Monday, June 05, 2006
I disagree. I would not consider "being a homosexual" a state of nature in the same respect that race is a state of nature. If you think they are, would you also agree that "being a pedophile" of "being a polygamist" are also states of nature in the same respect? If not, why not?
Freder Frederson wrote:
Well, that's an easy one. Being a polygamist is a definite choice. I am not going to comment on what "causes" pedophilia because I am not psychologist or psychiatrist but I will comment why it would be perfectly acceptable to condemn pedophilia even if it was a "state of nature" while it is wrong to condemn homosexuality. Pedophilia harms innocent parties, children, homosexuality does not. That is the distinction, even if both are "states of nature".
Being a polygamist or, more precisely in order to align the analogy, the desire itself to commit adultery or simultaneous promiscuity is not a choice, although sexuality is partly based on a variety of choices. But the definite and direct choice regards behavior. Similarly to homosexuality, a person who doesn't do anything to change their mental/relationship problems that create the desire to be adulterous, or if they don't do anything to understand their psychology enough to change it, they are behaving like most homos do today.
Regarding: "Pedophilia harms innocent parties, children, homosexuality does not".
Simply to show that his reasoning is faulty regarding the comparison, to take exactly the APA's last decree, a pedophile who has no contact with children does not harm children. To which we must add: he/she (the pedophile) only harms him/herself by having a diseased mind- something the American Psychological Association is too corrupt to ackowledge.
But a pedophile will obviously only harm children if they come in contact with them, and choose to do harm, which is often the case. Pedophiles harm children because they trample over the right of the child not to have any sexual interaction. But this is exactly the same for every non-heterosexual that commits any kind of harmful behavior in the sexual arena, which is the same for heterosexuals. Even though I am just pointing out the problems with his comparison, the issue is the APA is now as corrupt and sordid as the ACLU, so their issuing that pedophilia "in itself" is harmless is a horrible deed. It just serves to legitimize pedophilia and give it a nice non-threatening sugar coating, and make people more tolerant to pedophiles, and turn down people's radar to potential crimes, etc etc. But these are pro-homosexuals we are talking about, so no surprise there.
The other problem with this comparison is that there are a lot of adults who abuse either children or adolescents who also have an adult sexuality. Even if we define homo,bi,hetero as exclusive adult categories (useless and confusing) for a good number of pedophiles and ephebophiles the two groups intersect (pedophilia with heterosexuality, bisexuality, or homosexuality). Strictly speaking there are no pedophiles who are outside the hetero, bi, or homo categories, so to speak of pedophiles as a separate category than homosexuals (or bi or hetero) is false. Pedophiles always have some kind of desire or interaction with at least one child, the same for ephebophiles, so they will always be homo, bi, or heterosexual - words that simply define which two sexes are a part of a desire or actual relation.
This need to construct these very neat and distinct categories that do not align themselves with the complexity of reality is exactly one of the problems with master narratives in modern sexuality (something Elais, a pro-homo nut-job in this same discussion gave another great example of).
So this is not the reason why homosexuality is dysfunctional and not a state of "nature" (meaning health and harmony). Homosexuality is dysfunctional because heterosexuality has a profound beauty of the male and female coming together, which is what our species is about. Heterosexuality is sacred.
Homosexuality is as ugly and dysfunctional as pedophilia. Homosexuals are people who simply cannot have a healthy heterosexual relationship, who cannot procreate without unnatural means, and they use unnatural procreation means to serve their dysfunctional relationships.
More importantly to note, my concern is with harm and violence. The subject I find that is the greatest taboo at the moment is how non-heterosexuals sexually harass adult heterosexuals. I think liberal society is in even more denial about this than about how much non-heterosexuals harass and abuse minors.