They Made Me Gay

[ok doser]

Don't really care what celebrities think ....

you should - they often tend to drive public opinion, especially on matters of social "progress"

 

[quip]

just as the laws criminalizing homosexuality increased in stringency in the sixties and early seventies

Then get back to us in 50 years....we'll evaluate your slip-slope then.

 

[ok doser]

Then get back to us in 50 years....

nope, those laws changed in the blink of an eye, when the APA reclassified homosexuality

but that could never happen with pedophilia, could it? :dizzy:

Spoiler

In 1976 the National Council for Civil Liberties, the respectable (and responsible) pressure group now known as Liberty, made a submission to parliament's criminal law revision committee. It caused barely a ripple. "Childhood sexual experiences, willingly engaged in with an adult," it read, "result in no identifiable damage … The real need is a change in the attitude which assumes that all cases of paedophilia result in lasting damage." It is difficult today, after the public firestorm unleashed by revelations about Jimmy Savile and the host of child abuse allegations they have triggered, to imagine any mainstream group making anything like such a claim. But if it is shocking to realise how dramatically attitudes to paedophilia have changed in just three decades, it is even more surprising to discover how little agreement there is even now among those who are considered experts on the subject. A liberal professor of psychology who studied in the late 1970s will see things very differently from someone working in child protection, or with convicted sex offenders. There is, astonishingly, not even a full academic consensus on whether consensual paedophilic relations necessarily cause harm. So what, then, do we know? A paedophile is someone who has a primary or exclusive sexual interest in prepubescent children. Savile appears to have been primarily an ephebophile, defined as someone who has a similar preferential attraction to adolescents, though there have been claims one of his victims was aged eight. But not all paedophiles are child molesters, and vice versa: by no means every paedophile acts on his impulses, and many people who sexually abuse children are not exclusively or primarily sexually attracted to them. In fact, "true" paedophiles are estimated by some experts to account for only 20% of sexual abusers. Nor are paedophiles necessarily violent: no firm links have so far been established between paedophilia and aggressive or psychotic symptoms. Psychologist Glenn Wilson, co-author of The Child-Lovers: a Study of Paedophiles in Society, argues that "The majority of paedophiles, however socially inappropriate, seem to be gentle and rational." Legal definitions of paedophilia, needless to say, have no truck with such niceties, focusing on the offence, not the offender. The Sex Offenders Act 1997 defined paedophilia as a sexual relationship between an adult over 18 and a child below 16. There is much more we don't know, including how many paedophiles there are: 1-2% of men is a widely accepted figure, but Sarah Goode, honorary research fellow at the University of Winchester and author of two major 2009 and 2011 sociological studies on paedophilia in society, says the best current estimate – based on possibly flawed science – is that "one in five of all adult men are, to some degree, capable of being sexually aroused by children". Even less is known about female paedophiles, thought to be responsible for maybe 5% of abuse against pre-pubescent children in the UK. Debate still rages, too, about the clinical definition of paedophilia. Down the years, the American Psychiatric Association's Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders – "the psychiatrist's bible" – has variously classified it as a sexual deviation, a sociopathic condition and a non-psychotic medical disorder. And few agree about what causes it. Is paedophilia innate or acquired? Research at the sexual behaviours clinic of Canada's Centre for Addiction and Mental Health suggests paedophiles' IQs are, on average, 10% lower than those of sex offenders who had abused adults, and that paedophiles are significantly less likely to be right-handed than the rest of the population, suggesting a link to brain development. MRI scans reveal a possible issue with paedophiles' "white matter": the signals connecting different areas of the brain. Paedophiles may be wired differently. This is radical stuff. But there is a growing conviction, notably in Canada, that paedophilia should probably be classified as a distinct sexual orientation, like heterosexuality or homosexuality. Two eminent researchers testified to that effect to a Canadian parliamentary commission last year, and the Harvard Mental Health Letter of July 2010 stated baldly that paedophilia "is a sexual orientation" and therefore "unlikely to change". Child protection agencies and many who work with sex offenders dislike this. "Broadly speaking, in the world of people who work with sex offenders here, [paedophilia] is learned behaviour," says Donald Findlater, director of research and development at the Lucy Faithfull Foundation, a charity dedicated to preventing child sexual abuse, and, before it closed, manager of leading treatment centre the Wolvercote Clinic. "There may be some vulnerabilities that could be genetic, but normally there are some significant events in a person's life, a sexually abusive event, a bullying environment … I believe it is learned, and can be unlearned." Chris Wilson of Circles UK, which helps released offenders, also rejects the idea that paedophilia is a sexual orientation: "The roots of that desire for sex with a child lie in dysfunctional psychological issues to do with power, control, anger, emotional loneliness, isolation." If the complexity and divergence of professional opinion may have helped create today's panic around paedophilia, a media obsession with the subject has done more: a sustained hue and cry exemplified by the News of the World's notorious "name and shame" campaign in 2000, which brought mobs on to the streets to demonstrate against the presence of shadowy monsters in their midst. As a result, paranoia about the danger from solitary, predatory deviants far outweighs the infinitely more real menace of abuse within the home or extended circle. "The vast majority of sexual violence is committed by people known to the victim," stresses Kieran Mccartan, senior lecturer in criminology at the University of the West of England. Only very rarely is the danger from the "stranger in the white van", Mccartan says. The reclassification of paedophilia as a sexual orientation would, however, play into what Goode calls "the sexual liberation discourse", which has existed since the 1970s. "There are a lot of people," she says, "who say: we outlawed homosexuality, and we were wrong. Perhaps we're wrong about paedophilia." Social perceptions do change. https://www.theguardian.com/society/2013/jan/03/paedophilia-bringing-dark-desires-light

 

[quip]

nope, those laws changed in the blink of an eye, when the APA reclassified homosexuality

Then paint a sign; stand on street corners; protest this possibility for pedophilia.

The world may be a better place for it....circa 2067. :idunno:

 

[Arthur Brain]

Then get back to us in 50 years....we'll evaluate your slip-slope then.

He'll probably still be thinking it's 'just around the corner'...

 

[quip]

He'll probably still be thinking it's 'just around the corner'...

By then he'll be dead....or as an old curmudgeon throwing his pudding at his nurse maid.

 

[ok doser]

Then paint a sign...

go back and re-read my post, retard


here's a hint: click on "show" to understand what's being discussed

 

[Arthur Brain]

By then he'll be dead....or as an old curmudgeon throwing his pudding at his nurse maid.

Well, considering how often he throws toys out of the pram on here it would almost be a step up...either...

 

[quip]

go back and re-read my post, retard


here's a hint: click on "show" to understand what's being discussed

I really care less about indulging your prepossessed paranoia.

 

[Town Heretic]

I wager you right now: somewhere there will be (at the very least) a serious attempt to relax it within our lifetimes, and successful or not the snowball will start to roll downhill.

Imagine away. In the meantime no one who wants to try this line of advance can move it against the clear history of strengthening laws to protect children and the clear and fundamental element of consent that has been strengthened by scientific advancement, a thing whose overturn would require a fundamental degradation of the foundation of law that protects power. And power, moral questions aside, will always protect its interest.

 

[ok doser]

...the clear and fundamental element of consent ....

addressed here: http://theologyonline.com/showthread.php?124124-They-Made-Me-Gay&p=4981573&viewfull=1#post4981573


and riddle me this, retard:

what did the law say about the ability for perverts to consent to enagage in homo sex before lawrence v texas overturned bowers v hardwick?

 

[ok doser]

answer: it said they couldn't consent


what does it say now?

it says they can consent



it would be retarded to believe that man's laws don't change at the whim of social demands









which is why, as I always come back to, man's laws are only just when they are based on God's Law


and nowhere in God's Law will you see "If it's acceptable between them....then who are you and I?"

nor will you find "Consent has nothing to do with sin or moral judgement"

 

[ok doser]

2) All of them are proven to shorten and degenerate quality of life, especially as some of those viruses come from the clear tie-in. They ARE connected.

There is a long list of sins covered by that same description which are both perfectly legal and receive nary an outcry from the faithful.

"a long list", eh?

name two

 

[Arthur Brain]

At one point it was 'okay' to send kids up chimneys. Then child labor laws were introduced and children were no longer objects of abuse under law. All at societal whim of course...

 

[Arthur Brain]

Imagine away. In the meantime no one who wants to try this line of advance can move it against the clear history of strengthening laws to protect children and the clear and fundamental element of consent that has been strengthened by scientific advancement, a thing whose overturn would require a fundamental degradation of the foundation of law that protects power. And power, moral questions aside, will always protect its interest.

They're not interested. They know they can't argue against the actual facts so they'll carry on with the paranoid delusions...

 

[ok doser]

At one point it was 'okay' to send kids up chimneys. Then child labor laws were introduced and children were no longer objects of abuse under law. All at societal whim of course...

right, and we abolished slavery

and made abortion, divorce, pornography and now homosexuality socially acceptable


not everything that's called social "progress" is good

 

[ok doser]

... that word perversion is only really used against the other fellow, against the homosexual and for the same reason that he/she is lumped with the pedophile, because it degrades and offends and removes them from us, from the rest of the sinners.

homosexuals push society to recognize their perversion as "normal", to teach the next generation that homosexuality is normal

pedophiles would like to do the same thing wrt their perversion


which sin do you engage in and demand that society accept as normal?

 

[Town Heretic]

homosexuals push society to recognize their perversion as "normal", to teach the next generation that homosexuality is normal

People only teach your children when you fail to. Proverbs 22:6

pedophiles would like to do the same thing wrt their perversion

And they run into problems that are unlike the one's faced by homosexuals. Chief among those is the issue of consent, even above and beyond the larger social response to the sexualization of children. So even if you don't rely on goodness in human nature you can rely on self interest in the seats of power.

which sin do you engage in and demand that society accept as normal?

None. Which sin forces you to accept it as normal?

 

[ok doser]

People only teach your children when you fail to. Proverbs 22:6

you don't think jack's a little sponge, soaking up everything he's exposed to?

soon enough he'll be exposed to a teacher who is gay, or a curriculum that tells him that homosexuality is normal

unless you plan to home-school

And they run into problems that are unlike the one's faced by homosexuals. Chief among those is the issue of consent

addressed here: http://theologyonline.com/showthread.php?124124-They-Made-Me-Gay&p=4981573&viewfull=1#post4981573

None.

then your comparison is invalid

Which sin forces you to accept it as normal?

if you operate a bakery in Colorado?

 

[Town Heretic]

you don't think jack's a little sponge, soaking up everything he's exposed to?

I think I gave you my answer in scripture. We are responsible for what are children are exposed to and the context by which they will process the world.

soon enough he'll be exposed to a teacher who is gay,

You think that's how it passes, do you. lain:

or a curriculum that tells him that homosexuality is normal

Your children should get their values from you and if you do your job they will.

unless you plan to home-school

No. Though I may well be teaching in the school system where he'll be advancing.

then your comparison is invalid

That's a dot in need of another dot. The world wants me to think that if I'm a hedonistic consumer my life will be a pleasure palace. Sin is sold left and right, the insistence that this should be considered more than normal, desirable, is in half the television programs and their commercials. What determines how I respond?

I do.

if you operate a bakery in Colorado?

Then you sell baked goods. And if you run a gun store you sell weapons. You aren't endorsing what people choose to do with them or what they believe, unless you write, "This is an endorsement of the following:..."