What is the difference between pedophilia and homosexuality?

[Fitswimmer]

It is a disordered desire. Whether you choose to call it power or anything else the inclination is not rightly ordered. That is similar to same sex desire. It is not ordered as intended.

Why all the parsing?

Because it matters. Because people are being defined using these words.

 

[fix]

Because it matters. Because people are being defined using these words.

No, people are not being defined. People’s inclinations are being defined.

 

[Fitswimmer]

No, people are not being defined. People’s inclinations are being defined.

You know, I keep hearing that over and over and I’m sure people really think they aren’t crossing that fine line-but do you ever hear of any other “inclinations” talked about the way homosexual “inclinations” are talked about?

 

[fix]

You know, I keep hearing that over and over and I’m sure people really think they aren’t crossing that fine line-but do you ever hear of any other “inclinations” talked about the way homosexual “inclinations” are talked about?

Which other groups keep trying to make society believe their disordered inclinations are good and acceptable?

Most people do not define themselves by their inclinations.

 

[savienu]

Not every heterosexual couple produces new citizens. Are they useless to society? Homosexuals work, they pay taxes, they volunteer and donate to charity-at least this one does. That’s good enough for heterosexuals that don’t have children, why not for us?

Consent-agreement, approval, or permission as to some act or purpose, given voluntarily by a competent person. (Black’s Law Dictionary)

I believe in your example, the 16 year old would not be considered competent to make such consent, and it would likely be easy to ascertain that even that consent was likely involuntary.

16 is the age of consent in most states. Who are you to tell the 16 year old that they can’t make the choice to sleep with a 40 year old man? Why can you make the choice for them?

As far as homosexuals being productive citizens, I never denied that. I said their sexual union does nothing to contribute to the betterment of society. I know this topic isn’t specifically about same sex marriage, but it’s tied into it in that sense. The government can’t and shouldn’t control what individuals choose to do behind closed doors, but it can choose what it gives legal recognition to.

 

[Fitswimmer]

Which other groups keep trying to make society believe their disordered inclinations are good and acceptable?

Most people do not define themselves by their inclinations.

Most people are not called disordered and discriminated against because of their inclinations-so they don’t need to define themselves.

Being part of the majority makes it very difficult for people to understand why a minority makes an issue of itself.

 

[savienu]

Or is it the dominant sibling asserting control over a weaker one by bonding that weaker sibling to them sexually?

And you would prove this…how? If you can make that case, how can you not prove that an older man is not asserting power over a younger man (both over the age of say, 21), when they are engaged in a homosexual act? Are you aware of how common those kinds of pairings are amongst homosexual men? What about when I was 16 with a 17 year old female lover who was more experienced than me? How do you know she wasn’t exerting power over me? If we keep arguing over semantics like this, we will eventually get to the point that no one can truly be said to give consent for anything. Consent is not what makes something moral.

 

[fix]

Most people are not called disordered and discriminated against because of their inclinations-so they don’t need to define themselves.

Most people do not define themselves by their sexual behavior either. Those that do that can expect their actions to be judged.

Being part of the majority makes it very difficult for people to understand why a minority makes an issue of itself.

That people take issue does not mean they should.

 

[savienu]

Most people are not called disordered and discriminated against because of their inclinations-so they don’t need to define themselves.

Being part of the majority makes it very difficult for people to understand why a minority makes an issue of itself.

Do you consider it discrimination because homosexuals are not allowed to marry? Because other than that, sexual orientation is a protected class in this society, and any attack on a homosexual (even if it’s not overtly about his/her sexuality) is a hate crime.

And being “part of the majority” doesn’t apply to me, as I’ve stated before. I’m not. 3 years ago, I would have been making the same arguments you were.

 

[Deo_Volente]

Grace & Peace!

Biggie, I’m very glad for your reply! I’m enjoying our conversation.

Within the context of the assertion that homosexuality is genetically selected is the logic that other sexual preferences (and beyond, other behaviors in general) are genetically selected, a possibility you allowed for in your response as to Pedophilia. Neither I, nor apparently you, believe the science is there yet if it ever will be to fully assert that genetics accounts for sexuality. We are therefore left with scant knowledge, anecdotal accounts and the logic of argument. Logically, if you are staking everything on the belief that the specific behavior of the homosexual has been selected for him, you have no basis to conversely say that the specific behavior of the pedophile or any other behavior has not been genetically selected.

I certainly see your point. But I do want to be clear, particularly with reference to your last sentence there, that when we’re talking of sexuality, we’re talking not of behavior but of an orientation toward attraction to one gender or another, which orientation I believe to be due to natural causes (genetics being one of several possible causes).

We can also talk of orientation toward a specific behavior, but once we do so, the tendency will be to reduce sexuality to a complex or a pathology. I think this is what opens up the possibility of a comparison between homosexuality and pedophilia or heterosexuality and rape. Perhaps this, then, is where the conversation goes wrong initially.

Strictly speaking, then, I do not think sexuality explicitly implies a particular behavior–it implies a particular attraction to men or women. That attraction and the subsequent consciousness of that attraction has consequences for behavior, e.g., it has consequences for a person’s self-understanding and their understanding of who they are in relation to others, which understanding(s) can tend to influence personality traits, aesthetic judgment, how we behave in the world or perform who we are for others, etc. Sexuality, however, does not compel us to have sex, but does dispose us to the possibility of sex. Whether or not we choose to pursue that possibility is a related, though a different, issue.

If it were somehow able to be shown that behavior is genetically determined, there would no longer be a basis for punishment or guilt, no longer a need for redemption, but also no basis for freedom, justice, love. It is, in the final analysis, dehumanizing.

I absolutely agree. To be clear, then, perhaps we should consider not talking of the genetic determination of behavior but of a natural disposition towards a variety of possible behaviors. This latter smacks less of fatalism and dehumanization to me.

Also, given this understanding, the language of compulsion is more easily recognized as indicative of a pathology foreign to a healthy sexuality.

But that would still leave the act that follows from the attraction, which I would assert is within the control of the actor, whether to perform it or not, which Fits is appealing that he wouldn’t have chosen if he could choose. So you and I may agree that the compulsion to perform the act doesn’t exist, but that appears to be insufficient to satifsy the expectations of the homosexual argument.

From Fits’ other posts, I think the issue is not that he or she would have chosen not to act after having responded to an attraction through action, but that he or she would not have chosen to have that attraction to begin with. I think he or she is saying that homosexuality remains such a cross in our culture that, if homosexuality (read: homosexual attraction) were a choice, he or she would not have chosen to experience it. Being a heterosexual would be easier. Fitswimmer would be the best person to explain his/her own perspective, though!

As the ability to chose or reject the act exists, so to does responsibilty for the act exist, and culpability if you accept the act as evil. And as I indicated earlier, I accept culpability exists in concupiscence, not simply in homosexual conduct. Even at the beginning, for example, the faithful heterosexual holds himself culpable for impure thoughts on which he dwells.

Agreed.

If the behavior can be avoided, then the notion of class as well as innocence vanishes.

I’m not sure I completely agree–a specific behavior may be absent, but the attraction remains, the fact of one’s sexuality remains. That fact in itself is enough to elicit irrational hatred and/or cruelty from others. If the question asked is then, “Why reveal your sexuality if, by lack of sexual indulgence, it’s a moot point?” The answer is, “because it isn’t a moot point–what is being required of the homosexual is a living of their life as if they had no sexuality at all and as if that sexuality played no part in their formation as complete human beings. That level of dishonesty is not required of heterosexuals, why should it be required of homosexuals?” But the understanding of homosexuality as an intrinsic disorder enforces this requirement, revealing in the process that that understanding is unjust.

You, yourself, first reject the idea that homosexuality is chosen asserting that such a condition would make it a subset of heterosexuality. You later, however, deny that it is compulsion. I would clarify by saying that choice makes it a subset of concupiscence, even as hetersexuality is except within a specific context.

I don’t think that asserting that homosexuality is not a choice, nor representative of a compulsion, but a naturally occurring, non-pathological orientation toward members of the same sex contradicts the assertion that it, like heterosexuality, is capable of healthy expression within a loving relationship.

Your last sentence there makes me wonder–do you define all sexuality as a species of concupiscence? That is, there is concupiscence and there are right and wrong expressions and/or understandings of it–heterosexuality happens to be right and homosexuality happens to be wrong? But unless you’re saying that concupiscence naturally tends to be heterosexual, one still cannot fail to treat homosexuality and heterosexuality on their own terms and evaluate whether homosexual or heterosexual relationships are conducive to producing the fruits of the spirit if you are serious about determining their moral value. Otherwise, right concupiscence and wrong concupiscence come off as arbitrary judgments which bear no resemblance to reality, which does morality generally no great service.

I could not agree that something becomes good because of its effect. Weeds flourish, though undesireable, and experience teaches that evil does not necessarily fail nor does good necessarily succeed.

I’m not arguing that something becomes good based on its effect, only that: by their fruits you shall know them. I’m not arguing that an evil means is productive of a good end. Certainly not! I don’t believe it at all! Nor am I arguing that it is permissible to indulge in an evil means if there is the possibility of a good end being produced. No! The good is only degraded thereby.

I’m arguing that the fruits of the spirit do not grow on intrinsically disordered trees. And yet those fruits are visible in homosexual relationships.

We had a disconnect in a prior post over this, with my assertion that something can be a good even if all visible evidence is to the contrary. It would follow also that something can be an evil, even if all visible evidence is to the contrary. Humility and self sacrifice may lead to a base life of poverty. Selfishness and pride may lead to success and wealth.

Goodness does not follow from effect.

Goodness does not follow from effect–but I think you do yourself a disservice by comparing material goods (which are not good in themselves) with spiritual goods (which are good in themselves) in order to make your point. Riches are not necessarily particularly good, nor is poverty a moral evil. I do not believe that love is the fruit of selfishness or pride, but humility and self-sacrifice are certainly part of love–as any loving relationship, homosexual or heterosexual, will demonstrate.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

Deo Gratias!

 

[Deo_Volente]

Grace & Peace!

Thank you for your response, Steve.

I don’t think the proper assessment is that it is taken for granted that a non-predatory relationship occurs between two people who share the same sexual orientation. A non-predatory relationship occurs between people who share a mutual attraction towards each other. In a heterosexual relationship, a man is attracted to a woman, and the woman is attracted to the man. In a homosexual relationship, two men (or two women) are attracted to each other. As terrible as it sounds, in a pedophilic relationship, it is possible (though certainly seldom true) that the child is attracted to the adult as the adult is to the child. And what about the cases of relationships involving three people - often a heterosexual man and two “bisexual” women?

Regarding 2, the Mary Kay Letourneau case presents such a possible argument, if it can be argued that other non-heterosexual relationships have in fact produced “fruits of the spirit.”

Regarding your first point: we were discussing the possibility of pedophilia as a sexual orientation. Here are some givens:

A homosexual relationship occurs between two people of the same sex who are attracted to each other. A relationship between a heterosexual man and a homosexual man, for instance, would either be built on coercion or dishonesty–either or both of which, I believe, would make the relationship predatory.
A heterosexual relationship occurs between two people of the opposite sex who are attracted to each other. A relationship between a heterosexual man and a homosexual woman for instance, would either be built on coercion or dishonesty–either or both of which, I believe, would make the relationship predatory.
A pedophiliac relationship occurs between an adult and a child. It is doubtful that the child is a pedophile–the child is probably either heterosexual or homosexual. If the sexual orientation of the adult is pedophile, and that of the child is homosexual or heterosexual, then the relationship is built on coercion or dishonesty–either or both of which, I believe, would make the relationship predatory.

If pedophilia is a sexual orientation, like homosexuality or heterosexuality, and if it is therefore possible to compare all three as if one were comparing like things, then it is clear that of the three, a pedophiliac relationship must necessarily be predatory. It therefore reveals itself not as a basic sexuality, but as a pathology. This was my point.

I’m glad you brought up Mary Kay. I don’t think her situation is particularly illustrative of pedophilia or indicative of a pedophiliac orientation but represents an instance of pedophilia as the result of a heterosexual indiscretion. Otherwise, I imagine she would be seeking relationships with other children. More likely, what was involved was not pedophilia but ephebophilia (her future husband had, I believed, reached puberty when they began their affair), and while this does not mitigate the distastefulness of the event, it does make it no longer about pedophilia (particularly as she did not commence an affair with the boy when she taught him in second grade).

Under the Mercy,
Mark

Deo Gratias!

 

[EasterJoy]

Not every heterosexual couple produces new citizens. Are they useless to society? Homosexuals work, they pay taxes, they volunteer and donate to charity-at least this one does. That’s good enough for heterosexuals that don’t have children, why not for us?

Consent-agreement, approval, or permission as to some act or purpose, given voluntarily by a competent person. (Black’s Law Dictionary)

I believe in your example, the 16 year old would not be considered competent to make such consent, and it would likely be easy to ascertain that even that consent was likely involuntary.

As the Church sees it, a heterosexual couple cannot validly marry without the intention of being open to children…not because such a relationship is “useless”, but because it seeks to actively evade one of marriage’s primary reasons for being. After all, neither paying taxes, nor volunteering, nor donating to charity, nor any contribution that homosexuals make requires a sexual act for its accomplishment. Chaste single people do these things all the time. (For that matter, singles have more time for that kind of thing if they don’t have a sexual relationship to divert them.)

No one is saying that homosexuals are useless. No one is saying that heterosexual couples that refuse to have kids are useless. In the secular sphere, the question is whether their lasting union should be encouraged because of the long-term consequences for children which that union is logically likely to produce. The point is that the possiblity of encouraging unions which may produce children who will grow up with both of their own parents is a societal good. You may argue that it is very hard on homosexuals and childless couples, when they split up. Those couples, though, don’t leave one partner with one or more children to raise alone. They don’t leave a child without one of their parents. That is a problem that instability in those relationships do not cause. Adults may be vulnerable, but they are in no way as vulnerable as children are.

I would go so far as to say that society, in being so permissive of marital dissolution and in being so lax in enforcing the responsibilities of non-custodial parents of the children born outside of marriage or abandoned after divorce, has abdicated its responsibility towards the societal good that stable marriages contribute. This is one problem with reducing sex to a pleasurable activity engaged in by consenting adults, and with divorcing it from all its other ramifications. Adding homosexual “marriage” will only reinforce the mistaken notion that the societal stake in marriage is primarily concerned about the interests of the adults. It isn’t.

 

[savienu]

As the Church sees it, a heterosexual couple cannot validly marry without the intention of being open to children…not because such a relationship is “useless”, but because it seeks to actively evade one of marriage’s primary reasons for being. After all, neither paying taxes, nor volunteering, nor donating to charity, nor any contribution that homosexuals make requires a sexual act for its accomplishment. Chaste single people do these things all the time. (For that matter, singles have more time for that kind of thing if they don’t have a sexual relationship to divert them.)

No one is saying that homosexuals are useless. No one is saying that heterosexual couples that refuse to have kids are useless. In the secular sphere, the question is whether their lasting union should be encouraged because of the long-term consequences for children which that union is logically likely to produce. The point is that the possiblity of encouraging unions which may produce children who will grow up with both of their own parents is a societal good. You may argue that it is very hard on homosexuals and childless couples, when they split up. Those couples, though, don’t leave one partner with one or more children to raise alone. They don’t leave a child without one of their parents. That is a problem that instability in those relationships do not cause. Adults may be vulnerable, but they are in no way as vulnerable as children are.

I would go so far as to say that society, in being so permissive of marital dissolution and in being so lax in enforcing the responsibilities of non-custodial parents of the children born outside of marriage or abandoned after divorce, has abdicated its responsibility towards the societal good that stable marriages contribute. This is one problem with reducing sex to a pleasurable activity engaged in by consenting adults, and with divorcing it from all its other ramifications. Adding homosexual “marriage” will only reinforce the mistaken notion that the societal stake in marriage is primarily concerned about the interests of the adults. It isn’t.

I agree. I think the push for homosexual marriage is just another result of divorcing sex and marriage from its natural purpose.

 

[Biggie]

Hey, Mark.
Well, it seems we agree on more than we disagree.

… when we’re talking of sexuality, we’re talking not of behavior but of an orientation toward attraction to one gender or another, which orientation I believe to be due to natural causes (genetics being one of several possible causes).

Understood without argument.

I think this is what opens up the possibility of a comparison between homosexuality and pedophilia or heterosexuality and rape. Perhaps this, then, is where the conversation goes wrong initially.

Again, no argument. We are not necessarily diverging. I object to the logic of an argument that profers ‘homosexuality is genetic’ but fails to account for the implications as to other behavior. It is that blanket argument that invites the comparison. This is not my opinion, nor yours, therefore we know the theme of this thread does beg the question ‘What is the similarity?’.

Strictly speaking, then, I do not think sexuality explicitly implies a particular behavior–it implies a particular attraction to men or women.

See, we have agreed! And from this posture and your following statements we can discuss responsibility, guilt, and what I would identify as the plight of the homosexual, a sentiment I understand you would not share. I have no doubt of the pervasive influences on the person homosexual attraction exerts and that arouses my sympathy, perhaps empathy to the extent that I fully understand the power of the heterosexual impulse, the plight of the heterosexual, if you will. Who could condone cruelty, or not feel sadness at the mistreatment of a person based on drives common to us all and over which we gain control only with great difficulty?

I do not wish to identify the homosexual drive as a pathology. I’m not qualified. I lived through early versions of the DSM that did and later versions that do not, and is it really helpful one way or the other? It is what it is.

“because it isn’t a moot point–what is being required of the homosexual is a living of their life as if they had no sexuality at all and as if that sexuality played no part in their formation as complete human beings. That level of dishonesty is not required of heterosexuals, why should it be required of homosexuals?” But the understanding of homosexuality as an intrinsic disorder enforces this requirement, revealing in the process that that understanding is unjust.

And here is the heart of the issue, then, vis a vi our discussion. We have a difference as to our opinon of the centrality of sexuality to the person. We have a difference as to the requirement of chastity for all. We have a difference as to what comprises a meaningful and happy life. And in the end, we have a difference as to what comprises sin. I do not say glibly, but with a certain horror or humility, that chastity is required of us all except within the marital act where an openness to procreation exists. It does leave one avenue of legitimate sexual expression open to the heterosexual - one. You might be surprised to find that teaching as difficult for the heterosexual as the homosexual, but I assure you it is. And as unpopular.

And we have now come full circle, since I put this forward earlier in the thread. But to be clear, I am instructed by the Church and believe all sex acts and the fantasies deliberately entertained leading to them are concupiscence, or the sin of lust, save that between a husband and wife where an openness to procreation exists. This applies to the homosexual, heterosexual, married or single. The attraction is not sinful, nor the temptation, nor the onrush of thoughts, nor the tenderness, nor the friendship, nor the cohabitation, nor the relationship, - but the act and the deliberate entertaining of sexual fantasies.

The sinfulness is not ameliorated by apparent good that results from it, the permanence of arrangements, civil contracts or the flourishing of individuals committing it. This is not an easy teaching. I am making no statement as to how well I have kept it. I am simply saying in as much as I have failed at my duty to chastity, I have in due course recognized the sin, confessed it and continued my metanoia. I have not yielded to the desire to rationalize it and make it a way of life. That, I feel, is the proper work of a Catholic.

God bless ya, buddy!

 

[steve975]

Regarding your first point: we were discussing the possibility of pedophilia as a sexual orientation. Here are some givens:

A homosexual relationship occurs between two people of the same sex who are attracted to each other. A relationship between a heterosexual man and a homosexual man, for instance, would either be built on coercion or dishonesty–either or both of which, I believe, would make the relationship predatory.
A heterosexual relationship occurs between two people of the opposite sex who are attracted to each other. A relationship between a heterosexual man and a homosexual woman for instance, would either be built on coercion or dishonesty–either or both of which, I believe, would make the relationship predatory.
A pedophiliac relationship occurs between an adult and a child. It is doubtful that the child is a pedophile–the child is probably either heterosexual or homosexual. If the sexual orientation of the adult is pedophile, and that of the child is homosexual or heterosexual, then the relationship is built on coercion or dishonesty–either or both of which, I believe, would make the relationship predatory.

If pedophilia is a sexual orientation, like homosexuality or heterosexuality, and if it is therefore possible to compare all three as if one were comparing like things, then it is clear that of the three, a pedophiliac relationship must necessarily be predatory. It therefore reveals itself not as a basic sexuality, but as a pathology. This was my point.

I disagree with the premise that all relationships outside of those between people with the same orientation are based on coercion or dishonesty. I believe this is an assumption which should not be taken for granted. My view is that a relationship is consensual, and neither coercive nor predatory, if the two people in that relationship freely consent to being in that relationship. The fact is that the vast majority of the time, relationships will obviously be between people of the same orientation as it rarely makes sense otherwise. But the fact that this is the norm is the product of the nature of these orientations. It does not make it a required condition for free consent.

There are cases of individuals who recognize themselves as heterosexual, and unexpectedly find themselves at some point attracted to a specific person of the same-sex, to the point of categorizing it as “love”. Some of these people still recognize themselves as heterosexual regardless of these anomalous attractions / relationships. Regarding a relationship between a pedophile and a child, it would indeed be a hard case to ever demonstrate that such a relationship were not predatory - but not for the reason that the child can’t possibly be a pedophile himself/herself. And it is also not impossible to ever have such a case.

I’m glad you brought up Mary Kay. I don’t think her situation is particularly illustrative of pedophilia or indicative of a pedophiliac orientation but represents an instance of pedophilia as the result of a heterosexual indiscretion. Otherwise, I imagine she would be seeking relationships with other children. More likely, what was involved was not pedophilia but ephebophilia (her future husband had, I believed, reached puberty when they began their affair), and while this does not mitigate the distastefulness of the event, it does make it no longer about pedophilia (particularly as she did not commence an affair with the boy when she taught him in second grade).

Although the sexual aspect didn’t evolve until the boy was 12, the relationship had developed to that point from the time the boy was 8. Regardless, the age difference does suggest that this relationship was in fact predatory. And if, as in a previous question you posed, we have to ask if a predatory relationship can produce “fruits of the spirit”, the answer in this case may very well be “yes”.