The inevitability of the rise of gay-affirming Christianity

[jskains]

All I can say is, wow.

Based on your analysis, perhaps you can tell us when the Mass court, which legalized gay marriage in 2003 will overturn a conviction for statutory rape applying the same due process analysis. For that matter, any court that has started down this slippery slope of yours.

Sure, but there are also a lot of people who believe that the government faked the moon landing, conspired to bring down the towers, and that climate change is a hoax. But, its not a good idea to make policy decision based on conspiracy theories that have been thoroughly debunked.

If you are promulgating the idea that homosexuality is deviant behavior, and as many of you do, equate it to pedophilia, in a society where half the people have an IQ of 100 or below, then what do expect would happen?

My expectation is bullying, gay bashing, and teen suicides.

First, bullying has nothing to do with homosexuality. It has to do with finding any weakness and exploiting it. The failure of the homosexual community to understand this fact and a society unwilling to focus on just bulling means we'll just migrate it to another issue. Bullies will go back to making fun of fat kids or something else.

As for the APA and a conspiracy theory, it has nothing to do with conspiracies. There is a lot of argument against what the APA has done in the past and this isn't the only issue that the DSM has been criticized. I reject making policies based on the DSM just as much as you want to not make policies based on perceived conspiracy theories.

As for deviant behavior, do you consider alcoholism a deviant behavior? How about depression? It is a fine line to some people to call Pedophilia deviant behavior. B4U-ACT would approach you just as you approach me. They say you're a bigot who discriminates against "minor-attracted" people due to your social biases, not legitimate facts.

This is the ultimate irony. I could say all homosexuals are deviant rapists who want to harm society. Your reaction would be the equivalent that pro-pedophilia people would have toward your believes on pedophiles.

Remember, some people think about homosexuality and move to homosexual men hiding in the Catholic church as priests who eventually took out their sexual aggression on alter boys. I don't agree with this connection, but I have heard people claim this is an example of why homosexuals are ticking time bombs.

It is a complex issue.

JMS

[jskains]

On a side note, homosexuality is still not understood. Why does it exist? Is it genetic or not? Is it developed in the womb or by environmental factors after birth? Why are some people thinking they are homosexual, then change their mind later? I know a woman who lead a homosexual lifestyle for some time until she got mental help and learned to deal with the fact her father sexually abused her when she was a kid. The treatment didn't even focus on her sexual orientation, and after she accepted that all men are not rapists, she started dating men.

Sorry, but IMHO that's a mental disorder. So none of this is clear cut.

JMS

[thesometimesaint]

Jaybear:

Actually the vast majority of individuals are within 1-2 standard deviations of average IQ. It's called a Bell-Shaped Curve for a reason.

Also; We are in the greater sin if we mistreat any of our fellow man because of some perceived sin.

[thesometimesaint]

jskains:

You are putting the cart before the horse.

Homosexuality has no more of an association with mental illness than heterosexuality.

[jskains]

jskains:

You are putting the cart before the horse.

Homosexuality has no more of an association with mental illness than heterosexuality.

This is the worst and silliest of all pro-homosexual arguments I have come across. By this logic, I could say being attracted to kids has no more of an association with mental illness than being attracted to adults.

Ignoring default or "normal" behaviors and deviations from those behaviors is basically like saying mental illness simply doesn't exist.

[David T]

Jskains,

While there are certainly instances of experimentation for experimentation's sake, the majority cases have homosexuality being as natural to that individual as heterosexuality is to those who are straight. It's not a disease, it doesn't necessitate the endangerment of a child for its fulfillment, it doesn't insist on heterosexuals not getting married and having babies therefore destroying societies reproductive future. It's not a disfunction, it's simply different.

Really, the only honest reasons I've heard people express as to why homosexuality shouldn't be allowed are:

a) They personally are revolted by the idea (the same many homosexuals are revolted by the idea of heterosex)

b) They believe God hates it with a burning passion.

None of the societal or scientific explanations I've seen make any sense to me as to why it shouldn't be allowed legally. Nobody's rights are otherwise being infringed, nobody is being exploited. When it comes to committed monogomous relationships, stats of the spreading of AIDS as an attack on promiscuous homosexuality are ridiculous and a non sequitur. When it comes to the well being of kids, I haven't seen convincing data of children raised by a committed gay couple being any worse off than a committed hetero couple, and in many cases, would appear to be better off than those raised in many troubled hetero marriages.

So generally, when it comes down to it, when people are voting against Gay Marriage, the explanations given are devised after the fact to try and prove their already convinced position based on, 1) the idea is disgusting to me, or 2) My interpretation of my religion is that God said it's bad.

I don't personally find any of those reasons being legitimate legally substantial reasons to keep consenting adults from civilly ratifying a relationship in the same way a hetero couple does.

We already separate civil marriages/unions from Doctrinal Marriages (Temple). Just as we don't try to legislate others' views and practices of Baptism, I dont' see the need to legislate others' views of marriage. We have a built in separation between civil marriage, and doctrinal marriage.

Right now, doctrinally, Civil Marriage is just used as a temporal sign or symbol that one is committed to an individual, and having sex within this government officiated contract of exclusivity is what constitutes living the Law of Chastity. If governments suddenly failed, and there were no civil marriages PERIOD, would that mean nobody could form a family and have God authorized sex in accordance with the Law of Chastity anymore until a new government agency were to be established? No! There's be a new standard or goal post established - perhaps replacing it with simply Temple Marriage, or a recorded oath before a Bishop.

Edited September 26, 2011 by nackhadlow

[thesometimesaint]

jskains:

That I would be pro-homosexual.

There plenty of arguments against homosexuality that have nothing to do with mental illness. The attraction to minors can be an idicator of mental illness, but it is not conclusive, any more than heterosexuality is an indicator of mental illness. The actual occurance rate of pedaphilia is greater in the heterosexual community than in the homosexual community.

"Normal" is a relative term, and must be used in context. A millionare would be abnormal in a group of billionares.

Edited September 26, 2011 by thesometimesaint

[jskains]

jskains:

That I would be pro-homosexual.

I didn't say you were. But this argument is HEAVILY used by the pro-gay community. It's kinda the anti-Pee-Wee Herman defense.

There plenty of arguments against homosexuality that have nothing to do with mental illness. The attraction to minors can be an idicator of mental illness, but it is not conclusive, any more than heterosexuality is and indicator of mental illness. The actual occurance rate of pedaphilia is greater in the heterosexual community than in the homosexual community.

"Normal" is a relative term, and must be used in context. A millionare would be abnormal in a group of billionares.

I did use it in context. Here it describes expected behavior. A male who should be attracted to a female by design instead being attracted to a male is not the expected behavior.

JMS

[David T]

In other words, I think it's personally fine, and somewhat standard, if individuals have an aversion to the practice, and have no desire for its practice to be a part of their lives. I further understand the reasoning individuals have a doctrinal aversion to its usefulness and place in God's plan.

I do not see how it follows that Civil Gay Marriage would somehow therefore fundamentally wreck society or ruin God's plans.

[jskains]

While there are certainly instances of experimentation for experimentation's sake, the majority cases have homosexuality being as natural to that individual as heterosexuality is to those who are straight. It's not a disease, it doesn't necessitate the endangerment of a child for its fulfillment, it doesn't insist on heterosexuals not getting married and having babies therefore destroying societies reproductive future. It's not a disfunction, it's simply different.

Those are your opinions being expressed as fact. We do not know if it is a mental breakdown, a genetic abnormality, a product of environment or any other possibility. You don't know it. I don't know it. This is why in adoption, I am agressively against homosexuals being allowed to adopt.

I do know a couple who adopted a little boy (lesbians). There are definately behavioral differences in that child that reflect the parents. Putting children in unknown situations is exactly what some of us are fighting against.

Really, the only honest reasons I've heard people express as to why homosexuality shouldn't be allowed are:

a) They personally are revolted by the idea (the same many homosexuals are revolted by the idea of heterosex)

b) They believe God hates it with a burning passion.

c) Acceptance of this abnormal behavior is a gateway issue. We have already seen that start up. Now that the gate is open, everyone wants a peice.

d) Acceptance of homosexual marriage and homosexual adoption will also lead to loss of rights. Education, Religion, all battlegrounds for attack once society has enforced the behavior as "normal" and "protected".

None of the societal or scientific explanations I've seen make any sense to me as to why it shouldn't be allowed legally.

That's great for you. I disagree. I have seen lots of scientific and social evidences that show harm to a society when this behavior is normalized. Now what?

I haven't seen convincing data of children raised by a committed gay couple being any worse off than a committed hetero couple, and in many cases, would appear to be better off than those raised in many troubled hetero marriages.

This is a logical fallacy. The problem is that children would also be better raised in stable hetero marriages than troubled hetero marriages. You're creating a link for the sake of argument, but it doesn't prove anything.

Heck, I think a dead squirrel could do better than Obama. Does that mean I really literally want a dead squirrel running for president?

So generally, when it comes down to it, when people are voting against Gay Marriage, the explanations given are devised after the fact to try and prove their already convinced position based on, 1) the idea is disgusting to me, or 2) My interpretation of my religion is that God said it's bad.

Again, I addressed this. Incest, pedophilia, polygamy... All proven to be riding the Gay Marriage wave.

The liberal community demands these things are NOT next, then soon after we see cases where they are. Why do you chose to ignore these cases?

JMS

[Loran Blood]

Gay Marriage = legal consenting adults entering into a mutual and contractual relationship

Pedophilia = sexual molestation of a child

Sorry. Not going to buy any correlation.

You're a bit behind on your sexual revolution ideology, nack. Pedophiles have for sometime now been claiming that much of the sex that goes on between adults and children is consensual and positive, for both the adult and the child, and that its criminalization and opposition represents the ignorance and bigotry of the majority. You see, nack, as with the breakdown and delegitimization of heterosexual premarital celibacy marital monogamy, the domestication of homosexuality is of a piece with other similar and yet to be developed movements within culture of polymorphous perversity. Homosexuality is, at its core, and despite its long sophistic reign as a "sexual orientation," a form of deep seated sexual fetishism (sexual desire of men for men) which, in and of itself, is morally indistinguishable from many others, including pedophilia, for which there is no reason not to claim a purely genetic origin just as for homosexuality.

[David T]

Again, I addressed this. Incest, pedophilia, polygamy... All proven to be riding the Gay Marriage wave.

The liberal community demands these things are NOT next, then soon after we see cases where they are. Why do you chose to ignore these cases?

JMS

Frankly, while I have no desire to personally participate, I don't see any reasons not to legally allow Polygamy/Plural Marriage. I don't think Latter-day Saints especially would wish to try to argue about societal ills of Polygamy, with many LDS being the result of loyal and committed polygamous unions.

Incest and Pedophilia are cases where harm and physical and emotional abuse is not just the exception, it is the norm. It will never be legal for an adult to have sex with a 9 year old of any gender.Period. Incest also is almost always the result of an abuse of power, and the taking advantage of a vulnerability. Emotional and physical damage as a result is well documented, especially as concerns resultant offspring.

While Polygamy could be in the same category as homosexuality (consenting legal adults choosing to enter into a mutual contract without any essential harm necessitated), Incest and Pedophilia are inherently and predominantly predatory, dangerous, and harmful to the participants, and potential offspring. They are not related to Homosexuality in any way, and legal acceptance of one does in no way have any causal relationship to acceptance of the other harmful and injurious and predatory practices.

[Loran Blood]

Homosexuality is a sexual orientation, and is no longer considered a sin in Mormon doctrine. What is considered sinful is gay sex.

At best, Same Sex Attraction, or homoerotic feelings and desires, are not, in and of themselves, sinful (depending, I would postulate, on their origins, which in all likelihood are different for different people). Homosexuality is a syndrome encompassing the entire practice and culture of homosexual self identity, so I would disagree that it does not fall under the umbrella of the concept of sin (just as is lesbianism).

[seriously honestly]

On a side note, homosexuality is still not understood. Why does it exist? Is it genetic or not? Is it developed in the womb or by environmental factors after birth? Why are some people thinking they are homosexual, then change their mind later? I know a woman who lead a homosexual lifestyle for some time until she got mental help and learned to deal with the fact her father sexually abused her when she was a kid. The treatment didn't even focus on her sexual orientation, and after she accepted that all men are not rapists, she started dating men.

Sorry, but IMHO that's a mental disorder. So none of this is clear cut.

JMS

I think all of that can be summed up as follows (this of course is not limited to homosexuality):

1. Man rejected God

2. Sin entered the world beacuse of that action

3. We live in a world of our own making, and have to deal with intricate effects of sin

[thesometimesaint]

jskains:

A good arguement is a good arguement regardless of source. Otherwise it is just an ad hominen attack.

"Expected behavior" for sexual orientation. I have no idea what that means outside of a religious context. Would polygamy be an indicator of mental illness? Not really, though it can be argued that wanting more than one Mother-in-Law is a mental illness.

[jskains]

Incest and Pedophilia are cases where harm and physical and emotional abuse is not just the exception, it is the norm.

In the view of groups like B4U-ACT, this is a product of your social programing, not reality. That you are enforcing your moral ideology and are wrongfully applying that emotional abuse is common in child/adult relationships.

Try as you might, they have an agressive set of arguments that sound a LOT like they are out of the pro-gay playbook.

JMS

[David T]

I also want to make clear that it is highly possible some new information, or a persuasive argument will be able to sway my views on this. I am not dogmatic on this position, as it has dramatically changed as I investigated why I actually held the position I do, and viewed it from another perspective.

I simply have found the most energetic arguments are those fueled from personal revulsion, or religious rhetoric. The evidence I have seen used to bolster those positions has not been convincing for me. I do read and consider all other arguments I see. I am willing to be convinced otherwise - it just hasn't happened.

[David T]

In the view of groups like B4U-ACT, this is a product of your social programing, not reality. That you are enforcing your moral ideology and are wrongfully applying that emotional abuse is common in child/adult relationships.

Try as you might, they have an agressive set of arguments that sound a LOT like they are out of the pro-gay playbook.

JMS

jskains,

I reviewed B4U-ACT's website. I've seen many references to attempts at counseling, compassion, and helping individuals deal with their emotional feelings and avoiding crises and illegal actions. I haven't seen any advocation at all for acting illegally on those inclinations, or for decriminalizing it. Do you have a link from them that does advocate those positions? If not, I don't understand the relevance of your comparison.

Edited September 26, 2011 by nackhadlow

[Daniel2]

You're a bit behind on your sexual revolution ideology, nack. Pedophiles have for sometime now been claiming that much of the sex that goes on between adults and children is consensual and positive, for both the adult and the child, and that its criminalization and opposition represents the ignorance and bigotry of the majority. You see, nack, as with the breakdown and delegitimization of heterosexual premarital celibacy marital monogamy, the domestication of homosexuality is of a piece with other similar and yet to be developed movements within culture of polymorphous perversity. Homosexuality is, at its core, and despite its long sophistic reign as a "sexual orientation," a form of deep seated sexual fetishism (sexual desire of men for men) which, in and of itself, is morally indistinguishable from many others, including pedophilia, for which there is no reason not to claim a purely genetic origin just as for homosexuality.

Loran, after your comment that homosexuality is "a form of deep seated sexual fetishism," I don't think Nack's the one who isn't "up to date" on his "sexual revolution ideology."

That statement belies a profound misunderstanding of thousands of loving same-sex relationships--and households--that are based on far more profound foundations than "sexual fetishism." Just as heterosexual relationships include an important component of sexual compatability, but are not based merely on sexual behaviors, so, too, are homosexual relationships based on a variety of emotional, care-giving, financial, spiritual, and sexual compatabilities between the two people involved in making that committment.

Daniel2

Edited September 26, 2011 by Daniel2

[Loran Blood]

In Pedophilia, there is always a predator, and always a de facto and victim.

The sexual revolution didn't end with the sixties or early seventies, but has continued to develop, and combined with the ethos of postmodernism, there are no limits or boundaries that are not fit for "transgressive" assault.

http://www.theblaze....ize-pedophilia/

http://websrv02.kids...stions_sex.html

http://b4uact.org/principles.htm

http://www.drjudithr...sexualizin.html

Note: if you are, in any sense, an intellectually or morally normal human being, you are not going to believe what you find on the link below.

http://www.eutimes.n...graphy-as-well/

One might with substantial intellectual benefit take not of the following statement found on the B4U-ACT website linked to above:

We understand that the attraction to children or adolescents is both sexual and emotional, and that individuals do not choose to have these feelings.

We recognize the severe stigma directed against minor-attracted people by the media, politicians, law enforcement officials, and some mental health professionals. We oppose the perpetuation of false stereotypes and the use of language that instills fear in the public, fails to promote understanding, and ignores the humanity of minor-attracted people.

I'm handing out red flags, free of charge, for the duration of this thread.

One may also take note of the inevitable deployment of politically correct neologisms as weapons in the struggle to subvert cultural moral/social norms here as in many other areas, as manifested in the term "minor abstracted people" as a substitute for the traditional "pedophile."

If it hasn't sunk in at any point thus far in this discussion, we might as well state the obvious:

Kinsey has won.

Edited September 26, 2011 by Loran Blood

[David T]

I'm handing out red flags, free of charge, for the duration of this thread.

One may also take note of the inevitable deployment of politically correct neologisms as weapons in the struggle to subvert cultural moral/social norms here as in many other areas, as manifested in the term "minor abstracted people" as a substitute for the traditional "pedophile."

If it hasn't sunk in at any point thus far in this discussion, we might as well state the obvious:

Kinsey has won.

My review of the B4U-ACT site leads me to believe the purpose is to help those with the attraction to minors live in society, rather than a) making them societal lepers always in hiding, or b) acting out on those emotions, causing physical, emotional, and legal harm.

It acknowledges that a) people really do have that struggle, and b) to simply ignore, hate or cage those with real emotional difficulties is not productive, as it tends to create more crises situations than prevent them.

I get the impression that it's purposes are for crises prevention, not for advocation of or acceptance of pedosexual activity.

Edited September 26, 2011 by nackhadlow

[Loran Blood]

jskains,

I reviewed B4U-ACT's website. I've seen many references to attempts at counseling, compassion, and helping individuals deal with their emotional feelings and avoiding crises and illegal actions. I haven't seen any advocation at all for acting illegally on those inclinations, or for decriminalizing it. Do you have a link from them that does advocate those positions? If not, I don't understand the relevance of your comparison.

I'm afraid your "review" didn't go far enough. Without launching into a through analysis of the material contained on this website (which may make for an interesting future thread), this tidbit might be initially instructive:

Why do you say that minor-attracted people are stereotyped?

Popular beliefs about minor-attracted people are not supported by the evidence. Research shows that they are no more violent or aggressive than the general population, nor do they suffer from psychopathology or personality disorders. As a group, they do not share any particular characteristics or behaviors other than their feelings of attraction.

Note the explicit logical inference embedded in this statement that being sexually attracted and desiring sexual contact with children is not a form of psychopathology or personality disorder. There is nothing pathological or disordered, in a psychological or moral sense, about pedophilia.

[David T]

Note: if you are, in any sense, an intellectually or morally normal human being, you are not going to believe what you find on the link below.

http://www.eutimes.n...graphy-as-well/

You're right. I don't believe it.

I'm trying to find a legitimate news source reporting on this as something that actually happened (your link is from 2009). The EU Times is known to be a rumor-monging politically charged rag, generally filled with racist rhetoric, and not a legitimate news source. All other references to this story have come back to this one unsubstantiated rabble-rousing post. It looks more like an internet chain letter than anything (Stop the Gay Jesus movie!!!). again, any other references? It seems something this big would have been all over the place.

Edited September 26, 2011 by nackhadlow

[David T]

The sexual revolution didn't end with the sixties or early seventies, but has continued to develop, and combined with the ethos of postmodernism, there are no limits or boundaries that are not fit for "transgressive" assault.

http://www.theblaze....ize-pedophilia/

And this story with the header, "Psychologists push to decriminalize pedophilia" just links to another story that quotes a portion of B4U-ACT, and then notes that " Critics believe this could lead to the decriminalization of pedophilia." - again, the headline and rhetoric is far more specific than the actual data used to support it, without any quotes from anyone actualyl arguing for the decriminalization of the practice of pedosex.

There's a lot of loud fear-mongoring rhetoric, but not much substance. I'm still reading through your links though. 2 more to go.

Edited September 26, 2011 by nackhadlow

[Loran Blood]

I get the impression that it's purposes are for crises prevention, not for advocation of or acceptance of pedosexual activity.

The core assumption of the website appears to be that pedophilia is essentially a natural, normal "orientation" that is misunderstood and stigmatized by society, and criminalized by its laws. Welcome, again, to Gay lib, circa 1970.

One might again take notice of the authors utter hostility to the possibility of effective reparative therapy - exactly the same stance taken toward homosexuality, also understood and promoted by the Gay lobby and its cultural supporters in in precisely the same terms as the authors understand the fundamental aspects of pedophilia:

No one chooses to be emotionally and sexually attracted to children or adolescents. The cause is unknown; in fact, the development of attraction to adults is not understood. A large number of theories involving hormonal influences, genetics, evolutionary processes, negative socialization, poor parental relationships, and childhood sexual experiences have been proposed, but most have not been tested scientifically, and none are supported by reliable evidence. In particular, there is no evidence to support the common belief that attraction to children or adolescents in adulthood is due to childhood sexual abuse

Studies of the effectiveness of reconditioning methods to change feelings of attraction suffer from serious methodological flaws, and have led to inconsistent results. The few well-constructed studies have found that they are no more effective with pedophilia or ephebophilia than with homosexuality

Interesting how all aspects of the sexual revolution always end by being of a piece with all the other aspects, philosophically, ideologically, and psychologically. Notice the core similarities between fundamental justifications of homosexuality and of pedophilia as psycho-sexual phenomena:

1. Both are inherent and intrinsic. "No one chooses to be emotionally and sexually attracted to children."

2. It is assumed that there must be some core, discreet, scientifically isolatable "cause" of pedophilia just as is the case for homosexual attraction.

A large number of theories involving hormonal influences, genetics, evolutionary processes, negative socialization, poor parental relationships, and childhood sexual experiences have been proposed, but most have not been tested scientifically, and none are supported by reliable evidence. In particular, there is no evidence to support the common belief that attraction to children or adolescents in adulthood is due to childhood sexual abuse

I note a few things here, one being the preference for biological reductionism in the chain of causal theory, and the second being the idea that the complexities and subtleties of family dynamics and childhood sexual experience could be "scientifically tested." in an intelligible way such that causal factors could be teased out without contaminating any such studies with the bias of the researcher. Note also that childhood sexual experience, tipping their hats to Kinsey, is excluded completely as a possible contributor to adult psycho-sexual perversion/fetishism.

3. Their is no possibility of reparation or change. Pedophilia, like homosexuality, is destiny.

Edited September 26, 2011 by Loran Blood