You'll note that I also threw in preferences like blondes or brunettes. Of course thats not being brought up. Whatever you say about the crimes, they're still out of the norm and in some cases unacceptable practices. Just for clarification, what are the other reasons pedophilia is considered an illness? You can try to turn my words around, but the point is genetics. If they dictate one attraction, don't they dictate another. Its pretty tough to come up with a relevant comparison as we are talking about gender. Sucks if you're insulted, but for the fifth time I am not equating homosexuality to pedophilia, I'm asking about the genetic connection with those preferences as well as others. I also didn't realize I'm being "railed" on, I thought it was just you and SF. Maybe I missed something.
I'm not sure I made my point clearly. You ask, "If they dictate one attraction, don't they dictate another." I said yes, they do. So now what? Who is arguing otherwise? Secondly, I was trying to explain why references to pedophilia have no place in this discussion. I wasn't referring to you with the "railed on" comment. It was a general statement. I'm not sure I've read all your posts but I don't think you've said anything I consider to be inappropriate. I'm not personally insulted, I'm explaining why the comparison that others have made is insulting. I think it would be better to look to other analogies. So given that information, does my explanation make sense? As far as what else makes pedophilia considered an illness, I'm not sure. I'm no expert. I would imagine the mechanics behind it are different just as I assume you'd acknowledge the mechanics are different than normal heterosexual attraction. I'll let somebody more knowledgeable than me correct me or back me up, but again I don't see the relevance of that in this thread so I don't want to belabor the point. Finally, I wasn't following your particular original point in this thread, so maybe I'm missing what you're trying to say. It sounds like you're just asking why homosexuality is not a choice when other sexual preferences are. I'm saying they are not. Homosexuality is a "natural" occurrence. Something happens in the genes and/or the womb that affects these individuals and they (and their parents) have no control over how they turn out. I believe preferences for blondes or brunettes or betsy the cow occur in similar ways, but aren't the exact same. In the end, all that matters is that the argument that it is bad because it is not natural is refuted because it is natural. If you're trying to make some other point I've just missed it.
The only reason I brought it up is because a couple people earlier posted that it is something from birth. My point is just that, if thats true we need to look at other things like what I mentioned with a new perspective. Not saying those other things should be legal. I just feel like people only see facts or evidence when it supports their argument. Kind of hard to find another example that would be similar to this. If I say genetic alcoholism or gluttony, I'd still be throwing negative habitual type of behavior out there. My only thing is I'm not sure either way concerning how much is environment and how much is genetic. Is there any free will? If a man or woman dates someone of the same sex, but moves on and goes back to dating the opposite gender, are they gay? I guess we really aren't disagreeing so much as we're wording things differently. Like most things I just think the whole thing is a more complicated issue a lot of people think.
You make a valid point, and we aren't really disagreeing at all. In every case that has been brought up so far, though, the behavior is made illegal or considered immoral because of the effects of the behavior itself. There are no ill effects to homosexuality. There are no victims. As with homosexuality, there are genetic components to those other things that predispose people to certain behavior (for example alcoholism tends to run in families), but whether they are caused by nature or nurture is beside the point. Their status as illegal or immoral are unrelated to that. That's why I'm not sure where you're going with the focus on the gene. The best comparison for homosexuality is heterosexuality. Of course, if you make that comparison then the discussion is pretty much over (as it should be). So other analogies that might be more interesting could be polygamy or incest (between consenting adults). People who try to use the slippery slope argument fail when they use things like bestiality or pedophilia because of the decisive differences, but things are more murky when it comes to consensual polygamy or incest. Those behaviors have no victim either. But then again, the slippery slope argument is often a fallacious one anyway, so I even that is pretty weak in my opinion.
I'm not sure you're quite grasping the argument though. I don't THINK he's ceratin that it's genetics, in which case homosexuality and heterosexuality can't always be compared. He's trying to study both sides (genetic and non-genetic) of the argument. The comparison (hetero and homosexual) does not hold in both sides of the argument. Again, I think this is what he's saying and I could be wrong.
Maybe. But science has pretty much proven that homosexuality is not a choice. People are allowed to believe otherwise, but the evidence is still there.
Because I have an opinion? or a belief? or heaven help me a faith? I could say the same for you for promoting such a deviant and foul behavior.
I'd have to do the research, which I honestly don't want to try to do. I just did a quick search and didn't find anything that suggested otherwise (and a lot of links that suggested but didn't prove my assertion). From the American Psychological Association: [rquoter]What causes a person to have a particular sexual orientation? There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay, or lesbian orientation. Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social, and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors. Many think that nature and nurture both play complex roles; most people experience little or no sense of choice about their sexual orientation. [/rquoter]
Believe me there's the same amount of research proving both sides of the argument. One of the biggest misconceptions is that science has "proven" this. The reality is that science has proven that it's a possibility and, for the time being, everyone should try to work on that basis.
Science has proven that it's a possibility? Not to nitpick, but mathematically speaking everything is a possibility. I don't think we needed any special science to prove that. Edit: And to add on to that... for people like OddsOn, his faith will prevent him from taking any of that sort of 'science' seriously anyway.
You need to be more clear on what you mean by "both sides of the argument". To which argument, specifically, are you referring? We do know for a fact that genetics plays a significant role in determining homosexuality. Here is a good (though dated) summary of how twin studies are used to answer these questions.
No offense, but I don't believe you. I just did a quick search and every link I found backed up my assertion. None refuted it. That's not proof, but that's one reason why I don't believe you. I do believe there are studies that people think refute the argument, but there are often contradictory studies especially when it comes to issues like these. It seems to me, though, that the overwhelming evidence is that homosexuality comes from biological causes and not sociological causes.
I really didn't want to get into this but did you actually read the conclusion of that link? I agree with Wakko67 that if one type of "attraction" can be controlled by genetics then why not others? You can't only use a portion of the argument and then not be expected to explain the whole of the possibilities that argument opens up. I am attracted to females and the first thing I look at is the junk in the trunk... is that genetic? I know I can remember checkin out the girls butts when I was in grade school so it goes way back. What the heck difference does that make anyway? Having sex with whatever the heck you have sex with is YOUR CHOICE.
