Thread: Societal Norms Discussion

Originally Posted by mhailey

If the litmus test is that the action is between consenting adults, then why is plural marriage illegal? why can a man not marry to women, or two men marry one woman? I am not talking about bigamy, which is being married to two women, and neither woman knows about each other, but plural marriage, where all parties are fully aware of the multiple marriage arrangement, and agree to be married to the same person.

There are a surprising number of polyamorous relationships in the US. I'm not aware of any law that prohibits them. Marriage as a legal contract is another question.

My point is just to demonstrate that the "consenting adults" argument only holds so much sway.

The key point I was trying to make was differentiating between consenting adults and one party (a child, an unconscious person, a severely mentally retarded person) that is not capable of consent.

Originally Posted by Jonedangerousli

I've never studied pedophilia. I'll have to defer comment until I've had some time to do some research.



I didn't consider it a valid question. I don't consider someone's sexual orientation to be a disease, so therefore no cure is necessary.

If someones sexual orientation isn't a disease as you say why do we put pedophiles in therapy, pronounce them "cured" and release them back into society.

By the same token If we can't cure it we can't rehabilitate those guilty of it, so Why do we sentence them to prison rather than death and try to fix them.

Originally Posted by Jonedangerousli

If we take your position that homosexuality and pedophilia are simply a desire then the difference is that as a society we have determined that sex with a child is illegal, whereas consensual sex between two adults is not. Again, no cure necessary.

Interesting that "society" has made this decision, by what vote? when?

You are doing a great job of saying what we have always been taught about these two conditions. Yet the more you look at them side by side the more similar they seem at least in cause but what have been taught seems to contradict itself. Why?

Originally Posted by Wildtim

If someones sexual orientation isn't a disease as you say why do we put pedophiles in therapy, pronounce them "cured" and release them back into society.

By the same token If we can't cure it we can't rehabilitate those guilty of it, so Why do we sentence them to prison rather than death and try to fix them.



Interesting that "society" has made this decision, by what vote? when?

You are doing a great job of saying what we have always been taught about these two conditions. Yet the more you look at them side by side the more similar they seem at least in cause but what have been taught seems to contradict itself. Why?

I personally don't belive there is any similarity between homosexuality and pedophilia at all. Pedophilia, in my opinion, is about control and abuse of power and trust, not about sexual desire, and most certainly not about sexual orientation. The only similarity that I can see between the two is that they both, at one time in history, were classified as "other" in comparison to the accepted sexual norm. A human is not a fish, and a bird is not a fish. It does not therefore follow that a human is bird, or that a human more closely resembles a bird than it does a fish. The homosexual/pedophile argument is completely specious.

James.

Originally Posted by xman

We're going to get in to a debate about whether homosexuality is a choice.It's not. All attempts to change homosexual behaviour fail. With that fact in hand it's odd to hear that you don't mind gay people, but you don't agree with him being gay. We're back to what I said about being comfortable at this point.

Let me ask this: How if at all, does it affect you that he's gay or that he might want to marry?

We can agree that you don't agree with being gay yourself, but why should you impose your sexual preference on him?

X

First of all let me apologize. I seem to have opened a can of worms. I never meant to discuss homosexuality, I merely meant to show it as an example. As for why I disagree with gay mariage, if you truly want to know pm me and I'll explain personally.

I only explained myself a little more on the subject because my point of view seems to have been misunderstood. That's all. I'll leave it be for now though.

Like I said if you truly wish to know pm me and we'll talk further. But let me warn you it's quite a deep seated and personal subject in my eyes and you have less than a snowballs chance in hell to convince me otherwise.

Actually James the similarity is the part of the brain that is "different" in pedophiles and homosexuals when compared to heterosexuals.

You are right a good portion of pedophiles have more in common with S&M practitioners than with normal lustful individuals. On the other hand many do "legitimately" feel sexual desire for small children just as Gays for guys or me for cheerleaders.


I guess I should at some point here let you all in on my own positions. I believe, homosexuality is not a choice (though the practice of it is) neither is pedophilia. Society does accept homosexuality and should though my religion (rightly) damns its practices. I have no problem with homosexuals as my friends or with them having an equal union to marriage, though "marriage" is a term with religious meaning and should be avoided to do away with the conflicts we see today. Pedophiles also not having a choice will not change and if practicing will not be reformed. So for them I don't think the answer is imprisonment. As you might have guessed I am for the death penalty.

I also do not make any statements regarding my personal beliefs on whether or not homosexuality is right or wrong(and some of my good friends are homosexuals). I only bring up questions to play the devil's advocate regarding the right to "personal freedom" as defined by "society" and the illogical nature of this argument.

Society has deemed pedophilia as unacceptable, because it takes advantage of, and irreversibly harms the vulnerable in our society. However societies' acceptance of abortion is in apostasy to the above belief. Abortion takes the convenience and desire of an individual, and places it as more important than the life of the most vulnerable in our society. (I guess my personal view is not hidden on the abortion issue). What is societies’ justification for this protection of a child, but only so long as it is out of the womb?

Well if is still in the womb you can't tax it. The individual with the womb in question can be taxed therefore is worth catering to.

Originally Posted by Wildtim

Well if is still in the womb you can't tax it. The individual with the womb in question can be taxed therefore is worth catering to.

LOL! Actually, it wouldn't suprise me to find that is true, but I'm young(ish) and bitter!

I don't know if this is controversial or not (apologies if it is - Australia doesn't have a huge amount of "right to life/right to choose" debate yet), but it seems the debate, at least over here, boils down to "at what stage is a foetus a life". Is that correct, or am I on the wrong track?

James.

Originally Posted by Jimbo

LOL! Actually, it wouldn't suprise me to find that is true, but I'm young(ish) and bitter!

I don't know if this is controversial or not (apologies if it is - Australia doesn't have a huge amount of "right to life/right to choose" debate yet), but it seems the debate, at least over here, boils down to "at what stage is a foetus a life". Is that correct, or am I on the wrong track?

James.

That is a rational argument. Both sides agree that once a live birth occurs it is wrong to terminate it. The problem with that particular argument (I agree with it btw, I believe that once the fetus, were it to be taken out of the womb, is capable of sustaining life it should not be aborted, prior to that point it is the same as any other mass of cells inside a woman's body. I don't have an exact # of weeks, fortunately I don't have to make that decision for myself, obviously, and I don't make policy for others) is that it assumes that a woman has ownership of her body. The debate is as much about control as anything else.

Wow, we went from sexual orientation to abortion in 2.1 posts! That must be a record, LOL.

Originally Posted by Wildtim

You are right a good portion of pedophiles have more in common with S&M practitioners than with normal lustful individuals.

What do you consider a "normal lustful individual"? When you say "S&M practitioners" what exactly are you referring to?

I'm not at all being facetious or confrontational with these questions, I really am just trying to get a frame of reference for your position.

On the other hand many do "legitimately" feel sexual desire for small children just as Gays for guys or me for cheerleaders.

Dallas Cowboy type, right? Just want to be clear.

I guess I should at some point here let you all in on my own positions. I believe, homosexuality is not a choice (though the practice of it is) neither is pedophilia. Society does accept homosexuality and should though my religion (rightly) damns its practices.

What is your religion's policy about lusting after cheerleaders?

I have no problem with homosexuals as my friends or with them having an equal union to marriage, though "marriage" is a term with religious meaning and should be avoided to do away with the conflicts we see today.

Help me out here. If your religion "rightly damns the practice of homosexuality" isn't it a conflict of interest for you to "have no problem" with its practice?

Pedophiles also not having a choice will not change and if practicing will not be reformed. So for them I don't think the answer is imprisonment. As you might have guessed I am for the death penalty.

I agree with you on the IDEA of the death penalty for those who prey on children. We have to be careful with the PRACTICE of it, however.