Sexuality, learned or innate?

[peadar1987]

[MOD EDIT: Split from here (http://foot.ie/threads/140699-2011-Presidential-Election).]



I'm thinking horse, bolted, stable, door, close. He can't help himself on some subjects, it's pure ego and arrogance, which is a mark of his goodness as a person, academic and debater, however he dug his own grave. Criticising a religious institution for it's views on lifestyle choice is nuts. Especially in modern Ireland. And pederasty - David, let it go. You need to lighten up and do a Father Ted (anyone think of the Chienese episode and the local bigot lady?)

Homsexuality is hardly a lifestyle choice. And the catholic church shouldn't be immune to criticism of its medieval view of morality just because it's a religious organisation.

[Spudulika]

Homsexuality is hardly a lifestyle choice. And the catholic church shouldn't be immune to criticism of its medieval view of morality just because it's a religious organisation.

I agree about a religious organisation being open to criticism, especially non-emotive and constructive. However the "western" media seems happy to slam the head of religious organisations (like RC, COE, Lutheran) yet they baulk at going after far worse policies and abuses related to (for example) Islam. Of course you won't get knived or shot to death by the Legion Of Mary, therefore I will always look at the reasoning behind attacks on any religious organisation. David Norris waxed lyrical about pederasty in North Africa, yet much there is pure and utter child abuse with young, impoverished boys sent to schools where even the worst CB's would feel unwell.

Maybe it's only my view, though I do see one's sexuality as a lifestyle choice, otherwise you're into the realm of "born that way", which means that you can be born bad, born mad. I have yet to see a fully qualified and conclusive argument that ones sexuality is genetically predetermined. It's not an offence to anyone, people are people and if they can find love and are not hurting others or themselves, then it's a great thing.

[osarusan]

Maybe it's only my view, though I do see one's sexuality as a lifestyle choice, otherwise you're into the realm of "born that way", which means that you can be born bad, born mad.


It would appear that sexual orientation is biological in nature, determined by a complex interplay of genetic factors and the early uterine environment. Sexual orientation is therefore not a choice, though sexual behaviour clearly is.
http://www.rcpsych.ac.uk/pdf/Submission%20to%20the%20Church%20of%20England.pdf

[Macy]

I agree about a religious organisation being open to criticism, especially non-emotive and constructive. However the "western" media seems happy to slam the head of religious organisations (like RC, COE, Lutheran) yet they baulk at going after far worse policies and abuses related to (for example) Islam. Of course you won't get knived or shot to death by the Legion Of Mary, therefore I will always look at the reasoning behind attacks on any religious organisation.
Come off it, Islam probably gets a harder time. You don't see islamic fundamentalists given newspaper columns and air time like we give Catholic fundamentalists. Quinn was on the last word this week arguing against the proposed gender quotas, and the crux of his argument appeared to me to be that women should be at home! No one batted an eyelid, but could you imagine the outcry if that was islamic thinktank director making the same point?

The Catholic Church ships a lot of criticism because of it's record, and continued stance, on women, children and gay and lesbian people. How many "disappeared" in industrial schools and launderees?


Maybe it's only my view, though I do see one's sexuality as a lifestyle choice, otherwise you're into the realm of "born that way", which means that you can be born bad, born mad. I have yet to see a fully qualified and conclusive argument that ones sexuality is genetically predetermined. It's not an offence to anyone, people are people and if they can find love and are not hurting others or themselves, then it's a great thing.
I'm not sure I get you - are you saying there that as well as not being born gay, it's some lifestyle choice to develop mental illness? If you think it's a lifestyle choice, do you believe that gay people can be "cured"? I'm actually astonished that anyone believes it's simply a lifestyle choice in this day and age.

[peadar1987]

Maybe it's only my view, though I do see one's sexuality as a lifestyle choice, otherwise you're into the realm of "born that way", which means that you can be born bad, born mad. I have yet to see a fully qualified and conclusive argument that ones sexuality is genetically predetermined. It's not an offence to anyone, people are people and if they can find love and are not hurting others or themselves, then it's a great thing.

The currrent scientific consensus is that it's a combination of nature and nurture. Certain people are more predisposed to homosexuality than others, and certain factors during a person's upbringing can influence their sexuality as well. It is absolutely not a choice. If sexual orientation was a lifestyle choice, you or I would be able to decide to start being sexually aroused by men right now. I know I can't. I doubt you could either. If it's not a choice for us, why should it be assumed it's a choice for homosexuals?

[Spudulika]

Come off it, Islam probably gets a harder time. You don't see islamic fundamentalists given newspaper columns and air time like we give Catholic fundamentalists. Quinn was on the last word this week arguing against the proposed gender quotas, and the crux of his argument appeared to me to be that women should be at home! No one batted an eyelid, but could you imagine the outcry if that was islamic thinktank director making the same point?
If you think Islam gets a harder time, then so be it, maybe from right wing "nuts" or Kevin Myers, though I have to disagree. When you listen to discussions on religion, or the rights and wrongs, or origins, Islam gets an easier ride because of the fear of reprisal, in my experience. Compared to Islam the RC church has become positively enlightened, having lived in an islamic country (the motherland) for a couple of years I can honestly say that what we witness from the clowns who masquerade as christians or catholics is nothing compared to what goes on in islam. Look up the Muslim based press for balance, and try to imagine a christian "thinker" having a column there. Or a christian church built, instead of destroyed as happened to synagogues and churches since the final phase of the formation of the Saudi state.

The Catholic Church ships a lot of criticism because of it's record, and continued stance, on women, children and gay and lesbian people. How many "disappeared" in industrial schools and launderees?
And rightly so, though being RC-centric, we're allowed to do that. But at least such criticism is allowed.
What do you mean about children?

I'm not sure I get you - are you saying there that as well as not being born gay, it's some lifestyle choice to develop mental illness? If you think it's a lifestyle choice, do you believe that gay people can be "cured"? I'm actually astonished that anyone believes it's simply a lifestyle choice in this day and age.

You're actually twisting it slightly here Macy, and accusing gay people of having a mental illness. Are you saying that it cannot be a lifestyle choice? Are you 100% sure that yo can be born gay? If not then it's spurious and dangerous to argue otherwise. If you believe it is an illness that can be cured, then so be it, personally I don't see it as anything wrong, as I've previously stated, so long as people can be free to choose without some bigot telling them they're wrong or going to hell, then the world would be a better place. Walking the path of saying that somebody is born such a way is the ultimate insult, the lines Osarusan put up really open one's eyes - that it's in the uterus that a "complex interplay of genetic factors" determine your sexual orientation - the direct lead would be that women can thus be tested for gayness liability and choose what course of action they take? And that sexual orientiation is determined but sexual behaviour isn't, walking very dangerous ground indeed.


The idea of Cox as President is abhorrent to me. He's a nasty piece of work and no mistake.

But would he get the majority of the vote, or enough to get in, he's got too many skeletons? I don't know, I think FG's recent behaviour is going to damage anyone they back, then again, FF still have some Dail seats and the country is eulogising Brian Lenihan, so who knows.

[Macy]

[B]You're actually twisting it slightly here Macy, and accusing gay people of having a mental illness. Are you saying that it cannot be a lifestyle choice? Are you 100% sure that yo can be born gay? If not then it's spurious and dangerous to argue otherwise. If you believe it is an illness that can be cured, then so be it, personally I don't see it as anything wrong, as I've previously stated, so long as people can be free to choose without some bigot telling them they're wrong or going to hell, then the world would be a better place.
I'm twisting it? You said "Maybe it's only my view, though I do see one's sexuality as a lifestyle choice, otherwise you're into the realm of "born that way", which means that you can be born bad, born mad". Mad to was taken by mean as you meaning mental illness. I was asking you a question regarding "curing" gay people. Many christian groups believe you can cure people of being gay, as they also believe you aren't born that way and that it's some lifestyle choice. The run courses, and it is based on what you stated - that it's a choice or that they've been corrupted.

[Spudulika]

No, you are twisting it, and you know it. Where in any point do I say being gay is a mental illness? Nowhere, why? Because not for a moment do I believe it is. Can somebody be born bad? I don't believe so. Can somebody be born mad? I don't believe so. Being gay is not an illness to be cured, I don't understand how you can think this. So some sects believe they can cure people of being gay, that's their view, I don't believe or agree with it. And corrupted? I don't know how you could think this, or anybody. This goes back to some odd world view that there's something inherently wrong in being gay, you may believe it but sorry, I don't agree. I believe that while people may be pre-disposed, they follow a choice and what's wrong with that? It is better that people can accept that not everybody is the same, if we solely rely on current or old memes then we're going to always have trouble.

So can you finally accept that being gay is not some mental illness, an illness or something wrong. I don't believe you do, nor do I, so nothing to see here.

[Macy]

One of us obviously isn't being clear about it - probably need someone else to make that judgement as we'll be going around in circle tbh.

YOU stated that that you don't believe people are born gay (or mad or bad). I'm arguing people are born gay and do not have a choice.

By not believing people are born gay and that it is a life style choice (as you stated), YOU are using the same logic that christian groups use to believe that gay people can be cured of their "gayness".

My reference to mental illness was in response to your comment about people not being born mad. People don't choose to be mentally ill either (which I think is what most people take "mad" to be).

I was simple extending the logic you expressed in your earlier first post, or at least attempting to. You are taking that as my view, which couldn't be further from the truth.

To be clear on my views
- People don't make a lifestyle choice to be Gay, they are born that way
- As it isn't a choice, being Gay is perfectly natural
- Gay couples should have exactly the same rights as a hetrocouple (including parental/ adoption rights) and to marry
- I don't consider gay people mentally ill
- I don't believe people choose to be mad, or to develop a mental illness as lifestyle choice either

[osarusan]

Seeing as your opinion on homosexuality is outlined in the first two posts below:

It's not an offence to anyone, people are people and if they can find love and are not hurting others or themselves, then it's a great thing.


personally I don't see it as anything wrong, as I've previously stated, so long as people can be free to choose without some bigot telling them they're wrong or going to hell, then the world would be a better place.

you seem to have no objection to it whatsoever, and feel they should be free from the comments of bigots. But on the other hand, you criticize Norris for his criticism of the church and its stance on homosexuality:


Criticising a religious institution for it's views on lifestyle choice is nuts. Especially in modern Ireland.

Surely you should welcome criticism of a religious institution whose stance on homosexuality is exactly the bigoted stuff you wish woldn't happen.


And Macy's point was simple to understand - you seem to be saying that people are not born gay, as they are not born bad or mad (which Macy inferred as meaning mentally ill). Thus (for you) it follows that homosexuality is a lifestyle choice. Macy's question is, do you also feel that being mad is a lifestyle choice? Do you think people choose to become mentally ill?

[DannyInvincible]

I wouldn't necessarily say that homosexuality is strictly pre-determined in the womb. Can anyone say that with certainty? From arguing such, it doesn't necessarily follow either that I'd be saying it's a mere matter of personal whim or conscious decision who someone might find sexually attractive. Surely, nurture, environment and social norms, however, will impact to some degree upon what might be an original genetic make-up predisposed to having a higher chance of developing a homosexual orientation. That's not to say homosexuality is a choice. Of course, the pursuing of a "gay lifestyle" is a cognisant choice, but whether one finds the male or female aesthetic more attractive isn't. There is a distinction and the latter is rooted in raw desire; the former can be acted upon or suppressed depending on the will of the individual. It has the appearance of being instinctive in the sense that it isn't a matter of choice, but I wouldn't necessarily say that one's upbringing cannot have a significant bearing on their sexuality either. As a firm proponent of scientific methodology, I am, of course, open to correction, but social psychology is a very powerful, influential and compelling phenomenon that should not be discounted so readily.

[osarusan]

Actually, I don't even think the issue of how/when sexuality is decided/formed is in any way relevant to the thread.

[DannyInvincible]

To be clear on my views
- People don't make a lifestyle choice to be Gay, they are born that way
- As it isn't a choice, being Gay is perfectly natural
- Gay couples should have exactly the same rights as a hetrocouple (including parental/ adoption rights) and to marry
- I don't consider gay people mentally ill
- I don't believe people choose to be mad, or to develop a mental illness as lifestyle choice either

Out of interest, in light of your inclination on homosexuality, what is your take on those who find themselves sexually aroused by the image of a child? Wouldn't that "orientation" be as genetically-predisposed as you argue homosexuality might be? It's fair to say that it is viewed socially in a very, very different light. It is primarily viewed as an illness, and often an unnatural, monstrous or somehow non/sub-human one at that. While most people would agree with your list of points above on homosexuality, or at least take little issue with it, I'd imagine a similar list that read as something along the following lines would be much more contentious:

- People don't make a lifestyle choice to be a paedophile, they are born that way
- As it isn't a choice, being a paedophile is perfectly natural
- Paedophiles should have exactly the same rights as other members of society
- I don't consider paedophiles mentally ill
- I don't believe people choose to be mad, or to develop a mental illness as lifestyle choice either
Actually, I don't even think the issue of how/when sexuality is decided/formed is in any way relevant to the thread.

Sorry, you could well be right, and my last post might well be guilty of further diversion, but I think it's an interesting discussion all the same. In saying that, is the notion of gay-bashing and a discussion attempting to understand its origins and perceived merits relevant to a thread on an Irish presidential election where one of the candidates seems to have fallen victim to what would appear to be an anti-gay smear campaign, accusations from crackpots that he leads an immoral and repugnant lifestyle deeming him unfit for the role of president and, subsequently, a potential challenge from another mainstream candidate promoting himself as "the Christian Democrat candidate"? Arguably, it would be. Gay Mitchell might as well have just come out and said he was campaigning on the anti-Norris or anti-gay ticket.

[osarusan]

Sorry, you could well be right, and my last post might well be guilty of further diversion, but I think it's an interesting discussion all the same.
Agreed, and your comment on its influence on the presidential race are probably correct too. I should rightly have said that such debate shouldn't be relevant to a thread on a presidential race, but in Ireland, and in truth most other countries, it probably is, sadly.

[SkStu]

Out of interest, in light of your inclination on homosexuality, what is your take on those who find themselves sexually aroused by the image of a child? Wouldn't that "orientation" be as genetically-predisposed as you argue homosexuality might be? It's fair to say that it is viewed socially in a very, very different light. It is primarily viewed as an illness, and often an unnatural, monstrous or somehow non/sub-human one at that. While most people would agree with your list of points above on homosexuality, or at least take little issue with it, I'd imagine a similar list that read as something along the following lines would be much more contentious:


- People don't make a lifestyle choice to be a paedophile, they are born that way
- As it isn't a choice, being a paedophile is perfectly natural
- Paedophiles should have exactly the same rights as other members of society
- I don't consider paedophiles mentally ill
- I don't believe people choose to be mad, or to develop a mental illness as lifestyle choice either

im no expert on the issues at debate here but I do believe that the argument made against paedophilia is one that the human body is designed to become sexually attractive and arousing to the opposite sex (not exclusively the opposite sex obviously) when the body has gone through puberty and, as such, a desire to get jiggy with kiddy's (scientific term) is not natural. It is more behavioural in nature and deviant. Perhaps influenced by things that happened during their own youth.

As i said, i havent looked into this but I do believe i heard an argument along those lines before.

[Spudulika]

One of us obviously isn't being clear about it - probably need someone else to make that judgement as we'll be going around in circle tbh.

YOU stated that that you don't believe people are born gay (or mad or bad). I'm arguing people are born gay and do not have a choice.

By not believing people are born gay and that it is a life style choice (as you stated), YOU are using the same logic that christian groups use to believe that gay people can be cured of their "gayness".

My reference to mental illness was in response to your comment about people not being born mad. People don't choose to be mentally ill either (which I think is what most people take "mad" to be).

I was simple extending the logic you expressed in your earlier first post, or at least attempting to. You are taking that as my view, which couldn't be further from the truth.

To be clear on my views
- People don't make a lifestyle choice to be Gay, they are born that way
- As it isn't a choice, being Gay is perfectly natural
- Gay couples should have exactly the same rights as a hetrocouple (including parental/ adoption rights) and to marry
- I don't consider gay people mentally ill
- I don't believe people choose to be mad, or to develop a mental illness as lifestyle choice either

I accept that you believe people are born with a sexual persuasion, I don't agree. I believe that any loving couple should have equal rights under the law. You seem to keep pushing the point that being gay is natural, where is the argument in that? I don't know why you would equate being gay with being mentally ill, even in Osarusan's case I don't get this drive on for it. Where was that stated? Why would people choose to be mad? Where is this even stated? This is a bit superfluous and also ott. You can extend logic in many directions, however, you end up treading on dangerous ground, as pointed out by subsequent posters.

Osarusan, no institution is immune to criticism, nor should it be. Fair and balanced it should be, without agenda and with a right of reply. This is developed and proper, would you disagree with this? You push the issue of choosing to be mentally ill, parallel to Macy, though I don't know where this erupted from. If we roll back, then being gay is something that is caused by a chemical imbalance (misfunctioning thyroid = depression/hyperactivity) and therefore can be cured. I don't agree with this, why this issue of pushing being gay as being an illness of some sort is beyond me and was never brought into any point other than to state that it is nothing I would agree with.

I thank you, Osarusan, for reposting the most important point I made, that gay people should not be discriminated against and that there is nothing wrong with finding love. Let this be an end to it and we can return to discussing the Presidential race. Because with some of the worms coming out of the wood Mr. Norris could well be a Mick Wallace type protest candidate.

[DannyInvincible]

im no expert on the issues at debate here but I do believe that the argument made against paedophilia is one that the human body is designed to become sexually attractive and arousing to the opposite sex (not exclusively the opposite sex obviously) when the body has gone through puberty and, as such, a desire to get jiggy with kiddy's (scientific term) is not natural. It is more behavioural in nature and deviant. Perhaps influenced by things that happened during their own youth.

As i said, i havent looked into this but I do believe i heard an argument along those lines before.

That sounds like a religious argument teetering of the brink of creationist fundamentalism to me. Who or what would have designed the human body for such a purpose? You could use the same "unnatural" analogy with homosexuality - it has no obvious or apparent survival benefit, appearing as an evolutionary paradox, after all - and have a charge of homophobia levelled against you pretty quickly. The argument that the human body was somehow designed for only sexual union and reproduction between male and female is often bandied about by religious anti-gay campaigners. Consequently, does that make celibacy a cardinal sin? Homosexuality isn't "harming" human reproduction any more than celibacy might be. You can see the inevitable contradictions that such daft reasoning produces.

If the human "ideal" you speak of was designed by someone, who or what designed the mind of the paedophile? I would argue that the people we all are today has been influenced in a significant part by the environment of our upbringing and in which we find ourselves, but our genetic make-up is evidently also a very significant factor in our individual traits and propensity towards certain behaviours.

The human anatomy and all its various parts were either designed (by God or a "watchmaker (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watchmaker_analogy)", if you will) with a set purpose in mind, or they weren't and most likely developed out of the combined processes of random (or purposeless) gene mutation and natural selection; or evolution, in other words. I happen to be an agnostic and believe in what is the very compelling theory of evolution.

It is easy, but ultimately incorrect, to connote an apparent purpose from the results of natural selection due to the seemingly apt and survivalist nature of many things in their immediate environments, but this would be to see evolution as sentiently "selecting" particular traits it deems favourable to species survival or working towards some ultimate aim or purpose. Evolution has no "end-goal" in sight. It just happens, unless we're to get into the field of eugenics, but, of course, that would be an attempt to control or force whatever purpose onto evolution as is deemed favourable by man at a particular time.

Viewing the body as being designed to specifications might also logically imply that the force of natural selection is somehow cognisant or aware of what it is doing, but, of course, it isn't. As such, not even evolution indicates that there ought to be any one strict or specific purpose for the human body. There are just traits that happen to survive better over certain existing others in particular environments. Sure, this appears to guide the process of evolution, but a morality cannot be borne out of such a non-conscious process. Richard Dawkins compares evolution to a "blind watchmaker".

As far as I'm concerned, invoking the vague and suspect natural-unnatural dichotomy in a debate such as this is largely redundant as far as all humans, the human mind and human behaviours are inherently as much a part of nature as the actions of any other creature on the planet. Therefore, even if the human body were somehow designed, I would have difficulty seeing how it was designed with some "natural" purpose in mind given the propensity for the human mind in its current guise to engage in thought deemed "unnatural" or deviant.

[SkStu]

That sounds like a religious argument teetering of the brink of creationist fundamentalism to me. Who or what would have designed the human body for such a purpose? You could use the same "unnatural" analogy with homosexuality - it has no obvious or apparent survival benefit, appearing as an evolutionary paradox, after all - and have a charge of homophobia levelled against you pretty quickly. The argument that the human body was somehow designed for only sexual union and reproduction between male and female is often bandied about by religious anti-gay campaigners. Consequently, does that make celibacy a cardinal sin? Homosexuality isn't "harming" human reproduction any more than celibacy might be. You can see the inevitable contradictions that such daft reasoning produces.

If the human "ideal" you speak of was designed by someone, who or what designed the mind of the paedophile? I would argue that the people we all are today has been influenced in a significant part by the environment of our upbringing and in which we find ourselves, but our genetic make-up is evidently also a very significant factor in our individual traits and propensity towards certain behaviours.

The human anatomy and all its various parts were either designed (by God or a "watchmaker (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watchmaker_analogy)", if you will) with a set purpose in mind, or they weren't and most likely developed out of the combined processes of random (or purposeless) gene mutation and natural selection; or evolution, in other words. I happen to be an agnostic and believe in what is the very compelling theory of evolution.

It is easy, but ultimately incorrect, to connote an apparent purpose from the results of natural selection due to the seemingly apt and survivalist nature of many things in their immediate environments, but this would be to see evolution as sentiently "selecting" particular traits it deems favourable to species survival or working towards some ultimate aim or purpose. Evolution has no "end-goal" in sight. It just happens, unless we're to get into the field of eugenics, but, of course, that would be an attempt to control or force whatever purpose onto evolution as is deemed favourable by man at a particular time.

Viewing the body as being designed to specifications might also logically imply that the force of natural selection is somehow cognisant or aware of what it is doing, but, of course, it isn't. As such, not even evolution indicates that there ought to be any one strict or specific purpose for the human body. There are just traits that happen to survive better over certain existing others in particular environments. Sure, this appears to guide the process of evolution, but a morality cannot be borne out of such a non-conscious process. Richard Dawkins compares evolution to a "blind watchmaker".

As far as I'm concerned, invoking the vague and suspect natural-unnatural dichotomy in a debate such as this is largely redundant as far as all humans, the human mind and human behaviours are inherently as much a part of nature as the actions of any other creature on the planet. Therefore, even if the human body were somehow designed, I would have difficulty seeing how it was designed with some "natural" purpose in mind given the propensity for the human mind in its current guise to engage in thought deemed "unnatural" or deviant.

i knew i was in way over my head and i really dont give a crap but i was just offering a theory i had heard espoused from a non-religious source. I dont think that the general idea is exclusively christian or creationist in nature as it is used an argument to validate homosexuality. The theory simply goes to the very nature of what we are, irrespective of creation i.e. it is "natural" to be sexually attracted to sexually developed people and it is "unnatural" to be sexually attracted to sexually undeveloped people. I dont think there is anything too outrageous in that statement. I never once referred to any situation in my post as an ideal, it is what it is. The real question becomes what is that which is not natural? That is the grey area.

With regards to the rest of the faff in your post, you have picked one word out of my post and used it to bring the thread in a whole different direction where now we're entering a debate about creationism or religion. Ill stay away from that one, thanks.

[DannyInvincible]

Just to be clear, I wasn't having a go at you personally. Just attempting to dissect an argument I perceive to be highly suspect. I saw a parallel in the theory you mentioned and those ideas espoused by right-wing religious lunatics who describe homosexuality as an unnatural abomination. Why would referring to a sexual attraction to minors as an unnatural abomination be any different? That's what I'm trying to decipher. Obviously, there would be a power relationship there between adult and child if such a physical interaction was to occur that would be, in most people's eyes, generally considered one of dominant abuser and submissive abused, but I'm merely talking about paedophile thoughts for the meantime.


The theory simply goes to the very nature of what we are, irrespective of creation i.e. it is "natural" to be sexually attracted to sexually developed people and it is "unnatural" to be sexually attracted to sexually undeveloped people. I dont think there is anything too outrageous in that statement. I never once referred to any situation in my post as an ideal, it is what it is. The real question becomes what is that which is not natural? That is the grey area.

It mightn't be considered outrageous, sure, but it's worth questioning such a presumptious and essentialist statement. I mean, what is this alleged "very nature of what we are" that you claim to exist and, if it does indeed exist, how does one go about distinguishing between acts and thoughts that are to be categorised as natural and acts and thoughts that are to be categorised as unnatural? I think all human activity must be considered natural by definition, no matter how abhorrent it might seem to certain others. We, and our thoughts with us, are creatures of nature, after all. Of course, that's not necessarily a personal legitimisation or justification for the idea of everyone doing as they please, whether it's abusive or harmful to other people or not.

[DannyInvincible]

Hehe, I see the topical advert generator is doing its job.

http://i218.photobucket.com/albums/cc12/poguemahone85/adv.png
http://i218.photobucket.com/albums/cc12/poguemahone85/adv-1.png
http://i218.photobucket.com/albums/cc12/poguemahone85/adv-2.png

[Spudulika]

Thank god my other half won't see this, or she'll begin to wonder.

[culloty82]

I'd mostly go along with the innate argument, a bisexual person would have the element of choice to an extent, but even then both inclinations would have always instinctly existed in the mind - a straight person would hardly suddenly decide to have feelings for the same sex, or a gay person develop heterosexual urges.

[DannyInvincible]

I think it's important to recognise that the notions of homosexuality as choice and homosexuality as "learned" are not one and the same. And that it isn't necessarily a case of being either learned or innate either. The two need not be mutually exclusive. Both genetic make-up and the environment to which one is exposed in early life can, of course, interact or combine to lead to a homosexual outcome in later life.

If we take the example of genetically-identical twins and acknowledge that there are many instances where just one of the twins has a homosexual orientation whilst the other identifies as heterosexual, we'll see it's unlikely that genetics alone are the one and only determinant in the cause of one's sexuality.

[Macy]

Out of interest, in light of your inclination on homosexuality, what is your take on those who find themselves sexually aroused by the image of a child? Wouldn't that "orientation" be as genetically-predisposed as you argue homosexuality might be? It's fair to say that it is viewed socially in a very, very different light. It is primarily viewed as an illness, and often an unnatural, monstrous or somehow non/sub-human one at that. While most people would agree with your list of points above on homosexuality, or at least take little issue with it, I'd imagine a similar list that read as something along the following lines would be much more contentious:

- People don't make a lifestyle choice to be a paedophile, they are born that way
- As it isn't a choice, being a paedophile is perfectly natural
- Paedophiles should have exactly the same rights as other members of society
- I don't consider paedophiles mentally ill
- I don't believe people choose to be mad, or to develop a mental illness as lifestyle choice either

A child can't consent - it's pretty simple differentiation to my mind. There's more in play than who a person finds attractive - power and control for example. You're seriously using the comparison of what happens between two consenting adults to predatory behaviour of an adult with a minor?

[DannyInvincible]

A child can't consent - it's pretty simple differentiation to my mind. There's more in play than who a person finds attractive - power and control for example. You're seriously using the comparison of what happens between two consenting adults to predatory behaviour of an adult with a minor?

I'm referring to the sexual interest in children or the thought; not the physical manifestation of this. I acknowledged in a later post the obvious disproportional power relationship present when it comes to peadophilic acts.

[osarusan]

Osarusan....... You push the issue of choosing to be mentally ill, parallel to Macy, though I don't know where this erupted from.

Honest to God, there is no way in the world that you can get that from my posts (or Macy'e either). Nobody has come even remotely close to suggesting that homosexuality is a mental illness. If you disagree, please include some quotes of people stating/implying that.

As I said earlier:


And Macy's point was simple to understand - you seem to be saying that people are not born gay, as they are not born bad or mad (which Macy inferred as meaning mentally ill). Thus (for you) it follows that homosexuality is a lifestyle choice. Macy's question is, do you also feel that being mad is a lifestyle choice? Do you think people choose to become mentally ill?

[micls]

Out of interest, in light of your inclination on homosexuality, what is your take on those who find themselves sexually aroused by the image of a child? Wouldn't that "orientation" be as genetically-predisposed as you argue homosexuality might be?


I don't think paedophilia is innate in the same way as any other sexual desire.

The difference is in the action. A child cannot consent, therefore it's like comparable to someone who can't get sex raping someone. It doesn't matter if you're attracted to men, women etc it's the having sex without their consent that's the problem.

There have been cases where people attracted to children have turned themselves in, or committed themselves, to learn how to control the desire and not hurt anyone. I'm sure there are also cases where people are attracted to children and they never even think to act on the desire as they know it's wrong. I don't have any problem with these people.

Desire/attraction is one thing, acting on it to hurt another person is completely separate. That's why they are seen differently. Paedophilia is seen along the lines of rape (gay or straight), as this is the only way that particular sexual orientation can be satisfied.

Spudulika- baffled at the post about not being able to be born mad. You think people can't be born with mental illness?

The 'bad' is more debatable, based on your definition of bad, but for example sociopathy is a clear example where you can be born with a predisposition to being bad, because of the inability to empathise, a key in us being 'good'.

[Spudulika]

Spudulika- baffled at the post about not being able to be born mad. You think people can't be born with mental illness?

The 'bad' is more debatable, based on your definition of bad, but for example sociopathy is a clear example where you can be born with a predisposition to being bad, because of the inability to empathise, a key in us being 'good'.

Mad I put as a poor way to link with bad. Mad I would never associate with mental illness, though in a tabloid manner I can understand it would be pasted together. While mad is attached to insanity or some such, there is also a developmental process for some forms of mental illness. Some are more prone to others, though it is always a question of nature or nurture or simple chemicals.

Bad, hmm, well, in a Christian sense we are all born perfect and without sin. We've all heard the inspiring phrase (twisted in jokes) "there's no such thing as a bad boy, or girl". While there are opinions that it is in some people's nature to be bad, I canot accept or agree with that.


Honest to God, there is no way in the world that you can get that from my posts (or Macy'e either). Nobody has come even remotely close to suggesting that homosexuality is a mental illness. If you disagree, please include some quotes of people stating/implying that.

As I said earlier:

Thanks for the clarification, I'd wondered why mental illness was being brought into the discussion as I'd never in a million years consider a gay person to be mentally ill.

[DannyInvincible]

I don't think paedophilia is innate in the same way as any other sexual desire.

Not sure why the elements of desire or attraction for each should be viewed as necessarily different simply because how each might manifest itself physically happens to be different. The instinctive thought and the physical act are two very different things and both need not be mutually inclusive. As you point out, there are surely paedophiles who suppress their urges in order to live a functional and social existence, or maybe those who can assuage their sexual appetite with their imagination. They're not breaching anyone's lack of consent, yet most people would still view their thoughts as sick and monstrous; an illness in requirement of psychological remedy. You'll find that, throughout history, the definition of what constitutes a mental illness has been rather murky territory. Often, it's been a brush used to tar those who deviate from what is purported to be "normal", "standard" or "natural" modes of thought and behaviour, as if we can unquestioningly take it for granted that there are such things. The other extreme of this argument is that there is no such thing as mental illness; rather, that we each just have varying personalities.

In saying that, I don't necessarily believe that sexuality, as with most modes of thought, is strictly innate, with nurture and environment most likely having a significant role to play, possibly in contributing to a homosexual outcome of which genetic make-up has increased the likelihood somewhat and that is no more of a choice than were it strictly genetic.


The difference is in the action. A child cannot consent, therefore it's like comparable to someone who can't get sex raping someone. It doesn't matter if you're attracted to men, women etc it's the having sex without their consent that's the problem.

Sure, but we don't classify all homosexuals or heterosexuals as rapists simply because a minority of individuals of either orientation might have engaged in rape to satisfy their thirst. Even if an apparent majority of individuals who have had paedophilic thoughts have engaged in abuse, is it fair to vilify those who've gone to great pains to suppress their desires in order to conform with society's expectations of them by categorising their though-process with the thought-process of rapists?


Bad, hmm, well, in a Christian sense we are all born perfect and without sin. We've all heard the inspiring phrase (twisted in jokes) "there's no such thing as a bad boy, or girl". While there are opinions that it is in some people's nature to be bad, I canot accept or agree with that.

It's not all that important to the general discussion, but according to Christian theology, we are all born bad or with the original sin of Adam and Eve that requires cleansing by baptism. That bloody apple...

[Spudulika]

Thanks Danny, you're right, only Jesus and his teen Mother were without sin.

I should have clarified it 100% by saying that on christian principles children are born pure (eschewing the whole granny smith thing).

Interesting points about paedophilia, my Grandmother used to say it was a "lacking" in a person that made them abuse children. I remember asking her what they lacked and she said - knowing what is right and wrong. In so many instances what we do is guided by our society. Pederasty or paedophilia was common in many "classical" societies due to the societal mores in operation.

[micls]

Bad, hmm, well, in a Christian sense we are all born perfect and without sin. We've all heard the inspiring phrase (twisted in jokes) "there's no such thing as a bad boy, or girl". While there are opinions that it is in some people's nature to be bad, I canot accept or agree with that..

A Christian sense of it is irrelevant to me tbh, and doesn't affect my thinking.

What would your opinion be on sociopathy then? Obviously it doesn't automatically equal bad but certainly vastly increases the chance.


Not sure why the elements of desire or attraction for each should be viewed as necessarily different simply because how each might manifest itself physically happens to be different.

Sorry, that was a typo, that should have said it is the same. Hence the rest of my post. my bad.

[DannyInvincible]

Thought this was relevant: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-13760662


About 50 supporters of Northern Ireland's gay community are picketing a conference which focuses on helping people turn away from homosexuality.

The protest is being held outside the event organised by the Core Issues Trust group at a Church of Ireland venue in Belfast.

Inside, about 15 people listened to Amercian speaker David Pickup who promotes "reparative therapy".

He claims he can encourage homosexual people to practise hetereosexuality.