Would Jesus speak out against homosexuality today?

[Aaron]

Asking homosexual people to be straight is exactly the same as asking heterosexual people to be gay.

Does this line of think apply to alcholics, drug users, pedifiles or canabolism? And I don't want you to use the argument that all of those things are actually wrong whereas consensual gay sex is okay. Because that's not what I am asking. What I wish to explore is whether or not it would be fair to expect an alcholic to not want to drink or a pedifile to not want to molest a child?

[NH Baritone]

Asking homosexual people to be straight is exactly the same as asking heterosexual people to be gay.

Does this line of think apply to alcholics, drug users, pedifiles or canabolism? And I don't want you to use the argument that all of those things are actually wrong whereas consensual gay sex is okay. Because that's not what I am asking. What I wish to explore is whether or not it would be fair to expect an alcholic to not want to drink or a pedifile to not want to molest a child?

You are mixing things that have no place together in the same discussion. If you followed the same combination strategy in cooking, you would be trying to justify cooking with WD-40.

I suggest you focus on what causes harm and what does not. You may discover the difference between your list and homosexuality, a difference that others here see but that you seem blind to.

(By the way, did you know that Firefox has a spell-checker? It might give you just enough coaching to make you appear literate. But then again, it doesn't work miracles.)

[Aaron]

You may discover the difference between your list and homosexuality, a difference that others here see but that you seem blind to.

Yeah thats what I thought would be the response around here, I tried to steer away from it, I did. But you didn't answer my question: should we expect all those bad people to give up thier bad habits and bad desires?

By the way, did you know that Firefox has a spell-checker? It might give you just enough coaching to make you appear literate.

You don't know how long spelling has plagued me, I try I really do, but Firefox is a good suggestion, I just don't like using it. But yeah I agree spelling is important, I wish I was better, hopefully you can deduce what I'm trying to say and forgive my ignorance.

[NH Baritone]

You may discover the difference between your list and homosexuality, a difference that others here see but that you seem blind to.

Yeah thats what I thought would be the response around here, I tried to steer away from it, I did. But you didn't answer my question: should we expect all those bad people to give up thier bad habits and bad desires?

I didn't answer because it was irrelevant, in precisely the same way that machine lubricants are irrelevant when discussing the ingredients in a chef's salad.

(One of these things is not like the others,
One of these things is not the same...)

GOT IT?????

You cite things that cause undeniable harm, and so of course it is reasonable to reduce harm by helping the person change their behavior. But in order to tie your list together, you are required to prove that there is equivalent harm that arises from homosexuality. The rules of logic will not allow you any other route. And if you are going to tell me to abandon the only capacity for romantic love that I & my beloved possess, then you had better have an indisputably beneficial reason. If some doctor were to tell you never to make love again, then you would have every right to know why. I, too, have that right.

(Just a hint, though, I'm old enough and I've been around the block enough times to tell you: You won't find a good reason. You will, however, find a truck load of unsubstantiated claims by bigoted individuals who prey upon the simpletons of the world.)

By the way, did you know that Firefox has a spell-checker? It might give you just enough coaching to make you appear literate.

You don't know how long spelling has plagued me, I try I really do, but Firefox is a good suggestion, I just don't like using it. But yeah I agree spelling is important, I wish I was better, hopefully you can deduce what I'm trying to say and forgive my ignorance.

You apparently have a learning difference that you didn't ask for that prevents you from achieving something that others find relatively easy.

So imagine if someone told you that if you didn't learn to spell, you would go to hell. Starting now, and from this point forward. It's your own damned fault, you lazy fool. If you don't spell correctly, then you're just like the drug dealer who won't give up his habit. You're just like a wife-beating drunk, too caught up in his own self to notice anyone else's needs. Poor spelling where children can see it is child abuse, and if you don't learn to spell like an English teacher, I might just call Child Protective Services to report you.

Now of course, I don't believe any of that stuff about you. But in contrast, you believe it about me. You ask me to abandon romantic love for the rest of my life, while you're not even willing to switch browsers. Mister, what kind of self-righteous, narrow-minded upbringing did you have, anyway?

[OzAnt]

Hi Aaron,

Does this line of think apply to alcholics, drug users, pedifiles or canabolism? And I don't want you to use the argument that all of those things are actually wrong whereas consensual gay sex is okay. Because that's not what I am asking. What I wish to explore is whether or not it would be fair to expect an alcholic to not want to drink or a pedifile to not want to molest a child?

As NHB points out, you're mixing apples and oranges. I'm glad you asked though, because it shows that you're thinking.

Let's look at each of these and who gets hurt:

• Alcoholism: People under the influence of significant amounts of alcohol have the propensity to do harm. People regret their actions whilst under the influence of alcohol all the time. Innocent people are killed on a regular basis by alcoholics (fighting, drink driving, crimes of passion, etc)
• Drug users: Same as above, but with illegal mind-altering substances.
• Paedophiles: Little kids. Little kids that, as well as needing their parent's and family's protection; need society's protection.
• Cannibalism: Surely you don't need me to explain this one to you.

Looking at it from this perspective, I think it's very fair to have society make laws on these activities and strive to ensure that other members of society agree to abide by these laws.

Now, who gets hurt if a gay person engages in a romantic relationship with another consenting gay person? This is the question you need to be asking yourself. The reality is that gay people get hurt when they're told they CAN'T HAVE a romantic relationship that their heart yearns for.

The other bit of the reality is that straight people are hurt when gays are told to not be gay. Don't believe me? Imagine marrying a closeted lesbian, Aaron. How deep a relationship do you think you're ever going to have? What if it all gets too much for her (as is so often the case) and she comes out of the closet years later? How's that going to make you feel? How might any kids you have with her feel? Don't forget too, that she's not into heterosexual sex - which means that she's never really completely consenting to the sex - which means that rape is occurring. And whilst the rape is not your doing (it's the fault of societal laws), being a participant isn't going to make you feel good, is it?

Personally, I think it would be fairer for society to make it law that it's a crime NOT to make clear what your sexual persuasion is, rather than force society's gay members to suppress their natural preference.

Ant

[NH Baritone]

Personally, I think it would be fairer for society to make it law that it's a crime NOT to make clear what your sexual persuasion is, rather than force society's gay members to suppress their natural preference.

I know better than to take this literally, but for those whose abstract thinking hasn't been out of the garage in a long time, let me point some things out:

Awareness of sexual orientation is an emerging process, and indeed, sexual orientation does not necessarily resolve itself in a a black-or-white fashion. In a society with a strong heterosexual bias, children grow into adults believing that they, of course, should be straight. Variations from that cultural expectation are extremely scary, and sheer terror causes both men & women to deny gay or bi feelings and to try to cultivate heterosexual feelings that either don't exist or exist only minimally.

So the upshot is that many people can't bring themselves to admit that they're gay until later in life. It falls well within the norm for people to remain in denial about their own sexuality well into their 20s or 30s. Indeed, I've known guys who didn't come out until they were in their 60s.

I recommend that everyone leave the laws about this off the books, and instead educate everyone that sexuality is a multi-colored experience so that people are encouraged to understand themselves as early as possible.

[Aaron]

Okay, okay you guys have made your point. There is a difference, I admitted it from the very beginning, gay sex appears not to be harmful - I say appears because I believe it is, but that's my opinion which I'm sure you have all already guessed by now - anyways I don't really care about that, thats not what I want to argue about. I just want to know, should we expect a pedifile to give up thier desire to rape little kids? Yes we all know its horrible and wrong, obviously that guy has some really perverted desires. Should we expect him to change? Obviously we expect him to knock it off, we expect someone to never actually do it, but can we expect that person to get rid of that desire inside of himself? What do you think?

[NH Baritone]

Okay, okay you guys have made your point. There is a difference, I admitted it from the very beginning, gay sex appears not to be harmful - I say appears because I believe it is, but that's my opinion which I'm sure you have all already guessed by now

An opinion unaffected by actual evidence. I therefore have a straightforward request to make: Never, ever cast a vote in any election. Leave the decisions to the people who actually care about reality.

- anyways I don't really care about that, thats not what I want to argue about.

That's exactly what you wanted to argue about.

I just want to know, should we expect a pedifile to give up thier desire to rape little kids? Yes we all know its horrible and wrong, obviously that guy has some really perverted desires. Should we expect him to change? Obviously we expect him to knock it off, we expect someone to never actually do it, but can we expect that person to get rid of that desire inside of himself? What do you think?

Current research suggests that a person who engages in pedophilia not only desires sex with children, but also has other diagnosable psychiatric condition(s). Among these are personality disorders, such as Antisocial Personality Disorder, Narcissistic Personality Disorder, or Borderline Personality Disorder. Each of these conditions (which, by the way, are resistant to treatment) impair a person's ability to gain empathy with their victims. Treatment for child molesters has to focus on the co-occurring problems, and has to be intensive and usually mandated by the courts to lower drop-out rates.

It is entirely reasonable to expect that pedophiles gain control of their sexual behavior and never again perpetrate sexual abuse on a minor. However, we cannot expect them never to WANT to have sex with a child. (As a matter of fact, effective treatment requires that they share when such desires are triggered.) We can order them into treatment, place them on a watch list, and jail them when they fail to follow through or violate terms of parole or probation, but we do not have the capacity to change peoples thoughts. In fact, there's a lot of evidence that pedophiles continue to experience fantasies about children even after effective treatment. They just don't cultivate such fantasies or engage in planning to carry them out.

[OzAnt]

Hi NHB,

I know better than to take this literally...

Thank you . It was a follow on thought from the previous paragraph where I state that societal laws are actually creating problems for straight people by imposing religious views on gay people - and that I think I'd favour the other extreme in preference to the current/recent anti gay laws. It appears you got that out of what I wrote.

Awareness of sexual orientation is an emerging process, and indeed, sexual orientation does not necessarily resolve itself in a a black-or-white fashion.

I gotta say, I don't get this. Perhaps it would be more accurate to say I can't relate to it (just like I can't relate to vandalism. I went through a rebellious stage, and not once did I have the urge to destroy or damage a stranger's property). I know that my sexual orientation was exceedingly clear to me by the time I was about 15. This was about the time I first got to see nekkid men and women in magazines (from the local newsagent's skip bin - yes, boys and girls, this was in the days before the interwebz). A naked bloke has never been a turn-on for me. A naked chick on the other hand, unless she was like 22 stone or generally hideous, has never failed to... well, you get the idea. Wet dreams? Women. Fantasies? Women. So, whilst I intellectually understand that bisexual people exist, I can't relate to them. As such, they bother me a bit (in the same way that vandals do). It'd be like being at a game of footy and there's the bisexual person cheering when either side kicks a goal. It just ain't right

[NOTE: I can relate to gay people, because I have no trouble understanding that, for instance, a gay male is just as attracted to another male as I am to a female - or that a gay female is just as attracted to another female as I am. In this sense, putting myself in their shoes, is straightforward.]

In a society with a strong heterosexual bias, children grow into adults believing that they, of course, should be straight. Variations from that cultural expectation are extremely scary, and sheer terror causes both men & women to deny gay or bi feelings and to try to cultivate heterosexual feelings that either don't exist or exist only minimally.

So the upshot is that many people can't bring themselves to admit that they're gay until later in life. It falls well within the norm for people to remain in denial about their own sexuality well into their 20s or 30s. Indeed, I've known guys who didn't come out until they were in their 60s.

Mmmm, but I see these people as not so much being confused, but rather repressed. Eventually, it's the living a lie that becomes too much for them. In fact, if they were bisexual (and I'm talkin' 50/50 tendencies here), then surely their ability to experience a more fulfilling relationship by changing partners to one of the same sex, isn't going to improve any.

I recommend that everyone leave the laws about this off the books...

In case there's any doubt, I do agree with this

...and instead educate everyone that sexuality is a multi-colored experience so that people are encouraged to understand themselves as early as possible.

...which in my head still translates to, pick a side FFS!

I'm not being argumentative here, NHB. I'm just explaining where I'm at and how I see things.

Ant

[Mr. Sluagh]

Okay, okay you guys have made your point. There is a difference, I admitted it from the very beginning, gay sex appears not to be harmful - I say appears because I believe it is, but that's my opinion which I'm sure you have all already guessed by now - anyways I don't really care about that, thats not what I want to argue about. I just want to know, should we expect a pedifile to give up thier desire to rape little kids? Yes we all know its horrible and wrong, obviously that guy has some really perverted desires. Should we expect him to change? Obviously we expect him to knock it off, we expect someone to never actually do it, but can we expect that person to get rid of that desire inside of himself? What do you think?

Yes. You are right. Your analogy between homosexuality and paedophilia is valid (internally consistent) under the assumption that homosexuality is harmful. In order for your analogy to be sound (externally consistent), however, you need to prove the premise that homosexuality is in fact harmful.

I think we can all agree that in the hypothetical alternate reality where homosexuality is somehow as harmful as paedophilia, homosexuality should be illegal. There isn't much of an argument to be had in that alternate reality. You've stacked the deck in your favor. In our reality, on the other hand, you still have yet to prove that homosexuality is at all harmful, which is a vital part of your argument.

[ScottBarger]

OK, a bit off topic here, but let me know what you think...

A couple of months ago I was talking to a guy who had recently interviewed a grizzled old homicide detective somewhere in California (I can't remember where...I think San Fran, but I could be wrong).

According to the guy I was talking to, the detective told him that it was easy to spot gay on gay crimes because they were far and above more violent than "your average crime." According to the detective, a murder scene where the victim was gay and the alleged assailant was also gay was typically more violent than other murder scenes because of what was done to the body, the amount of blood, etc.

Now, I have NEVER heard this before, and I am not sure that I believe it. The guy I talked to believed it and apparently saw pictures...but I still don't know. I poked around online to see if I found anyone else talking about this, but haven't found anything. Has anyone else heard this? Could anyone validate the truthfulness or untruthfulness of the above story?

[Mr. Sluagh]

OK, a bit off topic here, but let me know what you think...

A couple of months ago I was talking to a guy who had recently interviewed a grizzled old homicide detective somewhere in California (I can't remember where...I think San Fran, but I could be wrong).

According to the guy I was talking to, the detective told him that it was easy to spot gay on gay crimes because they were far and above more violent than "your average crime." According to the detective, a murder scene where the victim was gay and the alleged assailant was also gay was typically more violent than other murder scenes because of what was done to the body, the amount of blood, etc.

Now, I have NEVER heard this before, and I am not sure that I believe it. The guy I talked to believed it and apparently saw pictures...but I still don't know. I poked around online to see if I found anyone else talking about this, but haven't found anything. Has anyone else heard this? Could anyone validate the truthfulness or untruthfulness of the above story?

If I had to guess (and that's all I'm doing), I'd say drugs. From what I've heard (just hearsay, mind you), there's still a vibrant gay club scene in San Francisco left over from the 70s with a lot of meth and ecstasy. This is what happens when you marginalize people. (Not that homosexuals are by any means the only people doing drugs in San Freakingcisco.) If you wanted to draw any correlation between homosexuality and violence, one of many steps you'd have to take beyond the initial hearsay would be to see what other correlations there might be in those cases.

And again, this is just more vague rumors and stereotypes that float over from across the Bay, and aren't at all consistent with my personal encounters with gay people here in the East Bay. (Not that those are statistically significant, either.)

[Aaron]

In order for your analogy to be sound (externally consistent), however, you need to prove the premise that homosexuality is in fact harmful.

No I don't think I do. You are still not understanding my point. It doesn't matter if the thing a person does is good or bad. The question I would like to ask is can we expect something that seems to be rooted deep within a person to be changed? How does that have anything to do with the moral issues of the thing we wish to change?

[NH Baritone]

OK, a bit off topic here, but let me know what you think...

A couple of months ago I was talking to a guy who had recently interviewed a grizzled old homicide detective somewhere in California (I can't remember where...I think San Fran, but I could be wrong).

According to the guy I was talking to, the detective told him that it was easy to spot gay on gay crimes because they were far and above more violent than "your average crime." According to the detective, a murder scene where the victim was gay and the alleged assailant was also gay was typically more violent than other murder scenes because of what was done to the body, the amount of blood, etc.

Now, I have NEVER heard this before, and I am not sure that I believe it. The guy I talked to believed it and apparently saw pictures...but I still don't know. I poked around online to see if I found anyone else talking about this, but haven't found anything. Has anyone else heard this? Could anyone validate the truthfulness or untruthfulness of the above story?

I was going to draw a similar analogy about pastors, based on what I had heard from a survivor of sexual abuse.

But then again, I don't want to sound like a bigoted, rumor-mongering, character-assassinating asshole.

[Emery]

In order for your analogy to be sound (externally consistent), however, you need to prove the premise that homosexuality is in fact harmful.

No I don't think I do. You are still not understanding my point. It doesn't matter if the thing a person does is good or bad. The question I would like to ask is can we expect something that seems to be rooted deep within a person to be changed? How does that have anything to do with the moral issues of the thing we wish to change?

Hey Aaron, I do not think we can expect people to change much. A pedophile most likely cannot stop being attracted to little kids. A Mother Theresa cannot help being concerned about little kids. And a heterosexual person cannot stop being attracted to the opposite sex, and a homosexual person cannot stop being attracted to the same sex.

So the moral of the story is that we all have proclivities we can't control. The only thing that separates us is what these proclivities happen to be. And if I'm cursed with a harmful one (I am overly aggressive, for example), then I must curb it because of the harm it causes people. But if I'm overly sunny and happy, I may be annoying, but not generally harmful, so no societal need to really change.

So the only real issue is what proclivities are harmful, and what aren't. And we adjust our rules accordingly.

Therefore, to answer your question, no we cannot expect the pedophile to change, except in rare instances. What we can do is keep him away from kids and try to minimize the harm he does to society, while trying what counseling we can. Does that address your question?