Leauki posts:

nitrocruiser posts:

Exactly. Even psychiatrists disagree as to whether or not homosxuality is "normal".

Homosexuality is not natural as the body parts don't fit. The only life homosexuality produces is bacteriological and it isn't good.

 

 

 

 

Lula, Nitro:

 

..and...

 

 

Took me less than thirty seconds to find it; here's some data/empirical evidence...the APA/UC Davis...those darn experts. In the matter of disagreement, it comes down to bias simply. 

 

Source: http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/HTML/facts_mental_health.HTML

 

~AJ

So did you ask your professors what causes Pedophilia (that was used as an example, I'm not associating that with being gay) or Homosexuality? I'm sure it's neurological in both cases. It's definitely not a a physical phenomenon. Although I did hear a few years back that scans of the pituitary gland in straight males were different in gay males, not sure how accurate that info was and it doesn't seem to account for lesbians. So if both are conditions of the mind, I believe they are more related than your well meaning professors might suggest (lawsuits are rife these days). If you have a source of cause (for either) I'd be interested to hear it. IMO you're not born with a personality, you develope one over time

If you do find it to be neurological (either case) or chemical imbalance, wouldn't you agree the most compassionate thing to do would be to find a cure?

Then why did you state (in the other thread) that those with different opinions need not respond.

And yet it was just a couple of decades ago that Homosexuality was considered a mental disorder.  How did it get taken out of the DSM-IV?  Popular vote.

If pedophilia ever gets taken out of the DSM-IV, will you continue to think of it as a mental disorder?  or will you follow "popular vote" and consider it "normal"?

This is not to say that homosexuality is the same as pedophilia, because it isn't.  However, if you are going to base your arguments on something, at least do it on a basis that can't be changed as readily as the DSM.

 

 

First...

 

How do things get passed in the democratic process in our country? Popular vote essentially; you either vote on it, or you vote for a congressman/woman to represent you and vote on it (still...popular vote, same principle).

 

 

Second...

 

Your comment is annoyingly ignorant.

 

DSM <--- APA Panel review <--- Rigorous peer review <-- Research (Experiements, with empirical evidence/proof, et al.)

 

That's usually the normal way things get into it. So, your comment is wrong, because it's not changed as "readily" as you think. They don't do it with a mere raise of hands like a grade school class. 

 

 

Third...

 

Pedophilia will NOT get out of it, because evidence CLEARLY shows that it is a disorder/illness; where as homosexuality never did. There's a difference between taking out something that was put in under heavy influence from Psychoanalysts. Heck, right off the bat there's the problem of bias; then they generally knew the person was homosexual, subsequently that knowledge skewered results. There's no validity what-so-ever in it's process. 

So, which would you believe when it comes to a science....a process that ensures that it is unbiased/empirically based and seeks to make sure that the results are valid? (i.e. double blind, etc. ) Or...a process that takes into account prior information that - when such is the case - taken into account with the analyst's bias (etc)...? You get the picture...

 

For the record Ted, I based it off of those who are the experts (not you, not limbaugh, not olbermann...them)

 

~AJ

 

Mmm, perhaps fear was a bad choice as a word. That being said, my comment:

 

 

Simply put...I was saying that if you don't like it, then why read it? Why bother with a comment? Don't waste your time nor mine. As for snide comments - it pretty much comes down to the fact that: 1) I don't want to deal with them because of my mood. 2) It's my blog and just like anyone else here, I reserve the right to - if i want to - be picky on things. Oddly enough I'm not normally picky and have never deleted comments or blacklisted people for their opinions. (etc.)

 

 

 

 

Btw, Nitro, I'm going to go make sure I have it all right before I reply to your first comment. I think I do, but you never know. 

 

~AJ

AJ: Almost every argument that works for homosexuality also works for pedophilia.  The pedophile feels just as attracted to kids or teens (depending on the kind of pedophile they are) as a gay person is attracted to the same sex, or for that matter, heterosexuals are to the opposite sex.  They feel just as discriminated against and abused because of their sexuality as homosexuals do.

In fact, they (pedophiles) use the similar treatment by the government, medicine, psychology and science (as well as the general public) as evidence that they are "normal" and it's just a matter of time and education before they will be just as accepted by society as gay people are now.

They also point to the past to show cultures that allowed pedophilia, showing that it isn't detrimental to anyone... just like homosexual activists do. 

When homosexuality was taken out of the DSM, it was the result of a huge political campaign launched for that purpose.  As you pointed out, it isn't a simple procedure, but it also isn't exactly scientific either.  But then again, "scientific review" boards have a lot more to do with the names that can be dropped than the raw data, no matter what the topic might be.

My point is, the same procedure and pressure that was used to remove homosexuality can also be used to remove pedophilia.  If we base it completely on what is and isn't in the DSM, are we willing to accept pedophilia as "normal" if it were taken out of the DSM?

Would you embrace pedophilia as "normal"?

 

From my reconning, I think where homosexuality was in the 60, pedophilia is today.  We see a lot of examples of it being not only tolerated but even defended.  It is joked about in songs and even has a few Supreme Court decisions promoting it. 

It may be a "slippery slope" to bring it up in connection with same sex marriage, but it isn't if when the argument for ssm is based on "you should be able to marry who you love" or "equal rights".   As we speak, many of the arguments being used to support ssm are being used to defend pedophilia.

Again... before the accusations fly... I don't equate homosexuality with pedophilia because they aren't the same thing at all.

 

Uh, ted, it's simple. Pedophilia IS detrimental to the non-consenting child (Just ask my younger sister...). I don't know where they (p) were pointing to, and why would anyone trust them when they're obviously having issues. It would be like believing a robber that told you that he didn't steal the money. As for homosexuality ted, ultimately it *isn't* detrimental to anyone who accepts it or deals with it.

Now wait, let me finish. 

What I mean is that there are those who may realize that they're homosexual, but don't want to be. If they choose to ignore it, and further complicate things - then - it becomes detrimental, causing all sorts of problems. Wheras if they accept it - that it is there and a part of who they are, then it isn't detrimental. 

Essentially: Ego-dystonic sexual orientation.

 

It's a diagnosis that's in the DSM; to paraphrase it is when the sexual orientation/preference is known, but the person chooses to fight it (i.e. it conflicts) because they wish it were different, though it is what it is (fact). Treatment is often sought. 

(Am.Psych.Assoc.)

 

Essentially it's what some of those pop culture priests and missions deal with. You know "heal the homo," and "fight the sin." Oddly enough, many of the people running these things are not exactly qualified to deal with psychological/psychiatric disorders, etc. 

Makes me want to go to them! Anyways, back on topic. 

 

Homosexuality, as shown through the various studies, poses NO danger to the individual, nor the bystander, plain and simple. 

 

I would love to see you prove it is detrimental; I'm confident I could counter it. 

 

 

Where you there? Proof? Evidence? 

 

 

Granted, as could it be used to do anything, but the fact is that they are the experts. They're the ones that know what they're talking about and made the decision based on what facts/evidence they had. To be honest, I could make the same damn argument about anything you bring up here. Credibility is key. 

First off, I highly doubt it will be, there's just too much evidence against such an action. Secondly, even if they did, I wouldn't prefer it, but I would accept their expertise on the matter and do my own reading on it.

 

 

Ted,

The problem with your argument is that a homosexual person would first and foremost be able to get consent from a legal adult. They are also of safe and sound mind (setting aside the points about mental health issues due to whatever life brings). A Pedophile cannot get legal consent to marry a child, nor can he/she enter into any contractual marriage.

Also, while they could enter into a contract with a child in some states, they all (to my knowledge) require parental consent. Next, according to my (credible) sources, (and they are the experts when it comes to psychiatric and psychological issues and information) pedophiles are shown to likely not be of safe and sound mind. That's a big difference ted, because that means that they are not mentally fit to enter into any contract (not only that but they have to name out the terms of the contract anyways). 

The reason why the pedophile is not of safe and sound mind is because Pedophilia is a mental illness/disorder. The definition of that, according to the APA (et al) is: "...a psychological or behavioral pattern that occurs in an individual and is thought to cause distress or disability that is not expected as part of normal development or culture," and their definition of homosexuality, “...implies no impairment in judgment, stability, reliability, or general social and vocational capabilities." 

 

 

AJ: Everything you just said about pedophilia was also said about homosexuality until fairly recently in our history.

How often do we hear that convicted pedophiles should never be allowed out of prison because it can't be cured... they are "made" that way apparently.  How is that different than the concept of trying to "cure" the gay person?

Furthermore, all my arguments here have been based on the person themselves.  How they feel within themselves.  If a gay person never has a same sex encounter are they any less gay?  If a pedophile never has a sexual experience with a child, are they any less a pedophile?  Up until a few decades ago we expected the gay person to curb their desires for the same sex.  Today we still expect the pedophile to do the same.  In fact, we demand that they go against their sexual proclivities while we claim "equal rights" for everyone else.

In fact, our society has pretty much done a 180 when it comes to homosexuality.  Not only do they have the right to their sexual desires, no one has the right to deny it of them... even in situations where it would be illegal for heterosexuals to engage in sexual activities.

Today we have the cases where an adult woman gets pregnant by a minor.  We still arrest her and punish her accordingly, but look that the public outcry against doing that.  How many boys really consider sexual activity with adult women a "negative" thing?  How many people in general do?

If an 18 year old gay man has sex with his 16 year old lover any different than the same two 2 years later when the younger one is 18 and the older one is 20?  Of course there is a difference, but what would the reaction be if the 19 year old was arrested and charged with statutory rape?  The irony is people would defend him by pointing out that you they don't arrest 18 year old heterosexuals for having sex with 16 year olds... of course, the irony would be that both are just as illegal in a state where the age of consent is 18.

As far as what you said about parental consent, let me tell you another story about the friend I talked about in my "3 friends" article.

In one of the conversations we had while he was still in prison, I asked him, "where were the parents in all this"?

His answer was by far the most ominous thing I've ever heard...

"By the time anything sexual was going on, the parents loved me so much that they would have taken my word over the word of their own teenager."

That is one of the reasons I keep so up to date on pedophilia.  It is also why I (admittedly) get on my soapbox about it at times.  It's not just an abstract concept to me, not when there are parents who allow it, a public that defends it and an APA that actually considered the question of taking pedophilia out of the DSM.  OF course, to their credit, it stayed in there where it belongs... but it was far from unanimous.

Don't believe me that pedophilia is emerging from the dark corners of the YMCA and movie theaters to the light of day?

http://www.intermale.nl/boy-teen.html

This is a bookstore in The Netherlands, these books aren't hidden, they are on display both in the store and on the internet. Notice the name of the bookstore while you're there.

 

 

 

That is true for statements about morality. But it's not true for statements about what is natural. Homosexuality is natural because it occurs in nature outside human influence. It's a normal natural behaviour.




And what's the problem with accepting both?

If 10% of cows were two-headed, wouldn't we simply accept that 10% of cows were two-headed? Much less than 10% of sheep are black, but do we condemn black sheep (except metaphorically) or call them "un-natural"?




Actually, it does. That's exactly what defines normality. If black sheep appear with a rate of 1 out of 100 sheep, we should accept black sheep as a normal, although rare, occurence. It is not out of the order, it is normal. It conforms to a pattern.

Maybe about 10% of the human population are homosexual. That appears to be a pattern. It's normal.

It's about the same percentage as blue eyes and yellow hair (perhaps). And blue-eyed and yellow-haired individuals are quite normal too. Nobody would (or should) look at them and claim that they are un-natural and not normal and hence must not be accepted.




Pedophilia, the emotion, is acceptable, although not normal (it does not regularly occur in human beings). Acting on it is not.

The problem with acting on pedophilia is that it involves forcing other people to participate, i.e. raping children. The problem with raping children is not that the rapist enjoys it but that the children are being raped. (Similarly the problem with murder is not that the murderer derives pleasure or some other advantage from the deed but that the victim is dead afterwards.)

Homosexuality does not carry with it that type of problem. It is perfectly possible for homosexuals to live out their urges without affecting anybody else in any way other than ways in which heterosexuals also affect other people.

You cannot be an active pedophile, murderer, or thief without affecting other people against their will.

But you can be a homosexual, heterosexual, or blacksmith without affecting other people against their will.

As a heteroexual I am as affected by a homosexual practicing his sexuality as a homosexual is affected by a heterosexual practiving her sexuality. Neither carries with it the problems that pedophilia and murder come with.

The concept of marriage is changing to accept it.

Depends on if you're teaching your child tolerance or hatred. What if you were an anti-Semite?

Cannabalism, rape, murder, even throwing of ones feces all happen in nature.  Does that mean they are "normal"?  What we woud define as pedophilia and even incest occur in nature also.  Does that mean they are normal?

 Could it be that human beings are the only ones who even give either much thought?

 

btw, I'm glad we do. :~D

 

 

Depends on the animal.

For certain species of spider, cannibalism, rape and murder are common and normal. They usually happen during mating. It's a part of their behaviour.

For certain apes and monkies throwing feces is quite normal too, I believe. (Alternatively, they are signs of behavioural disorders among apes kept in captivity; I don't know.)

For the human species I would say that cannibalism, rape and murder are not normal. There are arguably fewer murderers and rapists among us than homosexuals. We simply don't have the number of children to survive as a species where murder is normal. If we had as many murderers among us as we have homosexuals we would have died out thousands of years ago.

 

For some species they are, for some they are not.

Incest was probably normal for humanity before we decided, as a society, than it should be illegal because of the effect it has on descendants. That was probably several thousand years ago. The Bible still tells us stories of people who were very close to their cousins.

Pedophilia was normal, I believe, in Greek culture before Christianity.

Homosexuality is natural, normal for many species including humanity, and doesn't create victims in any way other than that in which heterosexuality also creates victims.