Pedophilia - The Next Taboo To Fall?

[Cow Poke]

But what you "kinda already" DON'T seem to know is that you're NOT entitled to prevent those who disagree with you about homosexuality from acting on it.

What a dunderhead. Of COURSE I know that... sinners gonna sin!

[Starlight]

I knew three guys who came out of the closet in the early 70s - all three of them were molested by older males from an early age to mid teens

Probably the most common view among scientists who have studied this is that pedophiles pick their victims, and disproportionately pick gay kids. This appears to regularly happen at an age long before the kid themselves realizes they are gay, so leaves an open and interesting question of "what is it about gay kids which distinguishes them and which attracts pedophiles?"

I think I just found the answer to this. I'm wading through this new review article that attempts to summarize everything that's known about sexual orientation. And it comments in passing:

Studies have shown that subjects recall first having feelings of sexual attraction at age 10, on average (McClintock & Herdt, 1996). Male and female subjects report similar ages. Importantly, so do homosexual and heterosexual subjects. Age 10 is several years before the typical age of onset of sexual activity (Cavazos-Rehg et al., 2009). This is consistent with an earlier retrospective study showing that homosexual men and women recalled their first homosexual feelings as preceding their first homosexual experiences by 3 years (Bell, Weinberg, & Hammersmith, 1981)... the large majority of nonheterosexual people recall that homosexual desires preceded homosexual experiences.

How do nonheterosexual people experience the recognition of homosexual feelings? In a retrospective study, homosexual men reported that their early sexual attractions were not necessarily a source of any distress (Savin-Williams, 1996). Same-sex attractions were often experienced as an obsession with being near masculine, often older, same-sex teenagers and adults, such as male teachers and coaches. Eventually, these men recognized that their same-sex desires were rarely shared by others, were not condoned, and should be hidden.

So, many gay guys appear to be reporting that around the age of 10 they developed an obsession with spending lots of time with male authority figures in their life. Unfortunately this makes them lambs to the slaughter as far as pedophile priests and teachers are concerned.

[Tassman]

What a dunderhead. Of COURSE I know that... sinners gonna sin!

...and judgemental bigots gonna judge.

[Cow Poke]

...and judgemental bigots gonna judge.

And there ya just did.

[MaxVel]

It's only when people start saying things like "you know what, not only am I not going to get same-sex married because I think God doesn't like it, I'm going to force everybody else not to do it either, regardless of their religion or lack of it. I'm going to enforce my religious views on those atheists. I'm also going to enforce it on the Hindus, Buddhists, and Jews down the street, and also on those other Christians who's denomination thinks same-sex marriage is okay." When people start trying to force others to follow their religion, we start to have problems.

I really don't see a fair and reasonable rationale behind this sentiment at all.

Surely the gay rights movement has, and is, imposing their views on other people, including those who merely disagree. Court cases against accommodation providers, cake bakers, wedding photographers and the like show this happening.

So the gay rights proponents want to enforce their worldview on others who don't share it, and don't want those who aren't pro gay rights to even try to get their worldview reflected in legislation and state action. It's OK for them to impose their worldview, by force if need be, on others, but not OK for others to try and do the same to them.

I think that's a very dangerous principle to promulgate. If, one day, public opinion changes, then we've already moved that much farther away from a society that tolerates dissenters. Gay people could find themselves worse off than before the gay rights movement.

Lastly - surely the most dangerous threat to gay people in the current world environment is.... ....Islam. Not Christians. Progressives ought to be against allowing Muslim immigrants in any significant numbers into their countries, and should be most actively working to suppress Islam's influence worldwide. Who has killed more gays in the last 50 years, Christians or Muslims?

[Tassman]

I really don't see a fair and reasonable rationale behind this sentiment at all.

Surely the gay rights movement has, and is, imposing their views on other people, including those who merely disagree. Court cases against accommodation providers, cake bakers, wedding photographers and the like show this happening.

So the gay rights proponents want to enforce their worldview on others who don't share it, and don't want those who aren't pro gay rights to even try to get their worldview reflected in legislation and state action. It's OK for them to impose their worldview, by force if need be, on others, but not OK for others to try and do the same to them.

I think that's a very dangerous principle to promulgate. If, one day, public opinion changes, then we've already moved that much farther away from a society that tolerates dissenters. Gay people could find themselves worse off than before the gay rights movement.

Lastly - surely the most dangerous threat to gay people in the current world environment is.... ....Islam. Not Christians. Progressives ought to be against allowing Muslim immigrants in any significant numbers into their countries, and should be most actively working to suppress Islam's influence worldwide. Who has killed more gays in the last 50 years, Christians or Muslims?

[Starlight]

Surely the gay rights movement has, and is, imposing their views on other people, including those who merely disagree. Court cases against accommodation providers, cake bakers, wedding photographers and the like show this happening.

If the cake-baker were being forced to get same-sex married by the gay rights movement you would have a point. But in practice baking a cake isn't the same as getting married.

I think that's a very dangerous principle to promulgate. If, one day, public opinion changes, then we've already moved that much farther away from a society that tolerates dissenters. Gay people could find themselves worse off than before the gay rights movement.

Lastly - surely the most dangerous threat to gay people in the current world environment is.... ....Islam.

I suspect heart attacks, strokes, cancer, and car accidents are the greatest dangers.

Who has killed more gays in the last 50 years, Christians or Muslims?

In Western countries, the answer would certainly be Christians, by far. Gay deaths from suicide due to the general homophobic environment, and anxiety-relief and reality-avoidance measures (alcohol, drugs and smoking), typically number in the hundreds or thousands per year in reasonably-sized countries.

[Jaecp]

Surely the gay rights movement has, and is, imposing their views on other people, including those who merely disagree. Court cases against accommodation providers, cake bakers, wedding photographers and the like show this happening.

Nope. The view isn't imposed here. In America, particularly with public facing businesses, you can't just refuse to accept business from certain groups for no reason other than they are members of that group. Anti-Discrimination laws protect all of us and, much like how it was the Danbury Baptists who helped get the notion of a wall of separation off the ground, as Christians become a smaller and smaller portion of America they'll probably like those laws a lot more.

So the gay rights proponents want to enforce their worldview on others who don't share it, and don't want those who aren't pro gay rights to even try to get their worldview reflected in legislation and state action. It's OK for them to impose their worldview, by force if need be, on others, but not OK for others to try and do the same to them.

The best arguments against it are all religious in nature which runs into legal problems. The non-religious arguments are... not good.

Let's not forget that the only difference between a gay wedding cake and a straight wedding cake is whether there's one or two guys in a suit on top.

I think that's a very dangerous principle to promulgate. If, one day, public opinion changes, then we've already moved that much farther away from a society that tolerates dissenters. Gay people could find themselves worse off than before the gay rights movement.

Good thing we have anti discrimination laws...

Lastly - surely the most dangerous threat to gay people in the current world environment is.... ....Islam. Not Christians. Progressives ought to be against allowing Muslim immigrants in any significant numbers into their countries, and should be most actively working to suppress Islam's influence worldwide. Who has killed more gays in the last 50 years, Christians or Muslims?

You're not the worst so people living in Christian majority countries where Islam's political influence is somewhere between "nothing" and "zilch" should be focused on? Nah.

End of the day, everything here considered, the gay rights movement is fundamentally about allowing more freedom to more people and the people directly involved are getting massive quality of life upgrades while the biggest losers are... a baker who balked when they found out that the 3 circles of dough with a metric ton of frosting was going to have two dudes on it (or two ladies) instead of one of each?

Oh no! I feel so bad for them. Meanwhile, at my caucus in May I heard from a man who kept his relationship a secret for 25 years in the Air Force and is now married to the guy of his dreams, has since adopted children. That's not even getting into historical examples like how we castrated the guy who practically won us WW2 :-/ The "downside", such as it is for Christians who don't want to receive money to perform their usual service because of "religious reasons" that I'm not convinced are valid and people who get to be with the person they love? For people to be excluded because of who they are?

Weigh my heart against a feather if you wish, Max, but I'll come down in favor of love over bigotry every time and between the people who straight up don't care about religious proscriptions against homosexuality and the people who don't believe in legislating their religion? Well, and I never get to say this usually, but here it is.

Dude, if you don't like how America rolls stay in your own damn country ;)

[MaxVel]

If the cake-baker were being forced to get same-sex married by the gay rights movement you would have a point. But in practice baking a cake isn't the same as getting married.

Shunya would call this 'Bob, Duck and Weave'

I suspect heart attacks, strokes, cancer, and car accidents are the greatest dangers.

In Western countries, the answer would certainly be Christians, by far. Gay deaths from suicide due to the general homophobic environment, and anxiety-relief and reality-avoidance measures (alcohol, drugs and smoking), typically number in the hundreds or thousands per year in reasonably-sized countries.

Yeah, everything bad that happens to homosexuals in Western countries is the fault of Christians. Those countries are not secular, no, not at all. Funny how the narrative shifts elastically to accommodate whatever you want to be true.

Muslims are no danger at all.

[Jaecp]

Shunya would call this 'Bob, Duck and Weave'



Yeah, everything bad that happens to homosexuals in Western countries is the fault of Christians. Those countries are not secular, no, not at all. Funny how the narrative shifts elastically to accommodate whatever you want to be true.

Muslims are no danger at all.

Secular isn't monolithic.

[Tassman]

Yeah, everything bad that happens to homosexuals in Western countries is the fault of Christians. Those countries are not secular, no, not at all. Funny how the narrative shifts elastically to accommodate whatever you want to be true.

was the fault of Christians. And that where such things occur today it still tends to be the fault of Christians.

[seer]

If the cake-baker were being forced to get same-sex married by the gay rights movement you would have a point. But in practice baking a cake isn't the same as getting married.

Nonsense, the baker is being force by law to be involved in that which he finds objectionable. He is being forced to serve, to work for another, and we have a name for that.

[Jaecp]

Nonsense, the baker is being force by law to be involved in that which he finds objectionable. He is being forced to serve, to work for another, and we have a name for that.

Is it having a job? That's what we call that, right? Employment?

Seer, the baker has to bake a cake and write Adam and Steve instead of Adam and Eve. Err Nurr :(

Or maybe it's a classic style wedding cake and after making a luscious white cake he then tops it with a man in a suit and then... another man in a suit. Err Nurr :(

This is all getting me super sad, duuuuude, we have to do something about these poor people getting paid to make cakes having to... uhh, think about how gay people exist when they write a second name thats, like, masculine. You know they could pretend Sam is short for Samantha but, they'll know...

[Starlight]

Nonsense, the baker is being force by law to be involved in that which he finds objectionable.

Absolutely. However, the imposition is very very tiny - to sell for profit an item he was in the business of selling for profit. Such tiny impositions are widely considered justifiable because the cumulative effect on minority group members who repeatedly experience such discrimination can be severe. But yes, I 100% acknowledge that an imposition is occurring... it is simply a very very tiny and justifiable one.

Compare to major and unjustifiable impositions - e.g. slavery, concentration camps, removing basic human rights from people (e.g. freedom of religious worship, to have sex, to marry, etc), and the difference is stark.

[Starlight]

You know they could pretend Sam is short for Samantha but, they'll know...

The baker will never get over the mental anguish of knowing a gay person's day was made mildly better by the fact that they ate a piece of cake the baker baked.