why did god create cancer?

Zombrex · 28-06-2008 10:38AM

PDN wrote: »

Yes. Homosexuality, by which I mean homosexual acts, are a choice.

Given that no one else (on this forum or otherwise) appears to use the term "homosexuality" was meaning that, nor is that what the words means in psychiatry where it was first invented, I'm rather puzzled as to your insistence on using the word in that fashion.

The hint is even in the word itself ("...ality"), suggesting a noun rather than a verb. "...ality" suggests a property of something, not an action of something.

Do you think a human chooses their sexual orientation?

robindch · 28-06-2008 11:00AM

PDN wrote: »

Homosexuality, by which I mean homosexual acts,.

First time that I've ever seen the word used in that sense -- is this the primary meaning for you?

And what word do you use where people like Wicknight and I would use the word "homosexuality", the abstract quality which homosexual men and women embody?

AtomicHorror · 28-06-2008 12:54PM

robindch wrote: »

First time that I've ever seen the word used in that sense -- is this the primary meaning for you?

And what word do you use where people like Wicknight and I would use the word "homosexuality", the abstract quality which homosexual men and women embody?

Good question. What does PDN use to define the desire, the want, the compulsion, versus the act? After all it is the act, not what is in the mind, that is proscribed by Christianity.

wolfsbane · 28-06-2008 08:07PM

robindch wrote: »

Rather my thoughts as well. I mean, believing that you can promote a "gay agenda" by means of a family-oriented message written with a certain brand of creamy salad dressing really does reside well past any sense of reason I'm familiar with. I'd imagine that even JC, our resident Electric Monk, would have trouble believing that.

Weird.

Let's replace the gay parents with a 50-ish male and five 20-ish females. Five kids rush, each to their individual Mummy, and get the delicious Heinz snack. Daddy walks in and starts to rush off with his briefcase. All the mummies call him back, reminding him he has forgotten something. With a smile he kisses each and pats their bottoms as he heads off to work.

A family-oriented message written with a certain brand of creamy salad dressing ? Or an attempt to condition us to the acceptability of polygamy? Would you wonder if the Chief Executive or whoever sanctioned the ad was a dissident Mormon - or would that be past any sense of reason?

wolfsbane · 28-06-2008 08:19PM

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Good question. What does PDN use to define the desire, the want, the compulsion, versus the act? After all it is the act, not what is in the mind, that is proscribed by Christianity.

Just to clarify, the desire is also proscribed if it is consented to by the one experiencing it.

I, a heterosexual male, find myself having to reject occasional desires that threaten to arise if I am presented with a sexually stimulating sight of a woman not my wife. For me to accept such desire as just being 'me'; something natural; something I should not resist or repudiate - that would be sin.

Homosexuals must recognise their desires as wicked, repudiate them and seek God's grace to to prevent them acting out the desire, and indeed to replace the perverse desire with that which is truly natural.

wolfsbane · 28-06-2008 08:32PM

Mark Hamill wrote: »

If you took "homosexual" out of that sentence and put "heterosexual" in would it actual make a difference?
The answer is no because what you have written is not a defence of their nature (the hetero/homosexual or the pedophile), but the reason for their nature (the difference being a defence tells you why they should be allowed to do it, not just why they do it).

Mark, have you not followed the discussion? This is a defence of homosexuality being offered: that it is not a choice, but the way they are born. Therefore, the reasoning goes, it cannot be immoral. The same then applies to paedophilia - the desire must be just one other natural form of sexuality.

I am speaking of the desire, the want, the compulsion, to quote AtomicHorror. Putting it into practise raises the nature of consent in the case of the paedophile, but if we determine whether the condition is valid or not, we can later discuss the practice.

So let's hear it, Folks - are heterosexuality, homosexuality, bisexuality, paedophilia or other forms of sexuality equally valid? (The condition now, not the practise).

irish_bob · 28-06-2008 08:43PM

nothing that is bad was gods doing but everything that is good and lovely like puppies , fine days and sunsets are gods doing

PDN · 28-06-2008 11:22PM

robindch wrote: »

First time that I've ever seen the word used in that sense -- is this the primary meaning for you?

And what word do you use where people like Wicknight and I would use the word "homosexuality", the abstract quality which homosexual men and women embody?

I sincerely doubt that such an abstract quality exists for either heterosexuals or homosexuals. Human beings are capable of indulging in various types of behaviour as and when they choose. I think to label someone as a 'homosexual' as if that somehow defined their identity is like labeling someone a thief, or a vegetarian.

Remember that we are talking in the context of Christianity, and in that context it is homosexual acts that are referred to. The Bible, I think, has nothing to say about inclinations or orientation toward either homosexuality or heterosexuality.

So, if a married guy goes to prison and indulges in consensual sex with other male inmates then that falls under the Bible's characterisation of sinful behaviour. He is committing homosexual sin, even if he considers himself heterosexual and may never commit such acts after release from jail.

Or take the example of two Catholic priests who have made a vow of celibacy. One may be drawn towards women while the other is more attracted to men. If they both remain true to their vows then I don't see how the Bible, or any version of Christianity, can say that the self-controlled celibate who feels attracted by men is somehow more sinful than the other priest.

So, if you are referring to the presence of some kind of inclination as marking somebody as a 'homosexual' then it is plainly wrong to refer to Christians as homophobic. We have an issue with the act itself, not the person who might feel drawn towards the act.

Mark Hamill · 29-06-2008 01:11AM

wolfsbane wrote: »

Mark, have you not followed the discussion? This is a defence of homosexuality being offered: that it is not a choice, but the way they are born. Therefore, the reasoning goes, it cannot be immoral. The same then applies to paedophilia - the desire must be just one other natural form of sexuality.

I am speaking of the desire, the want, the compulsion, to quote AtomicHorror.

Dont forget that there are two different issues being being discussed here. First is where homosexuality comes from (the nature/nuture argument) and whether it is moral. Homosexuality not being a choice, and being something you can be born with is the defence for the origin of homosexuality, not the morality of it. People have used it here when countering the notion that homosexuality is immoral because its unnatural, no-one has gone onto say this makes it automatically moral, just that since it is natural, you can't claim its immoral because its unnatural.

wolfsbane wrote: »

Putting it into practise raises the nature of consent in the case of the paedophile, but if we determine whether the condition is valid or not, we can later discuss the practice.

So let's hear it, Folks - are heterosexuality, homosexuality, bisexuality, paedophilia or other forms of sexuality equally valid? (The condition now, not the practise).

Depends on what you meant by valid. If you mean valid as in can people be born with them, then yes they are.
However if you mean valid, as all should be considered moral in society simply because people can be born with those desires then no.
Why the difference? Because of consent. Heterosexuality, homosexuality etc can be considered moral if all parties involved are consenting adults. Paedophilia will never be considered moral because by definition it is the desire to have sexual conduct with children, and children are, legally in the western world, too young to give fully informed consent. Because one party in the act can't ever be considered to be consenting, it will never be moral or legal.

AtomicHorror · 29-06-2008 11:31AM

wolfsbane wrote: »

Let's replace the gay parents with a 50-ish male and five 20-ish females. Five kids rush, each to their individual Mummy, and get the delicious Heinz snack. Daddy walks in and starts to rush off with his briefcase. All the mummies call him back, reminding him he has forgotten something. With a smile he kisses each and pats their bottoms as he heads off to work.

A family-oriented message written with a certain brand of creamy salad dressing ? Or an attempt to condition us to the acceptability of polygamy? Would you wonder if the Chief Executive or whoever sanctioned the ad was a dissident Mormon - or would that be past any sense of reason?

Were there large-scale social moves towards the acceptance of polygamy, as there are for homosexuality, I would merely speculate that the Chief Executive were attempting to move with the times in order to sell mayonnaise to a new demographic. That is his primary motive, after all.

AtomicHorror · 29-06-2008 11:38AM

wolfsbane wrote: »

Just to clarify, the desire is also proscribed if it is consented to by the one experiencing it.

I am aware of that, though I disagree with it.

wolfsbane wrote: »

I, a heterosexual male, find myself having to reject occasional desires that threaten to arise if I am presented with a sexually stimulating sight of a woman not my wife. For me to accept such desire as just being 'me'; something natural; something I should not resist or repudiate - that would be sin.

In this case there would be a clear moral victim of your actions. Your wife would be emotionally hurt. This would be a reasonable hurt as you have an understanding with her that you will be faithful to her sexually.

wolfsbane wrote: »

Homosexuals must recognise their desires as wicked, repudiate them and seek God's grace to to prevent them acting out the desire, and indeed to replace the perverse desire with that which is truly natural.

Contrary to your previous example, a consenting monogamous homosexual couple presents us with no reasonable moral victim. Others may find their lifestyle objectionable, but that could be said of Christianity in many parts of the world. Of course if one member of the homosexual couple cheats on his partner, I would consider that to be as equally morally wrong as your previous example. That of course would assume that the couple have an understanding that they are monogamous, or better still have undergone a civil union.

As to the notion that homosexuals might suppress and redirect their desires, this is highly controversial within psychology and is generally considered inhumane and emotionally damaging.

AtomicHorror · 29-06-2008 11:45AM

wolfsbane wrote: »

So let's hear it, Folks - are heterosexuality, homosexuality, bisexuality, paedophilia or other forms of sexuality equally valid? (The condition now, not the practise).

As conditions, all are equally moral. That is to say, morality is irrelevant to them. Morality relates to actions, not desires.

wolfsbane · 29-06-2008 06:33PM

AtomicHorror said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
So let's hear it, Folks - are heterosexuality, homosexuality, bisexuality, paedophilia or other forms of sexuality equally valid? (The condition now, not the practise).

As conditions, all are equally moral. That is to say, morality is irrelevant to them. Morality relates to actions, not desires.

Not as far as Christianity is concerned: the thought is as morally important as the action.

But let me ask it differently: are those who indulge in thoughts of each form of sexuality equally moral?

wolfsbane · 29-06-2008 06:54PM

AtomicHorror said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
Homosexuals must recognise their desires as wicked, repudiate them and seek God's grace to to prevent them acting out the desire, and indeed to replace the perverse desire with that which is truly natural.
Contrary to your previous example, a consenting monogamous homosexual couple presents us with no reasonable moral victim. Others may find their lifestyle objectionable, but that could be said of Christianity in many parts of the world. Of course if one member of the homosexual couple cheats on his partner, I would consider that to be as equally morally wrong as your previous example. That of course would assume that the couple have an understanding that they are monogamous, or better still have undergone a civil union.

Christian morality is based primarily on loving God, then on loving our fellowman. Sin is any offence to God, be it directly against God or against our fellowman. For example, idolatry would be against God, but not against man. Fornication or homosexual acts are against both God and man (regardless of any consent). They defile the person we have sex with, and they offend God.

That is the moral wrong, as the Bible defines it. Atheists and others have different moral codes - I would like to know if they have any objection to paedophile thoughts/desires, and if so, on what grounds.

As to the notion that homosexuals might suppress and redirect their desires, this is highly controversial within psychology and is generally considered inhumane and emotionally damaging.

Yes, but that must apply to paedophilia too. Why should they not be encouraged to fantisise all they want, produce cartoons of paedophile sex, etc., as long as they don't put it into practice? The Christian says, Because the very thought is evil.

So too to the homosexual we say rejecting your homosexual desires is the right place to start on the road to freedom.

wolfsbane · 29-06-2008 06:58PM

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Were there large-scale social moves towards the acceptance of polygamy, as there are for homosexuality, I would merely speculate that the Chief Executive were attempting to move with the times in order to sell mayonnaise to a new demographic. That is his primary motive, after all.

Yes, that would be logical. But knowing such moves are so controversial, it still seems to me more likely to be part of an agenda of acceptance than a selling ploy.

wolfsbane · 29-06-2008 07:15PM

Mark Hamill said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
Mark, have you not followed the discussion? This is a defence of homosexuality being offered: that it is not a choice, but the way they are born. Therefore, the reasoning goes, it cannot be immoral. The same then applies to paedophilia - the desire must be just one other natural form of sexuality.

I am speaking of the desire, the want, the compulsion, to quote AtomicHorror.
Dont forget that there are two different issues being being discussed here. First is where homosexuality comes from (the nature/nuture argument) and whether it is moral. Homosexuality not being a choice, and being something you can be born with is the defence for the origin of homosexuality, not the morality of it. People have used it here when countering the notion that homosexuality is immoral because its unnatural, no-one has gone onto say this makes it automatically moral, just that since it is natural, you can't claim its immoral because its unnatural.

I've misunderstood them, then. Thanks for pointing this out.

Could I just get it confirmed by others here, especially any homosexuals? The Question: The assertion that homosexuality is not a choice, but something you can be born with, is no proof that it is moral, just that it naturally occurs.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
Putting it into practise raises the nature of consent in the case of the paedophile, but if we determine whether the condition is valid or not, we can later discuss the practice.

So let's hear it, Folks - are heterosexuality, homosexuality, bisexuality, paedophilia or other forms of sexuality equally valid? (The condition now, not the practise).
Depends on what you meant by valid. If you mean valid as in can people be born with them, then yes they are.

No, I meant your next definition:

However if you mean valid, as all should be considered moral in society simply because people can be born with those desires then no.
Why the difference? Because of consent. Heterosexuality, homosexuality etc can be considered moral if all parties involved are consenting adults. Paedophilia will never be considered moral because by definition it is the desire to have sexual conduct with children, and children are, legally in the western world, too young to give fully informed consent. Because one party in the act can't ever be considered to be consenting, it will never be moral or legal.

I'm not asking about the practise, just the thoughts/desires. Are they OK or should they be condemned? Should they be rejected by the individual who has them or tolerated (though never practised)?

Sapien · 29-06-2008 07:49PM

wolfsbane wrote: »

Could I just get it confirmed by others here, especially any homosexuals? The Question: The assertion that homosexuality is not a choice, but something you can be born with, is no proof that it is moral, just that it naturally occurs.

It has some bearing on dangerous Iris Robinson types who believe that homosexuals can be heterosexualised. It also has bearing on those who eschew overt religiosity and equate "natural" with "moral" - claiming that homosexuality is contrary to the "will" of nature.

From the religious point of view, it means that God must want people to be gay, be disposed to homosexual thoughts and urges. I realise of course that the intellectual acrobatics needed to reconcile that with God not wanting anyone to act or think homosexually is child's play for you, but for most sane people it presents an important contradiction.

wolfsbane · 29-06-2008 07:52PM

Fanny Cradock said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane

I'm not saying homosexuals are paedophiles: many of them are, but it is not intrinsic to the condition as far as I'm aware.
I'm sorry wolfsbane, but you really don't have a leg to stand on with this statement. Please tell me this is not what you believe!

It is indeed what I believe. But I also explained I was not speaking of the pre-pubescent form. I think pederasty covers it better. Here's something on that:
Sexual expression between adults and adolescents is not well studied and since the 1990s has been often conflated with pedophilia. Nonetheless, such relationships have raised issues of morality and functionality, agency for the youth, and parental authority. They also raise issues of legality in those cases where the minor is below the age of consent. Homosexual pederasty has been deemed beneficial by ancient philosophers, Japanese samurai, and modern writers such as Oscar Wilde. In many societies, it was justified on the grounds that love was the best foundation for teaching courage as well as civic and cultural values, and that man-boy relations were superior to relations with a woman. Today, some commentators consider that they have a negative effect on the psychological development of the youth. A study countering this position, authored by Bruce Rind and others, was published by the American Psychological Association in 1998. See Historical pederastic relationships and Pederasty in the modern world.From:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pederasty

The whole article is worth reading.

Are homosexuals and their defenders denying such a link? Apparently so, since one of our posters classified Allen Ginsberg as a paedophile rather than a homosexual - against any bios. I have encountered, for example:
http://www.english.uiuc.edu/maps/poets/g_l/ginsberg/life.htm

wolfsbane · 29-06-2008 07:56PM

Sapien said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
Could I just get it confirmed by others here, especially any homosexuals? The Question: The assertion that homosexuality is not a choice, but something you can be born with, is no proof that it is moral, just that it naturally occurs.
It has some bearing on dangerous Iris Robinson types who believe that homosexuals can be heterosexualised. It also has bearing on those who eschew overt religiosity and equate "natural" with "moral" - claiming that homosexuality is contrary to the "will" of nature.

From the religious point of view, it means that God must want people to be gay, be disposed to homosexual thoughts and urges. I realise of course that the intellectual acrobatics needed to reconcile that with God not wanting anyone to act or think homosexually is child's play for you, but for most sane people it presents an important contradiction.

I'm sorry, is that a Yes or a No? Again: Would being born homosexual make homosexuality moral?

Sapien · 29-06-2008 07:58PM

wolfsbane wrote: »

Sapien said:

I'm sorry, is that a Yes or a No? Again: Would being born homosexual make homosexuality moral?

I wasn't accepting the premise of your question, wolfsbane, I was providing some elaboration of the issue that I thought you might find useful.

Mark Hamill · 30-06-2008 03:39PM

wolfsbane wrote: »

I'm sorry, is that a Yes or a No? Again: Would being born homosexual make homosexuality moral?

No, however thats only because morality doesn't apply to being homosexual, only to the acts that are partaken of as a result of being homosexual. Morality is conduct, not desire.

Zombrex · 30-06-2008 03:56PM

wolfsbane wrote: »

Let's replace the gay parents with a 50-ish male and five 20-ish females.

That wouldn't make any sense, because five 20-ish females tend not to run or work in New York delis

You clearly missed the joke/point in this add.

The idea is that Henzi is the authentic New York deli taste, which having Henzi in your kitchen makes your kitchen like a New York deli, along with a surrly deli chef (who is actually the mother of the house, ie the person these ads are targeted at).

I mean come on Wolfsbane, are people going to have to start explaining the basics of juxtaposition comedy to you?

Do you think the ad for Birdseye fish fingers where a whole load of pirates storm the kitchen looking for the fish fingers is an attempt by the "pirate lobby" to slowly get mainstream suburbia to accept the pirate lifestyle? :rolleyes:

Zombrex · 30-06-2008 04:12PM

PDN wrote: »

I sincerely doubt that such an abstract quality exists for either heterosexuals or homosexuals.

What do you mean? You don't think sexual orientation exists?

PDN wrote: »

Human beings are capable of indulging in various types of behaviour as and when they choose.

Are humans capable of choosing what they find pleasing or arousing?

Could you choose to find a picture of a naked man arousing if you so wanted to?

PDN wrote: »

I think to label someone as a 'homosexual' as if that somehow defined their identity is like labeling someone a thief, or a vegetarian.

It doesn't define their "identity"

It defines their sexual orientation.

PDN wrote: »

So, if you are referring to the presence of some kind of inclination as marking somebody as a 'homosexual' then it is plainly wrong to refer to Christians as homophobic. We have an issue with the act itself, not the person who might feel drawn towards the act.

Well firstly, in terms of your religion, it is the fear of this inclination that is the homophobia (don't do that, its wicked and sinful), that results in the condemnation of the act as a sin.

But I believe you when you say that you have no issue with people who feel like this. Other posters on this forum aren't quite so accepting of a persons sexual orientation though.

Wolfsbane thinks homosexuals (people of homosexual sexual orientation) should pray to God to help them get over their temptation to be wicked and sinful. He also thinks that homosexuality damages people (the orientation, not simply the act)

Zombrex · 30-06-2008 04:20PM

wolfsbane wrote: »

Fanny Cradock said:

It is indeed what I believe. But I also explained I was not speaking of the pre-pubescent form. I think pederasty covers it better.

I think you are getting a bit confused here Wolfsbane

Pedophilia is a philia towards children before they reach sexual adolescence.

Pederasty is an old term for male ephebophilia, a sexual attraction to adolescent children.

Neither are homosexuality.

wolfsbane wrote: »

Are homosexuals and their defenders denying such a link?

Yes. The "link" only exists if one assumes that a male paedophile who goes after a boy is also a homosexual for doing so, therefore attempting to link homosexuality and paedophilia.

But then one might as well link heterosexuality to paedophilia as well.

Its a nonsense way of looking at the subject, and I suspect your intentions in all this wolfsbane are far from honorable.

wolfsbane wrote: »

Apparently so, since one of our posters classified Allen Ginsberg as a paedophile rather than a homosexual - against any bios. I have encountered, for example:

Indeed, I always accept the scribbles of an English department's website as a detailed exploration of a man's sexual orientation :rolleyes:

wolfsbane · 30-06-2008 09:44PM

Wicknight wrote: »

That wouldn't make any sense, because five 20-ish females tend not to run or work in New York delis

You clearly missed the joke/point in this add.

The idea is that Henzi is the authentic New York deli taste, which having Henzi in your kitchen makes your kitchen like a New York deli, along with a surrly deli chef (who is actually the mother of the house, ie the person these ads are targeted at).

I mean come on Wolfsbane, are people going to have to start explaining the basics of juxtaposition comedy to you?

Do you think the ad for Birdseye fish fingers where a whole load of pirates storm the kitchen looking for the fish fingers is an attempt by the "pirate lobby" to slowly get mainstream suburbia to accept the pirate lifestyle? :rolleyes:

Such an innocent intent could have been achieved by the Mum going out to work and the Dad being the New York deli meal-server. No need for a gay partnership - unless the intent was to protray such as normal and good.

Are you really so naive - or do you think I am?

wolfsbane · 30-06-2008 09:55PM

Mark Hamill said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
I'm sorry, is that a Yes or a No? Again: Would being born homosexual make homosexuality moral?
No, however thats only because morality doesn't apply to being homosexual, only to the acts that are partaken of as a result of being homosexual. Morality is conduct, not desire.

You are quite mistaken about the meaning of morality, as you would have discovered if you read all the definitions. One can be immoral by simply embracing immoral thoughts/desires. For example, if one despised black people because of their colour but never said or did anything against them - one would still be a racist. If one embraces sexual desires for children, even if they are never acted on, one is still a paedophile. If one embraces the desire to have sex with the neighbour's wife, one is an adulterer.

Do you really believe such people are morally innocent?

JimiTime · 30-06-2008 09:58PM

wolfsbane wrote: »

Such an innocent intent could have been achieved by the Mum going out to work and the Dad being the New York deli meal-server. No need for a gay partnership - unless the intent was to protray such as normal and good.

Are you really so naive - or do you think I am?

I don't know about it being part of any agenda, but I thought exactly that when I saw the ad. I.E. why did they not have the mum going to work. Either way, twas a rubbish ad. Maybe it wasn't a gay agenda but they knew it would provoke the response from conservatives. Thus getting free adverts. I'm now informed of Heinz New York deli sauces, I wouldn't be if it was a mum on the way to work. Just a thought.

wolfsbane · 30-06-2008 10:26PM

Sapien wrote: »

I wasn't accepting the premise of your question, wolfsbane, I was providing some elaboration of the issue that I thought you might find useful.

Ok, now that I know you can't/won't answer my question, I will deal with your interesting elaboration.

It has some bearing on dangerous Iris Robinson types who believe that homosexuals can be heterosexualised.

Yes, it would have some bearing on it. Just as being born with a quick temper has to be considered in dealing with a particularly violent child. The child is not simply violent by choice, but by choice and disposition. They need to be taught not only that violence is bad, but how to curb and reject their hasty temper.

Mrs. Robinson's point also accepts the degree to which sinful desires are learnt. Nuture is a big part of homosexuality, and reinforces any disposition the homosexual had at birth. But as I said before, neither nature nor nurture excuses sinful choices.

It also has bearing on those who eschew overt religiosity and equate "natural" with "moral" - claiming that homosexuality is contrary to the "will" of nature.

Yes, there has been secular opposition to homosexuality based on it being unnatural and hence generally bad for the race. The usual homosexual defence is that it occurs in nature - in animals as well as man - so must be truly natural, ie. a valid part of the whole process.

The problem with that is that paedophilia is also manifested amongst the animals. If nature justifies the one, it must do the other. Hence my (unanswered) question, Would being born homosexual make homosexuality moral?

From the religious point of view, it means that God must want people to be gay, be disposed to homosexual thoughts and urges.

Gayness, like all forms of falleness, can be a general consequence of the Fall, or a specific judgement visited upon sinners to humble them. The former would be the case of any born with a disposition to homosexuality - each of us are born with various sinful weaknesses. The latter case occurs when heterosexual sinners are given over to homosexuality in response to their particularly wilful sins.

I realise of course that the intellectual acrobatics needed to reconcile that with God not wanting anyone to act or think homosexually is child's play for you, but for most sane people it presents an important contradiction.

It is indeed God's revealed will that everyone of us live by faith in Him and never sin. That's His mark for us. But we blew it in Eden and from then on we are born in sin and shapen in iniquity. None of us come out of the womb innocent - we are are disposed to sin and will do so without anyone having to instruct us in the matter. Selfishness, deceit, etc. come naturally to us. We can be and are at times encouraged in our sins by the provocation or enticement of others, but the choice and responsibility are ours to whatever extent we have reached the age of reason.

wolfsbane · 30-06-2008 10:53PM

Wicknight said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
It is indeed what I believe. But I also explained I was not speaking of the pre-pubescent form. I think pederasty covers it better.
I think you are getting a bit confused here Wolfsbane

Pedophilia is a philia towards children before they reach sexual adolescence.

Pederasty is an old term for male ephebophilia, a sexual attraction to adolescent children.

Neither are homosexuality.

I was using the current legal definition of paedophile. It was the definition used by the courts to imprison some of the men visited as a pastor.

I was careful to point out the spectrum this covered - hence me pointing to the term Pederasty.

I agree, neither are homsexuality. But pederasty is now and has been historically closely associated with homosexuality. Hence my original statement: I'm not saying homosexuals are paedophiles: many of them are, but it is not intrinsic to the condition as far as I'm aware.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
Are homosexuals and their defenders denying such a link?
Yes. The "link" only exists if one assumes that a male paedophile who goes after a boy is also a homosexual for doing so, therefore attempting to link homosexuality and paedophilia.

The link is there historically and currently, as my example of Ginsberg demonstrates. He is not an isolated case, nor was he regarded as a paedophile by his contemporaries. More below.

But then one might as well link heterosexuality to paedophilia as well.
Its a nonsense way of looking at the subject, and I suspect your intentions in all this wolfsbane are far from honorable.

Were heterosexuals accepted by their peers as heterosexuals while boasting of their conquests of adolesent girls, you would have a point. But they are rejected as paedophiles. Not so in the homosexual community, as far as pederasty is concerned - but I may be mistaken. Can we have another show of hands? Is pederasty immoral? Was Ginsberg not a homosexual but a paedophile? Or is pederasty a part of the homosexual spectrum?

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
Apparently so, since one of our posters classified Allen Ginsberg as a paedophile rather than a homosexual - against any bios. I have encountered, for example:
Indeed, I always accept the scribbles of an English department's website as a detailed exploration of a man's sexual orientation

Well, try any bio. Explain also his acceptance amongst the homosexual community, his acceptability to his gay partner, his acceptablitiy to the wider liberal society.

Sapien · 30-06-2008 11:45PM

wolfsbane wrote: »

Ok, now that I know you can't/won't answer my question, I will deal with your interesting elaboration.

It is not the case that I can't answer the question. I'm not interested in answering it, because I know exactly where you'll take it. I have preempted the jaded sequence of tropes that would inevitably have ensued in my above post, with the intention of saving us both time.

wolfsbane wrote: »

Yes, it would have some bearing on it. Just as being born with a quick temper has to be considered in dealing with a particularly violent child. The child is not simply violent by choice, but by choice and disposition. They need to be taught not only that violence is bad, but how to curb and reject their hasty temper.

Having demonstrated at length that you have no understanding of even the elementary mechanisms of genetics, and given that you do not understand evolution, there is precisely no point in my explaining why your analogy is wrong. May it suffice to say that neurology studies, heredity studies and evolutionary modelling have demonstrated that sexuality is a deeper part of a person, and of humanity, than such minutiae of personality as quickness of temper.

wolfsbane wrote: »

Mrs. Robinson's point also accepts the degree to which sinful desires are learnt. Nuture is a big part of homosexuality, and reinforces any disposition the homosexual had at birth.

Science says "no", wolfsbane. This, of course, is your way of opting out of the discussion by signalling that you are making recourse to the terminology of your religion, and you know perfectly well that I am not going to follow you there. "[F]alleness", for instance. There is no way in Hades that I'm going to dignify a word like that by allowing it into a sentence of my construction.

Again - I know all of the many twisted avenues down which this conversation might go, and I know the scenery to the point of abject boredom. I have flagged the important landmarks for you to note. I have better things to do than lend wind to your billowing bigotry.

why did god create cancer?

Comments