Americans’ Role Seen in Uganda Anti-Gay Push

[Grizalltheway]

Well, I don't know what Pastor Warren's take was but there are valid comparisons. From the standpoint of misdirection of sexual orientation, pedophilia is no more misdirected than homosexuality is. There is one normal basic sexual orientation. Yes, I know that we like to obscure that by making up various scales, etc. But one either had a preference for sexual contact with members of the opposite sex, a preference for sexual contact with members of one's own sex, or complete neutrality. Complete neutrality is rare. The normal condition among those three is preference for sexual contact with members of the opposite sex. And that's the orientation that is consistent with the biological function underlying sexuality.

Once you depart from that...from the drive to copulate with a member of the opposite sex...you're basically in the same realm. It is no more misdirected for an adult male to be primarily attracted to six year old females than it is for him to be attracted to other adult males. In fact it's probably less so because at least the attraction to six year old females is kind of related to the underlying basis.

A normal, healthy sex drive is going to be primarily directed at members of one's own species but of the opposite sex. Once you depart from that it's all the same. If an adult male human is attracted to a female chicken that is no more misdirected than an adult male human being attracted to another adult male human. Every bit as pointless when it comes to what the whole point of the sex drive is.

Regardless, any reasonable person will agree that sex with a six year old is wrong while sex with a consenting adult of the same sex is a right of the two consenting adults.

What about the drive to copulate with members of your own body?

You assume WAY too much about St Onge.

[Grizalltheway]

Rick Warren, who visited in 2008 and has compared homosexuality to pedophilia. (Mr. Warren recently condemned the anti-homosexuality bill, seeking to correct what he called “lies and errors and false reports” that he played a role in it.)

Well, I don't know what Pastor Warren's take was but there are valid comparisons. From the standpoint of misdirection of sexual orientation, pedophilia is no more misdirected than homosexuality is. There is one normal basic sexual orientation. Yes, I know that we like to obscure that by making up various scales, etc. But one either had a preference for sexual contact with members of the opposite sex, a preference for sexual contact with members of one's own sex, or complete neutrality. Complete neutrality is rare. The normal condition among those three is preference for sexual contact with members of the opposite sex. And that's the orientation that is consistent with the biological function underlying sexuality.

Once you depart from that...from the drive to copulate with a member of the opposite sex...you're basically in the same realm. It is no more misdirected for an adult male to be primarily attracted to six year old females than it is for him to be attracted to other adult males. In fact it's probably less so because at least the attraction to six year old females is kind of related to the underlying basis.

A normal, healthy sex drive is going to be primarily directed at members of one's own species but of the opposite sex. Once you depart from that it's all the same. If an adult male human is attracted to a female chicken that is no more misdirected than an adult male human being attracted to another adult male human. Every bit as pointless when it comes to what the whole point of the sex drive is.

Why is being biologically "normal" more important than being morally and ethically normal?

[D1B]

Well, I don't know what Pastor Warren's take was but there are valid comparisons. From the standpoint of misdirection of sexual orientation, pedophilia is no more misdirected than homosexuality is. There is one normal basic sexual orientation. Yes, I know that we like to obscure that by making up various scales, etc. But one either had a preference for sexual contact with members of the opposite sex, a preference for sexual contact with members of one's own sex, or complete neutrality. Complete neutrality is rare. The normal condition among those three is preference for sexual contact with members of the opposite sex. And that's the orientation that is consistent with the biological function underlying sexuality.

Once you depart from that...from the drive to copulate with a member of the opposite sex...you're basically in the same realm. It is no more misdirected for an adult male to be primarily attracted to six year old females than it is for him to be attracted to other adult males. In fact it's probably less so because at least the attraction to six year old females is kind of related to the underlying basis.

A normal, healthy sex drive is going to be primarily directed at members of one's own species but of the opposite sex. Once you depart from that it's all the same. If an adult male human is attracted to a female chicken that is no more misdirected than an adult male human being attracted to another adult male human. Every bit as pointless when it comes to what the whole point of the sex drive is.

Why is being biologically "normal" more important than being morally and ethically normal?

Because it supports his newfound affiliation with christian fundamentalism. Dude was an agnostic and found god on AGS.

Didn't think "linear thinkers" could be christian.

[Chizzang]

Well, I don't know what Pastor Warren's take was but there are valid comparisons. From the standpoint of misdirection of sexual orientation, pedophilia is no more misdirected than homosexuality is. There is one normal basic sexual orientation. Yes, I know that we like to obscure that by making up various scales, etc. But one either had a preference for sexual contact with members of the opposite sex, a preference for sexual contact with members of one's own sex, or complete neutrality. Complete neutrality is rare. The normal condition among those three is preference for sexual contact with members of the opposite sex. And that's the orientation that is consistent with the biological function underlying sexuality.

Once you depart from that...from the drive to copulate with a member of the opposite sex...you're basically in the same realm. It is no more misdirected for an adult male to be primarily attracted to six year old females than it is for him to be attracted to other adult males. In fact it's probably less so because at least the attraction to six year old females is kind of related to the underlying basis.

A normal, healthy sex drive is going to be primarily directed at members of one's own species but of the opposite sex. Once you depart from that it's all the same. If an adult male human is attracted to a female chicken that is no more misdirected than an adult male human being attracted to another adult male human. Every bit as pointless when it comes to what the whole point of the sex drive is.

That's a whole bunch of biological Jibberish St.Wrong
Firstly sex is about Consenting mutual approval between the parties involved (Period)
So the idea that pedophilia is "no more misdirected than homosexuality" is a weak justification for an obvious abuse of power over children...

A)Two consenting adults performing homosexual acts is really nobody's business...

B) Pedophilia is a psychological disorder where deranged neurotic predators physically abuse helpless children

There is a HUGE difference... (which we all understand you don't see)

Also as a side note:
Using the biological drive flow chart from your post - just about every form of violence (including murder) is also fairly natural and in accord with our natural biological drive - therefore is reasonable and acceptable - BUT I think we all agree it's better if individuals do not have the freedom to just kill at will - as natural and biologically normal as it is... even though violence is a measurable chartable and even logical reaction to multiple different types of situations it's still best if it's "regulated"

Now if we have two consenting adults that want to fight - go for it

Does any of this make sense..?

[JohnStOnge]

Using the biological drive flow chart from your post - just about every form of violence (including murder) is also fairly natural and in accord with our natural biological drive - therefore is reasonable and acceptable - BUT I think we all agree it's better if individuals do not have the freedom to just kill at will - as natural and biologically normal as it is... even though violence is a measurable chartable and even logical reaction to multiple different types of situations it's still best if it's "regulated"

I didn't say that sex with chlldren should be legalized. I just said that there are valid comparisons between homosexuality and pedophilia. Maybe I should've used the singular "comparison." Sex exists because it facilitates reproduction. I believe in evolution so I believe it evolved among organisms with that basic underlying function. But even if you don't believe in evolution you should be able to see that it has that basic population function. Say you're sexually mature male. You have a sex organ that fits a certain activity associated with sex organs of the opposite sex. Climax is accompanied by emission of sex cells that have a clear "purpose" in the context of biology. Why is it that you think the emission of sex cells is associated with a feeling of intense pleasure? Could it be that it results in a desire to do something that results in the emission of sex cells? So on and so forth.

Anyway, if you're a male (for example) and your sex drive is directed primarily towards five year old females (as opposed to sexually mature females) your sex drive is misdirected. It's also misdirected if it's directed primarily towards other males. If it's primarily directed towards anything other than sexually mature females it's misdirected. Pedophilia and homosexuality have the fact that they both represent sex drives that are misdirected in that way.

Questions about what should and shouldn't be allowed are a different matter. I think consenting adults should be allowed to engage in homosexual contact with each other if they wish and I don't think an adult should be allowed to engage in sex with a five year old. But homosexuality and true pedophilia do have something pretty fundamental in common.

[kalm]

Using the biological drive flow chart from your post - just about every form of violence (including murder) is also fairly natural and in accord with our natural biological drive - therefore is reasonable and acceptable - BUT I think we all agree it's better if individuals do not have the freedom to just kill at will - as natural and biologically normal as it is... even though violence is a measurable chartable and even logical reaction to multiple different types of situations it's still best if it's "regulated"

I didn't say that sex with chlldren should be legalized. I just said that there are valid comparisons between homosexuality and pedophilia. Maybe I should've used the singular "comparison." Sex exists because it facilitates reproduction. I believe in evolution so I believe it evolved among organisms with that basic underlying function. But even if you don't believe in evolution you should be able to see that it has that basic population function. Say you're sexually mature male. You have a sex organ that fits a certain activity associated with sex organs of the opposite sex. Climax is accompanied by emission of sex cells that have a clear "purpose" in the context of biology. Why is it that you think the emission of sex cells is associated with a feeling of intense pleasure? Could it be that it results in a desire to do something that results in the emission of sex cells? So on and so forth.

Anyway, if you're a male (for example) and your sex drive is directed primarily towards five year old females (as opposed to sexually mature females) your sex drive is misdirected. It's also misdirected if it's directed primarily towards other males. If it's primarily directed towards anything other than sexually mature females it's misdirected. Pedophilia and homosexuality have the fact that they both represent sex drives that are misdirected in that way.

Questions about what should and shouldn't be allowed are a different matter. I think consenting adults should be allowed to engage in homosexual contact with each other if they wish and I don't think an adult should be allowed to engage in sex with a five year old. But homosexuality and true pedophilia do have something pretty fundamental in common.

Haven't females as young as 10 become pregnant?

[BlueHen86]

Questions about what should and shouldn't be allowed are a different matter. I think consenting adults should be allowed to engage in homosexual contact with each other if they wish and I don't think an adult should be allowed to engage in sex with a five year old. But homosexuality and true pedophilia do have something pretty fundamental in common.

That is a trivial and unimportant connection at best. Pedophiles prey on their "parters", homosexuals do not.

Seems to me that, by your definition, masturbation is also a sign of a misguided sex drive, as is the use of contraceptives.

[D1B]

Questions about what should and shouldn't be allowed are a different matter. I think consenting adults should be allowed to engage in homosexual contact with each other if they wish and I don't think an adult should be allowed to engage in sex with a five year old. But homosexuality and true pedophilia do have something pretty fundamental in common.

That is a trivial and unimportant connection at best. Pedophiles prey on their "parters", homosexuals do not.

Seems to me that, by your definition, masturbation is also a sign of a misguided sex drive, as is the use of contraceptives.

Don't question the great linear thinker!

[andy7171]

Regardless, any reasonable person will agree that sex with a six year old is wrong while sex with a consenting adult of the same sex is a right of the two consenting adults.

What about the drive to copulate with members of your own body?

I ain't officially gay, but sex with another man is much less "misdirected" than sex with a chicken.

I'm not so sure about that. I've seen some pretty hot hens in my day.

[mainejeff]

Will Palin or Huckabee promote similar policies to Uganda in 2012???

[BlueHen86]

I ain't officially gay, but sex with another man is much less "misdirected" than sex with a chicken.

I'm not so sure about that. I've seen some pretty hot hens in my day.

If you think hens are hot, you should check out pigeons.

[andy7171]

I'm not so sure about that. I've seen some pretty hot hens in my day.

If you think hens are hot, you should check out pigeons.

Pigeons are the "screamers" of the avian porn world.

[D1B]

Will Palin or Huckabee promote similar policies to Uganda in 2012???

As christians, they indirectly support them now.

[AZGrizFan]

If you think hens are hot, you should check out pigeons.

Pigeons are the "screamers" of the avian porn world.

Early candidate for post of the year.

[andy7171]

Pigeons are the "screamers" of the avian porn world.

Early candidate for post of the year.

I occasionally hit a HR.

Speaking of post of the year, where are Cap'ns yearly awards?

[Chizzang]

Using the biological drive flow chart from your post - just about every form of violence (including murder) is also fairly natural and in accord with our natural biological drive - therefore is reasonable and acceptable - BUT I think we all agree it's better if individuals do not have the freedom to just kill at will - as natural and biologically normal as it is... even though violence is a measurable chartable and even logical reaction to multiple different types of situations it's still best if it's "regulated"

I didn't say that sex with chlldren should be legalized. I just said that there are valid comparisons between homosexuality and pedophilia. Maybe I should've used the singular "comparison." Sex exists because it facilitates reproduction. I believe in evolution so I believe it evolved among organisms with that basic underlying function. But even if you don't believe in evolution you should be able to see that it has that basic population function. Say you're sexually mature male. You have a sex organ that fits a certain activity associated with sex organs of the opposite sex. Climax is accompanied by emission of sex cells that have a clear "purpose" in the context of biology. Why is it that you think the emission of sex cells is associated with a feeling of intense pleasure? Could it be that it results in a desire to do something that results in the emission of sex cells? So on and so forth.

Anyway, if you're a male (for example) and your sex drive is directed primarily towards five year old females (as opposed to sexually mature females) your sex drive is misdirected. It's also misdirected if it's directed primarily towards other males. If it's primarily directed towards anything other than sexually mature females it's misdirected. Pedophilia and homosexuality have the fact that they both represent sex drives that are misdirected in that way.

Questions about what should and shouldn't be allowed are a different matter. I think consenting adults should be allowed to engage in homosexual contact with each other if they wish and I don't think an adult should be allowed to engage in sex with a five year old. But homosexuality and true pedophilia do have something pretty fundamental in common.

It sounds to me like you're saying:
The singular Sexual drive that supports healthy reproduction = Normal sex drive
Any other type of Sex drive that does not support reproduction = Abnormal sex drive

And to a degree - strictly on a biological evolutionary level I will concede that

Following your argument to it's logical end:
But We have to also recognize (and in the same line of thought) that Pedophiles typically have multiple psychological dysfunctions - and pedophilia is typically only one manifestation of a series of deep issues

There is no evidence that suggests Homosexuals have more inclination towards dangerous psychosis or neurosis than humans with biologically normal sexual impulses

My Point: Pedophiles routinely tend to be physically a danger to society - the numbers suggest that a huge percentage of serial killers are also pedophiles as well as exhibiting other sexual issues - Pedophilia also coincides and is commonly present with personality disorders and several types of delusional behavior

Homosexuals on the contrary often have completely normal healthy childhoods - something virtually zero pedophiles and psychotics can claim - and homosexuality seems to have no connection to any other unusual behavior except a higher than normal percentage of Alcoholism and drug abuse - which most psychologists contend is mostly a byproduct of societal pressures and fear...

[Skjellyfetti]

Saw this and reminded me of this thread... though more incest vs. same sex marriage:



How fucking pathetic is it that incest is more widely condoned and accepted by states.

[CID1990]

Saw this and reminded me of this thread... though more incest vs. same sex marriage:



How **** pathetic is it that incest is more widely condoned and accepted by states.

SK...

I don't really care about this argument and I'm not against you or with on it, but your map is inaccurate. I know for a fact that in both SC and NC it is not legal to marry your first cousin. It is legal to marry your second cousin.

Either the National Conf. of State Legislatures has inaccurate info, or whoever put them maps together read it incorrectly. It was once legal to marry a first cousin in NC and SC, but that was a long time ago. I do not know about the other states.

[AZGrizFan]

Here's a different cut on just cousins marrying:

[Skjellyfetti]

SK...

I don't really care about this argument and I'm not against you or with on it, but your map is inaccurate. I know for a fact that in both SC and NC it is not legal to marry your first cousin. It is legal to marry your second cousin.

Either the National Conf. of State Legislatures has inaccurate info, or whoever put them maps together read it incorrectly. It was once legal to marry a first cousin in NC and SC, but that was a long time ago. I do not know about the other states.

According to their site... it is legal to marry your first cousin in South Carolina. In North Carolina it is legal to marry your first cousin but not your "double first cousin" (not entirely sure what that is).

http://www.ncsl.org/default.aspx?tabid=4266

Their figures are from August of 2008... so it's possible they're outdated... but I doubt it. If their info is wrong post something credible showing that it is.

[danefan]

SK...

I don't really care about this argument and I'm not against you or with on it, but your map is inaccurate. I know for a fact that in both SC and NC it is not legal to marry your first cousin. It is legal to marry your second cousin.

Either the National Conf. of State Legislatures has inaccurate info, or whoever put them maps together read it incorrectly. It was once legal to marry a first cousin in NC and SC, but that was a long time ago. I do not know about the other states.

According to their site... it is legal to marry your first cousin in South Carolina. In North Carolina it is legal to marry your first cousin but not your "double first cousin" (not entirely sure what that is).

http://www.ncsl.org/default.aspx?tabid=4266

Their figures are from August of 2008... so it's possible they're outdated... but I doubt it. If their info is wrong post something credible showing that it is.

Double first cousin would be the following example:

Jim and Bob are brothers.
Rita and Shirly are sisters.

Jim marries Rita and they have a baby (Bill).
Bob marries Shirly and they have a baby (Susy).

Susy and Bill are both maternal and paternal first cousins and thus "Double Cousins".
















I just made that shit up..........but it certainly sounds right.

[dbackjon]

You are correct, DaneFan

[CID1990]

When I say it might be dated, I mean by a long time. It was illegal to marry your first cousin in NC when I was a teenager, so that's back in the 1980s.

Maybe they changed the law since then to make it legal? I doubt it. That would be political suicide for whatever lawmaker would introduce the bill.

[Skjellyfetti]

Their figures are from August of 2008... so it's possible they're outdated... but I doubt it. If their info is wrong post something credible showing that it is.

When I say it might be dated, I mean by a long time. It was illegal to marry your first cousin in NC when I was a teenager, so that's back in the 1980s.

Maybe they changed the law since then to make it legal? I doubt it. That would be political suicide for whatever lawmaker would introduce the bill.

link or it didn't happen

[JohnStOnge]

But We have to also recognize (and in the same line of thought) that Pedophiles typically have multiple psychological dysfunctions - and pedophilia is typically only one manifestation of a series of deep issues

There is no evidence that suggests Homosexuals have more inclination towards dangerous psychosis or neurosis than humans with biologically normal sexual impulses

I have never looked into evidence for an association between pedophilia and other problems. Also, I know that the statement about lack of association between homosexuality and other problems is the message sent by the psychiatric and psychological sciences. However, I do not trust the people in the psychiatric and psychological sciences when it comes to this issue. My belief is that, decades ago, a critical mass among people in those fields was reached such that assessment of issues related to homosexuality ceased to be objective and a crusade to "liberate" homosexuals emerged. Here is an example of what I'm talking about:

http://www.well.com/user/aquarius/hooker.htm


That is a seminal study bearing upon the issue you're talking about (association between homosexuality and other problems). First of all, I think the editorial note reflects the bias I'm talking about. Second, the methodology of the study is horrible yet it was enthusiastically embraced. Most aggregious is the fact that the investigator screened participants in this way:

"In both groups subjects were eliminated who were in therapy at the time. "

That's pretty bad considering that the point of the study was to "show" that homosexuality is not associated with disturbance. There is no way she should've been excluding anybody on the basis of disturbance.

There are plenty of other methological problems. If that study had been one telling people in the field something they didn't want to hear it would've been torn to pieces.