Same sex marriage

[miteyak 0]

pedophiles, Ocean, pedophiles... or don't you understand the term. Homosexuals enjoy sex with other MEN, (the male of a species, post-pubescent).

 

Pedophiles molest and/or rape both males and females, pre-pubescent, and generally involves touching rather han sodomy.

 

Paedophilia is considered a mental illness ... is that how you see homosexuality?

[Ocean11 0]

A cursory glance through some search results there shows that there are lots of studies with lots of different (and interesting) conclusions.

 

Shall we spend the next few days bunging these at each other like true academics?;

 

Pedophiles: mental retardation, maternal age, and sexual orientation.

 

Blanchard R, Watson MS, Choy A, Dickey R, Klassen P, Kuban M, Ferren DJ.

 

Clinical Sexology Program, Clarke Institute of Psychiatry, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. blanchardr@cs.clarke-inst.on.ca

 

Intellectual functioning, parental age, and sexual orientation in 991 male sexual offenders were investigated. Sources of data included semistructured interviews, clinical charts, phallometric tests, and self-administered questionnaires. The results suggest two main conclusions: (i) Among pedophiles in general, erotic preference moves away from adult women along two dimensions: age and sex. The extent of this movement is greater, along both dimensions, for pedophiles with lower levels of intellectual functioning. (ii) High maternal age (or some factor it represents) increases the likelihood of exclusive sexual interest in boys. Intellectual deficiency (or some factor it represents) decreases the likelihood of exclusive sexual interest in girls. These two factors summate, so that a pedophile with both factors is more likely to be sexually interested in boys than a pedophile with only one.

 

Offered FWIW - WINAL

[Ocean11 0]

miteyak, thank you, I had no idea.

 

Have you heard the word 'continuum' before? Pedophilia is one end of the continuum for both homosexual and heterosexual men (generally). Given that there are homosexuals who are actively trying to get the line drawn further and further down the scale without having to go to jail, I conclude that you're only partly correct in what you say.

 

As for it being a mental illness, well that's an unknown isn't it? Recent studies with sheep suggest that a certain percentage of sheep exhibiting a same-sex preference have different structures in their brains from er, normal sheep.

http://my.webmd.com/content/article/53/61397.htm

Read some of the abstacts on barok's site and you'll see that some of the authors on there are not unequivocal in their language about that. Again, all FWIW.

 

Anyway, I can't spend any more time on this. I have to go and lobby my representatives for tax breaks for foot fetishists. Are there any other snowboarders out there who find women's feet sexy? Perhaps we could get together and form a group.

[damian 0]

 Quote:

Originally posted by Ocean11:
and who do you think it is that sodomizes little boys if not homosexuals of one sort or another?

This statement proves and supports nothing. It is the same as saying "and who do you think it is that joins the Infantry if not Male members of the Human Species?"

Fact: To be in the Infantry in the Australian Army you must be male

SET THEORY and LOGIC:

Are all members of the Set of Male People in the Set of Infantry? No. [Do all members of the Set of Male People want to being in the Set of Infantry? No. Do all members of the Set of Male People admire the Set of Infantry? No.]

As stated, to be a member of the Set of Infantry you must be a member of the Set of Male. There is a Compulsory Union between this set. However that Compulsory Union does not infer correlation. Within traditional Set Theory Logic, you can't muster correlation on demand just because a Compulsory Union exists.

The best you can do is state that there is a Set of the Set of Males who enjoy being a member of the Set of Infantry. BUT, this does not invalidate the fact that there are members of the Not Male Set who would enjoy being in the Infantry Set. In this case, membership is denied.

Now, The same RULES OF LOGIC applies to your statement. If you sodomize a boy, you are obviously gay, even if you pretend to be otherwise with your wife. That is, all members of the Sodomize Boys Set are members of the Gay Set. You probably thought that your application of 'logic' allowed my last statement to prove your case. It does not. May last statement says nothing about members of the Gay Set. To sodomize a boy, you immediately become gay, but to become/be gay you do not need to/want to sodomize a boy. Just the same as all members of the Infantry Set are members of the Male People Set, but not all the members of this Set want to be Members of the Infantry Set. Being Male does not make you an Infantry Man, but being an Infantry Man makes you Male. No matter how much you want to, you cant reverse my later statement of fact to draw logically conclusive inference about the former.

No binary inference at all can be drawn about my membership of the Infantry Set from the fact that I am a member of the Male Set.

You have confused compulsory set membership with causality and correlation. This is a mistake and you are wrong.

[miteyak 0]

Nice one db, but you too are confused.

 

A man who sodomizes a boy is not gay, he's a pedophile. He might be gay as well, but that would depend on his adult preference. In the same way, a man who rapes a pre-pubescent girl is certainly not affirming his heterosexuality. The rape and molestation of children is not about sexual preference, but power and control.

 

Many pedophiles like to say they are gay to try and justify their sick behaviour. It doesn't mean they are!

[Ocean11 0]

Indeed, nice try db, applying rigorous logic to a rhetorical question.

 

While I agree with you that sodomy by definition makes one homosexual (whereas miteyak thinks it's maybe some kind of lifestyle statement), I was simply stressing that as a sexual danger to boys, homosexuals must be high on the list. This in response to absurd assertions that it couldn't possibly be the case. I'm quite familiar with the logical fallacy that you present, and am in no danger of falling into it.

 

If we want to dice it finer, I'll admit to thinking that there are probably two kinds of homosexuality - an innate behaviour (the sheep!) and a learned behaviour (being 'down' in and out of jail).

 

miteyak, are you sure you want to keep using the term 'gay'? It lacks precision and seems to confuse you...

[Stefan 0]

This is a great thread! But just because someone is homosexual, it doesn't make them a danger to young boys surely? No　more than I being hetrosexual am a danger to young girls.

 

As for the 'learned' and 'inate behaviour', well doesn't that argument belong in the nature vs nuture debate?

 

Are criminals/ homosexuals/ rapists/ etc born or are they a result of society.

[miteyak 0]

I thought you were retiring from the furor you created...

 

The word gay confusing me... that statement is confusing me.

 

I like to use terms as depicted by professionals in the field of study, dictionary or by law. That way we don't have to go around in circles when having a debate.

[Ocean11 0]

 Quote:

But just because someone is homosexual, it doesn't make them a danger to young boys surely?

Not necessarily no. In most cases, absolutely not. This arose in the context of whether two homosexuals can bring up straight children, especially boys, and I have my doubts. Which is just another reason why they're not equal to a man and woman in marriage.

[Stefan 0]

I can see that Ocean, and your entitled to your doubts. I always respect an educated opinion no matter how departed it is from mine.

 

Two gay people are entitled to bring up children, and the much trumpeted populist, and in my opinion ridiculous view that ' the kid'll ul end up gay too' hasn't even reared its head, what a relief!

 

The fact is, that if two gay people offer a kid a home, which is loving and secure, that is BETTER than some place where the kid is unloved or abused. And if people are unable to see the sense in that, well that's unfourtunate.

 

Ocean, by the way what do you mean 'straight children' by that you're rubbishing your earlier point of there being two kinds of homosexuality?

[miteyak 0]

 Quote:

Originally posted by Mr Matthews:
. I always respect an educated opinion no matter how departed it is from mine.

Let's not confuse an educated opinion with an opinion from an educated person...

Ocean made it clear earlier on in this discussion that he'd had negative experiences with homosexuals, and his subsequent arguments against equal lifestyle opportunities ooze of tailoring the facts to back up his 'post-judice'. I like a good debate, but when it turns into defamation of character and slander against a large minority of the population, it starts to fall into the 'hate' category.

I'm assuming there's an element of devils advocate here, or certainly hope so.

[Ocean11 0]

 Quote:

Two gay people are entitled to bring up children, and the much trumpeted populist, and in my opinion ridiculous view that ' the kid'll ul end up gay too' hasn't even reared its head, what a relief!

A bit early for relief there - that's exactly what I'm saying.

Adults learn homosexual behaviour in prison, so what are the chances that a male child living with two openly gay men might too? It may be trumpeted by populists, but it's also a concern of social and health workers too. Whether the result might be innate or learned homosexuality I'm not qualified to say, but I think anybody is qualified to be concerned about it.

Not all kinds of love are equally beneficial to children. danz has already put forward the 'out of the frying pan into the fire' viewpoint, and it doesn't appeal to me.

[Ocean11 0]

miteyak, you couldn't stand five minutes of good debate without falling into defamation of character and hysterical exaggeration. You show that with your last post.

 

No devil's advocacy here.

 

I have nothing against homosexuals who do not 1) try to have sex with me, 2) bore me to distraction with talk of themselves and their sexuality, 3) claim privileges to which they are not entitled. I have known a few. The rest, I have learned to dislike. Call that 'hate' if you like - it's the common, populist, PC thing to do. But it's not any the less wrong for that.

 

BTW, 21C falls straight into category 2) as he has posted almost nothing of relevance here other than gay talk. I dislike that.

[miteyak 0]

 

Your description of gay men there pretty much clarifies just how broad a spectrum of that sub-group you've actually met...

[Stefan 0]

 Quote:

Adults learn homosexual behavior in prison, so what are the chances that a male child living with two openly gay men might too?

Prison? A unique, isolated and totally different set of hierarchal structures apply there, a poor example by your standards Ocean?

If what you state above is your real belief, then how come millions of children brought up in heterosexual families are homosexual?

[Ocean11 0]

miteyak, maybe half the men I met have been gay, but were simply polite enough not to mention it. Good on 'em - I probably liked them.

 

Mr Matthews, prison and the home - what's the difference?

 

 Quote:

then how come millions of children brought up in heterosexual families are homosexual?

That's just the way it goes. Read the literature on it.

 

My, this has been (don't go taking a good chuckle as a sign of devil's advocacy though...)

[Stefan 0]

 Quote:

Mr Matthews, prison and the home - what's the difference?

They don't let you have guitar strings in prison. Plus in my house at least, we were a bit short on the rapists and murderers, unless my dad has been hiding something!

[miteyak 0]

Thanks for signing off there, I:ve got a deadline to finish...

[cakehead 0]

Nice thread dudes - I have nothing to add!

[Ocean11 0]

Does anybody else think that being a little boy, born to two lesbians through an artificial procedure because your mum can't stand men, and never meeting your dad, might be a bit freaky? I wonder how it feels to be conjured up from disembodied semen. I expect you would probably get used to it, but...

 

Is that even vaguely similar to the sort of set up that we have here and call marriage and a family? Er, no.

 

If people really need to go through these contortions, that's up to them, but nobody else should be required to dignify them with certain labels when they don't agree in the slightest that those labels fit.

 

(As a translator, I see lots of people making a real hash of the practise and business of translation. I don't deign to call them translators because they're not. This situation seems exactly analogous to the question of whether or not homosexuals can be said to be married.)

[damian 0]

 Quote:

Originally posted by Ocean11:
I wonder how it feels to be conjured up from disembodied semen. I expect you would probably get used to it, but...

Honestly, I never really think about the manner in which the part of me that was once male sperm came to be coupled with the part of me that was once a females egg.

As crude as it sounds, I do not care if db the sperm wriggled his way from the stain on the bed sheet.

The cause of my origination holds no meaning to me.

[Goemon 0]

Ocean: I guess it would be "freaky" for some children, but doesn't diversity (be it "birthing backgrounds" , ethnicity, religious beliefs, etc) lead to a stronger society? And can't adversity contribute to an individual becoming stronger than if they had been raised in a completely normal (=bland), coddled existence? I think you don't give children enough credit for their resiliency.

 

I think a part of your argument seems to stem from the concept of "protection"; this may be whether you are protecting your concepts of marriage, protecting children or protecting your corn-hole from an un-protected buggering . Not being a father myself, I wonder if you may have a stronger sense of protectiveness than I do because you have a son.

 

I'm not saying I disagree with that protective instinct; rather, I think it must be an incredible weight on your shoulders protecting the world from all of these perceived evils.

[Ocean11 0]

db, as a first reaction, I might agree with you; Here you are - who cares how you got here?

 

But actually, a lot of people who got here by mysterious means do end up caring, quite intensely in many cases.

 

Surely you've heard of the lifelong search for the lost parent, or for the veiled roots? It's probably quite a lot harder to understand these sort of people for actually having had a dad 'in place' and no mystery involved.

 

I think the fact that your mum dislikes your own kind so much that she chose to get 'inseminated' in a hospital rather than the usual congress with your own kind might eventually cause some reaction (revulsion?) in a male child.

 

These aren't casual 'lifestyle choices' we're talking about here. They do have implications, and not only for the people actually making the choices.

 

Goemon, diversity is not in itself a virtue when applied to everything. We may celebrate certain kinds of diversity (indeed, because the alternative is often too grisly to contemplate), but actively seeking diversity in everything is not necessarily desirable. We have established, workable ways of making children, and unless completely avoidable, we don't need to introduce diversity there.

 

Likewise the resilience of children. It's good that it's there, but we don't have to test it in unnecessary ways. To do so is to abuse the child (Mishima Yukio's father used to hold him up near the railway as close to speeding trains as he could get him to 'give him courage'. Mishima ended up very strong...)

 

As a father myself, yes I am protective of my son (although not of the whole world), although not excessively so. There are indeed a whole lot of evils against which you have to protect children, but it's not a great burden or anything.

 

But another reason I want to protect the concept of marriage from the impingement of homosexuals is because I can't stand all their bullshit - the buzzwords, the twisted catch-phrases, the whole 'same-same only different' schtik. I don't accept any of that.

 

As for 'protecting your corn-hole from an un-protected buggering', you may well joke about it, but in my own, personal, direct experience, that is the reality (I used to be a lot prettier than I am now - questiona Dorian Gray perhaps...) One of my smaller and less pretty classmates at school got raped on his paper round, so he was less lucky than I ever was.

[NoFakie 45]

Marriage is a consensual union between two adults.

Dogs and chocolate biscuits can't give consent, so you can't marry a dog or chocolate biscuit.

 

Lots of heterosexual people who are incapable or have no intention of raising children get married. Post-menopausal women and post-vasectomy men get married. Such marriages are condoned. Marriage helps provide a base for starting a family, but starting a family is not a requirement for getting married. If it were, many heterosexual marriages would be invalid.

 

You can talk about the traditional role of marriage, but what is ultimately important is how people behave in modern society. "Traditionally" marriage was for life, but this tradition does not stop the 40% or whatever of married couples for getting divorced. You have to look at it in descriptive terms (how people behave), not prescriptive ones (how people should behave), especially in cases where such behavior does not affect others' rights.

 

While it has been traditional to limit marriage to heterosexual couples, there are plenty of examples of traditions that have been replaced or superceded due to their irrelevance to modern life or with the noble aim of creating a fairer society. Slavery and sexual discrimination are about as traditional as you can get, but that doesn't mean they deserve a place in modern society.

 

Ultimately, homosexual marriage would be a consensual act between two equal parties. Allowing it may offend some people's sensibilities, but then again, it shouldn't take much questioning to discover that certain kinds of behavior, fashion, language, demeanour or whatever do the same. I can't see how homosexual marriage would affect anyone else's rights, and for that reason, I can't see why it should not be allowed.

 

As a final note, I must say that I find all of this non-expert psychoanalysis tiresome and irrelevant. Having access to Google or a couple of Internet links does not make you especially knowledgable about anything. You're a fool if you think it does

[Ocean11 0]

 Quote:

Dogs and chocolate biscuits can't give consent, so you can't marry a dog or chocolate biscuit.

Fair point.

 Quote:

You can talk about the traditional role of marriage, but what is ultimately important is how people behave in modern society.

Marriage is a tradition that has survived because of its value and durability. It is not a quaint tradition like judges' wigs or something like that. Marriage also has value in making people behave better in modern society than they otherwise might. A lot of people don't realize this when they get married, but they come to find out about that aspect later on.

 Quote:

You have to look at it in descriptive terms (how people behave), not prescriptive ones (how people should behave)

No you don't. Not at all. It's a status that has qualifications and privileges that come with it. I don't like having to do crappy translation tests because anybody can call themselves translator. Similarly, I don't want to have to be tested for parental fitness when I get married so that I can be 'equal' to all the married homosexuals (for whom such monitoring is widely accepted to be necessary).

 Quote:

Ultimately, homosexual marriage would be a consensual act between two equal parties. Allowing it may offend some people's sensibilities, but then again, it shouldn't take much questioning to discover that certain kinds of behavior, fashion, language, demeanour or whatever do the same.

They can already 'partner'. That's their 'consenual act'. If it was just a matter of 'offending sensibilities', then not allowing it would be intolerable, but there's more to it than that. The inequality is fundamental and inherent, not artifical like a question of fashion.

I quite agree that the 'internet forum requirement for documentation' is pathetic. It's just a nahnahnahnaaaahna game.

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

I don't see any valid points being made here in favour of it. I only see a wishy-washy 'wouldn't it be nice if...' sort of feeling, backed up by naive non-arguments.