Enough is enough

[Ravenstorm]

http://www.365gay.com/newscon04/01/012504popeGay.htm

It's things like this that make me loathe the Catholic Church. Oh horrors! The media is condoning tolerance to homosexuals and even contraception!

And if they can't police themselves the state should do it for them. Not that they advocate censorship, of course. No, never. Long live the theocracy! But only a Catholic one, of course.

Here's the Vatican text:

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/messages/communications/documents/hf_jp-ii_mes_20040124_world-communications-day_en.html


On the other hand, the family and family life are all too often inadequately portrayed in the media. Infidelity, sexual activity outside of marriage, and the absence of a moral and spiritual vision of the marriage covenant are depicted uncritically, while positive support is at times given to divorce, contraception, abortion and homosexuality. Such portrayals, by promoting causes inimical to marriage and the family, are detrimental to the common good of society.

...

Public authorities themselves have a serious duty to uphold marriage and the family for the sake of society itself. Instead, many now accept and act upon the unsound libertarian arguments of groups which advocate practices which contribute to the grave phenomenon of family crisis and the weakening of the very concept of the family. Without resorting to censorship, it is imperative that public authorities set in place regulatory policies and procedures to ensure that the media do not act against the good of the family. Family representatives should be part of this policy-making.

Policy-makers in the media and in the public sector also must work for an equitable distribution of media resources on the national and international levels, while respecting the integrity of traditional cultures. The media should not appear to have an agenda hostile to the sound family values of traditional cultures or the goal of replacing those values, as part of a process of globalization, with the secularized values of consumer society.

So there you have it. Any of you using condoms are just as damned as those faggots and are working to the detriment of the family and society as a whole.

Raven

[Latrinsorm]

Does anyone else think the Pope sounds eerily similar to Klaive in that little excerpt?

[Caiylania]

I was born and raised Catholic, but I left the Church for many reasons like this. Hypocrisy among them.

Contraceptives / ways to prevent pregnancy shall send you to hell ...... Why? Because it is up TO GOD whether you bear a child or not.

Yet I know and know of multiple Catholic families whose churches helped them find fertility clinics and even in some cases took donations so they could afford treatments to have a kid.

Now, if its God's decision for you to HAVE a kid, so you aren't allowed to prevent it. Then isn't it God's decision for you to NOT have one??

Hypocrisy.

Personally, I have a problem with any belief that would rather people live in isolation and misery because they can't admit/won't act on who they are.

I'm straight, I couldn't be gay if I wanted to, so why do straight people think Gays CHOOSE that lifestyle, it can be hard and unforgiving. They should be allowed to marry and be with who they love. The bad press about homosexuality was always "They sleep around, they are against family, they this they that"

Well, here homosexuals are asking to be allowed to declare monogamous relationships Legal in the eyes of the Law, and some in the eyes of Religion, and people are fighting THAT!

Stupidity.

[longshot]

Caiylanai, religion aside, you and children/family are one topic that even I will not touch.

I think you have serious issues.

[i remember halloween]

gays are not normal

[Skirmisher]

If being normal means being like you Holloween, I want no part of it.

[StrayRogue]

Neither is manogomy. But the Church is a huge believer in that.

[i remember halloween]

lol manogomy huh? freudian slip right?

[Makkah]

Gotta love that "man-ogomy". Freudian slip indeed.

rht

[Edited on 1-25-2004 by Makkah]

[Drew2]

Maybe the Catholic church changed their view on masturbation?

Mano-gomy.

[Edited on 1-25-2004 by Tayre]

[StrayRogue]

Anyone who thinks a man is made for one, and only one woman, as the Catholic Church believes, is stupid.

[Drew2]

Right, but that's called Monogamy.




There is no edit.

[Edited on 1-25-2004 by Tayre]

[Bobmuhthol]

Monogamy.

[Caiylania]

Originally posted by longshot
Caiylanai, religion aside, you and children/family are one topic that even I will not touch.

I think you have serious issues.

Where did that come from? :?:

[Skirmisher]

Longshot is just coming down off his large breasted Japanses nurse induced high.

Pay him no mind.

[Drew2]

Longshot must be nothing like I picture him if he's getting large breasted japanese nurses.

Either that or she was a butter face.

[Latrinsorm]

Let me ask y'all this:

Would the world be a safer place without premarital or extramarital sex?

[Caiylania]

No.

[Artha]

You know what makes me not read posts?

When people have huge links that cause side scroll.

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by Caiylania
No.
Guess we shouldn't debate this, then. It won't get anywhere.

[Fallen]

I'm straight, I couldn't be gay if I wanted to, so why do straight people think Gays CHOOSE that lifestyle, it can be hard and unforgiving. >>

So a pedophile can use this same argument? Or anyone that feels unnatural impulses they cannot control? Just because you cannot always control what you feel it does not give you the right to call it natural.

Who will draw the line between sickness and acceptable behavior?

[Sean]

the pope obviously

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by Tijay
the pope obviously
Makes sense to me. :D

[Artha]

No.

It would end or severely limit STDs from getting around if everyone suddenly got ethics and stopped having premarital/extramarital sex.

[Ravenstorm]

Originally posted by Artha
It would end or severely limit STDs from getting around if everyone suddenly got ethics and stopped having premarital/extramarital sex.

It would end or severely limit STDs from getting around if everyone suddenly got smart and always practiced safe sex.

Raven

edited to add:

And that's assuming there's anything unethical about premarital sex. There's not. Responsible, consensual sex between adults who are not committed to anyone else is quite ethical.

[Edited on 1-25-2004 by Ravenstorm]

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by Ravenstorm
It would end or severely limit STDs from getting around if everyone suddenly got smart and always practiced safe sex.

I'm sure you've seen the statistics that show the only guaranteed way to not get an STD. And I'm sure you've seen comparisons of the voids in a condom compared to the size of the HIV virus. Knowing those two facts, I'm not sure why you would post such a statement.

[Artha]

It would end or severely limit STDs from getting around if everyone suddenly got smart and always practiced safe sex.

Assuming you mean wearing a condom, even that doesn't completely protect against STDs. For example, the AIDs virus is small enough to slip through the holes in condoms that sperm are too big to fit through. Herpes and genital warts aren't just on/in (depending) the genitalia, they're on the surrounding skin too.

[Ravenstorm]

Originally posted by LatrinsormI'm sure you've seen the statistics that show the only guaranteed way to not get an STD. And I'm sure you've seen comparisons of the voids in a condom compared to the size of the HIV virus. Knowing those two facts, I'm not sure why you would post such a statement.

Agreed, the only 100% certain way is to abstain. No arguement at all. However, proper safe sex practices can be no more risky than say... Oh, getting your eyesight corrected surgically. :grin:

As far as that whole /flawed/ argument about voids in condoms and the size of the virus, let me point somehting out that every proponent of that belief fails to mention...

The AIDS virus /requires/ a method of transmission. The virus isn't going to be wiggling out of those voids and traveling into the bloodstream of someone. The virus requires either blood, or seminal fluid, or some other means of transmission. And seminal fluid is a lot larger than the voids in the condoms.

So that arguement is, I'm afraid to say, total bunk used by people who want to deceive people into thinking condoms don't protect against AIDS.

Are condoms 100% effective? Of course not. But they're pretty damned good. Further, safe sexual practices don't have to involve intercourse and penetration anyway. There's a ton of ways to enjoy sex without it. Have a link:

http://www.sexuality.org/

Raven

[i remember halloween]

yea ravenstorm, because we all know how responsible humanity is. thats a great plan.

[Ravenstorm]

A better plan than saying everyone should just start abstaining. Because humanity is just so good at it. Do you have a comment on how wonderful that plan is?

Raven

[i remember halloween]

yea, kill people with stds.

[Edaarin]

But then where would Peam go to college?

[Caramia]

Originally posted by Fallen
I'm straight, I couldn't be gay if I wanted to, so why do straight people think Gays CHOOSE that lifestyle, it can be hard and unforgiving. >>

So a pedophile can use this same argument? Or anyone that feels unnatural impulses they cannot control? Just because you cannot always control what you feel it does not give you the right to call it natural.

Who will draw the line between sickness and acceptable behavior?

Apparently the AMA and the APA, because they have both published decisions in recent years stating that homosexuality is NOT an illness.

And statistics have shown that approximately 94% of pedophiles are straight, white men, often a friend of the family, a relative, or someone the child knows.

Gay men are not sexual predators that target children, matter of fact, if anything they make a supreme effort to avoid that very perception.

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by Caramia
Gay men are not sexual predators that target children, matter of fact, if anything they make a supreme effort to avoid that very perception.
You could easily substitute "pedophilic" for "gay" in that sentence.

[Ravenstorm]

Originally posted by Latrinsorm
You could easily substitute "pedophilic" for "gay" in that sentence.

You could also substitute 'straight men who like younger women'. Your point?

Hey, here's an idea. Lets condemn everything but straight sex in the missionary position. After all, who cares if it's conensual between adults? Deviant behavior must be eliminated.

And why is this thread revolving almost solely on the gay issue? There's also the idiocy about contraception. And how the state must work to control the media to give the 'right' message about how destructive to the family it is.

I mean, every single one of you who has ever used an IUD, condom, sponge, or anything else is working to the downfall of society. Anyone going to to try to defend that position?

Or is it ok to ignore the Pope about contraception while letting him speak from on high about homosexuality? After all, it's pick and choose right? Take one sin from column A and one from column B?

Raven

[Pierat]

Ok and I dont mean any disrespect, and I havent actually read a word of any of this, but can you honestly blame the pope for anyting he says? I mean ive seen video clips, the poor man cant even really seem to hold his head up!

[DianaBanana]

All that crap makes me glad I'm not Roman Catholic...or part of any organized religion. Three cheers for being agnostic! :thumbsup:

[Hulkein]

Originally posted by Ravenstorm

1st post
It's things like this that make me loathe the Catholic Church. Oh horrors! The media is condoning tolerance to homosexuals and even contraception!


2nd post
I mean, every single one of you who has ever used an IUD, condom, sponge, or anything else is working to the downfall of society. Anyone going to to try to defend that position?

Or is it ok to ignore the Pope about contraception while letting him speak from on high about homosexuality? After all, it's pick and choose right? Take one sin from column A and one from column B?

Raven

What are you complaining about, the Pope or the majority viewpoints of the world? In the first post you discredit the Catholic Church for making rules, and in the second post you criticise the majority viewpoint of the world for following one but not the other.

Or are you just complaining about everything?



[Edited on 1-26-2004 by Hulkein]

[Fallen]

The bottom line is you cant chance what most anyone thinks. If someone hates you for who you are, dont cry about it, because its not going to change a damn thing.

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by Ravenstorm
You could also substitute 'straight men who like younger women'. Your point?

My point was that Caramia's justification of homosexuality being "ok" or "nondeviant" was flawed. (Not that I'm saying homosexuality isn't "ok" )


Hey, here's an idea. Lets condemn everything but straight sex in the missionary position. After all, who cares if it's conensual between adults? Deviant behavior must be eliminated.

Adult is an incredibly relative word. See my last point, please.


And why is this thread revolving almost solely on the gay issue? There's also the idiocy about contraception. And how the state must work to control the media to give the 'right' message about how destructive to the family it is.

I bet it pissed you off when they ran anti-drug or anti-smoking ads too. Stupid state! Making TV cigarette ads illegal! (Please read my next point before responding to this one)


I mean, every single one of you who has ever used an IUD, condom, sponge, or anything else is working to the downfall of society. Anyone going to to try to defend that position?

I could make a case that extramarital sex is contributing to the downfall of society. Mainly because not everyone who participates in it is a "consenting adult", as you put it. Many people who have "come of age" are nowhere near mature enough to handle their actions. And the chief proponent of extramarital sex is "safe sex". Don't get me wrong, I'd much rather have safe extramarital sex than hippies, but by taking away the risks it encourages that which leads to a problem.

edit: apparently a quote followed by a close paranthese is a winking face.

[Edited on 1-26-2004 by Latrinsorm]

[Caramia]

Originally posted by Latrinsorm
My point was that Caramia's justification of homosexuality being "ok" or "nondeviant" was flawed. (Not that I'm saying homosexuality isn't "ok" )

Justification my butt, it's your post that is flawed, not my reply.

Where's the flaw in the statment that the American Medical Association and American Psychiatric Association have both made public announcements that they do not consider homosexuality an illness? Especially since the point it was responding to implied homosexuality was a "sickness" and inappropriate behavior?

As for "de-flawing" my comments about the psychosexual make-up of a pedophile, I'll present you with this:

• Offenders are not usually strangers to children. According to the National Clearinghouse, approximately 90% of offenders are known to the children. In addition, a child is 3 times more likely to be-molested by a recognized, trusted adult than by a stranger. 50% of child victims are molested in their own homes or in the offender's home.

• 29% of offenders are relatives; 60% are acquaintances; and only 11% are strangers. (Russell)

• Abel calculated the chances of getting caught for child molestation at approximately 3%. Fewer than 1% of offenders are arrested, convicted and imprisoned.

• Giaretto found 80% of incestuous fathers in a sex offender treatment program were sexually abused as children, but did not report the abuse.

• 49% of incest offenders who molest girls within the family, molest girls outside the family as well.

• Of those incest offenders who molest boys within the family, 61 % molest females outside the family and 68% molest males outside the family.

• Some experts say that incestuous parents often love their children, but put their sexual/intimacy needs before those of the children. Sometimes this is due to a crisis period in their lives or because boundaries in the family get confused or unclear. The average length of an incestuous relationship is three years, it is rarely a one-time occurrence.

• Studies have revealed that 60-80% of adult sex offenders begin offending as adolescents. Adolescents perpetrate 50% of sex offenses against boys, and 15-20% of offenses against girls. (Rasmussen, Buton, Chrisopherson, 1992)

• The offender who rapes and is incarcerated has had an average of 65 victims during his lifetime. One recent study in Oregon found that more than 80% of known rapists were abused as children.

• The average pedophile can have an average of 244 - 300+ victims in his lifetime. 42% of pedophiles begin their sexual offending before the age of 12.

• 75% of all perpetrators begin offending before age 13.

• An article published 3/18/92 in the Atlanta journal stated that "national research shows that an adolescent sex offender will sexually abuse an average of 7 victims, but if left untreated will have about 380 victims in a lifetime."

• Heterosexual males present a greater risk to boys and girls.

Not a single statistic supports the erroneous comment that homosexuals = pedophiles. Being gay and being a pedophile is not the same thing.

[longshot]

Originally posted by Caiylania


Where did that come from? :?:

I have to explain? It's pretty obvious to me.

You condemmed me and several other board members to burn in hell for all eternity for the dead baby jokes in the "short jokes" thread.

Then, there was a thread about someone's five year old brushing up against you while you were holding your baby. You made such a big deal out of nothing that your friend went off on you.

There's been countless other threads where if the word child, or children come up, you're there in an instant.

Is that enough of an explanation?

[Caiylania]

Originally posted by Fallen
I'm straight, I couldn't be gay if I wanted to, so why do straight people think Gays CHOOSE that lifestyle, it can be hard and unforgiving. >>

So a pedophile can use this same argument? Or anyone that feels unnatural impulses they cannot control? Just because you cannot always control what you feel it does not give you the right to call it natural.

Who will draw the line between sickness and acceptable behavior?


Child molestors are victimizing unwilling children and/or kids that do not know any better and think they have to.

Two consenting people of the same gender having sex is not the same.

[Caiylania]

Originally posted by Artha

No.

It would end or severely limit STDs from getting around if everyone suddenly got ethics and stopped having premarital/extramarital sex.

It has nothing to do with if you are married are not, over 50% of married men sleep around anyway.

I agree to the above statement you made if amended to people not have multiple lovers at once. Being monogamous and being safe would bring down STDs etc....... Wether married or not.

[Caiylania]

Originally posted by longshot

Originally posted by Caiylania


Where did that come from? :?:

I have to explain? It's pretty obvious to me.

You condemmed me and several other board members to burn in hell for all eternity for the dead baby jokes in the "short jokes" thread.

Nice amendment. I notice you are not mentioning the jokes that originally got me riled were ones about raping little girls. Rape is NOT funny..... Ever.

How does that make me have serious issues? Because I think rape isn't joke material?


Then, there was a thread about someone's five year old brushing up against you while you were holding your baby. You made such a big deal out of nothing that your friend went off on you.

I'm not getting into that again. But it was about the very fact that it WASN'T a big deal and she went nutso on me. But whatever. I had simply asked her daughter to say sorry for not being a bit more careful and bumping into my baby.

Isn't it considered polite to apologize when you knock into someone?





There's been countless other threads where if the word child, or children come up, you're there in an instant.

Is that enough of an explanation?

Ok..... so I care about children. I admit it. Wheres the handcuffs? I'm guilty.

What did ANY of that have to do with the Gay / Contraception debate?

[Edited on 1-26-2004 by Caiylania]

[Wezas]

not touching this thread with a 5 foot pitchfork.....

[Drew2]

ROFL.

[Xcalibur]

The Pape (pope) is a tool, it's not him deciding what is wrong or what is right. There's some power behind him that tell him what to say.

I, too, was raised catholique. I still believe in some part of the church, but I cannot totaly be on their side with all the crap that happened before: no religion that is pro-love of others would let that pedophiles on their sides.

[TheEschaton]

Let me predicate this with the following: I am a Catholic, in what I consider good standing. I'm a Lector, a Eucharistic Minister, and in my youth, I was an altar boy.

That being said, I am also a Democrat, bordering on a socialist. I've also worked as a social worker for people with HIV/AIDS, and known many gay people through it.


People tend to think they conflict, I don't think they do.

On the Pope: This Pope is far more liberal than his predecessors....FAR more liberal. You can't expect to get the whole kit-n-kaboodle in one shot, though. Maybe the next Pope will re-examine the role of women in the Church (one of the most serious hypocrisies in the Church currently), maybe the one after that will visit the homosexuality issue, etc. The problem is the guy is in there for life, so he was elected whenever, he gets outdated quickly, and he doesn't get replaced. But 100 years ago, a theology like Liberation Theology of South America would have been grounds for excommunication - they're even thinking of making Dorothy Day a saint (the first American one, perhaps), and she was a noted Communist in her day.

On the Church: I respect the Church on many issues. For example, I *am* against abortion, because that is an issue concerning the sanctity of life. Consequently, I'm also against the death penalty, and it blows my mind how both major parties in this country have a pick-one-but-not-the-other attitude. This is a debate for another time, though, because there is much more to the argument than being against the act of abortion.

The main point is the following:
The one issue the Church cannot be considered an authority on is sexuality.

I mean, look at this: an all male hierarchy, vowing celibacy, making decisions on sexuality?

For centuries, the Church painted all the women in the Bible as prostitutes - with Mary of Magdela at the head. In the 70s, the Church admitted that Mary Magdalene was not a prostitute.

For centuries, sex itself has been considered a sinful thing. The Church has amended that with Vatican II, but I think the sentimentality still exists.

If you're the reading type, I suggest Ivone Gebara's Out of the Depths which is about how the Church has long suppressed the feminine, sexual, "worldly" part of life for the masculine, spiritual, divine longing of another life. (Most noted in the saying, "Sins of the flesh, rise above to the sanctity of the soul" or something like that).

On the homosexuality issue: As I said before, the Church recently (40 years ago is VERY recent, for the Church) redefined its views on sex. While its view used to be one solely of procreation, with V II, that changed to include love as an equally important, and separate part of sexuality.

That being said, the Church's definition of homosexuality is that of a disordered love - they say sex not ordered towards creating life is wrong.

I disagree with this on a few angles:
1) The Church doesn't consider a married couple who knows they are impotent, but having sex, as disordered. They are not geared towards procreation. This stems mainly from the redefinition of sex as being an instrument of love. This being said, if their sex can be considered ordered love with the procreation bit not in the picture, homosexual love should be considered likewise.
2) The Church has not considered that this is probably not a choice for most homosexual people. That "God made them that way" is an idea abhorant to many anti-gay advocates.
3) Currently, it is not a sin to be homosexual, but to practice homosexual acts are. This is an effective decree that all Catholic homosexuals should be celibate. This goes against the (modern) Catholic ideas of expression of the self, and the acceptance of sexuality as inherent to a person's being. Priests choose to be celibate as a sacrifice - homosexuals, if they want to be "good Catholics" are forced to deny part of themselves.
4) With its redefinition of sex, homosexual love CAN be seen as ordered, no one wants to see it as thus, though.

HOWEVER....

If you want to argue the strict side, and say the impotent couple is sinning as well, consider this:

The Bible, especially Jesus Christ, stresses the importance of thought and meaning as an interpretative factor behind all actions. This can be seen in the parable of the widow and the two mites, where the rich men give tons of money (which doesn't mean much at all to them) and the widow gives her last two coins (which means the whole world to her). Jesus continually stresses that if you have even thought of doing wrong on your brother, to seek his forgiveness for it, for it is as bad as committing the actual act.

That being said, if sex is partaken with the meaning of procreation behind it - to have children, that should not only NOT be condemned, but lauded. If a gay couple WANT to adopt a child - does this not say that they are expressing the procreative aspect of sex, even though they can't achieve it? At the very least, the Church should laud gay adoption.

In summary: the Church is against perversion in the sexual realm. It has automatically labeled homosexuality as perversion - which is not true in the majority of homosexual relationships.

And remember, who do they think they are, a bunch of men who have vowed NOT to have sex and have families, to speak on our sexuality?

- TheEschaton -

[TheEschaton]

Namely, if a gay man can look at his partner, and say, "I would raise a child with this man"....it isn't a sin.

IF sex occurs from love....before marriage....it isn't a sin.

Even if sex is perverted, stemming from purely hedonistic pleasure - that is man's nature, and man's nature was created by God. Many modern (non-clerical) Catholic theologians consider the moment of climax during sex, as the closest man can ever come to God, in this life, a sublime moment of nothingness.

- The Eschaton -

[Drew2]

After reading Eschaton's posts, I recovered the IQ i had lost from reading Xcalibur's.

Good posts. Thanks for your contribution.

[Xcalibur]

Originally posted by Tayre
After reading Eschaton's posts, I recovered the IQ i had lost from reading Xcalibur's.

Good posts. Thanks for your contribution.

I'm sure the post you just made is a good contribution to the debate, too.

What are the speculation about the next pape? Who will it be? What is his view on the "hot" topics?

[Drew2]

Your posts might be a contribution if they were coherent. I have no idea who or what you're talking about in your question, and I read the whole thread.

[TheEschaton]

I've no hope for the next Pope. The current Pope has stockpiled the College of Cardinals with his own people (AKA, very conservative, at least concerning the issues we're talking about). The process is horrible, it virtually assures that who the Pope wants the next Pope to be becomes Pope.

The Pope is elected by the College of Cardinals. The Pope can randomly and indiscriminately make anyone he wants a Cardinal. Obscure, yet conservative, Bishops from Western Europe become Cardinals, as well as the Boston Archbishop (who, with his recent condemnation of MA's civil union ruling, is well on his way to the red hat). Meanwhile, bishops from Africa, and the third world are passed over, for being out of line with the current Pope's views.

It's a system set up to promote lack of change. I'm frankly surprised that the Church has modernized as it did at Vatican II.

But then again, John XXIII was supposed to be staunchly conservative, no one ever thought he was going to redefine Catholicism.

- TheEschaton -

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by Caramia
Not a single statistic supports the erroneous comment that homosexuals = pedophiles. Being gay and being a pedophile is not the same thing.
Wow, and I almost said that! Nope. Not at all. You said this:


Gay men are not sexual predators that target children, matter of fact, if anything they make a supreme effort to avoid that very perception.

Implying that pedophiles are in fact sexual predators etc. As a rule, they are not. The reasoning that because most of the children that are molested are molested by pedophiles, all pedophiles molest children, is ridiculous. Pedophilia is something you're born with, just like homosexuality.

Do you see what you're doing? You're condemning some people for what they're born as (pedophiles) and stubbornly defending others (homosexuals). Frankly, it's a bit tiresome.

Originally posted by X
The Pape (pope) is a tool, it's not him deciding what is wrong or what is right. There's some power behind him that tell him what to say.

Yep. The power = Jesus. :saint:

p.s. I'm glad Eschaton showed up too, now I'm not the only Christian, wheee! :D Plus he knows stuff. Which balances out my side nicely.

[Hulkein]

Originally posted by Caiylania

It has nothing to do with if you are married are not, over 50% of married men sleep around anyway.

Over 50% ?? Care to show me a statistic to back up this claim that >50% of men in America cheat on their wives?

Some follow up questions
1) Were you ever married?
2) Are you divorced?
3) How many kids do you have?

Only answer those if you can't find some proof for your claim, I have a suspician that you're a scorned single mother so you're putting out claims that are untrue.

[Hulkein]

Originally posted by Latrinsorm

p.s. I'm glad Eschaton showed up too, now I'm not the only Christian, wheee! :D Plus he knows stuff. Which balances out my side nicely.

I'm Catholic.. I just don't really get into Religious debates too often because I don't pretend to know enough :D

[Xcalibur]

I'm catholique too, my son is baptized. I believe in God, but the roman catholique church or whatever you call it disapointed me in MANY many ways.

Maybe I'm the next Luther :lol:

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

Originally posted by Latrinsorm
Pedophilia is something you're born with, just like homosexuality.

Do you see what you're doing? You're condemning some people for what they're born as (pedophiles) and stubbornly defending others (homosexuals). Frankly, it's a bit tiresome.


I'm curious now. You seem to be saying that you (Latrinstorm) look at Pedophiles and Homosexual people the same way? That because they are (your words) born that way, they must be similarly defended?

I'm white, and have a black friend (oddly enough, born that way). Do you look at us the same? What if my friend was a woman? A lesbian?

You can't see the difference? Are you telling me you look at homosexuals and pedophiles as the same entity at birth? I'm am straight (again, following your logic, born that way), do you look at me the same as a pedophile?

I'm not sure I follow your logic. Please explain?

[Edaarin]

Ideals and beliefs hold up very well until you encounter the situation in real life.

Edited to say ideals, not ideas.

[Edited on 1-26-2004 by Edaarin]

[Wezas]

Originally posted by Xcalibur
I'm catholique too

For those of you keeping score at home, that would be a French Catholic.

Haw Haw! I am le French!

[Ravenstorm]

Originally posted by TheEschaton
Let me predicate this with the following: I am a Catholic, in what I consider good standing. I'm a Lector, a Eucharistic Minister, and in my youth, I was an altar boy.

(And then lots of stuff)

A very interesting post. I have no idea what a Lector is so I'll have to look into that.

Whatever it is, I like your opinion. Aside from the fact I can agree with it, it's well thought out and explained.

Out of curiousity, what's your opinion of the whole Episcopalian situation they're in the middle of? Perhaps needless to say, I'm entirely in favor of Gene Robinson having been made a bishop. The support he's gotten from the parishoners and his fellow clergy - despite knowing how many of their faith was likely to react - has increased my opinion of Christianity in general.

Raven

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by Suppa Hobbit Mage
I'm curious now. You seem to be saying that you (Latrinstorm) look at Pedophiles and Homosexual people the same way? That because they are (your words) born that way, they must be similarly defended?

I'm white, and have a black friend (oddly enough, born that way). Do you look at us the same? What if my friend was a woman? A lesbian?

You can't see the difference? Are you telling me you look at homosexuals and pedophiles as the same entity at birth? I'm am straight (again, following your logic, born that way), do you look at me the same as a pedophile?

I'm not sure I follow your logic. Please explain?
I'm saying that no one should be judged on what they are born with. I can't say that I understand pedophilia, but it's merely a sexual preference, like the way I prefer women of a certain body type.

I understand that they are different, such as tall people and short people are different. However, I would think that it would be grotesque to any cultured mind to think that because someone is short, they should be persecuted for it. Or black. Or pedophilic. Clearly, someone acting upon their pedophilic urges with those not mature enough should be restrained. But then, what is maturity? Is it a physical state? We've all met people who, while well past the stages of puberty, are nowhere near maturiy in their mental faculties. And yet, no one stops them from buying a gun, or alcohol, or having sex. That's mainly a beef I have with age generalization, but it applies here to some extent.

I cannot stress enough, however, that it is particularly annoying to hear someone defend what some people call an aberration of sexuality and immediately, immediately turn around and condemn another preference as an aberration of sexuality.

Pedophilies are not all child molesters. To suggest that they are is simply ignorant, and I will not tolerate it.

I just want to try to make this absolutely clear.

I'm am straight (again, following your logic, born that way), do you look at me the same as a pedophile?
Sexual preference is not chosen. I believe this. Therefore, no one should be judged solely on the basis of their sexual preference. If someone said "straight guys are all rapists" I would defend straight guys just as much as I'm defending pedophiles after someone said "pedophiles are all sexual predators that target children".

To close, it looks like Wezas found a 6 foot pitchfork.

[Edaarin]

Right, so all those 6-10 year old boys willingly have sex with older men.

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by Edaarin
Right, so all those 6-10 year old boys willingly have sex with older men.
My point is not that it never happens, it's that it doesn't always happen. Similar to a comparison of heterosexual sex and rape. Does rape happen? Yes. Is hetereosexual sex always rape? No.

[Edaarin]

...so...you're comparing the incidence of rape and pedophilic sex? I don't think so. I'm willing to lay a lot of money on the possibility that a lot more coerced/forced sex occurs with pedophiles than date rape.

EDIT: I'm done with this argument/thread. Obviously there's no reaching some people.

[Edited on 1-26-2004 by Edaarin]

[Xcalibur]

Is having a fetichism with feet something bad? It's proven that feet sensation's part of the brain is almost side to side with the part of the brain that controls sexual pleasure.

Same crap as people attracted to animal, children, same sex, oldies, et cetera.

You cannot control that. Is it bad? yes, it is.

(I'm not talking of those that changed because of traumastisms)

I'm glad to find out i'm "normal" :)

[Edited on 26-1-04 by Xcalibur]

[Drew2]

I would venture a guess that Pedophilia is a psychological condition caused by some bad childhood experiences. I don't think it's natural at all. I know that sounds like the same arguments against homosexuals, but I mean honestly... do you know of any animals of ANY species that mate with their 'young'?

And really, you can't compare anyway. Homosexuality takes place between two consenting peoples of teen age or older. Pedophilia involves CHILDREN. Ones that can't necessarily make healthy decisions. Homosexuality and Pedophilia should never be grouped together.

[Xcalibur]

What is a good way to solve pedophilia?

Chemical castration.

Ratio of pedophile curing themself with their willpower and going back to "normal", totaly? 0

it's not a disease. I'd kill the bastard that would do it to my son, but it's not a disease still.

Even chemical castration failed, with some, by the way. That alone says a lot about the "phenomene"

[Edited on 26-1-04 by Xcalibur]

[Caramia]

I think it's more likely a case of nurture than nature, with people who become active pedophiles. We already know from several well-documented instances that homosexuality is not nuture-created, but a cause of nature, a genetic tendency.

But those who have treated pedophliacs have stated that many of them turn in this direction because they were themselves the product of an abusive household, or because they have experienced some crisis in their lives that has created a breakdown for them, and confusion of appropriate barriers.

Being simply a pedophiliac doesn't make one a criminal or a molester of children, as you said. But acting on those pedophilia impulses does. That is the difference I speak of. I'm sorry if my words were not clearer before, and that you misinterpreted my use of the word to simply mean an adult that has a [sexual] love for children -- I was referring to the person that engages in that "love" physically.

And the medical institutions think it's merely a cross-wiring or a chemical imbalance, both of which can be treated. Homosexuality was thought the same, until discovery of actual genetic differences.

There is no defineable biological or genetic link to pedophilia, except the nurture concept, and coming from an abusive family.

[Drew2]

That's what I said, plus four paragraphs.

[Latrinsorm]

I agree with what Caramia said except for

There is no defineable biological or genetic link to pedophilia
because I don't think anyone knows enough about how the brain functions to state anything unequivocably.

Originally posted by X
Ratio of pedophile curing themself with their willpower and going back to "normal", totaly? 0
X, that doesn't make sense. Regardless of your defense of your son (which I agree with), having pedophilic tendencies to me is just as much of a "disease" as homosexuality or cystic fibrosis or sickle cell anemia. There's no right or wrong to it, it simply exists. You can't will yourself out of pedophilia any more than you can will yourself taller. Some of those conditions require medical treatment, some don't. Except for cystic fibrosis, none of them mean a person can't lead a good life.

And before I get everyone started up again, I'm putting homosexuality in the same category because the category is "things most people don't have". I'm not judging anyone.

[i remember halloween]

i still find it amazing that some people consider homosexuality to be normal

[Ravenstorm]

And some people still find it amazing that women are allowed to vote and blacks can sit on the front of the bus.


Raven

[Skirmisher]

I can vote? Woohoo!

[Sean]

and i can sit at the front of the bus! .. wait but can i vote?

[Ravenstorm]

Not with those dreadlocks.

Raven

[HarmNone]

Those are not dreadlocks, Raven. Those are head chads. It was proven in Florida that chads count...or don't count...I don't remember which was proven. ;)

HarmNone

[Hulkein]

Originally posted by Ravenstorm
And some people still find it amazing that women are allowed to vote and blacks can sit on the front of the bus.


Raven

Yeah, but the difference there is that the world has about equal percentage of women versus men and probably pretty close blacks vs. whites (If most of Africa had a correct census)

[Ravenstorm]

Except I seriously doubt he was using the definition of normal being 'the norm'.

Though if you want to talk about norms (no, not the Cheers character), being caucasian is not normal as we're outnumbered by several billion by all the other ethnic types combined.

It would be interesting to see a breakdown by ethnic type but I couldn't find one off hand.

Raven

[TheEschaton]

Out of curiousity, what's your opinion of the whole Episcopalian situation they're in the middle of? Perhaps needless to say, I'm entirely in favor of Gene Robinson having been made a bishop. The support he's gotten from the parishoners and his fellow clergy - despite knowing how many of their faith was likely to react - has increased my opinion of Christianity in general.

More power to him. It's obviously very difficult to be a priest and be openly gay (I had one such professor in college), but I'm of the opinion that change comes from within (a very Buddhist notion, for a Catholic, I might note), and that includes structural change. Frankly, that's why I'm still a Catholic - because the media, or people outside the Church can critique all they want, and the Church can turn a deaf ear and say, "They don't understand the faith." They can't ignore me so convienantly.

Which is why I go to all the protests, sign the petitions, participate in die-ins, get arrested for civil disobedience, and all that - but plan on going to law school and entering politics. It's a dual blade.

As for the argument for pedophilia being natural, as with homosexuality, the case ends with the possible common foundation (as with normal hetero sex, all three coming naturally, from birth). It is irrelevant how one is born - when the rights of another are infringed upon (and no kid can consent to sex, that's why people still get prosecuted for statutory rape), one's rights are suspended.

It goes - life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. They're not just ordered randomly, yanno. Your pursuit of happiness cannot infringe on someone else's life, or liberty. I like to take it further, and say one's liberty cannot infringe on another's life, but that's just the pacifist in me. It is the foundation of morals - your rights cannot infringe on the rights of another (along with "the ends DO NOT JUSTIFY the means).

Currently, there is a debate in law, in the courts, about the inheritence of a "violence gene". If science, one day, does prove that violence is caused genetically - do people stop being responsible for their crimes? Is a rapist not responsible for raping a girl, if he's got the rape gene? It's a thorny question, and relates to the pedophilia question, in that if pedophilia is something one is born with, is it a pedophile's fault?

I say it is, every person is responsible for their actions, ultimately (unless suffering a true break from reality, which is rare), but it is also society's responsibility to teach this whole infringement of rights dealie, and make people responsible for their own actions (one of the most blatant flaws in our American society, is the individual's inability to be responsible, or accept responsibility, for anything that doesn't concern his immediate health).

This all changes when we create structures which set up people to infringe on people's rights. America and its views on sexuality + a celibate priesthood + young altar boys will invariably = priests twiddling little boys. The Vatican, when this story broke, noted it was mainly an American phenomenom, followed with random scatterings of reports from Western Europe. Countries where sex is still considered sacred, like Asia, where I'm from, these things rarely happen.

Homosexuality does not fall under this idea of social-responsibility-to-teach-against, because no one's rights are infringed, no sin is committed. In fact, homosexuality, like heterosexuality, is the fulfillment of that third right, the right to pursue happiness, for both parties.


As for normal, one out of 7 people is gay.

One out of 7 people are left handed. So, you can say neither are the norm - but really, America is all about protecting the right, and yes, even cherishing, the point of the minority as valid.


- The Eschaton -

[TheEschaton]

1 out of 6 people is Indian. 1 out of six is Chinese. I believe 1 out of 6 is African, and the rest of Asia accounts for at least another 1 out of six.

Take 1 out of six for the Latin Americans....and you've got 1 out of 6 white people.

A billion white people? Please. Where? Russia?

Oh yeah, 1/3rd of the world is Hindu, or one of its offshoots (Buddhism, Jainism, Sikhism).

- TheEschaton -

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by TheEschaton
Currently, there is a debate in law, in the courts, about the inheritence of a "violence gene". If science, one day, does prove that violence is caused genetically - do people stop being responsible for their crimes?
Dude, that's what I'm saying. It's not that they're not responsible, it's that they shouldn't be judged BEFORE doing anything. If I have the "violence gene", but I never hurt anyone, I expect to be treated fairly (which is tricky in and of itself, but anyway). If I have the "pedophilia gene", but I never have sex with kids, I expect to be treated fairly. People aren't born into actions, if you know what I mean. That's why we can punish people, but it must be AFTER they commit crimes. Otherwise you can take that liberty and shove it up Howard Dean's smirk.

Isn't it a bit of a stretch to say Buddhism is an offshoot of Hindu when Buddha almost killed himself practicing Hindu stuff and told everyone not to do it?

[TheEschaton]

Siddhartha came from a Hindu background. You can see the Hindu influence in Buddhism, but it is very much a separate school-of-thought (I hesitate to say religion, since only the Mahyrana (sp?) consider it such).

Buddhism is Hinduism stripped of the gods, and much more ascetic. If you wanted the aeseticism, but keep the gods, look to Jainism.

The notion of death in both traditions are very similar.

- The Eschaton -

[Caiylania]

Sorry, went on a trip for a few days and just got back.

Regarding the whole homosexuality/pedophilia/etc..... debate. I do not know how much is genetics or learned. What I believe is that, as long as you are not hurting other people mentally/physically with your sexual tendancies then who am I to judge?

If you have two men or two women having consensual sex together that is not a problem to me. If you have an adult having sex with a minor, that is wrong.

I don't know the 'perfect age' kids should have sex...... 16....... 17...... 22..... I don't have expertise in that. But I can say, that from articles I've read over time and news I've seen, most molestors go for ages that I can't understand people arguing with as being wrong. 6? 8? 11?? They are children and thats sick and hurtful.

I won't say that willing adults can't fulfill their own sexual tendancies, and I don't think others should have the rights to tell them its wrong.



Originally posted by Hulkein

Originally posted by Caiylania

It has nothing to do with if you are married are not, over 50% of married men sleep around anyway.

Over 50% ?? Care to show me a statistic to back up this claim that >50% of men in America cheat on their wives?

Some follow up questions
1) Were you ever married?
2) Are you divorced?
3) How many kids do you have?

Only answer those if you can't find some proof for your claim, I have a suspician that you're a scorned single mother so you're putting out claims that are untrue.


I reread the article that said over 50% of men and 35% of women cheat on their spouses and found it did not have any back up I could prove. So I did an official search and found one that does cut that number in half. Though it is still saddening. It also says at the bottom that some numbers ARE up to 50%

....."Unfortunately, adultery statistics for the United States are hotly
debated, for a variety of reasons. Number one, some people may have
reasons to lie during studies. Number two, some studies do not take
into account a persons entire life, but only their current marriage.
That said, here are some statistics generally felt to be accurate.

According to “Affair Statistics” by Karen S. Peterson of USA TODAY
(http://www.divorcereform.org/mel/raffairstats.html ):

* About 24% of men (and 14% of women) have had sex outside of
marriage.
* People are less likely to have affairs with co–workers, and more
likely to have affairs with friends (57%) of at least six months.
* About 65% to 85% of men have never had an extramarital affair.
* Only about 0.5% overall have had multiple affairs.

This study was made up of 55% women, 45% men.

Some studies show much higher statistics—as many as 50 to 65% of men
having affairs, but do not give statistics about multiple affairs.
(“About Lovers & Other Strangers,”
http://www.aboutlovers.co.za/stats.html )"........


As for me, you asked if I've been married and have kids........ I am happily married with a 15mo daughter. It will be 6 years this June.

[Edited on 1-29-2004 by Caiylania]

[TheEschaton]

Regarding the whole homosexuality/pedophilia/etc..... debate. I do not know how much is genetics or learned. What I believe is that, as long as you are not hurting other people mentally/physically with your sexual tendancies then who am I to judge?

I was listening to the radio this morning, and there was a piece on how animals have shown homosexual tendencies. Apparently Rams have a 10% homosexual rate, dolphins are known to participate in homosexuality, and it's crazy common in our closest genetic relative, the Bonobo chimp of central Africa. Those chimps have male on male, female on female, and not for any other reason than to relieve stress.

This woman, who was a zoologist, and did her PhD on transexual animals, said there's literally hundreds of example of higher animals (mammals, I believe) that display homosexual tendencies.

Now that's something to chew on.

-TheEschaton-

[Ravenstorm]

Gave this link in another thread with a similar topic. But since there are new readers...

http://www.salon.com/it/feature/1999/03/cov_15featurea.html

Raven

[Artha]

I'm not a fan of Salon. They're only slightly right of the Yellow Times, and have been known to lie/not research their articles.

I'm not disputing the basic fact of the article, but it's very possible that it's not completely true.

[Caiylania]

Originally posted by TheEschaton

Regarding the whole homosexuality/pedophilia/etc..... debate. I do not know how much is genetics or learned. What I believe is that, as long as you are not hurting other people mentally/physically with your sexual tendancies then who am I to judge?

I was listening to the radio this morning, and there was a piece on how animals have shown homosexual tendencies. Apparently Rams have a 10% homosexual rate, dolphins are known to participate in homosexuality, and it's crazy common in our closest genetic relative, the Bonobo chimp of central Africa. Those chimps have male on male, female on female, and not for any other reason than to relieve stress.

This woman, who was a zoologist, and did her PhD on transexual animals, said there's literally hundreds of example of higher animals (mammals, I believe) that display homosexual tendencies.

Now that's something to chew on.

-TheEschaton-

I believe it, I've seen boy dogs in action and turned right back around rubbing my eyes out hehe.

That also proves that whole theory that only humans have sex for 'fun' wrong. It does make you think a bit.

[AnticorRifling]

Dolphins have sex for pleasure as well.

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by AnticorRifling
Dolphins have sex for pleasure as well. Just to play devil's advocate for a moment, isn't it possible that dolphins are just dumb as a sack of hammers? It seems presumptious to ascribe reasoning to animals' actions when in all likelihood they don't have any reasons themselves, being dumb. I'm not really up on my Dolphin-Human communications, but I thought it was still kinda tough to talk to dolphins, Adam Carrera in the Simpsons aside.

I've said it before and I'll say it again; bonobos have the right idea.

[Ravenstorm]

Originally posted by Artha
I'm not a fan of Salon. They're only slightly right of the Yellow Times, and have been known to lie/not research their articles.

I'm not disputing the basic fact of the article, but it's very possible that it's not completely true.

It's not a Salon article but a review of the 700+ page book. I just use that link cause it gives the most number of quotes and is one of the longer reviews.

Raven

[TheEschaton]

Dolphins can understand our English commands....but we can't understand dolphins.

Makes you question who the dumb one is.

-TheE-

[Nieninque]

Originally posted by Ravenstorm
http://www.365gay.com/newscon04/01/012504popeGay.htm

It's things like this that make me loathe the Catholic Church. Raven

That all applies to pretty much all organised religion, all of whom are soaked in hypocrisy and corruption.

The things I hate most about the catholic church is that it is the richest landowner in the world, on the backs of poor people the world over, terrorised by the catholic churches bs.

That and the amount of child molesters that just seem drawn to the "whiter than white" calling of the catholic clergy....what is that about?

[TheEschaton]

The Church is, in many different ways, corrupt and hypocritical.

But not on the poor. The Church has always been on side of the poor, and after they got that whole missionary thing out of their system, they have been the champions of the poor throughout the world in the 20th century.

Reference the Jesuits of India, South America, etc, etc. Liberation theology, etc. Dorothy Day, Mother Theresea. Your experience of the Church is a North American one. Attend the midnight mass on Christmas morning in a small village in Goa, India, and you will weep with the beauty of the Church.

It is odd, how, in the dust and ashes, the Church appears most beautiful and pristine - and in the gilded halls of North America, it is its least attractive. My parish back home just built a 5 million dollar rectory. A RECTORY - as in the place where the priests LIVE. Needless to say, I don't go to that parish any more.

-TheEschaton-

[TheEschaton]

And a study done by Time magazine suggested that the rate of pedophilia in the Church was comparable to the rate of pedophilia in the public. It's just that we've become jaded to it when it's the guy next door, as opposed to our neighborhood priest, which is sensationalism.

Of course, the rate of pedophilia in the Church is much more serious because the rate is expected to be 0%. While in the public, we've accepted an attitude of "Crazy fucks, what can ya do? They're just fucked up."

-TheE-

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by TheEschaton
Dolphins can understand our English commands....but we can't understand dolphins.

Makes you question who the dumb one is.

-TheE-
I think it's just another example of how English is the greatest language ever. Even dolphins can learn it!....

....

.....X

(we're still boys X, I just could not resist that one)