What is the difference between pedophilia and homosexuality?

[Starwynd]

And here’s a related article that might be of interest:

catholicity.com/commentary/hudson/tenmyths.html

 

[Ridgerunner]

Homosexuals have a lot of political power. Pedophiles do not. That’s the difference.

In some societies, pedophilia has been accepted and openly practiced. Very likely it will be someday in this country too. For some time now, we have been mightily encouraged by the elites to accept “transexuality”, not only as normal but as a protected activity. We are now seeing “transexual” activity encouraged at very young ages. Acceptance of pedophilia cannot be far away.

 

[Biggie]

Usually it’s a difference of age and gender. Many pedophiles want to have sex with a child of the opposite gender, and at a very young age, usually without the capacity for consent. With homosexuals it’s between two consenting adults of the same gender However, this isn’t always the case either, such as the group called NAMBLA.

But usually children are unable to consent. While adults can.

Right, but my continuing question relates to the area of consent between adults. We use the concept of consent to in some way indicate the act is either harmless or acceptable. I am postulating that the whole idea of consent between adults is miselading in sexual relations because sexuality implies a power relationship, involves manipulation and persuasion and leaves one wondering if the manipulated party actually exerted free will. I am saying that within marriage where an openness to having children is present, this problem is obviated.

I am curious also, if homosexuality is genetically determined and if a homosexual does not have the ability to chose not to behave as a homosexual, then was his consent to homosexuality freely given? It seems to me we have normalized homosexuality and therefore removed guilt based on the belief it is a predetermined state outside the control of the individual. How does it make sense to then say it is activity that occurs between consenting adults?

Lastly, I was wondering how if the sexual behavior of homosexuality (sodomy) is genetically predetermined, how can we then make normative decisions about the whole range of paraphilias, not just pedophilia but also pederasty, necrophilia, fetishism, autoeroticism, etc. etc… How is sodomy genetically predetermined if it applies to a fellow adult, but not genetically predetermined if it applies to a child of the same sex?

 

[Benedictus]

Homosexual men are more likely to be sex offenders than heterosexual men, being over-represented among such populations by several times the occurence of homosexuality among the general male population.

Citation please.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Lasty, I was wondering how if the sexual behavior of homosexuality (sodomy) is genetically predetermined, how can we then make normative decisions about the whole range of paraphilias, not just pedophilia but also pederasty, necrophilia, fetishism, autoeroticism, etc. etc… How is sodomy genetically predetermined if it applies to a fellow adult, but not genetically predetermined if it applies to a child of the same sex?

I, at least, have never seen any kind of persuasive evidence that homosexuality is genetically predetermined. Further, it’s counterintuitive. It is an obviously ineffective “species survival strategy” and should have died out long ago as a genetic trait if it was one. Pedophilia, on the other hand, if heterosexual, is not necessarily an ineffective survival strategy, as the child would eventually reach puberty and become fertile. That’s not an uncommon thing, evidently, in the Islamic world.

 

[Biggie]

I, at least, have never seen any kind of persuasive evidence that homosexuality is genetically predetermined. Further, it’s counterintuitive. It is an obviously ineffective “species survival strategy” and should have died out long ago as a genetic trait if it was one. Pedophilia, on the other hand, if heterosexual, is not necessarily an ineffective survival strategy, as the child would eventually reach puberty and become fertile. That’s not an uncommon thing, evidently, in the Islamic world.

If homosexuality is not genetically predetermined, then on what basis does the homosexual become a class subject to discrimination? How does engaging in a conduct become constitutionally protected? Or recognized to the extent that the Church says homosexuals should be treated in a specific way? Is a homosexual simply a person who engages in sodomy, or is attraction to a member of the same sex with no conduct homosexuality? Does one act of sodomy make a person a homosexual or how many acts or is it simply the desire to engage in the act whether or not it is acted on?

 

[Ridgerunner]

If homosexuality is not genetically predetermined, then on what basis does the homosexual become a class subject to discrimination? How does engaging in a conduct become constitutionally protected? Or recognized to the extent that the Church says homosexuals should be treated in a specific way? Is a homosexual simply a person who engages in sodomy, or is attraction to a member of the same sex with no conduct homosexuality? Does one act of sodomy make a person a homosexual or how many acts or is it simply the desire to engage in the act whether or not it is acted on?

As I said before, they have political power sufficient to get special treatment by society and its laws.

The Church does not say they should be treated in a “particular way”, but only that they be treated with charity; something applicable to all…

“Homosexual” denotes one who characteristically has sexual attraction to those of his own gender. It is not an entirely precise term. Since homosexuality is now considered by the psychological community as a “variant of normal”, it is no longer studied with objectivity. Therefore, much that might otherwise be known about it is unlikely to be well understood.

 

[Fitswimmer]

If homosexuality is not genetically predetermined, then on what basis does the homosexual become a class subject to discrimination? How does engaging in a conduct become constitutionally protected? Or recognized to the extent that the Church says homosexuals should be treated in a specific way? Is a homosexual simply a person who engages in sodomy, or is attraction to a member of the same sex with no conduct homosexuality? Does one act of sodomy make a person a homosexual or how many acts or is it simply the desire to engage in the act whether or not it is acted on?

I’m guessing that you’re not gay yourself, and you aren’t close with anyone who is. People who think that homosexuality is something we “choose” usually aren’t that experienced with gay people.

You can’t imagine what it’s like to live as a gay person-to be called deviant, to be an outsider, to be different when all you want is to be the same-and to top it all off, people talk about you in the same way they talk about people who prey upon children!! Nobody would “choose” this.

 

[savienu]

I’m guessing that you’re not gay yourself, and you aren’t close with anyone who is. People who think that homosexuality is something we “choose” usually aren’t that experienced with gay people.

You can’t imagine what it’s like to live as a gay person-to be called deviant, to be an outsider, to be different when all you want is to be the same-and to top it all off, people talk about you in the same way they talk about people who prey upon children!! Nobody would “choose” this.

It amazes me that people still think homosexual attractions are a choice. Homosexual behavior is a choice, but not attractions.

At any rate, the response regarding why pedophilia is different would be what others have said; it involves 2 consenting adults, not an adult and a child.

 

[Biggie]

As I said before, they have political power sufficient to get special treatment by society and its laws.

The Church does not say they should be treated in a “particular way”, but only that they be treated with charity; something applicable to all…

“Homosexual” denotes one who characteristically has sexual attraction to those of his own gender. It is not an entirely precise term. Since homosexuality is now considered by the psychological community as a “variant of normal”, it is no longer studied with objectivity. Therefore, much that might otherwise be known about it is unlikely to be well understood.

I was under the understanding as it says somewhere earlier in this thread that the Church instructs that homosexuals should be treated fairly and that discrimination against homosexuals is wrong.

So according to your view, a homosexual is a person who declares himself to be a homosexual? There is no objective finding possible? And the same sex sexual attraction without the completion of an act would be the defining characteristic? And they receive protection under law because of the political power of those who have declared themselves members of that class? And the exact content of that class depends strictly upon self declaration, but anyone who so declares receives protection under law? Finally, what prevents a proliferation of other classes based on prediliction or behavior? For example, is it possible to create classes on the same basis as homosexuality to protect from discrimination all fetishists, all car thieves, all heroin addicts?

 

[Biggie]

I’m guessing that you’re not gay yourself, and you aren’t close with anyone who is. People who think that homosexuality is something we “choose” usually aren’t that experienced with gay people.

You can’t imagine what it’s like to live as a gay person-to be called deviant, to be an outsider, to be different when all you want is to be the same-and to top it all off, people talk about you in the same way they talk about people who prey upon children!! Nobody would “choose” this.

I’m only asking questions at this point.

If homosexuality is not a choice, then I would assume you believe it is a genetic selection. As such, at what age does the gene emerge and what is the evidence of its presence? For example, is it legitimate to declare a five year old a homosexual? A ten year old? Is epheminacy in a juvenile male sufficient for a finding of homosexuality? Does the desire for a same sex sexual relationship absent that actual act itself constitute homosexuality or is sodomy required? Does one act establish its presence or are multiple acts required? Is there any way to prove or disprove a finding of homosexuality? If homosexuality is not a choice, then how is it possible for one to freely consent to sodomy, and if one’s consent is not free, how is the act licit?

Fianlly, if homosexuality, either the behavior or at least the deisre, is gentically determined and irresistible, then to what extent are paraphilias such as fetish, autoeroticism, etc. different than hmoosexuality? Should those who engage in these other sexual behaviors be protected as a class from discrimination?

 

[rpp]

I was under the understanding as it says somewhere earlier in this thread that the Church instructs that homosexuals should be treated fairly and that discrimination against homosexuals is wrong.

So according to your view, a homosexual is a person who declares himself to be a homosexual? There is no objective finding possible? And the same sex sexual attraction without the completion of an act would be the defining characteristic? And they receive protection under law because of the political power of those who have declared themselves members of that class? And the exact content of that class depends strictly upon self declaration, but anyone who so declares receives protection under law? Finally, what prevents a proliferation of other classes based on prediliction or behavior? For example, is it possible to create classes on the same basis as homosexuality to protect from discrimination all fetishists, all car thieves, all heroin addicts?

You are correct in your conclusions, I believe.

However, I would like to point out that while we are to treat all people with dignity and respect, one cannot condone sinful actions. The political power homosexuals have gained is not intended to ensure that they be treated with respect, but rather to elevate homosexual *activities *to some higher exalted plain.

And in reference to you earlier points, I do not believe someone has to actually engage in a sexual act for a determination of their sexual orientation. Sexual orientation is based on which gender a person (claims) to find attractive.

 

[Biggie]

You are correct in your conclusions, I believe.

However, I would like to point out that while we are to treat all people with dignity and respect, one cannot condone sinful actions. The political power homosexuals have gained is not intended to ensure that they be treated with respect, but rather to elevate homosexual *activities *to some higher exalted plain.

And in reference to you earlier points, I do not believe someone has to actually engage in a sexual act for a determination of their sexual orientation. Sexual orientation is based on which gender a person (claims) to find attractive.

Then using your point of view, there would be certain disturbing aspects to public policy as relates to homosexuality. It would seem to me that the public policy direction is at least toward treating homosexuality as a class in the way racial minorities are treated as a class. And yet in this “class”, membership is a matter of self declaration with no test possible to determine membership.

Furthermore, the idea that homosexuality is not a genetic selection returns to the question of why same sex sodomy has been decriminalized since it returns the decision to engage in it to voluntary conduct.

Oddly though, using your viewpoint and returning to the topic of this thread, I would say you could clearly explain the difference between homosexuality and pedophilia by the simple explanation that they are different decisions, different choices. I am not so sure the same distinction can be made from the point fo view that says homosexuality is a genetic determination.

 

[Biggie]

It amazes me that people still think homosexual attractions are a choice. Homosexual behavior is a choice, but not attractions.

At any rate, the response regarding why pedophilia is different would be what others have said; it involves 2 consenting adults, not an adult and a child.

OK, but if homosexuality is not a choice, then I am still wondering how free consent can be given? If one is compelled to engage in the activity, how does his adulthood make it somehow less grave than the child who is compelled? I am also wondering how the attraction of one male adult to another male adult is not a matter of choice, but the attraction of a male adult to a male child is?

 

[holy_wood]

Some people kind of answered my question.

I would like to know why sexual attraction to minors is not considered a genetic dispensation but homosexual attractions are?

I don’t care if one is arbitrarily illegal or not.

Does the medical/psychological community believe pedophilia a choice?

 

[Biggie]

Some people kind of answered my question.

I would like to know why sexual attraction to minors is not considered a genetic dispensation but homosexual attractions are?

I don’t care if one is arbitrarily illegal or not.

Does the medical/psychological community believe pedophilia a choice?

I think you have arrived at the key question. And if pedophilia is genetically predetermined, how can the pedophile be treated differently than the homosexual? And I would further wonder, if we have arrived at the knowledge that behavior is genetically programmed, then how about other behaviors people engage in? How about other types of aberant sexual behavior? Is drug use genetically determined? Is auto theft? And if so, then how can any conduct be normed,encouraged or punished?

 

[Ridgerunner]

I was under the understanding as it says somewhere earlier in this thread that the Church instructs that homosexuals should be treated fairly and that discrimination against homosexuals is wrong.

So according to your view, a homosexual is a person who declares himself to be a homosexual? There is no objective finding possible? And the same sex sexual attraction without the completion of an act would be the defining characteristic? And they receive protection under law because of the political power of those who have declared themselves members of that class? And the exact content of that class depends strictly upon self declaration, but anyone who so declares receives protection under law? Finally, what prevents a proliferation of other classes based on prediliction or behavior? For example, is it possible to create classes on the same basis as homosexuality to protect from discrimination all fetishists, all car thieves, all heroin addicts?

The Church does not forbid discrimination against homosexuals in all things. “Discrimination”, broadly speaking, would include refraining from attending a gay “marriage”, or even contracting one.

I would not say a homosexual is one who so declares himself, since a non-homosexual could declare himself one and a homosexual could declare himself “straight”, or not declare himself at all. I don’t know that there is any objective way to know who is or who is not, except by observation of conduct. Certainly, since study of the phenomenon is virtually forbidden, “objective” criteria are not likely to be determined if, indeed, they exist.

It is perfectly possible to declare protected classes based on almost any criteria, as long as the group has sufficient political clout to get it done. Not all protected classes are protected in the same way or under the same circumstances. But there are a lot of them, and they are always created politically.

 

[Ridgerunner]

I think you have arrived at the key question. And if pedophilia is genetically predetermined, how can the pedophile be treated differently than the homosexual? And I would further wonder, if we have arrived at the knowledge that behavior is genetically programmed, then how about other behaviors people engage in? How about other types of aberant sexual behavior? Is drug use genetically determined? Is auto theft? And if so, then how can any conduct be normed,encouraged or punished?

Pedophilia is, by some who purport to be experts, considered to be the result of some kind of “arrest” in normal psychological development. There are theories about possible causes, but I don’t think there is any real certitude to it. Homosexuality might be due to the same sort of thing, but since the study of homosexuality as an aberration from normal is virtually forbidden, the answer will probably remain obscure. There is significant evidence that drug use (and alcoholism) does have a genetic component, in that some people appear to have physical reactions to them that differ from the reactions of others; just as some have greater ability to digest milk sugar than do others, traits that tend to follow ethnic lines. Alcholism is interesting in that those who suffer from it also tend to have a particular body cooling method that is less dramatic with those who do not. It is also interesting that it has a high incidence among certain ethnic groups. Celtic people have a high alcoholism rate, wherever found. It is fascinating that alcoholism is significantly higher than elsewhere in Galizia (In Poland), Galicia (In Spain) and Galatea (In Turkey). All are named after the Gauls (Celts), whose descendants live there to this day.

.

 

[Biggie]

Dear Ridgrunner,
I know you are correct as to the politics of the matter, but I do believe that the thrust of the homosexual lobby in society is that the status of a class is deserved because the behavior is genetically determined just as race. I think enough people are confused on the issue that it has become accepted ahead of evidence, therefore resistance has broken down.

My only contribution is that if homosexual behavior is genetically determined, logic dictates that there are implications for a whole spectrum of deleterious behaviors society presently proscribes. To this extent I think the OP has asked a perfectly legitimate question which some who have posted have dismissed as too obvious. If Pedophilia is genetically determined, on what basis is the pedophile imprisoned? The same question could be asked of all aberrant sexual behavior. It is too much to believe that the homosexual has no ability to reject homosexuality but the pedophile, fetishist, voyeur, masochist, sadist, etc. does.

If homosexuality is not genetically determined and yet protected as a class, behavior and personhood has been confused and a divorce has occurred between natural law and civil law which again has implications for society.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Dear Ridgrunner,
I know you are correct as to the politics of the matter, but I do believe that the thrust of the homosexual lobby in society is that the status of a class is deserved because the behavior is genetically determined just as race. I think enough people are confused on the issue that it has become accepted ahead of evidence, therefore resistance has broken down.

My only contribution is that if homosexual behavior is genetically determined, logic dictates that there are implications for a whole spectrum of deleterious behaviors society presently proscribes. To this extent I think the OP has asked a perfectly legitimate question which some who have posted have dismissed as too obvious. If Pedophilia is genetically determined, on what basis is the pedophile imprisoned? The same question could be asked of all aberrant sexual behavior. It is too much to believe that the homosexual has no ability to reject homosexuality but the pedophile, fetishist, voyeur, masochist, sadist, etc. does.

If homosexuality is not genetically determined and yet protected as a class, behavior and personhood has been confused and a divorce has occurred between natural law and civil law which again has implications for society.

Possibly I still don’t “get it”, but I will say the following.

Presumably, society is not in the “morality business” but proscribes only those things that are harmful to other individuals or to the society at large, whether or not the perpetrator can “help it”. I do not agree with the proposition on all fours, but I think it’s safe to say that’s how most see it. Thus, a hopeless alcoholic is still punished for DWI.

It is widely believed that pedophile activity harms individuals, though certainly there are those who would argue otherwise or make distinctions among those activities. At one time, the consensus was that homosexual activity has a harmful effect on others. It seems now not to be the consensus view.

I certainly agree that if one approaches the question from the standpoint of natural law, one cannot say that certain activities cannot be proscribed simply because the orientation to them might be genetically determined. In that way, I agree with the OP’s proposition.

I agree that, in deciding which activities to proscribe and not, this society often departs from consideration of natural law. Further, I agree that the legality or illegality of acts ought not to be determined by whether a tendency to commit them might be genetically determined. (“nurture” is another issue entirely, though, as regards homosexuality it might be the more valid consideration.) In principle, if we adopt that, we could with equal validity declare that those of Celtic ancestery cannot be lawfully convicted of DWI and, logically, would be obliged to excuse them.