Is "being born this way" an acceptable justificati

[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.

[KingandPriest]

[Replying to post 59 by DanieltheDragon]

I agree slavery is not a sexual act. Here we are talking about sexual actions.

[marco]

So as time continues to roll forward, is it possible that what we consider bad or harmful today in the form of adult and adolescent sexual activity, could be deemed acceptable in the future?

I have no doubt that as time rolls forward we shall view many activities in a different light. Smoking was once lauded on film. Slavery was acceptable. Our present view of sexuality may change completely as we move away from superstition. Attitudes change not because we are growing decadent but because we view matters in an enlightened, more informed way.

Just as you state above, homosexuality was seen just as perverse as pedophilia in the past. Is it possible, that what is considered harmful today, will change and allow for a broadening of legal morality of sexual behavior?

What would prevent this change from occurring?
It was once inconceivable to think that homosexual relationships would enjoy equality in public opinion.

And presumably it was inconceivable that a slave could aspire to an important role in society. Victorian attitudes to sex were damaging; adolescents were told nightmare tales about what was termed "self-abuse." I am happy that the human race has discarded animal and human sacrifice; that across the globe we don't enjoy eating human flesh and the absurdity of locking people up because they express consenting love for each other has gone from civilised countries.

Sadly, just this week I read that five women in Pakistan who had the temerity to dance in public have been murdered, and their families are possibly to blame. Honour killing it's called. Do you think that such attitudes, rooted in religious prudery, are any worse than condemning homosexuals to prison sentences?

It is a good thing that attitudes change. They don't change fast enough.

[amortalman]

[Replying to post 1 by KingandPriest]

I think your law professor had it right concerning setting a legal precedence and where that can lead.

I also believe that some people are born with homosexual or pedophilic tendencies in the same way others are born with heterosexual tendencies. After reading a few of the responses to your post it's apparent that there are people who don't know the difference between an offending pedophile and a non-offending pedophile.

I recently watched a documentary about convicted pedophiles that brought out the fact that not all pedophiles offend. By far most pedophiles live with their urges and never act upon them. So to label all pedophiles as child molesters and monsters is a horrendous mistake.

[shnarkle]

[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?

According to what you posted from the DSM, it would appear that anyone who is not obsessively attracted to children will be an acceptable form of relationship between adults and children. Who's word do we take here though? What obsessive pedophile would admit to this problem given the opportunity to gratify his perverted obsession to rape a child?

Here's an example that most probably haven't considered. If the pickins became mighty slim, a culture could possibly be forced to return to arranged marriages where a girl is effectively "betrothed" to her husband while she is still quite young; consummation of the marriage would take place when the culture deems it acceptable.

Different degrees of incest would come into play here as well. Our society is moving in that direction, and has been for quite some time. I've noticed this in the media, and in particular with movies. It's a theme that is being introduced with great frequency and subtlety. A prime example being a movie I saw some time ago with Kevin Costner and Jennifer Aniston where a woman believes that an man is her father. After finding out that they aren't related, there is this attraction that cannot be denied and they fall into the sack. Later it is revealed that they may actually be Father and daughter. What's the message??? Another movie points out that sibling incest isn't that big of a deal, especially when there is at least one mature enough to make sure that no offspring are produced. This is what Hollywood is pumping out now, and it is getting into people's psyche; they're buying it.

Eventually the question will be, who is to say if this child is or isn't old enough to make a mature decision? What about the mentally deficient adults? What about all the children that are dressing up like whores nowadays and having sex with each other prior to puberty? What about all the prepubescent children that are having sex with each other, but that just isn't cutting it, and they want to have sex with adults as well? We're giving children a lot of rights that used to be confined to adults. If we keep picking away at that barrier, it will be gone in no time.

[KingandPriest]

The Supreme Court in Canada recently declared that sex with animals can be deemed legal.

Sex acts with animals are legal in Canada, so long as there is no penetration involved, according to a surprise ruling issued by the Supreme Court.

The determination stemmed from a case involving a British Columbia man convicted of 13 counts sexually assaulting his stepdaughters - including one count of bestiality. But the man, identified only as "DLW", was acquitted of the bestiality count with the new ruling.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world ... 73196.html

In a quixotic ruling, the country’s high court ruled that a man who was on trial for raping and sexually exploiting his own daughters wasn’t guilty of “bestiality.� The man reportedly, “smeared peanut butter on the genitals of his victims and had the family dog lick it off while he videotaped the act.�

The convicted man took his case to the Canadian Supreme Court, demanding that the bestiality charge be nullified. In the end, the court agreed.

As a result of the rape case, the court ruled 7 to 1 that humans having sexual contact with animals is OK if there is no “penetration� involved in the act.

In its ruling, the court decided that the legislature had not clearly defined the terms in the country’s bestiality laws and the way the statute is written should be read to only outlaw animal penetration, whether that penetration is animal to human or vice versa.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government ... x-animals/

At issue was whether updates to the Criminal Code in 1955 and 1988 altered the meaning of the crime.

"The term 'bestiality' has a well-established legal meaning and refers to sexual intercourse between a human and an animal. Penetration has always been understood to be an essential element of bestiality," wrote Justice Thomas Cromwell on behalf of the court.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/bestial ... -1.3624312

----
All of these legal decisions set a precident for future rulings.

[marco]

The Supreme Court in Canada recently declared that sex with animals can be deemed legal.

It is hard to see what point you are making. Judges judge and hoi polloi often watches astonished at what their Honours come up with.

The Bible would have the man killed. The Bible would have a father take his errant daughter to be stoned. The Bible would want practising homosexuals to be sentenced to death. Thankfully, in the civilised world, we view this as atrociously barbaric. We can still disagree with the Supreme Court judgment, but that doesn't mean we want to have people murdered.

The Bible is most certainly wrong.

[KingandPriest]

[Replying to post 65 by marco]

I take your comments to mean you deem capital punishment equal to murder.

[marco]

[Replying to post 65 by marco]

I take your comments to mean you deem capital punishment equal to murder.

No, in general there is of course a difference between the two. However, when people or governments introduce the death penalty for minor religious indiscretions I would regard their actions as murder.

Hitler introduced legislation to sentence people to death. Though one might call this capital punishment it was, in reality, murder. If the Christian woman who has been sentenced to death in Pakistan for blasphemy against Muhammad is in fact executed, then in my view she's been murdered. The words "capital punishment" should offer no refuge from the charge.

Similarly, when gay men are thrown to their death from high buildings this may be described as capital punishment. It is, of course, murder.

I should have thought that there was more to comment on in my post than some semantic nuance. Am I to deduce that when I said the Bible is wrong, silence indicates acquiescence?

[Youkilledkenny]

[Replying to post 1 by KingandPriest]

Being 'born this way' isn't a justification but a point of biology. Meaning people are born with certain personality traits, biological and mental differences, social abilities, etc. In other words, no one is the same in every aspect.

Why people concern themselves with another's sexuality if it has no negative impact on their lives is disturbing to me.

[KingandPriest]

[Replying to post 65 by marco]

I take your comments to mean you deem capital punishment equal to murder.

No, in general there is of course a difference between the two. However, when people or governments introduce the death penalty for minor religious indiscretions I would regard their actions as murder.

Hitler introduced legislation to sentence people to death. Though one might call this capital punishment it was, in reality, murder. If the Christian woman who has been sentenced to death in Pakistan for blasphemy against Muhammad is in fact executed, then in my view she's been murdered. The words "capital punishment" should offer no refuge from the charge.

Similarly, when gay men are thrown to their death from high buildings this may be described as capital punishment. It is, of course, murder.

I should have thought that there was more to comment on in my post than some semantic nuance. Am I to deduce that when I said the Bible is wrong, silence indicates acquiescence?

That statement about the bible was clearly an opinion. There would be no point in me derailing the topic by focusing on your opinion about the bible. I have tried to focus on legal decisions here and their potential future impact.

I felt capital punishment fit, while your view on what is right or wrong did not. I apologize for offending you by not responding to other statements in your post.

The prior articles I referenced were to show how the decisions of supreme court justices can set a precedent. Prior to this ruling in Canada by their Supreme Court, any sexual activity with an animal was considered beastiality and punishable by law. With their decision to exclude all cases that do not have penetration, it sets a precedent for others to deem non-penetration sexual activity with an animal as ok. In the specific case where the individual basically had his pet dog performing fellatio, it was deemed legal. Who knows what impact this decision will have on future cases.

This is the point of this thread, not whether or not I or anyone else thinks the bible is right. I am just try in to perceive logical consequences and long term effects of legal decisions.