Homosexuality: Chosen or Genetic?

Well.... that's a little too simple. We have cases in my country where pedophiles actually wanted to start a political party to support their identity. They feel children of say 12 years old can very well decide form themselves if they want sex or not. They feel they should be allowed to follow their urge if the child consents.

Plus there's another thing. A pedophile who forces a child to have sex, is only a molester from the POV of the child and its parents. From the pedophile's POV he's just ACTING on his feelings.

A step further... child pornography is also illegal. In my country possession of child porno is already illegal. So a guy who ACTS on his urge of pedophaelia to watch these films is already transgressing the law.

If attraction defines a sexual identity, someone with unacceptable sexual attraction could therefore be condemned for his feelings, if not by law, then by people in his neighbourhood. I mean, if you had children, I'm sure you'd like to know if someone in your neighborhoud has a sexual attraction to children, even if he didn't act on it, has never acted on it and doesn't intend to act on it. But still, by definition there's a pedophile living in your neighborhood.

See, it does get rather complicated. In these cases, the ACT defines someone IMHO, because it reveals a feeling. And that revelation has consequences for the surroundings... not the feelings themselves.

Originally posted by queeq
Well.... that's a little too simple. We have cases in my country where pedophiles actually wanted to start a political party to support their identity. They feel children of say 12 years old can very well decide form themselves if they want sex or not. They feel they should be allowed to follow their urge if the child consents.

And? They want to change current legislation. Good for them.

Originally posted by queeq
Plus there's another thing. A pedophile who forces a child to have sex, is only a molester from the POV of the child and its parents. From the pedophile's POV he's just ACTING on his feelings.

No, he is a molester from the POV of the law, which is the defining authority on crimes. Which is what I am saying.

Originally posted by queeq
A step further... child poronography is also illegal. In my country possession of child prono is illegal. So a guy who ACTS on his urge of pedophaelia to watch these films is already transgressiong the law.

I don't see how that is complicated though. That's again acting on their urges and that happens to be illegal in your country. What is complex about that?

Originally posted by queeq
If attraction defines a sexual identity, someone with sexual attraction could therefore be condemned for his feelings, if not by law, then by people in his neighbourhood. I mena, if you had children, I'm sure you'd like to know if someone in yur neighborhoud has a sexual attraction to children, even if he didn't act on it. has never acted on it and doesn't intend to act on it. But still, by definition there's a pedophile living in your neighborhood.

They could be. It wouldn't be very logical though. Someome that is only attracted to someone does not do any harm, so sure, they can be condemned (as we see with Christians and homosexuals nowadays), it's just close minded and stupid.

I don't understand your problem with the situations you bring. They are all very easy and straightforward and in accordance with definitions.

Originally posted by queeq
Se, it does get rather complicated. In these cases, the ACT defines someone IMHO, because it reveals a feeling. And that revelation has consequences for the surroundings... not the feelinsg themselves.

It doesn't get complicated. And the act might define someone better, but the word still relates to the attraction not the act.

Originally posted by Bardock42
No, he is a molester from the POV of the law, which is the defining authority on crimes. Which is what I am saying.

Well, yeah, but not so long ago homosexuality was illegal too. Definitions change. So how can we rely on official definitions to define identity. The same gay person was a criminal x years ago and now he;s not.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Someome that is only attracted to someone does not do any harm, so sure, they can be condemned (as we see with Christians and homosexuals nowadays), it's just close minded and stupid.

Well, we have examples of condemned pedophiles declared 'cured' after sentence and treatment. In general people are not very happy if they come to live in their neighborhood. There's people here that want the names of condemnded and released pedophiles to be made public. And I really don't know what to think of that....

Originally posted by Bardock42
It doesn't get complicated. And the act might define someone better, but the word still relates to the attraction not the act.

Yes the word... the definition... the dictionary... I was more talking philosophically, remember.. 😉
I didn't mean to discuss semantics, but what defines a person.

Originally posted by queeq
Well, yeah, but not so long ago homosexuality was illegal too. Definitions change. So how can we rely on official definitions to define identity. The same gay person was a criminal x years ago and now he;s not.

But words don't define you. They just describe you more or less acurately. It's part of your personality to be attracted to people of the same or different sex. The word to describe such an attraction is hetero or homosexual. You are not a different person for being hetero or homosexual, it is just words.

Originally posted by queeq
Well, we have examples of condemned pedophiles declared 'cured' after sentence and treatment. In general people are not very happy if they come to live in their neighborhood. There's people here that want the names of condemnded and released pedophiles to be made public. And I really don't know what to think of that....

I do. But that's a totally different issue, don't you think?

Originally posted by queeq
Yes the word... the definition... the dictionary... I was more talking philosophically, remember.. 😉 OTE=10240612]Originally posted by queeq
[B]
I didn't mean to discuss semantics, but what defines a person.

That's a philosophical question now. I would say the sum of their actions, traits, feelings and thoughts. One of which might very well be to be homosexual.

Originally posted by Bardock42
But words don't define you.

Originally posted by Bardock42
The word to describe such an attraction is hetero or homosexual.

So how gay is someone how has the atraction but who doesn't want to give into those feelings?

Originally posted by Bardock42
I do. But that's a totally different issue, don't you think?

Not really. His acts had him condemned. Her served his sentence. Now he's cured.... actless... But is he still a pedophile? If so, why would one allow him to live in a kid-rich neighborhood? If not... well... I dunno.

I have more questions than answers.

Originally posted by queeq
So how gay is someone how has the atraction but who doesn't want to give into those feelings?

There is just on and off. Homosexual or not.

Originally posted by queeq
Not really. His acts had him condemned. Her served his sentence. Now he's cured.... actless... But is he still a pedophile?

If he is still attracted to children. Yes.

So who wants a pedophile as a neighbor? And are you entitled to know? Because all that defines this guy and how he is treated.

Originally posted by queeq
So who wants a pedophile as a neighbor?

Some people maybe? Childless people? What does it matter?

Would you like a condemned criminal as a neighbor? And are you entitled to NOT to live next door to a condemned criminal? We are social beings, identity defines who you're interacting with.

Originally posted by queeq
Would you like a condemned criminal as a neighbor? And are you entitled to NOT to live next door to a condemned criminal? We are social beings, identity defines who you're interacting with.

Depends on the criminal, personally I consider myself relatively open minded. Obviously I am entitled not to love next door to anyone...I can just move.

Yes. Identity is not solely defined by being a convicted criminal or wanting to have sex with members of the same sex though.

Well, guess that wraps it up then.

Odd

Why?

Originally posted by Kram3r
I know! One page on and he still hasn't responded to my comments! msn-oh

Or mine.

Oh, you came up with an intelligent question this time?

Originally posted by queeq
Oh, you came up with an intelligent question this time?

Intelligent enough that you continue to not address it.

After all, if the comment in question was not intelligent, then you would have little difficulty refuting it, and would have done so by now.

Well, I refuted your ridiculous list of your so-called 'mainstream' biblical scholars. I'm sure I could refute anything you say that doesn't make sense here.

Sorry to say it, but it's been scientifically proven that homosexuality is written into the DNA of a homosexual. It's genetic that they want to be homosexual, and it is NOT chosen. Sorry for everyone that wants to delude themselves in thinking that homosexuality is chosen, but it's not. I myself am not gay, but I know that it is genetic. It is not chosen.

Also, I'm too lazy to look at what this big debate is about, so I'm assuming from what I've seen that it is over whether or not people should get to know that their neighbor is a pedophile. I would not want a pedophile as a neighbor, but I believe that you SHOULD be able to know that your neighbor is a pedophile, because if you're a convicted pedophile I don't care about your rights anymore.

Right... back to the beginning of the thread. Loop-de-loop.

Well done, Caedus.

Thanks Queeq. I seem to have a knack for being lazy and not looking at what the thread's debate has turned into.

Edit: Oh, crap. You weren't being sarcastic, were you? If so, I apologize. If not, then I retain my earlier position. I call this tactic "Covering all the Bases"