Harm in Homosexuality?

Morality in sexuality comes from the idea that it is wrong to abuse a position of dominance to obtain sex - such as doctor/patient, teacher/student, boss/employee, family member/family member, adult/child.The reason other abuses aren't treated as harshly as paedophilia is because paedophilia is easier to define (with an age limit). It's interesting to note that teacher/student sex in the UK is now ILLEGAL under 18.Consentual necrophilia should be discouraged, because it promotes extreme dominance and submission (ie a corpse CAN'T say no) and is therefore damaging to the living party, not to mention the practicality of legal permissions and storing the corpses.some thoughts on necrophilia from http://www.philosophos.com/...philosophy_questions_1449.html

I am saying religious morals are set up to protect people and society (like all morals). They are either to protect the vulnerable (like children), maintain stability (like property laws and patriarchal rules) or, in some older religions to promote child bearing (to maintain population).Paedophilia is easy to definie because you pick an age, arbitrarily. But other things, like boos/employee are much harder, because anyone superior in a company might be considered 'boss' even if they have no other contact with the employee.Extreme dominance is pyschologically damaging because it promotes and rewards potentially abusive behaviour (like rape). Controlled dominance (like S&M) does not do this, because the submissive can exit any time they want.
The need for extreme dominance is also a sign of insecurity, and necrophilia therefore a sign of potential extreme insecurity - and it is insecurity/the desire for dominance that leads to rape and abuse.The age of a minor varies from child to child. But for practical reasons states must declare an arbitrary age.

Actually, in the Netherlands you aren't "good to go" at 14. There are actually quite complex laws.have a look at http://www.ageofconsent.com/ageofconsent.htm

The problem with a parent masturbating a child, even if it WHERE accepted as akin to a hug, is that then every person a child might normally hug (and there's quite a lot of them) would equally be normally involved in masturbation of the child.Practically, this kind of behaviour would lead to disease increase.But morally, this is a move towards a totally free sexual society. With the health implications this is just not practical, and with the current (more or less global) philosophy that sex is something extra and special (above kissing, hugging etc) it would lead to a downgrading of sex to just another act, taking away one of the things that makes sex great - the emotional side.Also, sex is a lot more open to exploitation for personal gain than hugging - in sex one partner can exploit the other for pleasure, while providing nothing back. This kind of behaviour is seen a lot in patriachal societies where women are not expected to gain much pleasure from sex.
Another interesting note is that in some cities in ancient greece relationships between older men and young boys were permitted. This was about physical gratification for the adult, and education or presents for the child or the childs parents. This kind of behaviour objectifies the child and teaches that sex should be bought, which is in stark contrast to modern ideas of healthy relationships.

If marriage is religious, ban all atheists from marrying and stop all marriages outside of church. Then set up a civil register for everyone to register for tax breaks/inheritence laws.If marriage is state registration let gay couples marry.

Look here. Men who have consensual sex under 16 have an increased incidence of psychological problems.
Those who are raped had an even higher incidence.
There's your harm. BMJ Non-consensual sex in men studyAnd how would you propose determining which children give consent and which don't? Or are you claiming rape of a child, if sociologically acceptable, would not lead to any harm?This message has been edited by Jon, 11-17-2004 05:50 PM

thanks for that. It's editted.This message has been edited by Jon, 11-17-2004 05:50 PM

put some insulation in, that'll stop the heat/cold.And cut some air holes?

Under age sex does not carry any stigma in british society for men. many even boast about it. So why do they have psychological problems over and above people who don't have consensual under-age sex?And how do you propose we tell which children are and aren't consenting to have sex?Masturbation is just another everyday activity, but sex is not. At least not for me. The trust involved and the emotional satisfaction it gives are more important than the physical parts - if it were "just another everyday activity" these would be lost.

Look at the table for psychological harm. Those who have under age sex are subject to greater psychological problems later. Which causes which is not known, but the link is there. That would suggest under age sex was a symptom of early psychological problems, or possibly (though unlikely) the cause.And yes, it says a greater risk exists for gay men. Does that mean being gay and monogomous mean you will be raped? No. It means being more promiscuous is more dangerous.
It is clear from the authors own words that you quoted that the threat comes from certain parts of gay culture - like the increased promiscuity of the gay men studied. Being gay doesn't make you promiscuous, like being straight doesn't make you monogomous.

If you read it, it certainly seems to mean that the part you quoted is from the section on weighting consencual and non-consensual sex in order of seriousness.If you look at the data, men who engaged in consensual under age sex were 4-15% more likely to suffer from psychological problems.And you still haven't told me how you would tell which children consent and which do not.

The study questioned 2474 men (mean age 46 years) attending one of 18 general practices.Experiences of non-consensual and consensual sex before and after the age of 16 years---that is, as a child and adult respectively---psychological problems experienced for more than 2 weeks at any one time, use of alcohol (CAGE questionnaire), self harm, and help receivedIf you READ it the age is clear, have you even bothered?It does not show inherent damage in under age sex, but it DOES show a correlation between under age sex and psychological problems. This, coupled with the incredibly damaging effects of rape on children (which I have not sourced here because I assume you are reasonable, if you need me to then I can source it for you) causes concern to me about young children engaging in any kind of sex, especially with adults. As I have asked Tusko, can you come up with a way to determine consensual and non-consensual sex in children? If not, surely it is better to make it illegal for ANY adult to have sex with a child?Having sex with one man, monogomously for life would not put you at increased risk of rape. Therefore being homosexual would not be harmful. It is, however, concerning that the indication is from the study that the incidence of rape is higher amongst the gay participants."Non-consensual sex and sexuality--- Most men who reported non-consensual sexual experiences with other men defined themselves as primarily heterosexual. However, men who reported having sex with other men were six times more likely to have non-consensual sex as an adult. Gay and bisexual men have more sexual partners than do heterosexual men.19 Increasing numbers and anonymity of sexual partners may increase the risk of non-consensual sex. These factors may explain why previous studies of gay men have found high rates of non-consensual sex. 4 20"

I read it all through. Twice. You don't appear to have done any such thing, as you keep asking me to provide you with age details (which are all listed at the top)."In other words, if you want a laugh, or a good counterpunch, read the links to studies before responding."I would have thought you should ALWAYS read the links, not just assume they are wrong. Do you ONLY read links when you "want a laugh"?

no, I was asking from the point of view of a law maker. How would you decide if consent was given if allegations of rape were made?We know children can be more easily coerced by adults, especially by parents. (have a look at this Hunger strike if you are not sure).

erm, do you know what a GP is? It's a normal family doctor. ANYONE who EVER gets ill AT ALL goes to their GP. That's what they do. Admittedly this study is restricted to men who were unwell in some way (like a cold) but you are right, all the men who are immune to disease and injury are excluded.I really am confused by your claim that they are not the general public because they go to their GP. Do you know anything about the british healthcare system, or are you arrogantly claiming authority about things you don't understand at all?"but yes the effects of rape alone (depending on level of violence) can be bad enough."The level of violence is more or less irrelevant. Rape victims who were non-violently raped still carry the psychological damage of being forced into sex against their will.HOW would you know if a child was forced? Ask them? Children are easily coerced (see the link I gave Tusko). So again, HOW would you tell who did and did not consent, without being coerced?The study shows clearly that homosexual men are more at risk of being raped by other men, I don't dispute that.The addition of my comments on rape relate to the fact you CANNOT tell whether children were raped or consented, because they are too easily coerced and frightened.and AGAIN if you READ the paper, "Gay and bisexual men have more sexual partners than do heterosexual men." had a reference after it. Use that, don't claim, FALSELY it is conjecture on the part of the authors.And it is not culturally looked down upon to have sex under 16 in the UK. A lot of men boast about it. There's no reason why societies views should cause extra stress for them because they had sex early.