gyaradosuseddragonrage!
ylvis
Therefore in my eyes, you seem to think that nobody can get harmed in a heterosexual relationship because you have not provided examples, nor have you mentioned anything about it.
-
Hi all
Just a notice, we recently discovered that someone got into a moderator account and started hard deleting a load of key and legacy threads...around 150 threads have been lost dating back to 2007 and some weeks ago so we can't roll the forums back.
Luckily no personal data could be accessed by this moderator, and we've altered the permissions so hard deleting isn't possible in the future
Sorry for any inconvenience with this and sorry for any lost posts. -
Be sure to join the discussion on our discord at: Discord.gg/serebii
If homosexuality is not a mental disorder...
- Thread starter Sadib
- Start date
- Status
Therefore in my eyes, you seem to think that nobody can get harmed in a heterosexual relationship because you have not provided examples, nor have you mentioned anything about it.
CSolarstorm
New spicy version
What does that have to do with what I just said?
If this is how you debate--by repeatedly making posts at the other person about how they're losing, even when it isn't true (quite the opposite, actually)--then you really need to work on your debating skills. They aren't proper, or effective.
mattj said:
Did you seriously just use a Twitter tag on a forum?
I've already explained how they are different. About 20 other people have also explained how they're different. If you can't be bothered to read and comprehend, I can't be bothered to repeat myself.
mattj said:
It'll be hard, but I can forgive everyone if they show signs of wanting to change.
mattj said:
No.
There is absolutely no scientific evidence to support that your sexuality determines your likelihood to contract any given STI. Fact.
You are showing a clear lack of understanding your own evidence. Your graph shows that more HIV-infected individuals are homosexual, but it does not show how they contracted it. Therefore, you are assuming that homosexuals are somehow more likely to get HIV. Again, correlation (your graph) =/= causation. The two are very different, and the only thing that can prove your argument right is causation. You haven't given any causation, only correlation and your own assumptions.
Peter Quill
star-lord
I wonder where in my post I looked stupid enough to warrant you telling me this.
Except that you're still dodging how a 14 year old can be in a completely consensual, healthy and meaningful (in their eyes) relationship with someone who is, say, 18. A 4 year old cannot a) consent or b) have an understanding of what a healthy relationship is. What it is in the eyes of the government is sort of stupid because it's more of a case by case basis if anything. Grey area exists.
Of which I already picked apart. Or did you forget that painful realization already?
gyaradosuseddragonrage!
ylvis
How polite. What are you to decide what he does on SPPf?
CSolarstorm
New spicy version
No you didn't. Belbackinblack provided professional arguments from articles and you tried to shoot them down with arguments you xeroxed from gay rights arguments and put "pedophile" wherever "homosexual" would normally be.
Grey Wind
Well-Known Member
Aside from that having nothing to do with anything, a four year old is far too young to make any sort decision based on sex. A fourteen year old (like myself) has a knowledge of sex, but still may not be emotionally ready.
Is this what you do when you start losing a debate? You convince yourself that you win and then start bashing the other person whenever they say anything further?
gyaradosuseddragonrage!
ylvis
If you lose, you try to think that you're winning. Yeah, people who aren't rational typically do that.
Historical evidence suggests this is true. I've never seen BigLutz explicitly concede an argument. He will only insist on repeating himself, splitting hairs in your rebuttals and telling you that your 'pathetic argument' has failed. Then, when you lose patience and leave the debate, he announces that he has won the argument because 'you ran away like a (little girl)/(sore loser)/(other, please specify).
There is really no argument. Pedophilia is a disorder. All pedophiles exhibit symptoms, such as poor social skills and self-esteem, that are consistent with a compromised psychological state.
A typical homosexual, on the other hand, does not show these traits. With the exception of the fact that they do not find themselves attracted to a biologically-advantageous mate, they are mentally healthy people, with normal, rational thought processes.
To suggest homosexuality is disorder by erroneously stating 'they are more likely to get HIV/AIDS' is as ludicrous as saying that being Indian is a disorder because you are more likely to contract diseases from drinking dirty water.
Willow's Tara
The Bewitched
Ah sorry, got writing too fast I didn't realize that does sound kinda stupid.
But the point is homosexuality is no different from heterosexuality and its perfectly normal and natural. I just don't think a debate should even be needed to say it is.
It's just something that's there like being straight. If we are going to question homosexuality then why don't we question heterosexuality too. Why the need to find a relationship? Why do we search for love.
Since reproduction seems to be the other thing coming up, if according to some others is the only reason that homosexuality is "unnatural" then why do we fall in love? Wouldn't love itself be unnatural, nothing more then a horrible disease that makes me seem like fools.
What's the point of Love and how is that natural if we were only meant to have babies,
Child pornography is illegal, no matter who produces it. Having it in your possession means that you in some way are exploiting children, which is illegal.
I imagine it’s the same reason that a parent wouldn’t leave their child with a murderer. Or do serial killers make terrific babysitters?
The thing is, homosexuals are not known for raping people. On the other hand, pedophiles are known for either engaging in sexual relations with children, or fantasize about sexual relations with children. At least the one about pedophiles is somewhat founded in fact instead of ignorance. You can split hairs with this all you want, it does not change the fact that pedophiles in someway exploit children, either in their private thoughts or with an actual child.
You’re not debating my point. All you did was simply repeat exactly what I said and pretended that it was actually an argument against what I said. I never said you didn’t want to have sex with that person. I simply said that you could not have complete sexual attraction to them (if I'm being to vague, I consider emotional and romantic attraction as well as physical attraction.) What I was describing was sexual fetishism which is only about sexual arousal, not sexual attraction.
See what I said above. Pedophiles are known for sexually contacting children. Homosexuals are only known for liking the same-sex. The two are very different in the real world.
You might want to back **** like that up with some historical or scientific proof, otherwise you come across as an ***.
Also, no, I detailed how pedophilia and homosexuality were different. And in case you didn’t know, public perception=/=fact.
From Google himself:
Sexual desire and sexual orientation are actually very different. You attempted to interchange the two when the original topic was on sexual orientation.
So, no, children are not a sex, they are an age group, a desire, a fetish of sorts. They are NOT a sexual orientation.
No, a person’s sexual desire goes beyond gender. Sexual orientation deals only with gender. Again, the respondent was originally talking about orientation.
Then they also do not differentiate heterosexuality and pedophilia.
You have to be an idiot if you think consent nor harm differentiate the two. Especially when it comes to law, consent and harm are basically everything.
You act as if all child abuse is reported. Silly me, I didn’t know we lived in a utopia.
And again, I’m not saying all pedophiles will molest children, but that’s kinda the entire description of a pedophile, whereas nothing in the definition of a homosexual describes them as sexual deviants, abusers, etc.
You mean pedophiles can change? Weird, I was pretty sure that was one of the big differences I pointed between pedophiles and homosexuals that you said applied to both.
Again, heterosexuality can also harm people. But unlike heterosexual and homosexual acts, pedophiliac in some way cause harm or exploit the harm of a child. How that does not seem different to you I will never know.
Again, pedophiles in some way exploit children. Maybe not if they don’t act on their urges, but those that do always cause harm. The same cannot be said for homosexuals or heterosexuals, whose acts do not inherently create harm.
And what is it that this point is supposed to imply?
Actually, on a case to case basis, most jurisdictions do have exceptions, such as close-in-age defenses.
Last edited:
Sadib
Time Lord Victorious
You're right. Age isn't really that good of an indicator of intelligence. -silver- and majj are 19 and 26 respectively, but their thought patterns are still very flawed.
Except that entire statement is founded in ignorance. You hear about pedophiles engaging in sexual acts with children when yes they do comit a crime. But does that even represent a majority of those with pedophile thoughts? No. If we were to only base our information on homosexuals based on when they raped someone, we would carry the same thoughts about them too.
No a description of a pedophile is one that has sexual desires for a child, for them to molest a child would mean for them to act on those desires on a unwilling person. That is about as comparable as saying a Homosexual rapes members of the same sex because of their desires for them. Both are failed lines of logic.
No, you cannot change your sexual preferences, you can however live a life with a adult mate while trying to repress them, as many homosexuals do.
A pedophile who acts on his urges is doing so on a unconsenting person. Most do not act on those urges, those that do can be compared reasonably to many heterosexuals and homosexuals who see a person they desire on the street and decide that they want to have sex with them no matter what. Be it through manipulation, or force.
Last edited:
CSolarstorm
New spicy version
Your argument is getting to be absolutely ridiculous, BigLutz. There is no other way I can break it down for you that will possibly help. If I did, you will likely just return to an emotional plead for more acceptance for pedophiles that aren't really pedophiles because the haven't done anything, they're celibate, and they're going to repress it and eventually lead another life instead.
BigLutz, again you have gotten yourself caught in tiny details. Look at the big picture! There is something mentally wrong with paedophiles. Wanting to take advantage of the innocence of a child for your own sexual pleasure is not the process of a rational person. Abusing the trust between your position and that of the child's in order to take advantage of them is not rational behaviour. Feeding the child propaganda like 'if you tell anybody about this I will kill your brothers and sisters at night time' to keep it a secret is not rational behaviour.
You make the unfounded claim that most paedophiles do not act on their desires. I am at a loss to explain how you could possibly know this. Statistics indicate that there are many active paedophiles; the vast majority of paedophiles are never recognised because their victims, for whatever reason, do not bring it to light. Too often paedophiles were themselves molested as children and the behaviour is seen as an outlet - again this is typical of a mental disorder associated with repressed memories, shame, anger, low self-esteem and so on.
Homosexuals, on the other hand, are not defined by their propensity to molest, rape or otherwise exploit their potential mates. Homosexuality itself is not a disorder. People can have disorders while also being homosexual, just as they can if they are heterosexual. Do not confuse these distinctions.
You make the unfounded claim that most paedophiles do not act on their desires. I am at a loss to explain how you could possibly know this. Statistics indicate that there are many active paedophiles; the vast majority of paedophiles are never recognised because their victims, for whatever reason, do not bring it to light. Too often paedophiles were themselves molested as children and the behaviour is seen as an outlet - again this is typical of a mental disorder associated with repressed memories, shame, anger, low self-esteem and so on.
Homosexuals, on the other hand, are not defined by their propensity to molest, rape or otherwise exploit their potential mates. Homosexuality itself is not a disorder. People can have disorders while also being homosexual, just as they can if they are heterosexual. Do not confuse these distinctions.
Last edited:
Thanks for contributing.
- Status