Immorality of Homosexuality

Taxmanian Devil responds to berberry:

quote:

---

quote:

---

Now for bonus points, try answering these two questions:

---

​

I don't know what your underlying message is, but I think I can add something to this.

​

There is no denying that the media is bias for news that will get more people to read, watch, or hear. The vast overwhelming majority of pedophiles are straight men, which is exactly the reason why the media doesn't cover every single case. A gay pedophile is a lot rarer, and so whenever one is brought to light the media is all over the scene. Hence, the myth that just won't go away that all gay men are pedophiles.

---

But you're missing the point. Answer the question: When was the last time you heard of a gay man molesting a child? It's hard to find. Why? Because it's so rare.Now, people often assume that if the pedophile and the child are the same sex, that necessarily means that the pedophile is gay, but that is not true. Pedophiles are attracted to children, in part, because of the androgynous characteristics of a child: A boy does not have the secondary sexual characteristics that help to strongly identify him as male.It was this confusion of pedophilia with homosexuality that resulted in the Catholic church going into palpitations regarding gay clergy after their sex scandal. Never mind that the perpetrators were straight: Because the priests and the victims were male, that must mean the priests were gay.

quote:

---

Do catholic priests count?

---

Yes, they do. But on top of that, notice what society has done: We focus on the fact that the two were of the same sex than any other aspect. Given so many Christian pedophiles, why hasn't society concluded that Christianity leads to pedophilia?

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

I'm wondering why it is that we have accepted the need to defend the distinction between same-sex sexual activity and interspecies sexual activity. It would seem clear that the two are not related since changing the sex of the participants in a sexual act does not change the species. Thus, the justifications for sexual activity between species has no connection to the justifications for sexual activity among the sexes.Thus, I'm putting the burden of proof back where it belongs:nemesis_juggernaut needs to explain why acceptance of heterosexuality doesn't immediately and necessarily require acceptance of bestiality.And without invoking arbitrary justifications such as the claim that god said so. After all, I can speak for god just as easily as nemesis_juggernaut can.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

I have a very simple answer for this one. Have you ever noticed how a lot of christians nowadays always say "well, I'm a christian..." thinking the rest of us are hearing "well, I'm a better person..."?We have to face the ugly fact that the vast majority of people out there still think christianity represents the ultimate moral frame work and christian = good person. This was part of my complaint with riverrat. Unfortunately, he never got the point.

---

Disclaimer:

​

Occasionally, owing to the deficiency of the English language, I have used he/him/his meaning he or she/him or her/his or her in order to avoid awkwardness of style.

​

He, him, and his are not intended as exclusively masculine pronouns. They may refer to either sex or to both sexes!

But Christian does = good person! If they do anything to suggest they are not a "good person" then, by definition (and the good scotsman) they aren't a Christian.Seems maybe that billion or two head count of Christians might be out by a factor of somewhere between a 1,000 and a million eh?

quote:

---

If morals are relative, you are 100% correct.

---

Wrong. The statement is stated as an "if...then" and relativity of morals is not an relevant to its truth. Worse the only person suggesting that consent was an arbitrary condition was you. And that was NOT stated as a conditional.

quote:

---

ere's where relative morals really play out. Its not so much in the moral, itself, but how you arrive at it that matters. Case in point:

​

There is nowhere on earth that says murder is acceptable. Everyone agrees that murder is wrong. Here's what they differ on: What constitutes murder? What arbitrates murder? Here's where the rubber meets the road. We, as human beings with a vested interest not to reap consequences for our actions, will justify the action and call it a legal killing.

---

Unfortunately for you this includes may people who claim that morals are absolute. Which one of them is absolutely right ? Are any of them absolutely right ? Or do we have to admit that all morals have an element of subjectivity ? So if "moral relativism" is the fault it is because so far as we are concerned "moral relativism" is the only option available to us. Whether there are absolute morals or not - we don't have a moral system that can be shown to be absolute.

quote:

---

Now, I've said it before and I'll say it again. I can't empirically prove which moral is an absolute moral. The only thing that I can do is make a philosophical argument that supports the notion that moral absolutes must exist.

---

You can't even do that. All you can do is argue that it would be nice if moral absolutes existed. Even if you could you admit defeat. Without proven absolute morals all you can do is accept moral relativism or pass off your relative morals as absolutes

quote:

---

The reason why is because if there were not, we would not only be incapable of answering the question, but there would be no point of reference from which to even raise the question to begin with from a moral standpoint.

---

That argument clearly fails. Firstly we can have subjective evaluations even in the absence of an objective truth. Indeed in matters of taste - e.g. literary, culinary or musical - we clearly do. None of these have clear absolutes, although we often talk as if there are. Worse for your case we really don't have any idea of what absolute morals would be or how we'd have access to them that isn't simply speculation. So far as we can tell morality IS subjective and always has been.

quote:

---

If he says that I'm a bigot, he is essentially appealing to me to conform to some sort of unspoken standard based on what he thinks I should know, which is a moral understanding.

​

Do you understand? Think about it.

---

Yes I do understand. He is appealing to two intersubjective standards. The first is the English language so you both know what a "bigot" is. The second is a moral judgement that bigotry is wrong. And you accept both standards because you deny being a bigot rather than accepting that you are a bigot and there's insisting that there's nothing wrong with that. So his appeal works to the extent that you DO accept both.

quote:

---

I don't think I do since the law derives from a moral framework. If it didn't come from a moral framework, laws would be completely arbitrary. If laws did not come from a moral reference, then we would have nonsensical laws, like, its illegal to twirl your hair while brushing your teeth.

---

But of course you don't address the issue that the law must deal with practicalities. YOu specifically raised the issue of age of consent as an arbitrary issue. And it IS arbitrary because there is no well-defined point at which a child becomes capable of making a mature decision to engage in sexual activity or not. Not only are there individual differences there's no exact age that can be agreed as correct even as an average. But for practicality's sake the law chooses a simple age based standard because it is relatively easy to understand and enforce. Thus in that case AS I POINTED OUT the law is arbitrary but the moral standard underlying it is not. Speeding laws are not in place because it is morally wrong to go fast, they are there because going fast increases the risk of accidents (occurrence and magnitude). Laws about which side of the road to drive on ARE arbitrar - it is not inherently moral to drive on the left or drive on the right. It is just desirable that everyone drives on the same side of the road. Driving on the right (or left) is purely arbitrary. Yet it is a law.

quote:

---

Instead, what do we see? We see laws geared towards the protection of sanctity. We see laws derive from our empathy and sympathy. Its illegal to slash someone's throat. Why? Because its morally reprehensible to do that. Can you explain, in words, why it is morally reprehensible? I find that explaining why something that simplistic is wrong, ineffable. You just... know, innately, that you should not do that.

---

Yes I can explain. We are social animals. We have the instincts of social animals. Further we are learning animals and we learn behaviour. Morals have a basis in the requirements of living together - in instincts evolved to let us live together. These instincts are developed and elaborated by our upbringing. Killing other members of your group for no good reason is BAD FOR THE GROUP. Someone who does that is a danger to the group and should be stopped. That is why we have a concept of murder. But because there is no absolute "murder" the elaboration from that to the ideas and laws defining murder that prevail in different societies also differ. Basic social instincts, plus learned elaborations.

That leaves us with only one conclusion - attempting to become a Christian increases your chances of becoming a paedophile.

so which moral absolute gives rise to the framework that creates laws that .... prohibit someone riding on a bus due to the colour of their skin.. that stops women owning property..that makes it leagal to employ 12 year old childern in factories..that robs someone of their landrights..that makes membership of a certian political party a crime

are not the large majority of men as a whole straight, and therefore would make up the bulk of the population of male criminals in any type of criminal act?Majority of murderers= straigt men?
majority of thieves=straight men?
majority of poachers=straight men?
majority of enron bad guys=straight men?etc, etc,...whether homosexuality leads to pedophilia or not (i have doubts about that though), your far far more likely to see straight pedophiles not due to some supposed and unproven "inherent depravity of straight men" , but because they far outnumber gay men.

---

"The Nephilim where in the Earth in those days..." Genesis 6:4

I don't know how accurate the "far outnumber" part is. With regard to sex crimes, we actually have statistics to prove that the vast majority of sex crimes, if not most, are committed against girls and women by men. On the other hand, there is no accurate statistics on the actual number of gay men or ratio of gay men to straight men. I've heard everything for .5% of the population to 30%.

---

Disclaimer:

​

Occasionally, owing to the deficiency of the English language, I have used he/him/his meaning he or she/him or her/his or her in order to avoid awkwardness of style.

​

He, him, and his are not intended as exclusively masculine pronouns. They may refer to either sex or to both sexes!

outside the Bible, you probably wont find a reason, because youre arguing from a different foundation of morality.and indeed, if one cannot post a study saying that homosexuality is dangerous and leads to mental illness (many here have tried, like myself), you cannot prove that to you and others here from youre point of view. Try finding a study showing that idol worship is bad for your health, or that working on sunday is bad for your health, or that sorcery leads to bad health, or necromancy, beastiality, adultery, taking God's name in vain, cruelty to animals, etc is very bad for your health.to show i another way, let rephrase your op or or (and this might be a good topic to start as well...hint hint HINT!) or (let alone why atheists say GD when they dont believe in him. Why not "Daffy Duck Dammit!"? Course, that's also off topic. easy to do on EVC!)and then; (that is true, the Bible says in the Torah (if My memory serves well) not to cut you beard, a ceremonial law as opposed to civil and moral law. I could argue that it is not in fore anymoore, but that would be off topic.)But do you understand the pointlessness or arguing this? Were on two different wavelengths here. You say potato, I say potaato, you say tomato, I say TomAto? I'm from mars, you from venus? I'm from Neptune, you from...Mercury (hehehe). I go by one moral foundation (Bible) you go by a different one. It's the equivalent of a Chicago bears fan arguing to a Dallas Cowboy fan that the Bears are the best (and they are!). Both have lost the debate before it starts.Hope this a helps
Edited by LudoRephaim, : No reason given.

---

"The Nephilim where in the Earth in those days..." Genesis 6:4

wow! I got a fast reponse this time!!!.5-30%? Probably somewhere n' between that number. I doubt that gay men make up the majority of the male population in the United states or the world for that matter, or even half or near as such. and even up to 30%, that still leads up to 70% of men being straight. that's a big difference in numbers.then bisexuals and asexuals (people who have no sexual drive at all) have to be considered, and are no doubt far, far fewer than gay or straight men.which still leads up to the conclusion that straight men make up the mahjority of the criminal male population because they are in the vast majority period.Edited by LudoRephaim, : No reason given.

---

"The Nephilim where in the Earth in those days..." Genesis 6:4

quote:

---

whether homosexuality leads to pedophilia or not (i have doubts about that though), your far far more likely to see straight pedophiles not due to some supposed and unproven "inherent depravity of straight men" , but because they far outnumber gay men.

---

As far as I can see, nobody's suggested any "inherent depravity of straight men" - it certainly isn't in the post you're replying toThe rest of your point would depend on the numbers, would it not ? For instance if homosexuals were 10% of the population and ten times more likely to be paedophiles than straight men paedophles should be equally split between straights and gays.

Hello paulk.I thought it could have been in between the lines as a comeback. I didn't know for sure. If the above was true, yes, but the above is not true (name a peer reviewed study showing that gay men are ten times more likely to rape children)and therefore is irrelevant. Even if they where 5 times more likely to be pedophiles, straight pedophiles would outnumber them still due to the sheer numbers of straight men (though in relative terms things would be different). If only ten percent of the male population was actually straight and the rest gay, then gays would have more pedophiles than straights. And where did a you det 10 percent of the population??Unless you show that gay men are ten times more likely to rape children than straights (let alone 9-6 times more likely), the point still stands.

---

"The Nephilim where in the Earth in those days..." Genesis 6:4

10% is an often quoted number - I don't know if it is correct or not but it semed good enough to use as a hypothetical.But you seem to mistake the rest of the point of my post. I am certainly not claiming that gays ARE ten times more likely to be paedophiles than straights - so I certainly don't have to support that claim. Instead I am pointing out that if the claim that gays were more inclined to paedophilia were true we cannot be certain that the majority of paedophiles would be straights. It depends on the numbers.

Okeedokee. Yes, thats right. Women outnumber men, yet women are less likely to be pedophiles or bank robbers or serial killers than men. But if you knew the numbers of gay/straight ratio in men and the overall likelyhood of a gay or straight guy being a pedophile, then you could know for certain what the majority of pedophiles would be. But without evidence showing that one is more likely than the other to rape children, and since gays are in the minority by a large shot, then it must be conclcuded that, unless evidence comes to the contrary, straights make up the majority of the male criminal population, and therefore the majority of pedophiles.There should be statistics on these matters. "to catch a predator" had a majority of straight predatos than gay ones, but they where there.

---

"The Nephilim where in the Earth in those days..." Genesis 6:4