Doctors group says heterosexual marriage better for kids

How can a child consent to sex when they dont even fully appreciate the idea.

Therefore every pedophile that has sexual relations with a child is in contempt for rape.

 

Yes, this is what I have been saying the whole time. Children cannot give consent. Any adult who has sex with an underage person is a rapist, consent is irrelevant. And note, an adult doesn't necessarily have to be a paedophile to have sex with someone who is underage.

I think sexual or other base impulses, are completely involuntary and are devoid of morality. I don't think it's "right" to act on impulses, and so Paedophilia cannot be "wrong". It's a bit like the Church of England saying, it's okay to be a homosexual as long as you don't commit any homosexual acts, or, hate the sin not the sinner. A Paedophile cannot help being attracted to children, he's not doing anything "wrong" just because he gets certain sexual impulses. What's wrong is if they rape a child.

Yes child pornography is illegal, and an adult having sex with a child is illegal. Paedophilia is a medical diagnosis, and it is not illegal. You cannot get locked up just for finding underage persons sexually attractive.

 

Finally something we agree on LOL.

 

Agree again. So, if you are saying paedophilia is illness, so is it the homosexuality as well, or there is a separation line somewhere? Statistically speaking, I think paedophiles are more often attracted to boys.

 

I didn't say it was an "illness". For instance, having 6 toes isn't an "illness", nor is it "normal", it's just a sort of biological quirk. No, statistically speaking I don't think paedophiles are more attracted to boys. This might "seem" to be the case, simply because adult men are more easily trusted in a position of authority over young boys than over young girls. But I think you'll find if you look at the statistics, that there's no correlation between paedophilia and homosexuality. Logically this makes sense, as prepubescent boys and girls are quite similar in appearance. For example, a 10 year old boy looks more like a 10 year old girl than they do a 40 year old man.

The question of "right" and "wrong" is a moral question. I don't think that morality is relevant to sexual urges, it's only relevant to your actions. An adult man might be sexually attracted to a 15 year old girl who is "fully developed" sexually. It's not "wrong" for him to feel this attraction, but it would be wrong if he were to have sex with her.

Obviously, biologically it doesn't make sense for a human to be sexually attracted to a human who can't produce an offspring with them. But that's not "wrong", and in fact this is true of many heterosexual couples.

What's "wrong" is rape.

 

Statistically speaking, it's girls. But pedophiles target whatever child is most accessible. They often don't worry about gender.

It is an illness, a paraphilia.

Homosexuality is an orientation, like heterosexuality.

Neither has any direct connection to pedophilia.

 

I must be slow on the uptake here. Urges have to be a precursor to an action??? Perpetrators of child sex crimes have acted on their urges, which seems obvious to me. Because we don't know who is a pedophile unless it manifests, seems too much of a gamble for me to simply suggest they are "not wrong" to have these urges, as long as they don't rape a child. Shouldnt we be discouraging them from having these urges, that have the potential of a physical act. What are your thoughts on pedophiles who use child porn for self gratification?

Or, are you saying that there are many pedophiles that are in control of their urges to the point that they will not physically harm a child for self gratification?

 

Please define the word "orientation". I would also appreciate seeing the statistics you were talking about. I admit I have none and only speaking based on personal observations. Can se say a pedophile is "oriented" towards being attracted by children just line a homosexual is oriented towards being attracted by people of the same gender?

 

I cant see what the difference is personally between heterosexual attraction, homosexual attraction and pedophilic attraction as all types of human sexual orientation. I also dont see what the big deal about that is either?

There is a huge myth being pushed around here that homosexuality is linked to pedophilia and it isnt.

 

You don't have to have an "urge" in order to perpetrate an action. For instance, heterosexual men can rape homosexual men as an act of dominance, or of some learned hatred, and not through fulfilling an urge of sexual attraction.

A Paedophile can be diagnosed as such without having sexually assaulted a child. In the same way you can be heterosexual even if you are a virgin.

You can't "discourage" someone from having urges. All you can do is to help them deal with these urges in a non-destructive way. In the same way that an alcoholic might have an urge to drink, and you provide a support mechanism to help them refrain from pursuing a destructive action.

You can't just say, for instance to a heterosexual, "stop being attracted to women". Or say to an insane person, "stop being insane". It's not realistically going to be effective is it? All you can do is to help them manage their situation in a way that is not destructive, either to other people or themselves. It's possible for people to live without having sexual intercourse with another person, and it's also possible for people to have sex with people that they are not sexually attracted to.

 

Thanks Ziggy, one day it will probably hit me, where everything you've stated makes complete sense. You've actually helped my understanding on a number of points regarding it. At the moment my mind is in protective mode, especially as a father and have always considered child sex crimes the most hideous and evil of them all and will never change my position on this one!

 

Our society can do without the perverted individuals that call themselves homosexuals and pedophiles.

What a better place it would be without this lot.

And no one would miss anything they have to offer.

Thats my final thoughts on this subject.

 

Without personally taking sides, but in the light of the 312 posts above, this assumption appears as a correct one.

 

No, it's not a "correct assumption", it's just a bigoted opinion held by a tiny minority of Australians. Apparently you want to exterminate Homosexuals and Paedophiles, I'm not even going to bother addressing that belief, other than to say it is completely insane.

 

Dumb, you are a bigot and belong with the conservatives. Stay there!

 

Why would you say that? Based on what people are saying including your own posts and no matter if called an "illness" or "orientation", all agreed it is something that differs from the hererosexual way, which is defined as "normal" or maybe better say "typical", by nature, not people. Since this is untypical, its value can only be deemed based on what benefit it brings to society. I read all the posts so far, but never saw any word what is the benefit to the society that those people can bring, while the negative parts of it were clearly described. No benefit means no reason. Hence, excluding the personal biasing of its author, the assumption made by dumbanddumber, appears to be a correct one.

 

So you think the world would be better off, if for instance, we could have read Elton John's mind when he younger, and killed him off before he'd written any music?

Anyway, your arguing with the naturalistic fallacy so this is a bit redundant.

 

My personal opinion is without any importance, only pointing out the summary of all posts. I don't know Elton John and can't tell is it better for the world if he lived or not. Is he a homosexual parent or a pedophile? If his contirubution can outweigh his natural weaknesses, probably you would be completely right. If there are many people in his group, that somehow benefit the entire society, then the whole initial assumption would be wrong. That was not mentioned until now.

 

You can google Elton Johns music if you like, he is a homosexual.

In what way is homosexuality a "weakness"?

There is no negative effective of Homosexuality. Unless you're saying that people who don't want or intend to produce offspring should also be "exterminated", or whatever you're proposing.

 

I am not proposing anything. Just assuming the author above was correct based on the posts in this topic so far. Probably "weakness" was not the proper word. Apologies for that. If homosexuality can be of any benefit to the world, then it would be acceptable for it as a whole, otherwise there is no reason to seek support for it by the whole society. Excluding exceptional individuals that probably exist in any social group.
The person above says this: "And no one would miss anything they have to offer.". But no one before said what the group of homosexuals can offer to the world.

 

But what is your point? What does heterosexuality offer? Homosexuality doesn't prevent you from reproducing, heterosexuality doesn't mean you will produce children. So what are you talking about? Homosexuals contribute to society in exactly the same way as everyone else. They're doctors, lawyers, artists, labourers, accountants, etc. I would certainly miss the contributions of for instance, Elton John, Steven Fry, Ian McKellan, and countless other homosexual individuals, not to mention personal friends of mine. Am I not "someone"? It's just a completely ridiculous and obviously untrue statement, and I have absolutely no idea why you would assume it was correct.

 

I could be wrong just like anyone else. Your personal friends don't count as well as the exceptional individuals belonging to the group. What counts is only the group as a whole. If homosexuals contrubute to the society as much as the others and without requiring any special attention, then I believe the whole topic is pointless. Can you confirm that is the case?

 

He is also married, with a baby son. The homophobes must be outraged over that.

 

Yes, yes it is the case.