http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/02/15/the-complete-glossary-of-facebook-s-51-gender-options.html (http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/02/15/the-complete-glossary-of-facebook-s-51-gender-options.html)
51 Gender options on facebook. 51.. Which one are you?
Lads where is it all going?
Quote from: The Iceman on February 27, 2014, 01:06:38 AM
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/02/15/the-complete-glossary-of-facebook-s-51-gender-options.html (http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/02/15/the-complete-glossary-of-facebook-s-51-gender-options.html)
51 Gender options on facebook. 51.. Which one are you?
Lads where is it all going?
Meh.. Couldnt care less what people want to call themselves.
but what does 'couped' mean?
QuoteCouped
This site:
(kŌpt)
a. 1. (Her.) Cut off smoothly, as distinguished from erased; - used especially for the head or limb of an animal. See Erased
(from thefreedictionary.com)
A company whose income is dependent upon advertising has introduced a policy that gives it more information about its audience. Now what was the question again?
I don't believe for a second that you were aware there even was 51 genders of the human race....
The fact that Facebook offer it surely would indicate that there are at least 51 different genders people identify with. I think that's shocking.
What difference does it make? To anything?
Quote from: The Iceman on February 27, 2014, 04:09:50 PM
I don't believe for a second that you were aware there even was 51 genders of the human race....
The fact that Facebook offer it surely would indicate that there are at least 51 different genders people identify with. I think that's shocking.
Not as shocking as not finding the one you would identify with out of 51, right?
Quote from: Puckoon on February 27, 2014, 04:18:21 PM
Quote from: The Iceman on February 27, 2014, 04:09:50 PM
I don't believe for a second that you were aware there even was 51 genders of the human race....
The fact that Facebook offer it surely would indicate that there are at least 51 different genders people identify with. I think that's shocking.
Not as shocking as not finding the one you would identify with out of 51, right?
I came close on a few of them
Quote from: Hardy on February 27, 2014, 04:12:18 PM
What difference does it make? To anything?
The bible would get very complicated
Just wait till cold tea sees this - he'll go into meltdown!
Quote from: theskull1 on February 27, 2014, 04:54:14 PM
Quote from: Hardy on February 27, 2014, 04:12:18 PM
What difference does it make? To anything?
The bible would get very complicated
Have you ever read the bible, it isn't exactly the best laid out fairy tales.
mghu, we get it. You're an atheist. Well done. Do you have to keep telling us over and over again?
Quote from: Hardy on February 27, 2014, 04:12:18 PM
What difference does it make? To anything?
Absolutely nothing.
Quote from: Maguire01 on February 27, 2014, 05:48:05 PM
Quote from: Hardy on February 27, 2014, 04:12:18 PM
What difference does it make? To anything?
Absolutely nothing.
Then why do facebook have it as an option? What difference does any thread started mean to anything?
The whole show is couped.
Inuits have 50 words for snow - but it's still cold, tricky to walk on and good for making snow men. There might be 51 genders but we all still bleed red, think we're right when we're wrong and have the capacity to surprise ourselves when we least thought we could. Here's to humans, the virus with shoes (copy right the late lamented Bill Hicks)
Where are the science boys? What does Science teach us about gender? Are there 2 or 3 or more?
Eamonn? MGHU? Puck?
Science seems to be the go-to refernce guide on the gaaboard. What say you? :)
i don't think there is a go to reference on the GAABoard, imagine trying to get agreement on that, make the Haas talks look like wee buns
Quote from: heganboy on February 27, 2014, 07:14:20 PM
i don't think there is a go to reference on the GAABoard, imagine trying to get agreement on that, make the Haas talks look like wee buns
I think its fair to ask though heganboy. So many of my contributions about religion have been "discredited" by science or explained away by science. I'd like to hear the scientific answer to how many genders are there.....?
And if scientific rules don't apply then why not?
Quote from: The Iceman on February 27, 2014, 06:56:59 PM
Where are the science boys? What does Science teach us about gender? Are there 2 or 3 or more?
Eamonn? MGHU? Puck?
Science seems to be the go-to refernce guide on the gaaboard. What say you? :)
You have to seperate sex and gender, is my opinion. They are often used interchangably and incorrectly. Gender incorporates physical, mental and behavioral facets which blur the lines drawn between male and female physical characteristics. Obvious examples being the physical male with female gender qualities (Julian Simmons for example)!
If it looks like a duck etcc... it might feel like it is an elephant.
Quote from: The Iceman on February 27, 2014, 07:24:10 PM
Quote from: heganboy on February 27, 2014, 07:14:20 PM
i don't think there is a go to reference on the GAABoard, imagine trying to get agreement on that, make the Haas talks look like wee buns
I think its fair to ask though heganboy. So many of my contributions about religion have been "discredited" by science or explained away by science. I'd like to hear the scientific answer to how many genders are there.....?
And if scientific rules don't apply then why not?
Why do the science boys have to carry Facebook's water? Facebook have decided to give multiple options for gender so they can better decide what ads with which to target users. There's no 'science' behind it, unless you think marketing is a science.
51 me hole. You're either male or female. Mutilated males are still male.
Quote from: BennyCake on February 27, 2014, 07:38:13 PM
51 me hole. You're either male or female. Mutilated males are still male.
+1
Quote from: deiseach on February 27, 2014, 07:37:42 PM
Quote from: The Iceman on February 27, 2014, 07:24:10 PM
Quote from: heganboy on February 27, 2014, 07:14:20 PM
i don't think there is a go to reference on the GAABoard, imagine trying to get agreement on that, make the Haas talks look like wee buns
I think its fair to ask though heganboy. So many of my contributions about religion have been "discredited" by science or explained away by science. I'd like to hear the scientific answer to how many genders are there.....?
And if scientific rules don't apply then why not?
Why do the science boys have to carry Facebook's water? Facebook have decided to give multiple options for gender so they can better decide what ads with which to target users. There's no 'science' behind it, unless you think marketing is a science.
It's not just facebook - they are just an 'in everybody's face' example of all of this. 2 year old girl tells her parents she is a boy so they shave her head, let her wear boys clothes and go to gender spectrum support groups so as not to affect her mental health by going against her....
I just don't know where it's all headed.
does science support it? That's my first question.
There are loads of women apparently that are born in men's bodies, it must have been happening for millennia but it has only come to light the last few decades.
To be fair, some people are born with a condition where they have the genitalia of both sexes. Some people are born with the body of one gender and the mind of another. Not exactly widespread, but it does exist. It becomes noticeable because it's so unusual. When you're walking through the Tenderloin area of San Francisco you see a lot of strangely tall women with masculine features, you can't help but notice them.
If you want a scientific explanation, well this is a condition that isn't exactly life-threatening, so there's no reason why it would completely drop out of the gene pool.
As others have said, Facebook doesn't care how many genders there are, they only care about how many different gender identities people identify with. It's about satisfying their users. Same as how their relationship status field is a bit more flexible than the boring old married/single choice.
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on February 27, 2014, 08:07:59 PM
To be fair, some people are born with a condition where they have the genitalia of both sexes. Some people are born with the body of one gender and the mind of another. Not exactly widespread, but it does exist. It becomes noticeable because it's so unusual. When you're walking through the Tenderloin area of San Francisco you see a lot of strangely tall women with masculine features, you can't help but notice them.
If you want a scientific explanation, well this is a condition that isn't exactly life-threatening, so there's no reason why it would completely drop out of the gene pool.
As others have said, Facebook doesn't care how many genders there are, they only care about how many different gender identities people identify with. It's about satisfying their users. Same as how their relationship status field is a bit more flexible than the boring old married/single choice.
Emm. Are they not just men dressed as women? If I dress up as a gorilla, I'm still a man, whether I like it or not. It reminds me of that scene in the Life of Brian. "Where are you going to keep the foetus? In a box!?"
I've looked more into it all and I'm shocked. these Gender Spectrum conferences for parents of gender "confused" kids had a 13year old boy speaking on stage to huge applause:
"I call myself gender-fluid because I can be any and all genders. But i don't want to even put myself in a box with a word like gender-fluid. I'm just me"
I'm just not sure where are we going as a race, a people, a world? Do 51 categories of gender help people or create even more confusion? Does the study of human psychology become obsolete as so much of it is defined by our gender?
Quote from: AZOffaly on February 27, 2014, 08:48:37 PM
Emm. Are they not just men dressed as women?
Some of them might be.
Quote from: The Iceman on February 27, 2014, 09:19:30 PM
I'm just not sure where are we going as a race, a people, a world?
I think we'll get by just fine.
QuoteDo 51 categories of gender help people or create even more confusion?
It helps people who are caught between male and female to accept that they don't have to artificially squeeze themselves into a category that they're not going to fit into. It's not about "creating confusing," it's about accepting the diversity that exists in the human race without putting artificial constraints on people just so that they can make the majority feel more comfortable.
Again, I compare it to the way left-handed people used to be mis-treated. Accepting that some people prefer to write with their left hand has not "created confusion" or led to the collapse of the human race.
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on February 27, 2014, 09:24:06 PM
Quote from: The Iceman on February 27, 2014, 09:19:30 PM
I'm just not sure where are we going as a race, a people, a world?
I think we'll get by just fine.
QuoteDo 51 categories of gender help people or create even more confusion?
It helps people who are caught between male and female to accept that they don't have to artificially squeeze themselves into a category that they're not going to fit into. It's not about "creating confusing," it's about accepting the diversity that exists in the human race without putting artificial constraints on people just so that they can make the majority feel more comfortable.
Again, I compare it to the way left-handed people used to be mis-treated. Accepting that some people prefer to write with their left hand has not "created confusion" or led to the collapse of the human race.
I think thats an unfair comparison Eamonn and a very strategic slight of hand in many ways. Comparing it to something we can all relate to and to which we would all stand behind conjuring up emotions based on something it isn't.
This isn't about left hand or right hand (two choices) this is about at least 51 choices. It's about taking something which your rock of science (which you cling to when it would seem to suit) says is either male or female and turning it into something different. What is gender-fluid two spirits in the world of science?
I think we're spiraling out of control as a people.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qh2sWSVRrmo
Lord spare us from moral panics!
Lads, if you look hard enough you'll find something that'll convince you that the world is coming to an end. No problem with that in itself, but please try and realise that every generation since Eve was in the Garden has had their own chicken lickens, crying that the sky is coming down.
It's a bit much to worry about the decline and collapse of civilisation because of Facebook's gender policy, at the same time as we are seeing real climate change and weather disasters, an apparent resumption of the Cold War (with an option for hot, if needed), and income inequality not seen since the end of the 19th century.
These are real problems for people of all genders.
and BTW if you're interested in the subject, Jeffrey Eugenides book "Middlesex" is absolutely brilliant, one the best reads of the past ten years IMHO
One last time. There is no more science behind Facebook's 51 genders than there is behind the idea that once you open a jar of Pringle's you are not ever going to be able to stop eating them. If you are going to cling to a marketing strategy as evidence that we are somehow diminished as a species then you are not looking to have a serious discussion.
Quote from: deiseach on February 27, 2014, 09:56:48 PM
One last time. There is no more science behind Facebook's 51 genders than there is behind the idea that once you open a jar of Pringle's you are not ever going to be able to stop eating them. If you are going to cling to a marketing strategy as evidence that we are somehow diminished as a species then you are not looking to have a serious discussion.
Perhaps you should actually read the posts and see I cited facebook as one example. I wrote of more scenarios. So address the questions or find somewhere else to police...
Iceman, even allowing that the 51 genders idea is a sociological phenomenon and not a marketing campaign, I have no idea why you want to have a swipe at science because this sociological trend seems to aggravate you. The answer to your question is that I think science has nothing to say about gender. I think gender itself is a sociological concept. (But I'm not sure, as I haven't done any research on it or researched whether anyone else has.)
I imagine you might as well ask what does science have to say about the popularity of Twitter or tattoos.
I don't think either that there's any scientific consensus on the compulsion to prescribe how others should live their lives. The best treatment of it I've come across is a satirical one:
Puritanism - the haunting fear that somewhere, someone may be enjoying themselves
What the fcuk is this all about?
It's like Burn After Reading. Or Jaws 3.
Quote from: The Iceman on February 27, 2014, 09:34:11 PM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on February 27, 2014, 09:24:06 PM
Quote from: The Iceman on February 27, 2014, 09:19:30 PM
I'm just not sure where are we going as a race, a people, a world?
I think we'll get by just fine.
QuoteDo 51 categories of gender help people or create even more confusion?
It helps people who are caught between male and female to accept that they don't have to artificially squeeze themselves into a category that they're not going to fit into. It's not about "creating confusing," it's about accepting the diversity that exists in the human race without putting artificial constraints on people just so that they can make the majority feel more comfortable.
Again, I compare it to the way left-handed people used to be mis-treated. Accepting that some people prefer to write with their left hand has not "created confusion" or led to the collapse of the human race.
I think thats an unfair comparison Eamonn and a very strategic slight of hand in many ways. Comparing it to something we can all relate to and to which we would all stand behind conjuring up emotions based on something it isn't.
This isn't about left hand or right hand (two choices) this is about at least 51 choices. It's about taking something which your rock of science (which you cling to when it would seem to suit) says is either male or female and turning it into something different. What is gender-fluid two spirits in the world of science?
I think we're spiraling out of control as a people.
Instead of worrying about it why not just strap yourself in and enjoy the ride....
Quote from: The Iceman on February 27, 2014, 10:05:01 PM
Quote from: deiseach on February 27, 2014, 09:56:48 PM
One last time. There is no more science behind Facebook's 51 genders than there is behind the idea that once you open a jar of Pringle's you are not ever going to be able to stop eating them. If you are going to cling to a marketing strategy as evidence that we are somehow diminished as a species then you are not looking to have a serious discussion.
Perhaps you should actually read the posts and see I cited facebook as one example. I wrote of more scenarios. So address the questions or find somewhere else to police...
It's the example you keep quoting even though it is a deeply dishonest one. I'm not stopping you saying it, but if you are not going to engage in an honest manner then I'll pass on the discussion. Starting now.
Quote from: Hardy on February 27, 2014, 10:06:34 PM
Iceman, even allowing that the 51 genders idea is a sociological phenomenon and not a marketing campaign, I have no idea why you want to have a swipe at science because this sociological trend seems to aggravate you. The answer to your question is that I think science has nothing to say about gender. I think gender itself is a sociological concept. (But I'm not sure, as I haven't done any research on it or researched whether anyone else has.)
I imagine you might as well ask what does science have to say about the popularity of Twitter or tattoos.
I don't think either that there's any scientific consensus on the compulsion to prescribe how others should live their lives. The best treatment of it I've come across is a satirical one:
Puritanism - the haunting fear that somewhere, someone may be enjoying themselves
I'm certainly not having a swipe at science and if it comes across that way it wasn't my intent. I'm looking for a scientific answer. And my motives are I suppose two fold:
1. On all the religion threads that have been done to the death - science has the trump card - its the final answer - but all I hear on this topic is crickets...... and science seems to be quite specific on how many genders there are - but the science champions remain quiet or explain it away with unconvincing arguments. Which I find hypocritical.
2. None of these genders (I'm sure there are more than 51) make any sense to me. I'm looking for answers or for perspective. Am I the only one who finds it strange? The only one shocked that there are that many and it's apparently normal? I wanted to be a ninja when I was small, I was also convinced I could fly if I only had the nerve to jump off the branch and find out, but thankfully my parents convinced me otherwise. It didn't affect my mental state that my parents didn't embrace my identification with ninja's or my belief that I could fly.
I just don't know where all this is headed. I am not crying this is the end of the world. I am doubting the direction we are headed as people though.
Quote from: The Iceman on February 27, 2014, 10:15:59 PM
Quote from: Hardy on February 27, 2014, 10:06:34 PM
Iceman, even allowing that the 51 genders idea is a sociological phenomenon and not a marketing campaign, I have no idea why you want to have a swipe at science because this sociological trend seems to aggravate you. The answer to your question is that I think science has nothing to say about gender. I think gender itself is a sociological concept. (But I'm not sure, as I haven't done any research on it or researched whether anyone else has.)
I imagine you might as well ask what does science have to say about the popularity of Twitter or tattoos.
I don't think either that there's any scientific consensus on the compulsion to prescribe how others should live their lives. The best treatment of it I've come across is a satirical one:
Puritanism - the haunting fear that somewhere, someone may be enjoying themselves
I'm certainly not having a swipe at science and if it comes across that way it wasn't my intent. I'm looking for a scientific answer. And my motives are I suppose two fold:
1. On all the religion threads that have been done to the death - science has the trump card - its the final answer - but all I hear on this topic is crickets...... and science seems to be quite specific on how many genders there are - but the science champions remain quiet or explain it away with unconvincing arguments. Which I find hypocritical.
2. None of these genders (I'm sure there are more than 51) make any sense to me. I'm looking for answers or for perspective. Am I the only one who finds it strange? The only one shocked that there are that many and it's apparently normal? I wanted to be a ninja when I was small, I was also convinced I could fly if I only had the nerve to jump off the branch and find out, but thankfully my parents convinced me otherwise. It didn't affect my mental state that my parents didn't embrace my identification with ninja's or my belief that I could fly.
I just don't know where all this is headed. I am not crying this is the end of the world. I am doubting the direction we are headed as people though.
You're not looking for a scientific answer, are you? What "science champions" are quiet about this? Who have you asked? I've given you my answer, which is effectively that I don't think it's a question for science at all.
I agree with hardy. It's not a science question. If anything it's sociological. People are more free to express or identify with what they feel they are. Apparently the term gender means more than what sex you are, which I think is what you are driving at with the science angle. In this case it's more like what religion you are, rather than what species you are.
I think someone who selects some of those genders is probably as mad as a box of frogs, but it doesn't bother me, and if it's doing no harm to anyone, who cares what they describe themselves as?
There are two sexes - male and female - according to science. Gender is a little more complicated and more about which traits we have as humans that are typically associated with a particular sex - again just male or female. I understand you can have a feminine male or a masculine female and that I understand. Science explains this and we all agree and live with it (from what I understand).
Now we have another scenario whereby people are essentially making up genders for which there appears to be no scientific definition for. Even on a sociological basis - there isn't a lot out there.
I hoped to get the opinions of science champions like Eamonn and MGHU who regularly play the "if it isn't explained by science it's not real" card.
But why? It's not a scientific question.
Quote from: AZOffaly on February 27, 2014, 10:53:45 PM
But why? It's not a scientific question.
Nor is religion - but science is used to explain it away.... why not ask for a scientific response to this? Surely Sex is biological and gender looks to be replacing the term sex, so why not have a scientific response?
And I definitely disagree that this isn't doing any harm. I think it's part of a growing agenda to reduce sexuality to personal self expression and will only further redefine marriage to whatever makes you happy..... I mentioned already the slow shift / movement towards pedophilia being recognized as a legitimate sexual orientation. If it makes you happy and doesn't harm anyone else then fair enough.....
Quote from: The Iceman on February 27, 2014, 10:15:59 PM
Quote from: Hardy on February 27, 2014, 10:06:34 PM
Iceman, even allowing that the 51 genders idea is a sociological phenomenon and not a marketing campaign, I have no idea why you want to have a swipe at science because this sociological trend seems to aggravate you. The answer to your question is that I think science has nothing to say about gender. I think gender itself is a sociological concept. (But I'm not sure, as I haven't done any research on it or researched whether anyone else has.)
I imagine you might as well ask what does science have to say about the popularity of Twitter or tattoos.
I don't think either that there's any scientific consensus on the compulsion to prescribe how others should live their lives. The best treatment of it I've come across is a satirical one:
Puritanism - the haunting fear that somewhere, someone may be enjoying themselves
I'm certainly not having a swipe at science and if it comes across that way it wasn't my intent. I'm looking for a scientific answer. And my motives are I suppose two fold:
1. On all the religion threads that have been done to the death - science has the trump card - its the final answer - but all I hear on this topic is crickets...... and science seems to be quite specific on how many genders there are - but the science champions remain quiet or explain it away with unconvincing arguments. Which I find hypocritical.
Assuming the arguments are not forthcoming or are legitimately unconvincing, what exactly is hypocritical about that?
I've never heard any scientist or science advocate claiming that science has the answers to every question. If it did, science would cease as there would be nothing left to study.
Quote from: The Iceman on February 27, 2014, 11:03:29 PM
Quote from: AZOffaly on February 27, 2014, 10:53:45 PM
But why? It's not a scientific question.
Nor is religion - but science is used to explain it away.... why not ask for a scientific response to this?
Hold on there - many, many claims have been and are made by religions and their advocates that can be addressed and critiqued by science. Are you suggesting that its not appropriate to apply scientific evidence and analysis to those claims?
Quote from: The Iceman on February 27, 2014, 11:03:29 PM
Surely Sex is biological and gender looks to be replacing the term sex, so why not have a scientific response?
Leaving aside the sex/gender distinction and the Facebook nonsense, yes, I think sexuality IS obviously an area where scientists can and should weigh in. In purely anatomical terms you mostly have males and females, but you also have hermaphrodites. And I see no reason why hormones, gene expression and whatever else biologically determines sexuality wouldn't, like much else about us, produce at least some people who fall, psychologically, somewhere along a continuum between the two opposite sexes (this may be the case with the hermaphroditic condition too - various grades of male/female genitalia - I honestly don't know either way). However, this is not an area of expertise for me, and perhaps not for any of us here, which might explain the lack of, in your mind, satisfactory responses. I'm sure if you're genuinely interested, and not just trying to score points against the science advocates here, that the information is, at least to some extent, out there.
Quote from: The Iceman on February 27, 2014, 11:03:29 PM
And I definitely disagree that this isn't doing any harm. I think it's part of a growing agenda to reduce sexuality to personal self expression and will only further redefine marriage to whatever makes you happy..... I mentioned already the slow shift / movement towards pedophilia being recognized as a legitimate sexual orientation. If it makes you happy and doesn't harm anyone else then fair enough.....
Isn't the whole point of the abhorrance of paedophilia that sexual relations with children IS harmful? I had no idea that there was a movement afoot to legitimize it - is that really true and if so, who are the actors?
Paedophilia aside, I honestly do not see the harm in this. As others have stated, we have much, much bigger issues to be concerned about than this.
Quote from: J70 on February 28, 2014, 02:15:47 AM
Paedophilia aside, I honestly do not see the harm in this. As others have stated, we have much, much bigger issues to be concerned about than this.
That has to be the most flippant remark about a most heinous crime posted on this board.
Quote from: Cold tea on February 28, 2014, 07:55:21 AM
Quote from: J70 on February 28, 2014, 02:15:47 AM
Paedophilia aside, I honestly do not see the harm in this. As others have stated, we have much, much bigger issues to be concerned about than this.
That has to be the most flippant remark about a most heinous crime posted on this board.
Are you not able to read??????
Quote from: Cold tea on February 28, 2014, 07:55:21 AM
Quote from: J70 on February 28, 2014, 02:15:47 AM
Paedophilia aside, I honestly do not see the harm in this. As others have stated, we have much, much bigger issues to be concerned about than this.
That has to be the most flippant remark about a most heinous crime posted on this board.
I guess you missed the earlier sentence about paedophilia being of concern because of the harm to children? If not, let me spell it out for you in language you MIGHT understand:
Iceman is concerned that paedophilia is creeping towards respectability and acceptance and is a part of the changes in sexual identification that Facebook is trying to accommodate. I don't know what he is basing those concerns on. They may be legitimate fears, but it's not something I'm aware of. I am not concerned. I might be if he shows that there is a cause for concern. For now, and for the sake of this discussion, I am not.
SO, leaving THAT whole issue aside, in the grand scheme of things, with all the other problems of the world, I do not see what there is to be afraid of with this Facebook stuff and the underlying fact that some people might not feel they fit neatly into either sex.
Clear?
Not sure if there's a movement as such, but I know there was a brief flurry of activity, originating in Amsterdam I think, for paedophilia to be accepted as another form of sexuality. I remember David Norris said something like he would have loved an older man to teach him when he was young.
Paedophiles trying to lobby for respectability is one thing. Getting it is a totally different thing.
What did Norris mean, in terms of age and the criminal status of homosexuality at the time?
This is the best I can find from back then. The page I got it from seems to be one of those right wing moralist sites, but the quotes seem to reflect what I remember.
Quote'I cannot understand how anybody could find children of either sex the slightest bit attractive sexually. To me, what is attractive about people is the fact that they display the signs of sexual maturity.
'But pre-pubescent children who lack any identifying characteristics of sexual maturity, I cannot understand why anybody would find them sexually appropriate. On the other hand – yes, they do find them so. But in terms of classic paedophilia, as practised by the Greeks, for example, where it is an older man introducing a younger man or boy to adult life, I think that there can be something to be said for it.'
'Now again, this is not something that appeals to me, although when I was younger it would most certainly have appealed to me in the sense that I would have greatly relished the prospect of an older, attractive, mature man taking me under his wing, lovingly introducing me to sexual realities, and treating me with affection and teaching me about life – yes, I think that would be lovely; I would have enjoyed that.'
Quote from: AZOffaly on February 28, 2014, 11:24:28 AM
This is the best I can find from back then. The page I got it from seems to be one of those right wing moralist sites, but the quotes seem to reflect what I remember.
Quote'I cannot understand how anybody could find children of either sex the slightest bit attractive sexually. To me, what is attractive about people is the fact that they display the signs of sexual maturity.
'But pre-pubescent children who lack any identifying characteristics of sexual maturity, I cannot understand why anybody would find them sexually appropriate. On the other hand – yes, they do find them so. But in terms of classic paedophilia, as practised by the Greeks, for example, where it is an older man introducing a younger man or boy to adult life, I think that there can be something to be said for it.'
'Now again, this is not something that appeals to me, although when I was younger it would most certainly have appealed to me in the sense that I would have greatly relished the prospect of an older, attractive, mature man taking me under his wing, lovingly introducing me to sexual realities, and treating me with affection and teaching me about life – yes, I think that would be lovely; I would have enjoyed that.'
:o
Wow! I'm assuming Norris had some clarifying to do after that quote, assuming its accurate and all he said!
Quote from: J70 on February 28, 2014, 02:15:47 AM
Quote from: The Iceman on February 27, 2014, 11:03:29 PM
Quote from: AZOffaly on February 27, 2014, 10:53:45 PM
But why? It's not a scientific question.
Nor is religion - but science is used to explain it away.... why not ask for a scientific response to this?
Hold on there - many, many claims have been and are made by religions and their advocates that can be addressed and critiqued by science. Are you suggesting that its not appropriate to apply scientific evidence and analysis to those claims?
In some instances yes. Science is a method for investigating the natural world. If something other than or outside nature existed, for instance - God, would it not be by definition outside the realm of what science investigates. But as I said before this has been done to death.
Quote from: J70 on February 28, 2014, 02:15:47 AM
Quote from: The Iceman on February 27, 2014, 11:03:29 PM
Surely Sex is biological and gender looks to be replacing the term sex, so why not have a scientific response?
Leaving aside the sex/gender distinction and the Facebook nonsense, yes, I think sexuality IS obviously an area where scientists can and should weigh in. In purely anatomical terms you mostly have males and females, but you also have hermaphrodites. And I see no reason why hormones, gene expression and whatever else biologically determines sexuality wouldn't, like much else about us, produce at least some people who fall, psychologically, somewhere along a continuum between the two opposite sexes (this may be the case with the hermaphroditic condition too - various grades of male/female genitalia - I honestly don't know either way). However, this is not an area of expertise for me, and perhaps not for any of us here, which might explain the lack of, in your mind, satisfactory responses. I'm sure if you're genuinely interested, and not just trying to score points against the science advocates here, that the information is, at least to some extent, out there.
I am Genuinely interested and thanks for the response.
Quote from: J70 on February 28, 2014, 02:15:47 AM
Quote from: The Iceman on February 27, 2014, 11:03:29 PM
And I definitely disagree that this isn't doing any harm. I think it's part of a growing agenda to reduce sexuality to personal self expression and will only further redefine marriage to whatever makes you happy..... I mentioned already the slow shift / movement towards pedophilia being recognized as a legitimate sexual orientation. If it makes you happy and doesn't harm anyone else then fair enough.....
Isn't the whole point of the abhorrance of paedophilia that sexual relations with children IS harmful? I had no idea that there was a movement afoot to legitimize it - is that really true and if so, who are the actors?
Paedophilia aside, I honestly do not see the harm in this. As others have stated, we have much, much bigger issues to be concerned about than this.
Dr James Cantor at the center for addiction and mental health has been championing the cause to recognize pedophilia as a sexual orientation and attraction that people are born with. The APA also made a blooper in 2013 when they actually listed Pedophilia as a sexual orientation in their textbook but this has since been changed. Although the debate remains......
50 years ago Who would have envisioned that we would even be discussing multiple genders. This will be the new "civil rights" movement. Equality is equality. The Greeks and Romans did it, other animals do it, it's totally natural so........
To my earlier point I think I have legitimate fears about where we are headed. All of this, not just the pedophilia part, is destroying the traditional family, pushing further sexual experimentation and promiscuity to a dangerous level and redefining, I believe for the worse, men and women.
We need more broken homes and 3 parent families, abused and/or confused children and the freedom to do whatever we want, whenever we want with whoever we want because that has proven to make for a better world..........
Quote from: The Iceman on February 28, 2014, 04:57:16 PM
Quote from: J70 on February 28, 2014, 02:15:47 AM
Quote from: The Iceman on February 27, 2014, 11:03:29 PM
And I definitely disagree that this isn't doing any harm. I think it's part of a growing agenda to reduce sexuality to personal self expression and will only further redefine marriage to whatever makes you happy..... I mentioned already the slow shift / movement towards pedophilia being recognized as a legitimate sexual orientation. If it makes you happy and doesn't harm anyone else then fair enough.....
Isn't the whole point of the abhorrance of paedophilia that sexual relations with children IS harmful? I had no idea that there was a movement afoot to legitimize it - is that really true and if so, who are the actors?
Paedophilia aside, I honestly do not see the harm in this. As others have stated, we have much, much bigger issues to be concerned about than this.
Dr James Cantor at the center for addiction and mental health has been championing the cause to recognize pedophilia as a sexual orientation and attraction that people are born with. The APA also made a blooper in 2013 when they actually listed Pedophilia as a sexual orientation in their textbook but this has since been changed. Although the debate remains......
50 years ago Who would have envisioned that we would even be discussing multiple genders. This will be the new "civil rights" movement. Equality is equality. The Greeks and Romans did it, other animals do it, it's totally natural so........
To my earlier point I think I have legitimate fears about where we are headed. All of this, not just the pedophilia part, is destroying the traditional family, pushing further sexual experimentation and promiscuity to a dangerous level and redefining, I believe for the worse, men and women.
We need more broken homes and 3 parent families, abused and/or confused children and the freedom to do whatever we want, whenever we want with whoever we want because that has proven to make for a better world..........
Even if the psychologist and behaviourists one day decide that paedophilia is a natural, inate tendency, that still doesn't mean acting out on it should become accepted practise. As an example, lots of people are insane, through no fault of their own, but that doesn't mean society has to throw open the doors to the madhouse and allow mentally disturbed people free rein to act out their delusions and paranoia on others. Sometimes natural doesn't equal right.
To your latter point, I see it as completely separate issues. The rise of non-traditional marriage is not the same thing as abandonment of responsibility. Well before gay marriage or 51 "genders" the problem of broken homes and fatherless children existed. I don't see how a secure home with gay parents equates with deadbeat or abusive or absent or alcoholic etc. etc. parents.
Quote from: J70 on February 28, 2014, 05:26:17 PM
Quote from: The Iceman on February 28, 2014, 04:57:16 PM
Quote from: J70 on February 28, 2014, 02:15:47 AM
Quote from: The Iceman on February 27, 2014, 11:03:29 PM
And I definitely disagree that this isn't doing any harm. I think it's part of a growing agenda to reduce sexuality to personal self expression and will only further redefine marriage to whatever makes you happy..... I mentioned already the slow shift / movement towards pedophilia being recognized as a legitimate sexual orientation. If it makes you happy and doesn't harm anyone else then fair enough.....
Isn't the whole point of the abhorrance of paedophilia that sexual relations with children IS harmful? I had no idea that there was a movement afoot to legitimize it - is that really true and if so, who are the actors?
Paedophilia aside, I honestly do not see the harm in this. As others have stated, we have much, much bigger issues to be concerned about than this.
Dr James Cantor at the center for addiction and mental health has been championing the cause to recognize pedophilia as a sexual orientation and attraction that people are born with. The APA also made a blooper in 2013 when they actually listed Pedophilia as a sexual orientation in their textbook but this has since been changed. Although the debate remains......
50 years ago Who would have envisioned that we would even be discussing multiple genders. This will be the new "civil rights" movement. Equality is equality. The Greeks and Romans did it, other animals do it, it's totally natural so........
To my earlier point I think I have legitimate fears about where we are headed. All of this, not just the pedophilia part, is destroying the traditional family, pushing further sexual experimentation and promiscuity to a dangerous level and redefining, I believe for the worse, men and women.
We need more broken homes and 3 parent families, abused and/or confused children and the freedom to do whatever we want, whenever we want with whoever we want because that has proven to make for a better world..........
Even if the psychologist and behaviourists one day decide that paedophilia is a natural, inate tendency, that still doesn't mean acting out on it should become accepted practise. As an example, lots of people are insane, through no fault of their own, but that doesn't mean society has to throw open the doors to the madhouse and allow mentally disturbed people free rein to act out their delusions and paranoia on others. Sometimes natural doesn't equal right.
Completely playing devils advocate why is it wrong? Pedophiles are born that way, you can't deny them who they are or how they feel or at least they shouldn't be ostracized because of their sexual orientation. It's completely legal in other countries for older men to marry younger women, their is no age limit to who you mate with in the natural world and we're just another species......
Quote from: J70 on February 28, 2014, 05:26:17 PM
To your latter point, I see it as completely separate issues. The rise of non-traditional marriage is not the same thing as abandonment of responsibility. Well before gay marriage or 51 "genders" the problem of broken homes and fatherless children existed. I don't see how a secure home with gay parents equates with deadbeat or abusive or absent or alcoholic etc. etc. parents.
Yes, Broken homes have always existed but I would argue that there will be even more broken homes as society shifts towards this abandonment of responsibility. Things are only "right" when the majority say so (or so has been the case)? As we slip further and further down the slope whats right and whats wrong becomes a matter of opinion and in a naturalist world we are free to form our own personal perspectives on what is normal and good. Whatever exists and happens is natural.
Quote from: The Iceman on February 28, 2014, 06:01:17 PM
Quote from: J70 on February 28, 2014, 05:26:17 PM
Quote from: The Iceman on February 28, 2014, 04:57:16 PM
Quote from: J70 on February 28, 2014, 02:15:47 AM
Quote from: The Iceman on February 27, 2014, 11:03:29 PM
And I definitely disagree that this isn't doing any harm. I think it's part of a growing agenda to reduce sexuality to personal self expression and will only further redefine marriage to whatever makes you happy..... I mentioned already the slow shift / movement towards pedophilia being recognized as a legitimate sexual orientation. If it makes you happy and doesn't harm anyone else then fair enough.....
Isn't the whole point of the abhorrance of paedophilia that sexual relations with children IS harmful? I had no idea that there was a movement afoot to legitimize it - is that really true and if so, who are the actors?
Paedophilia aside, I honestly do not see the harm in this. As others have stated, we have much, much bigger issues to be concerned about than this.
Dr James Cantor at the center for addiction and mental health has been championing the cause to recognize pedophilia as a sexual orientation and attraction that people are born with. The APA also made a blooper in 2013 when they actually listed Pedophilia as a sexual orientation in their textbook but this has since been changed. Although the debate remains......
50 years ago Who would have envisioned that we would even be discussing multiple genders. This will be the new "civil rights" movement. Equality is equality. The Greeks and Romans did it, other animals do it, it's totally natural so........
To my earlier point I think I have legitimate fears about where we are headed. All of this, not just the pedophilia part, is destroying the traditional family, pushing further sexual experimentation and promiscuity to a dangerous level and redefining, I believe for the worse, men and women.
We need more broken homes and 3 parent families, abused and/or confused children and the freedom to do whatever we want, whenever we want with whoever we want because that has proven to make for a better world..........
Even if the psychologist and behaviourists one day decide that paedophilia is a natural, inate tendency, that still doesn't mean acting out on it should become accepted practise. As an example, lots of people are insane, through no fault of their own, but that doesn't mean society has to throw open the doors to the madhouse and allow mentally disturbed people free rein to act out their delusions and paranoia on others. Sometimes natural doesn't equal right.
Completely playing devils advocate why is it wrong? Pedophiles are born that way, you can't deny them who they are or how they feel or at least they shouldn't be ostracized because of their sexual orientation. It's completely legal in other countries for older men to marry younger women, their is no age limit to who you mate with in the natural world and we're just another species......
Obviously the fact that children are not mature enough to handle sexual relationships i.e. it is harmful to them.
Where you draw the line in terms of age of consent is a different argument. And other countries have other messed-up issues when it comes to women as well as children and all kinds of other things, so I'm not sure what your point there is?
Quote from: The Iceman on February 28, 2014, 06:01:17 PM
Quote from: J70 on February 28, 2014, 05:26:17 PM
To your latter point, I see it as completely separate issues. The rise of non-traditional marriage is not the same thing as abandonment of responsibility. Well before gay marriage or 51 "genders" the problem of broken homes and fatherless children existed. I don't see how a secure home with gay parents equates with deadbeat or abusive or absent or alcoholic etc. etc. parents.
Yes, Broken homes have always existed but I would argue that there will be even more broken homes as society shifts towards this abandonment of responsibility. Things are only "right" when the majority say so (or so has been the case)? As we slip further and further down the slope whats right and whats wrong becomes a matter of opinion and in a naturalist world we are free to form our own personal perspectives on what is normal and good. Whatever exists and happens is natural.
Again, I do not see a causative relationship (is there even a correlation?) between gay marriage and the rest and increasing incidence of people walking out on their responsibilites.
Quote from: J70 on February 28, 2014, 06:11:25 PM
Obviously the fact that children are not mature enough to handle sexual relationships i.e. it is harmful to them.
Where you draw the line in terms of age of consent is a different argument. And other countries have other messed-up issues when it comes to women as well as children and all kinds of other things, so I'm not sure what your point there is?
My point is that Pedophiles can and are using the same arguments as the gay agenda to receive equality. I don't agree they should be allowed to act out on their "orientation" but based on their argument and the success of the gay agenda in receiving equal status on further fronts, then why not list Pedophilia as a sexual orientation? Whether you or I believe it's right or wrong is irrelevant - we're taking equality of orientation here.....
Again your "opinion" on other countries laws are based on your definition of right and wrong - 50 years ago laws in the modern world were not in favour of Gay rights - but things have changed - why would they stop changing now?
Quote from: J70 on February 28, 2014, 05:26:17 PM
Again, I do not see a causative relationship (is there even a correlation?) between gay marriage and the rest and increasing incidence of people walking out on their responsibilites.
I see the further breakdown of the traditional family. Gay marriage, multiple genders, ongoing sexual experimentation and redefinition of species - surely this all leads to less and less stable homes?
I know the majority won't come out and agree that these things are scary and not normal and dangerous to society. But I would imagine the majority of parents on this board who read to their kids at night time and show them films still tell them about Cinderella, Prince Charming and True Love's Kiss.... Because we still have a hope for something higher, if not for ourselves then at least for our children. What is accepted as social progress today and where it is headed is not a happy advancement but a soul numbing decline from what we believed when we were innocent and what we still teach our kids....
interesting approach- to use the nature argument that is often used against homophobes switch it up a little and say sure that means pedophilia must be ok too...
In fact as luck would have it- there are a few places in the bible that appear to condone pedophilia
It's fine and dandy to have sex with "women children" that are the spoils of war
QuoteAnd the LORD spake unto Moses, saying, Avenge the children of Israel of the Midianites ... And they warred against the Midianites, as the LORD commanded Moses; and they slew all the males ... And the children of Israel took all the women of Midian captives, and their little ones ... And Moses was wroth with the officers ... And Moses said unto them, Have ye saved all the women alive? ... Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.
Numbers 31:1-18
QuoteWhen thou comest nigh unto a city to fight against it ... And when the LORD thy God hath delivered it into thine hands, thou shalt smite every male thereof with the edge of the sword: But the women, and the little ones, and the cattle, and all that is in the city, even all the spoil thereof, shalt thou take unto thyself.
Deuteronomy 20:10-14
QuoteHow shall we do for wives for them that remain, seeing we have sworn by the LORD that we will not give them of our daughters to wives? ... And the congregation sent thither twelve thousand men of the valiantest, and commanded them, saying, Go and smite the inhabitants of Jabeshgilead with the edge of the sword, with the women and the children. And this is the thing that ye shall do, Ye shall utterly destroy every male, and every woman that hath lain by man. And they found among the inhabitants of Jabeshgilead four hundred young virgins, that had known no man by lying with any male: and they brought them unto the camp to Shiloh.
Judges 21:7-11
QuoteGo and lie in wait in the vineyards; And see, and, behold, if the daughters of Shiloh come out to dance in dances, then come ye out of the vineyards, and catch you every man his wife of the daughters of Shiloh ... And the children of Benjamin did so, and took them wives, according to their number, of them that danced, whom they caught.
Judges 21:20-23
The bible is also apparently also behind the selling of your daughter to a man for him to use as a sex slave.
Quoteif a man sell his daughter to be a maidservant ... If she please not her master, who hath betrothed her to himself, then shall he let her be redeemed ... If he take him another wife; her food, her raiment, and her duty of marriage, shall he not diminish.
Exodus 21:7-10
There you go now we have religious and natural arguments to support it - it must be right!
This is about society.
Children are correctly seen as vulnerable and thus protected by the law. This has improved with time, generally, as society has improved the lot of more and more people. In this regard looking back can bring up some strange perspectives.
For example, read this astonishing BBC article: http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-26352378 (http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-26352378)
Science is a different thing completely but in its defence it usually moves with the times.
Religion by its nature is conservative and thus occasionally can automatically cling on to thinking that is obsolete.
For example, in science Newton was right, Einstein was even more right, but neither of them were completely right. Religion however has always been right.
Quote from: muppet on February 28, 2014, 07:05:09 PM
This is about society.
Children are correctly seen as vulnerable and thus protected by the law. This has improved with time, generally, as society has improved the lot of more and more people. In this regard looking back can bring up some strange perspectives.
For example, read this astonishing BBC article: http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-26352378 (http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-26352378)
Science is a different thing completely but in its defence it usually moves with the times.
Religion by its nature is conservative and thus occasionally can automatically cling on to thinking that is obsolete.
For example, in science Newton was right, Einstein was even more right, but neither of them were completely right. Religion however has always been right.
Taking religion out of the conversation, what if the times are moving toward at the very least recognizing pedophilia as a sexual orientation (backed by science)?
Quote from: The Iceman on February 28, 2014, 07:14:29 PM
Quote from: muppet on February 28, 2014, 07:05:09 PM
This is about society.
Children are correctly seen as vulnerable and thus protected by the law. This has improved with time, generally, as society has improved the lot of more and more people. In this regard looking back can bring up some strange perspectives.
For example, read this astonishing BBC article: http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-26352378 (http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-26352378)
Science is a different thing completely but in its defence it usually moves with the times.
Religion by its nature is conservative and thus occasionally can automatically cling on to thinking that is obsolete.
For example, in science Newton was right, Einstein was even more right, but neither of them were completely right. Religion however has always been right.
Taking religion out of the conversation, what if the times are moving toward at the very least recognizing pedophilia as a sexual orientation (backed by science)?
You want it both ways.
Take both science & religion out of the conversation and then it might look like there is no other agenda to your post.
My agenda has always been my concern for where we are headed. It started with the multiple genders. It continues with the push for Pedophilia as a sexual orientation which I believe will happen.
Religion was not part of my comments because it turns it into a' does God exist' debate and I'm not looking for that. It's been done to the death.
I got some decent answers on multiple genders and I have more research to do. I brought up the Pedophilia scare as I see it as a continuing decline of society. I completely disagree with it but the arguments being used in favour of recognizing pedophilia as a sexual orientation do also line up with arguments which society has stood behind in the past. I hope I'm wrong.
Quote from: The Iceman on February 28, 2014, 07:47:50 PM
1. My agenda has always been my concern for where we are headed.
2. It started with the multiple genders.
3. It continues with the push for Pedophilia as a sexual orientation which I believe will happen.
4. I hope I'm wrong.
Iceman,
I hope you don't mind that this is a bit of a pick and choose, but 1 is understandable especially as a parent.
2. I hear you- but gender and sexuality is not cut and dried as just boy and girl no matter how you slice it, just as everyone is not either smart or dumb...
3. It may be accepted psychologically as a sexual orientation, but not by society as an acceptable practice.
4. I hope you are too...
Quote from: The Iceman on February 28, 2014, 07:47:50 PM
My agenda has always been my concern for where we are headed. It started with the multiple genders. It continues with the push for Pedophilia as a sexual orientation which I believe will happen.
Religion was not part of my comments because it turns it into a' does God exist' debate and I'm not looking for that. It's been done to the death.
I got some decent answers on multiple genders and I have more research to do. I brought up the Pedophilia scare as I see it as a continuing decline of society. I completely disagree with it but the arguments being used in favour of recognizing pedophilia as a sexual orientation do also line up with arguments which society has stood behind in the past. I hope I'm wrong.
Pedophelia is an old problem, not something new. In my opinion the rights of children are improving and thus it is a reducing problem. That is despite organisations such as the Catholic church doing things like this: http://www.thenews.pl/1/10/Artykul/158234,Vatican-refuses-to-extradite-Polish-archbishop-accused-of-child-sex-abuse (http://www.thenews.pl/1/10/Artykul/158234,Vatican-refuses-to-extradite-Polish-archbishop-accused-of-child-sex-abuse)
As for science, Darwin explains it all. Genes will mutates from time to time and weird varieties of the species will appear. The weak varieties will usually die out quickly.
Quote from: heganboy on February 28, 2014, 07:54:21 PM
Quote from: The Iceman on February 28, 2014, 07:47:50 PM
1. My agenda has always been my concern for where we are headed.
2. It started with the multiple genders.
3. It continues with the push for Pedophilia as a sexual orientation which I believe will happen.
4. I hope I'm wrong.
Iceman,
I hope you don't mind that this is a bit of a pick and choose, but 1 is understandable especially as a parent.
2. I hear you- but gender and sexuality is not cut and dried as just boy and girl no matter how you slice it, just as everyone is not either smart or dumb...
3. It may be accepted psychologically as a sexual orientation, but not by society as an acceptable practice.
4. I hope you are too...
+1. On the pedophilia thing, there were times in history when sexual relations between adults and young teenagers were considered acceptable, but I think society has moved on that issue in the direction of protecting children. You only have to look at the reaction to the Jimmy Saville business to see that society has adopted a zero tolerance stance on that particular issue. I really don't know where Ice is coming from on that one.
Quote from: The Iceman on February 28, 2014, 06:33:19 PM
Quote from: J70 on February 28, 2014, 06:11:25 PM
Obviously the fact that children are not mature enough to handle sexual relationships i.e. it is harmful to them.
Where you draw the line in terms of age of consent is a different argument. And other countries have other messed-up issues when it comes to women as well as children and all kinds of other things, so I'm not sure what your point there is?
My point is that Pedophiles can and are using the same arguments as the gay agenda to receive equality. I don't agree they should be allowed to act out on their "orientation" but based on their argument and the success of the gay agenda in receiving equal status on further fronts, then why not list Pedophilia as a sexual orientation? Whether you or I believe it's right or wrong is irrelevant - we're taking equality of orientation here.....
Again your "opinion" on other countries laws are based on your definition of right and wrong - 50 years ago laws in the modern world were not in favour of Gay rights - but things have changed - why would they stop changing now?
But you're equating homsexuality and paedophilia. One harms kids. The other occurs between consenting adults. They're not the same, no matter what tactics are adopted.
Holocaust denial and creationism may adopt the trappings of legitimate history and science, respectively, but they're judged on their merits and substance, not the fact that they have research journals and conferences and "experiments".
Quote from: The Iceman on February 28, 2014, 06:33:19 PM
Quote from: J70 on February 28, 2014, 05:26:17 PM
Again, I do not see a causative relationship (is there even a correlation?) between gay marriage and the rest and increasing incidence of people walking out on their responsibilites.
I see the further breakdown of the traditional family. Gay marriage, multiple genders, ongoing sexual experimentation and redefinition of species - surely this all leads to less and less stable homes?
Why? If people are less likely to be in the closet and have the same rights to raise children and get married as anyone else, why would those marriages be less stable?
"Redefinition of species"?? :)
Quote from: The Iceman on February 28, 2014, 06:33:19 PM
I know the majority won't come out and agree that these things are scary and not normal and dangerous to society. But I would imagine the majority of parents on this board who read to their kids at night time and show them films still tell them about Cinderella, Prince Charming and True Love's Kiss.... Because we still have a hope for something higher, if not for ourselves then at least for our children. What is accepted as social progress today and where it is headed is not a happy advancement but a soul numbing decline from what we believed when we were innocent and what we still teach our kids....
I read to my child every night and while I'm afraid for him and my future kids for a lot of reasons, homosexuality and transgender people do not even register on the list of problems they're likely to face, in my mind.
Quote from: The Iceman on February 28, 2014, 06:33:19 PM
My point is that Pedophiles can and are using the same arguments as the gay agenda to receive equality.
:o
You are seriously fucked up if you believe that.
Of course paedophilia is a sexual orientation. What else could it be? Paedophiles are driven by a sexual urge that focuses on children and we have to accept, however reluctantly, that that is the direct cause of their crimes. That is not to say that because, to them, that urge is natural and to some extent beyond their control, it must be indulged by society. Society doesn't allow kleptomaniacs to rampage through Dunnes or psychopaths to run amok with hatchets whenever the urge overwhelms them, just because they can produce a medical cert to prove they're sick.
I see this particular point Iceman is making. Leaving his value judgments aside, he is correct to say that homosexuality was a social taboo in modern society until recently, that paedophilia still is, thankfully, but that it is not unreasonable to wonder whether it could gradually gain acceptance as homosexuality has.
It is not unreasonable, but I think it is wrong. This is where we go back to value judgments. Society as a whole has rightly made the value judgment that homosexuality is socially harmless and that repressing and criminalising it is a serious assault on the human rights of the victims of that repression. Those who disagree are in a rapidly diminishing minority.
Society, on the other hand, does not accept that paedophilia is harmless. On the contrary, it is overwhelmingly accepted that sexual activity with pre-pubescent children is an extreme form of physical abuse. It is violence and violence is becoming less and less acceptable in society. Society even considers sexual activity with post-pubescent youngsters as a form of violence, on the basis that it cannot be consensual until a person can give informed adult consent.
Notwithstanding the scaremongering of the likes of the Daily Mail, every trend in sociology is diminishing the acceptability of violent behaviour. Corporal punishment is banned in schools and probably will soon be outlawed in the home as well. Bullying is a huge issue that didn't exist as a social concern a generation ago.
So I don't see any societal trend towards even the lowering of the age of consent, much less the tolerance of extreme paedophilia. The trend is in the opposite direction. A generation ago, society was a bit more ambivalent about it. The story about the paedophilia campaigners affiliated to the UK Council for Civil Liberties in the seventies is shocking society now. It didn't merit comment back then. The Jimmy Saviles of the seventies and eighties operated in an environment of nod-and-wink tolerance for their activities that's unthinkable now. I recently joined the committee of my tennis club and am only now fully aware of the scope of the child-protection measures that we must all comply with these days.
So I'd recommend that Iceman stop worrying about this one. I was getting stuck for stuff to worry about myself until the Russian army snuck into Crimea yesterday.
This entire thread was a Trojan horse advanced to get us to the basic equation - homosexuality = paedophilia.
Which is an atrocious, bigoted, not to mention factually discredited argument.
Ireland becomes more and more like the USA every day, and I'm not talking about gay marriage or increasing liberalisation. I'm talking about right wing nuts, terrified about a perceived shift in power and doing everything in their power to demonise their "opponents".
Iceman, if you worry about the world your children are going to grow up in, how about working towards a world governed by Jesus' own precepts - love your neighbour as you would yourself and judge not lest ye be judged.
You can't go wrong with those.
Quote from: Sidney on March 01, 2014, 12:51:34 AM
Quote from: The Iceman on February 28, 2014, 06:33:19 PM
My point is that Pedophiles can and are using the same arguments as the gay agenda to receive equality.
:o
You are seriously fucked up if you believe that.
Of course paedophiles are using some of the same arguments as other groups, i.e. just because other people find your behaviour offensive is not a justification for a legal prohibition, and there is no reason to call another poster "seriously fucked up" for stating the obvious. However, it is also clear that paedophilia is unacceptable because of the power imbalance in the relationship whereas homosexual relationships can be between consenting adults.
Quote from: easytiger95 on March 02, 2014, 01:45:45 PM
This entire thread was a Trojan horse advanced to get us to the basic equation - homosexuality = paedophilia.
Which is an atrocious, bigoted, not to mention factually discredited argument.
Ireland becomes more and more like the USA every day, and I'm not talking about gay marraige or increasing liberalisation. I'm talking about right wing nuts, terrified about a perceived shift in power and doing everything in their power to demonise their "opponents".
Iceman, if you worry about the world your children are going to grow up in, how about working towards a world governed by Jesus' own precepts - love your neighbour as you would yourself and judge not lest ye be judged.
You can't go wrong with those.
Yep, have purposely avoided contributing as I plain to see where the thread was going. Pathetic stuff from the usual intolerant cnuts.
So wait.. is the whole show couped, or is it not? Is the show only partially couped? Or is it utterly uncouped?
No Trojan horse whatsoever. I categorically state that to my understanding there is no link between homosexuality and pedophilia.
The thread was genuine concern about multiple genders following on from that was concern that pedophilia might one day be acceptable.
I appreciate the contributions and reassurances that I am overthinking it all and worrying too much. I work with young people and definitely understand the dangers of pedophiles. I have watched video interviews of them explains the who what where and why as part of child protection training and I definitely see no link with homosexuality.
I still think multiple genders means the whole show is couped. The world as I know is certainly not a better place in my eyes than 30 years ago. I think as a people we are on a down slide but that's just my opinion
Peace