Opening Dialogue on Gender and Sexual Orientation

[ASOAK7]

Hello all. I have a school assignment that I am working on that requires me to pose some questions related to a certain theme my class has looked at over the course of the semester and dialogue with those who respond. In light of current events such as the supreme court case regarding homosexual marriage, I have settled on gender and sexual orientation. I would greatly appreciate any/all responses to the following questions:

Do you believe the differences between men and women are purely physical or are they rooted in a person’s nature?

Do you believe a person can change their gender?

- Do physical changes equal gender change?

Do you believe sexual orientation is a choice or something humans are born with?

Do you believe a person can change their sexual orientation?

Are all sexual orientations good?

- If yes, why do you believe so?
- If not, why not?

I will periodically post clarifying questions regarding your responses so as to better understand your view and will bold your name so it stands out in my post.

[DanieltheDragon]

[Replying to post 4 by ASOAK7]

Pedophilia is not a sexual orientation, it's a paraphilia, which is a type of mental illness. To compare it with the gay/lesbian-heterosexual continuum (which includes bisexuality and pansexuality) is both unscientific and absurd.

Any type of sexual abuse (including the rape of a child) is extremely damaging to the psychological and physical health of the victim, and so is unacceptable.

I find it interesting that the OP presumed a man was being referred to when nothing other than attraction to a children was mentioned. In the same vain, you have responded by defining behaviors that were not specifically referred to and then used those definitions, of your own choosing, to establish limitations on those very same behaviors. Of course, by of your own choosing, I mean with regard to application to the OP. I have no doubt that some appointed authority has established them as part of a particular discipline. So, could we step back and address the basic questions, before we presume social parameters? Who decides if a thing is beneficial and can such decisions change over time? I would add, what is it that gives that person or persons the right to decide what is or is not beneficial?

Haven was not addressing the Op but my post and another one. Anyways as to the Op I think it would be good if you made your own contribution after all as many different viewpoints as possible would help his project for school

[Jashwell]

[Replying to post 2 by Jashwell]

Thank you for your response.

Would you have qualms about a man who is sexually attracted to children? If so, why?

I have no qualms about any person's attractions to anything.

As it stands, I, specifically, would have a problem with a person having sex with (or intending to have sex with) someone that: was opposed to having sex with them, didn't reasonably understand any potentially important consequences, or would significantly regret it (can be considered a mix of the former two). I'd also have a problem with films/audio recordings/transcriptions of it existing (for the same reasons, as well as anonymity).

That includes a majority of the under-age (and effectively all below a certain age), age being considered the best determinant. Obviously, the elephant in the room is that age is also the legal determinant, varying by country, sex with anyone under-age being statutory rape.

I'm pretty sure most developed countries vary between 12 and 18. In the UK the minimum is 16, but 18 when the other is 'someone in a position of authority or trust' over them. I don't believe we prosecute in the case of mutually statutory rape (i.e. all involved under age).

[Bust Nak]

Do you believe then that a person's gender is fundamentally determined by genetics? Based on how you described it, I came to the conclusion that you believe physical anatomy is an outward manifestation of a person's gender.

I think I am saying the opposite. A person's gender is fundamentally determined by their physical anatomy. Their physical anatomy is merely closely linked to their genetics, I say closely because we know there are many examples where one's outward appearance doesn't match their genes. I am saying outward appearance is more important than whether a person has one or two X chromosome. This is what I mean when I said changing appearance equal changing gender for everyday purposes. I am making the distinction between genetic gender, gender, and gender identity. It just so happens the three are identical for the majority of people.

You make the distinction between morally right and beneficial. Who decides if a thing is beneficial and can such decisions change over time? Why would you say a man being attracted to a child is not beneficial? And to what is it not beneficial? The child? The man? Society at large?

My statement was incomplete. "Beneficial" implies a goal and I never stated what goal it was beneficial for. The goal I had in mind but did not state, was leading a productive life in society. With that goal in mind, I don't think anyone needs to decide if a thing is beneficial or not, instead we can measure it objectively. One will be hampered in that goal with an attraction to children. I guess in that sense I am saying it is not beneficial to all three, the child, the man, as well as society at large.