Who didn't see this one coming?

[auburnfootball08 0]

Those so called "experts" are crazy for thinking this

[AUDub 11,131]

I take any organization that at it's foundation evangelizes and promotes child rape seriously. What I don't understand is how it exists in the 1st place...In the same way I take Planned Parenthood seriously; given they believe that a woman can murder her live born child. This too sounds preposterous; but they too exist and that is the policy they promote...should I take them serious? Of course; as they seem to have the ear of the political left and openly promote murder of unborn children (which they have previously deemed not really children); and now live children (which is hard to square with the abortion stance)...

They exist because in a world of 7 billion people there are bound to be a few nuts. They're allowed to spout their nonsense, however abhorrent it may be, and it's constitutionally protected. But you have to keep in mind that there aren't many of those people. Just a handful of nuts in a world full of them.

Also, just out of curiosity, who are "they" from your prior comment?

I don't get offended. Calling it gay "marriage" is just incorrect.

Well, since we're on the topic, it's not incorrect according to Merriam-Webster or the OED. Nonetheless, I'll continue to refrain from referring to it as such. But that's beside the point. I'm really more interested in your thoughts on this portion of my comment:

Yet I can't help but feel the association of the acceptance of gay rights with the acceptance child molestation is an unfair association. I guess it depends on whether you consider past opposition to homosexuality as having been fair to homosexuals. From my perspective, it could be considered righting a past wrong.

The same can not be said of child molestation. By its very nature, the act includes a victim.

[Weegle777 78]

I take any organization that at it's foundation evangelizes and promotes child rape seriously. What I don't understand is how it exists in the 1st place...In the same way I take Planned Parenthood seriously; given they believe that a woman can murder her live born child. This too sounds preposterous; but they too exist and that is the policy they promote...should I take them serious? Of course; as they seem to have the ear of the political left and openly promote murder of unborn children (which they have previously deemed not really children); and now live children (which is hard to square with the abortion stance)...

They exist because in a world of 7 billion people there are bound to be a few nuts. They're allowed to spout their nonsense, however abhorrent it may be, and it's constitutionally protected. But you have to keep in mind that there aren't many of those people. Just a handful of nuts in a world full of them.

Also, just out of curiosity, who are "they" from your prior comment?

I don't get offended. Calling it gay "marriage" is just incorrect.

Well, since we're on the topic, it's not incorrect according to Merriam-Webster or the OED. Nonetheless, I'll continue to refrain from referring to it as such. But that's beside the point. I'm really more interested in your thoughts on this portion of my comment:

Yet I can't help but feel the association of the acceptance of gay rights with the acceptance child molestation is an unfair association. I guess it depends on whether you consider past opposition to homosexuality as having been fair to homosexuals. From my perspective, it could be considered righting a past wrong.

The same can not be said of child molestation. By its very nature, the act includes a victim.

Violence against a person for a sin is wrong. Period. We all sin. We should love people where they are and show them the love of Christ that He showed us and help them to deal with what they are bound by. The only wrong I see is that people were attacked because of sin. Judge not, lest ye be judged by the standards that you judge others by.

The comparison wasn't to say that if you are homosexual, that you are a pedophile. That isn't what I meant. I used homosexuality to make a point about how easy it is to get something accepted as years pass.

[homersapien 11,354]

Technically, you may be correct. But I still believe that if the door is opened to governmental sanctioned unions between two people of the same gender, that will pave the way for these other "orientations" to be advocated for by their organizations for acceptance. And listen, I don't hate people that are homosexual. I never have. I do hate the bondage they are under by that sin. People have asked me how my church handles having homosexuals in our congregation. I tell them that no one is ever excluded because of chains that have them bound. Love the person, hate the sin.

Sorry for butting in.

On your point about advocacy. There are already organizations that advocate unacceptable relationships alternatives. NAMBLA for example. There aren't many of those sick individuals. I just don't see how the logical leap could be made that would suggest the acceptance of gay marriage would somehow lead to these kinds of organizations gaining traction. When you start talking about relationship alternatives that include a victim (or any other party incapable of informed consent), that's where I draw the line.

Please read this example with an open mind:

Many moons ago, homosexuality was around, but it was frowned upon to the extent that if you came out, you very well might get hanged by some group of angry villagers. Years went by, through the 60's and 70's homosexuals became bolder about coming out. It was still frowned upon, but those groups that would violently oppose it went away and it became more accepted. Now it is to the point that if you frown upon that lifestyle, you are no longer considered a moral person by society, but a bigot that is a part of a hate group. Do you see where I am going with this? Now, substitute pedophilia in the last paragraph, where homosexuality is. Given many years to pass, that sick lifestyle may very well follow that same path.

If you were to ask people that lived back in the days where homosexuals were violently opposed, I would almost guarantee you that they would have the same shocked opposition to homosexuals that we have toward pedophiles.

Weegle you are an absolute hoot!

You just protested to me that you weren't associating pedophilia with homosexuality as I implied, and then what do you do?

You clearly make an association between pedophilia and homosexuality in your very next post!

No I didn't. It was an example of how things like this can happen. There is no comparison. Think a little harder.

LOL!

Why does it often seem to boil down to a semantical argument with folks like you"

"No, it's not gay "marriage".

"No I didn't make a "comparison" (even when you clearly did).

Hint: If one draws up an analogy between pedophilia and homosexuality as an example of what could happen, then you are making an "association" between the two. You are grouping them in similar categories.

You cannot make such associations then turn around and say you aren't comparing them in some way.

[homersapien 11,354]

Please read this example with an open mind:

Many moons ago, homosexuality was around, but it was frowned upon to the extent that if you came out, you very well might get hanged by some group of angry villagers. Years went by, through the 60's and 70's homosexuals became bolder about coming out. It was still frowned upon, but those groups that would violently oppose it went away and it became more accepted. Now it is to the point that if you frown upon that lifestyle, you are no longer considered a moral person by society, but a bigot that is a part of a hate group. Do you see where I am going with this? Now, substitute pedophilia in the last paragraph, where homosexuality is. Given many years to pass, that sick lifestyle may very well follow that same path.

If you were to ask people that lived back in the days where homosexuals were violently opposed, I would almost guarantee you that they would have the same shocked opposition to homosexuals that we have toward pedophiles.

I really do understand your opposition to gay marriage. I'm not saying I agree with it, but it would be unfair of me to judge you by it.

Yet I can't help but feel the association of the acceptance of gay rights with the acceptance child molestation is an unfair association. I guess it depends on whether you consider past opposition to homosexuality as having been fair to homosexuals. From my perspective, it could be considered righting a past wrong.

The same can not be said of child molestation. By its very nature, the act includes a victim.

...the fact that there is an advocacy group called NAMBLA is prima facia evidence that that is the direction they hope to take this...

You've said this twice now. I have to ask, do you take NAMBLA seriously?

That's not to say they aren't serious about their aims. No doubt they believe the garbage they advocate. I'm just looking at it from the perspective that they are pretty much universally reviled.

I take any organization that at it's foundation evangelizes and promotes child rape seriously. What I don't understand is how it exists in the 1st place...In the same way I take Planned Parenthood seriously; given they believe that a woman can murder her live born child. This too sounds preposterous; but they too exist and that is the policy they promote...should I take them serious? Of course; as they seem to have the ear of the political left and openly promote murder of unborn children (which they have previously deemed not really children); and now live children (which is hard to square with the abortion stance)...

Well, here is something to chew on that might help with your cognitive dissonance.

While you might believe so, most people do not accept the idea of abortion as "murdering a child". That is a minority view fueled by a religious belief and is obviously phrased to "beg the question".

As far as pedophilia is concerned, a huge majority of people do feel it is raping a child.

That might partly explain why the former is legal, at least under certain circumstances, and why the latter is illegal and will remain so.

Does that help?

[TitanTiger 20,471]

Just because two things aren't the same in every way doesn't mean it is wrong or should be taboo to compare them in ANY way. Homosexuality and pedophilia (and polygamy and polyamory and various other things) do all fall under a broad heading of (depending on your viewpoint) "deviant (from the norm) sexual practices" or "non-normal" or "niche" or whatever word you'd like to apply. This is not just from a religious perspective either. Viewpoints on each of those range from "some acceptance" to "almost universally condemned", but it doesn't mean you can't draw any basis of comparison in terms of attitudes changing over time toward practices once though to be wrong, taboo, deviant or whatever.

[AUDub 11,131]

Violence against a person for a sin is wrong. Period. We all sin. We should love people where they are and show them the love of Christ that He showed us and help them to deal with what they are bound by. The only wrong I see is that people were attacked because of sin. Judge not, lest ye be judged by the standards that you judge others by.

Were it that more people understood and modeled their worldview by these words, we would all be much happier as a race.

The comparison wasn't to say that if you are homosexual, that you are a pedophile. That isn't what I meant. I used homosexuality to make a point about how easy it is to get something accepted as years pass.

I apologize if that's what you took from that post. It wasn't my intention to level such an accusation. I just believe the point is invalid because there really is no comparison to be made. It's like saying the case could be made for armed robbery, murder, arson, or any other act that victimizes another individual, lobbying efforts by sickos notwithstanding.

[homersapien 11,354]

I take any organization that at it's foundation evangelizes and promotes child rape seriously. What I don't understand is how it exists in the 1st place...In the same way I take Planned Parenthood seriously; given they believe that a woman can murder her live born child. This too sounds preposterous; but they too exist and that is the policy they promote...should I take them serious? Of course; as they seem to have the ear of the political left and openly promote murder of unborn children (which they have previously deemed not really children); and now live children (which is hard to square with the abortion stance)...

They exist because in a world of 7 billion people there are bound to be a few nuts. They're allowed to spout their nonsense, however abhorrent it may be, and it's constitutionally protected. But you have to keep in mind that there aren't many of those people. Just a handful of nuts in a world full of them.

Also, just out of curiosity, who are "they" from your prior comment?

I don't get offended. Calling it gay "marriage" is just incorrect.

Well, since we're on the topic, it's not incorrect according to Merriam-Webster or the OED. Nonetheless, I'll continue to refrain from referring to it as such. But that's beside the point. I'm really more interested in your thoughts on this portion of my comment:

Yet I can't help but feel the association of the acceptance of gay rights with the acceptance child molestation is an unfair association. I guess it depends on whether you consider past opposition to homosexuality as having been fair to homosexuals. From my perspective, it could be considered righting a past wrong.

The same can not be said of child molestation. By its very nature, the act includes a victim.

Violence against a person for a sin is wrong. Period. We all sin. We should love people where they are and show them the love of Christ that He showed us and help them to deal with what they are bound by. The only wrong I see is that people were attacked because of sin. Judge not, lest ye be judged by the standards that you judge others by.

The comparison wasn't to say that if you are homosexual, that you are a pedophile. That isn't what I meant. I used homosexuality to make a point about how easy it is to get something accepted as years pass.

Ah, I think I am starting to see your problem.

No one suggested that you believe homosexuals are pedophiles.

I suggested you made associations or comparisons between them. While I didn't say it, you probably make these associations based on what you consider "sinful" (i.e. for religious reasons).

[homersapien 11,354]

Just because two things aren't the same in every way doesn't mean it is wrong or should be taboo to compare them in ANY way. Homosexuality and pedophilia (and polygamy and polyamory and various other things) do all fall under a broad heading of (depending on your viewpoint) "deviant (from the norm) sexual practices" or "non-normal" or "niche" or whatever word you'd like to apply. This is not just from a religious perspective either. Viewpoints on each of those range from "some acceptance" to "almost universally condemned", but it doesn't mean you can't draw any basis of comparison in terms of attitudes changing over time toward practices once though to be wrong, taboo, deviant or whatever.

True.

But I was referring specifically to the analogy that since homosexuality has gradually become to be "accepted" (tolerated) both legally and socially, there was a logical possibility that pedophilia might also gradually become tolerated/legal.

That is making a clear association between the two in terms of sin, morality, harming innocents, or however you want to express it.

The point is that there is an intrinsic difference between homosexuality and pedophilia (based on the concept of a victim) that will never allow the latter to be accepted or legalized.

I realize this is nuanced, but it does reflects ones philosophical (or religious) underpinnings which is interesting. (At least to me.)

[Weegle777 78]

Technically, you may be correct. But I still believe that if the door is opened to governmental sanctioned unions between two people of the same gender, that will pave the way for these other "orientations" to be advocated for by their organizations for acceptance. And listen, I don't hate people that are homosexual. I never have. I do hate the bondage they are under by that sin. People have asked me how my church handles having homosexuals in our congregation. I tell them that no one is ever excluded because of chains that have them bound. Love the person, hate the sin.

Sorry for butting in.

On your point about advocacy. There are already organizations that advocate unacceptable relationships alternatives. NAMBLA for example. There aren't many of those sick individuals. I just don't see how the logical leap could be made that would suggest the acceptance of gay marriage would somehow lead to these kinds of organizations gaining traction. When you start talking about relationship alternatives that include a victim (or any other party incapable of informed consent), that's where I draw the line.

Please read this example with an open mind:

Many moons ago, homosexuality was around, but it was frowned upon to the extent that if you came out, you very well might get hanged by some group of angry villagers. Years went by, through the 60's and 70's homosexuals became bolder about coming out. It was still frowned upon, but those groups that would violently oppose it went away and it became more accepted. Now it is to the point that if you frown upon that lifestyle, you are no longer considered a moral person by society, but a bigot that is a part of a hate group. Do you see where I am going with this? Now, substitute pedophilia in the last paragraph, where homosexuality is. Given many years to pass, that sick lifestyle may very well follow that same path.

If you were to ask people that lived back in the days where homosexuals were violently opposed, I would almost guarantee you that they would have the same shocked opposition to homosexuals that we have toward pedophiles.

Weegle you are an absolute hoot!

You just protested to me that you weren't associating pedophilia with homosexuality as I implied, and then what do you do?

You clearly make an association between pedophilia and homosexuality in your very next post!

No I didn't. It was an example of how things like this can happen. There is no comparison. Think a little harder.

LOL!

Why does it often seem to boil down to a semantical argument with folks like you"

"No, it's not gay "marriage".

"No I didn't make a "comparison" (even when you clearly did).

Hint: If one draws up an analogy between pedophilia and homosexuality as an example of what could happen, then you are making an "association" between the two. You are grouping them in similar categories.

You cannot make such associations then turn around and say you aren't comparing them in some way.

That is one of the dumbest explanations that I have ever read. Never did I say that homosexuals were equivalent to pedophiles. You just want me to say that because you can't argue against me if I don't say that. Come on. You can do better than this. If I were to say the sky was blue, you would swear up and down that I was wrong just to argue. You would never agree with me no matter what I say.

[Weegle777 78]

I take any organization that at it's foundation evangelizes and promotes child rape seriously. What I don't understand is how it exists in the 1st place...In the same way I take Planned Parenthood seriously; given they believe that a woman can murder her live born child. This too sounds preposterous; but they too exist and that is the policy they promote...should I take them serious? Of course; as they seem to have the ear of the political left and openly promote murder of unborn children (which they have previously deemed not really children); and now live children (which is hard to square with the abortion stance)...

They exist because in a world of 7 billion people there are bound to be a few nuts. They're allowed to spout their nonsense, however abhorrent it may be, and it's constitutionally protected. But you have to keep in mind that there aren't many of those people. Just a handful of nuts in a world full of them.

Also, just out of curiosity, who are "they" from your prior comment?

I don't get offended. Calling it gay "marriage" is just incorrect.

Well, since we're on the topic, it's not incorrect according to Merriam-Webster or the OED. Nonetheless, I'll continue to refrain from referring to it as such. But that's beside the point. I'm really more interested in your thoughts on this portion of my comment:

Yet I can't help but feel the association of the acceptance of gay rights with the acceptance child molestation is an unfair association. I guess it depends on whether you consider past opposition to homosexuality as having been fair to homosexuals. From my perspective, it could be considered righting a past wrong.

The same can not be said of child molestation. By its very nature, the act includes a victim.

Violence against a person for a sin is wrong. Period. We all sin. We should love people where they are and show them the love of Christ that He showed us and help them to deal with what they are bound by. The only wrong I see is that people were attacked because of sin. Judge not, lest ye be judged by the standards that you judge others by.

The comparison wasn't to say that if you are homosexual, that you are a pedophile. That isn't what I meant. I used homosexuality to make a point about how easy it is to get something accepted as years pass.

Ah, I think I am starting to see your problem.

No one said suggested that you believe homosexuals are pedophiles.

I suggested you made associations or comparisons between them. While I didn't say it, you probably make these associations based on what you consider "sinful" (i.e. for religious reasons).

First I don't have a "problem". And second, in my first example, "religion" wasn't mentioned or implied. It was a comparison of social acceptance based on just that, social acceptance and how pedophilia could take that same route of acceptance. No associating one with the other. Just an example of two separate behaviors. Ask people who lived back when homosexuality was not accepted socially and they will tell you just that. It's not religious, it's historical fact.

[homersapien 11,354]

Technically, you may be correct. But I still believe that if the door is opened to governmental sanctioned unions between two people of the same gender, that will pave the way for these other "orientations" to be advocated for by their organizations for acceptance. And listen, I don't hate people that are homosexual. I never have. I do hate the bondage they are under by that sin. People have asked me how my church handles having homosexuals in our congregation. I tell them that no one is ever excluded because of chains that have them bound. Love the person, hate the sin.

Sorry for butting in.

On your point about advocacy. There are already organizations that advocate unacceptable relationships alternatives. NAMBLA for example. There aren't many of those sick individuals. I just don't see how the logical leap could be made that would suggest the acceptance of gay marriage would somehow lead to these kinds of organizations gaining traction. When you start talking about relationship alternatives that include a victim (or any other party incapable of informed consent), that's where I draw the line.

Please read this example with an open mind:

Many moons ago, homosexuality was around, but it was frowned upon to the extent that if you came out, you very well might get hanged by some group of angry villagers. Years went by, through the 60's and 70's homosexuals became bolder about coming out. It was still frowned upon, but those groups that would violently oppose it went away and it became more accepted. Now it is to the point that if you frown upon that lifestyle, you are no longer considered a moral person by society, but a bigot that is a part of a hate group. Do you see where I am going with this? Now, substitute pedophilia in the last paragraph, where homosexuality is. Given many years to pass, that sick lifestyle may very well follow that same path.

If you were to ask people that lived back in the days where homosexuals were violently opposed, I would almost guarantee you that they would have the same shocked opposition to homosexuals that we have toward pedophiles.

Weegle you are an absolute hoot!

You just protested to me that you weren't associating pedophilia with homosexuality as I implied, and then what do you do?

You clearly make an association between pedophilia and homosexuality in your very next post!

No I didn't. It was an example of how things like this can happen. There is no comparison. Think a little harder.

LOL!

Why does it often seem to boil down to a semantical argument with folks like you"

"No, it's not gay "marriage".

"No I didn't make a "comparison" (even when you clearly did).

Hint: If one draws up an analogy between pedophilia and homosexuality as an example of what could happen, then you are making an "association" between the two. You are grouping them in similar categories.

You cannot make such associations then turn around and say you aren't comparing them in some way.

That is one of the dumbest explanations that I have ever read. Never did I say that homosexuals were equivalent to pedophiles. You just want me to say that because you can't argue against me if I don't say that. Come on. You can do better than this. If I were to say the sky was blue, you would swear up and down that I was wrong just to argue. You would never agree with me no matter what I say.

Just because you don't understand a point, doesn't mean the point is dumb.

See my response to TitanTiger (#84). You are the one who drew the possible parallel with pedophilia and homosexuality concerning homosexuality's history of becoming accepted (or at least legal).

Like it or not, that is clearly making a comparison or association between the two. And the fact you made such an association in itself indicates they are similar, at least in regards to their moral acceptability. While they both may represent natural points on the range of human sexuality, they are not morally equivalent. (Unless your religious beliefs insist they are.)

(Oh and by the way, the sky itself is not "blue", only the spectrum of light rays it reflects. But I wouldn't bother to point that out in a casual conversation.)

[homersapien 11,354]

I take any organization that at it's foundation evangelizes and promotes child rape seriously. What I don't understand is how it exists in the 1st place...In the same way I take Planned Parenthood seriously; given they believe that a woman can murder her live born child. This too sounds preposterous; but they too exist and that is the policy they promote...should I take them serious? Of course; as they seem to have the ear of the political left and openly promote murder of unborn children (which they have previously deemed not really children); and now live children (which is hard to square with the abortion stance)...

They exist because in a world of 7 billion people there are bound to be a few nuts. They're allowed to spout their nonsense, however abhorrent it may be, and it's constitutionally protected. But you have to keep in mind that there aren't many of those people. Just a handful of nuts in a world full of them.

Also, just out of curiosity, who are "they" from your prior comment?

I don't get offended. Calling it gay "marriage" is just incorrect.

Well, since we're on the topic, it's not incorrect according to Merriam-Webster or the OED. Nonetheless, I'll continue to refrain from referring to it as such. But that's beside the point. I'm really more interested in your thoughts on this portion of my comment:

Yet I can't help but feel the association of the acceptance of gay rights with the acceptance child molestation is an unfair association. I guess it depends on whether you consider past opposition to homosexuality as having been fair to homosexuals. From my perspective, it could be considered righting a past wrong.

The same can not be said of child molestation. By its very nature, the act includes a victim.

Violence against a person for a sin is wrong. Period. We all sin. We should love people where they are and show them the love of Christ that He showed us and help them to deal with what they are bound by. The only wrong I see is that people were attacked because of sin. Judge not, lest ye be judged by the standards that you judge others by.

The comparison wasn't to say that if you are homosexual, that you are a pedophile. That isn't what I meant. I used homosexuality to make a point about how easy it is to get something accepted as years pass.

Ah, I think I am starting to see your problem.

No one said suggested that you believe homosexuals are pedophiles.

I suggested you made associations or comparisons between them. While I didn't say it, you probably make these associations based on what you consider "sinful" (i.e. for religious reasons).

First I don't have a "problem". And second, in my first example, "religion" wasn't mentioned or implied. It was a comparison of social acceptance based on just that, social acceptance and how pedophilia could take that same route of acceptance. No associating one with the other. Just an example of two separate behaviors. Ask people who lived back when homosexuality was not accepted socially and they will tell you just that. It's not religious, it's historical fact.

Sigh, you just don't get it, do you?

Pedophilia cannot take that same "route of acceptance" because of the intrinsic difference between pedophilia and homosexuality. If one believes it could, then one does not accept that intrinsic difference.

I think you are equating them both in terms of morality. You have said nothing to make me feel otherwise.

And yes, you do have the "problem" of often restating someone else's argument to fit your rebuttal. But maybe that's just carelessness. I know how the younger generation can be when it comes to focusing.

[jj3jordan 2,040]

I take any organization that at it's foundation evangelizes and promotes child rape seriously. What I don't understand is how it exists in the 1st place...In the same way I take Planned Parenthood seriously; given they believe that a woman can murder her live born child. This too sounds preposterous; but they too exist and that is the policy they promote...should I take them serious? Of course; as they seem to have the ear of the political left and openly promote murder of unborn children (which they have previously deemed not really children); and now live children (which is hard to square with the abortion stance)...

They exist because in a world of 7 billion people there are bound to be a few nuts. They're allowed to spout their nonsense, however abhorrent it may be, and it's constitutionally protected. But you have to keep in mind that there aren't many of those people. Just a handful of nuts in a world full of them.

Also, just out of curiosity, who are "they" from your prior comment?

I don't get offended. Calling it gay "marriage" is just incorrect.

Well, since we're on the topic, it's not incorrect according to Merriam-Webster or the OED. Nonetheless, I'll continue to refrain from referring to it as such. But that's beside the point. I'm really more interested in your thoughts on this portion of my comment:

Yet I can't help but feel the association of the acceptance of gay rights with the acceptance child molestation is an unfair association. I guess it depends on whether you consider past opposition to homosexuality as having been fair to homosexuals. From my perspective, it could be considered righting a past wrong.

The same can not be said of child molestation. By its very nature, the act includes a victim.

Violence against a person for a sin is wrong. Period. We all sin. We should love people where they are and show them the love of Christ that He showed us and help them to deal with what they are bound by. The only wrong I see is that people were attacked because of sin. Judge not, lest ye be judged by the standards that you judge others by.

The comparison wasn't to say that if you are homosexual, that you are a pedophile. That isn't what I meant. I used homosexuality to make a point about how easy it is to get something accepted as years pass.

Ah, I think I am starting to see your problem.

No one said suggested that you believe homosexuals are pedophiles.

I suggested you made associations or comparisons between them. While I didn't say it, you probably make these associations based on what you consider "sinful" (i.e. for religious reasons).

First I don't have a "problem". And second, in my first example, "religion" wasn't mentioned or implied. It was a comparison of social acceptance based on just that, social acceptance and how pedophilia could take that same route of acceptance. No associating one with the other. Just an example of two separate behaviors. Ask people who lived back when homosexuality was not accepted socially and they will tell you just that. It's not religious, it's historical fact.

Sigh, you just don't get it, do you?

Pedophilia cannot take that same "route of acceptance" because of the intrinsic difference between pedophilia and homosexuality. If one believes it could, then one does not accept that intrinsic difference.

I think you are equating them both in terms of morality. You have said nothing to make me feel otherwise.

And yes, you do have the "problem" of often restating someone else's argument to fit your rebuttal. But maybe that's just carelessness. I know how the younger generation can be when it comes to focusing.

It's you that don't get it. 777 is correct, you are just too thick to understand. That is why in a few years, you will view pedophiles as just another sexual orientation, because "society" will have told you that you must.

[alexava 6,973]

I take any organization that at it's foundation evangelizes and promotes child rape seriously. What I don't understand is how it exists in the 1st place...In the same way I take Planned Parenthood seriously; given they believe that a woman can murder her live born child. This too sounds preposterous; but they too exist and that is the policy they promote...should I take them serious? Of course; as they seem to have the ear of the political left and openly promote murder of unborn children (which they have previously deemed not really children); and now live children (which is hard to square with the abortion stance)...

They exist because in a world of 7 billion people there are bound to be a few nuts. They're allowed to spout their nonsense, however abhorrent it may be, and it's constitutionally protected. But you have to keep in mind that there aren't many of those people. Just a handful of nuts in a world full of them.

Also, just out of curiosity, who are "they" from your prior comment?

I don't get offended. Calling it gay "marriage" is just incorrect.

Well, since we're on the topic, it's not incorrect according to Merriam-Webster or the OED. Nonetheless, I'll continue to refrain from referring to it as such. But that's beside the point. I'm really more interested in your thoughts on this portion of my comment:

Yet I can't help but feel the association of the acceptance of gay rights with the acceptance child molestation is an unfair association. I guess it depends on whether you consider past opposition to homosexuality as having been fair to homosexuals. From my perspective, it could be considered righting a past wrong.

The same can not be said of child molestation. By its very nature, the act includes a victim.

Violence against a person for a sin is wrong. Period. We all sin. We should love people where they are and show them the love of Christ that He showed us and help them to deal with what they are bound by. The only wrong I see is that people were attacked because of sin. Judge not, lest ye be judged by the standards that you judge others by.

The comparison wasn't to say that if you are homosexual, that you are a pedophile. That isn't what I meant. I used homosexuality to make a point about how easy it is to get something accepted as years pass.

Ah, I think I am starting to see your problem.

No one said suggested that you believe homosexuals are pedophiles.

I suggested you made associations or comparisons between them. While I didn't say it, you probably make these associations based on what you consider "sinful" (i.e. for religious reasons).

First I don't have a "problem". And second, in my first example, "religion" wasn't mentioned or implied. It was a comparison of social acceptance based on just that, social acceptance and how pedophilia could take that same route of acceptance. No associating one with the other. Just an example of two separate behaviors. Ask people who lived back when homosexuality was not accepted socially and they will tell you just that. It's not religious, it's historical fact.

Sigh, you just don't get it, do you?

Pedophilia cannot take that same "route of acceptance" because of the intrinsic difference between pedophilia and homosexuality. If one believes it could, then one does not accept that intrinsic difference.

I think you are equating them both in terms of morality. You have said nothing to make me feel otherwise.

And yes, you do have the "problem" of often restating someone else's argument to fit your rebuttal. But maybe that's just carelessness. I know how the younger generation can be when it comes to focusing.

It's you that don't get it. 777 is correct, you are just too thick to understand. That is why in a few years, you will view pedophiles as just another sexual orientation, because "society" will have told you that you must.

I think it is being determined that pedophiles ARE another sexual orientation.

[AUDub 11,131]

It's you that don't get it. 777 is correct, you are just too thick to understand. That is why in a few years, you will view pedophiles as just another sexual orientation, because "society" will have told you that you must.

I think it is being determined that pedophiles ARE another sexual orientation.

Yes, that's the reason we're having this discussion.

I also think it's necessary to point out the important distinction between pedophilia as a disorder, which is the subject of the discussion, and pedophilia in the vernacular, which is often used to describe the act of abuse. According to Wikipedia:

According to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM), it is a paraphilia in which adults or adolescents 16 years of age or older have intense and recurrent sexual urges towards and fantasies about prepubescent children that they have either acted on or which cause them distress or interpersonal difficulty.

[japantiger 4,051]

I take any organization that at it's foundation evangelizes and promotes child rape seriously. What I don't understand is how it exists in the 1st place...In the same way I take Planned Parenthood seriously; given they believe that a woman can murder her live born child. This too sounds preposterous; but they too exist and that is the policy they promote...should I take them serious? Of course; as they seem to have the ear of the political left and openly promote murder of unborn children (which they have previously deemed not really children); and now live children (which is hard to square with the abortion stance)...

They exist because in a world of 7 billion people there are bound to be a few nuts. They're allowed to spout their nonsense, however abhorrent it may be, and it's constitutionally protected. But you have to keep in mind that there aren't many of those people. Just a handful of nuts in a world full of them.

Also, just out of curiosity, who are "they" from your prior comment?

I don't get offended. Calling it gay "marriage" is just incorrect.

Well, since we're on the topic, it's not incorrect according to Merriam-Webster or the OED. Nonetheless, I'll continue to refrain from referring to it as such. But that's beside the point. I'm really more interested in your thoughts on this portion of my comment:

Yet I can't help but feel the association of the acceptance of gay rights with the acceptance child molestation is an unfair association. I guess it depends on whether you consider past opposition to homosexuality as having been fair to homosexuals. From my perspective, it could be considered righting a past wrong.

The same can not be said of child molestation. By its very nature, the act includes a victim.

Violence against a person for a sin is wrong. Period. We all sin. We should love people where they are and show them the love of Christ that He showed us and help them to deal with what they are bound by. The only wrong I see is that people were attacked because of sin. Judge not, lest ye be judged by the standards that you judge others by.

The comparison wasn't to say that if you are homosexual, that you are a pedophile. That isn't what I meant. I used homosexuality to make a point about how easy it is to get something accepted as years pass.

Ah, I think I am starting to see your problem.

No one said suggested that you believe homosexuals are pedophiles.

I suggested you made associations or comparisons between them. While I didn't say it, you probably make these associations based on what you consider "sinful" (i.e. for religious reasons).

First I don't have a "problem". And second, in my first example, "religion" wasn't mentioned or implied. It was a comparison of social acceptance based on just that, social acceptance and how pedophilia could take that same route of acceptance. No associating one with the other. Just an example of two separate behaviors. Ask people who lived back when homosexuality was not accepted socially and they will tell you just that. It's not religious, it's historical fact.

Sigh, you just don't get it, do you?

Pedophilia cannot take that same "route of acceptance" because of the intrinsic difference between pedophilia and homosexuality. If one believes it could, then one does not accept that intrinsic difference.

I think you are equating them both in terms of morality. You have said nothing to make me feel otherwise.

And yes, you do have the "problem" of often restating someone else's argument to fit your rebuttal. But maybe that's just carelessness. I know how the younger generation can be when it comes to focusing.

It's you that don't get it. 777 is correct, you are just too thick to understand. That is why in a few years, you will view pedophiles as just another sexual orientation, because "society" will have told you that you must.

Yep...rather than having a standard that says "rape of a child is wrong"; and these people should be reviled; NAMBLA and some intrepid ACLU lawyer will start arguing the definition of what a "child is"...it's all about what the definition of "is", "is", isn't it? This is what happens when moral leadership is abandoned. Anything is possible....this is what evil does. Isaiah 5:20.

[Bottomfeeder 244]

How many here are doing this?

[AUDub 11,131]

Yep...rather than having a standard that says "rape of a child is wrong"; and these people should be reviled; NAMBLA and some intrepid ACLU lawyer will start arguing the definition of what a "child is"...it's all about what the definition of "is", "is", isn't it? This is what happens when moral leadership is abandoned. Anything is possible....this is what evil does. Isaiah 5:20.

Well, the standard for the inherently wrong act of child molestation isn't under scrutiny. It's the disorder. Nobody is saying rape of a child isn't wrong because it obviously is. As to your statement that these people should be reviled. Well, I agree in part. Anyone who acts on that desire should be removed from society and punished to the fullest extent possible. Taking advantage of a child in such a way is an act just short of murder in my own mind.

However, take the story of the pedophile in the article as an example. He's never molested a child. Despite his urges, he is well aware of the inherent wrong giving in to those desires is. He's been through therapy.

Paul Christiano's desire for young girls remained stuck in time as he neared adulthood. Despite a stable home life in suburban Chicago, he was tortured by urges he knew could land him in prison.

In 1999, Christiano was caught buying child pornography. Now 36, he said he has never molested a child, but after five years of state-ordered therapy, the attraction remains.

Is this man evil in your mind? Does the fact that he has little or no control over his thoughts make him evil? I think the fact that he recognizes the darkest part of his character and knows to suppress is something we should be trying to encourage.

Other pedophiles are "good people who are struggling," said Dr. Fred Berlin, a psychiatrist who heads the Johns Hopkins Sexual Behaviors Consultation Unit. "They're tortured souls fighting like heck not to do this. We do virtually nothing in terms of reaching out to these folks. We drive it underground."

In fact, there's good evidence to suggest that there may be biological anomalies beyond our control, including genetic predispositions (a lot of pedophiles are left handed) that lead to such a mindset. I think the example from the linked article is interesting.

In one case, a 40-year-old teacher in Virginia with no history of sexual deviance suddenly became interested in child pornography and was arrested for molesting his prepubescent stepdaughter.

The night before his sentencing, he showed up at an emergency room with a bad headache. An MRI revealed a tumor compressing his brain's right frontal lobe.

When the tumor was removed, his obsession faded, according to Dr. Russell Swerdlow, a neurologist on the case. A year later he again became sexually fixated on children. The tumor was growing back.

Even then, psychology, or science in general, doesn't deal with concepts like good and evil. Despite the fact that psychology differs greatly from physics, for example, in that it's a so-called "soft" science, it's like trying to apply our concept of morality to measuring the kinetic energy of an object in motion. It really can't be done. Right or wrong doesn't apply to 1/2mv^2.

Sorry for the long winded reply even though I wasn't being addressed. ;-)

[japantiger 4,051]

Yep...rather than having a standard that says "rape of a child is wrong"; and these people should be reviled; NAMBLA and some intrepid ACLU lawyer will start arguing the definition of what a "child is"...it's all about what the definition of "is", "is", isn't it? This is what happens when moral leadership is abandoned. Anything is possible....this is what evil does. Isaiah 5:20.

Well, the standard for the inherently wrong act of child molestation isn't under scrutiny. It's the disorder. Nobody is saying rape of a child isn't wrong because it obviously is. As to your statement that these people should be reviled. Well, I agree in part. Anyone who acts on that desire should be removed from society and punished to the fullest extent possible. Taking advantage of a child in such a way is an act just short of murder in my own mind.

However, take the story of the pedophile in the article as an example. He's never molested a child. Despite his urges, he is well aware of the inherent wrong giving in to those desires is. He's been through therapy.

Paul Christiano's desire for young girls remained stuck in time as he neared adulthood. Despite a stable home life in suburban Chicago, he was tortured by urges he knew could land him in prison.

In 1999, Christiano was caught buying child pornography. Now 36, he said he has never molested a child, but after five years of state-ordered therapy, the attraction remains.

Is this man evil in your mind? Does the fact that he has little or no control over his thoughts make him evil? I think the fact that he recognizes the darkest part of his character and knows to suppress is something we should be trying to encourage.

Other pedophiles are "good people who are struggling," said Dr. Fred Berlin, a psychiatrist who heads the Johns Hopkins Sexual Behaviors Consultation Unit. "They're tortured souls fighting like heck not to do this. We do virtually nothing in terms of reaching out to these folks. We drive it underground."

In fact, there's good evidence to suggest that there may be biological anomalies beyond our control, including genetic predispositions (a lot of pedophiles are left handed) that lead to such a mindset. I think the example from the linked article is interesting.

In one case, a 40-year-old teacher in Virginia with no history of sexual deviance suddenly became interested in child pornography and was arrested for molesting his prepubescent stepdaughter.

The night before his sentencing, he showed up at an emergency room with a bad headache. An MRI revealed a tumor compressing his brain's right frontal lobe.

When the tumor was removed, his obsession faded, according to Dr. Russell Swerdlow, a neurologist on the case. A year later he again became sexually fixated on children. The tumor was growing back.

Even then, psychology, or science in general, doesn't deal with concepts like good and evil. Despite the fact that psychology differs greatly from physics, for example, in that it's a so-called "soft" science, it's like trying to apply our concept of morality to measuring the kinetic energy of an object in motion. It really can't be done. Right or wrong doesn't apply to 1/2mv^2.

Sorry for the long winded reply even though I wasn't being addressed. ;-)

Long winded replies welcome .....3 points...of course the standard is under attack... 'I'm a victim not a criminal' is the 1st attack point. If I just can't help myself, then it can't really be wrong. This can go 2 ways...decriminalize it or establish a not guilty by reason of insanity type standard defense complete with medical experts waiting in the wings (paid, of course). 2nd point, what is the difference between Paul Christiani and the driver in a bank robbery? Neither actually committed the crime...both abetted it...and I would say Christiani abetted a generally more heinous crime, child porn. He paid money for a product that required someone to abuse and rape a child to produce. As for his testimony that this was his only 'act'; that can't be proven or disproven....I for one am generally skeptical of his claim...the only thing we do know is he hasn't been caught doing it. 3rd, the tumor induced act, while if true, would be unfortunate. But does not lessen the horror or evil of the act. A child was raped. He did it and must be held accountable.

[AUDub 11,131]

...of course the standard is under attack... 'I'm a victim not a criminal' is the 1st attack point. If I just can't help myself, then it can't really be wrong.This can go 2 ways...decriminalize it or establish a not guilty by reason of insanity type standard defense complete with medical experts waiting in the wings (paid, of course).

Not necessarily true. The plea has already been applied in the past for offenders guilty of child molestation. But here's a fun point for you. Have you considered my argument is presenting just the opposite? That the point I'm trying to make is that these people are for the most part sane? Mr. Christiani is afflicted with a terrible disorder, but he does know right from wrong. He even knows acting on his desires will land him in prison. He may be a pedophile, but he certainly doesn't come off as delusional.

2nd point, what is the difference between Paul Christiani and the driver in a bank robbery? Neither actually committed the crime...both abetted it...and I would say Christiani abetted a generally more heinous crime, child porn. He paid money for a product that required someone to abuse and rape a child to produce. As for his testimony that this was his only 'act'; that can't be provenor disproven....I for one am generally skeptical of his claim...the only thing we do know is he hasn't been caught doing it.

Indeed. Mr. Christiani is certainly guilty of past crimes. He was also punished. He's a permanent sex offender and was ordered to undergo behavioral therapy. The point is that the treatment was ineffective. It's also important to note that even given the heinous nature of his behavior, he isn't a child molester, at least not directly. I'm willing to give him the benefit of a doubt. I'm a trusting individual, I suppose.

Even if he was lying about the extent of his crimes, I still see no reason to doubt the point of the article or the psychologists making the claim. A lot of sex offenders go on to offend again. I take that as a sign that we probably need to find a new way of looking at it. Maybe we could also find better ways to prevent it preemptively.

3rd, the tumor induced act, while if true, would be unfortunate. But does not lessen the horror or evil of the act. A child was raped. He did it and must be held accountable.

Correct. The nature of the act is no less heinous. He must be held accountable. The tumor may have also been amplifying a preexisting pattern of pedophilia and may have simply removed his impulse control. I also believe there is a moral obligation to seek help before you act on those desires. You can't help your thoughts. You can help your behavior.

[DKW 86 7,411]

The more we understand it, the better we can prevent advocate for it or accept it.

FTFY.

Predicted this almost 25 years ago. Sad to be right, but some things are just too obvious.

BTW, NAMBLA has said that any argument made for Pedophilia. For the record, they were first heard from on 60 Minutes about 1974 or so.

[AUDub 11,131]

The more we understand it, the better we can prevent advocate for it or accept it.

FTFY.

Predicted this almost 25 years ago. Sad to be right, but some things are just too obvious.

BTW, NAMBLA has said that any argument made for Pedophilia. For the record, they were first heard from on 60 Minutes about 1974 or so.

Put it in your own words instead of rephrasing my posts in the future, if you don't mind. Also, go back and read the thread a little more carefully, as you don't seem to understand my point.

[homersapien 11,354]

I take any organization that at it's foundation evangelizes and promotes child rape seriously. What I don't understand is how it exists in the 1st place...In the same way I take Planned Parenthood seriously; given they believe that a woman can murder her live born child. This too sounds preposterous; but they too exist and that is the policy they promote...should I take them serious? Of course; as they seem to have the ear of the political left and openly promote murder of unborn children (which they have previously deemed not really children); and now live children (which is hard to square with the abortion stance)...

They exist because in a world of 7 billion people there are bound to be a few nuts. They're allowed to spout their nonsense, however abhorrent it may be, and it's constitutionally protected. But you have to keep in mind that there aren't many of those people. Just a handful of nuts in a world full of them.

Also, just out of curiosity, who are "they" from your prior comment?

I don't get offended. Calling it gay "marriage" is just incorrect.

Well, since we're on the topic, it's not incorrect according to Merriam-Webster or the OED. Nonetheless, I'll continue to refrain from referring to it as such. But that's beside the point. I'm really more interested in your thoughts on this portion of my comment:

Yet I can't help but feel the association of the acceptance of gay rights with the acceptance child molestation is an unfair association. I guess it depends on whether you consider past opposition to homosexuality as having been fair to homosexuals. From my perspective, it could be considered righting a past wrong.

The same can not be said of child molestation. By its very nature, the act includes a victim.

Violence against a person for a sin is wrong. Period. We all sin. We should love people where they are and show them the love of Christ that He showed us and help them to deal with what they are bound by. The only wrong I see is that people were attacked because of sin. Judge not, lest ye be judged by the standards that you judge others by.

The comparison wasn't to say that if you are homosexual, that you are a pedophile. That isn't what I meant. I used homosexuality to make a point about how easy it is to get something accepted as years pass.

Ah, I think I am starting to see your problem.

No one said suggested that you believe homosexuals are pedophiles.

I suggested you made associations or comparisons between them. While I didn't say it, you probably make these associations based on what you consider "sinful" (i.e. for religious reasons).

First I don't have a "problem". And second, in my first example, "religion" wasn't mentioned or implied. It was a comparison of social acceptance based on just that, social acceptance and how pedophilia could take that same route of acceptance. No associating one with the other. Just an example of two separate behaviors. Ask people who lived back when homosexuality was not accepted socially and they will tell you just that. It's not religious, it's historical fact.

Sigh, you just don't get it, do you?

Pedophilia cannot take that same "route of acceptance" because of the intrinsic difference between pedophilia and homosexuality. If one believes it could, then one does not accept that intrinsic difference.

I think you are equating them both in terms of morality. You have said nothing to make me feel otherwise.

And yes, you do have the "problem" of often restating someone else's argument to fit your rebuttal. But maybe that's just carelessness. I know how the younger generation can be when it comes to focusing.

It's you that don't get it. 777 is correct, you are just too thick to understand. That is why in a few years, you will view pedophiles as just another sexual orientation, because "society" will have told you that you must.

Well, I suggest you come back "in a few years" after you have matured enough to actually read and understand my posts.

[homersapien 11,354]

The more we understand it, the better we can prevent advocate for it or accept it.

FTFY.

Predicted this almost 25 years ago. Sad to be right, but some things are just too obvious.

BTW, NAMBLA has said that any argument made for Pedophilia. For the record, they were first heard from on 60 Minutes about 1974 or so.

So, you really believe that scientific study of a condition that can manifest itself as child rape will necessarily lead to the societal acceptance of child rape? :-\

I know a lot of you folks don't care for science but this really has to do more with logical reasoning. How in the world did you make it through college?

But I love your avitar: "I can explain it for you but I can't understand it for you"

How ironic.