For what it's worth, homosexual tendencies have been proven to be widespread among animals.
Yes and some animals are monogamous. All it proves is that every species is sexually different. For example even among felines, the South American Ocelot mates for life (monogamy). But Lions, Jaguars, and other similar big cats, very close genetically, are very promiscuous.
<strong>For what it's worth, homosexual tendencies have been proven to be widespread among animals.
Yes and some animals are monogamous. All it proves is that every species is sexually different. For example even among felines, the South American Ocelot mates for life (monogamy). But Lions, Jaguars, and other similar big cats, very close genetically, are very promiscuous.
WARNING: I watch the DISCOVERY channel!</strong><hr></blockquote>
Touché. All that proves is that it would be perfectly natural for homo sapiens to be "sexually different," as you put it.
[quote]For what it's worth, homosexual tendencies have been proven to be widespread among animals.<hr></blockquote>Exactly what does that mean?
Seriously.
Define tendencies.
You mean that even though animals mate with the opposite sex, that once in a while they like to "experiment"?
I've heard about "homosexuality" in the animal kingdom but the only time I've heard about it is when there is a disproportionate amount of one gender than the other or complete lack thereof. (wow, re-reading that sentance, I believe that it is the worst sentance I've ever written. But you get my meaning, right? )
So, dear Bradley, please clarify. I ask out of ignorance because I am ignorant. Tear down the veil and allow me to enter into the holiest of holies, that which can only be described as the vast and all encompassing light of your knowledge of the animal kingdom.
I thought someone would pick up on that, but you Belle! I credited you with a bit more intelligence <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
The thing that gets me is that other people think that they have the right to judge other people that are different in some way from them. They think they are so much better, that they get to judge other people. Baloney. We're all people, and we should all have the same rights.[/QB]<hr></blockquote>
Be careful with this " we're all people, and we should have the same rights" .If we open the debate that gays should not be seen for their sexual preference, then will this "equal" right be applied to pedophiles due to their "sexual preference" ? I am playing devil's advocate here to stress a point. Some see gays as morally depraved people just as we view pedophiles. If you open the door of rights for one sexual orientation then close it on another because you judge it as wrong, then who becomes the judge?
Be careful with this " we're all people, and we should have the same rights" .If we open the debate that gays should not be seen for their sexual preference, then will this "equal" right be applied to pedophiles due to their "sexual preference" ? I am playing devil's advocate here to stress a point. Some see gays as morally depraved people just as we view pedophiles. If you open the door of rights for one sexual orientation then close it on another because you judge it as wrong, then who becomes the judge?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Paedophilia is illegal, homosexuality is not. Paedophiles should loose their right to adopt because they broke the law.
Paedophilia is illegal, homosexuality is not. Paedophiles should loose their right to adopt because they broke the law.
J</strong>[/QUOTE
Tell that to NAMBLA..North American Man Boy Love Association..they believe that man/boy consentual love relationships are right and are trying to legalize this choice. Yes these are boys of all ages (up to 18 I would assume due to the "boy" part)who feel they should have this homosexual right without fear of legal or moral reprisal. My point was to state that discrimination of one sexual orientation but acceptance of another makes one a ...what is the favored word here right now?? yeah , a bigot. Just want all here to see that we ALL have the tendency to judge when we think something is wrong so let's not get on this soapbox of people being judgemental of this issue. We all have a belief system that will not always be agreed upon by others, no matter how much to the extreme.
I appreciate your attempt at playing devils advocate. The following is an answer to your question.
The main difference is that we as a society do not believe that a boy can consent to any sex. We believe that it is the responsibility of the law to say that if you haven't reached sexual or emotional maturity, you aren't informed enough to make the decision to have sex. One aspect of man-boy love is that it is always the man who decides to have and what the rules of the relationship are. This is essentially an increddibly more extreme version of your professor telling you to sleep with them, it is not seen as totally consentual because of the power that one has over the other.
I just think it's completely inappropriate to compare paedophiles to homosexuals. There is clearly an argument for adoption by homosexual parents, these people have done nothing wrong but it would be ludicrous to argue in favour of paedophiles adopting children.
<strong>I just think it's completely inappropriate to compare paedophiles to homosexuals. There is clearly an argument for adoption by homosexual parents, these people have done nothing wrong but it would be ludicrous to argue in favour of paedophiles adopting children.
J</strong><hr></blockquote>
I in no way compared pedophiles to homosexuals..I simply stated that there is a bias toward sexuality that is not "heterosexual"..I am well aware of the differences but my attempt was to simply open the mind here to the extreme nature of the topic. If we are to allow one sector of so called :sexual deviancy" to adopt then we are opening the door for others as well. My point is this, at what point do we say "whens" enough? Do we then have to recognize those who are sexually attracted to the same younger sex because as a society we find this wrong? (as some feel about homosexuality). Jamie I would never begin to insult you or anyone's intelligence here by saying that homosexuals and pedophiles are the same...only to point out that both are being biased against due to their sexual orientation. My sincere apology if I offended you in any way.
I in no way compared pedophiles to homosexuals..I simply stated that there is a bias toward sexuality that is not "heterosexual"..</strong><hr></blockquote>Come on, you have to know that this is a time-honored tactic - bringing up pedophiles when you're talking about gays.
And why do you think that pedophilia is not heterosexual? Either heterosexuals or homosexuals can be child molesters.
<strong>Come on, you have to know that this is a time-honored tactic - bringing up pedophiles when you're talking about gays.
And why do you think that pedophilia is not heterosexual? Either heterosexuals or homosexuals can be child molesters.</strong><hr></blockquote>
No BRussell I was not aware that this was a time honored tactic as you have stated, since I am not a gay basher. And yes peds(or child molesters as you put it) can be either hetero or homo, that was not my issue nor intent. Again my intent was to bring to light the point that opening the door for one is cause to open the door for others. Please understand that my point here is not to say gay adoptions are right or wrong..there are good cases for arguments on both sides of the fence. I have gay friends who are split down the middle on this adoption issue, some for, some strongly oppose it. And by the way BRussell, NAMBLA is riding on the coat tails of practically every gay coalition that they can, so blame someone else for "lumping the two together".
I in no way compared pedophiles to homosexuals..I simply stated that there is a bias toward sexuality that is not "heterosexual".</strong><hr></blockquote>
I think its very easy. Pedophilie(sp) is a question about sex between an adult and a child. homosexuality is a question about sex between two persons of the same sex. Its simply two different things. Even if you consider homosexuality to be as "unnatural" as sex between an adult and a child the big difference is that the latter isn´t between two equal partners.
I don´t know how the laws are in US but here we have a sexual minimum age of 15 years. Its not because its unnatural to have sex between two persons on each side of that line but because we have to protect the minor partner. So if a 14 year old and a 16 year old agree on having sex and nothing is forced (physically or psychologically) then of course the elder partner isn´t convicted for it.
I think its very easy. Pedophilie(sp) is a question about sex between an adult and a child. homosexuality is a question about sex between two persons of the same sex. Its simply two different things. Even if you consider homosexuality to be as "unnatural" as sex between an adult and a child the big difference is that the latter isn´t between two equal partners.
I don´t know how the laws are in US but here we have a sexual minimum age of 15 years. Its not because its unnatural to have sex between two persons on each side of that line but because we have to protect the minor partner. So if a 14 year old and a 16 year old agree on having sex and nothing is forced (physically or psychologically) then of course the elder partner isn´t convicted for it.</strong><hr></blockquote>
This is a good one for BRussell..15 years old and ok to have sex? Here in the states that would get you a charge of statutory rape and a jail sentence to match. The line is not so clear obviously..sex in one country with one age is a crime in another. Interesting....
I think its very easy. Pedophilie(sp) is a question about forced sex between an adult and a non-consenting child. homosexuality is a question about sex between two consenting persons of the same sex.</strong><hr></blockquote>
<strong>This has been mentioned earlier, but it seems like I should reiterate that pedophilia isn't sexual deviancy. It's a crime.
Allowing gays to adopt children won't suddenly make pedophila legal, or socially acceptable.
Why do your gay friends oppose it?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yes it is a crime and it is a deviancy. No I do not feel pedophilia should be socially acceptable either. My friends who are opposed are so because they feel their sexual orientation will bias the child's choice. Just as some feel certain religious beliefs put forth on a child give him or her no real choice since it will be their only exposure.I guess they have a right to think this just as much as my friends who are for it based upon the concept that a marriage does not need a woman and a man to be called a marriage.
Ah, but your parents called you Jamie. With a unisex name, it's no wonder you turned out gay. They cut your chances of turning out hetero in half just by signing your birth certificate!
I think it's Germany where at one time you weren't allowed to give your child an ambiguous legal name, no boys names for girls and vice versa.
It's as good a theory as any. Then again, I always thought they should call unisex hair salons bisexual hair salons.
Comments
Yes and some animals are monogamous. All it proves is that every species is sexually different. For example even among felines, the South American Ocelot mates for life (monogamy). But Lions, Jaguars, and other similar big cats, very close genetically, are very promiscuous.
WARNING: I watch the DISCOVERY channel!
<strong>For what it's worth, homosexual tendencies have been proven to be widespread among animals.
Yes and some animals are monogamous. All it proves is that every species is sexually different. For example even among felines, the South American Ocelot mates for life (monogamy). But Lions, Jaguars, and other similar big cats, very close genetically, are very promiscuous.
WARNING: I watch the DISCOVERY channel!</strong><hr></blockquote>
Touché.
Seriously.
Define tendencies.
You mean that even though animals mate with the opposite sex, that once in a while they like to "experiment"?
I've heard about "homosexuality" in the animal kingdom but the only time I've heard about it is when there is a disproportionate amount of one gender than the other or complete lack thereof. (wow, re-reading that sentance, I believe that it is the worst sentance I've ever written. But you get my meaning, right?
So, dear Bradley, please clarify. I ask out of ignorance because I am ignorant. Tear down the veil and allow me to enter into the holiest of holies, that which can only be described as the vast and all encompassing light of your knowledge of the animal kingdom.
</dripping sarcasm>
[ 03-18-2002: Message edited by: kaboom ]</p>
<strong>
Just ask <a href="http://www.yesterdayland.com/popopedia/shows/primetime/pt1106.php"; target="_blank">Nicole</a>. And her two dads were heterosexual!
I thought someone would pick up on that, but you Belle! I credited you with a bit more intelligence <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
J :cool:
The thing that gets me is that other people think that they have the right to judge other people that are different in some way from them. They think they are so much better, that they get to judge other people. Baloney. We're all people, and we should all have the same rights.[/QB]<hr></blockquote>
Be careful with this " we're all people, and we should have the same rights" .If we open the debate that gays should not be seen for their sexual preference, then will this "equal" right be applied to pedophiles due to their "sexual preference" ? I am playing devil's advocate here to stress a point. Some see gays as morally depraved people just as we view pedophiles. If you open the door of rights for one sexual orientation then close it on another because you judge it as wrong, then who becomes the judge?
<strong>
Be careful with this " we're all people, and we should have the same rights" .If we open the debate that gays should not be seen for their sexual preference, then will this "equal" right be applied to pedophiles due to their "sexual preference" ? I am playing devil's advocate here to stress a point. Some see gays as morally depraved people just as we view pedophiles. If you open the door of rights for one sexual orientation then close it on another because you judge it as wrong, then who becomes the judge?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Paedophilia is illegal, homosexuality is not. Paedophiles should loose their right to adopt because they broke the law.
J
<strong>
Paedophilia is illegal, homosexuality is not. Paedophiles should loose their right to adopt because they broke the law.
J</strong>[/QUOTE
Tell that to NAMBLA..North American Man Boy Love Association..they believe that man/boy consentual love relationships are right and are trying to legalize this choice. Yes these are boys of all ages (up to 18 I would assume due to the "boy" part)who feel they should have this homosexual right without fear of legal or moral reprisal. My point was to state that discrimination of one sexual orientation but acceptance of another makes one a ...what is the favored word here right now?? yeah , a bigot. Just want all here to see that we ALL have the tendency to judge when we think something is wrong so let's not get on this soapbox of people being judgemental of this issue. We all have a belief system that will not always be agreed upon by others, no matter how much to the extreme.
The main difference is that we as a society do not believe that a boy can consent to any sex. We believe that it is the responsibility of the law to say that if you haven't reached sexual or emotional maturity, you aren't informed enough to make the decision to have sex. One aspect of man-boy love is that it is always the man who decides to have and what the rules of the relationship are. This is essentially an increddibly more extreme version of your professor telling you to sleep with them, it is not seen as totally consentual because of the power that one has over the other.
pi
J
<strong>I just think it's completely inappropriate to compare paedophiles to homosexuals. There is clearly an argument for adoption by homosexual parents, these people have done nothing wrong but it would be ludicrous to argue in favour of paedophiles adopting children.
J</strong><hr></blockquote>
I in no way compared pedophiles to homosexuals..I simply stated that there is a bias toward sexuality that is not "heterosexual"..I am well aware of the differences but my attempt was to simply open the mind here to the extreme nature of the topic. If we are to allow one sector of so called :sexual deviancy" to adopt then we are opening the door for others as well. My point is this, at what point do we say "whens" enough? Do we then have to recognize those who are sexually attracted to the same younger sex because as a society we find this wrong? (as some feel about homosexuality). Jamie I would never begin to insult you or anyone's intelligence here by saying that homosexuals and pedophiles are the same...only to point out that both are being biased against due to their sexual orientation. My sincere apology if I offended you in any way.
<strong>
I in no way compared pedophiles to homosexuals..I simply stated that there is a bias toward sexuality that is not "heterosexual"..</strong><hr></blockquote>Come on, you have to know that this is a time-honored tactic - bringing up pedophiles when you're talking about gays.
And why do you think that pedophilia is not heterosexual? Either heterosexuals or homosexuals can be child molesters.
<strong>Come on, you have to know that this is a time-honored tactic - bringing up pedophiles when you're talking about gays.
And why do you think that pedophilia is not heterosexual? Either heterosexuals or homosexuals can be child molesters.</strong><hr></blockquote>
No BRussell I was not aware that this was a time honored tactic as you have stated, since I am not a gay basher. And yes peds(or child molesters as you put it) can be either hetero or homo, that was not my issue nor intent. Again my intent was to bring to light the point that opening the door for one is cause to open the door for others. Please understand that my point here is not to say gay adoptions are right or wrong..there are good cases for arguments on both sides of the fence. I have gay friends who are split down the middle on this adoption issue, some for, some strongly oppose it. And by the way BRussell, NAMBLA is riding on the coat tails of practically every gay coalition that they can, so blame someone else for "lumping the two together".
[ 03-18-2002: Message edited by: Robertp ]</p>
<strong>
I in no way compared pedophiles to homosexuals..I simply stated that there is a bias toward sexuality that is not "heterosexual".</strong><hr></blockquote>
I think its very easy. Pedophilie(sp) is a question about sex between an adult and a child. homosexuality is a question about sex between two persons of the same sex. Its simply two different things. Even if you consider homosexuality to be as "unnatural" as sex between an adult and a child the big difference is that the latter isn´t between two equal partners.
I don´t know how the laws are in US but here we have a sexual minimum age of 15 years. Its not because its unnatural to have sex between two persons on each side of that line but because we have to protect the minor partner. So if a 14 year old and a 16 year old agree on having sex and nothing is forced (physically or psychologically) then of course the elder partner isn´t convicted for it.
Allowing gays to adopt children won't suddenly make pedophila legal, or socially acceptable.
[quote]Originally posted by Robertp:
I have gay friends who are split down the middle on this adoption issue, some for, some strongly oppose it. <hr></blockquote>
Why do your gay friends oppose it?
<strong>
I think its very easy. Pedophilie(sp) is a question about sex between an adult and a child. homosexuality is a question about sex between two persons of the same sex. Its simply two different things. Even if you consider homosexuality to be as "unnatural" as sex between an adult and a child the big difference is that the latter isn´t between two equal partners.
I don´t know how the laws are in US but here we have a sexual minimum age of 15 years. Its not because its unnatural to have sex between two persons on each side of that line but because we have to protect the minor partner. So if a 14 year old and a 16 year old agree on having sex and nothing is forced (physically or psychologically) then of course the elder partner isn´t convicted for it.</strong><hr></blockquote>
This is a good one for BRussell..15 years old and ok to have sex? Here in the states that would get you a charge of statutory rape and a jail sentence to match. The line is not so clear obviously..sex in one country with one age is a crime in another. Interesting....
[quote]Originally posted by Anders:
<strong>
I think its very easy. Pedophilie(sp) is a question about forced sex between an adult and a non-consenting child. homosexuality is a question about sex between two consenting persons of the same sex.</strong><hr></blockquote>
(My additions in italics.)
J
[ 03-18-2002: Message edited by: Jamie ]</p>
<strong>This has been mentioned earlier, but it seems like I should reiterate that pedophilia isn't sexual deviancy. It's a crime.
Allowing gays to adopt children won't suddenly make pedophila legal, or socially acceptable.
Why do your gay friends oppose it?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yes it is a crime and it is a deviancy. No I do not feel pedophilia should be socially acceptable either. My friends who are opposed are so because they feel their sexual orientation will bias the child's choice. Just as some feel certain religious beliefs put forth on a child give him or her no real choice since it will be their only exposure.I guess they have a right to think this just as much as my friends who are for it based upon the concept that a marriage does not need a woman and a man to be called a marriage.
[ 03-18-2002: Message edited by: Jamie ]</p>
<strong>
My friends who are opposed are so because they feel their sexual orientation will bias the child's choice.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I must be an exception to the rule then. My parents were both straight yet I turned out gay.
J
Ah, but your parents called you Jamie. With a unisex name, it's no wonder you turned out gay. They cut your chances of turning out hetero in half just by signing your birth certificate!
I think it's Germany where at one time you weren't allowed to give your child an ambiguous legal name, no boys names for girls and vice versa.
It's as good a theory as any. Then again, I always thought they should call unisex hair salons bisexual hair salons.
:brain fart over now.
[ 03-18-2002: Message edited by: Matsu ]</p>