Is "being born this way" an acceptable justificati

Debating issues regarding sexuality

Moderator: Moderators

User avatar
KingandPriest
Sage
Posts: 790
Joined: Sat Aug 13, 2016 1:15 pm
Location: South Florida

Is "being born this way" an acceptable justificati

Post #1

Post by KingandPriest »

An all to common argument I have heard to support homosexuality or transgender-ism is the concept of being born this way. As a Christian I could relate to the concept of being born with a proclivity towards a certain activity which may lead to sin.

Recently, I heard a discussion which reminded me of one of my undergraduate law courses. This was years ago, so I apologize if I do not present as good an argument as this professor. In the course, the professor argued for maintaining the definition of marriage as between one man and one woman because in the court of law, setting a legal precedence on one matter can lead to unintended applications of the decision later on.

As we know, the law is tricky in that a judge may be forced to rule one way based on precedence rather than fairness or equity. To this end, the professor argued that if the law was changed (as it has been today) because one judge or a few judges deemed it acceptable to broaden the definition of marriage, then a precedent could be set for future changes resulting in "undesired effects."

This now leads to the conversation on being "born this way." When a person is making an argument from the position of being "born this way" are they arguing that any person who is born with certain attractions should be allowed to love who ever they wish?

I ask, because many individuals who are currently considered sexual pedophiles can argue that they were born this way, and were attracted to younger people since they were a child. Is it wrong to condemn these individuals for their attractions but praise or support an individual who has homosexual feelings?

If the only answer is because they are breaking the law, then it is fair to argue that homosexuality was once illegal in many nations in the world. Is is possible that a precedent has been set to allow those who were once demonized and criminalized as pedophiles to join the LGBT community, as another misunderstood and rejected people group?

Why treat those who have been "born with a attraction" to the same sex differently from those who have been "born with an attraction" to a younger individual?


In some places, consent for marriage can occur as young as 13. Could those individuals who desire to have relationships and marriage to 13 year old, use the precedent of changing the definition of marriage to expand the parameters on consent as well?

What about being born with an attraction towards animals, or physical objects? The porn industry is evidence that people have these desires. Should they be allowed to marry what they love as well? In short, the professor argued that the court of law does not ask, "where does it end" if precedent has been set and no new laws are written.

User avatar
OnceConvinced
Savant
Posts: 8960
Joined: Tue Aug 07, 2007 10:22 pm
Location: New Zealand
Has thanked: 32 times
Been thanked: 55 times
Contact:

Re: Is "being born this way" an acceptable justifi

Post #2

Post by OnceConvinced »

You can't possibly compare something like paedophilia to homosexuality. One is specifically preying on the innocence of children. It's abuse of children. Likewisee bestiality is abuse of animals. The children and the animals are victims. Consensual homosexuals are not raping anyone. There is no victim.

Yes, it is true that just because we are born with certain urges does not make it ok to act on them. Of course the problem is trying to define what are harmful urges and what are not. Paedophilia is a harmful urge. Is homosexuality? I doubt it.

But if you want to bring the bible into this, then one has to realise that if we are born a certain way then it is because God designed us to be born that way.

Take a look at these two scriptures:

Psa 139:13
For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother's womb.

This scripture tells us that any leanings we have were specifically designed to be there by god. So if we have paedophilic tendencies, then it is God who created us with those. Likewise with homosexual tendencies.

God also takes responsibility for any deformities we might have:

Exodus 4:11
And the LORD said unto him, Who hath made man's mouth? or who maketh the dumb, or deaf, or the seeing, or the blind? have not I the LORD?

John 9: 1-3
And as Jesus passed by, he saw a man which was blind from his birth. And his disciples asked him, saying, Master, who did sin, this man, or his parents, that he was born blind? Jesus answered, Neither hath this man sinned, nor his parents: but that the works of God should be made manifest in him.

So as soon as you try to say that there is a god who made us a certain way but then expects us not to act on the urges he endows you with, you open up a can of worms. You complicate everything. If however you understand that all these things are there as a result of evolution, then it becomes far less complicated. All we have to worry about then is determining what are harmful urges and what are not and then finding ways to prevent humans from acting on the harmful ones.

Society and its morals evolve and will continue to evolve. The bible however remains the same and just requires more and more apologetics and claims of "metaphors" and "symbolism" to justify it.

Prayer is like rubbing an old bottle and hoping that a genie will pop out and grant you three wishes.

There is much about this world that is mind boggling and impressive, but I see no need whatsoever to put it down to magical super powered beings.


Check out my website: Recker's World of Fantasy

User avatar
KingandPriest
Sage
Posts: 790
Joined: Sat Aug 13, 2016 1:15 pm
Location: South Florida

Re: Is "being born this way" an acceptable justifi

Post #3

Post by KingandPriest »

[Replying to post 2 by OnceConvinced]

(Note: when I speak of pedophiles I am not including rape or non-consensual sexual relationship. If you wish to discuss this, then we should also look at all of the instances of homosexual rape.)

I am aware of all of the "problems" that come from asserting that people are born with certain tendencies towards certain actions. To me it is as simple as we were born into sin, which explains why people have desires for certain activities. There are some who have an desire that most would consider psychopathic, while others are pathological liers. It is through Christ one can become free and break the yoke of these desires if one wishes to.

Now you say it is incompatible to compare homosexuality to pedophiles because the children are the victims. Is that true of all pedophiles. As I pointed out in the OP, some places agree that a child can give consent to be married as young as 13. If a child can give consent to get married which is supposed to be a life long decision, surely they can give consent for sex. A pedophile is not limited to those who prey on young children or toddlers, but also those adults who engage in any sexual conduct with a minor. This can be an 18 year old who has sex with a 17 or 16 year old.

Some people remain attracted to the same age group as they grow up. Just like homosexuality, most feel it is taboo to express their feelings as they age, so they hide. Is it possible that an adult and a consenting minor can be deemed just as legitimate as homosexuality? If not, on whose morality is your thoughts based on? Is it fair to impose your morality on another couple's consensual relationship? If so, why?

Is consent determinable by age?

Why is a child who is 17 years old and 364 days not able to consent, but one who is 18 years old able to consent?

Once again, the topic here is about the precedent set by the courts decision to allow for the broadening of the definition of marriage to include same sex relationships. If you remember, 50+ years ago it was unthinkable to presume individuals in same sex relationships would be able to get legally married. Based on the precedent of expanding the law to allow those who are in consensual relationships to wed, is it possible that 50 years from now the argument will be made for consensual sexual relationships and marriage between an adult and a child or very young and immature teen?

DanieltheDragon
Savant
Posts: 6224
Joined: Mon Jun 17, 2013 1:37 pm
Location: Charlotte
Been thanked: 1 time

Re: Is "being born this way" an acceptable justifi

Post #4

Post by DanieltheDragon »

[Replying to post 3 by KingandPriest]

There are no instances of non coerced sexual interaction with pedophiles and their victims. Homosexual rape is still rape. We don't need to define it as homosexual or heterosexual. Those who rape like pedophiles are engaging in predatory harmful non consensual behavior, whether hetero or not.

You bring up age of consent and pedophila now while there is a grey area related to maturity this is typically not related to pedophilia. There are different legal grades of sexual behavior. Pedophilia is typically relegated to sexual abuse of minors below the age of 13. Those above age 13 but below the legal age of consent are still labeled as sex offenders but it does have a different legal grading.


Now to an adult and consenting minor it will not be legal because the minor cannot give consentttttttt, it is coerscion . There is a power imbalance between the predator and the victim. In terms of mental capacity, financial capacity, and physical capacity. Sex offenders abuse this discrepancy in power to manipulate the victim into a sexual encounter.

Two consenting adults engaging in homosexual behavior is not equal or comparable to a sex offender. Removing stigmatization of LGBT individuals is not a slippery slope to legal sexual abuse of minors. It's a slippery slope argument that has been played out before.

Gay marriage has been around for more than a decade and pedophila is still illegal...
Post 1: Wed Apr 01, 2015 10:48 am Otseng has been banned
Otseng has been banned for having multiple accounts and impersonating a moderator.

User avatar
KingandPriest
Sage
Posts: 790
Joined: Sat Aug 13, 2016 1:15 pm
Location: South Florida

Re: Is "being born this way" an acceptable justifi

Post #5

Post by KingandPriest »

[Replying to post 4 by DanieltheDragon]

It took more than 3 decades before individuals were able to make successful arguments comparing the civil rights act with the civil liberties sought by the LGBT community. Are you arguing that it is impossible for others to make similar arguments in the future for adult and adolescent love?

You are correct in your clarification about the age range to which pedophilia applies in that
Pedophilia or paedophilia is a psychiatric disorder in which an adult or older adolescent experiences a primary or exclusive sexual attraction to prepubescent children. Although girls typically begin the process of puberty at age 10 or 11, and boys at age 11 or 12, criteria for pedophilia extend the cut-off point for prepubescence to age 13. A person who is diagnosed with pedophilia must be at least 16 years old, but adolescents must be at least five years older than the prepubescent child for the attraction to be diagnosed as pedophilia.

Pedophilia is termed pedophilic disorder in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5), and the manual defines it as a paraphilia involving intense and recurrent sexual urges towards and fantasies about prepubescent children that have either been acted upon or which cause the person with the attraction distress or interpersonal difficulty.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedophilia


How just as recent as 1973, homosexuality was considered a mental disorder.
In 1973, the weight of empirical data, coupled with changing social norms and the development of a politically active gay community in the United States, led the Board of Directors of the American Psychiatric Association to remove homosexuality from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM). Some psychiatrists who fiercely opposed their action subsequently circulated a petition calling for a vote on the issue by the Association's membership. That vote was held in 1974, and the Board's decision was ratified.
Subsequently, a new diagnosis, ego-dystonic homosexuality, was created for the DSM's third edition in 1980. Ego dystonic homosexuality was indicated by: (1) a persistent lack of heterosexual arousal, which the patient experienced as interfering with initiation or maintenance of wanted heterosexual relationships, and (2) persistent distress from a sustained pattern of unwanted homosexual arousal.

This new diagnostic category, however, was criticized by mental health professionals on numerous grounds. It was viewed by many as a political compromise to appease those psychiatrists – mainly psychoanalysts – who still considered homosexuality a pathology. Others questioned the appropriateness of having a separate diagnosis that described the content of an individual's dysphoria. They argued that the psychological problems related to ego-dystonic homosexuality could be treated as well by other general diagnostic categories, and that the existence of the diagnosis perpetuated antigay stigma.
http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/h ... ealth.html

Should a similar change in social norms shift again to view pedophilia as no longer a mental illness, but an expression of natural sexuality, the same case could be made to expand marriage and what is considered acceptable.

Further more, as demonstrated above, an individual who is 16 years old and engages in a relationship with an 11 year old can be labeled a pedophile. If the indivdual maintains the relationship in a non-sexual manner for 2 years, the now 13 year could legally consent to marriage in some states, but that same 13 year old is too young to give consent for sex outside of marriage. The twisted morality continues the more you expand upon this idea.

Though it may not seem like it, I am in favor of the laws protecting the welfare of children. There are cases where these laws apply equaly regardless of the adults sexual preference. What I am speaking to here is the possibility of a precedent being set to no longer equat pedophilia as "wrong" and it become an acceptable and normal process. After all, they were "born that way" just like a homosexual can argue that they were "born that way".

On what basis is it acceptable to applaud one form of consensual natural attraction, and abhor another? Is morality at play here?

If so, where did this morality come from?

DanieltheDragon
Savant
Posts: 6224
Joined: Mon Jun 17, 2013 1:37 pm
Location: Charlotte
Been thanked: 1 time

Re: Is "being born this way" an acceptable justifi

Post #6

Post by DanieltheDragon »

[Replying to post 5 by KingandPriest]

You can't make the same arguments because of consent. Homosexual marriage is between two consenting adults. An adult preying upon a minor does not involve consent. There is an element of coerscion involved with adults and minors.

You keep talking about consent between minors and adults when this is simply not the case.

You are also wrong about the 13 year old being able to consent to marriage. The Parents can consent the child cannot and I am pretty sure 16 is the minimum not 13

Edit New Hampshire is the only state where parents can consent their child to marriage at 13
Post 1: Wed Apr 01, 2015 10:48 am Otseng has been banned
Otseng has been banned for having multiple accounts and impersonating a moderator.

User avatar
KingandPriest
Sage
Posts: 790
Joined: Sat Aug 13, 2016 1:15 pm
Location: South Florida

Re: Is "being born this way" an acceptable justifi

Post #7

Post by KingandPriest »

DanieltheDragon wrote: [Replying to post 5 by KingandPriest]

You can't make the same arguments because of consent. Homosexual marriage is between two consenting adults. An adult preying upon a minor does not involve consent. There is an element of coerscion involved with adults and minors.

You keep talking about consent between minors and adults when this is simply not the case.

You are also wrong about the 13 year old being able to consent to marriage. The Parents can consent the child cannot and I am pretty sure 16 is the minimum not 13.
Do you hold what we consider coercion today, to be the same as what it will be 50 or 100 years from now?

The law is malleable, and precedent is one of the main elements a judge must consider when weighing complex things such as consent.

In the past, the age of consent was far younger than we see today. Is it possible that one case in the future will shift the age of consent, thus allowing those with an predisposition for relationships with adolescents to thrive?

If you deem it not possible or likely, just look at the change in the laws and types of cases brought before courts in 1916, in comparison to today.

DanieltheDragon
Savant
Posts: 6224
Joined: Mon Jun 17, 2013 1:37 pm
Location: Charlotte
Been thanked: 1 time

Re: Is "being born this way" an acceptable justifi

Post #8

Post by DanieltheDragon »

[Replying to post 7 by KingandPriest]

I am aware of the abuses of minors by men with power. It still continues today in parts of the world. This is simply not the same or equivalent to being gay or transgendered. The comparison is also disparaging to LGBT individuals.
Post 1: Wed Apr 01, 2015 10:48 am Otseng has been banned
Otseng has been banned for having multiple accounts and impersonating a moderator.

User avatar
KingandPriest
Sage
Posts: 790
Joined: Sat Aug 13, 2016 1:15 pm
Location: South Florida

Re: Is "being born this way" an acceptable justifi

Post #9

Post by KingandPriest »

DanieltheDragon wrote: [Replying to post 7 by KingandPriest]

I am aware of the abuses of minors by men with power. It still continues today in parts of the world. This is simply not the same or equivalent to being gay or transgendered. The comparison is also disparaging to LGBT individuals.
For a person to receive equal treatment under the law does not mean they are on the same status. All I bring up is the possible arguments which can be presented in a court of law, not public opinion.

If you recall, it was once illegal to have homosexual intercourse years ago. When mankind chooses for themselves, what was illegal in the past has a habit of becoming legal in the present and vice versa. So, based on history alone one can argue that it is likely that what is deemed "not equivalent" today, may be considered hate speech many years from now.

Just think of this concept: A person can and should be able to choose which gender they identify with, but this same individual cannot choose which race they identify with. A persons gender has far more biological evidence to substantiate gender identity than the concept of race, but if a fair skinned individual wanted to identify themselves as white, there is a big problem.

There is already a big movement to remove government involvement in matters of "sex". If these movements pick up steam in the future, and gain legal traction, this would include getting government out of the bedrooms of some sex crimes as well. These crimes would be decriminalized just like sodomy has been decriminalized.

DanieltheDragon
Savant
Posts: 6224
Joined: Mon Jun 17, 2013 1:37 pm
Location: Charlotte
Been thanked: 1 time

Re: Is "being born this way" an acceptable justifi

Post #10

Post by DanieltheDragon »

[Replying to post 9 by KingandPriest]
a person to receive equal treatment under the law does not mean they are on the same status. All I bring up is the possible arguments which can be presented in a court of law, not public opinion.
Just because it's possible doesn't mean it is smart or valid.
you recall, it was once illegal to have homosexual intercourse years ago. When mankind chooses for themselves, what was illegal in the past has a habit of becoming legal in the present and vice versa. So, based on history alone one can argue that it is likely that what is deemed "not equivalent" today, may be consid
If you recall it was once legal to own people. What was legal and illegal has no bearing on your comparison between LGBT individuals and pedophiles. That is me essentially saying Christianity should be outlawed because some religions believe in cannabalism and human sacrifice. It is a nonsense argument. The courts have clearly struck down this argument as nonsense as well. Seeing as a Supreme Court with 5 conservative judges and 4 liberal judges struck down bans on same sex marriage. The bias could not be in anymore favor of the theistic position. It is simply not a valid legal argument.
Post 1: Wed Apr 01, 2015 10:48 am Otseng has been banned
Otseng has been banned for having multiple accounts and impersonating a moderator.

Post Reply