Is it wrong to be gay?

[fido123]

I'm not saying every-case, and I'm not very educated on the subject of pedophilia but it just seems logical and safe to say that most pedophiles are after more sexual things rather than a relationship. If somebody can prove me wrong please do as I'm not coming up with this conclusion "properly", but I feel safe sticking to that. You have anything to say to sway me?

[agonist]

Yes, now kill yaself

kidding.

[Yieldsign]

Originally Posted by fido123

I'm not saying every-case, and I'm not very educated on the subject of pedophilia but it just seems logical and safe to say that most pedophiles are after more sexual things rather than a relationship. If somebody can prove me wrong please do as I'm not coming up with this conclusion "properly", but I feel safe sticking to that. You have anything to say to sway me?

the terms "homosexuality" and "pedophilia" actual refer explicitly to physical attraction. That's not to say that there isn't some emotional connotation to the term homosexual, but as far as the facts go...

And you can't rule out the fact that many pedophiles indeed LOVE children. Even if it's inappropriate and we can't condone it, it's not our place to say that their love isn't in anyway "real." The parallels between homosexuality and pedophilia may be unwanted and frightening, but the fact remains that they exist. I don't think anyone who truly examines the situation critically would condemn pedophiles as EVIL or even IMMORAL insofar as they can't really choose their condition - but nonetheless their attractions are very damaging to their objects and it can't be allowed, in a social context.

This is mainly why I pity the pedophile, because his plight is certainly a terrible one. Not necessarily born with, but conditioned to have taboo attractions - wouldn't that be a terrible existence? It's a tough subject though; there isn't really any clear resolution. I think that's mirrored in the murkiness of the legal system's take on pedophilia. The flawed sex offender registry, etc - but of course, we still need such institutions.

What do we do about pedophilia?


I DUnno L0l

[fido123]

I thought I didn't get my point across properly. I agree with everything you say but I firmly believe that more homo's are homo's for emotional attraction that pedo's are pedo's for emotional attraction. There defiantly are pedophiles who legitimately love children, and I have sympathy for them along with the one who just find kids hawt, but they still shouldn't act upon it for the sole reason because generally, kids aren't old enough to make such a decision. It's not because the sex itself is harmful, it's just society will make that child when he/she grows up feel extreamly violated and regretful. That's a whole other subject there though.

And on the other hand homosexuality has no rational negative consequences.

[super kid]

surprised this isn't locked. is it still a day ban for saying "in before lock?"

[justaguy]

Originally Posted by fido123

I thought I didn't get my point across properly. I agree with everything you say but I firmly believe that more homo's are homo's for emotional attraction that pedo's are pedo's for emotional attraction. There defiantly are pedophiles who legitimately love children, and I have sympathy for them along with the one who just find kids hawt, but they still shouldn't act upon it for the sole reason because generally, kids aren't old enough to make such a decision. It's not because the sex itself is harmful, it's just society will make that child when he/she grows up feel extreamly violated and regretful. That's a whole other subject there though.

And on the other hand homosexuality has no rational negative consequences.

honestly dude you spelled definitely "defiantly" in this post and the first post in this thread, how can you go a year at your age without knowing that those are two different words? holy ****

[Without A Contraceptive]

next level thinking going on in this thread

[Rubin0]

We are seriously beating a dead horse with this homosexuality versus pedophilia thing. The same opinions are being stated over and over again by the same people.

[rushyrulz]

Originally Posted by justaguy

honestly dude you spelled definitely "defiantly" in this post and the first post in this thread, how can you go a year at your age without knowing that those are two different words? holy ****

Coming from the one who tries to make fun of a serious topic in the correct forum by posting it in his siggy. Get out if you don't have anything serious to say, this isn't the place for idiot trolls like yourself. I'm just going to take a shot in the dark and say you haven't read the majority of this thread. Maybe you should do that before you go and mock it.

[Rubin0]

Originally Posted by rushyrulz

Coming from the one who tries to make fun of a serious topic in the correct forum by posting it in his siggy. Get out if you don't have anything serious to say, this isn't the place for idiot trolls like yourself. I'm just going to take a shot in the dark and say you haven't read the majority of this thread. Maybe you should do that before you go and mock it.

+1

[fido123]

Originally Posted by super kid

surprised this isn't locked. is it still a day ban for saying "in before lock?"

Why should it be? Besides for justaguy most of the posts have been well within the rules and

Originally Posted by justaguy

honestly dude you spelled definitely "defiantly" in this post and the first post in this thread, how can you go a year at your age without knowing that those are two different words? holy ****

I catch myself often messing up those two words but I'd read a post with one word spent incorrectly than an entire post about that single word so you can try to feel intelligent or something. Don't bother posting that crap cause nobody gives a ****.

[justaguy]

your points are completely nullified by your inability to spell definitely. the two words aren't even similar enough in definition or pronunciation to where it's possible to confuse them. if you're incapable of correcting this mistake over the course of a year it's safe to assume you're incapable of contributing anything intelligent in general. the implication is that you're unaware.

rushyrulz, i've read the entire thread and really i think it's embarrassing. let me address the topic:

is it wrong to be gay?

the answer is entirely dependent on your definition of wrong

let's define wrong as something that isn't mutually beneficial between those involved. let's address the extremes that either everyone is homosexual, no one is. is homosexuality wrong if no one is homosexual? no. why? because no one is homosexual. given that mutual implies more than one, is it then wrong for one person in an entire population to be homosexual? no, because it is not implied that a homosexual will act on his or her attraction to someone heterosexual, therefore mutuality does not exist and it cannot be defined as wrong. is homosexuality wrong if everyone is homosexual? no. why? because it's mutually beneficial.

let's redefine wrong as the inability to reproduce.

is it wrong to be homosexual? yes, homosexuality is wrong. this doesn't require any elaboration.

we could redefine wrong in a number of contexts allowing you to decide whether homosexuality is right or wrong. ultimately, it doesn't matter.

and that is the end of the thread, seriously. the rest of the discussion is completely irrelevant and serves no purpose. if you draw parallels between pedophilia and homosexuality, that's completely okay, though it accomplishes nothing. and rushyrulz, maybe you should get a brain that isn't mediocre.

Critical Thinking
An area specifically for DumbAsSh*t-level thinkers. Debates, Essays, Politics etc.

[rushyrulz]

Thanks for contributing to the thread, justaguy. Half that post was fine, but take your troll shit elsewhere. There's no denying that you were trolling before, and I have every right to tell you to shut the hell up because this isn't the ****ing place to be an ignorant asshole.

Your serious post didn't have any opinionated information in it, making it next to useless. A bunch of rhetorical questions followed by a nonsense conception of "wrong" constitutes more mediocrity than 'oh that rushy over thur has mediocar brayn'

Like I said before, if you're going to troll in this thread/forum, get out before someone of a higher power needs to step in.

------------
If you want to argue the definition of wrong, it's clearly stated in the dictionary:

1. not in accordance with what is morally right or good

Which is the question at hand here. Wrongly defining wrong doesn't do anything but confuse the argument.

tl;dr: Go play in TGB, justaguy.

[AsphyxZero]

My post was deleted lol looks like I went a bit overboard, so...

Originally Posted by rushyrulz

If you want to argue the definition of wrong, it's clearly stated in the dictionary:

1. not in accordance with what is morally right or good

You may be able to get the correct definition of wrong, but everyone has different morals. If the word "wrong" is based off of what is not morally right or good, then obviously wrong is going to be used in different ways. Let's take the act of killing someone. As it were right now, I wouldn't kill anyone out of passion or the like because I think it's wrong. Now, I'm willing to bet that someone on earth is killing someone out of passion at this moment. Why? Because they don't think it's wrong.

My brother and I are best friends. He thinks being gay is wrong. I think being gay is alright. He's disgusted by homosexual sex and gay guys flirting with him (which happens all the time lmao), so he sees it in a different way. I've been flirted with by gay guys before, but that's their disposition/choice. I either tell them I'm not gay (nor am I straight but that's irrelevant (kinda)), or I lead them on (which everyone here will probably think is wrong but oh well). I don't see homosexual sex as disgusting. I wouldn't ever do it, but that doesn't mean it's wrong.

[justaguy]

pretty much what darkness said

[rushyrulz]

Originally Posted by AsphyxZero

You may be able to get the correct definition of wrong, but everyone has different morals. If the word "wrong" is based off of what is not morally right or good, then obviously wrong is going to be used in different ways.

Yup, that's what I meant.

[Yieldsign]

Originally Posted by rushyrulz

Thanks for contributing to the thread, justaguy. Half that post was fine, but take your troll shit elsewhere. There's no denying that you were trolling before, and I have every right to tell you to shut the hell up because this isn't the ****ing place to be an ignorant asshole.

Your serious post didn't have any opinionated information in it, making it next to useless. A bunch of rhetorical questions followed by a nonsense conception of "wrong" constitutes more mediocrity than 'oh that rushy over thur has mediocar brayn'

Like I said before, if you're going to troll in this thread/forum, get out before someone of a higher power needs to step in.

------------
If you want to argue the definition of wrong, it's clearly stated in the dictionary:

1. not in accordance with what is morally right or good

Which is the question at hand here. Wrongly defining wrong doesn't do anything but confuse the argument.

tl;dr: Go play in TGB, justaguy.

"opinionated" information has no place in a critical discussion.

you also seem to be... remarkably unintelligent. how is hayden's conception of "wrong" nonsense? he stated that wrong can be redefined in a number of ways based on context - which is completely true.

[fido123]

I'm honestly not going to even reply to him since he's obviously just trying to piss people off and I suggest everybody else does the same regardless if he has anything of quality in his post. It seems he's trying to veer everything off track by trashing people and this whole forum in a manner where he's not going to look like an obvious troll, but just by pushing everybody's buttons. If you think we're all so dumb why don't you just ****ing leave?

[AsphyxZero]

Originally Posted by rushyrulz

Yup, that's what I meant.

uh...

If you want to argue the definition of wrong, it's clearly stated in the dictionary:

1. not in accordance with what is morally right or good

Which is the question at hand here. Wrongly defining wrong doesn't do anything but confuse the argument.

Nope, that's not.

[virus003]

Originally Posted by justaguy

your points are completely nullified by your inability to spell definitely. the two words aren't even similar enough in definition or pronunciation to where it's possible to confuse them. if you're incapable of correcting this mistake over the course of a year it's safe to assume you're incapable of contributing anything intelligent in general. the implication is that you're unaware.

rushyrulz, i've read the entire thread and really i think it's embarrassing. let me address the topic:

is it wrong to be gay?

the answer is entirely dependent on your definition of wrong

let's define wrong as something that isn't mutually beneficial between those involved. let's address the extremes that either everyone is homosexual, no one is. is homosexuality wrong if no one is homosexual? no. why? because no one is homosexual. given that mutual implies more than one, is it then wrong for one person in an entire population to be homosexual? no, because it is not implied that a homosexual will act on his or her attraction to someone heterosexual, therefore mutuality does not exist and it cannot be defined as wrong. is homosexuality wrong if everyone is homosexual? no. why? because it's mutually beneficial.

let's redefine wrong as the inability to reproduce.

is it wrong to be homosexual? yes, homosexuality is wrong. this doesn't require any elaboration.

we could redefine wrong in a number of contexts allowing you to decide whether homosexuality is right or wrong. ultimately, it doesn't matter.

and that is the end of the thread, seriously. the rest of the discussion is completely irrelevant and serves no purpose. if you draw parallels between pedophilia and homosexuality, that's completely okay, though it accomplishes nothing. and rushyrulz, maybe you should get a brain that isn't mediocre.

Critical Thinking
An area specifically for DumbAsSh*t-level thinkers. Debates, Essays, Politics etc.

now this guy here is a truly good raised average american

/thread