and whack off about anything they want thats fine... even if they are thinking about little kids...thats fine... theres no laws against being turned on by something...

but the moment someone goes and tries to touch a little kid then thats where there becomes a problem

[shafedog]

homosexuality is only 'deviant' from the generally accepted social norms.

Hence, deviant.

pedophiles are predators.

Not necessarily.

If they don't act on their impulses then they only want to be predators.

I'm sure they would disagree they are predators.

In short, homosexuality and pedophilia are on completely different planes, I don't see how you consider them on an equal level.

You have yet to show why homosexuality should be anymore acceptable than pedophilia.

[shafedog]

but the moment someone goes and tries to touch a little kid then thats where there becomes a problem

I agree.

[ratbastid]

This question really comes down to: is the fantasy of an act tanamount to commission of the act itself.

While I blanch at the comparison of homosexuality and pedophilia, the question really isn't which is more "okay", but whether even something as nasty as pedophelia--in the abstract, the thought or fantasy, absent any action on the part of the pedophile--is necessarily worse than the abstract notion of homosexuality.

I guess I'd say no. Get your (private) kicks wherever you find them. In that way, the mere notion or fantasy of pedopheila is no worse than the fanatasy of straigtforward missionary sex between consenting heterosexual adults. I don't think anybody's fantasy should be judged. My fantasy life is my own, thank you very much. I'm pretty picky who I share it with. *

Actually acting on homosexual urges versus pedophiliac urges are vastly different things. One's basically a normal expression of (granted, alternative) sexuality that is typically between consenting adults. The other is a horrible abuse that only some of the most depraved individuals would commit.

* Who the hell am I kidding? Seen my journal lately?

[wilbjammin]

Well, having fantasies of having sex with children is a clear sign of mental trauma. So as far as it being "okay", it probably isn't from a mental health standpoint. From a social standpoint, it is "okay" until the fantasy turns to action.

[lurkette]

Ratbastid (and others) have already said well what I would have said, but I have to chime in. I think all this discussion of "deviance" is misleading and misguided. Rather than speaking in moral abstractions, which are highly relativistic, I think it's much more useful to speak about it in terms of practical consequences of actions. The consequences of two consenting adults who happen to be of the same gender loving each other and/or having sex? Can't really think of any for anybody except the two adults (and don't sell me the story about the harmful effects of homosexuality on children - the only studies that have shown negative effects have been sponsored/conducted by highly biased sources). The consequences of pedophilia, however, are almost unmitigatedly negative (for the kid) and long-lasting. If you have a personal problem with it for moral reasons, that's your prerogative, but you must be able to distinguish between the two in terms of consequences.

[Anomaly_]

This has got to be a troll post but I'll bite. I agree completely with bermuDa. shafedog, pedophiles are always predators if they act out. The age of consent (which is 18 in most states) is not some arbitrary number. Children are not emotionally nor intellectually prepared for sex and as such they suffer greatly if exposed to it. And unless they seek therapy, they will probably continue the cycle of molestation. This cannot even be compared to consensual, adult sex between people of the same gender. I truly worry about children you're around if you believe sex with children isn't always unacceptable.

[filtherton]

If your using the sociological definition of deviance than why stop with pedophilia and homosexuality. The divorce rate is higher than 50%(this is before those damn homos have had a chance to "ruin" it ) so i guess having a successful marriage can only considered a deviant act. So in those terms, being a member of a successful marriage is in the same category as being pedophile. Is that what you meant by joining homosexuality and pedophilia under the umbrella of deviance? What other definition were you thinking of when you thought of deviance?

There was a point in time, following your use of the concept of deviance, whereby the question "Should interracial relations be considered more "okay" than pedophilia?" would be just as valid as your question. I'm not saying you're racist, just that based on your question you seem to have the same capacity for logical thought.
Sorry if you find that offensive, but that's just my opinion.

Honestly, i find it very difficult to believe that you can't see a difference between homosexuality and pedophilia and i doubt anything i say here could change your mind.

[Halx]

I think 'deviant' is a really bad word to use.

What it all comes down to is this:

What does it matter to you that your neighbor has a same-sex relationship?
What does it matter to you that your neighbor masturbates from his window when he sees your daughter playing in the front yard?

Answer those two questions truthfully an honestly.

My own answers? Well, I couldn't give a rat's ass if my neighbor was gay. As long as I could still borrow a cup of sugar when I needed it or something.

However, I would definately fear for my daughter (if I had one) if I had a neighbor who had sexual fantasies about her.

Now, banking on potential:
This is taking a TREMENDOUS leap of ignorance to assume my gay neighbor and my pedophile neighbor are going to act on their desires in front of me or to the point where it affects me.

What would be more damaging? The gay guy asking me out or the pedophile guy persuading my girl with a candy bar?

On a personal note, I think people who hate are vastly in need of education. Individuals are more products of their environment than they are of their own mind. That's nothing to hate someone over.

[mattevil]

I see nothing wrong with any sexual situation between fully developed consenting adults such as homosexuality.

Pedophilia is just wrong because the child is not developed mentally and physically enough to give consent. As far as the whole just thinking part of pedophilia, I think that's wrong too but you really can't control that without them saying it out loud.A pedophile that has child porn too is probably at fault too because he's supporting child porn and somewhere along the line a child was hurt for him to have that material.

[bermuDa]

Originally posted by shafedog
Not necessarily.

Please explain to use when pedophiliacs are NOT predators or wish to be so...

I'm sure they would disagree they are predators.

I'm sure they would, but like I said, a consentual relationship with a child is a DELUSION. children are immature and incapable of having such a relationship.

You have yet to show why homosexuality should be anymore acceptable than pedophilia.

You have yet to show why homosexuality is unacceptable at all. I believe we've made the case for why pedophilia is.

[Halx]

Originally posted by bermuDa
children are immature and incapable of having such a relationship.

"...as defined by the LAW."

*nods to berumDa*

[powerclown]

[IMG]http://groups.msn.com/_Secure/0RwDwAusUj!QJjn9UioTTR!hb6IarAH*rPkh6O70mtEmmLHjL8C21sRC8ZMlMQBFlqF2i5a4V*ZO393vYMpE0D67oWIkxSWCaaQaSBEXkUs8/boink%5B1%5D.gif?dc=4675459382651351681[/IMG]

[shafedog]

Please explain to use when pedophiliacs are NOT predators or wish to be so...

You said nothing about "wishing to be so".

You have yet to show why homosexuality is unacceptable at all. I believe we've made the case for why pedophilia is.

Unacceptable to the extent that it is not normal and shouldnt considered normal or "okay". When I was talking to my friend, she was adamately claiming homosexuality was leaps and bounds more "okay" than pedophilia maybe to the point of not realizing neither one necessitated acting on desires.

[bermuDa]

by wish to be so I was referring to the fantasy involved in watching kiddie porn, supporting and glorifying the act of molesting a minor. It's hard to argue that soemone who lusts after children and watches kiddie porn doesn't "wish" to emulate what they see, whether they act on it or not.

Originally posted by shafedog
Unacceptable to the extent that it is not normal and shouldnt considered normal or "okay". When I was talking to my friend, she was adamately claiming homosexuality was leaps and bounds more "okay" than pedophilia maybe to the point of not realizing neither one necessitated acting on desires.

Your definition of normal is not universal, and it seems pretty close-minded. why don't you think homosexuality should be considered "okay"? By virtue of it's not being normal alone?

taking action out of the formula, you're arguing that wanting to have sexual relations with members of the same sex is just as... not okay... as wanting to have sexual relations with children. being attracted to members of the same sex is miles away from being attracted to kids, because of the nature of the objects of desire.

[shafedog]

by wish to be so I was referring to the fantasy involved in watching kiddie porn, supporting and glorifying the act of molesting a minor. It's hard to argue that soemone who lusts after children and watches kiddie porn doesn't "wish" to emulate what they see, whether they act on it or not.

i see no reason why should be vilified anymore than thoughts of having sex with members of the same sex

why don't you think homosexuality should be considered "okay"? By virtue of it's not being normal alone?

I believe it is dysfunctional.

[wilbjammin]

I believe it is dysfunctional.

That's obviously your problem. If your going to post a dogmatic belief without any empirical evidence you've given us nothing of value to talk about.

[irseg]

Originally posted by shafedog
I was thinking about this the other day and I wanted to see what you guys thought. My friend swears up and down that homosexuality is by far "OKAY" than pedophilia, but I just can't agree to that at all. I see them both equally as deviant and I find it difficult to believe one should be more acceptable than the other.

Your thoughts?

Yes, two consenting guys or gals going at it in their bedroom is far more "OKAY" than some creep raping a 10 year old in the back of his van.

What consenting adults do with each other is not your, my, or anybody else's damn business but theirs. Bring in a minor who is not necessarily old enough to make educated and rational decisions, and that's entirely different.

[RAGEAngel9]

Originally posted by shafedog
i see no reason why should be vilified anymore than thoughts of having sex with members of the same sex




I believe it is dysfunctional.

I see no reason why hetero should be vilified any less than homo or pedo.
It's all just dirty sex. If we want to get to heaven, we must all stop thinking of or having sex.


edit- formatting errors

[shafedog]

That's obviously your problem. If your going to post a dogmatic belief without any empirical evidence you've given us nothing of value to talk about.

How about the observation that perhaps sexuality and objects of desire may be determined by the brain, and as such a dysfunction may be at fault for homosexuality and pedophilia?

Surely a lack of comprehensive scientific data on the subject is not grounds for dismissing discussion.

Yes, two consenting guys or gals going at it in their bedroom is far more "OKAY" than some creep raping a 10 year old in the back of his van.

What consenting adults do with each other is not your, my, or anybody else's damn business but theirs. Bring in a minor who is not necessarily old enough to make educated and rational decisions, and that's entirely different.

I never said anything about acting out.

I see no reason why hetero should be vilified any less than homo or pedo.

Perhaps one is not a dysfunction, unlike the others?

I am not religious.

[RAGEAngel9]

well I know pedophilia is not a dysfunction, but what's your point......

Ok
Explain why one is not a dysfunction and the others are. Please add somethign resembling fact.

[shafedog]

well I know pedophilia is not a dysfunction

Why do you think this?

Explain why one is not a dysfunction and the others are. Please add somethign resembling fact.

How about the observation that perhaps sexuality and objects of desire may be determined by the brain, and as such a dysfunction may be at fault for homosexuality and pedophilia?

Surely a lack of comprehensive scientific data on the subject is not grounds for dismissing discussion.

[wilbjammin]

I am not religious.

I certainly wouldn't accuse you of that.

Dogmatic: Characterized by an authoritative, arrogant assertion of unproved or unprovable principles. American Heritage Dictionary

If you're going to call something dysfunctional, we need a reason why other than "I believe it is so". I don't see anything dysfunctional about homosexuality.

[*Nikki*]

Personally I don't see how to two are related at all.

Someone who finds sexual pleasure in children is a sick son of a bitch. This has nothing to do with homosexuality.

Homosexuality has nothing to do with children. It is like apples and oranges.

[shafedog]

I certainly wouldn't accuse you of that.

Dogmatic: Characterized by an authoritative, arrogant assertion of unproved or unprovable principles. American Heritage Dictionary

it was not directed to you

I don't see anything dysfunctional about homosexuality.

You believe it is out of the question that homosexuality is the cause of dysfunction of the brain?

Someone who finds sexual pleasure in children is a sick son of a bitch. This has nothing to do with homosexuality.

Homosexuality has nothing to do with children. It is like apples and oranges.

By that logic, I could say "someone who finds sexual pleasure in members of their sex is a sick son of a bitch, it has nothing to do with pedophilia."

[wilbjammin]

You believe it is out of the question that homosexuality is the cause of dysfunction of the brain?

I see homosexuality as being different than heterosexuality. How does that difference get categorized as a dysfunction. What is wrong with homosexuality?

[shafedog]

What is wrong with homosexuality?

male animal + male animal = no babies

Surely you can see where this is heading.

[bermuDa]

Originally posted by shafedog
I never said anything about acting out.

but you didn't say anything about not acting those fantasies out until subsequent posts. Seems like you were baiting us by using words that imply acts without specifying what you meant, then claiming you were only talking about desires. When you use the word "homosexual" or "pedophiliac", I don't append "non-active" before the terms, or "desires" after them. The name of this thread is misleading, as is your first post. Does anyone else feel differently?

Perhaps one is not a dysfunction, unlike the others?

I agree with will here, homosexuality is different from heterosexuality, but I don't see how that makes it dysfunctional.... what exactly makes it dysfunctional, other than it's digression from what you consider "normal"?

[Halx]

I'm still waiting for a response.

[shafedog]

When you use the word "homosexual" or "pedophiliac", I don't append "non-active" before the terms, or "desires" after them.

Then I apologize as I see them thoughts.

I'm still waiting for a response.

I'm sorry Hal, did you ask anything that wasn't rhetorical?

What does it matter to you that your neighbor has a same-sex relationship?
What does it matter to you that your neighbor masturbates from his window when he sees your daughter playing in the front yard?

My answers are that these are not what I am talking about.

But, I suppose for the first question, I wouldn't care, beyond discussion purposes.

The second is a potential risk.

[SVT01Cobra]

male animal + male animal = no babies

Surely you can see where this is heading.

Male + Female using contraception = no babies.

By your logic, if not having kids is what makes homosexuality deviant, then if you've ever used a condom you're equaly as deviant as a homosexual, and equally deviant as a pedophile.

[filtherton]

Originally posted by shafedog

You believe it is out of the question that homosexuality is the cause of dysfunction of the brain?

Are you saying that it is the cause, or just that you believe it is?
If it is the former than you are a liar, if it is the latter it would compare just as closely to depression and alcoholism as it would to pedophilia. I mean if it is just a "dysfunction of the mind" how is it any different from a gambling addiction?

You're trying to imply that there is no difference where there clearly is a huge difference. I don't know whether you're trying to play the devil's advocate or what, but we can play semantic leapfrog all night. To try to claim that there is no important difference between pedophilia and homosexuality because you could speculatively attribute their causes to dysfunctions of the brain is like claiming that there is no difference between an apple and an orange because they both grow on trees.

I noticed you abandoned your deviant argument. What's next?