Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Flipside on May 30, 2006, 11:02:42 pm
-
Of course, you have to vote in the Paedophile Party to get it....
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060530/od_nm/dutch_pedophiles_dc;_ylt=ArNt9.U2wNz7KHtWCeKKMxus0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTA3NW1oMDRpBHNlYwM3NTc-
'The party also said everybody should be allowed to go naked in public and promotes legalizing all soft and hard drugs and free train travel for all.'
Yes, I know it's a stupid fringe group that'll die out when absolutely no-one attends the opening party, but still.... :wtf:
-
For some reason, I read the thread title as "Hey! Free Time Travel...", and for a brief second I thought I could finally live out my dream of going back to Dallas on November 22, 1963, stand on the grassy knoll and yell "Duck!"
-
nuke the earth now!
-
I wonder if their campaign slogan will be "No taxation withouth molestation."
-
Yes, I know it's a stupid fringe group that'll die out when absolutely no-one attends the opening party, but still.... :wtf:
Well, don't forget, 100 years ago homosexuals were a "stupid fringe group"...
-
I hope that wasn't a sideways comparison between homosexuality and paedophilia, Goob.........
-
Yes, I know it's a stupid fringe group that'll die out when absolutely no-one attends the opening party, but still.... :wtf:
Well, don't forget, 100 years ago homosexuals were a "stupid fringe group"...
And 150 years ago black people were also a "stupid fringe group"...
Just putting things in perspective.
-
I hope that wasn't a sideways comparison between homosexuality and paedophilia, Goob.........
More like a direct parallel between the state of homosexuality in society's eyes 100 years ago to the state of pedophalia in society's eyes today. Both completely unacceptable at the time.
I'd much rather have free time travel then free train travel. :p.
-
I hope that wasn't a sideways comparison between homosexuality and paedophilia, Goob.........
More like a direct parallel between the state of homosexuality in society's eyes 100 years ago to the state of pedophalia in society's eyes today. Both completely unacceptable at the time.
I'd much rather have free time travel then free train travel. :p.
Yeah, but you can draw the same parallels between acceptance of slavery, lack of democracy, lack of universal suffrage, acceptance of sending kids down the mines; or the converse lack of acceptance of crimes like theft, rape, murder, etc for many, many decades and centuries. There are clear differences between the actual 'content' of homosexuality and paedophilia, namely in the capacity for consent, and drawing any sort of direct parallel in this manner would be purely idiotic as they are clearly not equatable acts.
-
It's just hard to figure out how on earth does the free train travel fit in there :F
Well of course free travel from one loli to another but... uh... .... >_>
-
"Toddlers should be given sex education and youths aged 16 and up should be allowed to appear in pornographic films and prostitute themselves. Sex with animals should be allowed although abuse of animals should remain illegal, the NVD said."
:wtf: says it all, really. bunch of ****ing loonies.
-
Actually, it's hopefully a bunch of soon-to-be castrated and most definitely not ****ing loonies.
-
I already stated my opinion in another forum where this was posted:
Excuse me, Europe, but what the feck is wrong with you?
-
Yes, I know it's a stupid fringe group that'll die out when absolutely no-one attends the opening party, but still.... :wtf:
Well, don't forget, 100 years ago homosexuals were a "stupid fringe group"...
Homosexuality has been around since the dawn of mankind. Some societys just built ways of frowning on it. The churches for example fueled the fires of bigotry and intolerance. I see these days are pretty much the same...?
-
I already stated my opinion in another forum where this was posted:
Excuse me, Europe, but what the feck is wrong with you?
first point: so... a small group of people does something moronic/sick whatever you want to call it, and you start screaming there's something wrong with ALL of us here in Europe? Hell, what's wrong with you? IF and I say IF this would be true, we would be just as shocked as the rest of the world.
it's seems like that whole article is BS though.. I live in the Netherlands. I haven't heard anything about this, and going through the news archives doesn't come up with any results. Seems like someone's trying to be funny. ( I could always be wrong, though)
-
I'm all for live and let live, But acknowledgment and acceptance are two different things all together, Example. I was drinking down my local (The Copperfield in catford) It was R&B night and a girl i know whas out with (direct quote) "her fairy" She introduced him to the group i was with we replied quite curtly, not rude not dismissive. as the night drew on, and the booze flowed he took the lack of verbal abuse (through acknowledgement) as a green light to throw himself on my mate steve who happens to be a scrum half for our local league rugby team............
Somehow he lived to make it to the door without dying.
-
I'm all for live and let live, But acknowledgment and acceptance are two different things all together, Example. I was drinking down my local (The Copperfield in catford) It was R&B night and a girl i know whas out with (direct quote) "her fairy" She introduced him to the group i was with we replied quite curtly, not rude not dismissive. as the night drew on, and the booze flowed he took the lack of verbal abuse (through acknowledgement) as a green light to throw himself on my mate steve who happens to be a scrum half for our local league rugby team............
Somehow he lived to make it to the door without dying.
mmm.... to be fair, it's not all that far removed from the pissed-up bloke who hits on everyones girlfriends, is it?
-
Yeah as i say, live and let live, If they let me got on with my life fine, but intefere in mine or anyone elses, and thats where the trouble starts, i mena look at hitler.
-
Yeah as i say, live and let live, If they let me got on with my life fine, but intefere in mine or anyone elses, and thats where the trouble starts, i mena look at hitler.
I'm looking at him
right now, in the eye
Is he your idol
-
:wtf: No way !! What i'm trying to get accross is that everyones welcome to do what they want as long as it doesn't infringe other peoples cicvic virtues or rights, Anything invasive to other peoples sanctity or personal space (as i mentioned) should not be looked upon kindly. But likewise a persons views, mine included shouln;t belittle someone because of a lifestyle choice.
:P :yes:
-
Wolf: Ah, so I'm not the only one thinking something was wrong...
Actually, the Dutch newspaper NRC has an article on this:
http://www.nrc.nl/binnenland/article336311.ece
And unlike what most of Europe might appear to think, the Dutch populace is NOT happy about this. Most people really think that this should be stopped ASAP.
-
Wolf: Ah, so I'm not the only one thinking something was wrong...
Actually, the Dutch newspaper NRC has an article on this:
http://www.nrc.nl/binnenland/article336311.ece
And unlike what most of Europe might appear to think, the Dutch populace is NOT happy about this. Most people really think that this should be stopped ASAP.
82%, according to the original (top link) article, I believe.
-
And that's just the ones who believe the government should be stop the party from forming. The other 18% probably believe in the most part that the party has no legal reason not to form but that they should simply not be voted for.
Of course the real irony here is that by coming out in the open like this anyone connected with the party has basically lost any chance of presenting a "I don't even think of children in that way" defence in court should they ever come up on charges.
-
No offence to anyone, but 2000 year ago, Christianity was a fringe group. Homosoxuality is between 2 consenting adults and was held back by societies taboos. Paedophilia involved a parter who is unable to truly know whether they are ready or not, not 2 consenting adults.
I think the reason the article doesn't make the news is exactly for the reasons I stated in my first post, why glorify it basically?
-
I must've missed the bit of the sermon on the Mount that went
"oh, and love thy father and thy mother. And treasure they world, and respect each other as thou would respect I. Be kind, be charitable and good to your fellow man.", spoketh Jesus.
"But what", rose a voice from the crowd, " of the gays?".
"Oh, don't get me started on the gays! With thine flowery robes and thy camp mannerisms. The gays shalt deserve to be treated horribly, and without thy tolerance. Cruciify the lot, I sayeth."
-
Actually, the Dutch newspaper NRC has an article on this:
http://www.nrc.nl/binnenland/article336311.ece
And unlike what most of Europe might appear to think, the Dutch populace is NOT happy about this. Most people really think that this should be stopped ASAP.
Wonder how I missed that... I stand corrected then. Wonder if this is going to be another political drama....
-
Actually, the Dutch newspaper NRC has an article on this:
http://www.nrc.nl/binnenland/article336311.ece
And unlike what most of Europe might appear to think, the Dutch populace is NOT happy about this. Most people really think that this should be stopped ASAP.
Doubt it. I mean, you wouldn't tolerate the 'legalise rape party', would you?
Wonder how I missed that... I stand corrected then. Wonder if this is going to be another political drama....
-
Yeah, but you can draw the same parallels between acceptance of slavery, lack of democracy, lack of universal suffrage, acceptance of sending kids down the mines; or the converse lack of acceptance of crimes like theft, rape, murder, etc for many, many decades and centuries. There are clear differences between the actual 'content' of homosexuality and paedophilia, namely in the capacity for consent, and drawing any sort of direct parallel in this manner would be purely idiotic as they are clearly not equatable acts.
I'm not making a judgement on any of those behaviors at this time. However, consider the following:
100 years ago, the vast majority of Westerners considered homosexuality completely unacceptable.
Today, the vast majority of Westerners consider pedophilia completely unacceptable.
Isn't it possible that in 100 years, the vast majority of Westerners may consider pedophilia acceptable?
Pedophiles today say that they're "misunderstood" and that, although the two participants are of different ages, they are two consenting human beings, and age should have nothing to do with it. Homosexuals of 50 years ago were fighting for acceptance in the same way that pedophiles appear to be fighting for acceptance in the Netherlands today.
Giving the shifting views of society over time, what are the odds that the general consensus on morality today is 100% correct? Shouldn't we consider that, because society of the past got a few things wrong that we now get right, it might be possible that they got a few things right that we now get wrong?
Just trying to get people to think. :)
-
Yeah, but you can draw the same parallels between acceptance of slavery, lack of democracy, lack of universal suffrage, acceptance of sending kids down the mines; or the converse lack of acceptance of crimes like theft, rape, murder, etc for many, many decades and centuries. There are clear differences between the actual 'content' of homosexuality and paedophilia, namely in the capacity for consent, and drawing any sort of direct parallel in this manner would be purely idiotic as they are clearly not equatable acts.
I'm not making a judgement on any of those behaviors at this time. However, consider the following:
100 years ago, the vast majority of Westerners considered homosexuality completely unacceptable.
Today, the vast majority of Westerners consider pedophilia completely unacceptable.
Isn't it possible that in 100 years, the vast majority of Westerners may consider pedophilia acceptable?
Pedophiles today say that they're "misunderstood" and that, although the two participants are of different ages, they are two consenting human beings, and age should have nothing to do with it. Homosexuals of 50 years ago were fighting for acceptance in the same way that pedophiles appear to be fighting for acceptance in the Netherlands today.
Giving the shifting views of society over time, what are the odds that the general consensus on morality today is 100% correct? Shouldn't we consider that, because society of the past got a few things wrong that we now get right, it might be possible that they got a few things right that we now get wrong?
Just trying to get people to think. :)
So you are comparing homosexuality to paedophilia?
-
Indeed, but Homosexuality has been in and out of 'vogue' repeatedly over a lot of generations. There are entire societies that found it perfectly acceptable. Paedophilia has, to my knowledge, always been, if not reviled, then at least an 'underground' and not 100% accepted. Even Ancient Greek culture, which was heavily into homosexuality, never really mentions Paedophilia at all. I can't think of any societies offhand which openly accepted it, though I'll admit, that's by no means confirmation there hasn't been one.
The odd thing, I suppose, is that 4 generations ago, 12 years old was a marrying age, but then, 30 years was considered old-age, so both the goalposts moved, as it were.
-
Indeed, but Homosexuality has been in and out of 'vogue' repeatedly over a lot of generations. There are entire societies that found it perfectly acceptable. Paedophilia has, to my knowledge, always been, if not reviled, then at least an 'underground' and not 100% accepted. Even Ancient Greek culture, which was heavily into homosexuality, never really mentions Paedophilia at all. I can't think of any societies offhand which openly accepted it, though I'll admit, that's by no means confirmation there hasn't been one.
The odd thing, I suppose, is that 4 generations ago, 12 years old was a marrying age, but then, 30 years was considered old-age, so both the goalposts moved, as it were.
Mm... the Greeks were into pedastry, actually; being young was seen as a 'beautiful' thing, although I'm not sure what exact age range it was (from early teens, I think).
EDIT; I'm using wikipedia because, frankly, I don't want to search this in google. Erk.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pederasty_in_ancient_Greece
-
Yup, the age of consent in Greek society is estimated at around 11-12, so, by comparison to modern day society it would be considered Paedophiliam but since they only lived to around 25-35 years old, it sort of changes the perspective. Whilst a 'young boy' or 'young woman' was considered desireable though, a 'young child' was not, and that, I think is where the problem is. Pedophiles are aroused not by looks or, strictly speaking, by physical form, but by knowing that their partner is a child. I'm not certain that was accepted, even in Greek society.
-
Incidentally I've always found this (http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/says_about/pedophilia.html) amusing.
-
Yup, the age of consent in Greek society is estimated at around 11-12, so, by comparison to modern day society it would be considered Paedophiliam but sice they only lived to around 25-35 years old, it sort of changes the perspective. Whilst a 'young man' or 'young woman' was cosidered desireable though, a 'young child' was not, and that, I think is where the problem is. Pedophiles are aroused not by looks or, strictly speaking, by physical form, but by knowing that their partner is a child. I'm not certain that was accepted, even in Greek society.
Yeah. I mean, you have to also look at this from a modern perspective when analyzing it, too; society has moved away from the concept of asserting what might be termed a 'lifestyle dominance' of enforced moral values or simply physical strength, and more towards a system where the concepts of individual consent matters. The same reasoning that allows homosexuality as a perfectly legal and fine part of society is the same that bars rape, paedophilia, and slavery. The only think paedophilia really has in common with homosexuality as far as I see is, is that it involves 'sex'; if you can ever term the abuse of a child to be that (and I don't think that you can, anyways). The connotation that the 2 are somehow related has always struck me as simple bigoted homophobia trying to scrabble for some moral advantage; but there's no more in common between, say, homosexuality and the abuse of (eg) a boy by his uncle, than there is between hetrosexuality and the abuse of (again, eg) a girl by her dad.
-
Indeed, but Homosexuality has been in and out of 'vogue' repeatedly over a lot of generations. There are entire societies that found it perfectly acceptable. Paedophilia has, to my knowledge, always been, if not reviled, then at least an 'underground' and not 100% accepted. Even Ancient Greek culture, which was heavily into homosexuality, never really mentions Paedophilia at all. I can't think of any societies offhand which openly accepted it, though I'll admit, that's by no means confirmation there hasn't been one.
Pederasty (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pederasty_in_ancient_Greece) appears to be, if not quite the same thing, close enough that it might be considered pedophilia. So that would mean the ancient Greeks accepted both homosexuallity and pedophilia.
So, given that certain practices go in and out of vogue, what's unacceptable this generation may be acceptable a few generations later on, and then it may flip flop again. This is what happens with a morality based on relativism or populism.
EDIT: It looks like part of this was covered while I was typing my post.
-
Indeed, but Homosexuality has been in and out of 'vogue' repeatedly over a lot of generations. There are entire societies that found it perfectly acceptable. Paedophilia has, to my knowledge, always been, if not reviled, then at least an 'underground' and not 100% accepted. Even Ancient Greek culture, which was heavily into homosexuality, never really mentions Paedophilia at all. I can't think of any societies offhand which openly accepted it, though I'll admit, that's by no means confirmation there hasn't been one.
Pederasty (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pederasty_in_ancient_Greece) appears to be, if not quite the same thing, close enough that it might be considered pedophilia. So that would mean the ancient Greeks accepted both homosexuallity and pedophilia.
So, given that certain practices go in and out of vogue, what's unacceptable this generation may be acceptable a few generations later on, and then it may flip flop again. This is what happens with a morality based on relativism or populism.
EDIT: It looks like part of this was covered while I was typing my post.
The whole point is that modern morality, thanks to the intermixing of culture and global inter-communication, is less and less about relativism and more about, for lack of a better term, universal concepts of human rights and the capacity for consent and responsibility. It's why we don't generally kill people for having a different religion.
-
Oh indeed, maybe in a few generations time Paedophilia may well be reviewed again, it will never really go away, and will have to be faced up to at one point. But at our current level of knowledge regarding the child's phsyche, and our current level of Tolerance, it's a dangerous, and unwanted pastime.
Our current society took long enough to accept Homosexuality, and the only issues there was the 'mental comfort' of people who were nothing to do with it, Pedophilia suddenly involves the needs and wants of a child, which is why, in my opinion, it will be a lot lot harder to deal with properly.
-
I've never understood the sort of 'destroying society' homophobia; what the hell 'danger' does same-sex-sex actually pose? It's not exactly contagious, it doesn't make people go out and become thieves, it doesn't result in spontaneous human combustion or terrorism, what's the fear?
-
There are people out there who, alas, genuinely think that the 'Ultimate Homosexual Agenda' is to make humanity homosexual, or to re-create the Greek idealogy of Free Bisexuality. Part of me is scientifically interested to see, if you created a society without these sexual taboos being ground in from birth, what would be considered acceptable to such a society and what would not, it'd probably give us an excellent view of humanities early development of society, and break about 15 International laws, but still... :)
-
There are people out there who, alas, genuinely think that the 'Ultimate Homosexual Agenda' is to make humanity homosexual, or to re-create the Greek idealogy of Free Bisexuality. Part of me is scientifically interested to see, if you created a society without these sexual taboos being ground in from birth, what would be considered acceptable to such a society and what would not, it'd probably give us an excellent view of humanities early development of society, and break about 15 International laws, but still... :)
What is wrong with free bisexuality, though? I mean, I'm firmly hetero and all, but the only viable arguement I can think of against homosexuality is that it doesn't naturally bring itself to reproduction (although it doesn't make it impossible on a biological and instinctual level; just need to grab a willing partner or go through artificial means), but that is completely inapplicable to bisexuality. You could perhaps make the accusation bisexuality and / or non-reproductive sex lends itself to multiple partners (again, this would be entirely misrepresenting the situation because it applies as much to heterosexual flings and we are effectively a polygamous species anyways) and thus the transmission of sexual diseases, but that's not applicable as soon as you bring protection/precautions into the mix and as in brackets, it's easily applicable to every sexual orientation anyways.
-
Exactly, if you were raised in a society that freely accepts Bisexuality you wouldn't think Bisexuality was bad, it's not really an argument of Morals that many Homophobes make it out to be, it's more a declaration of 'This isn't the rules of the society I grew up in!'.
My stand against Pedophilia though, is more a concern of the phsychological effects on the child. Homosexuality is an equal two-way agreement, I am not convinced that Paedophillia is the same.
-
Exactly, if you were raised in a society that freely accepts Bisexuality you wouldn't think Bisexuality was bad, it's not really an argument of Morals that many Homophobes make it out to be, it's more a declaration of 'This isn't the rules of the society I grew up in!'.
My stand against Pedophilia though, is more a concern of the phsychological effects on the child. Homosexuality is an equal two-way agreement, I am not convinced that Paedophillia is the same.
Well, it is worth noting that the age of (biological, not perceived) puberty is decreasing (for some reason); which is presumably partially why we have a seeming upturn in young (i.e. early teen) girls getting preganant. But, it is equally proven that the age where you develop the capacity to actually reason like an adult, i.e. have the capacity for consent, is not. So whilst a few of these sick bastards might try and use the former as some form of twisted justification, in actuality the latter can only increase the importance of protection against paedophilia; particularly because, I think the earlier puberty means these kids are effectively sexualising (correct word?) themselves, without a true understanding of the consequences and reality of sex itself, so you need to protect them from themselves as it were.
So I think all the driving, neutral factors increase the need for protecting kids, not reduce it.
-
What is wrong with free bisexuality, though? I mean, I'm firmly hetero and all
Apologies for singling you out, but I think you partly answered your own question with that disclaimer. :) Even if you choose to view homosexuality as socially acceptable, don't you have a faint queasiness about it in the bottom of your gut, as if the concept goes against your grain? IMHO that queasiness is God's gentle prompting that it goes against his created order.
but the only viable arguement I can think of against homosexuality is that it doesn't naturally bring itself to reproduction
That's basically it. God designed sex for both reproduction and pleasure, and he established certain guidelines and boundaries on how to use it. He disapproves of anything outside this boundary, including extramarital sex, homosexual sex, and (by extrapolation from biology) pedophile sex.
There are other, less direct, arguments too. If a person decides to view a certain sin as acceptable in his own eyes, he sets himself up with a mindset that is in opposition to God. Such a mindset, over time, is likely to lead to approving other sins, even ones which may have nothing to do with the original one.
(Note that, from God's point of view, homosexuality and pedophilia are defined solely in terms of sex. Firm friendship with a person of the same sex is not homosexuality. Neither is firm friendship with a child pedophilia.)
That's from the spiritual point of view. From the physical point of view, there are studies that show the ideal environment for raising a child is one with both a strong male influence and a strong female influence. Other environments, such as single-parent homes, may be sufficient, but they are not ideal. Likewise, a child raised by two fathers or two mothers does not get the benefit of that ideal environment. It may be the case that it does no harm at all, but it is not ideal. (NB: Such an environment may have nothing to do with homosexuality, such as a child raised by a single father and an uncle who acts as a father figure.) It may also be the case that a child raised by two fathers or two mothers will be better off than a child raised in a foster home, but again, it is not the ideal.
-
That's basically it. God designed sex for both reproduction and pleasure, and he established certain guidelines and boundaries on how to use it. He disapproves of anything outside this boundary, including extramarital sex, homosexual sex, and (by extrapolation from biology) pedophile sex.
As I pointed out earlier the bible says nothing at all about pedophilia. So does that make it less of a sin that homosexuality then? Cause the bible is quite vigourous in pointing out that homosexuality is a sin.
In fact the only bar a christian has against pedophilia is the one against extramarital sex. So pedophilia is okay if you have a child bride. And what does the bible say against that practice? Bugger all as far as I'm aware.
-
Actually, I can't really say I do get an uneasy feeling when around Homosexuals. At first I did, I'll freely admit, when I first started hanging round with musicians, some of whom were open Homosexuals and/or Cross-Dressers, I felt very uncomfortable indeed. Oddly enough though, it wasn't their opinion of me that was making me uneasy, it was my preconceptions about them, all those schoolyard jokes etc, where being called a gay was fight talk, comes back to haunt you. But once you hang around with them for a while and get chatting and actually knowing these people, rather than jumping to conclusions, no I thoroughly enjoyed their company, they didn't rub their sexual preferences in my face, nor I theirs, it's not as if I'd go round and discuss my intimate sex life with a Heterosexual friend, nor they with me, same rule applies.
-
Homosexuality has been around since the dawn of mankind. Some societys just built ways of frowning on it. The churches for example fueled the fires of bigotry and intolerance. I see these days are pretty much the same...?
Surely those exact words apply to paedophilia?
-
As I pointed out earlier the bible says nothing at all about pedophilia. Nothing at all. So does that make it less of a sin that homosexuality then? Cause the bible is quite vigourous in pointing out that homosexuality is a sin.
True. And I don't know if it's less or more of a sin. But, proceeding from natural revelation (as opposed to Biblical revelation) I'm pretty sure that it is.
God created sex to be between a man and a woman. Neither man/man or woman/woman sex works very well. In the same way, children aren't sexually mature until they reach puberty. So, I conclude that sex is permissible at any time after puberty but at no time before.
Now, of course, application of this general rule requires weighing the factors involved. So, even though a 12 year old might be sexually mature enough to have a child, she probably isn't mentally mature enough. So while sex in this context may not be sinful per se, it may be unwise.
As pointed out earlier, in societies where the average life expectancy was 30 years old, many people probably did get married right after puberty - especially women. The age of 18 used today is rather arbitrary.
-
I think that what Aldo means is that, if you were born into a Greek society, grew up being told that it was perfectly ok to have a sexual relationship with another man etc. Then I wonder how many of us would actually do so? Now, no doubt people will instantly reply 'Not Me!'. The simple truth is that we can never know who would and who would not, we haven't grown up with that meme, with grown up with a meme that finds Homosexuality unpleasant.
If that is the case, then it raises the question, 'How much of our 'gut feelings' regarding Homosexuality are actually coming from outside, not within?'
-
True. And I don't know if it's less or more of a sin. But, proceeding from natural revelation (as opposed to Biblical revelation) I'm pretty sure that it is.
Well let me ask you this. If the bible considers it a sin why didn't it mention it once? Homosexuals can't get married according to the bible but yet it still goes to great lengths to point out that it is a sin for them to have sex. You can't hide behind the extramarital sex thing due to that. If the bible did consider paedophilia a crime surely it would have mentioned it at least once?
God created sex to be between a man and a woman. Neither man/man or woman/woman sex works very well. In the same way, children aren't sexually mature until they reach puberty. So, I conclude that sex is permissible at any time after puberty but at no time before.
Now, of course, application of this general rule requires weighing the factors involved. So, even though a 12 year old might be sexually mature enough to have a child, she probably isn't mentally mature enough. So while sex in this context may not be sinful per se, it may be unwise.
So in other words the bible does support paedophilia as long as the child has gone through puberty? I fail to see how you could possibly claim that sex between two like-minded men doesn't work yet a sexual relationship between lets say a 40 year old man and a 14 year old would be fine in God's eyes.
-
Even if you choose to view homosexuality as socially acceptable, don't you have a faint queasiness about it in the bottom of your gut, as if the concept goes against your grain? IMHO that queasiness is God's gentle prompting that it goes against his created order.
I see. I have the same feeling of intolerant Christians. IMHO, that queasiness is the FSM's gentle prompting that Christians go against the created order of the universe. :)
-
Well let me ask you this. If the bible considers it a sin why didn't it mention it once? Homosexuals can't get married according to the bible but yet it still goes to great lengths to point out that it is a sin for them to have sex. You can't hide behind the extramarital sex thing due to that. If the bible did consider paedophilia a crime surely it would have mentioned it at least once?
Well, the Bible never spells out doctrines like the Trinity either. It's sort of an educated guess based on available information.
But do consider that this would be an extremely rare situation. How often do you end up with a 20-year-old man legally married to a 5-year-old girl, or vice versa? Perhaps it was so rare as to not warrant mention, since anyone wanting to commit pedophilia would most likely run afoul of several other sins first.
So in other words the bible does support paedophilia as long as the child has gone through puberty? I fail to see how you could possibly claim that sex between two like-minded men doesn't work yet a sexual relationship between lets say a 40 year old man and a 14 year old would be fine in God's eyes.
Well I think that every person who has gone through puberty is technically an adult. Plus Jewish culture holds its coming-of-age ceremonies at age 12.
And I think tradition puts the Virgin Mary at about 14 to 16. Also, Abraham was 85 when he slept with Hagar, who was probably in her teens or twenties, from whom was born Ishmael.
I see. I have the same feeling of intolerant Christians. IMHO, that queasiness is the FSM's gentle prompting that Christians go against the created order of the universe. :)
Are you sure about that? There's a difference between a nagging, gut feeling and an immediate, reflexive response. :)
-
Homosexuality has been around since the dawn of mankind. Some societys just built ways of frowning on it. The churches for example fueled the fires of bigotry and intolerance. I see these days are pretty much the same...?
Surely those exact words apply to paedophilia?
Hmmm, true. But even when I think back to examples of it. It has still never been mainstream. I can think of a few situations where corrupt leaders had this habit, yet many others added it to a list of why to userp him. On the counter, I guess homosexuality hasn't been very mainstream either, but was far more common throughout history.
Even if you choose to view homosexuality as socially acceptable, don't you have a faint queasiness about it in the bottom of your gut, as if the concept goes against your grain? IMHO that queasiness is God's gentle prompting that it goes against his created order.
I see. I have the same feeling of intolerant Christians. IMHO, that queasiness is the FSM's gentle prompting that Christians go against the created order of the universe. :)
:lol: :yes:
When people refer to the Bible I have to say that it means nothing to me. The bible in my eyes is about on the level of other philosophical books, less so probably because of my own views. It is a book created and revised by men in power where control of the masses was a powerful tool to be had. I see little "holiness" about it when those who revised and created it did so at their own discretion and personal views.
A gut feeling I think would come from some outside influence.
What if I firmly said I don't have this gut feeling at this point in time, yet am hetrosexual?
Do you know or have any gay friends goob? Are they good people?
-
Homosexuality has been around since the dawn of mankind. Some societys just built ways of frowning on it. The churches for example fueled the fires of bigotry and intolerance.
Mind you, much of the "bigotry" and "intolerance" of the churches throughout history (definitely not all, but a healthy portion of it, for sure) was not the church, it was the Bible. The Bible has some very harsh things to say about homosexuality and various other matters; if you're gonna bash anything for being intolerant, bash the Bible.
-
Well, the Bible never spells out doctrines like the Trinity either. It's sort of an educated guess based on available information.
But do consider that this would be an extremely rare situation. How often do you end up with a 20-year-old man legally married to a 5-year-old girl, or vice versa?
More often than you think. It's a common enough practice in many countries. For instance (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/1206979.stm).
In Nepal, 7% of girls are married before they are 10, and 40% by age 15.
You can look at that from a western point of view and think "We're better than that" but you've got to remember that comes from secular laws passed on morality that is nothing to do with the bible.
Perhaps it was so rare as to not warrant mention, since anyone wanting to commit pedophilia would most likely run afoul of several other sins first.
So you believe that the Caanites and Sodomites with all their supposed imorality were not also paedophiles? Same with the Romans and Greeks in the New Testament. Cause the bible is forever pointing out other people's sins as an example of what not to do.
Remember that since the bible fails to make any destinction for age the biblically proscribed punishment for molestation of a child is the marriage of the child to the molester which means that paedophilia was sanctified by God in biblical times. And that furthermore the Jewish people who can't hide behind the new covenent with Chirst still accept this.
On top of this the practice of not allowing children to be married to adults is still purely social convention. There's no reason stated in the bible that it shouldn't become the accepted norm once again.
Well I think that every person who has gone through puberty is technically an adult. Plus Jewish culture holds its coming-of-age ceremonies at age 12.
So do you favour the reduction of age of consent and age at which someone can be married to 12? Since someone that age is technically an adult?
-
I already stated my opinion in another forum where this was posted:
Excuse me, Europe, but what the feck is wrong with you?
We tried to be too much like the democrqtic and liberal USA.... and this is what happens. Thank god Croatia is not part of the EU..yet.... :nervous:
But likewise a persons views, mine included shouln;t belittle someone because of a lifestyle choice.
Interesing choice of words...lyfestyle choice...
Giving the shifting views of society over time, what are the odds that the general consensus on morality today is 100% correct? Shouldn't we consider that, because society of the past got a few things wrong that we now get right, it might be possible that they got a few things right that we now get wrong?
Just trying to get people to think.
Interesting questions. And I agree to a point. Basicly EVERYTHING we know is basicly a belief. Even the scientific stuff...Are you REALLY sure the law of gravity is 100% correct? Could it be that someone is wrong here.
Likewise, when people say that the Bible is a ****ty book written by power-hungry clerics - it's a gain a thing of belief. In theory, you can question anything anyone thinks or believes.....
However, does that mean one should not hold any oppinions or try to change the world for hte better?..
Food for thought...
-
I've never understood the sort of 'destroying society' homophobia; what the hell 'danger' does same-sex-sex actually pose? It's not exactly contagious, it doesn't make people go out and become thieves, it doesn't result in spontaneous human combustion or terrorism, what's the fear?
Comon natural defense mechanism ... any creature will find it more comfortable to stick with it's own kind and will avoid other members of it's species that behave strangely.. after all, you never know if it's deseased or something.
It's in peoples psyche to form small groups they feel comfortable in. teh world is devided into nations, they are into states, states into provinces, provinces into cities, cities into parts and neghbourhoods..
-
What is wrong with free bisexuality, though? I mean, I'm firmly hetero and all
Apologies for singling you out, but I think you partly answered your own question with that disclaimer. :) Even if you choose to view homosexuality as socially acceptable, don't you have a faint queasiness about it in the bottom of your gut, as if the concept goes against your grain? IMHO that queasiness is God's gentle prompting that it goes against his created order.
No queasiness, no gut 'anti' any more than I have a slight quasiness about tall people, or black people, or people with long hair. Unfortunately it's a sad fact about the internet that, if you say something like that without a bit of a disclaimer, there are certain people - bigots - who then try and twist it in some way to be used as an insult, and usually directed upon your sexuality. Also, I think it's vitally important to note my own sexual orientation here to show exactly the opposite of what you just said - it's contrary to my - for lack of a batter term - predeliction, but I have no objections to it.
EDIt; as someone else said, i do get a slight quesiness in anticipation of the contents of this thread, though. And a very large queasiness in you a) assuming that I have any compunctions about this subject and b) that if i did, it could be chalked up to 'God'. I find the concept of suspension of free will when it comes to bigotry and prejudice rather apalling, myself; 'a big boy did it and ran away' is about the same level of excuse.
but the only viable arguement I can think of against homosexuality is that it doesn't naturally bring itself to reproduction
That's basically it. God designed sex for both reproduction and pleasure, and he established certain guidelines and boundaries on how to use it. He disapproves of anything outside this boundary, including extramarital sex, homosexual sex, and (by extrapolation from biology) pedophile sex.
There are other, less direct, arguments too. If a person decides to view a certain sin as acceptable in his own eyes, he sets himself up with a mindset that is in opposition to God. Such a mindset, over time, is likely to lead to approving other sins, even ones which may have nothing to do with the original one.
(Note that, from God's point of view, homosexuality and pedophilia are defined solely in terms of sex. Firm friendship with a person of the same sex is not homosexuality. Neither is firm friendship with a child pedophilia.)
That's from the spiritual point of view. From the physical point of view, there are studies that show the ideal environment for raising a child is one with both a strong male influence and a strong female influence. Other environments, such as single-parent homes, may be sufficient, but they are not ideal. Likewise, a child raised by two fathers or two mothers does not get the benefit of that ideal environment. It may be the case that it does no harm at all, but it is not ideal. (NB: Such an environment may have nothing to do with homosexuality, such as a child raised by a single father and an uncle who acts as a father figure.) It may also be the case that a child raised by two fathers or two mothers will be better off than a child raised in a foster home, but again, it is not the ideal.
Well, and I'm going to be blunt, the spiritual POv can **** right off when it comes to society as a whole. You can't dictate to people what to do on the basis of a 2000 year old story, it's just not fair. If Christians want to treat other Christians like **** based on a guess of a dusty old translation, then that's their choice, but it's simply dictat to do it to anyone else.
If it emerges that scientifically there is some disadvantage to same sex parents (and more than single parents or being a plain old orphan), then you can perhaps have an arguement on those grounds (but only with regards to adoption or fostering, as you can't remove someones choice to reproduce biologically), but as you already noted that's not an arguement against sexual orientation in any case, and certainly homosexuality doesn't really prevent a different-sex parental 'community', if we consider the historical evolution of society (both in ancient and modern societies, parental responsibilities and roles extend to cover a larger community rather than just 2 individuals).
It's worth reaffirming, though, that homosexuality isn't really a barrier to reproduction, because if it was we almost certainly wouldn't have any gay people; even if there is not a genetic cause, then any cultural cause would be unlikely to propagate if the people creating it died quickly. Hell, Bonobo monkeys seem to get along fine. And bisexuality, of course, is absolutely fine from this standpoint.
-
It's Memes, stories passed down from generation to generation, no, not stories, ways of thinking. Paedophilia is not an acceptable Meme in current Western society, the whole word has a 'dirty' feel to it. I have my own concerns about it, even if it does exist in other countries, however, you need to look at the massive difference between Western culture and that in Nepal. A 10 year old in Western culture is far far less aware of the 'hard' facts of the world than a 10 year old in Nepal, who has probably been working for several years, and has likely lost more than one friend or relative to violence or disease. That Meme suits the society it works in, it's entirely possible, I suppose it's possible that the lifestyle of children in Nepal means they are perfectly mentally capable of starting full sexual relationships at 10-11, but I'm pretty certain that children bought up in the more priviliged Western culture are not.
-
I doubt that children in Nepal are ready either to be honest. They're simply forced to do it.
-
Interesting questions. And I agree to a point. Basicly EVERYTHING we know is basicly a belief. Even the scientific stuff...Are you REALLY sure the law of gravity is 100% correct? Could it be that someone is wrong here.
Likewise, when people say that the Bible is a ****ty book written by power-hungry clerics - it's a gain a thing of belief. In theory, you can question anything anyone thinks or believes.....
However, does that mean one should not hold any oppinions or try to change the world for hte better?..
Food for thought...
Um, science never precludes everything is 100% correct, rather it provides a series of testable theories and uses evidence to establish them. Are you sure that your hand exists? Is it actually there? Well, what's most likely, etc?
(So the issue is not questioning - in actuality science is designed for questioning, which is the converse of religious doctrine. It's the quality of question that counts)
In any case, you can't reduce life down to abstract unknown, even accounting for the inherent uncertainty* of 'absolute' knowledge. What we can do, is ttry to define the harm and benefit of actions. Does homosexuality cause measurable harm to society? No. Does prejudice and bigotry cause harm? Yes (at the very least to the affect individuals). Etc. So you can't say 'it's ok, because I'm trying to make the world better' without some form of reasoning that stands up in relative & rational terms. Hell, Hitler would have thought he was improving the world by Aryanizing it, and there's no debate over the wrongness of that.
*do our eyes work, does our brain perceive enough to make the right conclusions, etc.
-
Well, I see no direct harm from homosexuality, nor do I despise or hate homosexuals, but the simple fact is that it simply isn't normal....
It's not what a human is design to do, it's not what he's supposed to do and it most certanily isn't a lyfestyle choice.
Suffice to say I think it's better for children to grow up in a normal family (normal enviroment) than in a homosexual one.
The sad thing is that there are usually more kids needing adoption than willing families ..can one afford to be picky then?
-
Dont send them to Belgium or Thailand whatever you do...... :shaking:
(edit fixed smiley)
-
Well, I see no direct harm from homosexuality, nor do I despise or hate homosexuals, but the simple fact is that it simply isn't normal....
It's not what a human is design to do, it's not what he's supposed to do and it most certanily isn't a lyfestyle choice.
Suffice to say I think it's better for children to grow up in a normal family (normal enviroment) than in a homosexual one.
The sad thing is that there are usually more kids needing adoption than willing families ..can one afford to be picky then?
Define 'normal', though?
I mean, every behaviour can be termed as minority in some community or the other. Monogamy, for example, is really only 'normal' within a modern, Western Christian context. Homosexuality and bisexuality occurs in Bonobos as mentioned earlier, and also in other (non-primate, too) species.
The concept of the human body being 'designed' for heterosexuality is rather odd, though, because the whole 'design' concept is obviously a misnomer. As is 'supposed' to do. We are designed to mate and reproduce. Whilst homosexuality seems to run contrary to that, it does not impinge the capacity for reproduction, and as we can see through historical prevelance, it certainly does not prevent it from occuring. More so, if it is not a 'lyfestyle choice' (sic), then how can it be - to paraphrase - against nature? Clearly if it is genetic and common (depending on which statistics you choose, as common as being left handed), then it is very much natural even if the cause of selection is odd.
Even then, (arguably) nature abhors normality; normalcy entails staticness, inability to adapt, lack of diversity. The 'isn't normal' arguement I always find to be a very odd one; particularly considering we are a species that doesn't even have a type specimen for a skeleton, let along a definition of what a 'normal' human psyche is.
-
A Normal Psyche
The psyche is a multidimensional aspect of consciousness, most commonly thought of as being composed of the subconscious and superconscious. Thus, to humans, the psyche is considered to be those portions of the self other than the ego. However, our traditional definition of the psyche is limited by our lack of experience in utilizing the psyche as an integral, involved segment of acknowledged experience. This lack of utilization prohibits comprehension of the full range of knowledge and ability native to the psyche.
Therefore the Psyche is normal to the individual. Any exteranal observer cannot grasp the past experience and or effects as a changing multi faceted entinty, The constuents of which as i'm sure you know are the Ego, The Super Ego, (and my personal favourite) The ID.
The ID is more to blame fore personal predispositions as much as environmental factors in "lifestyle choices" Thats my own professional opinoin, --A Level Psychology A+ pass
-
Ok, granted various ancient societies had various tolerance of gays. Look at the epic of gilgamesh for example. But people who claim that "all 'anti-gay' remarks by judeo-christian founding texts/people are debatable in their validity and authenticity" are generally apologetics who aren't studying the sources in an academic way. It's like saying "well, Hitler didn't actually hate the Jews, it's just that there was an antisemitic mood in the society at the time and some of his underlings decided to capitalize on that to perform their tasks" or something. Although I'm simplifying a bit, as the previous sentence can be proven wrong by reading Mein Kampf.
-
Ok, granted various ancient societies had various tolerance of gays. Look at the epic of gilgamesh for example. But people who claim that "all 'anti-gay' remarks by judeo-christian founding texts/people are debatable in their validity and authenticity" are generally apologetics who aren't studying the sources in an academic way. It's like saying "well, Hitler didn't actually hate the Jews, it's just that there was an antisemitic mood in the society at the time and some of his underlings decided to capitalize on that to perform their tasks" or something. Although I'm simplifying a bit, as the previous sentence can be proven wrong by reading Mein Kampf.
I believe one of the key debates relates to a greek word (arsenokoites) that doesn't have a hard-set or definitive literal - to - english translation, though, and which could mean a number of other things such as heterosexuals having homosexual sex or male prostitutes.
In any case, I mustn't have heard of the bit where Jesus rants on about the Roman gay mafia ruining Jerusalem with their flashy chariots and superior interior design methods.
-
Ok, 2 things:
1. I was being stupid and posted after reading the first page, not noticing the two next ones. Thus my post is more closely relevant to the last post on pg1.
2. I did not mean to imply that I myself see anti-gay attitudes as justified. To the contrary, I'm probably more pro-gay than most people on this forum, even though I'm a het male myself.
@Previous disscussion on getting "uneasy feeling" about gays that they are against the order of the universe: this is just ****ing sick. The very same thing could be said by a Pope: "Look, they don't believe in the Trinity, the very essence of the world order! We should kill them all!" If you feel like that about gays, it's because of the society you grew up in - look at the greeks for example! - not some kind of innate ****ed-up human morality, for god's ****ing sake. I've never felt uneasy around my gay friend, even when he talks about his crush.
-
One of my relatives was gay, and his father all but disowned him for it. So he moved cross-country. Our family visited him every year for a while before he died (of AIDS). He was a really nice guy, and I was glad to have had the chance to know him. My appreciation for him as a person is independent of my views about his behavior.
Another of my relatives is divorced, and yet another is marrying a divorced woman. I disapprove of that as well, and yet, as before, I treat them no differently because of it. Personally I think divorce is a much more pressing issue than homosexuality; the divorce rate is skyrocketing and it's as high in the American Christian church as it is in America as a whole. That's appalling. The church should be setting an example with their behavior: physician, heal thyself.
-
Actually the whole "uneasy feeling" argument can be taken down with one word.
"Lesbians"
Obviously since not only does that not cause an uneasy feeling but actually quite the opposite it is obvious that God must quite like lesbians then. They must be at least as natural as hetrosexuals since we don't get that feeling sent to us by God.
-
Do you mean pretty women pretending to be lesbians, or unwashed truck driver lesbians? :p
Heterosexual guys are not attracted to masculine women. The whole lesbian fixation seems to be based on the mistaken assumption that lesbians are even more feminine than heterosexual women.
-
Yes divorce is a pressing issue, but not only does same-sex marriage problem contribute to divorce, in those places where no kind of legal recognition of same-sex couples (whether it uses the word marriage or not) is possible, it is a pressing human rights issue to get that to happen. Divorce is usually a morally legitimate act, whereas outlawing same-sex couples is not.
-
Do you mean pretty women pretending to be lesbians, or unwashed truck driver lesbians? :p
Please tell me you're joking or I will beat your head in with a rusty pipe.
-
Do you mean pretty women pretending to be lesbians, or unwashed truck driver lesbians? :p
Please tell me you're joking or I will beat your head in with a rusty pipe.
http://www.armory.com/~crisper/Scorch/index.html (http://www.armory.com/~crisper/Scorch/index.html)
-
Actually you have to look at the 2 different definitions of Lesbian.
Women's Definition of Lesbian : A woman who is physically and emotionally attracted to other women.
Man's definition of Lesbian : A woman who enjoys having sex with other women while a man watches/interacts.
In my experience (though not direct(more's the pity)) I tend to find than any man offered a chance to engage in sexual activity with 2 women really considers stunning looks as a secondary thing, it's a bonus, but not essential.
Remember : Porn movies are not real life.
-
<snip>
Remember : Porn movies are not real life.
WHAT?! NOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!111!! IT'S NOT TRUE! IT CAAAN'T BE!
-
Remember : Porn movies are not real life.
Otherwise there wouldn't be a shortage of dishwasher repair men.
-
And pizza delivery services aren't as friendly and agreeable.
-
Define 'normal', though?
Ahh..playing with semantics, are we?
I can do that too you know.. let's question the definition of every single word in the vocabulary till practicly every definition goes my way.
Just coause something happens in nature doesn't automaticly make it normal. After all, there are some animals that kill and eat their mate during sex. So if humans started acting that way we should consider it normal too?
Bear in mind that "normal behaviour" doesn't mena a strict, narrow road - there's a lot of possibilities for variation within it. norma lbehaviour is not stale and doesn't not stop or hinder change - rather it focuses it in a specific manner...
-
Define 'normal', though?
Ahh..playing with semantics, are we?
I can do that too you know.. let's question the definition of every single word in the vocabulary till practicly every definition goes my way.
Just coause something happens in nature doesn't automaticly make it normal. After all, there are some animals that kill and eat their mate during sex. So if humans started acting that way we should consider it normal too?
Bear in mind that "normal behaviour" doesn't mena a strict, narrow road - there's a lot of possibilities for variation within it. norma lbehaviour is not stale and doesn't not stop or hinder change - rather it focuses it in a specific manner...
Right, so you can't define it in any way beyond the expression of personal prejudice.
That's my whole point.
-
And pizza delivery services aren't as friendly and agreeable.
These things have plots?
Judging by recent threads. I'm beginning to think the key to human sexuality revolves around Pizza in some way....
-
And pizza delivery services aren't as friendly and agreeable.
These things have plots?
Judging by recent threads. I'm beginning to think the key to human sexuality revolves around Pizza in some way....
I don't know.....I'd have to check my hidden folder for that.
-
(http://www.aqsx85.dsl.pipex.com/repos.jpg)
-
That's just stupid.
Porn repository singular?!
-
Yeah, I call it Drive D: ;)
-
Do you mean pretty women pretending to be lesbians, or unwashed truck driver lesbians? :p
Please tell me you're joking or I will beat your head in with a rusty pipe.
http://www.armory.com/~crisper/Scorch/index.html (http://www.armory.com/~crisper/Scorch/index.html)
*Signs up.*
-
(http://www.aqsx85.dsl.pipex.com/repos.jpg)
:lol: :lol: :lol:
And pizza delivery services aren't as friendly and agreeable.
These things have plots?
Judging by recent threads. I'm beginning to think the key to human sexuality revolves around Pizza in some way....
I always thought the key to human sexuality revovled around copulation. Silly me.