Dumbledore's Gay

[GostHacked]

G Bambino, you hit a point there.

Why not complain about those femaile teachers who have sex with minor boys. Are we going to South Park this all up and say "Niccceeee!" ??? Or are we going to be hypocritical about it?

[kengs333]

Nope, that's just your creative interpretation of what I said. I just said how it was, not how I think it should be.

I wouldn't consider it a "creative interpretation" at all. You stated that in the ancient world children who engaged in sex acts with adults would have been protected. You're implying that the same would go in the modern world; in other words, that if a child would be protected, that pedophelia would be considered "normal". What other conclusion could one draw from what YOU have written? So is pedophelia wrong: yes or no?

[GostHacked]

I wouldn't consider it a "creative interpretation" at all. You stated that in the ancient world children who engaged in sex acts with adults would have been protected. You're implying that the same would go in the modern world; in other words, that if a child would be protected, that pedophelia would be considered "normal". What other conclusion could one draw from what YOU have written? So is pedophelia wrong: yes or no?

Stop getting off your own topic. We are talking about GAY, not pedos. So, stop it. If you want to talk about the immorality of pedos, I'd say put up another thread. Let's deal with the gay.

[kengs333]

Only within the western world's modern lexicon. Yet, how can we actually justify retroactively labelling men who, while also occasionally copulating with boys, willingly - and frequently - engaged in sex with adult women (though, again, there's variation between then and now as to what constitutes an adult) as purely homosexual paedophiles? Methinks there's some willful ignorance of the complexity of human sexuality going on here.

Again, we have a statement that really seems to condone pedophelia. How interesting. So really the only thing that makes pedophelia wrong is that according to the "western world's modern lexicon" it is wrong. So basically, if enough people in the modern world stood up and and said that pedophelia was normal, and formed "pedophelia rights" groups, paraded in the streets, bullied, harassed, and intimidated people into accepting their views, had pedophelia removed from the criminal code, etc., then it would be okay because it has become normalized in our society???? That's pretty disgusting. I don't see there being much of a difference between 12 year olds in the ancient world and those of modern Canadian society. Perhaps they were forced to mature a little earlier in some respects, but the physical age is the same, and the detrimental effects of deviant sexual behaviour would not be that much different. Modern children who are forced to engage in pedophelic acts eventually become hardened; that does NOT mean they are okay with it, and that it won't have lasting psychological consequences.

[Melanie_]

Thanks for point that out. It looks to me that it has something to do with the exact same phrase just above it; when I have to type quickly I slip up just like anyone else. You'll notice two that earlier I used the word "not" incorrectly as well. When it comes down to it, though, it's clear enough what my argument is and to make an issue out something like just speaks to the fact my opponents are having a little difficuly themselves, I suppose.

I'm not governed by voices, but rely on teachings from the Bible for guidance.

I feel that I can discuss my faith when and where I want; it's not for you to decide that others don't want to hear what I have to say. For some something may take root and they will eventually come to realize the Truth and find salvation in Jesus Christ.

Of course you can discuss your faith whenever and wherever you want, and I can disagree with it and point out the flaws in logic. I have no issue with you talking about YOUR faith, as long as you recognize that it is yours, not everyone else's. Believe what you want, but don't try to impose it on people who believe differently than you.

[kengs333]

We live in the near north we have gay neighbours out in the country, at last people, who no fault of their own are gay, are welcomed to the Canadian family, get used to it and quite trying to stir up trouble to suit your own sick beliefs.

It really says alot when you consider someone who wants good to prevail, for our society to be free from evil and sin to be "sick". I would strongly disagree with the claim: "who no fault of their own are gay". The development of human character and personality, how people integrate external influences, conciously and unconciously, is very, very complex. To simply dismiss someone's homosexuality as "that's just the way they are" is disingenuous. You're suggesting that people can't change how they think, their attitudes, how they behave; people should simply go with how they feel. This is exact reason why some much is wrong with our society.

[bk59]

It really says alot when you consider someone who wants good to prevail, for our society to be free from evil and sin to be "sick".

The number of horrible things done throughout history because people wanted "good to prevail [and] society to be free from evil and sin" is astounding. Which is why society needs something more than just your opinion about morality before condemning homosexuality as immoral and evil.

[g_bambino]

I wouldn't consider it a "creative interpretation" at all. You stated that in the ancient world children who engaged in sex acts with adults would have been protected. You're implying that the same would go in the modern world; in other words, that if a child would be protected, that pedophelia would be considered "normal". What other conclusion could one draw from what YOU have written?

This conclusion: people haven't always thought the same way as we do now.

So is pedophelia wrong: yes or no?

It can be.

[guyser]

Again, we have a statement that really seems to condone pedophelia. How interesting.

So sayeth the church lady.

No , you read that into the message, and if I am wrong point it out.

So really the only thing that makes pedophelia wrong is that according to the "western world's modern lexicon" it is wrong. So basically, if enough people in the modern world stood up and and said that pedophelia was normal, and formed "pedophelia rights" groups, paraded in the streets, bullied, harassed, and intimidated people into accepting their views, had pedophelia removed from the criminal code, etc., then it would be okay because it has become normalized in our society???? That's pretty disgusting.

Welcome to society ! How the hell else can something get changed if not enough people stand up and demand the change. Change is constant.

People stood up and supported change to....slavery, womens rights, abortion, feudal landowners, baseball free agency, McDonalds healthy meals etc.

I don't see there being much of a difference between 12 year olds in the ancient world and those of modern Canadian society. Perhaps they were forced to mature a little earlier in some respects, but the physical age is the same, and the detrimental effects of deviant sexual behaviour would not be that much different.

Well then you are abominably worse at history than I am. 12 yr olds then vs 12 yr olds now is not a fair comparison for any number of reasons. They were married at that age , had kids at that age or slightly older, worked the fields, tended to the house and did what any adult would do.The child of ancient history would have been groomed for this at a young age. It is what they did. They also died of old age between 30 and 40 yrs old.. 12 yr olds now are considerably less mature at any of those because society deems them too young to do that sort of work. IOW , we progressed at society and 12 yr olds dont have to do any of that .

Your last posit means you have some insight as the detrimental effects of 12 yr olds in Roman/Greek times as regards sex? Good for you, mind sharing?

Modern children who are forced to engage in pedophelic acts eventually become hardened; that does NOT mean they are okay with it, and that it won't have lasting psychological consequences.

Well no d'uh.

No one on this board advocates pedophilia in any stretch. It is a disgusting practice that no one approves of.

And in another thread, the attempted connection between pedophilia and homosexuality was shown to be wrong . It was wrong to link the two then, and equally wrong to attempt to combine the two now.

It does seem though that the stronger ones religion the more one hears that attempted.

[g_bambino]

Again, we have a statement that really seems to condone pedophelia. How interesting. So really the only thing that makes pedophelia wrong is that according to the "western world's modern lexicon" it is wrong. So basically, if enough people in the modern world stood up and and said that pedophelia was normal, and formed "pedophelia rights" groups, paraded in the streets, bullied, harassed, and intimidated people into accepting their views, had pedophelia removed from the criminal code, etc., then it would be okay because it has become normalized in our society???? That's pretty disgusting. I don't see there being much of a difference between 12 year olds in the ancient world and those of modern Canadian society. Perhaps they were forced to mature a little earlier in some respects, but the physical age is the same, and the detrimental effects of deviant sexual behaviour would not be that much different. Modern children who are forced to engage in pedophelic acts eventually become hardened; that does NOT mean they are okay with it, and that it won't have lasting psychological consequences.

I said nothing that even vaguely attempted to define right or wrong. You called Ancient Greek males paedophiles; that would be you applying a modern term to people who existed three millenia ago and had vastly different concepts of sex and maturity than we currently do.

Hence, I again ask the question you never answered: deviant from what? To them - both the men and the boys, and the men's wives and the boys' mothers, and teachers, and everyone else - there was no deviance. If it was considered normal by absolutely everyone, there could have been no negative consequences for anyone; the sex these boys - and let's just call them that, because by that age they were no longer considered children - engaged in was not a dark, nasty secret, and hence I can only imagine there would be no shame attached to it. In fact, the boys would apparently openly flirt with older men and grafitti shows they recorded certain dalliances with pride.

That same behaviour would indeed be deviant from the norm today, and given our pressent cultural paradigms, would bring many negative pshychological consequences for both parties involved. But, what's "normal" changes constantly; and normal means it's a trait demonstrated by the vast majority of the population, not something imposed by a minority.

[M.Dancer]

How normal it was is a matter of debate. It certainly wasn't an across the board normal as different greek cities had different attitudes towards it and to complicate matters, in some cities there were religious aspects to buggering. One could visit a temple and have "holy sex" with a temple prostitute. The holy hooker could be a man, a boy, a girl or a woman. I don't know but I think you may have had some choice in the matter.

But in all that. in the states that condoned homosexual sex, the overriding principle was that men at least, were still expected to be fathers and husbands. Which might shed some light on their attitudes towards relationships....sex was sex, marriage was marriage and fatherhood was fatherhood. Interestingly enough, from classical greece there is a wealth of romantic/erotic poetry....mainly from Sapho of Lesbos.

[guyser]

How normal it was

(with lots of info inserted here)...

...mainly from Sapho of Lesbos.

Remind me to never get in a history fight w you.

[M.Dancer]

Remind me to never get in a history fight w you.

My history strengths are classical, biblical, medieval, renaissence and modern....so you are on even ground on anything else...

[g_bambino]

How normal it was is a matter of debate. It certainly wasn't an across the board normal as different greek cities had different attitudes towards it and to complicate matters, in some cities there were religious aspects to buggering. One could visit a temple and have "holy sex" with a temple prostitute. The holy hooker could be a man, a boy, a girl or a woman. I don't know but I think you may have had some choice in the matter.

I knew there were variations in the attitude towards and around sex, but I thought they morphed more along a linear timeline rather than across geography at a simultaneous moment. I guess what I was speaking specifically about, because someone else brought it up, was the belief, which itself may have had religious origins, that, at a certain point in Ancient Greek history, a large part of a boy's initiation into manhood was learning from an older tutor who would, on top of teaching the boy other manly traits, physically pass his "manly essence" on to the youth through copulation. Even if I am wrong, and you are correct, however, within the city-state where that belief was held, nobody living in that area would think anything of it other than it was a done thing - an expected thing, actually.

The subject of temple prostitutes is similar, though. Was it not that young boys and girls were, again, expected to have a stint at the temple? My understanding of it was it was almost like prestigious private schools today: the better the temple your kid became a prostitute at, the better status your family held. And, yes, as far as I know as well, sex with whichever gender you particularly felt like that day was perfectly okay.

But in all that. in the states that condoned homosexual sex, the overriding principle was that men at least, were still expected to be fathers and husbands. Which might shed some light on their attitudes towards relationships....sex was sex, marriage was marriage and fatherhood was fatherhood. Interestingly enough, from classical greece there is a wealth of romantic/erotic poetry....mainly from Sapho of Lesbos.

Yes, Sapho's works are the only comprehensive collection of erotic poetry left, I believe. Ironically, we seemingly have more copious amounts of female-female erotic poetry than we do male-male works from a time when homosexual sex between women was somewhat of an ignored activity and sex between men was an open part of everyday life. So, I agree with your take on their view of relationships, but I think it was one predominantly constructed by men, to tailor to their needs.

Things never really change, eh?

[kengs333]

The number of horrible things done throughout history because people wanted "good to prevail [and] society to be free from evil and sin" is astounding. Which is why society needs something more than just your opinion about morality before condemning homosexuality as immoral and evil.

Let's see some examples of "the number of horrible things"... I'm fairly certain what you have in mind, but let's see it anyway.

The NT is pretty clear on how freeing people from "evil and sin" should come about; it never involves force or violence.

[kengs333]

It can be.

It really is a yes or no answer. Do you think that pedophelia is wrong? I'm asking your personal opinion on the matter.

[kengs333]

Well then you are abominably worse at history than I am.

Nope, not at all. I have read, studied, and known more about history than you'll ever know.

12 yr olds then vs 12 yr olds now is not a fair comparison for any number of reasons. They were married at that age , had kids at that age or slightly older, worked the fields, tended to the house and did what any adult would do.The child of ancient history would have been groomed for this at a young age. It is what they did. They also died of old age between 30 and 40 yrs old.. 12 yr olds now are considerably less mature at any of those because society deems them too young to do that sort of work. IOW , we progressed at society and 12 yr olds dont have to do any of that .

And this is based on what? Children may have been married at a younger age, but adults having sex with children is still the same then as it is now. Old Age in the ancient world was not different than it is today; people lived to quite an old age on occasion; but the life expectancy may have been shorter, but "old age" was not 30 or 40 years old.

So if we've "progressed" as a society in respects to child labour, then why is adopting their attitudes towards deviant sexual behaviour acceptable? I would say that with the decline of Christian civilization, we are beginning to regress as a society; once morals begin to be undermined, then too go all the other foundations of modern society. Anyone who has gone through the public school system recently has seen what has become of it; and this chaos and dysfunctionality eventually gets transferred to the workplace. And so on and so forth. I suppose it's only a matter of time before we have slavery, child labour, high infant mortality, reduced life expectancy, etc.

No one on this board advocates pedophilia in any stretch. It is a disgusting practice that no one approves of.

Maybe not advocates, but there seem to be some willing to defend or rationalize it. How sad; that's how eventual acceptance begins.

And in another thread, the attempted connection between pedophilia and homosexuality was shown to be wrong . It was wrong to link the two then, and equally wrong to attempt to combine the two now.

It does seem though that the stronger ones religion the more one hears that attempted.

I don't recall being "shown to be wrong". The practice of man-boy love is something that is a celebrated aspect of the homosexual lifestyle; this is something that the gays themselves advocate. Moreover, many incidents of pedophelia occur when a man assaults a boy or a woman assaults a girl. So there is a connection between pedophelia and homosexuality.

[bk59]

Let's see some examples of "the number of horrible things"... I'm fairly certain what you have in mind, but let's see it anyway.

Given that you have yet to answer my question about what makes homosexuality an absolute wrong, I really have no desire to go out of my way to answer your question. Needless to say, there are examples from various religions and some non-religious examples as well.

The NT is pretty clear on how freeing people from "evil and sin" should come about; it never involves force or violence.

And yet that hasn't stopped some people from using the New Testament as justification for force and violence. This isn't an insult to the New Testament or to Christianity. It's aimed at those people who will use their religion as an excuse for intolerance and violence. You seem to be the former (intolerant), claiming that homosexuality is an absolute wrong, but being unable to say why (other than offering up the Bible).

[bk59]

It really is a yes or no answer. Do you think that pedophelia is wrong? I'm asking your personal opinion on the matter.

As many have already pointed out... drop the pedophilia thing. It has nothing to do with homosexuality. And certainly nothing to do with a fictional character in a book being gay. If you want to discuss pedophilia then start up a topic dedicated to that.

[kengs333]

I said nothing that even vaguely attempted to define right or wrong. You called Ancient Greek males paedophiles; that would be you applying a modern term to people who existed three millenia ago and had vastly different concepts of sex and maturity than we currently do.

This is such a crock. They did not have "vastly different concepts of sex" in the ancient world; the fact that Christians, or instance, considered "sins of the flesh" as wrong would resonate with so many, and that Christianity spread like wildfire throughout the ancient world suggests that your simplistic argument lacks validity.

[g_bambino]

It really is a yes or no answer. Do you think that pedophelia is wrong? I'm asking your personal opinion on the matter.

No, it's not a yes or no answer. A lot of clarification is required before giving a proper response, including the definitions of child, sex, paedophilia, and the like. I do believe, though, that I gave you my opinion in another post of mine.

[guyser]

Nope, not at all. I have read, studied, and known more about history than you'll ever know.

If only that were the case. You provided your shortcomings with the utterance that 12 yr olds then are the same as 12 yr olds now. Take the blinders off....it aint.

I don't recall being "shown to be wrong".

It was in another thread , but anyway, here is where you are wrong too........

The practice of man-boy love is something that is a celebrated aspect of the homosexual lifestyle; this is something that the gays themselves advocate. Moreover, many incidents of pedophelia occur when a man assaults a boy or a woman assaults a girl. So there is a connection between pedophelia and homosexuality.

Sorry, totally bunk.

Edited October 24, 2007 by guyser

[g_bambino]

This is such a crock. They did not have "vastly different concepts of sex" in the ancient world; the fact that Christians, or instance, considered "sins of the flesh" as wrong would resonate with so many, and that Christianity spread like wildfire throughout the ancient world suggests that your simplistic argument lacks validity.

Oh, please. Chrisitianity didn't even emerge until centuries years after the time we're talking about. In fact, it only spread through a decaying Roman Empire two to four hundred years after the supposed death of Christ (never very far south or eastwards into Asia or Africa until European Christians spread it through missions in the 19th century). So, do stop retroactively applying your world view on those who existed thousands of years before you; the empirical evidence they left us shows that you're wrong.

The ancients did define things as socially and sexually unacceptable, but they were by no means what we would today define as "sins of the flesh."

Edited October 24, 2007 by g_bambino

[kengs333]

Given that you have yet to answer my question about what makes homosexuality an absolute wrong, I really have no desire to go out of my way to answer your question. Needless to say, there are examples from various religions and some non-religious examples as well.

That's no excuse. I have reason not to answer you're questions, but in this case you don't.

And yet that hasn't stopped some people from using the New Testament as justification for force and violence. This isn't an insult to the New Testament or to Christianity. It's aimed at those people who will use their religion as an excuse for intolerance and violence. You seem to be the former (intolerant), claiming that homosexuality is an absolute wrong, but being unable to say why (other than offering up the Bible).

Okay, the Bible quite clearly states that homosexuality, among other "sins of the flesh" are wrong; people who engage in these activities are sinners and unless they repent and "sin no more" will have to live with the consequences as stated in the Gospels. What constitutes sin and evil is defined by God; it is something as a Christian one has to abide by. It's not an "excuse" to be "intolerant". That's such a ridiculous assertion. Moreover, one cannot be "intolerant" of sin and sinful people; it is those who are sinful and evil who are intolerant--intolerant of good, intolerant of faith and virtue.

[kengs333]

Sorry, totally bunk.

Oh, no it's not, but it doesn't surprise me that you'd think so.................