Is it wrong to be gay?

[fido123]

Our society has such a distorted view of sex, however because of this sex can damage a person. Because of this you can't give a kid a choice to have sex with an older man. Even if you don't believe anything is wrong with it, that kid will grow up having to either hide it, or will be ridiculed, and probably end up regretting it when they're older. It's just best we don't give kids such a choice until they're older at least.

[Flaming_Dingleberry]

*Being* something can't be wrong, maybe wanting to be gay is wrong, idk, ask God.

[Nu0n]

Is this topic about "Is it wrong to be gay?"



because if it is then why are we talking about criminals..
Being gay is not a crime, being gay around children is not a crime. Even influencing children into being gay is not a crime. But sexually seducing a child or an infant is a criminal act. Two gay parents can raise a child proper, and probably better then you would think, although not ideal two gay parents can give love and care to a child that maybe that child wouldn't have received with a Male/Female couple. With that said I think children being exposed to gay males and females is harmless, and if anything a good way for the child to understand differences in people and how to learn to accept people for who they are.

[fido123]

I agree with everything you have to say except for a pedophile being a criminal. Being gay is being attracted to people of the same gender, and being a pedophile is being attracted to children. It doesn't mean you act upon this attraction. Some people are gay, yet have a wife and kids and haven't done a single sexual act with somebody within the same gender. A lot of (I'm assuming the vast majority) of pedophiles never even do anything sexual with a child. People in this thread are just making the point that being attracted to something isn't wrong, and can't be helped really.

[Shadowcliff]

I don't believe so, in response to the thread title.
But my viewpoint is biased, because I'm bisexual.

Actually, viewpoints from the gay/bisexual side seem to be limited in this thread.
All I have to say is...
...that I never really chose to be attracted to guys.
...that it's plausible that homo/bisexuality is a choice to some. I have a lot of bi friends. I think they just want to have fun/open up their relationship choices. (like I just said, I never chose to be attracted to guys)
...that I'm not sure if bisexuality is a "transition" phase into homosexuality.
...that I have a huge group of supporting friends, many religious.
...that religion/the Bible seems irrelevant to me, because not everybody believes the same thing, so how can a religious book tell an absolute truth?
...that homosexuals' media-portrayed image is over the top (gay guys don't necessarily have lisps, or don't always care a ton about how they look. I mean, I sure don't, and neither do 7 of my 9 gay/bi friends)

I don't know, from my skimming over the pages of this topic, it seemed like a lot of inferences about the non-straight were being made by the straight with little input from those who are actually homosexual. I saw only a couple of gay people posting here.

Originally Posted by idontbarrape

it is wrong to be gay and all gays deserve to die

You're about to be grilled by passionate posters.
[or have your post deleted. XD]

[Crashfan3]

"Wrong" implies that there are morals involved. It's "wrong" to rob a bank or murder someone, not too many people do that, but it's also "wrong" to drive over the speed limit, nearly everyone does that.

Whether something is wrong or right is not a simple fact-or-fiction question. It all depends on what YOU consider wrong or right, and everyone has a different tolerance level. Obviously, some people think it's okay to rob banks, that's why we have bank robbers. Some people think it's okay to have intimate relationships with people of the same gender, that's why we have homosexuals.

My personal belief is that homosexuality is not acceptable (not from a Christian standpoint, I am an atheist). My argument is that if homosexuality was legitimate, then homosexual couples would be able to produce offspring, just as heterosexual couples can. However, I do not care if two men or two women want to live a romantic lifestyle together, as long as I remain uninvolved altogether with their relationship or with homosexuality as a whole.

"It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg and therefore it's no harm to me." -Thomas Jefferson

[fido123]

Although I agree what's outlined in that quote, why does the fact that a couple can't reproduce make it illegitimate? A lot of heterosexual couples don't reproduce, does that make their relationship illegitimate? What's illegitimate about not being able to reproduce? Can't people be together just to love eachother?

[Iam90]

no, because no matter how many times someone like rubix outlines the naturalistic fallacy for someone, they still won't understand the naturalistic fallacy.

[brothaice]

Originally Posted by dore

Why can't you compare the two?

You can't compare pedophiles to being gay because acting on pedophilia is considered rape because a child is too young and immature to make the decision to have sex with someone. To adults choosing to have sex, gay or not, is totally different. I cannot believe the too are even being compared its ridiculous.

[devonin]

It depends on your choice of terms. Pedophilia and Homosexuality as modes of thought (Being attracted sexually to children and being sexually attracted to members of the same sex) are perfectly comperable. Both are modes of thought that want to dictate your behavior.

Comparing the -acts- associated with the two modes of thought (Actually -having- sexual relations with children versus members of the same sex) is not comperable on the grounds that children lack the ability to properly and fully consent to what's going on.

[robertsona]

okay clearly you don't seem to be grasping that posts like that are not what critical thinking is for so i'm not really going to be continuing this.

Originally Posted by devonin

It depends on your choice of terms. Pedophilia and Homosexuality as modes of thought (Being attracted sexually to children and being sexually attracted to members of the same sex) are perfectly comperable. Both are modes of thought that want to dictate your behavior.

Comparing the -acts- associated with the two modes of thought (Actually -having- sexual relations with children versus members of the same sex) is not comperable on the grounds that children lack the ability to properly and fully consent to what's going on.

i don't think anyone will disagree with this (though for future reference i think it's "comparable" :P) so, why not, i'll try digging further. do you guys think that it's -wrong- to be someone who desires to kill/rape people if you do not act on it? (i know this will seem like a stretch and people will immediately call me out on comparing gays to murderers but i just want to explore this sort of possibility in the disconnect between desire and carrying out those desires). do you think it's wrong to harbor desires that, if carried out, would be potentially harmful? (this is what most people agree on pedophilia as being, as well as my admittedly a little far-out example would be. i realize that gay activity is not harmful in this way.)

also, do you think that the concept of "age of consent" is really something that can be measured that way? how so (if the age of consent is 18, why? what happens at 18 that didnt happen at 17 that now allows you to consent)? the difference in age of consent between, say, states and countries already shows that the "age of consent" is certainly not something concrete. just throwing these things out. i know some of them aren't necessarily related to homosexuality but heyy regardless.

edit: to start off something maybe a little more controversial/out there, what's wrong with "god says it's wrong"?

Two gay parents can raise a child proper, and probably better then you would think, although not ideal

how so?

My personal belief is that homosexuality is not acceptable (not from a Christian standpoint, I am an atheist). My argument is that if homosexuality was legitimate, then homosexual couples would be able to produce offspring, just as heterosexual couples can. However, I do not care if two men or two women want to live a romantic lifestyle together, as long as I remain uninvolved altogether with their relationship or with homosexuality as a whole.

for a million reasons this is silly to me (naturalistic fallacy being one of them, of course). do you think a straight relationship in which the involved dont have children is illegitimate/unacceptable? also, "as long as you remain uninvolved"? what does that even mean? do gay couples regularly invite you to be gay with them?

[devonin]

do you guys think that it's -wrong- to be someone who desires to kill/rape people if you do not act on it? (i know this will seem like a stretch and people will immediately call me out on comparing gays to murderers but i just want to explore this sort of possibility in the disconnect between desire and carrying out those desires).

While I might wonder if there was an actual physical issue with your brain chemistry if you thought about raping/killing people like...all the time, every day - possibly something that might be treatable, in the general sense no, I don't think there's anything "wrong" in an objective sense with entertaining and then rejecting thoughts that would be "bad" if actually acted upon. One of the things that allows us as humans to advance as far as we have is the ability to actually think about things and what might happen if we did them -before- we do them.

do you think it's wrong to harbor desires that, if carried out, would be potentially harmful? (this is what most people agree on pedophilia as being, as well as my admittedly a little far-out example would be. i realize that gay activity is not harmful in this way.)

Again, I don't think it's -wrong- to harbour desires that would be harmful if acted upon, unless you harbour those and only those to the point that it's difficult for you to function.

also, do you think that the concept of "age of consent" is really something that can be measured that way? how so (if the age of consent is 18, why? what happens at 18 that didnt happen at 17 that now allows you to consent)? the difference in age of consent between, say, states and countries already shows that the "age of consent" is certainly not something concrete. just throwing these things out. i know some of them aren't necessarily related to homosexuality but heyy regardless.

The concept of an age of consent (Like the concept of the Age of Reason) is something that clearly exists but is impossible to define in a way that is true for all people. It's absolutely true that there are people who can properly understand the consequences of their actions, and make an informed decision to consent, and there are people who can't. Nothing would do more to allow the collective people of the earth to actually be free like some sort of actual test for this. Sadly it's impossible and even if there were a way to formulate an accurate test of someone's mental capacity to determine the ability to consent, there's no way you could possibly administer it to everybody on earth.

Completely outside the bounds of this specific conversation about homosexuality etc, my view of ethics and social mores basically boils down to "Absolutely everything should be allowed provided everybody involved consents." And so the question of when people are able to consent, and when they can't is actually pretty central to my view of ethics. But that's another thread.

[Cavernio]

As far as thinking about something being wrong, it isn't, but that doesn't stop someone from feeling that it could be wrong. I can easily get turned on by rape, (or things bordering on rape) and when I was 12 and started to have sexual feelings about this, being a woman and being raised by a Catholic mom, I can certainly say I felt like I was wrong. I'm totally fine with who I am now, largely due to the internet I'm sure, where its apparent I'm far from the only person with such views, which I daresay feels mainstream. Its come the point where I feel like most sex is all about a power difference between people. In any case, people can feel like lots of things are wrong that aren't. Skipping school when I was young felt 'wrong', but only because I know my parents would be super pissed about it and I had to go home to them. But skipping school is definitely not immoral.

The thing with age of consent and pedophilia that's on my mind, is why is consent needed? What is so special about sex that needs consent? As an adult, its clear when rape's rape, and the consequences are apparent. But in a kid, if they don't fully know when to say no, would there be the negative consequences outside social stigma to it, and it being called rape? I don't need 'fully informed consent' to teach a kid to, say, dance with someone else. (I mean to say that because you're obviously not going to teach a kid how to dance if they're crying, as you wouldn't have sex with a crying kid if you felt sex with kids was OK but unconsensual sex wasn't, which I think people can think.) But in my head and in most people's heads, sex is different. There's something about it which requires consenting adults, and I feel like all this other discussion hasn't really gotten to it. Yes, consent is obviously necessary, but again to compare it to dancing, a kid might not know or understand all the significance of being able to dance well with someone else, but that won't stop you from teaching them or from dancing with them. Really the argument being presented for sex with kids being wrong is that it just is. And while most people are on the same page with that thought, no real explanation's been given.
I feel like everyone's open enough to talk about sex, but perhaps we all don't want to get into specifics about sex which might be more personal. If all sex were about power differences between the people involved, as I suggested I feel might be the case earlier, then I can see where all sex with kids is just another form of rape. But is all sex like that? I don't think so, even if my own personal experience with it very much seems the former. Strong feelings of love for someone might mean sex is about sharing experiences with someone. But then again, is lust only about a power difference? If it's not, then what makes lust something you don't want a kid to experience from someone else?

As Fido said, I agree sex with kids is wrong in our society. But if it's simply a societal thing, that implies that society could change and make it OK for sex with kids, again, IF it is all a societal thing.

I know I haven't really answered anything fully, but I really think we're skirting the issue right now, and I really don't feel like I've got enough information to really judge if the act of pedophilia is wrong outside our society. Maybe sex requires society to be sex, I just don't know!

[devonin]

No I'm pretty sure that the reason we've decided that sex requires informed consent is that sex can cause the child to become pregnant, to have fathered a child, can transmit diseases which can kill them, and is an act which has been proven in MANY cases to cause severe psychological trauma.

If there's an element in society that has informed us that pedophilia is wrong, it's actually the element that idealizes sex, and makes it be about a strong emotional connection between two people, with the logic being that children are too immature to know what would actually be involved in that kind of thing.

If there were any kind of actual test that could be performed to measure whether or not someone has the mental capacity to consent to X, where X is anything we would want consent to be given, then I'd want every consent law to just change to "people who've passed that test" but since there can't really be one, we have to muddle through with what we've got.

There is a large segment of the population who would suggest that pedophilia is automatically inherantly abusive, exploitative and harmful, but given our current definitions (Where a 19 year old having sex with their 17 year old partner can be considered pedophilia -and- rape) obviously that's not going to be correct. I had what I absolutely consider to have been informed consentual sex when I was 14, granted, with another 14 year old and not an adult, but the point still stands, that 18 seems like an awfully high age to set the bar for properly understanding what's going on.

I wonder what society's opinion on the subject would have been if the term ephebophilia had survived alongside pedophilia.

[Cavernio]

Ok, I didn't say so specifically, but I did intend to use the term pedophilia pertaining to actual kids, not just adolescents, in my most recent post. For my upcoming post, you could consider me talking about kids who have not reached adolescense yet (not including the very next line.)
Pregnancy could potentially be an issue, but not if we were talking about oral sex, or touching, or any other number of non-sex sexual acts, which would still be considered acting on pedophilia.
I didn't think of disease. If we were to only consider disease as a reason to not have sex with children then we'd half to say that sharing food will always be wrong, since saliva is a bodily fluid. (Which really doesn't seem all that far off actually...I wouldn't want some stranger giving a child of mine a piece of gum they've already been chewing or something.)
Certainly if you think that the role society plays in sex has largely been to make it a strong emotional connection with someone, for a child to not really understand that, by itself, that is not harming the child psychologically.
This leaves the severe psychological trauma of simply having sex with a kid. I agree that this is proven, but the 'why' is still nebulous. I would go so far as to say that there could exist kids in north american society that have had sexual experiences as kids who are not traumatized that society doesn't know about because it's not traumatic. And, I can certainly imagine a kid becoming traumatized only after an experience upon their parents finding out, and upon learning just how abhorently wrong it was. Not that I have any proof or heresay of either of these things happening.
I would guess that sex is largely traumatic for kids because they are likely being forced. Which of course would always be an issue if having sex with kids were legal, because adults are pretty much always in a position of power over kids. (Something which also makes me think that maybe all pedophiles are all about the power and non-consent, especially since that's something about sex I personally understand.)
I guess even if a kid weren't traumatized by sex, that still doesn't mean they want it. I could see kids doing it though, especially if society taught it as a way of becoming close to someone.

All my musings about pedophilia aside, 18 is pretty damned old to be an age of consent.

[brothaice]

Originally Posted by Cavernio

All my musings about pedophilia aside, 18 is pretty damned old to be an age of consent.

Sidebar: I believe the age of consent being 18 is in order to protect 14, 15, 16, etc. year old girls from full grown adults (anywhere above say late 20's) who can easily take advantage of them physically or manipulatively. I don't believe the law is to protect these girls from boys close to there age in most cases. False rape charges are only reason the age of 18 consent law is too high of an age, but that doesn't hold much water.

Sorry to go around the forum rules.

[krunkykai22]

Pennsylvania and New Jersey the legal age of consent is 16. Have you not noticed how some guys and girls are maturing much much faster? We live in a world of changes. 50 Years ago the age might have been like 25 lol who knows. As for AOC being depicted, it saves lives guys .... really does.

[Rubin0]

People are sexually maturing much faster, but mentally and emotionally I think people have been stunted by the internet, facebook, video games, and everything else people use to disconnect from reality.

[Mulie]

Originally Posted by Rubin0

People are sexually maturing much faster, but mentally and emotionally I think people have been stunted by the internet, facebook, video games, and everything else people use to disconnect from reality.

If you rate maturity by autonomy, I completely agree. But there are otherwise some new and interesting patterns in psychological development that couldn't have been observed in Premodern history, that are being brought about by those same mediums for information.

[fido123]

Can somebody explain to me how we're maturing faster, and what kind of "mature" are we talking about?