Does "unrelated" mean something else in your language?  

 

Pedophilia is a psychological disorder which produces sexual urges or fantasies about prepubescent kids. Though inconclusive as to it's cause, many argue pedophilia is caused by neurological abnormalities or psychological pathologies.    Though no conclusive evidence has been found for this, there are also those who believe pedophiles are "created" by confused kids who are molested and get their souls stolen from them who grow older and think..  "this is what I am supposed to do."   [molest littler kids]  


 

How is that related to biological makeup?  Oh it isn't?  So if I am arguing that I feel being LGBT is most easily explained through a biological explanation and that being gay or trans is NOT a psychological disorder, can you understand why I can continue to take the position that they are UNRELATED?  

 

This article is not talking about being gay having anything to do with a psychological disorder.  Do you reject it's validity?  

 

http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2015/10/h...ations-dna

 

What about the thousands of species that also exhibit homosexual behavior in the wild?  Is it such a wide gap in logic to say...  hmmm..  all these animals are doing it..  surely they are not doing it due to societal pressures.  Maybe some of their brains are not developed enough for it to be psychological..  If thousands of species do it and humans do too...  maybe it's biological?  I assume you don't reject that lions and penguins and swans and well..  pretty much all animals do it despite the fact there is no genetic passing of the torch which can ever come from it.

 

Your moral impediment tells you that sexuality (straight or gay) is not a normal, healthy part of a person's personality.  I would argue that discovering your sexuality is a rite of passage and a huge building block when discovering your sense of self.  Even if your view of sexuality is so chaste you are only able to accept it for what it is by choosing to be with someone who shares these same conservative views of sexuality.  I know people who remained virgins until marriage.  That worked for them.  It doesn't work for the majority of people.

 

The issue with you is that you view all sexuality as immoral unless it fits the constructs of your chosen belief system (i.e. - one man/one woman, no premarital sex, etc.)  Therefore it is easy for you to link being LGBT with any number of despicable sexual perversions like pedophilia, incest and rape. Despite the fact the leading theories for the cause of being LGBT are biological in nature and the leading theory for the cause of pedophilia is psychological.

 

If a gay or trans person acts on their desires, they are not doing anything different from what every teenager in the world goes through.  If/when a pedophile acts on their desires they are committing a heinous and unforgivable crime. There are some pedophiles who acknowledge this and confess to their urges publicly as they know they are thoughts that are not right and acting on them harms innocent kids.  Any LGBT person who confesses publicly their urges which they feel are not right are doing so to appease others (usually a congregation or their family) because they have been indoctrinated with this same belief system which tells them they are morally unclean or impure. This explains the statistics of drug/alcohol abuse, depression, homelessness and suicide among the LGBT community.  They are told by parents, society and church leaders just where they are going and why, despite the fact they never had a say in who they are.

 

So pretty please with sugar on top..  STOP trying to link these two vastly different classifications.  It is offensive.  It is ignorant.  You can say...  well neither has a choice.  That is the only remote similarity.  I would argue the reasons why could not be further from the same.

 

I would also argue people do not have a choice in their natural hair or eye color or skin tone. It is in their biological makeup. People DO however have a choice regarding what faith to follow or not follow (and I could make an argument that people who are fanatical religious zealots also suffer from a psychological disorder despite the fact their condition is one of choice.).  People also have a choice on whether or not they are willfully ignorant. Continuing to link being LGBT to pedophilia would only reinforce the perception I have that you are willfully ignorant.  I would love for you to prove me wrong.

At one time being gay was considered a mental illness.  The definition you provided even states that two theories are being debated concerning pedophilia but neither is conclusive at this time.  

 

You have asked that others consider ideals that are different from their own and then condemn for not coming to the same conclusion as you do.  If you cannot see nor even consider the parallel that JJ is offering then you are being as close minded as those you condemn.

---

Original Season Ticket Holder - Retired  1995 - 2020


At some point you just have to let go of what you thought should happen and live in what is happening.
 

At one time being gay was considered a mental illness.  The definition you provided even states that two theories are being debated concerning pedophilia but neither is conclusive at this time.  

 

You have asked that others consider ideals that are different from their own and then condemn for not coming to the same conclusion as you do.  If you cannot see nor even consider the parallel that JJ is offering then you are being as close minded as those you condemn.

My last two points exactly. It's not worth the back and forth with him.

---

TravC59, aka JacksJags. @TravC59 on Twitter
;
; "This is really good, you want a bite, Honey?"

Linking LGBT to pedophilia is completely ignorant.  But it's not surprising to see who it's coming from.  The same people who want tolerance (and beyond) when it comes to their beliefs but certainly don't provide it for others.  I'm not sure they know what 'tolerance' is.  

---

I was wrong about Trent Baalke. 

Linking LGBT to pedophilia is completely ignorant.  But it's not surprising to see who it's coming from.  The same people who want tolerance (and beyond) when it comes to their beliefs but certainly don't provide it for others.  I'm not sure they know what 'tolerance' is.  

 

Why exactly? It's a difference in personal sexual preference that may be biological. Exactly like LGBT.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

Why exactly? It's a difference in personal sexual preference that may be biological. Exactly like LGBT.

 

Oh, I don't know...the whole consenting adults thing might have something to do with why it's not "exactly like LGBT." Come on, man...you're being intentionally disingenuous with that statement.

---

<i>Behold man's final mad disgrace.</i>

<i>He chops his nose to spite his face.</i>

 

-Etrigan the Demon

 

Why not link being straight to Pedophilia then?  After all, being straight may be biological just like Pedophilia.  It's special pleading to do otherwise.  The clear difference is a simple matter of consent.  A man and woman can have sex, but if a man has sex without a woman's consent, then it's considered 'wrong'.  Two men can have sex, but if a man has sex with another man without the other man's consent, then it's considered 'wrong'. A child is not capable of giving consent.  They're not mentally mature enough to.  They're also easily manipulated.  Much like if you roofie a person, it's still considered rape.  Or if you get someone too drunk where they are incapable of giving consent, it can be considered rape.  

---

I was wrong about Trent Baalke. 

Oh, I don't know...the whole consenting adults thing might have something to do with why it's not "exactly like LGBT." Come on, man...you're being intentionally disingenuous with that statement.

 

No, we are not talking law, we're talking science. What, exactly, is the difference between a sexual preference for children vs homosexuality. If it really is "I was born this way" then why are we stopping with societal restrictions on age?

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

Scientifically, children are believed to be incapable of consent.  At what age that is, different people will have different opinions.  It used to be much lower.  It even varies by state.  That's pretty simple stuff.

---

I was wrong about Trent Baalke. 

Why not link being straight to Pedophilia then? After all, being straight may be biological just like Pedophilia. It's special pleading to do otherwise. The clear difference is a simple matter of consent. A man and woman can have sex, but if a man has sex without a woman's consent, then it's considered 'wrong'. Two men can have sex, but if a man has sex with another man without the other man's consent, then it's considered 'wrong'. A child is not capable of giving consent. They're not mentally mature enough to. They're also easily manipulated. Much like if you roofie a person, it's still considered rape. Or if you get someone too drunk where they are incapable of giving consent, it can be considered rape.

But they're mature enough to shed their gender? In confused...

---

Scientifically, children are believed to be incapable of consent. At what age that is, different people will have different opinions. It used to be much lower. It even varies by state. That's pretty simple stuff.

Now we want to talk about science? Someone go get a banana and a donut. We might be here a while.

---

But they're mature enough to shed their gender? In confused...

I'm sure that's normal for you.  Being confused all the time.

---

I was wrong about Trent Baalke. 

Oh I don't think in the one who has that confused

---

For someone who rails against analogies you don't like as dodging, you sure spend a lot of time dodging the question about accepting biological or genetic deformity. Which by the way is universal to every organism oorganism planet.


Again, you spend most of your time trying to prove a biological explanation because you have been conditioned to think that anything with a biological explanation should be ACCEPTED (your words) expressed and even celebrated. Any behavior that you don't like you push into the psychological corridor because you think that will save your world view. But that world view FALLS APART WHEN YOU REALIZE THAT OUR BIOLOGICAL MAKEUP CAN BE FLAWED OR UNHEALTHY.


If someone is born with a deformed hand, we look at the design of a healthy hand and try to heal them. If someone is born with a genetic defect that malforms an artery in their heart we look at a healthy heart and we try to heal them. You on the other hand believe that if a to year old boy says he wants a husband that we should put a dress on him and let him use the girls room because he might have a variance in the density of connectors between hemispheres of the brain.


That's literally insane.

So.. It's me pushing pedophilia into a psychological corridor? Not study after study? I couldn't help but notice the three yes/no questions you refused to answer (par for the course). And of course your tangents are all over the place.


So let me try again. When two female monkeys start rubbing their hoo-hahs together in an act of lesbian sex.. when two male lions couple with zero chance of passing on their genetic code.. is it biological or psychological? Why are humans different?


Study after study shows the biological explanation is the most widely accepted reason a person is LGBT. Study after study shows pedophilia is most likely explained as a mental disorder or due to brain structure. I have not seen you try to explain LGBT as psychological prior to this. If that's what you are doing now, where is your supportive evidence?


It's not that I cannot accept alternative explanations. It's that you are not providing any reason why I should consider them. I post links to show why I feel the biological explanation makes the most sense. You don't challenge (or acknowledge) them. You don't pose a counter explanation that goes anywhere further than your opinion.


And furthermore, you admit to having a moral hang up on the subject.


I put water in a tray. I put the tray in the freezer. The water turns to ice. I don't stop at this point and contemplate the morality of whether or not I can accept the scientific evidence due to my feelings on the subject. With this one, by your own admission, you do.


How can you possibly be objective in this discussion when you handcuff logic and reason with your feelings about possible conclusions? You can't. Which is why you keep spewing nonsense without challenging any link I reference or answering any direct questions I ask.

---

Only a chump boos the home team!

You havn't picked an answer yet. More gay births or more men adapting to their surroundings (which would include social normality)


People are born straight for a biological reason,if people weren't born straight there would be no human race. Its an essential part of humanity that people are born straight.


I think some people can be born gay or trans. I also think sexuality isn't a rigid "your either born gay or your not gay" thing.

My answer for the third time.. not more gay births. But I cannot say men adapting to their surroundings either. It's not deliberately trying to be evasive. I don't accept the either/or premise of the question. I explained this by showing public perception of homosexuality at that time was not taboo. If you don't accept that, I'm sorry.


People are born straight for a biological reason. You are correct. To procreate. But all animals (including humans) also have a small subset which is bisexual or exclusively homosexual. Can this not also be considered natural if it occurs so frequently across all manner of species? If not, why not? How do you explain it?


As for your last point. You may be right. I don't know that it is a rigid born this way or not. I see significantly more information supporting the idea in most, if not all cases it is a "born this way" proposition. But I have also considered some other possible explanations. Some propose we are all born with gender fluidity and certain variables determine how we self identify. These theories are less consclusive, but I can at least acknowledge them. All the while not ignoring the evidence I see to support a biological explanation.

---

Only a chump boos the home team!

Again, you spend most of your time trying to prove a biological explanation because you have been conditioned to think that anything with a biological explanation should be ACCEPTED (your words) expressed and even celebrated. Any behavior that you don't like you push into the psychological corridor because you think that will save your world view. But that world view FALLS APART WHEN YOU REALIZE THAT OUR BIOLOGICAL MAKEUP CAN BE FLAWED OR UNHEALTHY.


If someone is born with a deformed hand, we look at the design of a healthy hand and try to heal them. If someone is born with a genetic defect that malforms an artery in their heart we look at a healthy heart and we try to heal them. You on the other hand believe that if a to year old boy says he wants a husband that we should put a dress on him and let him use the girls room because he might have a variance in the density of connectors between hemispheres of the brain.


That's literally insane.

When you get it call me

---

At one time being gay was considered a mental illness. The definition you provided even states that two theories are being debated concerning pedophilia but neither is conclusive at this time.


You have asked that others consider ideals that are different from their own and then condemn for not coming to the same conclusion as you do. If you cannot see nor even consider the parallel that JJ is offering then you are being as close minded as those you condemn.

At one time people thought the world was flat. They don't now and similarly almost all theories explaining LGBT don't attribute it to a psychological condition now.


I would be more inclined to consider jj's parallel if he took half a second to explain where the fault lies in my logic or if he were able to show some conclusive evidence to support this parallel.


He doesn't. He never does.


I could argue smoking is bad for people and causes cancer. He would not challenge that, but would instead pose some "parallel" which may not even marginally make sense like.. "No. Cancer is psychological." Of course this would only come after he weighed the morality of smoking and cancer. Because as we all know, he's conflicted.


What planet do you live on where everyone's opinion deserves to be considered when they are not able to challenge direct facts or cite evidence to support why their alternative explanation merits consideration?

---

Only a chump boos the home team!

When you get it call me

Now you're debating yourself. You get to lose on both ends.

---

Only a chump boos the home team!

Why exactly? It's a difference in personal sexual preference that may be biological. Exactly like LGBT.

Show me a single study that supports the idea pedophilia is biological. When you cannot, be sure to stop making this dumb [BLEEP] argument.

---

Only a chump boos the home team!

1. You yourself said that you believe it has to do with brain structure. That's pretty damning to your credibility.


2. You still cling to the idea that if something can be explained by genetic anomaly that it is healthy. That's faulty logic. Again you refuse to answer the direct question if a child exhibited a disorder or illness predicated on genetic pre-determination would you then seek treatment?


Your rationalization of same-sex attraction as worthy of acceptance based on biological predetermination falls apart when we recognize our biological predetermination can be flawed and unhealthy.

---

My answer for the third time.. not more gay births. But I cannot say men adapting to their surroundings either. It's not deliberately trying to be evasive. I don't accept the either/or premise of the question. I explained this by showing public perception of homosexuality at that time was not taboo. If you don't accept that, I'm sorry.


People are born straight for a biological reason. You are correct. To procreate. But all animals (including humans) also have a small subset which is bisexual or exclusively homosexual. Can this not also be considered natural if it occurs so frequently across all manner of species? If not, why not? How do you explain it?


As for your last point. You may be right. I don't know that it is a rigid born this way or not. I see significantly more information supporting the idea in most, if not all cases it is a "born this way" proposition. But I have also considered some other possible explanations. Some propose we are all born with gender fluidity and certain variables determine how we self identify. These theories are less consclusive, but I can at least acknowledge them. All the while not ignoring the evidence I see to support a biological explanation.

It was actually me who brought up the point that homosexuality was not taboo back then.Which would be an environmental factor.


It can be natural without being biologically born with it. There is a big difference between the two. For instance in certain types of Albatross female and female relationships form and can produce one egg a season which they look after together as its apparently a full time job looking after a small chick. This only happens among the birds when there is a direct shortage of males. This is homosexuality due to an environmental factor,they are not born as gay birds. That's an example of animals responding to environment.


And most information I have seen seems to suggest a mixture of nature and nurture ,which makes more sense to me.

---