Y’all know that I should have previewed that last post, and are quite capable of making adjustments for my typos. 
I never for a moment implied that they were synonymous and don’t really see how anybody could read it that way. My argument was that to say “if God didn’t want there to be homosexuals, he wouldn’t have made us gay” is an invalid argument which could be used by child molesters, cannibals, and alcoholics to justify their acts. “God gave me these urges, so I must be acting according to a divine plan.” It divorces itself from ration and personal accountability. I think for an argument to have merit it must divorce the paranormal and do the Aurelian bit of examining the thing in and of itself.
I’d answer this if I understood the question. W(allstreet) Panic Snopes is the only user name I post under, if that in any way helps.
Actually pedophilia, like heterosexuality, is an orientation, while child molestation is an action. And pedophilia is probably “involuntary”, in the sense that people do not choose to be sexually attracted to pre-pubescent children, but something in their genes, pre-natal environment, early childhood, or who knows what causes them to be that way.
The difference between pedophilia and heterosexuality is that a heterosexual orientation generally leads to sexual acts (some of which are still illegal in some states) between consenting adults, while pedophilia, if it is acted upon, can only lead to what is morally speaking the equivalent of non-consensual heterosexual sex, i.e., rape.
Homosexuality, of course, is morally equivalent to a heterosexual orientation rather than to a pedophilic one.
reprise: :shrug: Maybe he’s a Faulkner fan?
Ah… I think you’re asking if I’m associated with http://www.snopes.com. No, I’m not. Wallstreet Panic Snopes is one of the many members of the Snopes family of Yoknapotawpha County in the writings of William Faulkner. My use is an homage to my favorite Southern lush rather than to the urban legends web site; I’m not sure if there is a connection between Snopes.com and Faulkner, though I can’t imagine it being a coincidence.
I wasn’t intending that statement to be an actual argument, btw, in my previous post. Simply a rejoinder to the “Adam and Adam instead of Adam and Eve” nonsense.
Kirk
That comment would carry more weight if it didn’t come from somebody who keeps Beagles in chains.
Yes, indeed, snopes took their name from the writings of Faulkner.
Having now found the common link, I’ll return you to your regularly scheduled debate.
To my knowledge, Faulkner’s grandchildren still hold the copyrights to his work, so with your kind permission unless they object I’ll continue to use the name.;j
In chains? My beagle doesn’t even wear a leash (back when she went on walks). Or a collar. She’s a Free Range dog, more or less. Goes where she want (in the house, of course, or the back yard, but she doesn’t like being outside, she’s quite old). Sleeps where she wants (which is usually wherever I or my mother are sleeping, depending on whose home), and eats when she wants (conveniently blind, she no longer can tell noon from midnight).
Speaking of child molestation (which we weren’t exactly, but I’m not sure how to start a new thread), what do you think of Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition? Essentially, is it kiddie porn if the kids aren’t real?
Ah, I’ll bet that’s what this new thread button is for…
Unfortunately I’m too tired to start one tonight. (I haven’t slept in more than 19 years, but this might be the night.)
I don’t think its kiddie porn if it ain’t kids. With the way some 20 somethings look today, kids look “childish” way after the legal limit. So the law would restrict adults of legal consenting age from participating in a legal industry. That’s not right.
It’s not protecting children if the “children” involved are adults.
Back to your regularly scheduled debate…