Gay marriages would destroy geneology and lead to inbreeding

You're going all over the place with that last post, Oki, try to keep it together!

So, by the definitions you have set forth a man who is sexually attracted to little girls is not a pedophile?

And really what does any of this have to do with the topic of this thread? Even by the standards that you yourself have set forward the catholic church doesn't have a problem with pedophilia, it has a problem with statutory rape. I can't remember how any of that mattered in this instance. We all know the catholic church is issued, but why are we discussing it here?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Depends on the age of the girl. If she is before puberty then it's pedophila else if she is a minor but has reached puberty, it is paedophila.

Nothing. I'm just correcting inaccurate information.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Um, thanks for the semantics. I think the question that needs to be asked now is do you believe there is more of a problem resulting from the homosexual aspect of the priest's alleged conduct, or the paedophilic aspect?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

There are good priest who are not sexual offenders who suffer from SSA(same sex attraction) but chose to be celibrate within the priesthood.

The causes of this could be varied. The priest is at the highest spiritual position though. If he commits sacrilege or something like that, I could see his faith completely vanishing. This sort of depression could lead to paedophiliac behavior. I'm not sure how much of this stuft is demonic or completely psychological. I have of yet heard one of the priest give reasons to what they did.

 

QUOTE]Originally posted by okinrus
There are good priest who are not sexual offenders who suffer from SSA(same sex attraction) but chose to be celibrate within the priesthood. [/QUOTE]

Sadly enough I know many homosexuals who suffer from RIS (Religious indoctrination syndrome). Poor delusional bastards, they should get help for that.

Honestly now, this is just silliness, don't go making up your own terminology just to make homosexuality seem more like a disease. Trust me, no one is "Suffering" from homosexuality. We do, however suffer from whack jobs like you that seem to delight in our grief.

hehe, yeah they are like SOOO holey. God loves all of his children, but like especialy them, man.

Is their faith really so flimsy? To sacrifice your life to it I'd imagine it'd have to be pretty strong.

[An interesting side note, I can’t seem to find a definition of "Peadophilia" which differs from "Pedophilia" How do you define it?

Haha, did you honestly just suggest that it's demonic by nature? Haha, ohh Oki, you really are just too spiritual to be of any earthly good, aren't you? Too bad none of these guys are going on trial, I’d love to hear that defense in court. “Your honor, the devil made me do it!”

 

If I use homosexual, then that implies commiting the homosexual act. Because that was not my intent, I use SSA.
http://www.personal.psu.edu/staff/e/j/ejm1/morella/m129.htm
"They were unwilling to admit and address the profound emotional pain they experienced in childhood of loneliness, often in the father relationship, peer rejection, lack of male confidence, poor body image, sadness, and anger." Sexual behavior is a manifestation of emotion, body image, and confidence. All of these three are clearly under the control of the environment. If pedophiles are influenced by their environment, why would it be any different for the rest of us? And I'm not delighting. If any thing, you seem to be delight in calling anyone who disagrees with you a bigot. All I'm doing is stating the facts. No one is born gay or straight until proven otherwise.

You don't understand what I mean. They conduct the sacraments. If they go to the alter in an unclean state, then that's sacrilege. The Eucharist is faith. When some kept the manna that came down from heaven in a jar for an extra day jar, it was full of maggots. To do something like this would be to reject all of the church's teachings.

It is a distinct possibility. Also there is no earthly good.

 

Medically correct definitions of pedophile and paedophile are <a href="http://philia.ws/define.htm">here</a>.

 

Well I guess this is just what it all really comes down to, doesn't it? You prefer death over life. Well you're quite welcome to help yourself to it.

 

Late entry

Flores

I've avoided this topic because it stirred one of those ugly tantrums of mine at the time I first read it, and I had about four tantrums going at the time. The upshot is that, while I cannot by my conscience avoid the topic forever, I have the benefit of not firing off while I'm still in a state of perturbation.

I wanted to examine first of all your general negatives:

(1) Marriage Penalty: The marriage penalty, insofar as anyone has ever explained to me is not so much a penalty but people's expectation of a greater benefit. "Marriage Penalty" to me is still a political buzzword of the Republican Revolution that rose and foundered amid the Clinton presidency. Besides, most people I know don't count the "marriage penalty" against getting married in the first place. In fact, I can't think of any that care.

(2) Inability to have biological offspring: I don't see this as a particular difficulty unless the individual chooses to make it a consideration in their life. I'm adopted; my mother is barren by some minor cystic condition that would eventually lead to hysterectomy, removal of ovaries, and hormonal implants to make up the difference. In the United States, we reproduce irresponsibly.

(3) Unknown roles in raising of children....who takes the mother role, and who takes the father role: In all honesty, Flores, I think this is an issue best left for comedy writers without a better plot. Every committed gay couple I know has a bizarre balance going on. It won't persist among new couples as society progresses because it seems a bit of a knowing road-weariness that comes from living in the closet, under the gun, however one wishes to look at it. But beyond that, I think the confusion of roles is really a comic gag that will get old in due time. Ever see the American version of Three Men and a Baby? Many of my friends had that view of men and children in the abstract--fumbling, arrhythmic, stupid to the point of endangering the child--but they found quickly, when it was my daughter they were holding, that when you really do love something, certain things come naturally. True, my brother doesn't like the prospect of changing a diaper, but he does no worse than anyone else who doesn't do it every day, with of course the exception of grandmothers. Likewise, the stooge-like parody of gay buffoons tromping around gender roles like twaddling, mincing idiots ... I'm sure you know, Flores, how many of your personal superficialities melted away upon the arrival of your children. Well ... as you are a mother, you may well have burned them away in labor. And besides, for those tromping, twaddling, gay buffoons who do manage to get hold of children to raise ... well, I grew up in the 1980s. My parents worked a lot because they had to. I was fortunate. My friends whose families had more money ... they grew up knowing that their parents worked a lot because they wanted to. Hi, kid, you're second fiddle to Mammon. Of course, they're the ones in the advertising agencies right now and they'll be coming to political authority in the next fifteen years, so we'll get to see what it brings. Point being, I don't know if it's fair to expect that gay idiots will be any more problematic than heterosexual idiots. Less so, in fact, because of the need for secondary routes of acquiring children.

(4) Lack of sexual diversity: This is the one that actually got me to responding today. First off, the way society goes, two parents is a better idea than one. But to focus for a moment on the "single mother"--we both know that the kind of women who drink and snort crank and keep whatever guy around that can charm them and give them multiple orgasms do not represent the nature of single motherhood. Certainly there exist mothers who will tolerate a constant parade of low characters in front of their children, but I will not indict the notion of single motherhood over such an issue. Rather ... what I do wish to point out is that two loving parents of common gender is hardly the worst family situation in the world for a child. One loving parent, demonstrably, can still produce shining children. But two parents can be a very good thing, and compared to other two-parent or parent-and-additional-influence families (the chain of mom or dad's "significant others"), two stable and loving parents of common gender cannot be said to be the worst option.

Also ... there's a notion in that concern about a lack of sexual diversity that disturbs me, but ....

It just has the appearance of "girls should act like girls and boys should act like boys", and frankly there is a certain degree to which that idea, in my opinion, can be done away with.

As an adopted child with no proper genealogy, I can say that the only thing that ever made me regret having no blood heritage was a bunch of people throughout my life who tried to teach me to think of it as tragic in some way.

Yet even without a disease history, doctors simply took some of my blood and some of my partner's blood and looked at it under certain laboratory conditions and brought back enough of a genetic profile to start creating my daughter's "disease history". Incidentally, my partner is also an adopted child with very little medical history. We know more about ourselves in that respect through having a daughter than we ever knew before.

Strangely, I think of it the other way around. Didn't Melissa Etheridge and her partner have a baby by David Crosby or some-such? To the other, columnist Dan Savage and his partner Terry sought adoption.

Adoption in general is a bad idea for other reasons. It is also a very good idea, and perhaps the best route for any couple not endowed by nature to have children (e.g. my mom and dad?) to acquire children.

However, it is not entirely a joke when I point out that if a couple cannot naturally have children, perhaps they should just take the hint. And that applies to heterosexuals as well.

Specifically I think you'll find a greater acknowledgment of human bisexuality. The people who reserve themselves to homosexuality from psychological trauma will probably be reduced while those who are inherently homosexual will probably remain a stable figure.

Specifically, they will be less likely to reserve their pleasures. When I was twelve or thirteen, an orgasm was an orgasm. It didn't strike me until I was seventeen that a portion of the thoughts wandering through my head were actually homosexual. In fact, it took a fifteen year-old guy hitting on me to make me figure it out. Shoulda gone out with him ... he made millions before he was done with high school.

But in the present I eschew odd heterosexual considerations of who's the hottest woman or whatnot. In my twenties it struck me that the basis of of the beauty I found in women was rooted in sexual expectation. In wiping this aside, I've come to a certain peace with the other side of my sexuality. I don't pursue it, I don't refuse it; frankly it's easier to deal with than my heterosexual aspect has been.

But in the end it's not even about hetero-, homo-, or bisexual. It's about the conditioning that tells me the propriety of where and when I may seek certain comforts. And with those assignations come tremendous limitations of human potential.

I think of all the feminists, civil rights activists, and other people dedicated to social reconciliation and harmony and wonder what the human species could accomplish if we didn't have these issues--which I regard as superficial--to worry about. Yes, sexuality is a huge conundrum in society. No, it does not have to be.

As the restrictive politic recedes, I think you'll find that much of the identity politic will abate as well.

I tend to think that unnatural births will increase with or without the homosexual issue. Furthermore, as our genetic technology advances, inbreeding potential will shine like pink neon in a light fog. You'll be able to see it miles away. And as humanity grows, the inbreeding potential consistently lessens naturally.

What is it we restrict in this culture as far as inbreeding? Parents and children? Siblings? First and second cousins? I'm of the opinion that inbreeding is something that someone has to put some effort into.

Or so says me.

I see the issues you raise, Flores, but obviously in a different light. The day I become President of the United States, I'll be an American first. The day I convert to Christianity or Islam, I'll be a Christian or a Muslim first. The day I take any identity which precedes my humanity, I shall be that identity first. But until then, I'm a human being first, and all else second. It is fair to say that while I see the concerns, I question what I perceive to be the context against which they are compared. I'm not sure these issues will be much more than mundane ripples on the pond on a windy day.

I think it's one of those occasions when the people who do not face such issues will worry too much about those who do. I don't think these will be large functional difficulties in the context of homosexuality.

How we treat our genetics in general .. now there's a different issue. But I would think you would want to worry more about the damage done to genetics by commerce than any damage homosexuality could do.

:m:,
Tiassa

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Well the definition you gave of pedophilia is on that page, but I don't see any mention of paedophilia which differentiates it from the first term. Is this just another one of your screwed up semantic games?

 

erm, they're the same thing. paed- is a latin root and the british are more likley to use it than the ped- spelling. but they are the same word and same concept. anyhoo.

homosexual is a state of being, not having homo-sex. heterosexuals are not constantly having hetero-sex. (6 months here

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

you can pm me your condolence cards). your stupid abbreviation is just that, stupid.

tiassa, inspiring post.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

paidophile and paedophile are the two different medical conditions.

 

No it is not. It is reconizing a broader group of people than just homosexuals. Ie. it is common for some heterosexual males to be attracted to men at one point in their lives.

 

Yes but up until this point you have completely failed to state what the difference between the two terms is. The link you provided names them as being essentially one in the same, and I can find no other source that eludes to there being a difference in the definition of these two terms.

So, what exactly is it going to take to get you to stop playing your games and come right out and say it? Or is this perhaps like your faith based arguments, and it goes somehow beyond reason, and is in essence unknowable, and simply requires some sort of mystical experience to accept? If nothing else, I have to admit that you are very skilled in the art of bogging down an argument, you have an impressive number of detour techniques at your disposal, but we’re not simply in a stalling contest here. Let’s just get to the point, shall we?

 

I was out on vacation, and you are my first post back Tiassa.

Why do you avoid it Tiassa, does it scare you. Is this one of your uneventfull area of expertise where you have found comfort in ignoring it or playing both sides..

I do appreciate your patience, and even if you fired off at me, I wouldn't be upset, because I see you more than a temper tantrums. Actually, you get angry so seldom that I think it's not good for you, I'd like to see you vent more, it's very healthy.

My negatives are nothing but a surface brush with the issue. Most of my thoughts so far on the issue have been a mild rash and could have been cured easily with reasonable arguments coupled with valid field data, but what I have found about this issue is much emotion on both sides empty of facts and sound arguments. In moral issues, I prefer the guilty until proven innocent approach, it's just much safer and more effective. Look at slavery for example, we deemed it okay for centuries and now that we found it morally unacceptalbe, we couldn't totally get rid of it as it embedded our ways of life in all ways and just metamorphised it in other aspects of our lives instead of nipping it in the butt from the first place. Same goes for the gay issues, the liberals are busy putting bandage on it and modeling it in an unstudied bull shit shape that satisfies their unfounded idea of liberty that they figure out as they go, and the conservatives are busy opposing the whole idea to avoid the future damadge that may or may not happen.

Tiassa, marriage penality do exist and is very wrong. It really kicks in for married couple that both work. Try figuring out your taxes for you and your spouce as singles and you'll see the difference. Why the higher taxes for two married people with two incomes? Do you think it's the lower cost of living resulting in the occupancy of one resident, I don't think so, because no one is penalizing or stopping the ten bachelors downtown who elect to pile up in one room so that they can save up.

Meaning that this is not a problem unless the individuals want to have kids. Well, precisely, it's always a problem for gays who want to be parents becuase they can't have biological children....So Duh.

I take it that you adoptive mother is barren.....right? and your biological mother must be the one reproducing irresponsibly....is that what you are trying to say? I say, if your biological mother couldn't raise you due to tough situation or a mental issue that she suffered just like many moms that are undiagnosed, then she made no mistake in giving you up for adoption. It's the responsbility of the adoptive parents who chose the route of adoption to adopt both the kids and the biological parents and try to make of an already wrong situation right, instead of being selfish and trying to look like they have a perfect family to protect their image while the situation boils underneath with kids who are constantly questioning and biological parents who are constantly regretting and tormenting.

tiassa, in all honesty, you are the one that is hilarious. You know very well, that I view the sex roles more deeper than the conventional diaper change, house cleaning, bread winning crap. I don't go stereotyping the sexes but at the same time, I don't disrespect the assets of both sexes by asking that they both be the same. Why the hell would a woman be like a man or a man be like a woman. Both are special and different for good reasons, and kids need to learn the healthy differences that make both sexes so they can grow in a balance. If you laugh about what I'm saying, then maybe I do have a good career in comedy, but I doubt it.

What closet and what gun. Gays have by nature gotten out of every closet imaginable by persisting in their abnormal sexual behavior....They are not shy, they have taken a big stab into one of the most sacred and senstive issues of marriage and sex, polluted it, and now they demand that we bless it... What else do you want, a party for them to congratulate them on their bahavior??? Where is your priorities? what age and moral code are we dealing with when it's okay to use third world countries as nuclear and waste dumb grounds while we raise hell over homosexual behavior? How much torture does a gay person go through in trying to make a straight family work, is it as much work as an orphan living in an orphanage have to go through to figure out why is god seemingly so unfair to him/her, yet learn to worship and love the god that created them and gave them life regardless of the upsets.

Tiassa, to save you from reading so much, I'll sum it up briefly in a question? If you have a patient who suffered a car accident and is in need of blood for survival, do you transfer blood to him/her from an AIDS patient or a healthy patient.? All your examples imply that you wish to trasfer AIDS contaminated blood to healthy patients in the name of tolerance and satisfying the realities of a society full of diseace. Noone is underestimating the sick here. I have respect for AIDS patients. They are humans with real struggles and challenges, but they are a case by case scenarios and not standard cookie cutters for all of us to lead our lives by. Don't use the fact that a single mother can be successfull or that a mother an aunt are successful in rasing families to establish ground rules....For you are building your gay case on very shaky grounds.

That's a very strong point actually. And the slight sickness in your head that a man and woman should be the same and that the women are somehow with the short end of the sex stick is blurring your vision from seeing the sexes in the correct light. This blurred vision is not one that is healthy to use as a filter glass for another kid to learn from.

It's not tragic Tiassa, you missed the point becuase of your pity on yourself that manifested itself in anger toward others that tried to not so elequontely point out some truth to you. Being an orphan Tiassa is very tragic, and you might have been an orphan...You must be made with a mind of steel and equipped with much good luck to survive that tragic situation. I hope to god that he protects my life everyday, not because I love life, but because I would hate to see my kids without me, how so unfair. Who would love them like I do? Who would look at them like they are the best thing on earth worthy of a better life than the one I have.....

Adoption is awesome, but not the way it's currently done in the US. The adoptive parents here are not really doing a great deed. It seems sometimes that they are selfish and just trying to acquire children because they couldn't have one of their own. The adoptive parents are mostly society and image ridden with how things should be which influenced their decision. This is like saying that pet owners are helping the environment? How can keeping an animal in an artificial environment leading an artificial life be of any help to the environment. If you wish to help the environment, you must help it at the roots and at the source. Adoptive parents who are in this mess to help, must enter the environment of the child and work within the environment instead of stealing a plastic baby for them to mold at their wish.

Not too drastic Tiassa, you can help a child and vent your parental desires, but in a fair just way.

You nipped it in the butt here. A thought in your head is the key. A portion of the thougts in my head too are bisexuals, but I excersie mind control and my previlidge of being a human with a free will to do what I think is right. Supressing homosexuality and excercising straight sex is the right thing to do, and noone said that the right path is the easy path...You know that the straight path is the steep path, the narrow path, the most difficult path.

And why do others not figure out what me and you figured out? What is the difference between me and you and the homosexual society, we all were tempted, we were all exposed to it somehow, some of us resisted, some of us corrected our behavior, and some of us stayed....why?

My same exact experience Tiassa...You are not alone, we all have two aspects that we must deal with, and you are doing good with what you were given.

It's very strong to use the term limitation of human potential. Let me explain. Humans are like an optimum function with dependant factors. These factors are not all optimum, but together they behave optimumly. If you try to optimize one of the parameters, you'll throw your function into inefficiency status and screw things up. Sexuality is just a paremeter of our being....It needs to be balanced for the entire function to perform. If you optimize sex, other things will suffer equally.

Again, the civil rights activists are trying to push the limits of the parameters while they don't look at the function as a whole. They are screwing things up in ways that they can't percieve. Each of those experts is dealing with a human with thousands degrees of freedom, everytime they think they fixed one degree, the screw the next.

You will always be Tiassa first before you are an American, Christian, Muslim, ect. And Tiassa's experience is not fit for Flores nor is Flores fit for Tiassa. So when you become president, remember that you are dealing with millions degrees of freedom that you can't let them all loose and have to control each one on the expence of the other.

 

A pedophile goes for preadolecents and a paidophile goes for adolecents.

No just requires a medical dictionary just like the definition of marriage. I've found that it's best not to argue with you all. If you do not love God, then what's the point? You can justify anything.

 

Thanks Ivan.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

So, now that we know your medical dictionary draws different conclusions from others, what is the point of what you are saying, Okinrus?

"reasonable arguments coupled with valid field data, but what I have found about this issue is much emotion on both sides empty of facts and sound arguments."

Im afraid most of us tried reasoned arguments, its just that "objective" facts are hard to get on this subject.

"Same goes for the gay issues, the liberals are busy putting bandage on it and modeling it in an unstudied bull shit shape that satisfies their unfounded idea of liberty that they figure out as they go, and the conservatives are busy opposing the whole idea to avoid the future damadge that may or may not happen."

LIke you say, empty of facts and sound argument. Unfounded idea of liberty on what? That the humans sexuality is their own, moreover is partly a matter of choice and partly hard wiring? And as for future damage, you have yet to decently explain what can be expected that is really a problem of the sort that has not already been dealt with in different situations.

"Both are special and different for good reasons, and kids need to learn the healthy differences that make both sexes so they can grow in a balance. If you laugh about what I'm saying, then maybe I do have a good career in comedy, but I doubt it."

Again, nice sensible comment.

"What closet and what gun. "

The one that uses "fag" "homo" gay etc as insults, that leads parents to ask their childrne if they are homosexual and get worried about the possibility, the beatings up of homosexuals that was a regular part of our history, the closet that made people think it was better to get into a fake heterosexual marriage with an understanding woman than be openly homosexual, all that sort of thing. FAce it, here you are the reactionary, kicking back against a reasonable move forwards. I cannot deny that some have gone a bit too far, been a little too loud, but then that is the way when trying to make a life for youself. Would you have preachers denied the use of microphones in order to not insult other people through them hearing the preachers words?

"Where is your priorities? what age and moral code are we dealing with when it's okay to use third world countries as nuclear and waste dumb grounds while we raise hell over homosexual behavior? "

My point precisely, just legalise civil homosexual marriage and lets get on with cleaning up the third world, why waste time on this?


"That's a very strong point actually. And the slight sickness in your head that a man and woman should be the same and that the women are somehow with the short end of the sex stick is blurring your vision from seeing the sexes in the correct light. This blurred vision is not one that is healthy to use as a filter glass for another kid to learn from. "

I htink your doing Tiassa a disservice here, but im sure he'll reply himself at some point. In the mean time, me and many of my friends see that women are in some ways being forced to be just women, and men just as men, sxual stereotyping has been around a long time, but what we want is the freedom to be as much of the characteristics of man or woman as we want, as we are. It seems clear from some research that peopels brains are a mix of characteristics that are taken form various points on a continuum labelled at one end "feminine" and at the otehr "masculine" and that neither extreme is particularly desirable, then when society gets to work on people, things get problematic.


"Who would love them like I do? Who would look at them like they are the best thing on earth worthy of a better life than the one I have....."

Do you not see that homosexual couples are as much capable of that feeling as you are?


"And why do others not figure out what me and you figured out? What is the difference between me and you and the homosexual society, we all were tempted, we were all exposed to it somehow, some of us resisted, some of us corrected our behavior, and some of us stayed....why?"

Answer- because our brains are wired differently, some are hardwired towards homosexuality, and some are kind of in between. And of course personal choice has something to do with it, thats why you get bisexuals and people who switch sides as it were. So what makes you think we have a homosexual society, has the incidence of homosexuality rocketed in the past 30 years?

"Again, the civil rights activists are trying to push the limits of the parameters while they don't look at the function as a whole. They are screwing things up in ways that they can't percieve. Each of those experts is dealing with a human with thousands degrees of freedom, everytime they think they fixed one degree, the screw the next."

This function as a whole has been trundling along for millenia, so why do you say it'll suddenly fall apart if we allow homosexual marriage? AS for fixing one degree and screwing the next, that is a problem common to all human interactions.

"You will always be Tiassa first before you are an American, Christian, Muslim, ect. And Tiassa's experience is not fit for Flores nor is Flores fit for Tiassa. So when you become president, remember that you are dealing with millions degrees of freedom that you can't let them all loose and have to control each one on the expence of the other."

But its with that sort of idea that us who oppose your anti homosexuality are doing so, that what suits Flores doesnt suit someone else who is homosexual.

 

Ivan? You know that scientists found that it was not his religion but poisoning that caused his sudden outbreaks of rage?

 

Who, Dostoevski? He was epileptic, not prone to outbursts of rage.

I can justify all manner of things with the Bible - my arguments may be flawed, but I can make decent arguments. Without God, as Kazamarov says, all is permitted.
People don't obey codes, they obey promptings. The best will obey themselves and not just their promptings, but who you are is really more important than what you believe.