[Flipside]

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.

[aldo_14]

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.

[Goober5000]

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.

[karajorma]

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.

[Flipside]

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.

[NGTM-1R]

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?

[Goober5000]

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.

[Flipside]

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?'

[karajorma]

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.

[Kamikaze]

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.

[Goober5000]

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.

[Grug]

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.

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?

[Sandwich]

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.

[karajorma]

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.

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?

[TrashMan]

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....

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...

[TrashMan]

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..

[aldo_14]

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.

[Flipside]

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.

[karajorma]

I doubt that children in Nepal are ready either to be honest. They're simply forced to do it.

[aldo_14]

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.