Thread: Doctors group says heterosexual marriage better for kids

Originally Posted by truthvigilante

I must be slow on the uptake here. Urges have to be a precursor to an action??? Perpetrators of child sex crimes have acted on their urges, which seems obvious to me. Because we don't know who is a pedophile unless it manifests, seems too much of a gamble for me to simply suggest they are "not wrong" to have these urges, as long as they don't rape a child. Shouldnt we be discouraging them from having these urges, that have the potential of a physical act. What are your thoughts on pedophiles who use child porn for self gratification?

Or, are you saying that there are many pedophiles that are in control of their urges to the point that they will not physically harm a child for self gratification?

You don't have to have an "urge" in order to perpetrate an action. For instance, heterosexual men can rape homosexual men as an act of dominance, or of some learned hatred, and not through fulfilling an urge of sexual attraction.

A Paedophile can be diagnosed as such without having sexually assaulted a child. In the same way you can be heterosexual even if you are a virgin.

You can't "discourage" someone from having urges. All you can do is to help them deal with these urges in a non-destructive way. In the same way that an alcoholic might have an urge to drink, and you provide a support mechanism to help them refrain from pursuing a destructive action.

You can't just say, for instance to a heterosexual, "stop being attracted to women". Or say to an insane person, "stop being insane". It's not realistically going to be effective is it? All you can do is to help them manage their situation in a way that is not destructive, either to other people or themselves. It's possible for people to live without having sexual intercourse with another person, and it's also possible for people to have sex with people that they are not sexually attracted to.

Originally Posted by Ziggy Stardust

You don't have to have an "urge" in order to perpetrate an action. For instance, heterosexual men can rape homosexual men as an act of dominance, or of some learned hatred, and not through fulfilling an urge of sexual attraction.

A Paedophile can be diagnosed as such without having sexually assaulted a child. In the same way you can be heterosexual even if you are a virgin.

You can't "discourage" someone from having urges. All you can do is to help them deal with these urges in a non-destructive way. In the same way that an alcoholic might have an urge to drink, and you provide a support mechanism to help them refrain from pursuing a destructive action.

You can't just say, for instance to a heterosexual, "stop being attracted to women". Or say to an insane person, "stop being insane". It's not realistically going to be effective is it? All you can do is to help them manage their situation in a way that is not destructive, either to other people or themselves. It's possible for people to live without having sexual intercourse with another person, and it's also possible for people to have sex with people that they are not sexually attracted to.

Thanks Ziggy, one day it will probably hit me, where everything you've stated makes complete sense. You've actually helped my understanding on a number of points regarding it. At the moment my mind is in protective mode, especially as a father and have always considered child sex crimes the most hideous and evil of them all and will never change my position on this one!

Our society can do without the perverted individuals that call themselves homosexuals and pedophiles.

What a better place it would be without this lot.

And no one would miss anything they have to offer.

Thats my final thoughts on this subject.

Originally Posted by dumbanddumber

Our society can do without the perverted individuals that call themselves homosexuals and pedophiles.

What a better place it would be without this lot.

And no one would miss anything they have to offer.

Thats my final thoughts on this subject.

Without personally taking sides, but in the light of the 312 posts above, this assumption appears as a correct one.

No, it's not a "correct assumption", it's just a bigoted opinion held by a tiny minority of Australians. Apparently you want to exterminate Homosexuals and Paedophiles, I'm not even going to bother addressing that belief, other than to say it is completely insane.

Originally Posted by dumbanddumber

Our society can do without the perverted individuals that call themselves homosexuals and pedophiles.

What a better place it would be without this lot.

And no one would miss anything they have to offer.

Thats my final thoughts on this subject.

Dumb, you are a bigot and belong with the conservatives. Stay there!

Originally Posted by Ziggy Stardust

No, it's not a "correct assumption", it's just a bigoted opinion held by a tiny minority of Australians. Apparently you want to exterminate Homosexuals and Paedophiles, I'm not even going to bother addressing that belief, other than to say it is completely insane.

Why would you say that? Based on what people are saying including your own posts and no matter if called an "illness" or "orientation", all agreed it is something that differs from the hererosexual way, which is defined as "normal" or maybe better say "typical", by nature, not people. Since this is untypical, its value can only be deemed based on what benefit it brings to society. I read all the posts so far, but never saw any word what is the benefit to the society that those people can bring, while the negative parts of it were clearly described. No benefit means no reason. Hence, excluding the personal biasing of its author, the assumption made by dumbanddumber, appears to be a correct one.

Originally Posted by Ghaaargh-kla-iopp

Why would you say that? Based on what people are saying including your own posts and no matter if called an "illness" or "orientation", all agreed it is something that differs from the hererosexual way, which is defined as "normal" or maybe better say "typical", by nature, not people. Since this is untypical, its value can only be deemed based on what benefit it brings to society. I read all the posts so far, but never saw any word what is the benefit to the society that those people can bring. No benefit means no reason. Hence, excluding the personal biasing of its author, the assumption made by dumbanddumber, appears to be a correct one.

So you think the world would be better off, if for instance, we could have read Elton John's mind when he younger, and killed him off before he'd written any music?

Anyway, your arguing with the naturalistic fallacy so this is a bit redundant.

Originally Posted by Ziggy Stardust

So you think the world would be better off, if for instance, we could have read Elton John's mind when he younger, and killed him off before he'd written any music?

Anyway, your arguing with the naturalistic fallacy so this is a bit redundant.

My personal opinion is without any importance, only pointing out the summary of all posts. I don't know Elton John and can't tell is it better for the world if he lived or not. Is he a homosexual parent or a pedophile? If his contirubution can outweigh his natural weaknesses, probably you would be completely right. If there are many people in his group, that somehow benefit the entire society, then the whole initial assumption would be wrong. That was not mentioned until now.

Originally Posted by Ghaaargh-kla-iopp

My personal opinion is without any importance, only pointing out the summary of all posts. I don't know Elton John and can't tell is it better for the world if he lived or not. Is he a homosexual parent or a pedophile? If his contirubution can outweigh his natural weaknesses, probably you would be completely right. If there are many people in his group, that somehow benefit the entire society, then the whole initial assumption would be wrong. That was not mentioned until now.

You can google Elton Johns music if you like, he is a homosexual.

In what way is homosexuality a "weakness"?

There is no negative effective of Homosexuality. Unless you're saying that people who don't want or intend to produce offspring should also be "exterminated", or whatever you're proposing.