'Pedophilia Is a Sexual Orientation'?

[Bill_Martin]

Well, you are making my point. The determination of how to treat the relationship between homosexuality and pedophilia is very muddled. There is no clear distinction using legality, victimology OR psychological definitions. Same-sex marriage or civil unions aren’t really a discussion of the psychological origin of homosexuality although the door was certainly opened with the removal from the DSM.

I don’t think it is all that muddled.

Sex between adults who freely agree to it: no victim, should not be illegal because of this

Sex where any one of the parties is either unable to or refuses to give consent: there is a victim, should be illegal because of this

 

[Faithdancer]

For Catholics and many other Christians, homosexual acts are intrinsically evil. There is a longer explanation of why such acts are evil, but that’s it in a nutshell.

Amen, Newbie2. And there is always a victim of sin; His name is God.

 

[Faithdancer]

Sex between adults who freely agree to it: no victim, should not be illegal because of this

Sexual acts that are gravely disordered sins always have a victim- God.

 

[Bill_Martin]

Sexual acts that are gravely disordered sins always have a victim- God.

Yes but that is between the people who do them and God. For the purposes of legislation, there is none. The government should not be given the power to ban things based on whether it thinks God is a victim of them or not.

 

[Marc_Anthony]

Well…pedophilia IS a sexual orientation. Don’t act on it at all, and it’s not a sin.

 

[Biblepoe]

In case people get the wrong impression (which seems to be the case), calling something a sexual orientation is not saying that it is healthy or acceptable. Instead, it just means that it is an enduring patters of erotic attraction. So when a psychologists says that pedophilia is a sexual orientation, they aren’t saying that it is healthy or acceptable, he/she is just saying that it is an enduring patters of erotic attraction.

 

[interestedman]

For a Catholic and other Christians, it’s for the same reason I have to control my horrible temper. They are both sins.

Except your horrible temper has a victim (most likely). Homosexuality doesn’t. Do you see how there is a difference?

 

[interestedman]

No. Three things are intrinsically evil - contraception, abortion and rape. That is the teaching of the Church.

To say that something is “Intrinsic evil” means that there is no good in it at all.

Homosexuality may disordered, and homosexual acts may be abhorrent, but homosexuals may recieve companionship, affirmation of dignity and self worth, and a whole host of other things which are good in an of themselves, even though they come from a disordered sexual tendancy and abhorrent acts. If some good can come from something then it is not intrinsically evil.

Rape, contraception and abortion are intrinsically evil because nothing good comes from them. They are 100% use of another human being for convenience and enjoyment. The subject of the act leaves the object of the act with zero dignity, and turn a person made in the image of God into an object. That is the teaching of the Church.

-Tim-

Funny that pretty much everyone that uses birth control would disagree that they are left with “zero dignity.”

 

[interestedman]

Sexual acts that are gravely disordered sins always have a victim- God.

lol…yes, God is the victim.

 

[KerryR]

With regards to paedophilia being a sexual orientation I need to disagree (from experience see previous post) it is an act of aggression not a sex act. It involves sexual violence towards someone who cannot fend for themselves and exploitation of their innocence. There is no defense my ‘father’ in law had a choice, he knew what he was doing was wrong, he knew how it was affecting his children and he CHOSE freely to continue! And without going into detail he made sure it hurt both his sons and daughter. He is not deviant, he is nasty and there is a difference. He was an otherwise very intelligent man who could freely make choices. He has written to me from prison and stated emphatically that his children had a right to testify against him and that he was at fault. However he also clarified that one of the abuses was carried out to get back at his wife for disagreeing with him on certain normal domestic issues. Please do not muddle orientation and violence. They are not the same. Paedophilia by definition is sexual abuse to a pre-pubescent child. It is violent. Ephebophilia relates to over the age of puberty and I do accept some blurring of the boundaries as the age of consent varies from state to state and country to country, so to simplify where one of the parties is being exploited it is an act of violence and aggression. My husband was exploited as the abuse goes on for as long as he can remember. I also stand by previous statement that its becoming too easy to medically classify deviance which invariably leads to a softening of consequences. Society is allowing to much to those in the wrong andf not enough victim support.

 

[interestedman]

With regards to paedophilia being a sexual orientation I need to disagree (from experience see previous post) it is an act of aggression not a sex act. It involves sexual violence towards someone who cannot fend for themselves and exploitation of their innocence. There is no defense my ‘father’ in law had a choice, he knew what he was doing was wrong, he knew how it was affecting his children and he CHOSE freely to continue! And without going into detail he made sure it hurt both his sons and daughter. He is not deviant, he is nasty and there is a difference. He was an otherwise very intelligent man who could freely make choices. He has written to me from prison and stated emphatically that his children had a right to testify against him and that he was at fault. However he also clarified that one of the abuses was carried out to get back at his wife for disagreeing with him on certain normal domestic issues. Please do not muddle orientation and violence. They are not the same. Paedophilia by definition is sexual abuse to a pre-pubescent child. It is violent. Ephebophilia relates to over the age of puberty and I do accept some blurring of the boundaries as the age of consent varies from state to state and country to country, so to simplify where one of the parties is being exploited it is an act of violence and aggression. My husband was exploited as the abuse goes on for as long as he can remember. I also stand by previous statement that its becoming too easy to medically classify deviance which invariably leads to a softening of consequences. Society is allowing to much to those in the wrong andf not enough victim support.

It is possible that some acts of pedophilia are about power and aggression, but some people are genuinely sexually attracted to little children.

 

[markeverett49]

Why should a person with same sex attraction not act on it? As I said before, without a victim, there is no reason not to act on it.

Both parties to a homosexual act suffer by increasing their attraction to a disordered act.

 

[markeverett49]

I guess the argument could be made that beastiality is a “victimless” act as well, as long as the animal is not physically harmed. Not to suggest that the argument is valid by any stretch, but if we’re using “victimlessness” as a criteria, it would certainly suggest beastiality as being OK in many instances.

This is one reason why ‘victimless’ is a problematic criteria, at least as the notion is now understood. If you look back at the history of laws surrounding animal cruelty, you see that the argument was two-fold: some were sympathetic to the suffering of animals, but many others were more concerned about the degradation of the human being who abuses an animal. Those who say that bestiality is ‘victimless’ (so long as the animal isn’t harmed) are EXEMPTING the person involved. It is not good for a man to have sex with an animal, REGARDLESS of the impact on the animal.

 

[interestedman]

Both parties to a homosexual act suffer by increasing their attraction to a disordered act.

Ok, well I could say that going to church is a disordered act.

 

[exoflare]

Sexual acts that are gravely disordered sins always have a victim- God.

The people who do those things are their own victims, if nothing else. Not that trolls are going to care either way, but the people who commit such disordered acts are damaged by their own actions way more than God.

 

[markeverett49]

In case people get the wrong impression (which seems to be the case), calling something a sexual orientation is not saying that it is healthy or acceptable. Instead, it just means that it is an enduring patters of erotic attraction. So when a psychologists says that pedophilia is a sexual orientation, they aren’t saying that it is healthy or acceptable, he/she is just saying that it is an enduring patters of erotic attraction.

I get this. This should be sufficient to end the argument that “God made me this way so it must be okay.” An orientation can be disordered. (Freud once said that all sexual perversions shared a common feature: they set aside reproduction as an aim. I don’t think this is true because Freud said so, but the more I think about it, the more insightful the remark seems.)

 

[interestedman]

I get this. This should be sufficient to end the argument that “God made me this way so it must be okay.” An orientation can be disordered. (Freud once said that all sexual perversions shared a common feature: they set aside reproduction as an aim. I don’t think this is true because Freud said so, but the more I think about it, the more insightful the remark seems.)

I think that being sexually attracted to a 10 year old is perverted, but there are 10 year old girls that can and have gotten pregnant.

 

[markeverett49]

I think that being sexually attracted to a 10 year old is perverted, but there are 10 year old girls that can and have gotten pregnant.

I’m not sure what you mean by “perverted.”

 

[StevenFrancis]

Modernists and post-modernists never believe in the “slippery slope” theory, until they’ve already slipped down the slope. How the normalization of artificial contraception led to abortion on demand. How normalization of homosexual union by our culture has been perpetrated through media, TV, movies, public schools, etc. to the point that those who view the sexual acts of same sex inclined persons, or their “marriage” to be disordered are not “homophobes” and “bigots”, and only those who openly embrace the rapidly emerging gay culture are decent human beings. Not only will pedophilia be first a recognized sexual persuasion, but we’re already WELL down the road as a culture of deeply sexualizing children. Once people are sanctioned by every “civil” government to marry based on specific sexual deviance, (homosexual marriage), it really is just a slippery slope to “intergenerational relationships”, “multiple spousal marriage” and so on. Go ahead and laugh all you want. The fact is that homosexuality went from something my generations’ fathers raised us to report to the police, and yell out loudly about If we were approached while we were young, to being a legal form of marriage in many of the United States, and being portrayed widely as a valid form of family on TV, movies etc. within my just over a 1/2 century of lifespan. Culturally, this has been a head spinning fast transformation. Within the next four years, (if the election goes the way I suspect), it will be the law of the land in all 50 states.

 When I was a child, the idea of contraception, (though it had been around for a little while already) was thought by the percentage of society to be wrong and selfish.  It became the norm in the sixties, and now, has gone all the way to abortion on demand, as a form of "birth control" (not contraception anymore), being acceptable enough to have government funded clinics (Planned Parenthood) to perform this horrendous act of homicide routinely, and the Federal Government writing unilateral mandates forcing even Churches opposed to contraception as a part of their deeply held beliefs to provide contraceptives and abortifacients to their employees.  

 Woe to us when we call evil good, and good evil (such as characterizing those against homosexual marriage, or abortion on demand as dangerous, bigoted, subversive radicals).  It's taken less than 1/2 a century to get through these cycles.  Not even one generations' full lifetime.  With the pendulum swinging faster and faster, I find it quite plausible that I will see the normalization of pedophilia yet within my lifetime.  Yes, first it will be a "sexual orientation".  Then age of consent will continue to come down.  It'll be spicy and dicey for about 20 years.  Admittedly, not as easy of a sell as the "gay" life was.  The lobbies will be thicker all the time.  There will be subtle programs and TV sitcom plots.  There will be test cases in circuit courts, and then eventually it will be legal to intergenerational marriage in Massachusettes, and Hawaii for instance, then a few other states.  More and more families will notice that they have a member of their family "coming out", as being "pedosexual".  More and more of their 11 - 14 year olds being "in love" with and older man or woman.  Eventually, you'll be a bigot if you disapprove of pedosexual acts publicly, and you'll be accused of wanting to deprive children of their "sexual space" (as a well rounded part of their growing up in their already undefinable families).  This doesn't sound any more preposterous to me than the things I've already seen happen in our culture within my lifetime did when I was younger.  Sorry.  I know this is cynical.  I pray for my culture and society to prove me wrong.  I've never wanted to be wrong about something so badly in my life.

Jesus, Mary and Joseph pray for us

 

[CopticChristian]

I think that being sexually attracted to a 10 year old is perverted, but there are 10 year old girls that can and have gotten pregnant.

Interested,

Sexual attraction to a 10 year old is perverted. Ok

BUT…negates the first statement

10 year old girls can and have gotten pregnant?..True but what does this have to do with anything.

You make as much sense as the APA as seen here

narth.com/docs/debatecontinues.html

And a door indeed appeared to have been opened by the DSM change, because soon afterward, a journal of the American Psychological Association published the infamous Rind, et al. article–a study which downplayed the effects of, in particular, man-boy sex. Rind supported his argument with the finding that quite a few of the boys remembered their childhood sexual experiences positively.

As a result of the provocative Rind study’s appearance in an APA journal, the American Psychological Association was struck with an embarrassing wave of criticism–what it called “the political storm of the century.” That public-relations nightmare hit “with gale-force winds raging from the media, congressional leaders, state legislatures, and conservative grassroots organizations,” according to the Association’s journal, The American Psychologist.

The APA apologized for the study — following later with another statement which sounded like backpedaling (with the Association insisting that researchers have a right to scientific freedom). Then it issued a new and quite surprising official statement.

APA said that no matter what the research showed about the psychological effects of pedophile relationships-- pedophilia remained, in its opinion, “morally” wrong./

Our wonderful APA and the DSM on Pedophelia…