Protect Our Children PLEASE Read

[awyala]

Forum Sponsor

That's sure working well for the Catholic church. If you need crutches, go to the hospital. They'll give you real ones.

Hahaha like you are an "island unto yourself" eh? You rely on no one and your ethical code is entirely self generated. I suppose so too is your education, health and politics. Buddy please put your tired cliche arguments to bed and develop a quantum of originality.

I suppose the high percentage of priest child molesters has to do with the genetically (inclined to be sexually attracted to children) being also genetically Catholic too? They appear to be stuck being both.

Or the Catholic part is a convenient choice to facilitate their inherent nature? If only they weren't born being sexually attracted to children. It is unfortunate they cannot be held liable for....er I mean, it is unfortunate for the children, the child molesters cannot be held liable for the actions they were unable to choose or resist due to their genetic nature. The humanist concept of prison rehabilitation is so cruel and useless in the case of paedophiles. Maybe we need to develop a safe way for them to express their nature, pictures perhaps, oh but that too is illegal. What ever shall we do?

 

[awyala]

Try investigating homophelia in relation to homosexuality. There might be an interesting correlation.

Other interesting aspects to explore:

Is it genetic for a gay man to prefer clothes which are culturally defined as female? Or do they choose feminine clothes, postures, inflection, etc? To what extent is gay behaviour genetic? Is being camp genetic? Are feminine vocal tones genetic also? If one is a gay male, why prefer feminine men? Would that not defeat the purpose? Should all gay men not be bears and celebrate masculinity? Seems to be A LOT of choice among homosexuals!

Is it the case that gay males tend to be more promiscuous than gay females? If so, why has this "masculine" sexual trait remained? Why have gay men not been born with more monogamous and nesting behaviours?

 

[eastcoast_gsx]

I suppose the high percentage of priest child molesters has to do with the genetically (inclined to be sexually attracted to children) being also genetically Catholic too? They appear to be stuck being both.

Are you really that obtuse? It is more likley due to the fact that their "different" biological makeup causes them to be uncomfortable with the "norm" and they either chose a profession such as a catholic priest because they want a profession that tries to instill "obidience" or they simply they want to be closer to their intended targets.

Is it the case that gay males tend to be more promiscuous than gay females? If so, why has this "masculine" sexual trait remained? Why have gay men not been born with more monogamous and nesting behaviours?

Maybe it's more complicated then that, and not 100% one way or the other....

 

[OpenGambit]

awyala's opinion doesn't matter. So the completely ridiculous analogy he was making about how being attracted to people of the same sex is somehow the same as the fact that someone would be a "boobs guy" or a "legs guy" or an "*** guy. is stupid.

It also doesn't matter even if he is right. Its an analogous ground under Sec 15 of the Charter and protected under the law.

 

[01cbr]

Hahaha like you are an "island unto yourself" eh? You rely on no one and your ethical code is entirely self generated. I suppose so too is your education, health and politics. Buddy please put your tired cliche arguments to bed and develop a quantum of originality.

I suppose the high percentage of priest child molesters has to do with the genetically (inclined to be sexually attracted to children) being also genetically Catholic too? They appear to be stuck being both.

Or the Catholic part is a convenient choice to facilitate their inherent nature? If only they weren't born being sexually attracted to children. It is unfortunate they cannot be held liable for....er I mean, it is unfortunate for the children, the child molesters cannot be held liable for the actions they were unable to choose or resist due to their genetic nature. The humanist concept of prison rehabilitation is so cruel and useless in the case of paedophiles. Maybe we need to develop a safe way for them to express their nature, pictures perhaps, oh but that too is illegal. What ever shall we do?

Have you actually done any reading on abnormal psychology? Your posts scream extreme ignorance.


When it comes down to it what is the difference between a pedophile and a homosexual? Pedophiles hurt children, homosexuals hurt no one in their sexual preference... that's why they are accepted by society.

 

[01cbr]

Try investigating homophelia in relation to homosexuality. There might be an interesting correlation.

Other interesting aspects to explore:

Is it genetic for a gay man to prefer clothes which are culturally defined as female? Or do they choose feminine clothes, postures, inflection, etc? To what extent is gay behaviour genetic? Is being camp genetic? Are feminine vocal tones genetic also? If one is a gay male, why prefer feminine men? Would that not defeat the purpose? Should all gay men not be bears and celebrate masculinity? Seems to be A LOT of choice among homosexuals!

Is it the case that gay males tend to be more promiscuous than gay females? If so, why has this "masculine" sexual trait remained? Why have gay men not been born with more monogamous and nesting behaviours?

Now you are getting into stereotypes.
All gay men and lesbians do not live and act the same way.

 

[imnothng]

Now you are getting into stereotypes.
All gay men and lesbians do not live and act the same way.

What do you mean? All heterosexual people live and act the same way.


Haha, j/k of course, my name isn't Awyala.

 

[knowledge]

Sexuality begins after nearly 10 years of influence, persuasion and a culture of comformity. Conversely rebellion and seeking other affiliations is also well represented before anyone reaches sexual maturity. There is plenty of time for habits, disorders, complexes and so forth to develop.

Actually, gender-typing can begin as early as 2, but most likely at the age of 3 or 4 for the average child. It's not uncommon for them to already find the opposite or same gender attractive by then. Gender typing is just what they're led to believe is normal. So if a kid has strong gender typing and finds men attractive, they're a little confused (which is why a lot of people don't come out until they're much older and able to sort through the confusion of being abnormal). A child that isn't strongly gender-typed will be a lot more comfortable with it and come out a lot earlier.

From all the reading that I've done: it's a bit of nature AND nurture, it leans toward nature a little bit more (at the very least) or a lot more (at the most). An example is the later you're born in relation to your other siblings = a higher chance of you being gay (ie 3rd born is more likely to be gay than the 1st & second).

 

[cbcanada]

I've actively tried to encourage my daughter to be a lesbian since the day she was born. Basically I've told her that girls are beautiful and boys are yucky. I've also said that I hope she marries a nice girl. Guess what? She is six and has five boyfriends in her class, lol.

My son is ten and just yesterday told me that he finds older women attractive. He said he doesn't get how men could find other men attractive. I explained to him that that is because he isn't gay, but I he was he would find men attractive.

I am the kind of straight guy that always plays to the gay jokes, like when someone calls me gay I always tell them how hot I find them, lol. I am super open with my kids that there are gay people and straight people and that it doesn't matter either way. I debate with my religious parents about gay rights.

Awayla, you spew nothing but verbal diarrhea. You just throw a bunch of crap out there and hope something sticks. You are a religious quack. I can't say how I really feel because this site is run in the PG-13 version of the Internet.

belive me i cant say what i really think about you or i will most likey get banned for life.

1. i cant believe you talk like that to your kids!

2. i cant believe you jump on a guy for being straight and defending it and call him a religious "quack"

3. so when you are religious and believe a man should be doin a woman you become a quack?

4. you along with many others have bought into the homosexual propaganda machine. and have turned the tide on those that still have morals.

5. you have no morals! you believe you do but if you did you would not find yourself upset by those that are not gay sympathizers

6. you have no morals because u have drifted from god thinking that you can live your live make your own rules because you are a good person.

7. maybe you are a good person but. mankind living under their own rules is destined for immorality. study every great culture in history. romans, ancient persion and now america and you will see how their society and "good" people. degenerated over the years.

 

[awyala]

Are you really that obtuse? It is more likley due to the fact that their "different" biological makeup causes them to be uncomfortable with the "norm" and they either chose a profession such as a catholic priest because they want a profession that tries to instill "obidience" or they simply they want to be closer to their intended targets.



Maybe it's more complicated then that, and not 100% one way or the other....

So you're saying gays are attracted to the priesthood, prison, and zoolophiles are attracted to remote farms, and teenage boys who love their hands are attracted to the bedrooms?

Couldn't be that circumstances affect behaviour huh?

Secondly you're right, it is faaaaaaar more complicated than "born that way".

 

[awyala]

awyala's opinion doesn't matter. So the completely ridiculous analogy he was making about how being attracted to people of the same sex is somehow the same as the fact that someone would be a "boobs guy" or a "legs guy" or an "*** guy. is stupid.

It also doesn't matter even if he is right. Its an analogous ground under Sec 15 of the Charter and protected under the law.

There are philias related to body parts so yes it is comparable. And yes my opinion does matter as law is based on opinion. Maybe not mine, but a majority's. You think the charter has never been amended? Wasn't sodomy illegal once?

 

[awyala]

Have you actually done any reading on abnormal psychology? Your posts scream extreme ignorance.


When it comes down to it what is the difference between a pedophile and a homosexual? Pedophiles hurt children, homosexuals hurt no one in their sexual preference... that's why they are accepted by society.

Please see my earlier post about the crux of the matter being related to demonstrable harm and you'll find we are in "ignorant" agreement. Do enlighten us as to how the 2 preferences, as well as incest or beastiality could also be construed as separate from homosexuality. I would very much like to hear you defend those other 2 preferences.

 

[awyala]

Now you are getting into stereotypes.
All gay men and lesbians do not live and act the same way.

Would you deny gay men generally speaking are more promiscuous than gay women?

 

[awyala]

Actually, gender-typing can begin as early as 2, but most likely at the age of 3 or 4 for the average child. It's not uncommon for them to already find the opposite or same gender attractive by then. Gender typing is just what they're led to believe is normal. So if a kid has strong gender typing and finds men attractive, they're a little confused (which is why a lot of people don't come out until they're much older and able to sort through the confusion of being abnormal). A child that isn't strongly gender-typed will be a lot more comfortable with it and come out a lot earlier.

From all the reading that I've done: it's a bit of nature AND nurture, it leans toward nature a little bit more (at the very least) or a lot more (at the most). An example is the later you're born in relation to your other siblings = a higher chance of you being gay (ie 3rd born is more likely to be gay than the 1st & second).

I have heard and read the same, however I am not entirely convinced for several reasons. One being much of our nature can be overcome with our highly flexible and developed intellects. The human has the ability to override nature and evolution for that matter. We have an enormous capacity to due this due to choice and predictive reasoning. Men have a variety of instincts we supress for social long term benifitial reasons. We also do things seamingly counter to our instinct, namely fruitless high risk activities.

Some examples of male sexual traits:
Promiscuity, polygamy, rape. Though these are not exclusive to males they tend to be overwhelmingly characterised by males. Why is this? And why does society impose restrictions on this seemingly natural behaviour. The "born this way" argument isnt strong enough to permit this behaviour. So in our society we force conformity based on rationale reason based prediction of short and long term net effects. We may grant allowances or leniency on the basis of lack of culpabilty, but none the less certain behaviours are not tolerated for a whole other basis than genetics.

I don't buy for a second behaviour is that fixed among humans. A predisposition to alcohol is rather defined as a predisposition to addiction. This "preference" for a substance which is almost entirely man made is ridiculous to imply, but the predisposition to addiction is a much more base trait which could be genetic. Even so this can be overcome rather than be an enslaving biological mechanism.

The argument that homosexuality is a genetic trait is one that absolves one of responsibility for a choice they made, but why bother pursuing this very weak argument when you believe no short or long term harm is being done?

The genetic argument is moot no? Who cares why you do it if it has no net negative result?

 

[01cbr]

Would you deny gay men generally speaking are more promiscuous than gay women?

In my experience, "generally" they are not.

 

[01cbr]

Please see my earlier post about the crux of the matter being related to demonstrable harm and you'll find we are in "ignorant" agreement. Do enlighten us as to how the 2 preferences, as well as incest or beastiality could also be construed as separate from homosexuality. I would very much like to hear you defend those other 2 preferences.

Why would I need to explain how they are separate?

 

[01cbr]

I have heard and read the same, however I am not entirely convinced for several reasons. One being much of our nature can be overcome with our highly flexible and developed intellects. The human has the ability to override nature and evolution for that matter. We have an enormous capacity to due this due to choice and predictive reasoning. Men have a variety of instincts we supress for social long term benifitial reasons. We also do things seamingly counter to our instinct, namely fruitless high risk activities.

Some examples of male sexual traits:
Promiscuity, polygamy, rape. Though these are not exclusive to males they tend to be overwhelmingly characterised by males. Why is this? And why does society impose restrictions on this seemingly natural behaviour. The "born this way" argument isnt strong enough to permit this behaviour. So in our society we force conformity based on rationale reason based prediction of short and long term net effects. We may grant allowances or leniency on the basis of lack of culpabilty, but none the less certain behaviours are not tolerated for a whole other basis than genetics.

I don't buy for a second behaviour is that fixed among humans. A predisposition to alcohol is rather defined as a predisposition to addiction. This "preference" for a substance which is almost entirely man made is ridiculous to imply, but the predisposition to addiction is a much more base trait which could be genetic. Even so this can be overcome rather than be an enslaving biological mechanism.

The argument that homosexuality is a genetic trait is one that absolves one of responsibility for a choice they made, but why bother pursuing this very weak argument when you believe no short or long term harm is being done?

The genetic argument is moot no? Who cares why you do it if it has no net negative result?

Yes you can suppress homosexuality, we can agree on that.
Living a lie is great....unless your suggesting the human race can evolve over the course of a couple of months or years.

 

[awyala]

Why would I need to explain how they are separate?

You don't don't see the genetic, social, and historical correlation between beastiality, incest, polygamy, and homosexuality? I'll leave peadophelia out of it though it too could be included. They are not worth discussing and you feel my challenge to you is immaterial to this topic of sexual behaviour and social acceptance?

 

[awyala]

Yes you can suppress homosexuality, we can agree on that.
Living a lie is great....unless your suggesting the human race can evolve over the course of a couple of months or years.

Suppressing a human urge, desire, or tendency is a lie? Why does society have rules again?

A poster earlier suppressed his urge to insult me further, for fear of being banned. Did he live a lie? Or did he use his superior human trait of predictive reason to trump one concept over another? Civility and the complex long term human construct that that is over short term retribution and emotional revenge? Which is the lie he is living? What wa suppressed and what was embraced in his behavioural choice?

 

[01cbr]

Suppressing a human urge, desire, or tendency is a lie? Why does society have rules again?

Rules based on social norms.

"normal" sexual behaviour is determined by the most common behaviour in society.

If you feel the urge to have sex with children...sorry your still a pedophile.

Forum Sponsor