While I don’t think that it should matter whether homosexuals are that way by choice or by birth, I do see the argument that people have no control over their sexuality as having some relevance. For example, in the military, it is pretty much accepted that the government does have the right to determine who you can have sex with. However, if you have no control over your sexual preference, it becomes harder to justify it. It is also useful, as mentioned, in countering some of the underlying homophobia that leads to these laws.
The fact is, they do chose to live a “deviant lifestyle.” If you are attracted exclusivly to children (and people are), we demand that you resign yourself to a sexless life. If we, asa society, can expect that of pedophiles, we can expect that from homosexuals. At the end of the day, the only difference between homosexuality/heterosexuality and pedophilia is consent.
You still haven’t addressed any of my objections to the “fault” argument. If you can’t address them without falling back on “conset”, then I still say that the arguement is tragically flawed, and that allowing your oponents to distract you with an easily countered, refutable arguement is a foolish thing to do.
waterj2
I really don’t see how. See my point on pedophilia.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Manda JO *
**
Frankly, I find your comparison totally offensive, and not just for consentual reasons. Pedophiles are preditory in nature. They generally have poorly developed social skills, and are incapable of developing relationships with adults. They generally have below average IQ’s. They have a MENTAL DISEASE. Pedophies have more in common with RAPISTS than gays. Please consult the DSM-IV if you would like additional information.
Homosexuals, as a group, are NONE OF THE ABOVE. Suggesting that those who fall in love with members of their own sex are somehow even remotely conected to pedophiles is repugnant.
Its apples and oranges, and an invalid comparison, regardless of what NAMBLA has to say about it.
AHA - I see the problem here. You are making a philisophical argument. I am not. I’m talking about the REAL WORLD, where underlying prejudices have to be addressed, if any sort of progress is to be made.
Philosophically, your argument is totally sound. However, under real world scruitiny, it doesn’t hold up. Regardless of what people consent to do, if there is the mistaken belief that homesexuality is a “lifestyle choice”, those that have fallen in love with members of thier own sex will continue to be forced into a diminshed role.
Manda Jo commented:
I have some distinct problems with the POV taken here. I’m not sure to what extent Manda Jo is quoting anti-gay language and to what extent she is using it as her own, due to the “plethora” of “quotes” in “her” post. (Sorry; it’s the trained-as-an-English-teacher in me coming out! :))
However, the generic “they” (presumably referring to the gamut of homosexual persons, from context) do not “choose to live a ‘deviant lifestyle’” – precisely what a lifestyle is, other than that chronicled in Section G of a typical Sunday newspaper, is not something I feel totally clear on. However, I can feel comfortable agreeing that if gay people are interested in finding new ways to serve avocadoes and following Judith Martin’s dictates on proper social behavior, as the “Lifestyle” section would suggest, they are definitely some sort of social deviates! 
Looking at the issue a bit more seriously, I would gather that having romantic and/or sexual relations in a form not exercised by the majority of the populace is what makes one deviant according to this definition. To this can be added the classic “camp” behavior, which I gather is a couple of decades out of date as typical of affected gay behavior, but which remains a part of the condemned stereotype. This may not be what is meant by “deviant lifestyle” but it seems the best approximation I can put together.
Now, if the figures I’ve seen on estimated gay population from double-blind statistical surveys and censuses of persons who are “out gays” are at all accurate, about one-sixth of gay people are “out” and five-sixths closeted. And the latter are, by definition, not living the “deviant lifestyle.” From such personal contact as I’ve had, I’d hazard a guess that about half the closet gays are inwardly conflicted by the contradictions between what they know themselves to be and what society (or their particular segment of it) demands that they ought to be.
I think the “consent” issue is being slightly misperceived. A pedophile is expected to remain celibate (or find a less-than-fantasy-ideal sexual partner) due to the fact that those to whom he is attracted cannot give mature consent, a condition our society puts on its expectations for sexual contact. The rare cases of people who do not go through puberty until legally adult (mostly hormonally treated beforehand today) could, in theory, be acceptable sexual partners for those pedophiles, since they would be phenotypically of the desired form but emotionally mature enough to give informed mature consent. It might be theoretically possible for a physically prepubescent child to be mentally and emotionally mature enough to give that sort of informed consent, though that strikes me as improbable in the extreme.
An adult gay person attracted to other adult gays does not have that problem, presuming that he or she does not have a rape/molestation fetish as well (as will be true in 99.99%+ of such cases).
I find the attribution of “fault” to be disgusting. We are faced with the question, not of what “defect” might have resulted in these persons becoming gay, but with a world including approximately 10% of the population having discovered themselves to be gay, and finding themselves unable to change to the majoritarian orientation, at least in general terms and for those who have tried to do so.
Because some people’s readings of religious and other social norms suggests that the majoritarian, monogamous heterosexual social structure is “right,” and because a fair number of thes other persons have at one time or another experimented with homosexual activity and then terminated it for moral or other reasons, the presumption is that there must be some way for those in that 10% to do likewise, to turn from their wicked ways and do the right thing. Against this line of thought, the people in that 10% of committed gays, so to speak, are insisting that “it is not a choice.” Whether the reason that they are gay is genetic, congenital, environmental, some combination of these, or even because it pleased God to make them that way, is immaterial.
We must deal with the world as it is, and not as you or I would have it, to quote a character surnamed Hastur on this precise subject in a book series that Hastur the poster dislikes.
alice_in_wonderland
When I was sixteen, I found females who were age 16 to be attractive. I was not sick.
When I was 14, I found females who were 14 to be attractive. I was not sick.
They are still attractive. I have grown older, I have matured. This does nothing to reflect on the reasons I would find a particular female attractive.
I have found women around age 30 to be attractive my entire life (as long as I’ve been attracted to females, that is). That, as well, is not sick.
My IQ has been tested in the 98th percentile. I have never assaulted anyone. I form lasting bonds with family members, friends, and elders…people of all ages. There is at least one other member, off the top of my head, of this board who can say some very similar things. I don’t believe he has a mental disease either.
Though I may be able to appreciate the statistical value of how you’ve formed your opinions(were I to read up on the statistics you’ve hinted at), I must disagree(until that time). It is Washington apples and Granny Smith apples, but it surely isn’t apples to oranges. The people we are attracted to is the topic at hand, and whether or not we can choose who that is. Why you feel that the recipient party in this attraction has any bearing on that is far beyond me.
Stay away from the mushrooms.
That’s nice. It also doesn’t meet the diagnostic criteria for pedophilia - had you consulted the DSM-IV, as I suggested, you would know this.
Again, interesting, but not pedophilia
Great! Me too. Imagine that, we have something in common!
Well, if he too is attracted to women above the age of consent (which, incidentally, is 14, at least where I live) then I, certainly, am not going to say he has a mental disease.
Yep. And now, for the record, lets discuss what pedophilia ACUTALLY is. It’s not being into young hottie chicks, as you’ve described. If you say you wanted to get it on with 14 year olds when you were 14, I say GREAT! More power to ya!
If, however, you suggest that you want to fuck an 18 month-old, regardless of your age, then I say your a sick bastard, in need of some serious counselling. The DSM-IV would agree with me, as would the mothers of the 18 month-olds in the world.
If you’re going to shoot your mouth off, at least make sure your brain is loaded.
And, incidentally, EAT ME!
Al.
That’s quite a non sequitor. The “it’s not a choice” argument is simply pointing out that for something to be an immoral choice, it must first be a choice. The only person here lumping action with desire is you.
There’s term for countering an argument by refuting a claim that has nothing to do with the original argument. It’s called a “straw man”.
See what I mean? You refuse to consider desire and action separately, and then you accuse others of confusing them.
The only thing that is being revealed is that you have a propensity to confuse the views of some people with the views of most people.
You seem to not understand the difference between a statement and its converse. Simply because doing something against someone’s will is immoral, that does not establish that everything that is done in accordance to someone’s will is moral.
No, I haven’t, as it is not the case. Premarital sex and certain types of pornography are still illegal in some of the US, and I’m sure that the rest are illegal it some countries.
There are three problems with that (besides the sheer sheep-like quality of it)
- Not everyone agrees with the commonly accepted principles. The goal is to convince as many people as possible, not just those in the mainstream.
- Do you really think that the basic thought patterns of a society can completely shift in just 20 years? Have you ever considered that perhaps your wishful thinking has blinded you to the fact that the change has been mostly superficial?
- The fact is that the argument that something is not a choice is a well established argument against discrimination as far as the court system is concerned. The issue of consent is no well near as important to the courts.
In other words, they should confine themselves to convincing those that already agree with them.
Since you are quite adament that consent is the central issue, not choice, here’s a question. Suppose that I sneeze on you. Assuming that I had no choice about whether to sneeze on you, and that I did not have your consent to sneeze on you, should I be charged with assault? Remember, choice is irrelevant, and consent is all that matters.
First, this debate has been a good one because everyone has assumed that everyone else is argueing in good faith and not being deliberatly offensive. I really hope we can keep it that way.
Alice_in_wonderland:
I am not comparing homosexuals to pedophiles specificaly–I am comparing the element of choice in homosexual, heterosexual, and pedophiliac attraction. To draw from the examples you presented to Aynrandlover, do you think that a pedophile choses to be attracted to 18 month olds? Do you think that a pedophile can be fixed by counciling? I am pretty sure that the answer to both the above questions is no, and as such I think that the virgin pedophile is a person to be pitied, not hated. (With the note that a pedophile who has ever acted on his desires is a monster).
Coorelations with low IQ, predatory nature, sick fuckery, all that is immaterial. The only point I am attempting to draw from my analogy is that we do think it is acceptable to expect pediphiles to refrain from acting on thier desires. Do you agree with that statement? Assuming you do, why can’t we expect homosexuals to refrain from acting on thier desires? The only answer to this question is the element of consent. If you have another answer I would like to hear it.
No, you are missing the point, and you keep missing hte point, and I am going ot keep resaying it different ways until I find away to convey what I mean. I am specifically talking about the real world. I am talking about the state legislator who gets up to give a speech in favor of Gay Civil Rights. If he uses the choice argument, he is open to attack on the different grounds I have outlined. If he uses the consent argument he is not. I am talking about the TV personality who comes out of the closet. If he says 'I didn’t chose to be Gay, it’s not my fault, but that’s the way it is," he leaves a lingering impression that homosexuality is something undesirable and which needs to be apologized for. And I am thinking ahead to the possibility that in 20 years they will be able to do a bloodtest for homosexuality, whatever the cause–they may well come to understand the mechanism of attraction and discover some sort of hormone ratio or enzyme or something that explains why we are attracted to who we are attracted to. And if they do that, and they discover that 5% or 3% or 10% of the homosexual population is, in fact, wired for hetero, I don’t want to see those people’s legal and social status become clouded–something that will happen if the legal reasoning behind gay rights legislation is that “it’s not a choice”.
Polycarp:
I am not going to C&P you becaue your post is long and bandwith is scarce. If I miss any points you were trying ot make, please feel free to bring them to my attention:
-
The term “deviant lifestyle” was first used by alice_in_wonderland and I was just following thru with his example. I think that when anti-homosexuals use the term they are talking about the lifestyle of “having sex with memebers of your own sex.” Closeted or not, it is all the same under this definition. I don’t think anyone active on this thread thinks that a “homosexual lifestyle” really exisits. In fact, I am rather pleased how we can have this discussion with the assuption that no one is a homophobe. Often these sorts of talks get weighed down with people name calling and defending themselves from name calling.
-
I don’t really understand what you are getting at in your last two paragraphs. FIrst you say that many heterosexuals believe that homosexuality is a choice, then you say that the cause is immaterial, then you say that we have to accept the world as it is. By that do you mean that we have to make clear that homosexuality is not a choice in order to have it accepted by the heterosexual population, or do you mean the homosexuals do exisit, whatever the caue, and as such society needs to reform itself to fit this reality? The point alice_in_wonderland and I are argueing is whether or not the “it’s not a choice/it’s not my fault” arguement should be used in public discourse on homosexual civil rights. I am really not clear if you are taking a posistion there, or just commenting in general.
That sounds like a pretty specific comparison to me.
Uh, no. It happens to be the diagnostic criteria for a mental disease, which pedophelia is. Homosexuality is considered, at least by the APA, to be completely normal. And, incidentally, I said “deviation”, not “deviant”, the former being a statistical expression (eg, “strictly homosexual behaviour falls 3 standard diviations away from the norm within a NORMAL population”), whereas, “deviant” implies something completely different.
I would think the answer to this question should be painfully obvious. If you would like to subsititute “rapist” for “homosexual” in the aforementioned quote, then the anology is fine. Otherwise, it makes no sense, what-so-ever. Or perhaps you believe that we should also demand that HETRO couples refrain from any sort of sexual behaviour, ever, under any circumstances. It’s not a simple matter of consent - you have to consider the nature of the act involved.
This is grossly superficial point of view. You have to consider the ELEMENT of the sex act involved, and you CANNOT, legitimatly compare homosexual sex to pedophilia. One of them is a CRIME. (And, yes, I know that homosexuality used to be a crime, might still be in some states, yada, yada, yada - that, obviously, is irrelevant.)
Of course he is. Any argument that you come up with has justifiable rebuttal somewhere. Poligamy comes to mind - the members of those mariages all consent, but its still legistlated against, right?
TV celebs come out whining about all sorts of things, and nothing much happens. Oprah has whined about everything under the sun (weight, exercise, child abuse, drug abuse, dog abuse, etc.etc.) and the only lingering impression that it leaves is that Oprah whines alot. It certainly doesn’t imply that all women, or all african-americans, or all talk show hosts are whiners - it suggests that Oprah is. Period.
Scientifically, this is absurd, I will leave it at that.
Al.
Politically I agree with avid. What people do is their business, regardless of why.
On a personal level, it would be nice to know whether sexuality is a choice. I’ve lost a friend and a cousin to AIDS. I worry about whether others close to me will become HIV-positive. I’ve always assumed that gays can’t change their sexuality, and also that they wouldn’t make an effort on my say-so. I’ve never even considered trying to convince anyone to change their sexuality.
On the other hand, there are obese people, drinkers and smokers who I care for, for whom I have made some reform efforts. If it were established that sexuality could be chosen, I might behave differently toward loved ones. However, this is purely hypothetical. I very much doubt that sexuality can be chosen.
december:
Having an orientation (however aqcuired) toward sexual attraction to members of the same sex is not the same thing as actually engaging in sexual relations with members of the same sex. And engaging in sexual relations with members of the same sex is not the same thing as engaging in unprotected sexual relations with large numbers of persons of the same sex. Even if homosexuality is not “chosen”, you would still have a perfect right to try and persuade any loved one to refrain from behaviors which are immoral or harmful to themselves and others. Which homosexuality, as such, is not (IMO). You have no more right to interfere in the choice of a homosexual loved one to have sex with another consenting adult than you do to interfere in the choice of a heterosexual loved one to have sex with another consenting adult. Promiscuity is the problem with AIDS and other STD’s, not homosexuality; just look at the AIDS statistics for Africa, where promiscuous heterosexuals have unwittingly unleashed an epidemic that threatens to be on the scale of the Black Death.
I believe Mando JO’s point all along has been that society has precisely as much right to demand that heterosexual couples refrain from any sort of sexual behavior, ever, under any circumstances as it does that homosexual couples do so, i.e., no right at all. We have a right to demand that everyone–homo- or heterosexual–not have sex forcibly, and that they not have sex with children too young to give meaningful consent, and we have a right to demand those things very firmly, to the point of making them illegal. We also have a right to try and persuade people not to have promiscuous unprotected sex–whether it’s gay men in bathhouses or Wilt Chamberlain–on public health grounds. And hey, if you really think your cousin Bruce deserves much, much better than that worthless, ne’er-do-well lout Steve, you have as much right–and probably as much expection of success–to try to talk him out of the relationship as you do to talk your cousin Bernice out of her relationship with that jerk Ted.
Being gay does not mean you will get AIDS. In fact, even if “gayness” is not a choice, having uprotected sex IS a choice. (Or having sex with a staggering amount of partners)
Every once in awhile a passing comment comes up between a friend and I about age. He always gives me a hollow, wistful look when I talk about living a long time. Once, I asked him why he gives me that look. His response? “You should know better, Im gay, I’ll get aids and die”
What?! That is illogical to think in that manner. So because your gay, you should give up all hope of being healthy and living a long time? Heres a tip for ya then (What I tell him every time); Protect yourself, or just dont go out and have sex with 3 guys in one night so often.
[Unprotected straight couples who practice unsafe sex with mulitple partners have just as high of a risk, being gay has nothing to do with it, being stupid has everything to do with it]
On the topic of choice though, I know it is not a choice for me. I have gone a really long time without any sort of sex. (almost 7 years). During this time, I have contemplated being Gay. That thought, however, has never gone over, never have I found it either repulsive or attractive. I just simply was not attracted to men. No choice in the matter at all.
I agree with you that consent is the primary guideline here, so the issue of “choice” is, in a way, unnecessary.
Unfortunately the “choice” issue will remain important so long as a significant number of people hang their prejudice on the notion that gays “choose” their lot in life. All but the most extreme gay bashers realize that you can’t condem someone just because of the way they were born, so they use the “choice” issue a a way to rationalize their bigotry. Once you point out how absurd this notion is then they will find their fundamental bigotry exposed. Well, that’s how it should work anyway.
The Ryan
The “not a choice” arguement has as an unstated premise that if homosexual attraction is not chosen, then homosexual actions are acceptable. It is people who make this arguement who conflate the two, and I am the one trying to point out that this unstated premise exisits, and that we do not hold the unstated premise to be true in other cases.
You are right, I phrased my arguement badly. Let me try again:
-
If the morality of an action is determined by the abilty to control on’s desire to act, then pedophilia and homosexuality are moral.
-
If the morality of an action is determined by the consent of the person acted upon, homosexuality is moral and pedophilia is immoral.
I don’t understand what you mean by this, and it seems to me to be deliberatly inflamatory.
I suppose that we are getting into the realm of opinion here–deciding what technique will be most effective in the long term. I myself feel that full acceptance of homosexuality by society will be more the result of attrition than anything else–prejudices are deep set, and I think the the most effective technique is to insure that they are not passed down to the next generation as possible. This is why I feel it is important not to apologize for being gay–it sends the message that homoseuality is an unlpleasant rreality, not what anyone would chose. This isa better attitude than “homosexuals are an abomination of God”, of course, but it is not the best attitude, and I would rather people growing up today be exposed to the best attitude–that homosexuality is a variation on human. Futhermore, I do not think that the “it’s not achoice” arguement has any real staying power as far as convincing people “not in the mainstream”. They are as apt to recognize its flaws as anyone.
Actually, those thought patterns started changing at least 300 years ago. There has been a steady trend since the enlightenment towards evaluating moral behavior in terms of the harm principle. And no, I odn’t think it is mostly superficial. Since this is not the sort of thing either of us can provie concrete, conclusive evidence of, we are somewhat stuck.
The landmark Vermont Supreme court ruling that denying homosexuals the rights and benefits of marrige was unconstitutional was not based on the idea that choice is a factor in discrimination. Near as I can tell. it is based instead on the idea that all citizens of Vermont are entitled to the same rights and protections. (I admit I only skimmed parts). In fact, the ruling states:
[emphasis mine]
This seems to imply that homosexual partnerships are the result of choice, and that they are still legitimate. (I know that they are not talking about causes here, but the overall principle–that people have the right to choes thier lovers without regard to that lover’s sex seems to apply).
The unstated premise that everyone has seemed to understand exisits in all the arguements made thus far is that the ability to control one’s actions exisits regardless of the object of one’s attraction. Since ytou can’t control a sneeze, it really isn’t a good example. If you deliberatly ran across a room to sneeze on me, I would think you guilty of something, even if it was only bad manners.
alice_in_wonderland:
Perhaps I should have been more clear. Throughout the thread we have been talking about the origin and flexibility of attraction, and it was on that basis that I was comparing the three things. Not on any other basis.
Are you suggesting that someone who was sexually attracted to 18 month olds but who did not show all these other charecteristics would not be a pedophile? The only aspect we are discussing is attraction and the ability to control it.
On 04-17-2001 at 11:12 PM you said:
As I was playing advocate for those rednecks in order to show how they could counter your argument, I lifted out your term and put it in quotes.
The problem with rapists is the lack of consent. And yes, I think we all expect heterosexuals to refrain from non-consenual sex under all circumstances.
[quote It’s not a simple matter of consent - you have to
consider the nature of the act involved.[/quote]
Again, what nature of the act? What is wrong with pedophilia except for the fact that minors cannot consent? (and in case anybody missed it, that is more than enough grounds to label pedophilic sex as the worst type of atrocity).
I am not comparing homosexual sex to pedophilia. I am comparing homosexual/heterosexual sex to pedophilia. Or, to put it another way, consensual sex to non-consenual sex. Non consensual sex is a crime because it is non-consensual.
I should have said he is not suseptable to any good arguements against it. There are several god arguments 9which oyu have not refuted) against the claim “Homosexuality is ok when and only when it is not a choice” And with the exception of Utah, which has an unusual history, I would say that polyamorus marriges are not so much lesislated against as they are not legislativly recognized.
Yes, but if oprah were to say 'I didn’t want to be an African-American, no one in thier right mind would chose to be an African-American, it’s not fair to hate me for being an African-American, it’s not my fault", she would be critizied by every civil rights group in America. But when a homosexual says “I didn’t chose to be homosexual, who would chose to be homosexual?” everyone silently agrees. Enough of this (and I see it alot, every time this issue comes up) and the overall impresson of homosexuality is that it is some sort of chronic disease that one must just make the best of.
Why? Attraction seems to be chemical in nature. If there is some underlying biological cause to homosexuality (or cause to heterosexuality–homosexuality is as likely to be the 'base" state if there even is a “base” state, which I doubt), we will eventually figure out what it is. If we know what it is, we may be able to test for it. If there is not, we are back to the problem of having based legislation on the choice issue.
Well, I understand where you are coming from, but I think you’re taking on a loftier issue than I am.
Getting legislation passed is a very difficult thing to do, especially when it is of such an impassioned nature. Eventually you are going to be faced with the classic political conundrum: Do you compromise, make the deal, and get some of what you want; or do you hold firm, lose the deal, and try again next year.
Right now, right this very minute, there are millions of homosexuals being discriminated against in very real ways. If I could put an end to that tomorrow by exposing the “choice” argument as illogical, then that is a deal I would make in a heartbeat.
So, in my opinion, although the “consent” position is more noble and pure as a philosophy, the “choice” issue is more pragmatic, and that’s where I’m coming from.
Buckner and Amadeus, you are mostly right in theory, but things aren’t actually working that way. (My spouse is a bio-statistician who does a lot of work in AIDS; we talk about this.) Unfortunately, a very substantial portion of the gay male population in the USA is HIV positive. As a practical matter, gay sex is enormously riskier than straight sex.
IMHO some of the reasons may be that
– anal intercourse is more risky
– having other STD’s increases the risk
– gay males are more apt to have multiple partners
– as a practical matter, condoms are often ignored
I confess my discussion is also theoretical. I’m not intimate enough with the men I mentioned to suggest that they take proper precautions, nor do I think my entreaty would make any difference.
This only applies to people who chose thier partners randomly. For example-if 20% of population A is HIV positive and 5% of population B is HIV positive, then yes, having sex with a randomly chosen member of population A is more risky than than having sex with a randomly chosen member of population B. However, few people chose thier sexual partners randomly–other factors come in, and those can signifigantly effect risk.
While it is true that many people who use the “not a choice” argument confuse the issues of homosexual attraction and homosexual actions, that does not mean that there is anything inherently wrong with the argument. Just because the proponents of an argument are logically flawed, that does not mean the argument is.
You still don’t seem to be getting it. Suppose someone claimed that quartz is a carnivorous animal. I then reply that quartz is not an animal, so it cannot possibly be a carnivorous animal. Now suppose that someone tells me that my argument is flawed because whether or not something is an animal does not determine whether or not it is carnivorous.
You also are still not making a distinction between desire and acts. Pedophilia is not immoral, so your use of it in your proof by contradiction is flawed.
I don’t see anything unclear about referring to “We have to base our arguements on the commonly accepted princeples of today” as “sheeplike”. I could almost hear the bleating as I read it. If slavery were a widely accepted practice, would you advocate forming arguments around the principle that slavery is okay? It seems to me that you’d rather be a bellwether than a shepherd. As for whether it is inflammatory, challenging other people’s principles is often unsettling, but simply unsettling you has not been my purpose.
I never claimed that every court ruling was based on the issue of choice. Just that there’s a whole lot more of them than ones that have consent as their guiding principle.
But now you’re making the issue of choice the basis for whether something is immoral, when you said that choice is unimportant. The whole point of my example is to examine whether you really believe that choice is unimportant. When you say that it isn’t a good example because I can’t choose, you’re missing the point. The fact that I can’t choose is why I chose it.
Yes, that is exactly what I’m suggesting. You’ve hit the nail on the head. Uh huh, uh huh.
And you have to be of legal age to consent. Sooo, if a pair of 13 years olds play doctor under the back stoop, thats a crime because neither one of them was of the age to consent? Legally, I don’t know (but I doubt it - who would they charge?). Morally? Of course not - there is nothing predatory about two children checking out each others equipment. However, when an adult manipulates a child; Acts with duplicity, with only thier own feelings in consideration; establishes and then violates trust, that is a crime, both morally and legally, and that has very little to do with consent.
I have never, in all my days, heard a gay man or woman, say anything even CLOSE to this. I have never seen, heard or been told of someone silently agreeing. Who says this?
I have, however, heard people say “I am gay. I was born gay, and am proud to be gay. My sexuality is as true to me as my eye color, my shoe size and my preference for ice cream flavors. Because you do not judge me and discriminate against me for those things, do not judge me for my sexuality.”
Well, according to Desmond Morris I suppose. Anthropologists/social psychologists that don’t do TV specials tend to recognize the multi-faceted elements that lead to attraction, and would probably find the notion of a blood test rather amusing. However, I leave that to the aforementioned anthropologists/social psychologists to discuss.
Al.
Then what would such a person be? As far as I know, the word pedophile refers to someone who is sexually attracted to children. The DSM-IV, while a useful reference manual, is not an authority on language. While someone may not meet its requirements for having the mental disorder known as pedophilia, if that person is sexually attracted to children, the word pedophile does fit.
Plus, you seem to be saying that if it’s in the DSM-IV, it must be true. It is certainly possible to argue that the DSM-IV is not guaranteed to be inerrant, and that previous editions have been incorrect in places.
As for my comments about the military, I would have to say that in that situation, the consent argument is useless, as people in the military are expected to abide by the UCMJ (Uniform Code of Military Justice) regardless of whether it makes sense. Thus, when you make the argument that there is nothing wrong with having homosexual sex, as long as it’s consentual, it is irrelevant.
In the military, not only is it forbidden to have homosexual sex, it is also forbidden to admit to being a homosexual. If homosexuality is indeed something that one has no control over, this would be like forbidding people from mentioning that they have imperfect vision.