Search the Community

My question is as follows. Why do I hear things like "Pedophilia naturally follows if you allow homosexuality," or "homosexuality causes pedophilia"? Full disclosure. I am bisexual but am living in a homosexual relationship. I grew up in a Catholic household and did missionary work of my own volition in the Philippines. I have since realized that the threat of endless rape and torture inflicted upon those who disagree with an invisible and all powerful being doesn't really allow you to have free will. It is a psychological gun held to my head. So in the most recent video, The Catholic Church Built Western Civilization | Duke Pesta and Stefan Molyneux, at 26:00 Duke Pesta talks about determinism and how our genes determine who we are. He goes on to say that there is a movement to declassify pedophilia as a mental disorder just as homo.... (sexuality) (yes he didn't finish the word but it seems to follow.) This made me recall several discussions I have had with friends and family a long time ago. Homosexuality between two consenting adults requires no initiation of force. Pedophilia must initiate force in order to have a "relationship" in the same way that rape is a relationship. No matter how much people will try and manipulate their "arguments;" a child has a severely limited concept of what sex, relationships, commitment, love, and reproduction fully entails. They also lack the ability to effectively decline an advance and have agency. Therefore they cannot fully consent. Please let me know if I am off-base but this seems like the most simple explanation. I feel physically ill and angry when I hear these things talked about side by side as if they are interchangeable or similar. Pedophilia is evil and violates the non-aggression principle. Frankly, nothing pisses me off more than the idea of a child being abused. Why do people make the argument that pedophilia and homosexuality are somehow similar? That is basically saying rape and love making are similar. Moreover why do people make the case that Homosexuality encourages the destruction of children's innocence and well being? I have heard people try to use pedophilia in order to demonize homosexuality and use homosexuality to try and legitimize pedophilia. I despise both threads of sophistry. How do I fit this into my brain? Is there something I am not getting? Am I mistaking the world for myself? What do I do with these feelings of disgust and rage? How can I make them productive? Are my arguments sounds? What am I not considering? Any and all feedback is greatly appreciated.

OLD

I would like some help understanding the issue sometimes referred to as "the gay agenda". I was raised as tolerant and even when I personally disagree with someone's life choices I view them as their choices and if they don't affect me personally I see no reason to waste time worrying about them. Then this surfaced on my radar: http://askthebigot.com/2015/07/23/the-story-of-moira-greyland-guest-post/ I'm still a little in shock at the graphic nature of this and the pieces I recently saw about female pedopheliacs, the cult of god, etc. Now of course this is blamed on the gay agenda. Let them marry and more importantly raise children, and it is implied that they will abuse these children with the goal of turning them gay, etc. The claim is is that homosexuals are significantly more likely to be abusers than straight people. Biologically homosexuality is a defect. Survival is universal and reproduction is seen in all life. Without medical advancements, homosexuality leads to no offspring and the decline of the species. Add to that Bruce Jenner and all the transgender, etc and you have a host of people with biological defects. I guess I'm looking for some traction - some direction to head in. My first question is: Are homosextuals more likely to abuse children than straight people. I discount the claims of abuse leading to homosexuality although I suspect it can happen. Just that it's not the leading cause. Also are homosexuals more likely to have been abused as a child? I'm also curious if there is any valid work on child sexual abuse and abnormal sexual preference later in life. Is any of it "normal" in terms of role playing, BDSM, multiple partners, etc. Is there a line or just a wide gray area? And lastly, should we be worried about the push in acceptance of gays, transgenders, etc? Will ageism be next or is there no point in all this that child abuse is ok? I know there's still heated debates about how spanking teaches respect and if more kids got beaten by their father's we'd have less problems. That's certainly a false statement, but all too often you hear "I was beat and I turned out ok!" as the sole defense. Will the slippery slope argument become valid? So anyway, before I start rambling, does anyone have any insite? Or am I the troubled one because I believe that one penis and one vagina are the correct number of sexual organs in an intimate relationship?

On public forums, I've been seeing two main reactions to Bruce Jenner's transformation into Caitlyn Jenner. The first is of vitriolic disgust, where the individual holds a negative attitude toward the transition, and then attempts an ex post facto justification, e.g. he's not natural, he's creepy, etc. The other reaction is in loyal support, where the individual holds a positive attitude toward the transition, and then attempts an ex post facto justification, e.g. she's courageous, she's being honest about her true self, she's an inspiration to others who feel ashamed of who they are, on the inside, etc. However, none of these reactions have approached the situation with any level of philosophical rigor. A man who covers his entire face in tattoos is just "being himself". That doesn't mean he's not psychologically troubled and neurotic, and his socially deviant actions could be a result of this neurosis or psychosis. And if it were the case, is it appropriate to reinforce such actions? Of course, I would never suggest it is good to scorn a man for the result of psychologically traumatic experiences that were inflicted upon him, but I am questioning whether it is advisable to encourage this manner of coping with such trauma. I am questioning whether or not Bruce Jenner needs counselling. No, I'm not saying homosexuality is a psychosis. I'm not saying sexual desire for the same sex is a choice, nor psychosis. I'm saying the desire to wear dresses, wear make-up, have boobs, and employ other socially constructed, and culture specific behaviors, is not innate. It's learned from early childhood trauma. Before emotionally reacting to my comment, I want you to imagine a society where there was no gender role duality. Dresses, make-up, high heals, and purses were never invented in this society, or they were worn by both males and females alike. In such a society, the very notion of transgender could not possibly exist. Therefore, to be transgender is a product of the society that an individual lives in, and not a product of the individual herself. Transgender cannot be an innate attribute of an individual.

http://www.marketwired.com/press-release/-1925451.htm I think the article speaks for itself. I am pretty much always disgusted with how the gay community presents itself.