Homosexuality is an anomaly

[Leafless]

Okay, I'll bite.

How can masturbation possibly interfere with the ability of an organism to produce offspring when it is done intentionally to arouse oneself sexually and has virtually nothing to do with normal procreation process which can be accomplished anytime my wife and I desire to produce offspring?

Well, in order to produce offspring, the sperm has to enter the vagina. Kind of hard to do with masturbation, just like it's kind of hard to do with gay sex.

That is the whole point.

Gays are perpetually dysfunctional as 'ma' and 'pa', relating to natural procreation.

Heterosexuals have the option of doing whatever they like, relating to wasted sperm and can within the confines of their legal relationship procreate naturally, whenever they wish.

[M.Dancer]

If I consider the thousands and thousands of times I have had sex in the last 36 years and factor in the number of times I have had "procreational" sex.....I would have to conclude procreational sex is an anomaly.

[Kapitän Rotbart]

@Rue:

Go to the psychiatric diagnostic manual please.

Please supply me with a link to this manual. I have yet to see a definition that determines one's sexual partner's age as a condition to be either GBLT or not.

What I did state is that a homo-sexual or hetero-sexual is someone who has sex with a consenting adult.

That's innacurate. A homosexual is someone who has sex with someone of the same sex, regardless of age and consent.

Here's the point Kapitan...the Catholic Church you refer to as the agent to promulgate your definition of sin and morality is nothing but humans. So when you ask me who am I to define morality. I am a human like those humans you follow and I have the same right to define morality. So do gays and lesbians. That is who we are ...humans.

I'd rather base my beliefs on a book of Truth written long ago than on a 'feeling' or 'emotion'.

The above sounds like someone who has smoked a joint to me. With due respect, to me what you call absolute truth, is what you read in a book written by HUMANS and what you choose to believe as absolute.

The quotes are real. Everything we have documented on Adolf Hitler is also real, yet no one seems to deny his existance. Why? It's not a religiously controversial, so everyone agrees that it's true. That doesn't make it any more nor less true than the accuracy of the quotes in the Bible book.

Yah the Bible also said to stone and kill gays. Your point?

Please quote!

Well gosh you soud ready to visit Hugh Hefner at the Playboy mansion. Careful now.

Sex is a beautiful thing, porn is a perversion.

Of course not, but when you promulgate your religious views and promote them, then your claiming to be justified to do it because its Christian or Catholic, does become an issue.

Don't fora have the purpose of discussing views?

Either way, the Christian churches accepts people for who they are, but like all religions, there are rules. In this case, most major religious institutions do consider active homosexuality immoral. Unless your authorities claim this, why do you even care who considers this a sin? Your emotions and feelings are much less credible to me than institutions who have been standing for centuries/millennia. Some people consider drugs wrong or sinful, others don't. I don't care what you consider homosexual relations, what matters is it is still identified as a sin by the major institutions and there's no point arguing that homosexual relations are not a sin.

What the Kapitan forgot to tell you was you should not smoke because smoking appears to play a significant role in anal-cancer development. More than half of the anal-cancer patients studied were current smokers at the time of diagnosis, as compared to a smoking rate of about 23 percent among the controls.

Doesn't make sense. Other variables would be taken into consideration, otherwise the study wouldn't be valid, nor published.

Most smokers ending up with cancer get lung cancer. I haven't heard of cases where smokers who have not engaged in receptive sodomy getting anal cancer. Smoking is about as dangerous as eating mould, but straight people still average greater longevity and have lower risks of anal cancer (unless they also participate in receptive sodomy) than homos.

Also maybe someone else may want to explain to the Kapitan that gays and bi-sexuals are not the only people who engage in anal sex. I wouldn't know myself Kapitan. I am a virgin.

Congrats for still being a virgin. I will assume that some straight people also participate in receptive sodomy, but that still doesn't justify sodomy nor homo relations.

Anyway, my point is, religion or no religion, I want homosexual propaganda out of my country's gov't, schools, etc. We all pay taxes for our social services, and when the gov't adopts a certain bias contradicting the belief of large groups of concerned residents, they are shoving their opinion down our throat.

[Kapitän Rotbart]

@AshNazg:

Conversely, if it is established that homosexuality is not a natural predisposition, or at least is a combination of natural inclination AND a lifestyle choice, then medical research can be foregone, since it could be assumed that had people wanted to be with the members of the opposite sex, they could make a conscious effort to "ungay" themselves. [...] Although I disagree with the original quote that homosexuality is brought about by immorality and wickedness (I happen to think it is entirely biological, and history seems to agree) I cannot see how anyone can disagree with the fact that homosexuality is in fact an anomaly.

Well said.

Yes being heterosexual is a personal choice, but it's a no-brainer for most people.

The morality of homosexuality only matters when refering to religious institutions. Being sick is biological, yet not preferable, so justifying something as being 'biological' doesn't work. And I will agree that it would be ridiculous to try to justify homosexuality as anything but abnormal.

So does masturbation...but no one seems to call that an abnormality. I've brought up this point several times on this forum, but everyone seems to ignore it.

Masterbation does not change one's sexual orientation (until a category is created for wankers, where 95% of 15-23 year old guys will fall into... and there's no point arguing that they are anything but straight other than the few who are GBLT).

Yeah, I'd rather tell them how wrong it is and how they are a sinner, and then watch them commit suicide over it

That's a myth. Suicide rates amongst homosexuals have never changed, whether in a society where homosexuality is opressed or celebrated. No study has shown a lower suicide rate amongst homos in San Francisco than in Cuba or Soviet Russia. That is, where only sexual orientation is taken into consideration and all other variables are caeteris paribus.

Eliminating homosexuality, "curing" it, seems like a form of discrimination to me. You stated earlier that they can't do things that other people can do, but that is mostly because of intolerance and unreasonable restrictions placed on them; rather than curing the homosexuals, perhaps we should cure the bigots who place unfair barriers in thier paths.

Or allow freedom of speech and let God sort 'em out. I don't need society turning towards expecting people to give special treatment to gays like we do to minorities by skin color, religion, language, height, etc. I will assume that one is straight unless I am told otherwise.

This is a recent development. Didn't use to be the case.

Of course when the medicine is sufficiently advanced that we no longer even require a partner to produce a child, and a child can be cloned from a body cell, all the negative mumbo jumbo about homos vs heteros will die off on its own.

At this pace, eventually we will become asexual (or unisexual?) beings, that reproduce through artificial methods only (ala Matrix).

This is not a negative thing, simply inevitable progress.

When we develop a sufficiently advanced technology to shed the limitations of our imperfect shells, we can usher in an era of total personal freedom. However, we're not there yet.

We can evolve to a completely artificial world, all is possible. Fortunately I won't be around when such craziness becomes a reality, that is, if it does.

Being fat is not ok, but I think we don't call being fat "wrong" anymore.

The doctor may tell a patient off for being fat.

For those not pertaining to any religious institutions, "sin" is a non-issue and the morailty of homo relations shouldn't matter (I couldn't care less about each person's 'feeling' towards homosexual relations' morality). Only social engineering matters in this case, and yes homosexuality is an anomaly and I should never have to assume that "there might be gay people in the crowd" and make special accomodations for those who are. Gays may choose to stay gay but they have to learn to live in a world of straight people.

Such people exist because there is an audience for it. In a few hundred years, provided nothing goes astray, there simply wont be an audience for discrimination based on sexual preferences and the preachers will die off naturally, or change their job profile.

As long as there are people crazy enough to believe that some are born gay, there will be crazy people believing people are born saved/unsaved (Calvin's nonsense) like at the Westboro Baptist Church in Kansas.

We have yet to see in which direction society swirls.

[gc1765]

If I consider the thousands and thousands of times I have had sex in the last 36 years and factor in the number of times I have had "procreational" sex.....I would have to conclude procreational sex is an anomaly.

good point

[Rue]

Kapitan I note in your response to me you again stated that when someone has sex with ANYONE of the same sex that makes them a homo-sexual. You once again take the definition of a homo-sexual, someone who has sex with a consenting adult, and the definition of a pedophile, someone who has sex with a child and state they are the same.

You then ask me where is the psychiatric diagostic manual and where does it refer to age?

Is this what good Christians do Kapitan? Slur homo-sexuals and then feign ignorance as to anything that doesn't suit their preconceived prejudices?

Your decision to continue repeating the falesehood that someone who engages in same sex relations with a child is homo-sexual and then feign ignorance as to the definition of pedophile is pathetic and not worthy of any further responses from me.

Oh and I bet Jesus loves you, in a non-homo-sexual way of course.

[Rue]

This is the psychiatric diagnostic manual definition of pedophilia complete with the age reference that the Kapitan pretends he does not understand or can not find.

Pedophilia

Category

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Paraphilias and Sexual Disorders

Etiology

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A large percentage of individuals with this disorder were sexually abused as children, although the vast majority of adults who were abused do not develop pedophilia or pedophilic behaviors. There is also those who argue pedophilia results from feelings of inadequacy with same age peers, and therefore a transfer of sexual urges to children.

Symptoms

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This disorder is characterized by either intense sexually arousing fantasies, urges, or behaviors involving sexual activity with a prepubescent child (typically age 13 or younger). To be considered for this diagnosis, the individual must be at least 16 years old and at least 5 years older than the child.

Treatment

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Treatment typically involves intensive psychotherapy to work on deep rooted issues concerning sexuality, feelings of self, and often childhood abuse. Medical treatments such as ‘chemical castration’ (which is actually a hormone medication which reduces testosterone and therefore sexual urges) have been investigated with very mixed results.

Prognosis

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Prognosis varies, although it is typically good if the individual has insight into his behaviors and his own childhood issues. Combined with an antisocial personality (which is usually what is seen on the news or in movies), however, treatment prognosis declines, sometimes significantly.

[Rue]

I find it unfortunate that I have to reproduce verbatum the psychiatric diagnostic manual's definition of pedophilia but since the Kapitan claims he can't find it and can't see anywhere where the is a reference to age, once and for all I want this kind of ignorance and smear exposed for what it is and no I do not buy it for a second the Kapitan does not understand the difference between person who consents to same sex with an adult and sex sex with a child, and honestly believes they both can be called homo-sexual behaviour. I don't buy it for a second. Its typical of people who want to smear homo-sexuals to suggest they engage in something the SAME as pedophilia and not differentiate the two. That is precisely why we have a manual and standard treatment protocols-exactly so people like the Kapitan can not use these clinical words incorrectly to support their "Christian" agendas.

Medical Library

Printer-friendly format

Fact Sheet: Pedophilia

Most adults who sexually molest children are considered to have pedophilia, a mental disorder described in the American Psychiatric Association's Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition (DSM-IV). An adult who engages in sexual activity with a child is performing a criminal and immoral act that never can be considered normal or socially acceptable behavior.

Pedophilia is categorized in the DSM-IV as one of several paraphiliac mental disorders. The essential features of a paraphilia (sexual deviation) are recurrent, intense, sexually arousing fantasies, sexual urges or behaviors that generally involve nonhuman subjects, the suffering or humiliation of oneself or one's partner, or children or other nonconsenting persons.

The Characteristics of Pedophilia

According to the DSM-IV definition, pedophilia involves sexual activity by an adult with a prepubescent child. Some individuals prefer females, usually 8- to 10-year-olds. Those attracted to males usually prefers slightly older children. Some prefer both sexes. While some are sexually attracted only to children, others also are sometimes attracted to adults.

Pedophiliac activity may involve undressing and looking at the child or more direct physical sex acts. All these activities are psychologically harmful to the child, and some may be physically harmful. In addition, individuals with pedophilia often go to great lengths to obtain photos, films or pornographic publications that focus on sex with children.

These individuals commonly explain their activities with excuses or rationalizations that the activities have "educational value" for the child, that the child feels "sexual pleasure" from the activities or that the child was "sexually provocative." However, child psychiatrists and other child development experts maintain that children are incapable of offering informed consent to sex with an adult. Furthermore, since pedophiliac acts harm the child, psychiatrists condemn publications or organizations that seek to promote or normalize sex between adults and children.

Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders

The purpose of the DSM-IV (and of the manuals which preceded it) is to provide clear, objective descriptions of mental illnesses, based on scientific data. Psychiatrists and research scientists use these descriptions to diagnose an individual's mental illness, to communicate with each other in a common language about mental illnesses, to develop new treatments tailored to specific illnesses and to plan the most effective treatments for their patients. The DSM-IV is not a diagnostic "cookbook," but is intended to guide the psychiatrist's own informed clinical judgment. The DSM-IV and its predecessors are not legal documents. The cautionary statement in the introduction to the DSM-IV reads, in part: "The purpose of the DSM-IV is to provide clear descriptions of diagnostic categories in order to enable clinicians and investigators to diagnose, communicate about, study and treat people with various mental disorders. It is to be understood that inclusion here, for clinical and research purposes, of a diagnostic category such as Pathological Gambling or Pedophilia does not imply that the condition meets legal or other nonmedical criteria for what constitutes mental disease, mental disorder or mental disability. The clinical and scientific considerations involved in categorization of these conditions as mental disorders may not be wholly relevant to legal judgments, for example, that take into account such issues as individual responsibility, disability determination and competency."

Individuals with pedophilia may limit their activities to their own children, stepchildren or relatives, or they may victimize children outside their families. Some threaten the child to prevent the child from telling others. Some develop complicated techniques for gaining access to children. They may select a job, hobby or volunteer work that brings them into contact with children. Others may win the trust of a child's mother, marry a woman with an attractive child or trade children with other individuals. Except when pedophilia also is associated with sexual sadism, the individual may be kind and attentive to the child's needs in order to gain his or her affection, interest and loyalty, and also to prevent the child from reporting the sexual activity. Pedophilia usually begins in adolescence, although some individuals report they did not become aroused by children until middle age. Often the pedophiliac behavior increases or decreases according to the psychological and social stress level of the individual.

There is little information on the number of individuals in the general population with pedophilia because individuals with the disorder rarely seek help from a psychiatrist or other mental health professional. However, the large commercial market in pedophiliac pornography suggests that the number of individuals at large in the community with the disorder is likely to be higher than the limited medical data indicate. Individuals generally come to the attention of mental health professionals when their child victims tell others and when they are arrested. Pedophilia is almost always seen in males and is seldom diagnosed in females.

How Psychiatrists Diagnose Pedophilia

When evaluating who may have pedophilia, psychiatrists apply three criteria spelled out in the DSM-IV. (See "DSM-IV Criteria for Pedophilia," below.) All three must be present for the diagnosis to be made. Whether or not all three criteria are present, an individual who has had a sexual encounter with a child has committed a crime. Psychiatrists nationwide support the federal and state statutes that define the criminality of any sexual act or molestation involving a child.

Treatment for Pedophilia

Pedophilia generally is treated with cognitive-behavioral therapy. The therapy may be prescribed alone or in combination with medication. Some examples of medications that have been used include anti-androgens and selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (commonly called SSRIs). But unlike the successful treatment outcomes for most other mental illnesses, the outlook for successful treatment and rehabilitation of individuals with pedophilia is guarded. Even after intensive treatment, the course of the disorder usually is chronic and lifelong in most patients, according to the DSM-IV, which is the reason that most treatment programs emphasize a relapse-prevention model. However, both the fantasies and the behaviors often lessen with advancing age in adults.

Additional Reading

Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition (DSM-IV), 1994, 886 pages, ISBN 0-89042-062-9, paperback, $42.95 (plus $5.00 shipping), Order #2062. Order From: American Psychiatric Press, Inc., 1400 K Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20005.

DSM-IV Criteria for Pedophilia

Over a period of at least six months, recurrent, intense, sexually arousing fantasies, sexual urges or behaviors involving sexual activity with a prepubescent child or children (generally age 13 or younger).

Has the person had repeated fantasies or urges about engaging in sexual activity with a child generally 13 years or younger, or has he actually had sexual encounters with a child? If a psychiatrist sees an individual who has engaged in sexual contact with a child, the diagnosis of pedophilia should be strongly considered. (An individual who committed a single act of molestation while under the influence of drugs, for example, but who had not intentionally targeted a child and was unaware of the victim's age, would not receive the diagnosis. However, this of course in no way diminishes the seriousness of the act of molestation.) A person need not have actual sexual contact with a child to be diagnosed with pedophilia. A person who is preoccupied with sexual urges and fantasies that disturb his functioning (that is, negatively affect his relations with others or impair his ability to work effectively) could also be diagnosed as having pedophilia, even without ever engaging in a sex act with a child.

The fantasies, sexual urges or behaviors cause clinically significant distress or impairment in social, occupational or other important areas of functioning.

Is the problem clinically significant? That is, has it caused "significant distress or impairment in social, occupational or other important areas of functioning?" (Note: The same criterion is applied throughout the DSM-IV to other mental illnesses.) Under this criterion, a sexual encounter with a child constitutes "clinical significance."

To make a DSM-IV diagnosis, the psychiatrist assesses the individual for either clinically significant distress or clinically significant impairment. Most individuals with psychiatric symptoms experience a subjective sense of distress that may include feelings such as pain, anguish, dysphoria (unpleasant mood), shame, embarrassment or guilt. However, there are numerous situations in which the individual has symptoms or exhibits behaviors that do not cause any subjective sense of distress, but nonetheless would be judged "clinically significant" and warrant a diagnosis of a mental disorder if they come to the attention of a psychiatrist. In such situations, this judgment is based on whether the presentation causes significant impairment in one or more areas of functioning, including social, relational, occupational and academic functioning. For example, it is well recognized that many individuals who are experiencing serious problems related to substance abuse (e.g., violent behavior, poor work or poor school performance due to alcohol or other drug use) deny that their substance abuse is causing them any distress. Such individuals would be given a diagnosis of substance dependence or substance abuse, in spite of their denial, if the psychiatrist determines that these substance-induced problems are causing significant impairment. Similarly, many individuals who act on their pedophiliac urges claim that their behavior is nonproblematic and may even claim it is "beneficial" to the child. Nonetheless, the DSM-IV would consider such individuals to have pedophilia because, by definition, acting on pedophiliac urges is considered to be an impairment in functioning.

The person is at least age 16 years and at least five years older than the child or children in Criterion A. Note: Do not include an individual in late adolescence involved in an ongoing sexual relationship with a 12- or 13- year-old.

Is the person at least 16 years old and at least five years older than the child who is the object of his fantasies or activities? Psychiatrists must use judgment when evaluating a person in late adolescence who is engaged in a single ongoing sexual relationship with a 12- or 13-year-old. Although such a person might not be considered as having pedophilia, such relationships often lead to other psychological, medical (e.g., sexually transmitted disease, pregnancy), social and family problems and should be strongly discouraged.

© Copyright 1997 American Psychiatric Association

[guyser]

And I will agree that it would be ridiculous to try to justify homosexuality as anything but abnormal.

"Well isnt that special " You are now the Church Lady.

There is so much wrong in this post.....but you refuse to see the light as Rue has spelled out more than once now, and the same old BS you keep speaking.

Oh yeah, you are religious.

[Rue]

Here is some more info I have found in a medical article that the Kapitan can say he is not aware of or does not understand. You can find the full text yourself at;

www.medicinenet.com

Explaining Pedophilia

What Is Pedophilia?

WebMD Feature

The biggest misunderstanding many people have is that pedophilia and homosexuality are one and the same. But to say that all homosexuals are pedophiles, or that all pedophiles are homosexual, is like comparing apples to rat poison. "They certainly are two distinct things," says James Hord, a psychologist in Panama City, Fla., who specializes in treating sexually abused children.

Hord explains that while some pedophiles may prefer boys over girls, or vice versa, it's not so much about gender as it is about age. For homosexuals, Hord says, sexual preference is "simply not linked to the age." If a man, for instance, is attracted to other adult males, he is a homosexual. A man who is sexually attracted to male children is not considered a homosexual: He is a pedophile.

Insecurity at Heart of Pedophilia

As with all things sexual, however, it's not always so simple. Heterosexual, homosexual, and bisexual men and women may become sexually attracted to children even though they're also attracted to adults. When this happens, it's usually because of insecurity or stress in an adult relationship, says Anthony Siracusa, a psychologist in Williamstown, Mass., who specializes in treating abused kids and sexual offenders.

These people, Siracusa says, are called "regressed offenders" because they have literally regressed: They lose the social skills they need to deal with other adults, which makes children more attractive to them. Regressed offenders may "bounce back and forth" between normal sexual relationships and criminal relations with children.

Insecurity, Hord agrees, is at the heart of pedophilia. Typically, pedophiles have trouble relating to people their own age. They need to feel they have power and control in a relationship, which is easy with children.

Homosexuality was, in fact, listed as a mental illness in psychiatry's main reference book, the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual, until the third edition came out in 1980. This edition included a category for homosexuals who were troubled by their sexuality and wanted to change it. All mention of homosexuality, however, was purged from the manual by 1987.

According to a 1994 statement from the American Psychiatric Association, the change came after decades of research showed that "a significant portion of gay and lesbian people were clearly satisfied with their sexual orientation" and showed no signs of mental illness. "It was also found that homosexuals were able to function effectively in society, and those who sought treatment most often did so for reasons other than their homosexuality."

Mental health professionals agree that pedophilia should never be considered normal, because it is truly a disease. None of the things that make homosexuality a normal variation of human sexuality apply to pedophilia.

Originally published April 8, 2002.

Medically updated March 21, 2005.

[Rue]

Here is a web-site of Lutheran physicians who have the nerve to differentiate homo-sexuality and pehophilia;

http://perham.eot.com/~vati/peterson/defs.html

"DEFINITIONS

Sexual orientation

Sexual orientation refers to stable sexual attractions, desires and fantasies toward other men and women. Sexual orientation is sub-defined as how erotic sexual desire correlates with gender, whether for the opposite sex (heterosexual orientation), for the same sex (homosexual orientation) or for both sexes (bisexual orientation). These differences exist in a continuum from heterosexual (about 94% of the population) to homosexual (about 4% of the population), with bisexuals comprising about 1% and other conditions making up the final 1% or less.

Homosexuality

Homosexuality refers to dominant erotic desire for someone of the same sex without denoting that same-sex behavior is necessarily present. This distinction is important because the term may be applied to adolescents before they engage in any intimate sexual behavior, to a celibate homosexual person, or a homosexual person who is married to someone of the opposite sex. Thus if homosexuality is condemned, it literally means persons with the desire are condemned irrespective of behavior. The current scientific definition of homosexuality for this discussion is a normal variant of sexual desire and expression.

Homosexual and heterosexual

The words homosexual and heterosexual are used as nouns to denote a homosexual person ("he is a homosexual, she is heterosexual," etc.). The word homosexual is often used as an adjective ("homosexual behavior" or "heterosexual rape," etc.) but literally this use of the words should designate what is the intrinsic sexual desire of the person or persons. This is important because some heterosexual persons engage in same-sex behavior and some homosexual persons engage in opposite-sex behavior, so the dominant desire cannot always be inferred because of the behavior. Therefore at times the adjective "same-sex" may be more accurate.

Pedophilia and pederasty

When used in a general sense, these words refer to adult sexual encounters with children. Pedophilia as a noun refers to a diagnosis of one of many paraphilias which, unlike homosexuality, are pathological diagnoses of mental disorders characterized by abnormalities of intention: varying degrees of selfish disregard for the well being (possible destructive effects) on the partner instead of respect and mutually acceptable cooperation for mutual pleasure. A pedophile is someone whose dominant sexual orientation is for children. When used as an adjective, "pedophile behavior" may not refer to a pathological pedophile but to adult-child sexual abuse by a heterosexual or a homosexual who does not meet the diagnostic criteria of fixated pedophilia. It follows that conflation and confusion of pedophilia or any undesignated same-sex child molestation with homosexuality, whether intentional or not, unjustly stigmatizes homosexuals. (Over 95% of all child molesters self-identify themselves as heterosexual). A pedophile is distinguished from a teleiophile (heterosexual, homosexual or bisexual) whose dominant or exclusive attraction is for adults (but some of whom occasionally molest children). (Paraphrased from Levine in Comprehensive Textbook of Psychiatry, Kaplan and Sadock, eds., 7th Edition, 2000).

"

PLEASE NOTE A TELEIOPHILE IS THE WORD USED FOR AN ADULT HETERO-SEXUAL, BI-SEXUAL OR HOMO-SEXUAL WHO OCCASSIONALY MOLESTS CHILDREN. THE WORD TELEIOPHILE IS USED SPECIFICALLY AND DELIBERATELY SO THAT PEOPLE DO NOT EWRRONEOUSLY SUGGEST ANY SEX WITH CHILDREN IS HETERO, BI OR HOMO-SEXUAL.

[Kapitän Rotbart]

@Rue:

Finally a quote.

Just as you don't view the Bible Book as a righteous authority, I don't view the Lutheran church as a righteous authority.

But to say that all homosexuals are pedophiles, or that all pedophiles are homosexual, is like comparing apples to rat poison.

That's exactly my point! Rarely can something be defined as both an apple AND rat poison, yet it is still possible! Most apples do not contain rat poison, and most rat poison is not in apples. Most gays are not pedophiles, and most pedophiles are not gay. However, there are individuals who can be defined as both a pedophile AND a homosexual.

Pedophilia is defined by age (I was always aware of that) yet homosexuality is not. A man who has sexual relations with a woman is straight; with a girl is a pedophile, with a man is gay; and with a boy is gay and a pedophile.

A man who would have sexual relations with a boy but not with a man would probably not fit in socially with the greater part of the GLBT, however because homosexuality is not defined by age yet by gender, such a pedophile could also be defined as gay or bisexual.

According to The Human Face of Pedophilia, a "Teleiophile" is "A minor who is romantically and/or sexually attracted to adults". - http://hfp.puellula.com/Manifesto.html Because this isn't a mainstream word and my dictionary doesn't pick it up, I can only go by the majority of results using my friendly search engine (Google) which agree with this definition over the one you quote from those Lutherans.

I appreciate the research. The works on pedophilia don't advance your point, I'm sure we can all agree that age is a condition for pedophilia. However, you have not yet proven that homosexuality is conditioned by age. If someone consents to homosexual relations, even though they much prefer sexual partners of the opposite sex, they are still then gay or bisexual.

What the Lutherans who wrote those "definitions" meant by Teleiophiles is people whose first love is adults (same or opposite sex) yet may have sex with children.

I disagree. Here's an example: If John Doe has a sex life with his wife, his maid and his male neighbor (he really loves adults), yet sodomizes a boy, he's become a pedophile. John Doe may not be pedophile by nature, but how many kids must John Doe molest to be considered a pedophile? It's like occasional smokers. If they smoke, they're smokers. They are smokers until they quit for good. They may prefer to not smoke and would typically be non-smokers if it weren't for [whatever their excuse is] yet they smoke, therefore they are smokers.

There may be a difference in behavior between someone whose first love is children and another whose first love is adults, yet if they both molest at least one child, they are pedophiles (until they turn away from this behavior for good). If someone has sex with someone of the same sex, whether same-sex partners be their first love or not, then the person is homosexual (until they turn away from homosexuality for good). Someone who is not homosexual would not consent to gay intercourse. Someone who is clearly not a pedophile would not molest a child, no matter what the conditions would be.

Anyway, look at it more like adhesive labels. An adhesive label can easily be applied, it's a little trickier to remove it (yet still feasible), and multiple labels can be applied.

For a virgin you seem to know a lot about fetish (your earlier mentions of Lolita syndrome, heterosexual sodomy and agressive intercourse in the Playboy mansion). This suggests a pornography addiction or too much time reading Wikipedia articles about sexuality. I hope it's the latter.

@guyser:

"Well isnt that special " You are now the Church Lady.

There is so much wrong in this post.....but you refuse to see the light as Rue has spelled out more than once now, and the same old BS you keep speaking.

Oh yeah, you are religious.

Whatever that means.

I do not discriminate against people having abnormal conditions. Rue insists that one's sexual identity is defined by a mere dominant preference and quotes the Lutherans to back this point. Any dictionary would be much more inclusive in terms of defining homosexuals and pedophiles.

[guyser]

@Rue:

Finally a quote.

...and I would love to post..." Kapitan, finally you can read". But somehow I doubt it.

I do not discriminate against people having abnormal conditions. Rue insists that one's sexual identity is defined by a mere dominant preference and quotes the Lutherans to back this point. Any dictionary would be much more inclusive in terms of defining homosexuals and pedophiles.

You ignore , obfuscate and blatantly misread everything. Why pick the Lutherans to base your answer on instead of the better Doctors manuals he posted about?

Its because you do discriminate and dont like gays. Fine, be done with it then.

You discriminate in the sentence you say you dont. "I do not discriminate against people having abnormal conditions" Oh but you do, and did, all in one sentence. Abnormal..?...by whose standards? Not any of the Doctors in the cites Rue has provided.

But hey, what do Docs know that you dont? Nothing, nope not a thing I am sure.

[Melanie_]

Pedophilia is defined by age (I was always aware of that) yet homosexuality is not. A man who has sexual relations with a woman is straight; with a girl is a pedophile, with a man is gay; and with a boy is gay and a pedophile.

You seem to have missed one variation in your analysis here. Is a man who has sex with a girl a heterosexual, or just a pedophile?

[Kapitän Rotbart]

Pedophilia is defined by age (I was always aware of that) yet homosexuality is not. A man who has sexual relations with a woman is straight; with a girl is a pedophile, with a man is gay; and with a boy is gay and a pedophile.

You seem to have missed one variation in your analysis here. Is a man who has sex with a girl a heterosexual, or just a pedophile?

A man who has sex exclusively with females and at least once with a girl, that would make him a heterosexual pedophile, because pedophilia is not a sexual orientation. If that same guy has sex with children of boths sexes, that makes him a bisexual pedophile. Sorry for the lack of clarification, it just makes sense that when sexual orientation is not specified, heterosexuality, the only significantly sized sexual orientation amongst humans would be assumed.

@Rue:

...and I would love to post..." Kapitan, finally you can read". But somehow I doubt it.

You could love to post the most obnoxious things, but it would help your cause.

You ignore , obfuscate and blatantly misread everything. Why pick the Lutherans to base your answer on instead of the better Doctors manuals he posted about?

Its because you do discriminate and dont like gays. Fine, be done with it then.

You discriminate in the sentence you say you dont. "I do not discriminate against people having abnormal conditions" Oh but you do, and did, all in one sentence. Abnormal..?...by whose standards? Not any of the Doctors in the cites Rue has provided.

But hey, what do Docs know that you dont? Nothing, nope not a thing I am sure.

Doctor is just a title. Title or no title, these are just "Sex-perts" who supposively know how things should be. I'd rather trust linguists (which many also have Doctor as a title) in defining such things than "Sex-perts".

These Sex-perts agree with you that sexual orientation is defined by a dominant sexual preference. That means a bisixual is exclusively someone who is equally attracted to both sexes. I knew a guy who considered himself bisexual, despite the fact that he still preferes women (but also likes men).

Linguists make for a much more reliable source of definitions (many of these guys are Doctors too). The dictionaries I've consulted are less exclusive at defining sexual orientations. So far I've seen homosexual defined as someone who is attracted to people of the same sex and defined as one who practices homosexuality (Oxford and WordWeb).

Claiming that some people could have abnormal conditions is not discriminatory. Dwarves have an abnormal condition and I don't discriminate against them. Again this comes down to how we define 'normal'. Let's avoid clinical definitions and stick to the dictionary, which defines normal as "Conforming with or constituting a norm or standard or level or type or social norm; not abnormal". Still subjective, but inclusive. By this definition, I see homosexuals as not conforming to the norms of society (they don't have to, that's their choice) and I won't discriminate against them. However, I should not be expected to cater to them. Gays should be expected to live in a heterosexual world and not expect others to give them special treatment because they're gay.

I'll give an example. If I lose a loved one in my family, I'll probably feel sad (and the possible reactive emotions' list goes on), however society doesn't change; I have to learn to continue living in this world without this loved one. If someone chooses to have an active sex life with adults or children of the same or opposite sex, they still have to take local laws and society into consideration. The behavior of these individuals may change, but society should not be expected to change nor to cater to those choosing alternative lifestyles.

To summarize, I trust Doctors in linguistics over Dr. Sex-pert in terms of definitions and no, I do not discriminate when I consider homosexuals abnormal; using a very inclusive definition of 'normal'.

[M.Dancer]

Q: Why did God make homosexuality a sin?

A: His boyfriend told him it would be hotter that way.

[guyser]

Lets boil this down...

To summarize, I trust Doctors in linguistics over Dr. Sex-pert in terms of definitions and no, I do not discriminate when I consider homosexuals abnormal; using a very inclusive definition of 'normal'.

You trust linguistic experts who have zero medical training , to define sexual terms, over the very same Doctors who actually decide what the terms should be and are called.

Consult your liguist the next time you have a medical problem. At the least , it will be cheaper.

[Kapitän Rotbart]

Lets boil this down...

To summarize, I trust Doctors in linguistics over Dr. Sex-pert in terms of definitions and no, I do not discriminate when I consider homosexuals abnormal; using a very inclusive definition of 'normal'.

You trust linguistic experts who have zero medical training , to define sexual terms, over the very same Doctors who actually decide what the terms should be and are called.

Consult your liguist the next time you have a medical problem. At the least , it will be cheaper.

Depends on the doctor. Rue's doctors are exclusive at defining sexual orientation, whereas a linguist (and many other doctors, shrinks, etc.) would be more inclusive in defining such things.

Sex-perts don't treat any medical problems, they just write propaganda. If someone has a sex-related health issue, they'd see a medical doctor, not a sex-pert. If someone wants info on birth control, sexual orientation, etc. they'd see a sex-pert and probably be misled.

The only time the degree to which one's sexual preference's dominance matters is between an individual and their shrink, accountability partner, etc. (if they have one). If someone wants to abstain from same-sex relations, relations with children, etc. or even would like to turn away from anything leading to this behavior altogether, it would be more difficult if their attraction to same-sex people, children, etc. is very dominant than if it were more of a fling.

We can easily compare this to a smoker. A heavy smoker would find it more difficult to no longer be a smoker than someone who smokes a couple fags a month with friends or at parties. In both cases, the individual can easily be defined as a smoker, but in one case it is more dominant than another.

My point is no matter how much or little gay or pedophile or bisexual or [insert fringe group based on sexual behavior here] one may be, the definition still includes 'em and it's their choice whether they want to be part of that community or not.

[guyser]

Lets boil this again.....

Depends on the doctor. Rue's doctors are exclusive at defining sexual orientation, whereas a linguist (and many other doctors, shrinks, etc.) would be more inclusive in defining such things.

Doctors = Medical practice, or degreed as in PHD

Linguists= Word meanings

Right , go see the linguist for your broken arm.

[Rue]

Teleoiphiles who are people who have sex with adultd and then have sex with children, are not hetero-sexual or homo-sexual when they engage in sex with children. The sex or gender of the child does not mean the sex is hetero-sexual or homo-sexual, the fact that it is with a child, makes it pedophile.

The game the Kapitan and many of his ilk play is that because a pedophile has sex with someone of the same gender he can call it homo-sexual. The choice to use the word homo-sexual is deliberate and is intended to blur the distinction between homo-sexual and pedophile, no more no less.

The irony is that 80% of child molestation victims are girls, molested by men. Of the 20% of children who are boys, the vast majority are molested by men who claim to be hetero-sexual not gay.

The point is you are not gay or straight when you engage in sex with a child-you are a pedophile-someone whose sex preference is for a child. Its the age difference and lack of physical development not the gender that fuels the pedophile and the Kapitan can continue to feign confusion and ignorance with the definitions but they have been placed in his face so now he looks silly pretending he can't understand the age thing.

It is the inability to have intimacy with an adult that fuels the pedophile. It is the need to have a power imbalance and identify with the child that fuels the pedophile. It has nothing to do with sexual attraction to males or females. Children are not sexually developed. Their bodies are asexual - apoint the Kapitan continues to pretend he can not understand and is precisely why the Catholic church can not deal with its pedophile priests and homo-sexual priests and thinks they are the same.

I quoted Lutheran doctors to make only one obvious point-that there are many Christians, and for that matter Jews, and everyone else, who do not follow the Kapitan's commandments including Catholics.

Would the Kapitan tell me because I am a Jew, I must follow the Old Testament's suggestion and stone gays? Some of us try up-date ourselves. You think it would be alright if I just through marshmellows at gays instead or maybe force them to listen to Jerry Falwell taped lectures instead?

One of the reasons I find this line of posts important to challenge is for this reason. Gay children, i.e., children who know they are gay, but then get molested by an adult, tend to blame themselves and say if they were not gay they would not have been molested and they asked for it precisely because the Kapitans of the world have made them believe being gay and pedophilia are the same.

Isn't it ironic we get into this b.s. debate about homo-sexuals being pedophiles when the vast majority of victims are girls by men. Could it be some of us men like to change the subjec to blame gays so they don't have to look at their own behaviourt? Look how ee have sexualized children in our culture..... that to me is the issue not slurring gays. Its about how we as adults have chosen to sexualize children in our culture or look the other way when we see it being done, even those of us with children. I mean we know its not right, but we sort of let the culture of the day condition us into tolerating it. I am not sure what you do when a six year old girl wants to wear make up or finger nail polish. I think that is for each parent to decide. For me I don't want children to think their bodies are dirty, I just don't want them to feel pressured into thinking they need make up, nails, tight pants, belly button shirts, when they are just kids and should just be left alone to have fun. I leave that to other parents to wrestle with. Its a tough one.

The pressure on young girls of 6,7,8 and 9 to be sexual is ridiculous. It used to be the modeling agencies were oh so sensitive and stopped at 12 but down the age goes.

Gee. ever wonder why Lindsay Lohan gets so much press? Could it be she still looks like a 12 year old girl but with tits? No its her brilliant mind.

[Rue]

Oh I will specifically address the Kapitan's words;

"A man who has sex exclusively with females and at least once with a girl, that would make him a heterosexual pedophile".

Pedophiles don't have sex with children of only one sex. A pedophile who has sex with a child of the opposite sex is not a heterosexual pedophile. There is no such thing. You have invented that term. They are simply defined as pedophiles. They aren't hetero-sexual unless they engage in sex with the opposite sex with an adult.

"Pedophilia is not a sexual orientation."

Of course it is. It is the sexual orientation and attraction to children.

"If that same guy has sex with children of boths sexes, that makes him a bisexual pedophile."

No you are absolutely wrong. He is a pedophile. The gender of his victims are not adults and therefore classifying the sexual act with the child as one that occurs between adults is absolutely wrong.

"Sorry for the lack of clarification, it just makes sense that when sexual orientation is not specified, heterosexuality, the only significantly sized sexual orientation amongst humans would be assumed."

No it makes no sense for you to keep repeating that an adult who has sex with a child can be defined using the same clinical term used for an adult who has sex with an adult. It not only makes no sense, but shows your deliberately choosing to ignore medical terminology and continue to repeat concepts that not only make no sense but equate sex with adults and sex with children as being the same thing.

"So far I've seen homosexual defined as someone who is attracted to people of the same sex and defined as one who practices homosexuality (Oxford and WordWeb)."

That is the point and which exposes you Kapitan. Even in the definitions you deliberately play games with, not one of them suggests being a homo-sexual means having sex with a child.

"Claiming that some people could have abnormal conditions is not discriminatory."

Good now that we have that straight (excuse the pun) if I say I think you are abnormal because of your

insistence on defining gays as pedophiles we know I am not discriminating against you.

"Dwarves have an abnormal condition and I don't discriminate against them."

How Christian of you. Might it penetrate that brain of yours to ponder that if a dwarf were to have sex with a child they would be a pedophile and we would not suggest their being a dwarf and there being a pedophile can be used inter-changeably? Is the fact the dwarf having sex with a pedophile because of his lack of height? Um uh um uh.

"Again this comes down to how we define 'normal'. "

No it comes down to how YOU define norma. Don't speak for me. I have told you and I will say it again, unlike you, I don't go around defining and imposing my concepts of normal on anyone unless they commit a crime or hurt themselves, others or children.

"Let's avoid clinical definitions and stick to the dictionary, "

"I see homosexuals as not conforming to the norms of society..."

Well I see them as conforming to the norms of society and so does the legal system. So your opinion otehr then being yours, really is besides the point. It is not what you feel or think.

"I won't discriminate against them."

Of course you do every time you open your moth and refer to them as abnormal. Get real.

"I should not be expected to cater to them."

Has any gay person asked you to start a catering service and serve food at their parties? I find that hard to believe. They probably sense your hostility and wouldn't trust you near any open food.

"Gays should be expected to live in a heterosexual world and not expect others to give them special treatment because they're gay."

Next it will be non-Catholics should live in a Catholic world and not expect others to give them special treatment because they are non Catholic?

That is your point is it not?

More to the point, how is being treated without discrimination asking for special treatment? What you are in fact saying is, you consider the right to call gays abnormal and treat them as being sinful is normal treatment and any suggestion they not be treated this way is "special treatment". Your comments again manifest how you want to discriminate against gays and then suggest if you are not allowed to, this would be giving gays special treatment. Hah.

"If someone chooses to have an active sex life with adults or children of the same or opposite sex, they still have to take local laws and society into consideration."

Do you even stop to think before you write? Uh hello, being gay, consensual sex between adults of the same sex is not against the law and no two gay adults don't need to get your permission.

"..society should not be expected to change nor to cater to those choosing alternative lifestyles."

Stop hiding behind the word society. You do not speak on behalf of society. You speak on behalf of yourself. Your above comment in fact really states; I should not be expected to change my attitudes and opinions about gays". Got news for you, I could care less what you think, just stop trying to pretend you speak on behalf of the law or society, you don't.

"To summarize, I trust Doctors in linguistics over Dr. Sex-pert in terms of definitions and no, I do not discriminate when I consider homosexuals abnormal; using a very inclusive definition of 'normal'."

To summarize the above, you have made it clear you will ignore any medical literature youd on't agree with and will continue to be intolerant of and spead slurs against gays and insist your personal and subjective use of the word "normal" is legal and socially accepted.

Got news for you. You are a dinosaur whose views are no longer mainstream. That makes you abnormal using your definition. It makes you a social deviant. Imagine that. You are a yegads...can we say it out loud a "homo-phobe". You are an abnormal deviant. A Homo-phobe! I think they should keep you away from gays!!!! You might molest them!!!!!!!!!!

[Kapitän Rotbart]

Lets boil this again.....

Depends on the doctor. Rue's doctors are exclusive at defining sexual orientation, whereas a linguist (and many other doctors, shrinks, etc.) would be more inclusive in defining such things.

Doctors = Medical practice, or degreed as in PHD

Linguists= Word meanings

Right , go see the linguist for your broken arm.

Many linguists have a PHD aswell. I wouldn't see someone with a doctorate in sociology or in engineering either if I have a broken arm. These Sexperts creating their own supposively tolerance yet misleading definitions wouldn't be capable of taking care of a broken arm either.

I trust linguists over sex-perts at matching words with definitions.

@Rue:

Teleoiphiles who are people who have sex with adultd and then have sex with children, are not hetero-sexual or homo-sexual when they engage in sex with children. The sex or gender of the child does not mean the sex is hetero-sexual or homo-sexual, the fact that it is with a child, makes it pedophile.

Teleiophiles are those sexually attracted to adults. Just because one is dominantly attracted to adults does not mean they cannot be equally attracted to children.

Please go back to the Venn diagram. Admit the possibility that one can be a Teleiophile AND a pedophile OR find/create a word for one who is sexually attracted to both adults and children equally (like in the case of bisexuals who are sexually attracted to both sexes).

The game the Kapitan and many of his ilk play is that because a pedophile has sex with someone of the same gender he can call it homo-sexual. The choice to use the word homo-sexual is deliberate and is intended to blur the distinction between homo-sexual and pedophile, no more no less.

I think everyone knows what a homosexual is and what a pedophile is. A homosexual is one who has same-sex relations or is sexually attracted to the same sex and a pedophile is one who has sexual relations with children or is sexually attracted to children. Most people are neither, most who are either pedophile OR homosexual are pedophile XOR homosexual (exclusively one but not the other) yet some are both. Why is this so difficult for you to understand?

Someone may not be dominantly attracted to the same-sex or to children, but if they have intercourse with the same-sex then they are gay and if they have intercourse with children they are pedophiles. They can turn away from this and be either gay or pedophile for a short segment of their life (just like one can be a smoker for a short segment of their life), but the definition is still much more inclusive than you claim it to be.

The point is you are not gay or straight when you engage in sex with a child-you are a pedophile-someone whose sex preference is for a child. Its the age difference and lack of physical development not the gender that fuels the pedophile and the Kapitan can continue to feign confusion and ignorance with the definitions but they have been placed in his face so now he looks silly pretending he can't understand the age thing.

I understand the age thing. Pedophilia and Teleiophilia are defined by age, heterosexuality and homosexuality are defined by gender. Why is this difficult for you to understand?

Some people are pedophiles, some are teleiophiles, a small group are both.

Some people are homosexual, some are heterosexual, a small group are both (bisexuals in the case).

Even your definition stated that a teleiophile could be straight, gay or bi, then it makes sense that a pedophile could also be straight, gay or bi. The people who belong to all these groups are sexually attracted to both sexes and all ages. I haven't met any yet, but I admit the possibility.

Just like when a man has many wives, it's polygamy. When a woman has many husbands, it's polyandry. I don't know of any woman who has many husbands, but the definition still stands (no matter how seldom the occasions to use the word may be). I don't know a word for when a given person has many spouses of both sexes, but it's unlikely to come up before the definition of marriage including same-sex couples becomes mainstream (if it does).

Would the Kapitan tell me because I am a Jew, I must follow the Old Testament's suggestion and stone gays? Some of us try up-date ourselves. You think it would be alright if I just through marshmellows at gays instead or maybe force them to listen to Jerry Falwell taped lectures instead?

Again I will ask you to quote the Scriptures on this.

In the New Testament Christians are instructed to love everyone and it is not our responsibility to punish others for their perversions (as opposed to eye-for-an-eye, which makes the world go blind). If you really were a Jew, you'd refer to the Old Testament as the Torah, so you're losing credibility here. Plus if you claim to know a thing or two about the Scriptures and what it tells us, please quote. I don't recall an instruction to stone gays. Throwing marshmellows can be fun, but considering the few opportunities I'd have to throw them if I were to limit myself to the GBLT, I'd just rather eat the marshmellows or throw them at everyone.

One of the reasons I find this line of posts important to challenge is for this reason. Gay children, i.e., children who know they are gay, but then get molested by an adult, tend to blame themselves and say if they were not gay they would not have been molested and they asked for it precisely because the Kapitans of the world have made them believe being gay and pedophilia are the same.

Challenging indeed. That is one possible event. However, sexual identity cannot be so clear before puberty because children do not yet understand sexual attractions. I'm heterosexual yet when I was in primary school, I didn't uderstand why or how people would be attracted to eachother beyond friendship. Children who think they are gay are simply putting thought into something that doesn't affect them yet, and when they tell themselves that they are gay often enough, they will believe it.

The scenario of a kid thinking they're gay and then getting molested and being more confused about the whole thing is quite possible. I don't think anyone is advocating that homosexuality and pedophilia are the same. I think you're crazy.

Isn't it ironic ... Its a tough one.

I don't blame gays for anything. I may blame liberals for shoving nonsensical ideas down peoples' throats through public services at the expense of God fearing tax-payers who would be the last to pay into such propaganda, given the choice. There are so few of them gays anyway (and gay sex in itself is not a crime), so they don't phase me.

About kids being sexualized... what's your point? Why are kids so easily influenced by pop music and why do people fail at parenting their children? Children raised with a good set of values and who don't fall into being superficial aren't so easily influenced by pop stars. Pop stars wear normal clothes when they're off stage, but most superficial kids don't know that. On the subject of naming things, last I heard these kids are refered to as "prosti-tots". If you tell kids that pertaining to fringe groups like homosexuals is normal, then why should they have any concept of a proper dresscode?

The pressure on young girls of 6,7,8 and 9 to be sexual is ridiculous. It used to be the modeling agencies were oh so sensitive and stopped at 12 but down the age goes.

Maybe it's because I'm not a pedophile but I don't find kinder-pageants particularly appealing. Last I heard it was those superficial moms who put their daughters in such things and invest all their savings into this. Kinder-pageants don't seem to be wrong for what they are, just ridiculous, but if moms are going to blow tons of cash on it, I say let them (however they shouldn't get enraged when the peodophile peeping toms sit in, that's like getting enraged about porn companies and other camera-men showing up at spring break as seen in the news).

[guyser]

Why is this so difficult for you to understand?

Why is this difficult for you to understand?

You are something else. Heed your own advice dude.

I don't blame gays for anything. I may blame liberals for shoving nonsensical ideas down peoples' throats through public services at the expense of God fearing tax-payers who would be the last to pay into such propaganda, given the choice. There are so few of them gays anyway (and gay sex in itself is not a crime), so they don't phase me.

God fearing , dont blame gays....right, and you claim not to come to this viewpoint from religion?

God fearing tax payers, now that is laughable .

If you tell kids that pertaining to fringe groups like homosexuals is normal, then why should they have any concept of a proper dresscode?

NO bias there now is there?

[Kapitän Rotbart]

You are something else. Heed your own advice dude.

What do you want me to understand? That linguists should adjust certain definitions because Sex-perts think these definitions should be less inclusive?

God fearing , dont blame gays....right, and you claim not to come to this viewpoint from religion?

God fearing tax payers, now that is laughable .

Sorry, I forgot to be more inclusive. The God fearing, the holy rollers, the fundamentalists (of most beliefs including soviet communists), the Albertans, pro-family advocates and the socially conservative would not pay into such a government who shoves such liberal beliefs down their throat.

NO bias there now is there?

Can you argue otherwise? The purpose of fora is to express one's own views, and if you disagree, please post why along with your perception. I have no intention in being unbiased in my posts on this thread, but quoting sources and claiming them to be facts should be from unbiased, or at very least objective sources/studies.

[Rue]

I think it is absolutely a joke that the Kapitan not only referred to the doctors I quoted as "my" doctors, but is not embarassed that he simply ignored the American and Canadian Psychiatriatic, Medical and Psychological Association definitions and started to cryptically or perhaps mystically refer to "linguists" to try rationalize for his ignoring the clinical definitions for pedophiles, hetero-sexuals and homo-sexuals.

Since he is in to demanding quotes, let us ask him, what linguist has defined homo-sexual and pedophile as being synoymous. None has. What Kapitan did was to take a definition and re-invent its context to suit his needs but you will notice at no time could he find me a "linguist" who defined pedophilia and homo-sexuality with the same words.

Of course aside from being disingenuine Kapitan with your " I prefer to rely on linguist" response, not only do you not explain how linguists are academic experts on sexual behaviour but you failed to provide any linguist who quoted homo-sexuals have sex with children.

I waited awhile before I responded because I was in fact disappointed that the Kapitan simply chose to

engage in such a response.

By the way the Kapitan would probably have a problem with linguists who speak more then one language. Because then they would be BI-lingual. Can't have that now can we.