'Pedophilia Is a Sexual Orientation'?

[severus68]

Severus,

I suggest you read the Catechism and notice that what I believe and think is not at odds with the Church. My thinking and my beliefs are not contrary nor do they deny what the Church teaches.

While the Church says they have no firm committment of the etiology…I do and that does not contradict Church teaching…

The Church do not say homosexuality is learned and is sympathetic to those who bear that cross.

 

[severus68]

Severus,

Yes…

Paedophiles are heterosexual and can have same sex thoughts directed at children and acted out with children

Paedophiles are heterosexual and can have heterosexual thoughts directed at children and acted out with children

My apologies to all. I meant to say that many paedophiles are heterosexual.

While my view is that homosexuality is a sexual orientation, I believe that paedophilia is a mental illness and those who suffer from that illness and cannot control themselves need to be treated and incarcerated.

 

[epan]

except for the tens of thousands who die from aids because they put things in dirty places where they don’t belong

This comment is off topic. But it should be corrected. 60% of HIV/AIDS infections in the parts of the world where the disease is the most prevalent are among heterosexual women.

 

[Walking_Home]

Originally Posted by markeverett49 View Post
Allowing a child bride as young as age eight, which seems bizarre to me, is NOT the same thing as pedophilia. For one thing, a man who has sex with his young wife would not be allowed to have sex with another child the same age. For another, in cultures where men marry very young girls, they are expected to remain married to those girls as they age and to continue marital relations with them.

---

Ditto.

 

[epan]

Allowing a child bride as young as age eight, which seems bizarre to me, is NOT the same thing as pedophilia. For one thing, a man who has sex with his young wife would not be allowed to have sex with another child the same age. For another, in cultures where men marry very young girls, they are expected to remain married to those girls as they age and to continue marital relations with them.

I’m not condoning ‘child brides’ but it is a mistake to think every man (or any man) who takes one is a pedophile.Further, it is a mistake to think members of a society which allows this draw no distinction between a man who takes a young bride and a man who only wants to have sex with children.

I don’t see how that monarchy can survive much longer, the way the world is changing. Obviously, an 8 year old girl is not able to consummate a marriage.

 

[Nate13]

My apologies to all. I meant to say that many paedophiles are heterosexual.

While my view is that homosexuality is a sexual orientation, I believe that paedophilia is a mental illness and those who suffer from that illness and cannot control themselves need to be treated and incarcerated.

I thought the whole line was that homosexuality had to be a sexual orientation because it was genetic… There is just as much if not more evidence that pedophilia is linked to genetics so why do you not see it as a sexual orientation as well? All this seems like a very clear cut case of people fitting the evidence to their preconceived notions and hunches of how they believe things are supposed to work.

 

[severus68]

I thought the whole line was that homosexuality had to be a sexual orientation because it was genetic… There is just as much if not more evidence that pedophilia is linked to genetics so why do you not see it as a sexual orientation as well? All this seems like a very clear cut case of people fitting the evidence to their preconceived notions and hunches of how they believe things are supposed to work.

Isn’t your argument more about some wanting to put homosexuality and paedophilia in the same boat? If paedophilia is about sexual orientation then beastiality would also be a sexual orientation. However, sexual orientation is defined to be about attraction and gender.

I would also say that for a few without conscience, sex with anybody and anything including children, is acceptable. Would that be a mental illness or just evil.

 

[Corki]

Isn’t your argument more about some wanting to put homosexuality and paedophilia in the same boat? If paedophilia is about sexual orientation then beastiality would also be a sexual orientation. **However, sexual orientation is defined to be about attraction and gender. **

Isn’t that the point of the “psychology experts” referenced in the OP are trying to make? They seem to be proposing the question" Why is the term ‘sexual orientation’ defined only by gender, especially since almost all definitions of the term include those attracted to both genders? Isn’t it more accurate to define ‘sexual orientation’ as the direction in which a person’s sexual attraction is most oriented?

I would also say that for a few without conscience, sex with anybody and anything including children, is acceptable.

But it isn’t about what type of sex a person would have but about his/her primary attraction.

Would that be a mental illness or just evil?

That’s a question that plagues humanity whenever we are faced with deviant behavior from mass murderers to people who lock up their kids to those who have disordered sexual attractions. Doesn’t most evil behavior have its roots in some mental flaw?

 

[severus68]

Isn’t that the point of the “psychology experts” referenced in the OP are trying to make? They seem to be proposing the question" Why is the term ‘sexual orientation’ defined only by gender, especially since almost all definitions of the term include those attracted to both

[/QUOTE]

 

[BrotherFernando]

this is beyond sick. This is beyond words. This is what happens when the court legalises homosexual unions, this is all part of the slipperly slope. If that happens, I hope they start taking the finger off of our Priests and onto themselves!! sick world, sick, sick and sick.

Agreed!!

 

[Seeker1961]

Originally Posted by mymamamary
this is beyond sick. This is beyond words. This is what happens when the court legalises homosexual unions, this is all part of the slipperly slope. If that happens, I hope they start taking the finger off of our Priests and onto themselves!! sick world, sick, sick and sick.

The Slippery Slope is a fallacy in which a person asserts that some event must inevitably follow from another without any argument for the inevitability of the event in question. In most cases, there are a series of steps or gradations between one event and the one in question and no reason is given as to why the intervening steps or gradations will simply be bypassed. This “argument” has the following form:

Event X has occurred (or will or might occur).
Therefore event Y will inevitably happen.
This sort of “reasoning” is fallacious because there is no reason to believe that one event must inevitably follow from another without an argument for such a claim. This is especially clear in cases in which there is a significant number of steps or gradations between one event and another.

 

[markeverett49]

If paedophilia is about sexual orientation then beastiality would also be a sexual orientation. However, sexual orientation is defined to be about attraction and gender. .

I don’t see how this follows. Unless you mean that someone’s long-standing primary sexual preference is bestiality. I thought—I’ll admit I haven’t read much in this area–that bestiality was more of an “any port in a storm” preference, that is, something that someone might engage in when a preferable option was unavailable. Or something one might do as stunt or on a dare. Or when very drunk and far from home.

 

[Regular_Atheist]

this is beyond sick. This is beyond words. This is what happens when the court legalises homosexual unions, this is all part of the slipperly slope. If that happens, I hope they start taking the finger off of our Priests and onto themselves!! sick world, sick, sick and sick.

Don’t worry. I doubt that is the case. This is an example of the parade of the imaginary horribles. For such a thing to happen, the majority of people would need to be in favour of paedophilia. And I doubt that’ll happen. I wouldn’t blame the homosexuals, either. They didn’t do anything.

Of course, as Christians you’ve got to understand that sexual orientation isn’t behaviour, but is physical attraction. While I would wonder how it could be an orientation, as sexual orientation only appears to be the sex that you’re attracted to, even if it was that doesn’t make it acceptable. All cases of paedophilia are rape, abuse the trust of children, and can cause irreversible psychological issues. It can never, ever be accepted.

I don’t see how this follows. Unless you mean that someone’s long-standing primary sexual preference is bestiality. I thought—I’ll admit I haven’t read much in this area–that bestiality was more of an “any port in a storm” preference, that is, something that someone might engage in when a preferable option was unavailable. Or something one might do as stunt or on a dare. Or when very drunk and far from home.

No, zoophilia exists. That is, attraction to animals.

 

[markeverett49]

No, zoophilia exists. That is, attraction to animals.

Geez, what a disorder to have!

 

[Corki]

. All cases of paedophilia are rape, abuse the trust of children, and can cause irreversible psychological issues. It can never, ever be accepted.

No, zoophilia exists. That is, attraction to animals.

I just have to ask, how is is that you define pedophilia only by action and zoophiliz by attraction? There are undoubtedly many people who are attracted sexually to young children but who have never acted on those attractions. Just look at some of the kiddie porn possession cases. Are you saying that since no rape occured, these people are not really pedophiles?

 

[Corki]

The Slippery Slope is a fallacy in which a person asserts that some event must inevitably follow from another without any argument for the inevitability of the event in question. In most cases, there are a series of steps or gradations between one event and the one in question and no reason is given as to why the intervening steps or gradations will simply be bypassed. This “argument” has the following form:

While there is a slippery slope fallacy, there is also slippery slope reality. It was just a few years ago that the homosexual rights activists’ slogan was that what consenting adults did in the privacy of their bedrooms should not be the business of law enforcement. They just wanted to be able to live thier lives.

In less then a generation we have gone from “privacy of their own bedrooms” to wanting civil unions to demanding same sex “marriage” to determining that anyone who isn’t enthusiastically behind them is “homophobic”. And now there are cases pending to accept polygamous unions based on the legal precident set by homosexual couples pushing their cases as civil rights.

Sometimes the slope really is slippery.

 

[markeverett49]

While there is a slippery slope fallacy, there is also slippery slope reality.
Sometimes the slope really is slippery.

Good points. A great example of this concerns abortion and euthanasia. I’m old enough to remember when Roe passed, and old enough to remember than many people who were pro-choice dismissed it as a “scare tactic” to suggest abortion would have any effect on how people regard euthanasia. (The tide against euthanasia was strong then.) But the two ARE connected, and so is embryonic stem-cell research. In all cases we see human beings removed from the category of “person.” (Early on, pro-choice advocates denied the fetus was human, but the science saying otherwise is overwhelming.) Some people saw this early on and said so. They were right. Those saying “this is a slippery slope argument” were wrong.

One of the worst legacies of the movement for gay rights is that schoolchildren are taught that homosexuality is just as dignified as heterosexuality. (<<<Whether one agrees or disagrees with this, it is clearly not a SCIENTIFIC statement but a value judgment, and nowadays, in schools, the only permissible value judgment seems to be that religious people make poor judgments, while irreligious people make good ones…)

 

[MarkInOregon]

You know what, I am happy I don’t have a sexual attraction to children. I would imagine that many people that do wish they didn’t. I don’t know if they are born that way or what but it is something that not everyone has to deal with.

It is different than homosexuality though because there is no victim in consensual sex between homosexuals…there is a victim in pedophilia.

These people don’t think there is a victim. They were born that way and that means its natural and o.k–otherwise they wouldn’t have been created that way. There was a man who tried to get an IRS tax exemption for an organization he wanted to form to educate the public–luckily he didn’t get it. He thinks these relationships can be helpful and beneficial to children. He believes most problems are cause by societies lack of understanding and rejection of these relationships–if only we were acepting all would be well. It is only a matter of time. Look around at the sexualization of children that you see–from beauty pagents to halloween costumes to TV. This will be the next battle I fear. I pray this one can be won,

Peace,
Mark

 

[InSearchofGrace]

While there is a slippery slope fallacy, there is also slippery slope reality. It was just a few years ago that the homosexual rights activists’ slogan was that what consenting adults did in the privacy of their bedrooms should not be the business of law enforcement. They just wanted to be able to live thier lives.

**In less then a generation we have gone from “privacy of their own bedrooms” to wanting civil unions to demanding same sex “marriage” to determining that anyone who isn’t enthusiastically behind them is “homophobic”. ** And now there are cases pending to accept polygamous unions based on the legal precident set by homosexual couples pushing their cases as civil rights.

Sometimes the slope really is slippery.

Not to mention the demand of transgenders for sex re-assignment surgeries … pushing the envelope as Thomas Beattie did (the first “man” to get pregnant) … to “rights” of a transsexual inmate that taxpayers pay for sex change … as recently ruled by a federal judge in Massachusetts.

All these non-fiction and reality. Is this not a descent into and a collaboration with madness? Can anyone really assert that any of these achieves a common social good?

Woe to a society that takes leave of its collective common sense when LGBT radicals can make medicine and law to be tools and weapons in the name of “sexual orientation” and its unfettered expression.
,

 

[system]

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.

The Catholic Church, as well as a good deal of psychological and medical research, does not agree with your assessment that there is “no victim.” The rates of STD infection, drug abuse, mental illness, physical abuse, suicide and other problems is much higher among active homosexuals than other people (supporting the Church’s teaching that this behavior is inherently bad for the soul of the practicioner.) Further, we are an exceptionally social species, which means that our individual actions have effects on society as a whole. The practice and promotion of homosexuality further divorces sex, in the public mind, from its natural end of procreation, which feeds into our society’s devastating illness of the shedding of sexual mores, a problem which has led to increased numbers of not only STD infections, but STDs themselves (in the early 20th century there were only about 3; since the sexual revolution there are now somewhere around 30 or even more), divorces and broken families and illegitimate births, and consequently children being raised without one or the other parent. One must look beyond the immediate results of a particular action when gauging its effects.