my last post on this subject. i don't think batman's frustration was whether pedophilia is genetic or not. It was it's linkage with homosexuality. Had HB brought up alcoholism or any other affliction, he may have just broadened the overall genetic / environment discussion. He didn't. He brought up pedophilia. He linked the two. It may not have been intentional....but that is perhaps just as bad. The continued defense that he'd done nothing wrong made it worse. While i share batman's views on many topics, we usually express them differently. He is much more blunt...and sometimes...in my view...he overreacts. I don't think he did here. This isn't just some cerebral game we're playing. Max's concern may be that by deducing something is genetic we take away responsibility. It's a valid point. Mine is that by suggesting something shares characteristics with pedophilia, we've suggested that it's like pedophilia. And that's offensive. And wrong. Or as Bat's would say...bigoted.
I've never said it was like homosexuality. There's obviously a difference in how both acts are carried out. I only asked if the PREFERENCE for both are genetic, or if it's something else. The overreactions came from statements I never made.
Well, that took about three pages and 10 posts to get to there. Why did you have to pretend that you don't care either way? You're keeping a cooler head than Batman, fine. Although Batman is being brash with his opinion, you are being insiduous with yours- and then pretending not to have one. That's really annoying. Sack up and admit what you believe, instead of putting out these insiduous comments and then 'shrugging' and saying you have no opinion. Look hotballa, it's no coincidence that you put homosexuality and pedophilia side-by-side in the nature vs. nurture argument. You could have chosen any number of things, and in fact the most relevant would be comparing straights with gays- that is, if you believe it's a behavioral choice. You put the two together because you think they're both abberant sexual behavior. Admit that much and let's move on with the conversation. And while we're on it, do you actually have any input on the nature vs. nurture question? You've stirred the pot with the pedophile comparison, so let's hear what your opinion is. Don't 'shrug' and tell me you don't have one. Yes, you mentioned that twice- do you realize that people think that there's no apt comparison because they think that a person can't chose their race, but that they do chose their sexual preference? You've replied with this thing twice, so I'm going to assume that you yourself believe it, even though you're attributing it to "civil rights leaders." That would be in line with your dodgy posting up to this point. I would be happy to just read a post about what you believe, because somehow you've gone four pages in this thing and not done that. Feel free to disagree with me, but please say something about yourself and what you believe about the topics at hand- homosexuality as choice or nature.
This is classic closet-homophobe talk. Subtext: "Why can't these homos be ashamed of themselves? Why do they have to shove their gross gayness in our faces? How can they go around shamelessly marching? Can't they just keep their nasty sexual preferences secret in the bedroom?" Gays have to demonstrate that they are not ashamed, because people want them to be ashamed. People want them to stay in the closet, at the very least. The far-out homophobes are actively suppressing them through local and state supreme courts- or in Bush's case, a threat of a federal Amendment. The super far-out ones want to kill them, make them disappear. The "nicer" homophobes like you don't want to commit acts of violence- you just wish these people would recognize that their behavior is wrong,as you do, and stop being so proud of their choice to do something that you find aberrant. You wish that they could at least be ashamed enough of their behavior to stay quiet about it and remain in the shadows.
And if I chose alcoholism or smokers, what if those people are offended also by the comparison to homosexuality? I said it before, I lean more towards that it's more genetics that determine a homosexual, not just a behavioral choice. I've said that many times already. I asked how do people get to those sexual preferences. I havent had a chance to shrug at ayone who asked this question since I haven't been asked yet. Everyone who overreacted just assumed what I was thinking. I was doing all the asking, and certain people were too busy yelling at me to ask questions about myself. In Psychology class, we studied something which said that its a combo of both environment and genetics. Like someone could be a 6 (out of 10) in terms of being born with a musical talent, but if they grew up in an environment that didnt help them develop that ability, they woiuld remain a 6. However, if they went to music lessons from a young age, and the parents were very encouraging and supportive, the environment could raise that ability to a 10. I tend to see this as a logical theory. I believe the same applies to sexual preferences, be it homosexuality, pedophilia, asphyxiation, or whatever else turns someone on. Someone may be a 2 or 3 in the pedophilia scale and make tee hee jokes about the Olsen Twins before they turned 18. If they were in an environment where that was encouraged and not frowned upon, I don't doubt it could escalate to a higher number. If they are a 9 or 10 genetically, then nothing is going to stop them from doing whatever it is that pedophiles do. That's why child molesters are almost always repeat offenders. So yes, I think it mostly has to do with genetics, but the enviornment definetely plays a factor in determining if those genetics manifest itself or not. Of course, if you're on the exteme ends of the spectrum, the environment probably won't affect you as much. I am talking about the reaction of others towards minorities and the scorn that they are subject to. If you don't think there's a difference, how many gay guys can go walking through a mall in 1950 Alabama wearing jeans and a shirt, doing normal things and not get harassed? Now tell me how many blacks would be able to avoid harassment in the same environment wearing the same clothing, doing the same thing? It's completely different. Like I said, noone asked me before. I asked questions, I woulda been happy to respond if someone had bothered to ask instead of calling me a bigot right for the start
You'll have to excuse me if I don't really want to hear you telling me that you prefer a certain position or that you get off on watching certain p*rn. Do you think people should wear shirts that declare what they do in the bedroom? Thank you for putting words in my mouth again. Your assumptions are wrong, period. I don't care if they are in the closet or out of it, I just don't need to hear about it. Just like I don't need to hear about what p*rn you watched last night or that you like to use vegetables in the bedroom. I'm happy you're not ashamed of what turns you on, you don't need to prove it to me by making sure I know that. Is it wrong to ask people in general to shut up about what they are like inside? If someone wants to remind me that they are a certain race every 5 minutes, and I tell them to shut up, does that make me a racist?
You should realize that the contradiction is present in the argument you put forth here. Both groups are marginalized and suppressed, and both march for the same purpose. To show they are not afraid, are not ashamed. To gain recognition. To put it out there in the public. To make people aware. Black people can't hide their blackness. It's always there for people to see. Gays can hide, or at least they can try. Therefore they need a public forum just as much. It's that much easier to remain a silent, suppressed minority. The need for recognition and awareness is important, when it's tempting to just stay in the shadows, ashamed of who you are, where society wants you to be. (This is not to make any statement *whatsoever* about which group suffers more or needs more help. This is about visibility *only.*)
What, in this thread? No you haven't. You've made one passing reference which I pasted above. Did you say you find homosexuality aberrant in other threads? I don't understand your point. Do you mean to say that blacks have suffered more because they're easier to spot? Do you have any idea what would happen to the same hypothetical group of guys in 1950 Alabama if everybody at that mall knew they were gay, or suspected it? It's _all_ injustice, man. All of it. Your first post stated your position clearly, to anyone who isn't stupid. You didn't come out and type FAGS=PEDOPHILES, but you might as well have. You then pretended that you didn't state a position, or that you don't even have one. Then you say that you've stated your position (that homosexuality is aberrant) "many times." Then you claim you never got to to state your position.
My second post. yes thats exactly what I'm saying. How many presidents have there been who might have been gay? Now how many of those presidents might have been black? It's two completely different things. So if I ask about alcoholism, does that imply all alcoholics are homosexuals also? I've spoken about homosexuality before in other threads. I mistakenly assumed you would know that. I was wrong, but now you know. here are my posts in this thread right before Batman started calling me a bigot. Tell me where I "stated my position" before that.
Okay, I still need some clarification on your stance on homosexuality. Do you think it's wrong? How wrong? If you agree that it's aberrant, then I assume you think it's essentially wrong. Am I on target? If not, please feel free to clarify. You Your stances up to this point are confusing. You say you think it's aberrant, but you don't want homosexuals to be ashamed or in the closet. This is wierd, like you want both worlds- to be able to say it's wrong but never have anyone catch you saying it's wrong.
Yes I absolutely feel the practice is wrong. Sorry if it's confusing to you, it's what we Christians typically call "hate the sin, love the sinner."
Okay, you've had this explained to you about half a dozen times. I'm going to assume that you're not stupid and being willfully ignorant instead. I'll give it another shot. Your choice of pedophilia to make the comparison was not a coincidence. This is a common card pulled by the anti-gay crowd because pedophilia is a sexually abberrant behavior that is reviled by all, including people who defend homosexuality. If you're going to continue to simply say that you were open to all possibilities in the universe for comparison, such as alcoholism, but somehow by random came upon pedophilia, I'm going to simply say I don't believe you. You may not be a bald-faced liar, perhaps you yourself aren't seeing how you're slanting what you say. Either way it's lame. You make an argument above about replacing alcoholism with pedophilia in your first post, and then we'll cry alcoholism=homosexuality.... I don't know what to say. You must really think we're stupid. If you really expect us to believe that you find homosexuality wrong, but the comparison of pedophilia with homosexuality was coincidence... I don't know what to say, except I absolutely don't believe you one bit.
Both groups have long sufferred injustice. The real difference here is you think homos are wrong but blacks aren't. Someone could make strong arguments saying women have faced more suffering, or less, than the black community- but who cares, other than people who want to win the Biggest Social Victim award? If women had sufferred less than blacks, should they not have protested early in the century and formed a social movement? If your argument is that gays shouldn't march because they haven't sufferred as much as blacks..... what the hell kind of argument is that? And if it's not your argument, what were you trying to say?
Not to call you out personally, MadMax, you're great to discuss with on the board. But on this pedophilia thing, I don't see it as the issue to discuss. I think a better place to start is this: if sexual preference is a choice, why did most of us choose to be straight? Since I've 'chosen' to be straight, does that mean I could really love gay sex with a dude later on? After all, I could just chose it. Why doesn't anybody in the anti-gay crowd (the part of that crowd which thinks it's a choice) ever address this? The answer is no: I could never get it up with another guy, or enjoy sharing anything sensual or sexual with one. Kissing another guy would be kind of gross for me. If I were in a society where I was considered sick and abberant for loving women, I wouldn't be able to change that, no matter how much I tried. I am who I am. Gays are who they are, and should be respected for it, not reviled, suppressed, or "lovingly" looked upon as wrong by Christians. Totally curious- why do you find it offensive? I think you combine this with the offense to the medical journal earlier, and you're leaning towards choice over nature. Honest question: If came to believe that people were gay by nature, what would that do to your relationship with God? Would you wonder why he created people gay, when He sees gayness as wrong?
