Is the whole show couped?

[Cold tea]

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.

[thebigfella]

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???

[J70]

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?

[AZOffaly]

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.

[J70]

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?

[AZOffaly]

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.

'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.'

[J70]

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.

'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.'

Wow! I'm assuming Norris had some clarifying to do after that quote, assuming its accurate and all he said!

[The Iceman]

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.

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.

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..........

[J70]

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.

[The Iceman]

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......

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.

[J70]

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?

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.

[The Iceman]

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?

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....

[heganboy]

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

And 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

When 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

How 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

Go 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.

if 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

[The Iceman]

There you go now we have religious and natural arguments to support it - it must be right!

[muppet]

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

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.