Pedophiles and homosexuals

  • Thread starter Thread starter valentino
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
James1215 said:
Newbie2,

I mean acting out of love is seeking to produce feelings of love or loving emotion in another. If the other is actually suffering, this is enough to cast extreme doubt on the truth of the pedophile’s good intentions. But where both people in a couple experience loving emotion and seek to generate this in the other, there is no comparison to pedophilia.

So yes, love is a mutual event - between people who know each other well enough to create intimacy. It is possible that a pedophile could be deluded and believe their victim was responding as if in love, but this would be no defence when an outsider can see suffering. I also think our capacity to perceive suffering is as genuine as our capacity to see another in love.
Click to expand...
So it is impossible for love to be “one way”?
 
Also, the context of the bit on childbirth is when God finds out they have sinned. He says death will result, various other things, and that Eve will suffer in childbirth, so I do take it as punishment.

I agree that the Bible does not say Adam and Eve did not have sex, but it ties in with their embarrassment with nakedness that they gained the whole deal with sexual attraction after the Fall.

When Adam and Eve were immortal, reproduction was unnecessary, and as to how many people God intended to populate the earth, we can only guess. The next moment, they sinned and everything changed.
 
I do think that the kind of romantic love one gets in a relationship is two way (when it works).

Love that is one-way, or unrequited/pining after someone, is certainly lacking and better described another way. Attraction, respect, desire - all in the extreme, but not that mutual romantic love seen in marriage.
 
James1215 said:
I meant that if one were to say that much/all human nature post-Fall is corrupted, one would equally have to justify heterosexuality. At first it seems obvious that Adam and Eve were heterosexuals, but were they? They didn’t have sex until after the Fall, and this was sex for conception, when pregnancy and labour were created as punishment. So these very things which I thought were taken to indicate the moral correctness of straight sex, are in fact tainted with the same Original Sin. However, what Adam and Eve showed before the Fall was companionship, and this is the basis I believe for romantic love that comes from both homo and hetero orientations.
Click to expand...
Here is Genesis 1:26-28
26 And he said: Let us make man to our image and likeness: and let him have dominion over the fishes of the sea, and the fowls of the air, and the beasts, and the whole earth, and every creeping creature that moveth upon the earth. 27 And God created man to his own image: to the image of God he created him: male and female he created them. 28 And God blessed them, saying: Increase and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it, and rule over the fishes of the sea, and the fowls of the air, and all living creatures that move upon the earth.

This was before the fall. God told them to multiply, for which sexual activity is obviously necessary. This is what forms the basis of marriage: procreation and uniting husband and wife. Two males can have companionship and not commit a sin, but sexual relations between the two would be sinful. Following a direct order from God can not be considered sinful because he is all good. Did I understand what you said correctly? Are you talking about heterosexual attraction or sexual activity? If the former: if a man is attracted to another man it is not sinful (although disordered, as God made Adam and Eve of opposite gender for the purpose of procreation); the sexual act is sinful.
 
James1215 said:
Also, the context of the bit on childbirth is when God finds out they have sinned. He says death will result, various other things, and that Eve will suffer in childbirth, so I do take it as punishment.

I agree that the Bible does not say Adam and Eve did not have sex, but it ties in with their embarrassment with nakedness that they gained the whole deal with sexual attraction after the Fall.

When Adam and Eve were immortal, reproduction was unnecessary, and as to how many people God intended to populate the earth, we can only guess. The next moment, they sinned and everything changed.
Click to expand...
So you seriously think that there is the possibility that God created Man and Woman with complimentary sexual reproductive organs if he had not intended them for propagating the human species?

What you’re doing is a fine example of eisegesis…looking at Scripure with a preconceived notion or agenda…in your case the legitimization of homosexual behavior…and attempting to interpret it (Scripture) in a way that supports your agenda.

Sorry, but it isn’t working.

Goodnight. 🙂
 
Ah I see Karebear92 - ‘male and female he created them. 28 And God blessed them, saying: Increase and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it,’

Increase and multiply.

Did they indeed increase and multiply, as they were told? Would we have been told who the new characters were if they had? The first of the second generation was born into Original Sin it seems.
 
Newbie2 said:
How could you prove that?

How do you define “experiencing love”?

Is love always a mutual event?

Is is impossible to believe that a pedophile would erroneously believe that love was experienced by both (him or herself) projected toward the child, or that the pedophile’s motivation was (again erroneously) love?

How does the pedophile define “love”? Who says taht the pedophile is not out to please both him or herself and the child as well?

“Done out of love” would seem to indicate that “love” is the motivation for the pedophile’s acts, no?
Click to expand...
Pretty much this became the title of a book, “We were NOT abused! - by: David L. Riegel”. Also, well discussed by Lindsay Ashford, if anyone can bear to listen to such a horrifying person.
valentino said:
thanks for the advice on which thread to post.I’ve always understood that adult men who like boys was a pedophile if the boy was under a certain age,and adult men who did naughy things to young girls was a pedophile.And a fornicator was some one who engaged in sex while not being married.
Click to expand...
I’m glad someone moved it and saved it, rather than delete.

Yes, men that “like”, (darn misnomer euphemisms*) boys are pedophiles, (darn misnomer euphemisms* again) but they are also homosexual, and the same with men and girls being pedophiles, but they are first and foremost fornicators, because the Bible does not delineate between these various shades, but only condemns homosexuality, and fornication, unless you want to include adultery.

I don’t know if you’re old enough to remember this, but when I was a kid, one would always insult another in a sexual way by calling them a “q----” or “f–”. We never called each other a pedo, or as some children do these days, accuse each other of liking men. Only because of the rampant immorality in our present day society, is it necessary to delineate between intra-generational homosexuality, which the pc crowd hail as wonderful, and inter-generational homosexuality, which is still struggling for full acceptance by those with no moral values.

*The word pedophilia
Look up pedophilia at Dictionary.com
1905, from Gk. pais (gen. paidos) “child” (see pedo-) + philos “loving.” First attested in Havelock Ellis.
Click to expand...
A serious misnomer, because whatever a pedophile is, they do not love children. They use them as sex objects for their own selfish gratification.
 
Newbie2,

Originally I said this:
‘I meant that if one were to say that much/all human nature post-Fall is corrupted, one would equally have to justify heterosexuality. At first it seems obvious that Adam and Eve were heterosexuals, but were they? They didn’t have sex until after the Fall, and this was sex for conception, when pregnancy and labour were created as punishment. So these very things which I thought were taken to indicate the moral correctness of straight sex, are in fact tainted with the same Original Sin. However, what Adam and Eve showed before the Fall was companionship, and this is the basis I believe for romantic love that comes from both homo and hetero orientations.’

I still think the first actual sex we hear about is that which Adam and Eve have post-Fall. Therefore it would be supposition to say exactly how pre-Fall sexuality would have operated, even heterosexuality. This interpretation, however poor you might think it to be, is supported by the fact that they get embarrassed by nakedness after the Fall. They see each other’s body differently, by now clearly as current heterosexuals do. While I see I made a mistake thinking that reproduction was created post-Fall (an honest one), I still think it is tainted by the Original Sin because it is made painful for Eve.

My point is that even heterosexuality needs to be justified in light of its Fallen nature. I think the way one could do this is by reference to the love between Adam and Eve, a sexless love that might as well apply to homo as to heterosexualilty.

So yes, I am clearly arguing that homosexuality and pedophilia are totally different, but what I’m saying isn’t necessarily rubbish because of my angle!
 
(I do not think Adam was gay, I am thinking more that Adam did not show enough of what we now take to be correct: heterosexuality)

I can see how one can argue from reproductive capabilities, but we do not actually do so for all aspects of relationships it seems. We do not advocate having sex with a brother’s widow to maintain the family name, yet this is a requirement of Old Testament law. We also do not require newlyweds to produce children and we allow married couples to have sex when the man or woman is infertile, when the menstrual cycle is not ready for conception, and when the woman has reached the menopause. Is this deliberately circumventing one’s design?
 
James1215 said:
Newbie2,

Originally I said this:
‘I meant that if one were to say that much/all human nature post-Fall is corrupted, one would equally have to justify heterosexuality. At first it seems obvious that Adam and Eve were heterosexuals, but were they? They didn’t have sex until after the Fall, and this was sex for conception, when pregnancy and labour were created as punishment. So these very things which I thought were taken to indicate the moral correctness of straight sex, are in fact tainted with the same Original Sin. However, what Adam and Eve showed before the Fall was companionship, and this is the basis I believe for romantic love that comes from both homo and hetero orientations.’

I still think the first actual sex we hear about is that which Adam and Eve have post-Fall. Therefore it would be supposition to say exactly how pre-Fall sexuality would have operated, even heterosexuality. This interpretation, however poor you might think it to be, is supported by the fact that they get embarrassed by nakedness after the Fall. They see each other’s body differently, by now clearly as current heterosexuals do. While I see I made a mistake thinking that reproduction was created post-Fall (an honest one), I still think it is tainted by the Original Sin because it is made painful for Eve.

My point is that even heterosexuality needs to be justified in light of its Fallen nature. I think the way one could do this is by reference to the love between Adam and Eve, a sexless love that might as well apply to homo as to heterosexualilty.

So yes, I am clearly arguing that homosexuality and pedophilia are totally different, but what I’m saying isn’t necessarily rubbish because of my angle!
Click to expand...
I think that they were so close to God that after they sinned they became aware of themselves more.Nakedness doesn/t necessarily mean bodily nakedness but a feeling of being all alone and separated.they were naked to the truth.ashamed of breaking the bond of truth.Now they were capable of sin.Not just the sin they committed but all kinds of sin.they were now more aware of each other and less of God.So naturally they studied each other more now.it could be that they felt pain more now since they slipped away from God.Ex:a child hurts herself an cries but a mother holds her and she calms down.The pain is just the same but she is soothed and loved by her mother and she thinks on that and forgets the pain.Saints often can stand extreme pain and almost seem not to feel it.Could it be that they are so close to God that they don’t seem to feel the pain
?One particular saint is said to be roasting on a sort of fire and when still alive spoke to his guard’s who were burning him"Am I brown enough yet,turn me over and cook they other side."I agree that homosexuality is a result of OS,like all sin.But all sin has to be mastered.(with God’s help).but to say that homosexuality is a sin that can/t be mastered or one shouldn’t have to try I can’t accept that.I get the idea that some people think that homosexuality is so strong or is in some people’s nature so embedded that they should be excused.There are many religious nuns and priests who live celibate lives and they control their natural urge for sex.There are quite a few people who were practicing homosexuals and lesbians who broke their habit and are living either celibate lives or married to people of the opposite sex.
 
  1. The Church does not condemn homosexuality as a state - it condemns the action. Homosexuals are called to celibacy. This is just like those individuals who may be divorced without decree of nullity even through no fault of their own. The same would go for pedophiles. However I would say that all three groups should avoid near occasions of sin.
  2. None of these are victimless crimes/sins. Sin hurts everyone. After all we are all in communion which means that when one of us sins that sin hurts the community especially when it is a sin against marriage. However, some do have stronger and more lasting effects for their direct victim which is what I think you were trying to get at.
  3. I agree with NewEnglandPries the way the OP started this thread was extremely disturbing.
 
James1215 said:
Then heterosexuals are born inherently sinful too***,<–Everyone knows that…🙂 and might make the same claim in their defence.<—Well yeah I guess they might***, but are they? The ones using the “born that way” excuse are homosexuals as far as I know.

But given that not everything that is done after the Fall is necessarily morally wrong, how can we judge morality? <–On this subject we have complete clarity in the Bible. I think the ultimate measurement of the moral value of an action is the degree of love with which it is conducted***.<—Well you’re wrong. Attaching the word “love” to a sin doesn’t make the sin moral.*** Saint Teresa of Avila herself said: ‘It is love alone that gives worth to all things.’

Is having sex with a child done out of love? No. Can sex between any two adults in a committed relationship express love? Yes, in my opinion, whether they are gay, bi or straight.<----Child molesters would argue with you. Ever heard of NAMBLA? How in the world would YOU know if a child molesters loves the child or not.
Click to expand...
So what other group is out there saying that their sin is okay because they were born that way? If they are, it’s still no excuse, as I said in the original post but who besides homosexuals are using that excuse.

Judging morality is actually easy if you’re not an atheist…especially on the issue of homosexuality OR pedophilia.🙂

Love doesn’t necessarily make a relationship moral…that’s very nice sounding noise but it’s also ridiculous. Two people in love can also be in an immoral relationship. That includes homosexuality, incest, sex with a minor, etc.

And the idea that you’ve decided a pedophile cannot be in love with the child is ridiculous. You have no idea what’s going on in the heart of pedophiles.
 
James1215 said:
Ah I see Karebear92 - ‘male and female he created them. 28 And God blessed them, saying: Increase and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it,’

Increase and multiply.

Did they indeed increase and multiply, as they were told? Would we have been told who the new characters were if they had? The first of the second generation was born into Original Sin it seems.
Click to expand...
They did increase and multiply creating a generation with original sin. The birth of Cain came after their sin, but God created the plan and instructed them to fulfill his plan before sin existed in human thought. Adam and Eve were able to do good after the original sin; they just knew right and wrong. They had temptation. They still followed God’s plan in procreation. Thus sexual relations between man and women in marriage is not sinful, as we are instructed to do so by God.

Genesis 4:1
And Adam knew Eve his wife: who conceived and brought forth Cain, saying: I have gotten a man through God.

They had their son in sin and acknowledge that it was through God. We can not say that Adam and Eve did not have intercourse in an attempt to fulfill God’s plan, but God did not allow conception at the time. So the the second generation was born into original sin, but we can not assume that Adam and Eve had not had intercourse before they sinned in a unitive manner as all married couples are called to do.
I can see how one can argue from reproductive capabilities, but we do not actually do so for all aspects of relationships it seems. We do not advocate having sex with a brother’s widow to maintain the family name, yet this is a requirement of Old Testament law. We also do not require newlyweds to produce children and we allow married couples to have sex when the man or woman is infertile, when the menstrual cycle is not ready for conception, and when the woman has reached the menopause. Is this deliberately circumventing one’s design?
Click to expand...
Intercourse is also designed to unite husband and wife. We also do not follow all of old testament law. The old testament was for the time before Jesus. For example, we no longer sacrifice animals because Jesus is the Lamb of God. Contraception is not accepted in the Catholic Church. Natural Family Planning is, but if God chooses to do so, they could conceive. Infertility does not necessarily mean that conceiving a child is impossible. Through God it is. Jesus was born of a virgin. Does that seem possible? It happened though through God. All of those above can fulfill the unitive act and conceive if God allows it. This is why permanent impotence is an impediment of marriage since conception through husband and wife is impossible.

Also, remember that homosexuality is not a sin. The sexual act that does not follow the natural law of God is the sin. Pedophilia is a sin for the same reason. A child can not enter into a marriage following our laws. If they are not in marriage, they are not allowed to have sexual relations. Also love does not make something moral. I love my dog, but I can not have sexual intercourse with him.
 
valentino said:
Homosexuals make the claim that they are born that way.Scientists try to discover some genetic marker that will prove they can determine homosexuals.Some scientists say they are born homosexuals and its nnot their choice or they have no freedom.If we agree with this why can’t pedophiles claim the same.I was born a pedophile and ive always been attracted to children.When I was 10 yrs old I played house with this other little boy.Why do you arrest me for groping a little girl who doesn’t resist when I give her candy but you let homosexual boys or adults engage in activities and even pass laws which protect them?
Click to expand...
Because children do not have the emotional capacity to enter into a romantic relationship, and any sexual advances are non-consentual, either by force or by coercion.
One might say that children at 8 can’t make reasonable choices.Wonder if I say they are capable of knowing what they are doing and seem to enjoy it?I say Im a pedophile and I demand equal rights!
Click to expand...
If you say that, then you would just be stupid and wrong. It’s pretty much proven that children can’t consent, and it’s been observed so many times the effect it has on a child’s psyche.
 
karebear92 said:
I believe homosexuality is a disordered form of sexuality. I believe sexuality is given to us from God to procreate and unite husband and wife, and it is twisted by Satin or Satanic beings to temp humans to sin. Like many things in this world, God gave them for us to do good, and, since Satin can’t create bad things, he twists the good that God has given us

Honestly, I don’t believe homosexuality is caused from this either. I was more trying to show the difference between homosexuality and pedophilia from a scientific viewpoint. If it were from a Catholic viewpoint, the argument wouldn’t be valid, as both are unacceptable to us.

Here is one example of the androgen hormone levels and sexuality. It is the third part. They basically say that sex hormones create a difference in length of the proportion of ring and index fingers. **Males typically have a longer ring finger than index finger, whereas females are approximately the same length. Homosexuals had a tendency to have the opposite of their normal finger proportions (most often with females).
**
unl.edu/rhames/courses/readings/homofinger/homo_finger.html

Basically, I think that some scientists believe that it happens early on in development and can trigger a response that causes them to develop differently. I am pretty sure that this can sometimes cause developmental problems such as ambiguous genitalia and hermaphrodite issues. If, rather than affecting genital development, it affected the brain, it could possibly result in homosexuality. I don’t really agree with this though, but I am not a scientist, so who am I to say. I also find it hard to believe that there is a gene that would result in homosexuality. It would most likely be a gene carried on the mother’s X chromosome, but that would most likely result in a similar ratio of color-blindmess. But it would then be highly unlikely for a female to be homosexual. I am not an expert, however. I should have said that in my first response. I am sure there are other theories. Personally I believe they are a disordered form of a good thing God gave us: sexuality. In other words, God gave us sexuality to procreate, and Satin twists it in some people in order to lead them into sin and temptation.
Click to expand...
Oi, going by this then Im apparently a homosexual female along with most of the other females in my family. News to me…
 
Sonic:I listen to Br.Groeshel which you advised.He says psychopaths are habitural liars.I agree and I believe most if not all psychologists agree.However psychopaths are usually a lot more than liars.Ted Bundy,and most if not all serial killers are psychopaths.Psychopaths other trait is that they feel no empathy.They have no feeling for anyone’s suffering.If Father wants to label them psychopaths he can(after all his a psychologist with a degree)but I would rather name these individual habitual liars.They are incapable of telling a truth.Everything they say is a lie.They’re upside down.
 
JaneGrey said:
Oi, going by this then Im apparently a homosexual female along with most of the other females in my family. News to me…
Click to expand...
Haha after I read the article I checked everyones fingers in my family and my female cousin, who is straight, was all freaked out because her ring finger is significantly longer. I think there is more to homosexuality than hormones in prenatal development. I was just trying to give the OP a scientific perspective, as that is the only one that really holds any water. From a Catholic one it really doesn’t matter if there is a biologic or genetic reason. The morality of acting on it will not change even if they do find a genetic or biological cause. You have to love the stuff they teach you in school these days though.🙂
 
valentino said:
Sonic:I listen to Br.Groeshel which you advised.He says psychopaths are habitural liars.I agree and I believe most if not all psychologists agree.However psychopaths are usually a lot more than liars.Ted Bundy,and most if not all serial killers are psychopaths.Psychopaths other trait is that they feel no empathy.They have no feeling for anyone’s suffering.If Father wants to label them psychopaths he can(after all his a psychologist with a degree)but I would rather name these individual habitual liars.They are incapable of telling a truth.Everything they say is a lie.They’re upside down.
Click to expand...
I think you may have misunderstood Fr. Groeschel (father not brother… he is a priest as well as a doctor). Here is his biography if you’d like to know more about his credentials.

franciscanfriars.com/books/Fr_Benedict_Bio.htm

Psychopaths do lie, but they are not the same as compulsive or pathological liars. Not all psychopaths are serial killers, either. Psycopathy is a personality disorder.

Before you draw conclusions, you should study more about the subject.
 
valentino said:
if a homosexual can base his homosexuality on genetics why can’t a pedophile or a person who commits incest?Why can’t this pedophile say “I want this government to do research and see if im not born a pedophile and its not my fault”?it hasn’t happened yet***<—Are you sure? I honestly don’t know but in this day and age…I wouldn’t doubt that such a defense of pedophilia HAS been tried.*** but who would have thought 50yrs ago that homosexuality would be deemed ok by such a large amount of people?Are you saying this can’t possibly happen?Im saying any perversion that this country wishes to allow (homosexuality)can lead to others wanting their perversions to be allowed.The pedophile may argue that homosexuality is born in the individual and his pedophilia is born in his genetic material.The isssue of incest was brought up not to long ago and there was a debate whether the parent had the right to violate his child or not.
Click to expand...
Maybe I’m wrong but you seem to be trying to convince me of something that I already believe. I’m against the “born that way” excuse and I have no doubt that a pedophile can or even has tried using that argument.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top