Iowa approves same sex marriage

[Father Time]

If you're sexually attracted to the same sex as yourself, you're a homosexual. If those same-sex people are underage, then you're a homosexual pedophile. Period. Deal with it.

That's inaccurate. Homosexual "attraction" to the "underage" can also constitute nepiophilia, hebephilia, ephebophilia, or mere homosexuality, for that matter.

Or necrophilia depending on the circumstances

 

[Agnapostate]

Or necrophilia depending on the circumstances

I've not ever seen any sound ethical objection to engagement in necrophiliac acts, to be honest. Personal distaste obviously doesn't qualify.

 

[Father Time]

Or necrophilia depending on the circumstances

I've not ever seen any sound ethical objection to engagement in necrophiliac acts, to be honest. Personal distaste obviously doesn't qualify.

Well for starters people pay for the grave plot and the coffin so to get to the corpse would be messing with (and possibly damaging) someone else's property.

 

[Agnapostate]

Well for starters people pay for the grave plot and the coffin so to get to the corpse would be messing with (and possibly damaging) someone else's property.

Yes, but that's a specific contextual case, and can't constitute an ethical objection to other forms of necrophilia any more than an ethical objection to rape can constitute an ethical objection to consensual sex. Are there any broad, ethically sound objections to necrophilia in general?

 

[Father Time]

Well for starters people pay for the grave plot and the coffin so to get to the corpse would be messing with (and possibly damaging) someone else's property.

Yes, but that's a specific contextual case, and can't constitute an ethical objection to other forms of necrophilia any more than an ethical objection to rape can constitute an ethical objection to consensual sex. Are there any broad, ethically sound objections to necrophilia in general?

Can't think of any right now although mostly because I have a strong urge to go on about how sick I find it and when I think necrophilia, I think grave robbery (that and it's 1 AM).

This is another thread though.

 

[Agnapostate]

Can't think of any right now although mostly because I have a strong urge to go on about how sick I find it and when I think necrophilia, I think grave robbery (that and it's 1 AM).

This is another thread though.

Again, personal distaste really can't function as an objection to necrophilia any more than it can function as an objection to homosexual acts, since heterosexual people would obviously have a similar distaste.

There. Dragged back on topic.

 

[DavidS]

I swear. Some of the shit I read on the internet. Sunni Man's "holohoax" was mind blowing at first. Now we have some kid saying having sex with dead people is cool? Damn. The internet allows us unfettered access into many peoples' subconcious... really not the best thing sometimes.

 

[Agnapostate]

I swear. Some of the shit I read on the internet. Sunni Man's "holohoax" was mind blowing at first. Now we have some kid saying having sex with dead people is cool? Damn. The internet allows us unfettered access into many peoples' subconcious... really not the best thing sometimes.

This is obviously not a logically sound argument. It's merely the incoherent babbling of an imbecile. Do you have anything better than that to offer?

 

[DavidS]

If you're sexually attracted to the same sex as yourself, you're a homosexual. If those same-sex people are underage, then you're a homosexual pedophile. Period. Deal with it.

That's inaccurate. Homosexual "attraction" to the "underage" can also constitute nepiophilia, hebephilia, ephebophilia, or mere homosexuality, for that matter.

I love how they try and coin terms for something that comes natural. Being attracted to young teenagers isn't a psychological disorder. Being obsessed with it, is. Young teenagers have been having sex and giving birth for thousands of years and it's only very recently, since the introduction of the Victorian ages, that we've placed any kind of "no no" on it. Seriously, a woman's body is probably ready for sex and child birth around age 13. But society says "No, you must wait until you're married to have sex." But don't wait too long, because society says that women over the age of 35 increase their risk of giving birth to Down's syndrome babies.

I also love how the neocons are like "homosexuality isn't natural!!" but then when you point out that something that IS natural, they point out how it's sociologically wrong to be sexually attracted to a 14 year old girl. Oh no!! Someone's attracted to a woman who's either pubescent or post-pubescent!! What the fuck is the point of having puberty around 12 if society says you can't have sex for another 12 years?

 

[DavidS]

I swear. Some of the shit I read on the internet. Sunni Man's "holohoax" was mind blowing at first. Now we have some kid saying having sex with dead people is cool? Damn. The internet allows us unfettered access into many peoples' subconcious... really not the best thing sometimes.

This is obviously not a logically sound argument. It's merely the incoherent babbling of an imbecile. Do you have anything better than that to offer?

Shut up, kid. I wasn't trying to make an argument. I was expressing how fucked up the internet is when you get to read posts from teenagers who feel having sex with dead people is OK.

 

[Agnapostate]

I love how they try and coin terms for something that comes natural. Being attracted to young teenagers isn't a psychological disorder. Being obsessed with it, is. Young teenagers have been having sex and giving birth for thousands of years and it's only very recently, since the introduction of the Victorian ages, that we've placed any kind of "no no" on it. Seriously, a woman's body is probably ready for sex and child birth around age 13. But society says "No, you must wait until you're married to have sex." But don't wait too long, because society says that women over the age of 35 increase their risk of giving birth to Down's syndrome babies.

I also love how the neocons are like "homosexuality isn't natural!!" but then when you point out that something that IS natural, they point out how it's sociologically wrong to be sexually attracted to a 14 year old girl. Oh no!! Someone's attracted to a woman who's either pubescent or post-pubescent!! What the fuck is the point of having puberty around 12 if society says you can't have sex for another 12 years?

If the reference is to nepiophilia and pedophilia, they are indeed mental disorders and should remain classified as such, inasmuch as they don't fall under the category that you mention. Sexual attraction to infants and prepubescent children would have obviously been maladaptive for human evolution. Hebephilia constitutes a sexual preference for pubescent youths, and remains classified as a paraphilia, though my feelings on that are mixed. Ephebophilia, a sexual preference for adolescents, is not a paraphilia, and it is, of course, only in the past 150 years that it has become "abnormal" to have a sexual attraction to mid-to-late adolescents.

Regardless of the biological naturalness, however, to ascribe some kind of ethical defense to sexual interactions between legal adults and adolescents on those grounds would be to commit the naturalistic fallacy. There have been concerns raised about an allegedly lesser capacity of adolescents to make rational and informed decisions about their lives than older persons, and such a factor must be taken into account in any intellectually honest and logically sound ethical analysis of such relationships. Hence, while it may be normal for adults to be sexually attracted to adolescents, that does not provide an ethical justification for extending that attraction to actual activity.

 

[Agnapostate]

Shut up, kid. I wasn't trying to make an argument. I was expressing how fucked up the internet is when you get to read posts from teenagers who feel having sex with dead people is OK.

So we've shifted from "cool" to "OK," Davey? Nice little bait-and-switch you've offered us. I find it amusing how I can switch from "pedophile" to "kid," too, at anyone's convenience. There's nothing like the bait-and-switch!

 

[DavidS]

I love how they try and coin terms for something that comes natural. Being attracted to young teenagers isn't a psychological disorder. Being obsessed with it, is. Young teenagers have been having sex and giving birth for thousands of years and it's only very recently, since the introduction of the Victorian ages, that we've placed any kind of "no no" on it. Seriously, a woman's body is probably ready for sex and child birth around age 13. But society says "No, you must wait until you're married to have sex." But don't wait too long, because society says that women over the age of 35 increase their risk of giving birth to Down's syndrome babies.

I also love how the neocons are like "homosexuality isn't natural!!" but then when you point out that something that IS natural, they point out how it's sociologically wrong to be sexually attracted to a 14 year old girl. Oh no!! Someone's attracted to a woman who's either pubescent or post-pubescent!! What the fuck is the point of having puberty around 12 if society says you can't have sex for another 12 years?

If the reference is to nepiophilia and pedophilia, they are indeed mental disorders and should remain classified as such, inasmuch as they don't fall under the category that you mention. Sexual attraction to infants and prepubescent children would have obviously been maladaptive for human evolution. Hebephilia constitutes a sexual preference for pubescent youths, and remains classified as a paraphilia, though my feelings on that are mixed. Ephebophilia, a sexual preference for adolescents, is not a paraphilia, and it is, of course, only in the past 150 years that it has become "abnormal" to have a sexual attraction to mid-to-late adolescents.

Regardless of the biological naturalness, however, to ascribe some kind of ethical defense to sexual interactions between legal adults and adolescents on those grounds would be to commit the naturalistic fallacy. There have been concerns raised about an allegedly lesser capacity of adolescents to make rational and informed decisions about their lives than older persons, and such a factor must be taken into account in any intellectually honest and logically sound ethical analysis of such relationships. Hence, while it may be normal for adults to be sexually attracted to adolescents, that does not provide an ethical justification for extending that attraction to actual activity.

Hell, I want that gorgeous chocolate cake that's sitting in my local bakery. I swear, it's been talking to me, telling me to eat it for the past 3 days. However, I don't need the extra calories... there's a difference between having and controlling your sexual impulses and not being able to control them. I don't even think G-d knows what goes on in the human mind. A man's thoughts and a man's actions are worlds apart.

As I said in a previous thread relating to this - I think Miley Cyrus is fooking hot. I have no intentions of doing anything about it. Many people think Miley is hot. That issue with her semi-nude on the cover... best selling ever. Apparently I'm not alone.

 

[Agnapostate]

Oh, the media-promoted "topless" cover? If Bill O'Lielly and the rest of the punditry thought that was "toplessness," they should try and advertise a "topless bar," and then have their dancers draped in sheets the way she was. Let's see how long they stay open.

She didn't look remotely "erotic" to me in that shoot. She looked like a starving Somalian orphan.

 

[Cecilie1200]

this a myth made up by right wing wack jobs! Because they assume when they go after a boy they associate them with being homosexuals when in reality pedophile is a seperate sexual prefernce for one and they don't always go after the same sex if they do choose an adult partner.

Sorry, sweetie, but the only myth here is the one where pedophilia cancels out homosexuality. If you're sexually attracted to the same sex as yourself, you're a homosexual. If those same-sex people are underage, then you're a homosexual pedophile. Period. Deal with it. Saying that you can't be both homosexual and a pedophile is like saying you can't be both homosexual and into S/M. They aren't mutually exclusive.

"Adoption expert, Carrie Craft cites the Child Welfare Information Gateway (previously National Adoption Information Clearinghouse) as stating, "A child's risk of being molested by his or her relatives' heterosexual partner is over one hundred times greater than by someone who might be identifiable as being homosexual." The study also found that of 269 cases of child sex abuse, only two offenders where found to be gay or lesbian. The American Psychological Association agrees, "Another myth about homosexuality is the mistaken belief that gay men have more of a tendency than heterosexual men to sexually molest children."
Gay Men and Child Molestation: Myth or Fact?

Facts About Homosexuality and Child Molestation

Ooh, wow. You found a homosexual propaganda site to deny any possibility that homosexuals can be just as sick and perverted as anyone else on the planet. Good for you. Maybe now you can find a tinfoil hat website to "prove" to us that space aliens live among us. It'll have about the same weight and credibility.

so by your logic since girls are molested more than boys that would be more heterosexuals molest children than homosexuals.

Yes, obviously. Since the heterosexual population far outnumbers the homosexual, it's only mathematics that it would contain far more pedophiles.

Maybe you should have also seen who they sited for their facts.

Maybe you spend a lot of time oohing and aahing over propaganda. I don't.

I also guess UC Davis is just one homosexual propaganda machine.

Pretty sure I just got done saying that.

And the only websites I could find stating homosexuals are more likely to molest children were either conservative blogs or religious sites.

You really only have to look at the math for five seconds without your protective smokescreen of excuses. Even people who rush on to assure us, with no substantiating evidence whatsoever, that it doesn't mean they're homosexuals admit that approximately one-third of all child molestations are of young boys by adult males. Since homosexuals only make up, at most, 3% of the general population, that would be a rather disproportionate number, wouldn't it?

This percentage is available in A. Nicholas Groth's Men Who Rape: Psychology of the Sexual Offender. Groth is one who hurries to assure us that pedophilia and homosexuality are mutually exclusive, the first cancelling the second out, but unfortunately, as with much of the homosexual lobby's "truisms", there's no proof of that. It's merely a blank assertion that we're all supposed to accept at face value.

Now, maybe YOU want to legitimize pedophilia by calling it a sexual orientation, but I don't, and even the psychiatric community doesn't support that. Pedophilia is a paraphilia, a mental disorder, and therefore afflicting people of all orientations, just like any other illness.

Trying to make reality PC and inoffensive accomplishes nothing except to hamper our ability to understand and possibly correct serious problems. This is akin to refusing to acknowledge that black people have a shorter overall lifespan than white people do on the grounds that it sounds racist.

 

[Cecilie1200]

this a myth made up by right wing wack jobs! Because they assume when they go after a boy they associate them with being homosexuals when in reality pedophile is a seperate sexual prefernce for one and they don't always go after the same sex if they do choose an adult partner.

Sorry, sweetie, but the only myth here is the one where pedophilia cancels out homosexuality. If you're sexually attracted to the same sex as yourself, you're a homosexual. If those same-sex people are underage, then you're a homosexual pedophile. Period. Deal with it. Saying that you can't be both homosexual and a pedophile is like saying you can't be both homosexual and into S/M. They aren't mutually exclusive.

"Adoption expert, Carrie Craft cites the Child Welfare Information Gateway (previously National Adoption Information Clearinghouse) as stating, "A child's risk of being molested by his or her relatives' heterosexual partner is over one hundred times greater than by someone who might be identifiable as being homosexual." The study also found that of 269 cases of child sex abuse, only two offenders where found to be gay or lesbian. The American Psychological Association agrees, "Another myth about homosexuality is the mistaken belief that gay men have more of a tendency than heterosexual men to sexually molest children."
Gay Men and Child Molestation: Myth or Fact?

Facts About Homosexuality and Child Molestation

Ooh, wow. You found a homosexual propaganda site to deny any possibility that homosexuals can be just as sick and perverted as anyone else on the planet. Good for you. Maybe now you can find a tinfoil hat website to "prove" to us that space aliens live among us. It'll have about the same weight and credibility.

here is some more facts sweetie!

The number of victims of childhood sexual abuse and molestation grows each year. This horrific crime is directly tied to the growth of pornography on the Internet. Studies conducted by the FBI have shown that pornography is extremely influential in the actions of sex offenders and serial murders. Further, statistics show that 90 percent of the predators who molest children have had some type of involvement with pornography. According to Charles Keating of Citizens for Decency Through Law, research reveals that 77% of child molesters of boys and 87% of child molesters of girls admitted imitating the sexual behavior they had seen in pornography they had watched. Roughly 33% of girls and 14% of boys are molested before the age of 18, according to the U.S. Justice Department

Child Molestation Statistics


1 in 4 girls is sexually abused before the age of 18. (96)
1 in 6 boys is sexually abused before the age of 18. (96

Statistics, Prevalence and Consequences of Child Sexual Abuse


B. Gay Adults Do Not Present a Heightened Danger of Sexual Abuse.

One manifestation of prejudice has been the allegation that gay men pose a particular danger to children. However, all available research data and clinical experience indicates that gay men are not more likely than heterosexual men to sexually abuse children. A study of children seen for sexual abuse in a one-year period at a Denver children's hospital, for example, found that less than one percent of the identified adult offenders were gay or lesbian. Of the 219 abused girls, only one instance of abuse had been attributed to a lesbian. Of the 50 abused boys, only one instance of abuse had been attributed to a gay man. In contrast, 88 percent of the offenders had documented heterosexual relationships and most were heterosexual partners of a family member (77 percent of those who abused the girls and 74 percent of those who abused the boys).35/

One source of confusion in this area is that many men who sexually abuse boys are not themselves homosexual. Rather, they are attracted, entirely or predominately, to children. These men have never developed a mature sexual orientation, either heterosexual or homosexual.36/ One study of 175 adult males who had been convicted in Massachusetts for sexual assault of a child found that 47 percent were exclusively interested in children, 40 percent were regressed heterosexuals, and 13 percent were regressed bisexuals.37/ None had an exclusively homosexual orientation, and none of those who were bisexual were primarily attracted to men.38/

Assertions to the contrary by Family Research Council and others cannot be considered reliable. These amici seriously mischaracterize research39/ and rely on dubious sources.40/ Their presumption that homosexual men are pedophiles is contrary to the legitimate research in the field, just as any such presumption about heterosexual men would be.41/

PsycLAW: Boys Scouts of America v. Dale Amicus Brief

I guess also the APA has a homosexual agenda also!

Yup, they do. The APA has long been a politically-motivated and influenced body, making decisions based on popular pressure rather that research.

I have no idea what point you're trying to make here other than that you can find lots of people to make the same excuses you can with the same lack of substantiation, "sweetie". Am I supposed to be impressed that you can find lots of people to reassure you that being a homosexual automatically makes one immune to being a sick bastard?

 

[Agnapostate]

Yup, they do. The APA has long been a politically-motivated and influenced body, making decisions based on popular pressure rather that research.

I take it someone's still a bit spiteful over the removal of homosexuality from the DSM? To be frank, its prior classification had more relations to political concerns than its removal did.

 

[DavidS]

Yup, they do. The APA has long been a politically-motivated and influenced body, making decisions based on popular pressure rather that research.

I take it someone's still a bit spiteful over the removal of homosexuality from the DSM? To be frank, its prior classification had more relations to political concerns than its removal did.

I don't have a copy of the DSM-III around. Can you find a link for me that discussed homosexuality as an emotional disorder?

I find it.... interesting... how they removed that but still kept Gender Identity Disorder in the DSM-IV. One can only wonder what the DSM-V will contain.

 

[Agnapostate]

I don't have a copy of the DSM-III around. Can you find a link for me that discussed homosexuality as an emotional disorder?

I find it.... interesting... how they removed that but still kept Gender Identity Disorder in the DSM-IV. One can only wonder what the DSM-V will contain.

You know what, Davey, you might have gotten me to check if you hadn't pissed me off again today. Looks like you have a little independent fact-finding to do.

 

[Shogun]

This will play out exactly like it did in California. Gay marriage will be technically legal until the next election, probably 2010, where it will be summarily overturned with another ban that, in IOWA*, will sell like insulin to a diabetic. JUST like we saw happen in Ca last year.




*Idiots Out Wandering Around