Why is pedophilia a mental disorder, but not homosexuality?

Indie

Indie

Legendary Member
Orange Room Supporter
I beg to differ. Dismissing consent in this debate speaks volumes about said person's ethics.
He did not dismiss consent. He said that consent, on its own, is not enough to claim that an act is moral. It really is not that difficult to understand. He, or someone else, even gave examples of consensual behaviour that is not morally acceptable. I'm sure you can also think of other ones if you get out of your ideological bubble and embrace reason and logic again.

As I mentioned earlier, the point is not that we must imitate animals. The point is that we can find this behavior elsewhere, thus cementing its natural aspect.
Again, who cares? There are plenty of behaviours that are "natural" that virtually everyone considers immoral. The whole point of moral codes is to overcome detrimental instinctual behaviours and to replace them with righteous ones.
 
  • Advertisement
  • Indie

    Indie

    Legendary Member
    Orange Room Supporter
    Again, who cares? There are plenty of behaviours that are "natural" that virtually everyone considers immoral. The whole point of moral codes is to overcome detrimental instinctual behaviours and to replace them with righteous ones.
    Let me specify that I am in no way claiming that those who engage in homosexuality are more immoral than anyone else. People engage in, both, moral and immoral behaviours, whether they are straight or gay. We are talking about specific behaviours and not the overall morality of individuals.
     
    Libnene Qu7

    Libnene Qu7

    Super Ultra Senior Member
    Orange Room Supporter
    He did not dismiss consent. He said that consent, on its own, is not enough to claim that an act is moral. It really is not that difficult to understand. He, or someone else, even gave examples of consensual behaviour that is not morally acceptable. I'm sure you can also think of other ones if you get out of your ideological bubble and embrace reason and logic again.
    Again and again, the the subject concerning this particular debate, consent is very important. There are a million examples of consent that can be disgusting, but they have nothing to do with homosexuality being a “disease”. By the very mention of the word pedophile, consent should be the vanguard of defense against this act. I wonder if you have children if your own. Maybe then you’d understand. If you do have kids, I am sure you’d understand the protective nature of a parent. But you’re dismissing consent only to push a certain agenda on this forum.

    Let me specify that I am in no way claiming that those who engage in homosexuality are more immoral than anyone else. People engage in, both, moral and immoral behaviours, whether they are straight or gay. We are talking about specific behaviours and not the overall morality of individuals.
    Thanks for clearing that up. I was going to say I don’t know which is worse, considering homosexuality a disease or immoral.
     
    Indie

    Indie

    Legendary Member
    Orange Room Supporter
    The point is, homosexual behavior is there naturally, it is not a disease.
    Animals can suffer from things like:

    - Anxiety
    - Depression
    - PTSD
    - Self-harm
    - Compulsive behaviour
    Etc.

    Should we no longer view these as psychological illnesses?

    True, and troubled souls are usually those who are misunderstood, misjudged, and attacked for no reason other than being born in a certain way.
    For starters, there is no scientific evidence that people are born gay. It is extremely difficult to ascertain whether someone was born that way, or whether they acquired that propensity in early childhood; and, if the latter, for what reasons. This is no different than children who are diagnosed with other psychological conditions at an early age.

    There is evidence, however, that people who have previously engaged in homosexual behaviour can refrain from doing so if they become convinced that such behaviour is not moral. There are plenty of testimonies to support this. The key, however, is that the desire to change their behaviour has to come from them; because, it's a difficult path, and unless one is convinced and doing it for himself or herself, they will likely fail. This is why people who are pressured into gay-therapy don't tend to change. This is no different than people attempting to improve other aspects of their life, whether it's alcoholism, drug addiction, promiscuity, gambling, over-eating...the motivation for change has to come from within. It can't be forced from the outside.

    Lastly, no one here is judging or attacking people who engage in homosexual behaviour, any more than we are judging or attacking anyone else that engages in detrimental behaviour (because we all do). We are simply insisting that the conversation not be solely based on the unproven, and logically unsound, arguments of the lgbt lobby. If people have a reverence for truth, they have to be willing to examine unpleasant possibilities.
     
    Ice Tea

    Ice Tea

    Active Member
    Those aren't my words. That's the argument pedophiles are using to legalize their sexual deviance.
    I think you misunderstood the point of this thread.

    It doesn't matter if it's natural and happens in nature or not. We are not animals, we have consciousness. Pedophiles lack empathy towards other humans which mark as psychopathy, which is a mental disorder. They are a threath to other people. The comparison with homosexuality doesn't make sense.
     
    Libnene Qu7

    Libnene Qu7

    Super Ultra Senior Member
    Orange Room Supporter
    Animals can suffer from things like:

    - Anxiety
    - Depression
    - PTSD
    - Self-harm
    - Compulsive behaviour
    Etc.

    Should we no longer view these as psychological illnesses?



    For starters, there is no scientific evidence that people are born gay. It is extremely difficult to ascertain whether someone was born that way, or whether they acquired that propensity in early childhood; and, if the latter, for what reasons. This is no different than children who are diagnosed with other psychological conditions at an early age.

    There is evidence, however, that people who have previously engaged in homosexual behaviour can refrain from doing so if they become convinced that such behaviour is not moral. There are plenty of testimonies to support this. The key, however, is that the desire to change their behaviour has to come from them; because, it's a difficult path, and unless one is convinced and doing it for himself or herself, they will likely fail. This is why people who are pressured into gay-therapy don't tend to change. This is no different than people attempting to improve other aspects of their life, whether it's alcoholism, drug addiction, promiscuity, gambling, over-eating...the motivation for change has to come from within. It can't be forced from the outside.

    Lastly, no one here is judging or attacking people who engage in homosexual behaviour, any more than we are judging or attacking anyone else that engages in detrimental behaviour (because we all do). We are simply insisting that the conversation not be solely based on the unproven, and logically unsound, arguments of the lgbt lobby. If people have a reverence for truth, they have to be willing to examine unpleasant possibilities.
    I’ll just agree to disagree with you, that homosexuality is not a disease of any sort.
     
    Indie

    Indie

    Legendary Member
    Orange Room Supporter
    Again and again, the the subject concerning this particular debate, consent is very important.
    No one claimed that consent is not important. Only that consent is not enough to determine whether or not a behaviour is moral. Yih! How many times do we need to repeat this?

    There are a million examples of consent that can be disgusting, but they have nothing to do with homosexuality being a “disease”. By the very mention of the word pedophile, consent should be the vanguard of defense against this act. I wonder if you have children if your own. Maybe then you’d understand. If you do have kids, I am sure you’d understand the protective nature of a parent. But you’re dismissing consent only to push a certain agenda on this forum.
    Strawmen and appeal to emotions...

    No one is dismissing consent, and no one is condoning the abuse of children. Stop for a second and think about what is more likely: that anyone here is condoning rape and abuse, or that you are misrepresenting their arguments because you have nothing to counter them with?

    Thanks for clearing that up. I was going to say I don’t know which is worse, considering homosexuality a disease or immoral.
    We all engage in immoral behaviour. The more we accept this, the better for everyone.
     
    Indie

    Indie

    Legendary Member
    Orange Room Supporter
    I’ll just agree to disagree with you, that homosexuality is not a disease of any sort.
    I don't think I used the word "disease." That word has a connotation...as if it's some virus you can catch or something. Whereas I am comparing homosexuality to common psychological illnesses like depression, anxiety...or even less common ones like gender dysphoria.

    In that sense the word disease would make more sense. Dis-ease = not at ease...with one's own biology.
     
    Dark Angel

    Dark Angel

    Legendary Member
    Interesting you say that. On average homosexuals tend to be more talented, more tasteful, and more humane than the average heterosexual. Maybe the the progress you speak of should be taken up by the group that you weren't thinking of. :)
    unsubstantiated claims. but still does not address the point i have raised. advancing that the state can be found in nature is not a valid argument as the whole history of mankind is about rising over their instincts, no?
     
    R

    ruins

    Member
    Tfaddal istez:

    "No species has been found in which homosexual behaviour has not been shown to exist, with the exception of species that never have sex at all, such as sea urchins and aphis. Moreover, a part of the animal kingdom is hermaphroditic, truly bisexual. For them, homosexuality is not an issue."

    Here's the wikipedia link: Homosexual behavior in animals - Wikipedia

    And this from the very first google search hit. Are you happy now? Did that scratch your itch?
    No, because of what you exactly did, looked at the first Google hit. Actually, the link itself is clear, just see the statement before what you pasted:

    While studies have demonstrated homosexual behavior in a number of species, Petter Bøckman, the scientific advisor of the exhibition Against Nature? in 2007, speculated that the true extent of the phenomenon may be much larger than was then recognized:
    No species has been found in which homosexual behaviour has not been shown to exist, with the exception of species that never have sex at all, such as sea urchins and aphis. Moreover, a part of the animal kingdom is hermaphroditic, truly bisexual. For them, homosexuality is not an issue.​

    I asked you for a scientific reference, what did you bring up:
    - Wikipedia
    - A speculation
    - From a guy who works at a natural museum, is a lecturer (not PhD credentials, he does hold an MS though to his credit)

    My itch has no further interest in pursuing this conversation with you, because I am confident you have never looked at the actual science behind this phenomenon (had you done so before, you wouldn't have needed to Google it on Wiki anyway because you'd have the references that you read and formed your opinion ready). You are merely satisfied with what pop culture tells you is science and then you claim to be a rationalist, whose opinions are driven by evidence only.
     
    R

    ruins

    Member
    I
    As I mentioned earlier, the point is not that we must imitate animals. The point is that we can find this behavior elsewhere, thus cementing its natural aspect.
    Absolutely, and what manifesto is trying to say is that pedophilia, rape, and gang rape, are also found elsewhere in nature, as abundantly as homosexual behavior (Petter Bøckman would speculate as such I am sure), thus cementing their natural aspect. He is not saying they should be decriminalized.
     
    Libnene Qu7

    Libnene Qu7

    Super Ultra Senior Member
    Orange Room Supporter
    unsubstantiated claims. but still does not address the point i have raised. advancing that the state can be found in nature is not a valid argument as the whole history of mankind is about rising over their instincts, no?
    Of course, but being true to oneself is also important. By the way, how is homosexuality in roughly 10% of the human population pose any issues similar to something like pedophelia? And why don’t you as a heterosexual not rise above your instinct and become homo? (Effectively this is what you’re asking homosexuals should do)
     
    Libnene Qu7

    Libnene Qu7

    Super Ultra Senior Member
    Orange Room Supporter
    No, because of what you exactly did, looked at the first Google hit. Actually, the link itself is clear, just see the statement before what you pasted:

    While studies have demonstrated homosexual behavior in a number of species, Petter Bøckman, the scientific advisor of the exhibition Against Nature? in 2007, speculated that the true extent of the phenomenon may be much larger than was then recognized:
    No species has been found in which homosexual behaviour has not been shown to exist, with the exception of species that never have sex at all, such as sea urchins and aphis. Moreover, a part of the animal kingdom is hermaphroditic, truly bisexual. For them, homosexuality is not an issue.​

    I asked you for a scientific reference, what did you bring up:
    - Wikipedia
    - A speculation
    - From a guy who works at a natural museum, is a lecturer (not PhD credentials, he does hold an MS though to his credit)

    My itch has no further interest in pursuing this conversation with you, because I am confident you have never looked at the actual science behind this phenomenon (had you done so before, you wouldn't have needed to Google it on Wiki anyway because you'd have the references that you read and formed your opinion ready). You are merely satisfied with what pop culture tells you is science and then you claim to be a rationalist, whose opinions are driven by evidence only.
    You truly are a professional troll. I wish you’d use your boredom to research simple facts. I merely clicked on the first google link because that is how much I value my teaching of you. Tell you what, PM your mailing address and I’ll buy the top ten books on this subject if you rise above this cheap behavior.
     
    Ice Tea

    Ice Tea

    Active Member
    Homosexuality is partially heritable. There are no specific genes that cause homosexuality. But there are certain genes that may increase the chances depending on how they respond to environment. It's totally not predictable and cannot be changed.

    ‘Speculative’ genetic link to homosexuality found | Cosmos

    That's also why when one twin is gay it's very likely the other one also is.
     
    AtheistForJesus

    AtheistForJesus

    Well-Known Member
    It doesn't matter if it's natural and happens in nature or not. We are not animals, we have consciousness. Pedophiles lack empathy towards other humans which mark as psychopathy, which is a mental disorder. They are a threath to other people. The comparison with homosexuality doesn't make sense.
    It's wrong to assume all pedophiles are psychopaths.
    Not all of them act on their attraction.
    They are mentally ill and need help.

    When some agenda-driven psychiatrists classify pedophilia as a natural non-changeable sexual orientation, they are denying pedophiles their right to seek treatment.
     
    AtheistForJesus

    AtheistForJesus

    Well-Known Member
    You truly are a professional troll. I wish you’d use your boredom to research simple facts. I merely clicked on the first google link because that is how much I value my teaching of you. Tell you what, PM your mailing address and I’ll buy the top ten books on this subject if you rise above this cheap behavior.
    I'm sorry but you didn't back your claim with scientific evidence either.
    All you did was assert that pedophilia is treatable while homosexuality is not.

    We have yet to hear what scientific evidence you have to confirm your assumption. "It's observed in nature" doesn't count as an argument.

    @ruins is not a troll. What he said makes perfect sense.
     
    Indie

    Indie

    Legendary Member
    Orange Room Supporter
    By the way, how is homosexuality in roughly 10% of the human population pose any issues similar to something like pedophelia?
    Just because the two don't cause the same issues, it does not mean that homosexuality does not cause its own, dinstinct, set of issues.

    A child whose parents divorce and whose mother decides to "remarry" a woman is an issue.

    A child who is born out of a sperm or egg "donation" and who never knows who their other biological parent is, is an issue.

    A heterosexual child who does not have a same-sex parent to model and learn from is an issue.

    A heterosexual child who does not have an opposite-sex parent, to learn what a potential partner should behave like, is a issue.

    These are only a few of the issues present in a homosexual lifestyle. There are many more.

    And, no, I am not claiming that all heterosexual marriages are perfect or that all heterosexual parents are perfect. They also have issues to address. But, at least, no one is pretending those issues don't exist.

    And why don’t you as a heterosexual not rise above your instinct and become homo?
    What would be the benefit of that?
     
    Dark Angel

    Dark Angel

    Legendary Member
    Of course, but being true to oneself is also important. By the way, how is homosexuality in roughly 10% of the human population pose any issues similar to something like pedophelia?
    no one is placing consensual homosexuality at the same level with pedophilia. except that the same people ("experts") who successfully declassified homosexuality from being a psychological disorder tried to do the same with pedophilia for the same reasons.

    to me both are psychological illnesses, though they are not on the same levels, one of them is a consensual deviant pursuit of sexual pleasure, the other is nothing short of rape. but the moral background that made it be classified as rape, does not also condone and sanction homosexuality. the line of relative morality is a very elastic one, pedophilia might no longer be considered a crime in the future, and people could create all kinds of arguments to support it as well. where do you draw the line? a 10 years old today is on par with 20 years old two centuries ago. i see no obstacles from a relative morality perspective.

    And why don’t you as a heterosexual not rise above your instinct and become homo? (Effectively this is what you’re asking homosexuals should do)
    i am not asking anyone to do anything. i am saying the "it is found in nature" argument you presented is meaningless. you find all kinds of things in nature that are no longer part of our lives as human beings because we have risen above our animalistic nature. and it is not a matter of simply going against your instincts, it is rather about rising and evolving in the right direction as a human being. what is the right direction, that is the question that should be discussed.
     
    Last edited:
    R

    ruins

    Member
    You truly are a professional troll. I wish you’d use your boredom to research simple facts. I merely clicked on the first google link because that is how much I value my teaching of you. Tell you what, PM your mailing address and I’ll buy the top ten books on this subject if you rise above this cheap behavior.
    Giving me a label or a macho attitude about mailing address does not change two facts:
    1) You used a speculative Wiki article that actually refutes your claim. You barely read a quote whose author said it is a specualtion.
    2) It would have been easier for you, and all of us, if you produce one piece of validated science (not the top ten books on the subject) to backup the "all" claim.
     
    Libnene Qu7

    Libnene Qu7

    Super Ultra Senior Member
    Orange Room Supporter
    Just because the two don't cause the same issues, it does not mean that homosexuality does not cause its own, dinstinct, set of issues.

    A child whose parents divorce and whose mother decides to "remarry" a woman is an issue.

    A child who is born out of a sperm or egg "donation" and who never knows who their other biological parent is, is an issue.

    A heterosexual child who does not have a same-sex parent to model and learn from is an issue.

    A heterosexual child who does not have an opposite-sex parent, to learn what a potential partner should behave like, is a issue.

    These are only a few of the issues present in a homosexual lifestyle. There are many more.

    And, no, I am not claiming that all heterosexual marriages are perfect or that all heterosexual parents are perfect. They also have issues to address. But, at least, no one is pretending those issues don't exist.



    What would be the benefit of that?
    Every major study on children of homosexual parents did not prove any additional issues they suffer any more than children of heterosexual parents.

    As for the second part, it was merely to highlight the absurdity of changing sexual orientation.

    no one is placing consensual homosexuality at the same level with pedophilia. except that the same people ("experts") who successfully declassified homosexuality from being a psychological disorder tried to do the same with pedophilia for the same reasons.

    to me both are psychological illnesses, though they are not on the same levels, one of them is a consensual deviant pursuit of sexual pleasure, the other is nothing short of rape. but the moral background that made it be classified as rape, does not also condone and sanction homosexuality. the line of relative morality is a very elastic one, pedophilia might no longer be considered a crime in the future, and people could create all kinds of arguments to support it as well. where do you draw the line? a 10 years old today is on par with 20 years old two centuries ago. i see no obstacles from a relative morality perspective.


    i am not asking anyone to do anything. i am saying the "it is found in nature" argument you presented is meaningless. you find all kinds of things in nature that are no longer part of our lives as human beings because we have risen above our animalistic nature. and it is not a matter of simply going against your instincts, it is rather about rising and evolving in the right direction as a human being. what is the right direction, that is the question that should be discussed.
    Everything you said about it being a psychological illness is incorrect. It’s not my opinion, it’s the experts’. I don’t know where you got the idea that they also are working on pedophilia to be removed.

    Furthermore, how do you not realize that absolute morality is historically responsible for the majority of pedophilic acts. Do I need to remind you of the child sex scandals of the church? Of course not, that’s just leftist propaganda. Do I need to inform you of prophet Mohammed’s sexual deviance and child marriage? No, all leftist propaganda. How about what Rabbis do to boys after they circumcise them? Again, all leftist media BS. Right?

    It’s much easier to get away with murder when you pretend your laws came from “above”. Humanism saves us and will continue to do so. Leftist propaganda or not, absolute morality has been tried and failed and been found wanting.
     
    Top