Author Topic: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?  (Read 35406 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Gnu Ordure

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3832
  • Darwins +109/-9
  • Gender: Male
Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
« Reply #261 on: June 14, 2012, 04:06:38 PM »
Joe, I notice that you skipped over my last post to you  (#242).

I'd like a reply.
« Last Edit: June 14, 2012, 04:10:45 PM by Gnu Ordure »

Van Persie

  • Guest
Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
« Reply #262 on: June 14, 2012, 04:21:30 PM »

Offline screwtape

  • The Great Red Dragon
  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 12583
  • Darwins +703/-28
  • Gender: Male
  • Karma mooch
Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
« Reply #263 on: June 14, 2012, 08:20:34 PM »
Right.  Well, you posted that before and then made about 9 more posts.  You also said you were quitting this forum twice? before and here you are again.  So pardon me if I raise an eyebrow when you say it's over.
Links:
Rules
Guides & Tutorials

What's true is already so. Owning up to it does not make it worse.

Offline magicmiles

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2947
  • Darwins +180/-73
  • Gender: Male
Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
« Reply #264 on: June 14, 2012, 08:26:39 PM »
VP, since you ask for input from those that have been lurking...

Just to be completely clear..VP is no more and I am back.


I think you're off base. There is nothing inherently wrong with or evil about pedophiles

I'm finding it it difficult to clearly state my position on this, I'll try again:

I agree there is nothing we can do to prevent ourselves feeling sexual attraction. I'm a Christian, and I believe we are born with a sin nature. What this means in terms of our attractions and desires is that we no longer desire only what God intended for us, and I firmly believe that God intended for most of us to have a sexual relationship with a life time partner of the opposite sex. We are not intended to have sex with people of the same sex and we are not intended to have sex outside of a life-long partnership.

Clearly, the age of your sexual and lifelong partner has cultural relevance. I really don't know how you go about drawing a universal line in the sand in this respect.

In our culture today, I think it's reasonable to say that 17 or 18 is about the minimum age. My wife was 19 when we were married, and I was a bit uneasy about that to be honest. Very mature for her age though.

So, for me, the problem is when we don't fight against our desires. I realise this is a Christian perspective and will appear ridiculous to you, but just so you know where I am coming from.


So it's the idea of taking advantage of someone that you have a problem with. But now we're talking about child molestation, not pedophilia. I hope you aren't subconsciously equating the two since action is not dogmatically tied to desire.

The two become linked when you don't fight against an attraction that is wrong. The attraction in iteslf is wrong, feeling the attraction is unavoidable, but fighting against it is certainly possible.

Are the things we are attracted to necessarily good? More of a general question, possibly worth a separate thread.


I stand by my previous comment that logic and reason comes a distant second to the conviction many of you must have that what Joe supports is wrong.

Then you stand by your irrationality. Your argument that "Pedophiles are evil" is no different than an argument used against homosexuality or pro school segregation. "Gays are an abomination" and "It's just wrong to put blacks and whites together" are also arguments from conviction that people firmly stood by.

I hope I have clarified my position. I don't consider anyone evil based on an attraction they have.

The reason I have come down so hard on Joebbowers is that he flaunts and embraces an attraction which I think he should fight against. Women and girls don't exist for his sexual gratification, or for anybody's, outside the God intended life long partnership.
« Last Edit: June 14, 2012, 08:39:31 PM by magicmiles »
Go on up you baldhead.

Offline magicmiles

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2947
  • Darwins +180/-73
  • Gender: Male
Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
« Reply #265 on: June 14, 2012, 08:29:22 PM »
Right.  Well, you posted that before and then made about 9 more posts.  You also said you were quitting this forum twice? before and here you are again.  So pardon me if I raise an eyebrow when you say it's over.

I don't mind you raising your eyebrow. I trust I have clarified the matter.

I think I've quit three times actually. Check out my new signature.
Go on up you baldhead.

Offline screwtape

  • The Great Red Dragon
  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 12583
  • Darwins +703/-28
  • Gender: Male
  • Karma mooch
Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
« Reply #266 on: June 14, 2012, 08:32:54 PM »
You suck at quitting.  Never take up smoking or develop and addiction.  You'll be screwed.
Links:
Rules
Guides & Tutorials

What's true is already so. Owning up to it does not make it worse.

Offline magicmiles

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2947
  • Darwins +180/-73
  • Gender: Male
Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
« Reply #267 on: June 14, 2012, 08:34:21 PM »
I know it. I fight addiction to many things daily. Thanks for the encouragement.
Go on up you baldhead.

Offline joebbowers

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1074
  • Darwins +91/-47
  • Gender: Male
    • My Photography
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
« Reply #268 on: June 14, 2012, 09:14:57 PM »
Joe, I notice that you skipped over my last post to you  (#242).

I'd like a reply.

I didn't reply because you focused on the production and distribution, and didn't answer my question about the possession. I asked whether or not you thought those found possessing the materials should be punished equally as those who produced and distributed it.

Quote
Paparazzi photos,
That's a difficult one, because celebrities sometimes appear in public expecting to be photographed (at a film premiere, say), other times they don't expect it. 

I was pretty clearly referring to the non-consensual ones.

Quote
hidden-camera and ex-girlfriend sex tapes
A person has a reasonable expectation of privacy when having sex in their homes. Covertly recording private sexual activity and publishing it would be wrong.

Fair enough, but that's production and distribution. No mention of possession, so I didn't respond to it.

Quote
people photographed in public places?.
It would depend on what they were doing. If you saw an attractive young girl on the beach with her parents, would you approach her and start taking photos of her from 10 feet away? Wouldn't that be somewhat impolite, to say the least? And don't you think her father would have cause to be irate?

Ditto. And by the way, as a photographer myself, if you ask permission, I've never known anyone to not allow you to photograph their kids. Most people are flattered that you find their kids attractive.[1]

But, none of these situations are comparable with child pornography. Those children have already been abused once; allowing possession by others of the evidence of their abuse can only hurt them further.

But how does it hurt them?

As Traveler said, showing the empathy of which you appear incapable:
And saying something is anonymous in this day and age? Please. Be serious. Nothing is beyond reach. A child in a porno image can be identified now, tomorrow, or next year or decades later. It will always hang over them as a possibility. I would feel humiliated if I knew there were such out there of me.
 1. Note I didn't say sexually attractive, just attractive.

How can they be identified? Why does it matter even if they are?

When you sit at home masturbating to Paris Hilton's leaked sex tape, you know who she is, but she doesn't know who you are, that you're watching the tape, or even that you exist.

How does it hurt her?
"Do you see a problem with insisting that the normal ways in which you determine fact from fiction is something you have to turn off in order to maintain the belief in God?" - JeffPT

Offline Zankuu

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2121
  • Darwins +135/-3
  • Gender: Male
    • I am a Forum Guide
Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
« Reply #269 on: June 14, 2012, 09:56:09 PM »
I'm a Christian, and I believe we are born with a sin nature. What this means in terms of our attractions and desires is that we no longer desire only what God intended for us, and I firmly believe that God intended for most of us to have a sexual relationship with a life time partner of the opposite sex.

We are not intended to have sex with people of the same sex and we are not intended to have sex outside of a life-long partnership.

So, animals have a sin nature? I ask that because homosexuality flourishes in many, many species other than the great apes. But sinning animals with souls isn’t what the Bible teaches. So I have to ask: Is this Christianity or the Religion of magicmiles? Because you are saying some things that are spitting in the face of the Old Testament.

The two become linked when you don't fight against an attraction that is wrong. The attraction in iteslf is wrong, feeling the attraction is unavoidable, but fighting against it is certainly possible.

Out of curiosity, since your feelings on this subject are based on your faith, where in the Bible does God say pedophilia is wrong? I’ll save you some leg work: it doesn’t.[1] Just some food for thought.

Women and girls don't exist for his sexual gratification, or for anybody's, outside the God intended life long partnership.

Attention: For those that read this quote and are now confused, magicmiles is referring to his self-projection as God including what he wants God’s intentions to be, not the actual God in the Torah which viewed women as property to be exchanged and bartered for.
 1. On the contrary, God doesn't seem to have a problem with Moses suggesting the rape of young girls in Numbers 31:13-18.
Leave nothing to chance. Overlook nothing. Combine contradictory observations. Allow yourself enough time. -Hippocrates of Cos

Offline Mr. Blackwell

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2700
  • Darwins +78/-23
  • Gender: Male
Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
« Reply #270 on: June 14, 2012, 10:32:12 PM »
And yet again, sadly, I am forced to explain that I am against the production and distribution of child pornography, but in favor of legalizing the simple possession.

First, I would like to apologize for taking so long between posts and responses. I have a new job now. I drive a commercial vehicle and have very very limited access and time to devote to leisure activities such as the internet.

Second, How in the world are people expected to obtain and possess child pornography if there is no production or distribution of the material?

It's supply and demand. As long as there is a demand for child pornography there will be someone willing to supply that product. By legalizing the possession of child pornography you effectively increase demand.

As long as there is demand for child pornography, children are at risk.

Simple possession of child pornography can never be decriminalized in a society that values and respects its children. 

Also, if this point of view has already been covered then please accept another apology, It is late and I am short on time.
I show affection for my pets by holding them against me and whispering, "I love you" repeatedly as they struggle to break free.

Offline magicmiles

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2947
  • Darwins +180/-73
  • Gender: Male
Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
« Reply #271 on: June 14, 2012, 10:48:50 PM »

So, animals have a sin nature? I ask that because homosexuality flourishes in many, many species other than the great apes. But sinning animals with souls isn’t what the Bible teaches. So I have to ask: Is this Christianity or the Religion of magicmiles? Because you are saying some things that are spitting in the face of the Old Testament.

I don't believe it's possible for animals to sin. Animals are not created in the image of God. What they do, how they act has absolutely no relevance to anything humans do. Not sure what your point is, or how my views differ from anything recorded in the bible.


Out of curiosity, since your feelings on this subject are based on your faith, where in the Bible does God say pedophilia is wrong? I’ll save you some leg work: it doesn’t.[1] Just some food for thought.
 1. On the contrary, God doesn't seem to have a problem with Moses suggesting the rape of young girls in Numbers 31:13-18.

The bible clearly teaches that our sexual urges are to be fulfilled within the context of a life long partnership with the opposite sex. True, the bible does not specifically prohibit marriage below a certain age. As I said, cultural relevance is important. We live in a culture today which, quite frankly, gives mixed messages about our sexuality. On the one hand, pedaphilia is a massive taboo, and on the other hand our culture encourages girls at a younger and younger age to dress like women. It's messed up.

In a sense, I defer to what I believe God has provided for us by way of a moral compass. If you get a sneaking suspicion something is wrong then it probably is. Accept that - don't try to find clever arguments to get around it in order to gratify yourself.

As for your numbers 31 reference, I am sure you are aware of the perspectives which differ from yours in understanding what was going on. We won't find agreement on it, as your are certain the God of the bible was evil and I am certain the God of the bible demonstrates that evil cannot and will not be tolerated. We don't get to decide what's evil, much to our annoyance.



Women and girls don't exist for his sexual gratification, or for anybody's, outside the God intended life long partnership.

Attention: For those that read this quote and are now confused, magicmiles is referring to his self-projection as God including what he wants God’s intentions to be, not the actual God in the Torah which viewed women as property to be exchanged and bartered for.

I don't just look at the Torah, I look at the entire bible. The OT was full of rules and rituals, and yes, women were largely treated as property. That definitely seems wrong to us today, and truth be told I don't 100% understand it all. But I also know that Jesus came to free the world from the need to tick 1000 boxes each day, and I know that Christians are taught to love women as Jesus loved the world. Sacrificially.
Go on up you baldhead.

Offline joebbowers

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1074
  • Darwins +91/-47
  • Gender: Male
    • My Photography
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
« Reply #272 on: June 15, 2012, 12:11:47 AM »
This has already been stated by others, and answered by me, but I'll summarize it to save you the time looking it up.

How in the world are people expected to obtain and possess child pornography if there is no production or distribution of the material?

You're making a false assumption that banning production will stop production. It obviously doesn't work that way. It will continue to get made, and we should punish those who make it. Even if somehow you could prevent it's production entirely (impossible) that wouldn't cause the existing content to suddenly dissapear.

You might think of it kind of like marijuana. It's legal[1] (in some places) to possess a small amount, as the police consider it's for personal use and you're not hurting anyone. But producing it or selling it will land you in jail.

It's supply and demand. As long as there is a demand for child pornography there will be someone willing to supply that product. By legalizing the possession of child pornography you effectively increase demand.

In order for that to be true, you must demonstrate how anonymous download without payment increases production. If you have a good argument for this please take it to the RIAA and Hollywood to get them to shut the fuck up about piracy.

Even if it's legalization did lead to more demand, you must explain how increased demand taxes the supply. Normal supply and demand rules do not apply when the product is infinitely copyable.

Nam called me an idiot for making this argument and pointed out that porn companies are always making more porn. Of course he failed to take into account that porn is profitable because it is sold, produced, and distributed legally, and porn companies don't seem too happy about the anonymous download without payment of their product.

As long as there is demand for child pornography sex, children are at risk.

Fixed that for you. You know rape was around long before the internet right? Like, long before.

Simple possession of child pornography can never be decriminalized in a society that values and respects its children. 

So you're saying that most countries in the world don't value and respect their children? Japan doesn't? Denmark doesn't?

Even if you are saying that what's good enough for most of the world isn't good enough for you, I can respect that position. We should aspire to be better than the others. Just because they allow it doesn't mean we should. I understand that.

However that doesn't take into consideration the studies that conclude that sex crime worldwide has gone down since the advent of the internet and the proliferation of freely accessible pornography. Many many studies on both general pornography and specifically child pornography have demonstrated that increased access to porn gives an outlet to sexual energy and leads to fewer incidents of rape.

Very few studies have reached the opposite conclusion, I've read them, and I find their methods to be highly flawed. Even the authors of the studies preface their conclusion with a warning that it's impossible to determine how accurate they are. They emphasize the point that the vast majority of rapists use porn but don't seem to consider the fact that the vast majority of porn users are not rapists.

The vast majority of rapists probably also watch TV, eat ice cream, and like long walks on the beach. Of course nobody blames those things for rape because society doesn't feel the need to demonize those behaviors like they do sex. Just because porn is related to sex does not mean there is a causal link between porn and rape, and indeed no causal link is proven in the studies, but merely suggested.

I want you to answer this question for me. If the studies were correct and availability of child porn was conclusively proven to lead to fewer abuse victims, would you still oppose it's legalization[2]?
 1. Legal in some places, de-criminalized in some places, and simply ignored by the cops in other places.
 2. I will yet again clarify that I am speaking of the legalization of simple possession only. Production and sale would still be illegal.
« Last Edit: June 15, 2012, 12:26:30 AM by joebbowers »
"Do you see a problem with insisting that the normal ways in which you determine fact from fiction is something you have to turn off in order to maintain the belief in God?" - JeffPT

Offline Samothec

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 585
  • Darwins +49/-2
  • Gender: Male
Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
« Reply #273 on: June 15, 2012, 12:14:33 AM »
I agree there is nothing we can do to prevent ourselves feeling sexual attraction. I'm a Christian, and I believe we are born with a sin nature. What this means in terms of our attractions and desires is that we no longer desire only what God intended for us, and I firmly believe that God intended for most of us to have a sexual relationship with a life time partner of the opposite sex. We are not intended to have sex with people of the same sex and we are not intended to have sex outside of a life-long partnership.

You do know that there are people whose genetic gender and physical gender are not the same, right? A woman can have XY chromosomes and a man can have XX chromosomes. This is because the  chromosomes guide but do not absolutely control the development of the fetus. Let's take the woman with the XY chromosomes - are you okay with her marrying a man who also has XY chromosomes? If not, why not? She is physiologically female. Yet genetically male. Shouldn't love and respect matter more than a physical body?

If we make love and respect subservient to form and function then we should also then limit marriage to those of viable child-bearing age 15-35 in most cases. And you are then advocating with Joe for recognition of teens as potential sexual partners.

So, for me, the problem is when we don't fight against our desires. I realise this is a Christian perspective and will appear ridiculous to you, but just so you know where I am coming from.

It is not a Christian perspective - it is a human one and many here have voiced the same perspective, even Joe to a degree. I say to a degree because he (and others including myself) have pointed out that the issue if far from simple or clear regarding consent and the ability to give consent.

The reason I have come down so hard on Joebbowers is that he flaunts and embraces an attraction which I think he should fight against. Women and girls don't exist for his sexual gratification, or for anybody's, outside the God intended life long partnership.

Joe has not flaunted his attraction; he was surprisingly open about it.


Joe, I apologize if I have misremembered/misrepresented your views.
« Last Edit: June 15, 2012, 12:17:06 AM by Samothec »
Faith must trample under foot all reason, sense, and understanding. - Martin Luther

Offline Zankuu

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2121
  • Darwins +135/-3
  • Gender: Male
    • I am a Forum Guide
Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
« Reply #274 on: June 15, 2012, 12:47:10 AM »
I don't believe it's possible for animals to sin. Animals are not created in the image of God. What they do, how they act has absolutely no relevance to anything humans do. Not sure what your point is, or how my views differ from anything recorded in the bible.

Here is my point.

You don’t believe that homosexuality is a sin in regards to every other single mammalian species aside from us, and you agree it is a normal and natural occurrence for those other species. But if you understood that our species, classified as homo sapiens, within the genus homo, in the tribe hominin, grouped in the family hominidae, are in fact primates like bonobos, gibbons, baboons, gorillas and chimpanzees, then you would see why the concept of a “sin nature” isn’t real. We are animals, magicmiles. We are apes. It’s a fact. And since you don’t believe animals “sin”, you would have to conclude that humans don’t “sin” either.

Here is the argument I’m presenting you. It contains four true premises from the Bible and one premise verified via natural observation (P1-5), to which there is only one logical conclusion (C):

P1 Human beings have souls.
P2 Animals do not have souls.
P3 A soul is corrupt by sin.
P4 Homosexuality is a sin.
P5 Both human beings and animals engage in homosexuality.
_________________________________________________
C Therefore, either homosexuality isn’t a sin, or animals have corrupt souls and are sinning in the same way human beings are.

If you happen to disagree with one of these premises or the conclusion, please explain why.

The bible clearly teaches that our sexual urges are to be fulfilled within the context of a life long partnership with the opposite sex.

Cite the verses please.

True, the bible does not specifically prohibit marriage below a certain age. As I said, cultural relevance is important. We live in a culture today which, quite frankly, gives mixed messages about our sexuality. On the one hand, pedaphilia is a massive taboo, and on the other hand our culture encourages girls at a younger and younger age to dress like women. It's messed up.

I think that most taboos are greatly misunderstood subjects thanks to Christianity and its negative influence on our Western culture: atheism, homosexuality, pedophilia, and incest to name a few. Most people equate atheism with god hating, homosexuality with sinful, pedophilia with child molesting, and incest… well, I’d wager all my quatloos that incestuous relationships would be another controversial topic here.

In a sense, I defer to what I believe God has provided for us by way of a moral compass. If you get a sneaking suspicion something is wrong then it probably is. Accept that - don't try to find clever arguments to get around it in order to gratify yourself.

You’re making an appeal to emotion. This would make sense if everyone was feeling those same magical “sneaking suspicions” about the same things, but we aren’t. Our compasses, which have been crafted by our culture and society and then rebuilt, ever so slowly by the knowledge we gain, are pointing in different directions and this thread about pedophilia should be evident of that.

I don't just look at the Torah, I look at the entire bible. The OT was full of rules and rituals, and yes, women were largely treated as property. That definitely seems wrong to us today, and truth be told I don't 100% understand it all.

Not making excuses for Yahweh would be a good start to understanding it. But at least some of the barbaric rules Yahweh laid out such as marrying your rapists and the selling of daughters resonate as wrong vibes with you.
Leave nothing to chance. Overlook nothing. Combine contradictory observations. Allow yourself enough time. -Hippocrates of Cos

Offline joebbowers

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1074
  • Darwins +91/-47
  • Gender: Male
    • My Photography
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
« Reply #275 on: June 15, 2012, 12:51:16 AM »
The reason I have come down so hard on Joebbowers is that he flaunts and embraces an attraction which I think he should fight against.

I don't flaunt it. You'll notice that the first time I ever mentioned it on this website was in this thread. I don't go out of my way to tell people in my daily life that I'm a pedophile, it was relavent to the topic.

But neither am I ashamed of it, as it's something I have no control over. I am not ashamed to be white or left-handed or a man either. I am a little ashamed of my weight problem, as that's something I can control, but I'm working on it.

I also believe that it's perfectly natural to be attracted to females of apparent child bearing age. You yourself, as well as most of the men here, admitted to being sexually attracted to an 11 year old girl.

Yes, that's right. The girl in the photo? 11[1]. Now, you can recoil in abject horror or you can realize that most of the men here also admitted to finding her sexually attractive, and that most men everywhere would. Why? She appears to be of child-bearing age, despite being only 11. I'm mature enough to realize that it's normal to be attracted to her, as you were, and I'm certainly not ashamed of it.

Now, would I act on that attraction? No. Why not? She's 11, dude. Looky but no touchy.

In the case of those primarily attracted to pre-pubescent children (ie. the clinical definition), I also realize it's something they didn't choose and don't vilify them for it. But I expect them to show self-control. Giving them access to child pornography, even the simulated (animated) kind, would at least give them an outlet for that sexual energy.

Women and girls don't exist for his sexual gratification, or for anybody's, outside the God intended life long partnership.

Actually that's kind of exactly why women exist. That's kind of exactly why we all exist. To procreate. If you want to start a discussion of our greater purpose according to God's plan, please start a new thread which I will not read as I don't believe in God.
 1. At the time the photo was taken.
"Do you see a problem with insisting that the normal ways in which you determine fact from fiction is something you have to turn off in order to maintain the belief in God?" - JeffPT

Offline Timo

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1370
  • Darwins +112/-2
  • Gender: Male
  • You know
Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
« Reply #276 on: June 15, 2012, 01:06:13 AM »
Now, would I act on that attraction? No. Why not? She's 11, dude.

Hahahaha.  Y'all some creeps.  Nah, I'm playing though.  I would have guessed 14 or so.

Looky but no touchy.

Nah, don't even looky.  At least not in person.  I don't think that little girls that develop early need any more dudes sneaking glances than they already have.
Nah son...

Offline Timo

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1370
  • Darwins +112/-2
  • Gender: Male
  • You know
Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
« Reply #277 on: June 15, 2012, 01:10:32 AM »
That's kind of exactly why we all exist. To procreate.

Indeed.  The fact that we're designed to pass our genes on is probably why sex is so damn gratifying in the first place.
Nah son...

Offline magicmiles

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2947
  • Darwins +180/-73
  • Gender: Male
Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
« Reply #278 on: June 15, 2012, 01:34:49 AM »


Here is my point.

you agree it is a normal and natural occurrence for those other species.

Not sure how normal it is. It occurs, yes. Any zoologists in the house?


But if you understood that our species, classified as homo sapiens, within the genus homo, in the tribe hominin, grouped in the family hominidae, are in fact primates like bonobos, gibbons, baboons, gorillas and chimpanzees, then you would see why the concept of a “sin nature” isn’t real. We are animals, magicmiles.

I disagree, obviously. I believe humans are uniquely different spiritually to animals, regardless of what physicall characteristivs we share.


Here is the argument I’m presenting you. It contains four true premises from the Bible and one premise verified via natural observation (P1-5), to which there is only one logical conclusion (C):

P1 Human beings have souls.
P2 Animals do not have souls.
P3 A soul is corrupt by sin.
P4 Homosexuality is a sin.
P5 Both human beings and animals engage in homosexuality.
_________________________________________________
C Therefore, either homosexuality isn’t a sin, or animals have corrupt souls and are sinning in the same way human beings are.

If you happen to disagree with one of these premises or the conclusion, please explain why.

I agree with the 5 statements, but don't see how you reach that conclusion. Because humans have souls and are created in God's image, they are under God's rule. Animals were created by God, but were created to be under mankind's rule, along with all other creation. The fact that animals engage in certain behaviours which are prohibitted by God for humans does not logically dis-prove the fact that homosexuality is wrong for humans or that animals don't have souls.

The bible clearly teaches that our sexual urges are to be fulfilled within the context of a life long partnership with the opposite sex.

Cite the verses please.

Gen. 2:18, 21-24
 
The Lord God said, 'It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him'...and while he was sleeping, he took one of the man's ribs and closed up the place with flesh.

Then the Lord God made a woman from the rib he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man. The man said, 'This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called 'woman,' for she was taken out of man.' For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh.



I think that most taboos are greatly misunderstood subjects thanks to Christianity and its negative influence on our Western culture: atheism, homosexuality, pedophilia, and incest to name a few. Most people equate atheism with god hating, homosexuality with sinful, pedophilia with child molesting, and incest… well, I’d wager all my quatloos that incestuous relationships would be another controversial topic here.

Know what? I agree with much of this. Christianity isn't about prowling the world with a big moral stick looking to whack people with it. It shouldn't be, and it angers me when it is. I'm as guilty and as far removed from God as the worst criminal in history without the intervention of Christ.

That doesn't mean that Christians should go along with what the world tells us is right and wrong, but I don't think we should go around telling people they are sinning, either (even when they are). I, of course, am a poor example sometimes of what a Christian should do. I like to argue and I'm opinionated. But I hope you all know that it all comes down to Christ, in the end. I'm stuffed without Him, as are you all. Can't earn your way to God.


In a sense, I defer to what I believe God has provided for us by way of a moral compass. If you get a sneaking suspicion something is wrong then it probably is. Accept that - don't try to find clever arguments to get around it in order to gratify yourself.

You’re making an appeal to emotion.

Without objective wrong, appeal to emotion is all atheists are doing with their plethora of OT verses detailing moral outrages.

Not making excuses for Yahweh would be a good start to understanding it. But at least some of the barbaric rules Yahweh laid out such as marrying your rapists and the selling of daughters resonate as wrong vibes with you.

Apologists don't try to excuse God, they try to make sense of the bible based on who God has revealed Himself to be, cultural context, histotrical context. When they do, often our knee-jerk reactions to OT occurrences are correctly challenged.
Go on up you baldhead.

Offline magicmiles

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2947
  • Darwins +180/-73
  • Gender: Male
Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
« Reply #279 on: June 15, 2012, 01:39:15 AM »
That's kind of exactly why we all exist. To procreate.

Indeed.  The fact that we're designed to pass our genes on is probably why sex is so damn gratifying in the first place.

Absolutely agree with Timo here. Unbeatable design.
Go on up you baldhead.

Offline pianodwarf

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 4371
  • Darwins +208/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • Je bois ton lait frappé
Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
« Reply #280 on: June 15, 2012, 06:08:51 AM »
Yes, that's right. The girl in the photo? 11.

Indeed.  Here's another photo of her (not sure of the age in this one, though.)

[On how kangaroos could have gotten back to Australia after the flood]:  Don't kangaroos skip along the surface of the water? --Kenn

Offline joebbowers

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1074
  • Darwins +91/-47
  • Gender: Male
    • My Photography
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
« Reply #281 on: June 15, 2012, 07:57:57 AM »
Here's another photo of her (not sure of the age in this one, though.)

She is also 11 in that photo, it is also from her first photo book. What a hilariously appropriate caption.
"Do you see a problem with insisting that the normal ways in which you determine fact from fiction is something you have to turn off in order to maintain the belief in God?" - JeffPT

Offline pianodwarf

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 4371
  • Darwins +208/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • Je bois ton lait frappé
Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
« Reply #282 on: June 15, 2012, 08:11:20 AM »
Here's another photo of her (not sure of the age in this one, though.)

She is also 11 in that photo, it is also from her first photo book.

For purposes of this discussion, I'm actually glad to hear that.  It makes the point better than any argument ever could.

Quote
What a hilariously appropriate caption.

Exactly... that's why, out of all the different photos I found that I could have chosen, I chose that one.
[On how kangaroos could have gotten back to Australia after the flood]:  Don't kangaroos skip along the surface of the water? --Kenn

Offline Gnu Ordure

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3832
  • Darwins +109/-9
  • Gender: Male
Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
« Reply #283 on: June 15, 2012, 09:06:59 AM »
Joe, I'll come back to your reply to me, but please answer this question in the meantime. You just said:
Quote
Now, would I act on that attraction? No. Why not? She's 11, dude. Looky but no touchy.
The gist of your argument on the thread is that the age of consent is arbitrary, some girls mature much faster than others, and you think older people are better at initiating children into the world of sex, and you feel OK about breaking the law in some situations.

So why do you cite her age, alone, as a reason not to act on your attraction to her?

Offline joebbowers

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1074
  • Darwins +91/-47
  • Gender: Male
    • My Photography
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
« Reply #284 on: June 15, 2012, 11:40:56 AM »
I think the law is wrong, but I'm not willing to spend 10 years in jail for breaking it.
"Do you see a problem with insisting that the normal ways in which you determine fact from fiction is something you have to turn off in order to maintain the belief in God?" - JeffPT

Offline Timo

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1370
  • Darwins +112/-2
  • Gender: Male
  • You know
Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
« Reply #285 on: June 15, 2012, 11:56:55 AM »
I think the law is wrong, but I'm not willing to spend 10 years in jail for breaking it.

Waaaaaaait a minute.  So in a perfect world, you think that it should be legal for you, as a grown ass man, to have sex with an 11 year old?
Nah son...

Offline Gnu Ordure

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3832
  • Darwins +109/-9
  • Gender: Male
Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
« Reply #286 on: June 15, 2012, 12:05:54 PM »
Timo, he's said that consistently through the thread e.g. :
I think that if they were able to get pregnant, that proves that they were ready to have sex.
Society likes to pretend that children aren't sexual but they are. Most begin masturbating years before puberty. We like to forget that historically women girls were married as soon as they could menstruate. Not rarely, not just sometimes, but this was the norm.
And :
I agree, there should be a line, but I think the age of consent should be lowered to the same age that a juvenile could be tried as an adult.
Which in the US is between 6 and 12. (here).
« Last Edit: June 15, 2012, 12:44:15 PM by Gnu Ordure »

Offline Traveler

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2056
  • Darwins +142/-2
  • Gender: Female
  • no god required
    • I am a Forum Guide
    • Gryffin Designs
Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
« Reply #287 on: June 15, 2012, 12:18:25 PM »
An 11 year old is most certainly not ready for sex. Menstruation is completely unrelated to emotional maturity. Anyone who would have sex with an 11 year old is WAY over the line. Cases of mid to late teens I find more variable, but 11??? As someone who WAS an 11 year old girl, and whose friends at the time were all 11 year old girls, I can guarantee you that NONE of them has the slightest clue how to handle that.
If we ever travel thousands of light years to a planet inhabited by intelligent life, let's just make patterns in their crops and leave.

Offline pianodwarf

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 4371
  • Darwins +208/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • Je bois ton lait frappé
Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
« Reply #288 on: June 15, 2012, 12:20:03 PM »
Society likes to pretend that children aren't sexual but they are. Most begin masturbating years before puberty. We like to forget that historically women girls were married as soon as they could menstruate. Not rarely, not just sometimes, but this was the norm.

That's true.  For fun, do a search on how old Juliet was in the play "Romeo and Juliet", where her parents were casually talking about her arranged marriage as though it were a routine matter of course (which it was), and where she actually married Romeo and had sex with him.  And that society wasn't the only one where that was the norm, either.  China was the same way for a long time, and in fact in China, if a girl exited her teen years without being married, she was practically considered an old maid.  Hell, as recently as the early Twentieth Century, the age of consent throughout the United States was ten.

What's considered an appropriate age for sex (and marriage) is a societal construct.
[On how kangaroos could have gotten back to Australia after the flood]:  Don't kangaroos skip along the surface of the water? --Kenn

Offline Gnu Ordure

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3832
  • Darwins +109/-9
  • Gender: Male
Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
« Reply #289 on: June 15, 2012, 12:37:36 PM »
^^^

Quote
What's considered an appropriate age for sex (and marriage) is a societal construct.
But let's not forget that in the last 150 years we have lengthened life-expectancy and also lengthened childhood (and invented teenagers in the process). So the age of maturity has slowly edged upwards.