Harm in Homosexuality?

I'd have to say that pedophillia is not the topic here. How about we stay on the main topic?A new topic is, I guess, possible.

I don't understand why you are admonishing my post. The main poster brought up pedophilia to show the difference between a sexual practice that causes harm as opposed to homosexuality which he claims does not (and is the focus of this thread).Other posters have replied to his arguing about how you can compare the two, getting upset with the op.My post was specifically addressing his example. My argument is that his distinction was invalid as neither cause any objective harm, and so the only harm which exists (and he is asking about) is assumed due to its inherent wrongness.In other words it isn't wrong because it causes harm, it is harmful because it is wrong. That is the common criteria both anti positions share.I have not only addressed the OP's main point, but an argument the original poster brought up.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Sorry Holmes, perhaps topic replies should always be a new post rather than a reply. The intention was not to pick on you just the wandering topic.

Okay, but I guess I am now wanting a clarification.The thread is on what harm is seen in homosexuality. Pedophilia was brought up as a comparison point. That is while all seem to agree that there is no harm... so they ask, where is the harm in it? They turn around and say pedophilia is obviously different and inherently harmful, though differ on whether it should even be mentioned in conjunction with homosexuality. Some are saying it shouldn't be because it is so obviously different.The point I have been trying to make... and so I don't see it as topic drift... is that it is all of their misunderstanding on what makes pedophilia like homosexuality which is how and why they are linked, and where the harm is seen in homosexuality.Is this truly topic drift then? I will stay away from it if you say it is, but it looks wholly on topic to me. People don't understand where the harm is, but it is in its inherent wrongness... not that I agree with that position, just what the answer to the op question is.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Since everything is, in the end, connected to everything else it is usually possible to make a case that something novel belongs with the topic that it spun off from.However, it is still necessary to nip some major departures in the bud. I'm rather confident this is one of those. (And now the discussion of that point is becoming another one.)Pedophilia is either "obviously" different or not, connected to homosexuality or not. If is is different or not makes no difference to the issue of the harm of homosexuality.Only if it could be shown that pedophilia is, in some way, linked to homosexuality and it could be shown that pedophilia is harmful would it be, in any way, on topic.There seems to be general agreement that it is not linked. In that case the harmfulness is not an issue here. If someone wishes to make a case for it being linked as the harm of homosexuality then, you have a case for it's harmfulness or not as being on topic.

First of all I would like to apologise to anyone who I might have offended by mentitioning pedophilia in a thread about homosesxuality.I know that it is a touchy subject because homosexuals are often accused of being pedophiles, which is unfair. I'm sure someone mentioned this already, but heterosexual men are far more likely to be pedophiles than homosexual men.The reason I mentioned it was to counter the sort of argument holmes made in previous posts, about harmfull sexuality being relative to the culture.As a culture we have to decide which kinds of behavors we are going to endorse. I think that we should endorse those that are not harmful and forbid those that are harmful. So when we look at the pantheion of sexual orentations out there we can make rational choices devoid of cultural bias.Now it is indeed unfair to lump pedophillia and homosexuality together as they are unrealted both in terms of the harm they cause and in terms of their causal realtionship. Indeed I think they are opposites. One causes harm the other does not, one is between consenting adults the other is not, we should endorse and support one and not the other.In order to get us back on topic,My challenge still remains to those who would wish to outlaw homosexuality or even think there is somthing wrong with it: Where is the harm? We have seen argumnets about STDs trotted out but I believe they have been amply refuted. Is there any other point you would like to make?

You have no idea how close I came to putting you on my enemy list.

---

Hate world.Revenge soon!

Again I'm very sorry if I offended you or anyone.The only point I was trying to make was that there is such a thing as bad sexual acts and such a thing as good sexual acts. Good sexual acts are those that do not cause harm, such as a sexual act between two consenting adults, regardless of their gender.P.S. I'm glad Im not on your enemy list. I hope I can make it onto your friend list.

Lam - I'm not sure why. In support of Dread I thought it was quite obvious he was stating the two were completely different. I think if people read that he was equating homosexuality with pedophilia it is their own reactionary hang-up.(My opinion is Dread deserves an apology...)I wish people would actually read Dread's posts carefully. He repeatedly get replies from people assuming he's anti-homosexual, when clearly he is not from his posts.

It's never wrong to apologise when you have hurt a persons feelings, even if their feelings were hurt because they misinterpreted what you said.

I realized from very early on that he was using it in a different context than equating the 2 together. However, like I said in another thread to someone else before, why bring up something in a thread that obviously has nothing to do with that something unless there's at least some kind of hint or implication behind it? It is like saying "people who study physics are idiots" in a thread that's about black holes and stuff. I do admit that Dread deserves an apology... Hey Dread, sorry for being an ass.Edited: Oops, wrong thread.This message has been edited by Lam, 11-14-2004 06:09 PM

---

Hate world.Revenge soon!

Just read the word in red on my shirt in my avatar.

---

Hate world.Revenge soon!

Dread,I agree.I just wish people would have read your posts carefully before jumping to conclusions and attacking you as some sort of ignorant bigot.I found their behavior offensive.

quote:

---

There's already at least one admin who would get a kick out of closing down this thread and preventing any topic relating to this from being discussed in the future.

---

No there isn't, Lam. The man was correct that for a short time several homosexuality threads were hanging at the top of the topic list. He was also correct that many of them simply repeat arguments that have been made in previous threads ad nauseum.The admins are apparently not interested in running a gay rights message board. They want to run a creation vs. evolution message board. That is their right.

---

Dog is my copilot.

Berberry writes: I think that this topic IS realted to the debate about evolution.Creationists/Fundimantalists think that our origins have something to do with our morality. If God created us in a certain way then we should behave that way. This is where the horrendous "God created adam and eve, not adam and steve" (shudder) argument comes from.If we can show that people ARE in fact "created" gay then that distroys the fundimentalist argument of it being "unnatural." But our task is not yet complete!We have proven that it is not wrong to BE gay (because we have no choice to be gay or straight) but we have not proven why it is ok to endorse gay rights.Fundimentalists who accept that it is "natural" to be gay make the slightly less offensive agument that "We should love the sinner hate the sin" (again shudder). They are essentualy saying that we should not blame gays for being gay, just blame them for wanting to marry etc.The reason I posted this thread was becase I wanted to have a discussion about how we can make moral decitions without adressing our origins. If people are born gay that doesn't make it right or wrong to be gay, if people decide to be gay and delibrately decide to become homosexual that STILL doesn't have any bearing on whether it is right or wrong to be gay!Fundimentalists can talk about biblical times and how we are created and Gods plan all they want! But the onus is on them to prove why our origins should have any bearing on our moral choices. Even if we weren't built to be gay, who cares! How we were built dosen't matter, all that matters is how we realte to others.