Do you dislike gay people, or do you have no problem with th

WiGeek · Post by **WiGeek** » 21 Sep 2005 11:58

you know you want your 4th grade teacher. we all did.

Blackend · Post by **Blackend** » 21 Sep 2005 13:29

Funny thing - My fourth grade teacher was a homosexual.

I wanted my 9th grade English teacher, though. She was a damn fine fox.

professor · Post by **professor** » 21 Sep 2005 15:52

Blackend wrote:Dude...THEY LIKE TO HAVE SEX WITH CHILDREN! What isn't wrong about that? Children don't have a good sense of right or wrong; they are easily manipulated. It doesn't matter if it's a man or a woman trying to have sex with a child; it is still wrong. Your reference of the woman and boy having sex is like comparing apples and oranges; they might be fruits, but they're both different fruits.

Ben, RAPE IS WRONG. Forcing someone to have sex is wrong. Statutory is wrong, also, in my opinion, but I know a few persons who have been involved in said activities, but a 15 year old girl or boy doesn't need to have sex with a 25 year old man or woman. Just because they thought it was right to have sex with children back in the olden days doesn't mean it's right now.

Would you like to be a boy molested by a 30 year old, 250 lb. bald man? I know I wouldn't, but if you would, that's fine by me.

You obviously didn't see my point, I probably didn't make it clear enough. I was not justifying that rape or sex with children was right or even ok. (When did I say rape was ok anyway???)

I was merely continuing my argument of how is it that you and others can say sexual preference is genetic (in essence saying it's morally ok), but then say sex with children is morally wrong when that is also a sexual preference that, according to many people here, is genetic. The logic doesn't seem to match up. "Sexual preference is genetic....oh...except these ones over here."

Furthermore, it's kind of silly to say sexual preference is not a choice. What's the basic definition of preference? Choice. So in other words you are saying sexual choice is not a choice. Sounds silly to me.

You would be better using the words "sexual orientation", but then you still run into the issue of explaining how being naturally attracted to children is not a "sexual orientation".

Again, how can you say attraction to a particular sex is genetic, but an attraction to a particular age is not?

wolfpac444 · Post by **wolfpac444** » 21 Sep 2005 16:21

professor wrote:Again, how can you say attraction to a particular sex is genetic, but an attraction to a particular age is not?

I don't think anyone is saying either of those things. Nobody knows whether one's sexual orientation is genetic or not; however, there is evidence to suggest that it is. Nobody knows whether "attraction to a particular age" is genetic or not.

Like I said before, the reason why people have problems with people having sex with minors is that they believe the child does not have the ability to consent, not being able to fully comprehend the full breadth of the situation.

hacksterbator · Post by **hacksterbator** » 21 Sep 2005 16:24

i like gay people. they party harder than all my straight friends!

Tsiangkun · Post by **Tsiangkun** » 21 Sep 2005 16:29

The age thing is a cultural value. In some cultures, women are married as young before they are even 10 years old.

Genetic or not, we have laws against having sex with children to protect our children from manipulation by adults. Our culture believes that kids are unable to make an informed choice of consent, and our laws protect them.

pedophilia is a seperate issue from the topic.

sPinko-Mania · Post by **sPinko-Mania** » 21 Sep 2005 16:45

The debate over genetics/nurture for me is largely pointless, it can still have implications if we figured out if we could tamper with the influences but the real question is this: is there a decision involved? The answer is no, the only decision avaliable is whether or not you act on your feelings. Nature or nurture; both are well beyond the individual's ability to choose otherwise and if it's beyond then it changes a lot.

Post by **Allan** » 22 Sep 2005 11:56

professor wrote: Ok, so people who have a "problem" with homosexuality are as bad as racists, but you've actually distanced yourself from people just because they have opposing opinions as you? So what does that make you as bad as?

Seriously? Alright, I'll humour you. It makes me as bad as someone who doesn't like to hang out with people that offend me and my friends

I tolerate a great deal of differing opinions within my frienships -- I have pretty close friends who voted for Bush!! (gasp) Half of my family are racist homophobes. So, yes, despite a narrow reading of my previous comment, I can, in fact, respect people's differing opinions and still maintain civility and even love towards them. Do I choose to make these people close friends and hang out with them all the time? Why the hell would I?

As for the racist comparison, I'll stand by that. I'll hedge my bets on the side of a couple of decades of scientific research that says there are more than likely links between biological development and sexual orientation. The details of such are still up for grabs, yes, but if some know-nothing biggot seriously wants to "debate" the foundations of these studies, then they can go right ahead and do so. It's a free internet

If you're a legitiment scientist (or just plain knowledgeable person) who wants to debate these studies, let's see some facts (sourced please) and non-moral (i.e. leave the bible out of it) arguments to support your hypothesis. I'm as open as anyone to honest re-interpretation and rational discussion. I just haven't seen or read anything that comes close that. All I've read is "it's just not right!!" ...

Even if it turns out that homosexuality is a "choice" (and it is granted that it is for people who are bi-sexual), I still respect every person's right to make that choice and to live free and happy without having some moral judgement passed on them. Mind your own business. Judge yourself.

50,000 children die every day from easily cureable diseases and hunger. And you're concerned about the "morality" of people whom you don't even know and who they choose to fuck?

Tsiangkun · Post by **Tsiangkun** » 22 Sep 2005 12:19

AllanHaggett wrote:[
Even if it turns out that homosexuality is a "choice" (and it is granted that it is for people who are bi-sexual)

I think the choice is, does one act on their instincts or not. I would say being attracted to men and women sexually is not exactly a choice. Sexual attraction isn't really a deep thoughtful process, it's mostly based on a quick hormone response to an image of something that looks bedable. I don't think it has anything to do with knowing the person, or even having heard their voice. In my opinion, the sexual attraction response is faster than the individuals ability to make a choice on if they want the response to happen or not.

I still respect every person's right to make that choice and to live free and happy without having some moral judgement passed on them. Mind your own business. Judge yourself.

ditto.

professor · Post by **professor** » 22 Sep 2005 14:30

AllanHaggett wrote:50,000 children die every day from easily cureable diseases and hunger. And you're concerned about the "morality" of people whom you don't even know and who they choose to fuck?

Oh ya, that's fair. Hmm...let me think...this is a thread, in the discussion section, about homosexuality. So what am I doing...? I'm discussing homosexuality. Then you say, "50,000 children die every day from....etc." What does that have to do with anything? Who says I'm not concered about dying children and who says I'm "concered" about other people's homosexuality? I'm sharing my view and pointing out inconsistencies I see in people's logic, a.k.a. discussion.

AllanHaggett wrote:I still respect every person's right to make that choice and to live free and happy without having some moral judgement passed on them. Mind your own business. Judge yourself.

Everyone's so quick to pass the judgment card on people. None of what I wrote said I disliked gay people, or I think they are bad people, or I think I'm better than they are. You just assumed or dare I say, pre-"judged" my motives because I have differing viewpoint than you. I'm sure you have friends that do things that you don't think are right, is that passing judgement on them? Do you think they are bad people?

I do wrong things all the time. Who am I to say I'm better than anyone else, it's not my place. I believe every wrong action/thought is equal to every other wrong action/thought. So I don't think I'm any better than anyone, not even prisoners, because I think my bad actions are just as bad theirs. The subject is whether or not you think homosexuality is wrong and I do. I was discussing homosexuality not homosexuals. I'm sorry if you think I'm juding gay people or I don't like them.

And the whole "mind your own business" thing is silly for 2 reasons.
1. By you telling me to "mind your own business", you are minding my business, therefore not minding your own business.
2. Whose business am I minding? Again, this is a discussion thread and if people posting here with different opinions get told to mind their own business, then I guess there will be no discussion happening on this website because everyone will agree. If that's how you want it, then fine, but last time I checked the purpose of the discussion thread was to discuss.

I'm beginning to see why other people that share some of my same views remain quiet....

Post by **Allan** » 22 Sep 2005 16:16

Yo P. My post wasn't intended to be personally directed at you

Post by **Allan** » 22 Sep 2005 16:17

Or at least, not most of it ... just the first part where I quoted you. Whatever though. I obviously have no clue what you're talking about

Jeremy · Post by **Jeremy** » 22 Sep 2005 18:22

If I understand it correctly, I agree with Ben's comment about sex with children - although this is off topic.

I think that certainly some people - without being able to control this - are sexually "turned on" by minors. However this is deemed to be socially unacceptable for the reasons I outlined before - and I think that's fair enough. It differs from homosexuality because of those reasons I outlined before about taking advantage of people you have power over (be it physical power or mental power).

So I would deem these "child molesterers" to have a serious (maybe uncurable) mental illness. Mental illness is a very hard to define term but I define it basically as a mental condition that makes you behave in a socially unacceptable manner. For this reason I think it's really horrible the way people with this particular mental illness are demonised so much and I see it as a reflection on the people doing the demonising. It's not helped by the media and the fact that way too many people in our society have strong opinions on legal cases that they didn't attend and have only read one paragraph about in a newspapaer. There is a reason why cases go on for hours and if you don't know the full details you will find it hard to make an accurate assessment of the case.

I read a while ago a really sad case about a guy who I think was a teacher and he had a relationship with a 16 year old student when he was 24 or 25. He was found guilty of the various applicable child sex laws. a few years later he married that girl and as of the article they have lived together for 10 years or something. When they tried to move somewhere - the people in the town they were moving to protested so much that they couldn't move there - the protests were obviously because the parents didn't want a "pedophile" in their community etc.

In my mind that's not only a complete miscarriage of justice but those reactionary protestors are really horrible people. I really hope they found out the full details of the case (or the details that were in the paper) and felt really bad about it. I agree it is inappropriate for teachers to have relationships and 16-25 is also a questionable age difference - but I think age differences don't take into account maturity - which is way more important and the fact that this girl was passed puberty, the man had no other reported cases of "child sex" and they've been married for 10 years and in a relationship for 12 or 13 says to me that clearly he is not a pedophile.

Anyway this is way way off topic now - sorry. I just think that the treatment of pedophiles is horrible. Yes what they do is also very horrible and I'm not condoning it - but I think it's important to a. no the full details before hounding somebody and b. recognise the fact that these people are mentally ill. If they sat in the middle of the road in a clown suit singing beatles songs and pulling out their hair by individual hairs would people treat them in the same way? Of course not - yet when you think about mental illnesses - what's the difference. It's their illness that controls their actions.

HighDemonslayer · Post by **HighDemonslayer** » 30 Sep 2005 08:59

Vatican Says No Homosexuals in Priesthood – Approved by Pope Benedict

http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2005/sep/05091903.html

----------------

In other societies, having a really young wife is no big deal. It's natural. Just because Westerners have long life expectancies, doesn't mean everyone else should have to abide by their prudish rules.

Except , if you are in my country. A 50-year old man should not have a 9-year old wife.
-n

Jeremy · Post by **Jeremy** » 30 Sep 2005 09:14

lol, I don't know if you were serious with that post or not, but damn it's funny

sniikeri · Post by **sniikeri** » 06 Oct 2005 07:21

Jeremy wrote:In my mind that's not only a complete miscarriage of justice but those reactionary protestors are really horrible people. I really hope they found out the full details of the case (or the details that were in the paper) and felt really bad about it. I agree it is inappropriate for teachers to have relationships and 16-25 is also a questionable age difference - but I think age differences don't take into account maturity - which is way more important and the fact that this girl was passed puberty, the man had no other reported cases of "child sex" and they've been married for 10 years and in a relationship for 12 or 13 says to me that clearly he is not a pedophile.

We have a couple of pedophile cases at the moment here in Finland. One 24-year old was put in prison for having sex with a 14-year old (I don't know how's the law in other countries, but in Finland having sex with someone under 16 is prohibited by law). At the same time, at least a couple of 20-30 men are suspected of having sex with about 13-15-year old girls. In the last case the media associated the case with things from satan worship to drugs, which then probably wasn't even true.
Anyways, some psychiatrist said that having a relationship doesn't protect the child from abuse or rape, which probably is true. Go figure, I guess it should always be judged by the case.

Well, last year one of the girls in my class took a year off because she got pregnant. She was 15, the guy is at least over 20, maybe almost 30. They have the baby and live together now; every morning she takes the baby first to the kindergarten and then goes to school.

Oh right, I have nothing against homosexual people.

footjoe · Post by **footjoe** » 06 Oct 2005 17:43

I have nothing against gay people just as long as they dont try to hit on me

FlexThis · Post by **FlexThis** » 14 Oct 2005 11:34

I honestly can say that I have no problem with gay people, straight people, unics (sp?), people with blue eyes, etc....

It took some serious thought and placing myself into the shoes of others for a long while to realize that life is way too short to stereotype, place blame, and flame on people.

The way others see you can have good and bad effects. I'd rather be known for the good that I've done.

~peace
Damon

Guest_2 · Post by **Guest_2** » 14 Oct 2005 12:15

FlexThis wrote:I honestly can say that I have no problem with gay people, straight people, unics (sp?), people with blue eyes, etc....

It took some serious thought and placing myself into the shoes of others for a long while to realize that life is way too short to stereotype, place blame, and flame on people.

The way others see you can have good and bad effects. I'd rather be known for the good that I've done.

~peace
Damon

Very nice post

HG · Post by HG » 14 Oct 2005 15:11

mohkale wrote:Off-topic:

They caught the goblin.

THIS QUOTE MADE ME LAUGH OUTLOUD FOR LIKE... 10 MINUTES. i suggest you go back to the first page and read the whole post