Customer Discussions > religion discussion forum

If "sexuality" is "Right", a "Freedom", then why are some sexualities considered a perversion?


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-25 of 66 posts in this discussion
Initial post: 19 Jan 2014 22:40:04 GMT
Spin says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on 19 Jan 2014 22:44:39 GMT
Last edited by the author on 20 Jan 2014 09:31:12 GMT
Really Spin, again? You've asked this spurious question many times before, and the answer is quite obviously that homosexuals are consenting adults who are not hurting anyone, just like heterosexuals. fetishism is perfectly legal, SM is also perfectly legal as long as it's consensual, clearly to any sane person with any intelligence paedophilia and bestiality are not consensual.

No way did this need a thread of it's own, you've asked it before and it's been answered before, put the cork back in the bottle man.

In reply to an earlier post on 19 Jan 2014 22:52:13 GMT
Last edited by the author on 19 Jan 2014 22:54:48 GMT
Spin says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

Posted on 19 Jan 2014 23:02:44 GMT
Please put some thought into your posts, Spin, rather than serving up the same reheated garbage all the time.

In reply to an earlier post on 19 Jan 2014 23:04:16 GMT
Last edited by the author on 19 Jan 2014 23:18:03 GMT
Semantics and sophistry why am I not surprised. As I said you've asked this before but were clearly too drunk for you to remember, or are too drunk now to remember perhaps?

In reply to an earlier post on 20 Jan 2014 09:19:16 GMT
G. Heron says:
Spin

Here are a few clues, Adult, Consenting. Can you work it out from there?

In reply to an earlier post on 20 Jan 2014 15:29:16 GMT
Spin says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on 20 Jan 2014 15:52:18 GMT
Last edited by the author on 20 Jan 2014 15:53:09 GMT
G. Heron says:
Spin

Sorry I didn't understand your meaning but now I think I have it. You are talking about people's sexuality rather than sexual activity. If someone finds that they are sexually attracted to children I would not condemn them for that but if they acted on that sexuality I would condemn them because they would be imposing their sexuality on a child who cannot consent and they would cause the child suffering and long term harm.

In reply to an earlier post on 20 Jan 2014 17:27:56 GMT
Heretic says:
Spin says:"If Homosexuality is a "Right" of personal sexuality, then why are peadophilia, bestiality, necrophilia, fetishism, SM, etc considered unacceptable even to those who advocate freedom of sexuality? Sexuality, in itself, is not something to condemned, according to the liberal secularists."

A good question.

I would answer it like this. Any sexuality is acceptable if it is (or can be) practised between consenting adults and causes no physical, emotional or mental (some might include spiritual) harm to any of those involved. I would exclude from the above anyone that is unable to give informed consent even though they are adult.

All such sexualities are legal here.

Most people do not select their sexuality, it develops together with them and I suspect there are no two people who are identical in this regard but most would fall within an acceptable range (this range varying slightly from generation, first in one direction and then the other).

Some peoples sexuality may of developed very quickly as the result of a trauma or a crime and as a result may stray outside the norm.

I can see the question arising of the right of people whose sexuality falls outside of the norm having equal rights to express themselves physically. These people have the same rights to express themselves physically and these are that it is expressed between consenting adults just as it is for everyone else.

Heretic

In reply to an earlier post on 20 Jan 2014 17:28:40 GMT
Spin says:
G; You are speaking of peadophilia in particular, not sexuality qua sexuality. So you are arguing that ones sexuality is Right to be defended as long as it not acted upon? You would not consider a sexuality to be a psychological abnormality? All sexualities are "equal" in every way? You would not consider bestiality, necrophilia, fetishism or Sado-masochism to be "abnormal" as long as they are not acted upon? It is the action, the expression of sexuality, that makes it "wrong" So why is homosexual activity not considered "wrong"? Why is homosexual activity the only expression of an abnormal sexuality that is legal and morally accepted? Consent has nothing to do with it, for even heterosexual sex can be non-consensual. "Consent" does not occur in nature.

In reply to an earlier post on 20 Jan 2014 17:31:22 GMT
Spin says:
Heretic: As I previously pointed out; "Consent" does not occur in nature. You consider Bestiality to be "wrong", on a number of levels, but do not question "consent" when the animal is on your plate smothered in a nice wine sauce...

In reply to an earlier post on 20 Jan 2014 17:58:55 GMT
Heretic says:
Spin says: "Heretic: As I previously pointed out; "Consent" does not occur in nature. You consider Bestiality to be "wrong", on a number of levels, but do not question "consent" when the animal is on your plate smothered in a nice wine sauce..."

Let's get this straight to begin with, alcohol belongs very firmly in a glass and not mixed with food until it reaches the stomach.

Some heresy's are just beyond the pail.

You started by asking about sexualities and then you seem to move the debate on to consent which is what you really want to talk about.

Where adults consent there is no real issue except for the religious. The problem is about where there is no consent or no informed consent. Where there is no consent between adults it is the crime of rape, even if the adults are husband and wife.

It is generally accepted that children are not physically, mentally or emotionally able to cope with sexual activity (certainly not with an adult) without harm taking place. People that act in such a way are seen as the scum of the earth and if they end up in prison they have to be protected from the rest of the population who would see it as a badge of honour to kill them.

As far as consent is concerned in the natural world you are quite right it is rarely if ever sought. What separates us from the animals is our ability, among other things, to live in large communities. In order to live in these communities we need to allow everybody space to live their lives in safety and to feel secure within society. When you take informed consent out of the equation then everybody would revert to type and the strong would have large harems and the weak would have the desire to replace the strong [This sort of sounds a lot like the Islamic world - doesn't it?]

Heretic

In reply to an earlier post on 20 Jan 2014 18:34:56 GMT
Last edited by the author on 20 Jan 2014 18:35:30 GMT
Spin says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on 20 Jan 2014 21:34:32 GMT
Heretic says:
It is true that I refer to the law but the law is a fair representation of the acceptability of a sexuality as far as society is concerned. Society changes back and forth accepting or deriding sexualities according to the fashion of the day. In absolute terms law is not the arbiter of what is right or wrong although it does try to be.

In absolute terms we can only use the rule of thumb that any sexuality is acceptable if it is (or can be) practised between consenting adults and causes no physical, emotional or mental (some might include spiritual) harm to any of those involved.

As a rule of thumb I think it is a fair guide.

Heretic

In reply to an earlier post on 20 Jan 2014 21:37:50 GMT
Spin says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

Posted on 20 Jan 2014 22:09:09 GMT
Mrs. F. Shaw says:
Homosexuality is normal to homosexuals. What is "normal"? (I'm employing the Sporadic Method of philosophical teaching which will lead absolutely no where and end in something like "Ok. I'm sure you're right" :) )

In reply to an earlier post on 20 Jan 2014 22:19:19 GMT
Heretic says:
Spin says: [Heretic; I spend time and effort on these threads defending gay rights. But I am not dishonest enough to say that homosexuality is "normal".]

Is homosexuality normal?

I think is one a set of normal behaviours. We really need to define normal and at first it is easy to accept the behaviour of the majority as normal, it is certainly necessary for the survival of the species. Until recent [recent being the 1960's] availability of birth control it was not unusual for families to have perhaps twelve children. My own mother was twelfth out of thirteen. In this kind of environment there were a lot of illegal abortions taking place and young girls being thrown out of their homes for disgracing 'the family'.

I might well argue that homosexuality is one of a number of sexual modes or behaviours that lies within an acceptable range. This however is only my opinion and I don't believe there has been any work done that might back me up.

Heretic

Posted on 20 Jan 2014 22:31:58 GMT
easytiger says:
F

By 1978 PIE and Paedophile Action for Liberation had become affiliated to the National Council for Civil Liberties, now known as Liberty, with members attending meetings. The organisation campaigned against newspapers' treatment of the Paedophile activist groups. Whilst affiliated with NCCL, PIE also campaigned to reduce the age of consent and oppose the proposed banning of child pornography. In 1976, in a submission to the Criminal Law Revision Committee, the NCCL asserted that "childhood sexual experiences, willingly engaged in, with an adult result in no identifiable damage" and that the Protection of Children Bill would lead to "damaging and absurd prosecutions". Whilst PIE was affiliated with it, the organisation argued for incest to be decriminalised and argued that sexually explicit photographs of children should be legal unless it could be proven that the subject had suffered harm or that the an inference to that effect or to the effect that harm might have been caused could reasonably be drawn from the images themselves, with Harriet Harman (later deputy leader of the Labour Party) arguing that it would "increase censorship
From Wiki.
Strange bit of forgotten history.

In reply to an earlier post on 20 Jan 2014 22:35:55 GMT
Spin says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

Posted on 20 Jan 2014 22:38:11 GMT
Spin says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on 20 Jan 2014 22:39:44 GMT
You really have exhausted every tried old lie haven't you? That must be why you're recycling them one at a time.

In reply to an earlier post on 20 Jan 2014 22:42:27 GMT
Spin says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on 20 Jan 2014 22:43:19 GMT
Mrs. F. Shaw says:
Thanks for outlining the difference between homosexuality and paedophilia ET. What consenting adults do in their spare time is their own business. What paedophiles do is everyone's business.

What I do not understand, is that for a 100 years since Freud, men have known that molesting children damages them psychologically. Why would anyone continue to seek out children knowing they were hurting them? Why would a man who was bent that way want to hurt a child in that way?

It is one thing to "be" that way. It is another to act on it and harm others.

In reply to an earlier post on 20 Jan 2014 22:46:33 GMT
Heretic says:
Spin says: [Heretic; Those who argue that homosexuality is an abnormality are accused of being "Homophobic". Why? Why accuse someone of a non-existent trait, homophobia, simply to justify ones personal views that can be easily refuted? Label someone and your argument is proven "true"?]

It is far easier to condemn a label rather than a person. Once the label is condemned you can try and stick it on anyone you like. Sometimes however hard you try you cannot make it stick.

Heretic

In reply to an earlier post on 20 Jan 2014 23:00:25 GMT
easytiger says:
I wasn't doing that at all just merely pointing out paedophilia did seem to be verging on respectability 30 odd years ago with regard to the OP.
Something else I found was that the PIE was formed originally from a group called 'Scottish Minorities', and having found they had more support in England moved to london where they were given regular platforms to speak by the Campaign for Homosexual Equality(CHE), before becoming affiliated to NCCL (Liberty).
Maybe that's how people get confused and mix the two.
‹ Previous 1 2 3 Next ›
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


More Customer Discussions

Most active community forums
Most active product forums

Amazon forums
 

This discussion

Discussion in:  religion discussion forum
Participants:  11
Total posts:  66
Initial post:  19 Jan 2014
Latest post:  23 Jan 2014

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.

Search Customer Discussions