Snopes's Evil Twin

[Polycarp]

*Originally posted by Arcite *
First, I am a Christian. I take the word “Christian” to mean one who subscribes to the tenets and creeds of historical, orthodox Christianity, though not necessarily some of the fundamentalist additions of the 20th century.

Reasonable so far – though I am not at all happy with line-drawing. Do you use sugar on your porridge?

For example, I would consider belief that Jesus was physically resurrected…as essential to Christianity

Wow, so you don’t think St. Paul was a Christian?!?! :eek: (See I Corinthians 15 if you don’t have a clue what I’m talking about.)

and that he did in fact say all of the sayings ascribed to him in the Gospels, as essential to Christianity

I can buy this – thugh I think that intelligent scholarship into what He said when, and the relative reliability of the slightly divergent Gospel accouints, is not unreasonable. For example, did He refer to God’s sovereignty, especially over the believer who has committed to follow Him, as the “Kingdom of God” (Mark and Luke) or the “Kingdom of Heaven” (Matthew)? When and where did He pronunce the Beatitudes, how many of them were there, how were they worded, and were they accompanied by curses? (See Matthew 5:1-12, and Luke 6:20-26.)

, but I do not insist on a literal 6 day, 24 hour Creation.

Cool. Why?

Liberal Christianity, on the other hand, I see as starting with the premise that the tenets and wisdom of modern, secular society, with its inherent distrust of revealed religion and rejection of any beliefs that might appear “exclusivist,” are true, and working backward from there, trying to make the conception of God and the sayings and actions of Jesus jibe with that worldview.

Sorry, but you lose. Your “analysis” of why I hold the beliefs I do is about on a par with His4Ever’s. I believe as I do because I take the reported words of Jesus seriously, and don’t try to creatively interpret them to fit a worldview based on distaste for those different from me. I’m not out to “tell people what they want to hear” as His accused me of, and I don’t try to make Jesus sound like a particularly pussilaneous UU minister afraid to tell the truth for fear of offending someone. But anyone who alleges that He is more interested in people following rules, and comelling others to follow them, than in decent treatment of one’s fellow man, has far less respect than I for His recorded words in the Gospels.

Formal warning: I’ve said the reasons for my belief in several times and places. The next person who decides to proclaim why I must think what I do, in contradiction to what I’ve said, can expect a very thorough Pitting.

I don’t wish to personally offend the Polycarps of the world with this statement…

Sorry, but you don’t get your wish. :mad:

but I subscribe to J. Gresham Machen’s thesis that Christianity and liberal Christianity are in fact two entirely different religions.

Okay, so you follow Machen, and I;'ll follow Jesus.

The idea of homosexual behavior being immoral is, as I’m sure most liberal Christians and non-believers will agree, an incontrivertible doctrine of the former worldview

Okay. Personally I prefer Bible-based doctrine like God calling all men to follow Him, and that all unrepented sin separates one from God, not targeting one group as specially immoral. But it’s your privilege. “Everybody needs somebody else to look down on” – Kris Kristofferson.

the one I’m simply calling “Christianity.”

How if I claimed my tradition to be “real” Christioanity, and decided to call yours Neo-Pharisaism?

Homosexual “orientation,” on the other hand, is not something that Christians have had much to say about historically, because it is a fairly new concept. Identifying oneself by one’s sexual desires was not something people did in the past. If you were a man who was attracted to other men, you were still a man, albeit one who had this strange fluke of being attracted to other men. You were not a “gay person.” What frustrates me is that even many conservative Christians have bought into the “gay person” view. I wince everytime I see a William Bennett or an Antonin Scalia saying “I have no problem with gay people per se, I just happen to believe they should refrain from buggering each other,” because nobody believes them anyway, and they’re just undermining their/our own cause by conceding that “gayness” is a valid concept. I think it’s quite problematic that the idea of “gayness” is gaining so much acceptance, because it allows social/cultural liberals to paint those who believe homosexuality to be immoral or problematic with the “racist/bigot” brush, as though there’s no difference between disapproval of homosexuality and the belief that blacks should be lynched or Jews sent to concentration camps, when of course I find those last two ideas as abhorrent as anyone else does.

I pity your wife. Apparently the only reason one might enter into a relationship, according to you, is that it gives you free access to sex. Perhaps someday she will wise up, leave you, and find a man who will treat her like a human being, with her own wants, needs, joys, sorrows, desires, etc.

Or do you believe love is the exlusive province of heterosexuals?

[gobear]

Or do you believe love is the exlusive province of heterosexuals?

Intersting timing for this thread. My boyfriend is in bed with a nasty cold, and I’ve brought him breakfast in bed, made him coffee, rubbed his back, and right now I’m going to get some Tylenol cold medicine and some ice cream to make him feel better.
According to the OP, I must be doing that merely to express my sexual desires because to him gay men are not capable of love and caring.

[iampunha]

I have to say, of all the interesting ideas this individual has brought up, one above all really amuses me.

Identifying oneself by one’s sexual desires was not something people did in the past.

Here’s a short list of other things we didn’t do in the past:

1. Bathe daily
2. Teach people, on a regular basis, to read
3. Vote for elected officials
4. Go on vacation
5. Drive cars

Now, what exactly are you getting at with this point of yours?

Fair warning re: your last post. There are a good number of us on this MB who are pretty good at dissecting and refuting arguments. Giving us two days to do that to your post is a pretty good way to ensure that if you’re going to be thorough in your responses you’ll be dealing with this thread, when you come back, for about five hours.

[mulletsunite]

quoted from “Homosexual Urban Legend: 30% Of Teen Suicide Victims Are Homosexuals”
"Another survey of 266 college men and women found that teens who think they are homosexuals were not much more likely to have attempted suicide than straight students. Homosexual students were more likely to have reported “attempts,” but these turned out to be “thinking” about suicide rather than actually doing it. "
So am I to take it that more homosexual students “thinking about” suicide than their staight counterparts somehow “proves” that young homosexuals are less suicidal? I’m confused as to how this is supposed to support their position…

Gay man: No, doctor, I’m just thinking about suicide, I haven’t actually tried it yet.
Doctor: Well, that’s fine then. We usually wait until a patient actually attempts to shoot themselves in the head or drinks a bottle of bleach before we consider it a problem.

[Weirddave]

Still, you continue to make no sense.

would consider belief that Jesus was physically resurrected, and that he did in fact say all of the sayings ascribed to him in the Gospels, as essential to Christianity, but I do not insist on a literal 6 day, 24 hour Creation

How do you jibe this with the fact that:

A: Jesus never mentioned homosexuality at all

B: With the exception of two passages from Paul, passages that are fairly nebulous if you look at them in historical context, homosexuality isn’t mentioned at all in the New Testament. Other then that, all biblical basis to condem homosexuals comes from the Old Testament, along side many other laws that are routinely ignored by most Christians, things such as dietary restrictions and the like. If you reject a “literal 6 day, 24 hour Creation”, why do you accept the prohibition against homosexuality, yet reject kosher food laws? ( I am assuming that you don’t keep kosher, if you do then please ignore what I just said, in that case you are being consistant, at least,)

If the basis for your Christianity is “all the things Jesus said in the Gospels”, something that I would agree is a good starting point for a Christian, why consider homosexuality at all, especially when the only NT basis for condeming gay people is based upon passages from Paul that contradict the spirit, if not the letter, of Jesus’ words?

[KGS]

*Originally posted by gobear *
It’s not a mental problem; it’s an orientation. I would suggest that you learn about the subject before you offer more of your dimwitted opinions.

Hear, hear!

That’s why pedophilia is so notoriously difficult to “cure”…it’s not really a “mental illness” per se, it’s a sexual orientation no different from being gay or straight.

That doesn’t excuse their actions, of course. But most “true pedophiles” (or so I’ve been told, from people “in the know”) don’t even mess around with children. Because they know how great the risk of jail & social ostracization (sp?) is, to say nothing of the effect on the child!!!

And most child molesters, i.e. older family members who molest their son/daughter/nephew/niece, aren’t even pedos in the traditional sense. They are more or less strictly heterosexual, but commit sexual unforgivableness against their younger relatives as a manner of CONTROL and POWER.

[Ludovic]

*Originally posted by KGS *
**Hear, hear!

That’s why pedophilia is so notoriously difficult to “cure”…it’s not really a “mental illness” per se, it’s a sexual orientation no different from being gay or straight.

That doesn’t excuse their actions, of course. But most “true pedophiles” (or so I’ve been told, from people “in the know”) don’t even mess around with children. Because they know how great the risk of jail & social ostracization (sp?) is, to say nothing of the effect on the child!!!

And most child molesters, i.e. older family members who molest their son/daughter/nephew/niece, aren’t even pedos in the traditional sense. They are more or less strictly heterosexual, but commit sexual unforgivableness against their younger relatives as a manner of CONTROL and POWER. **

Perhaps the wisest post in this thread so far, including mine.

Which, of course, is not to say that there aren’t “true pedophiles” who, nonetheless, rape children. Probably even slightly higher than the percentage of heterosexual men who are rapists. But I would guess that they are dwarfed by the sick opportunists who molest because they can.

[Polycarp]

*Originally posted by KGS *
**Hear, hear!

That’s why pedophilia is so notoriously difficult to “cure”…it’s not really a “mental illness” per se, it’s a sexual orientation no different from being gay or straight.

That doesn’t excuse their actions, of course. But most “true pedophiles” (or so I’ve been told, from people “in the know”) don’t even mess around with children. Because they know how great the risk of jail & social ostracization (sp?) is, to say nothing of the effect on the child!!!

And most child molesters, i.e. older family members who molest their son/daughter/nephew/niece, aren’t even pedos in the traditional sense. They are more or less strictly heterosexual, but commit sexual unforgivableness against their younger relatives as a manner of CONTROL and POWER. **

You know, it is truly annoying when people arguing the anti-gay-rights stance trot out the comparison to pedophilia, as happens seemingly every time the discussion is raised.

But I get a strong sense that that is not what KGS is doing here. Rather, I get the impression he is forging new ground in recognizing both a similarity and a difference.

If I read him right, he’s saying that there is a similarity, that both are sexual orientations in finding sexual attractiveness in “non-standard” persons – and that the fact (with no moral judgment implied) of pedophilia being an orientation rather than an illness is key to its resistance to therapy.

The diffrence lies in the potential for harm. Consensual sex between adult (and presumably adolescent) gay people need cause no psychological or social harm (as with any sexual relationship, the potential for hurt is always there). The same is not true for pedophilia – molestation by an adult will inevitably cause problems for prepubescent children’s psyches. Gratification of pedophilic desires is therefore sociopathic in the strict definition – a willingness to cause harm to others for the sake of one’s own gratification.

I mentioned having, five years ago, happened in websurfing on a now-defunct newsgroup of “ethical pedophiles” – men who were aware of the potential for damage to the children they loved, as well as the social ostracism they would feel if their desires were known – and therefore had formed a support group of people who were resolved not to act on their desires, to support each other in that resolve, and to find some solace in sharing their feelings with people who would understand them. What KGS said about what he’d been told about “true pedophiles” jibes with what I saw.

I recall one post that linked to a picture of a small boy in swim trunks running toward the camera with a smile of welcoming joy on his face, arms outstretched for a hug. And I can – just barely – sense what it must feel like to have that as one’s fantasy, the fulfillment of one’s dreams – to know that that hug, unlikely ever to happen, would be the closest one can ethically come to feeling a responded-to romantic love.

Needless to say, in no way is this even remotely suggesting any justification for child molestation. Such acts are truly horrifying and sociopathic. But I thought that KGS had brought up an interesting bit of insight, worthy of further discussion.

[iampunha]

And behold, Jesus gathered his disciples around him, and told a tale. It concerned two people who wanted to spread the Word of God to their neighbors. And one of them went around with a list of all rules being broken, all things said in haste rather than reasoned out, even going so far as to raise a periscope into several bedrooms. And she did not see things she believed pleasing unto the Lord, but wrote them down instead as grave infractions because they disgusted her, though they were not on her master’s list. And when confronted she spake shrilly an harshly and without mention of God’s love; and she did judge those she had seen, whether in speaking or in spanking or in the exchange of blessed love, on behalf of her master. And, satisfied with her efforts on behalf of her master, she did begin upon her journey, arduous and twisted, to report back to Him what she had seen.

Another took to spread God’s Word, but he did not carry a clipboard of rules. Rather, taking out a large bag, he filled it with coffee mugs and crossword puzzles, with ointments and get-well-soon cards and a bouquet of flowers, and a Bible, and he set out on his journey. First he visited a home that had been robbed of all its possessions, and he came upon the owner of that home. “Here, take this in the name of our Lord. It is not much, I know, and I cannot replace the bearskin rug that was stolen nor the DVD player, but now you can drink from your faucet without having to cup your hands nor place your mouth directly under it. And take this crossword puzzle, that ye be able to focus your mind upon something else for a minute or two, or perhaps longer, and reflect upon that which has not been stolen: your mind.”

And after a brief talk and a great big hug, he departed the family who realized now that they were not bereft of any possession they could not replace, and continued on his journey to a free clinic that was running out of supplies. And after briefly conferring with the resident in charge, he came upon a boy who had spilled some hot oil on his hand, and grimaced when he moved it, for it was very sore where the oil had burned his skin.

And the man smiled at his father, who had taken his son to the clinic (for they did not have health insurance, and so could not go to a hospital), and said “I have something which may help you. It is ointment which is useful in the treating of most burn wounds. I would apply it myself daily, but I have much further to go on my journey.”

And the father reviled this man for his act of braggadocio, but the son quietly took the ointment and kicked his father in the shin, lest the visitor recant and put the pointment back in his sack. And the father looked at his son in dismay, but upon seeing his son’s hand again could revile no more, but looked into the visitor’s eyes with tears in his own and could say only “Thank you.”

And the visitor gave that man a hug, because he too had known poverty as the man was experiencing. And he continued on his way to the grave of a man who had died recently, but with no adornment or color on or near his gravestone. And he saw the dates on the gravestone; this man had died recently, yet there was no sign that he had any family, and only a first name on the stone, as though his family did not want it known that he was one of them.

Without word the visitor placed the bouquet in front of the gravestone and knelt in silent prayer, hoping the boy would find more love than, it seemed, he had known in his mortal life.

And he stood and continued on his way. He passed a small house with a woman and her husband sobbing, and knew instantly the source of their tears. He left one of his cards in their mailbox and, again, said a silent prayer for them, leaving without announcing himself because he could see they needed each other in that moment, regardless of how well-intended his interruption.

Upon resuming his journey, the visitor noticed a girl sitting outside crying, and asked her “Girl, why are you crying?”

The girl stiffened up and said “None of your damn business, mister,” and muttered to himself “Stupid dad and his stupid bigotry.”

The visitor spoke softly. “I do not know why you have been left out here, but I have something that may be of use to you.” And he put the card inside the Bible as a bookmark and gave it to the girl. “You may find your answer in here, if you know where to look.”

The girl looked at the gift and was puzzled for a moment. She started up to ask the visitor what he meant, or why he was giving her a Bible, but as quickly as she could look up the visitor had vanished from sight.

Jesus turned to his disciples and asked them, “Now, who did as the master asked and spread the Word of God?” And a well-dressed man, clothed in the finest of tailored linens and adorned in antique jewelry, responded. “The woman who knew God’s rules has spread the Word of God, because in her work more will get to Heaven because they have been instructed in how not to break His Laws.”

The disciples turned to each other and started hotly debating what the man had just said. And a child approached Jesus from behind him and tugged softly on Jesus’ robe. “Father,” she said, “did not the visitor spread the Word of God? Where the woman judged others and looked for fault, the visitor spread love and respect and aided His people.”

Jesus spoke, and as he did the crowd was quieted. “Know the master’s rules, true. But though the woman had a list of rules in front of her, she did not spread God’s Word but a list of rules the master did not give her. The visitor, in spreading God’s love, spread His Word, because His Word is love.”

The man adorned in fine linens got up from where he had been sitting and approached the girl. “‘And a child shall lead them,’ it is said. And now this child,” he said, and turned first to the girl and then to Jesus, “shall lead us.”

Jesus knodded and motioned to the man to stand, but he did not. Instead he began sobbing. “Forgive me, Father, for I have sinned. My life has been spent not in adoration and love but in warning and judgment.” The man paused and looked again at the child. “You have led me from the path of judgment and scorn to one of love.”

The child produced a Bible from her pocket and turned to a particular page where a passage was underlined, marked by a card. “Not seven times but seventy times seven times shall you forgive your neighbor”, the passage read. And the card, once opened, had but three words:

I love you.

[lel]

First, please forgive me for propagating a hijack, but thank you for your response, and I hope you are having a wonderful weekend, Arcite!

First, I am a Christian. I take the word “Christian” to mean one who subscribes to the tenets and creeds of historical, orthodox Christianity, though not necessarily some of the fundamentalist additions of the 20th century. For example, I would consider belief that Jesus was physically resurrected, and that he did in fact say all of the sayings ascribed to him in the Gospels, as essential to Christianity, but I do not insist on a literal 6 day, 24 hour Creation.

I wish not to further hijack this thread, but I’d be curious to see which tenets and creeds of historical Christianity you would consider to be essential and which would not be essential. If I were a Christian, I’d be inclined to wonder how one would go about believing in Christianity without the physical resurrection of Jesus, but I’d be a bit more skeptical about the sayings of Jesus. Is it that the sayings of Jesus must have been reported exactly as stated, or simply that the ideas expressed by the sayings attributed to Jesus are the same ideas that were held by Jesus?

Liberal Christianity, on the other hand, I see as starting with the premise that the tenets and wisdom of modern, secular society, with its inherent distrust of revealed religion and rejection of any beliefs that might appear “exclusivist,” are true, and working backward from there, trying to make the conception of God and the sayings and actions of Jesus jibe with that worldview.

What would you do about the difficulty of some to completely reject the worldview in which they have been raised? If one has been raised in a society which believes in questioning religious revelations and prides inclusivity, how would you propose that one go about rejecting the worldview of their upbringing? Also, why would you propose that it is necessary to reject such a worldview?

I don’t wish to personally offend the Polycarps of the world with this statement, but I subscribe to J. Gresham Machen’s thesis that Christianity and liberal Christianity are in fact two entirely different religions.

This is a thesis with which I am unfamiliar – could you elaborate on the basics of such?

The idea of homosexual behavior being immoral is, as I’m sure most liberal Christians and non-believers will agree, an incontrivertible doctrine of the former worldview, the one I’m simply calling “Christianity.”

I’m actually torn on this one, and it may well be an interesting debate to put forth!

Homosexual “orientation,” on the other hand, is not something that Christians have had much to say about historically, because it is a fairly new concept. Identifying oneself by one’s sexual desires was not something people did in the past. If you were a man who was attracted to other men, you were still a man, albeit one who had this strange fluke of being attracted to other men. You were not a “gay person.” What frustrates me is that even many conservative Christians have bought into the “gay person” view. I wince everytime I see a William Bennett or an Antonin Scalia saying “I have no problem with gay people per se, I just happen to believe they should refrain from buggering each other,” because nobody believes them anyway, and they’re just undermining their/our own cause by conceding that “gayness” is a valid concept.

Do you believe then that it is possible for a woman to be attracted exclusively or nearly exclusively to other women, or a man to be attracted exclusively or nearly exclusively to other men? Also, how is a gay person different from a man? I’m so steeped in secular modernity anymore that I’m not familiar with the distinctions that have been drawn between gender identity and sexual orientation in the conservative evangelical/fundamentalist Christian worldview. (Please do not begrudge me my usage of modifiers before Christian in this case. I am not yet convinced that Christianity is exclusively the province of those who believe in certain tenets and creeds, so until that time, please bear with my usage of modifiers.)

I think it’s quite problematic that the idea of “gayness” is gaining so much acceptance, because it allows social/cultural liberals to paint those who believe homosexuality to be immoral or problematic with the “racist/bigot” brush, as though there’s no difference between disapproval of homosexuality and the belief that blacks should be lynched or Jews sent to concentration camps, when of course I find those last two ideas as abhorrent as anyone else does.

I’m not sure what I can say, given that I don’t understand what the difference between gayness and feeling exclusive or nearly exclusive sexual attraction to persons of the same gender may be. However, I fear I may be misinterpreting your last statement – what kind of disapproval of homosexuality do you feel should be acceptable? Also, how will disapproving of homosexuality further the cause of bringing people into a personal relationship with Jesus Christ, if you believe such is an essential tenet of Christianity?

[Ludovic]

Originally posted by Polycarp *
**
Needless to say, in no way is this even remotely suggesting any justification for child molestation. Such acts are truly horrifying and sociopathic.*

I, Ludovic, hereby promise to never rape a woman.

Sounds silly, doesnt it?

Why must one insist that the default configuration for a given person is a lifestyle of ethical transgressions?

[iampunha]

Because so many of them A) do not see the problem with it, B) harm the child(ren) in question beyond, sometimes, repair, C) engage in those ethical transgressions frequently (because of A), etc. In all the reading I have done on pedophiles, this is the first I’ve heard of one pedophile, let alone a group, who were able to keep their hands off children, so to speak.

Think about it like this: if you want to do something, and you see nothing wrong with it, and you are able to do it frequently, why not?

[Ludovic]

*Originally posted by iampunha *
**
Think about it like this: if you want to do something, and you see nothing wrong with it, and you are able to do it frequently, why not? **

That implies that I, as a man attracted to women, sees nothing wrong with rape. That is offensive. Were I magically transformed into a man attracted to children, I do not think my lifestyle would incorporate evil automatically.

(Oh, and I apologize to poly for my shrill tone, gotta lay off the dew :))

[The_Tim]

Ludovic the problem is consent. Pedophiles who actually engage in sex acts with children either don’t care that children cannot give proper consent or have convinced themselves they can. Since adult women can give consent the analogy you are drawing doesn’t hold. A pedophile who is in touch with reality and ethical cannot ever actualize their natural attractions. I can imagine that this would be quite difficult psychologically amd thus require a support group like the one Polycarp mentioned.

[iampunha]

That does not imply it in any sense. I was setting up a hypothetical situation. “Think about it like this” … not “I understand you to be someone who…”. Rather than implying that you are not someone who sees something wrong with rape, I was showing you part of the mindset (a very small part, mind you) of a pedophile. Or, at least, many of them, as it has been shown in this thread that not all of them subscribe to that particular mindset.

[Ludovic]

*Originally posted by Ludovic *
**Were I magically transformed into a man attracted to children, I do not think my lifestyle would incorporate evil automatically.
**

In fact, I know it wouldn’t, because the 0 that I am getting now, while exercising the AMAZING WILLPOWER needed to avoid transgressions against females now, is equal to the 0 i would be getting as a pedophile.

So, i’m already in a position of never being able to get any willingly. Let’s put me under investigation now! If not for rape, then he must be planning a Columbine, since he’s a loser!

I would be working under the additional constraint of having less access to children, as an adult male, than I do to women. But no, the self-evaluatory synapses in my brain would be rewired (God hates the preds so much that he sent them his only-begotten psilocybin, John 3-11 (years))

[iampunha]

Less access to children? Not necessarily. A short list of ways you can increase your access to children:

Coach a sport (bonus points if it’s swimming or gymnastics or something similar)
Become a teacher
Frequently attend youth sporting events
Work at a day care
Become involved in the research aspects of child psychology
Professional photographer

[matt_mcl]

*Originally posted by gobear *
**Intersting timing for this thread. My boyfriend is in bed with a nasty cold, and I’ve brought him breakfast in bed, made him coffee, rubbed his back, and right now I’m going to get some Tylenol cold medicine and some ice cream to make him feel better.
According to the OP, I must be doing that merely to express my sexual desires because to him gay men are not capable of love and caring. **

“People…do not believe there can be tears between men. They think we are only playing at a game and that we do it to shock them.”

• James Baldwin

[Ludovic]

i thought of the many ways, iam, and I agree that for a person with normal suavity it wouldnt be a problem: it would just be a problem for me, who looks like a psycho-stalker even without children in question. I made the mistake of applying my situation across-board.

the tim
Pedophiles who actually engage in sex acts with children either don’t care that children cannot give proper consent or have convinced themselves they can. Since adult women can give consent the analogy you are drawing doesn’t hold.

I am not talking about them, I’m talking about pedophiles in general. Of course, no one know for sure how many non-practising ones there are, since the ones that do not practise tend not to be counted. We may never know.

[Polycarp]

*Originally posted by Ludovic *
**That implies that I, as a man attracted to women, sees nothing wrong with rape. That is offensive. Were I magically transformed into a man attracted to children, I do not think my lifestyle would incorporate evil automatically.

(Oh, and I apologize to poly for my shrill tone, gotta lay off the dew :)) **

No problem, Ludovic.

While I understand your point, the better parallel might be that (in the hypothetical scenario) you recognize that any attempt to gratify your own desires with a woman will be manipulative and coercive of her and leave her with serious psychological scars – as rape (or even extreme seduction) would. However, you as a man atrtracted to adult women, do in fact have at least a theoretical opprtunity of finding a woman who reacts to you as you to her, and finding fulfillment in that – the point where the analogy breaks down. But entertain for a moment the concept that I set forth in this paragraph’s first sentence, and conceive of what you might ethically do and how you’d deal with the resulting feelings. You might add into the mix that society in that theoretical scenario feels that men who want to fuck women are ill and perverted, and those who actually act on it are repulsive and should be locked up for life.

To revert to the deadly parallel, there is an inactive member here in the same boat as regards homosexuality. About Kinsey 5 (based on his posts) and devout member of a church that condemns homosexuality, he devoutly believes that any action to gratify his desires would subject both his soul’s and his partner’s to God’s wrath, and that it would be an active assault on his potential partner’s psyche to seek out such a relationship. How would you counsel him?

BTW, iampunha, I loved your parable, and took the liberty of quoting it on a Christian board with a request for comments (haven’t gotten any yet). Hope you don’t mind!