* Pedophilia and Incest: justified by the homosexuality mindset?
Katherine
2012/08/10 01:53:50
Wed Aug 08, 2012 18:56 EST
by Peter Baklinski
Same-sex styled romance and relationships are portrayed in the same manner virtually every time by media powers. The man or woman meets a member of the same sex and gushes out that he or she “just knew” that this was “the one”. “It was love at first sight”, they are sure to say, followed by lines about wanting to “get married” and “live happily ever after”. The camera usually zooms in on the enamored couple holding hands, looking at one another tenderly, or maybe even kissing one another.
I have no problem with people of the same sex deeply loving one another and being inclined to do so. How could I have a problem with that? Am I not a man who deeply loves his father, his brothers, and his dear male friends? I would like to think that I would lay down my life for them if needed. -- I do have a problem, however, when people say that inclinations and feelings of love ought to translate to sexual expression.
The homosexual argument that one encounters again and again is that two people who love one another ought to be able to express their love and have society happily recognize their loving relationship. I call this the ‘homosexual mindset’. It has become a predominant mindset that has shown itself to tolerate no dissent. The problem with this mindset is that one can go onto justify practically anything in the name of ‘loving feelings’.
A grown man who loves children, according to the homosexual mindset, ought to be able to have sexual relations with those children, simply because he is inclined to them and has loving feelings towards them. According to this mindset, anyone who says otherwise is a pedophiliaphobe and a bigot. You think I go too far with my reasoning?
So-called psychology experts have claimed that pedophilia is a “sexual orientation” comparable to homosexuality or heterosexuality. Homosexual-themed academic conferences have taken place that are aimed at reordering society so that the “stigma” associated with older men acting sexually toward younger children will be erased. People at these venues imbued with the homosexual mindset suggest that persons who are “emotionally and sexually attracted to children” ought to be called “minor-attracted persons” and have society bless their inclinations and the sexual acts that result from them.
If people can justify having sexual relations with minors because of their loving feelings toward children, then why not justify parents having sexual relations with their own children? With the homosexual mindset, a father should be able to have sexual relationships with his daughter because, after all, he loves her and even has intense feelings toward her. According to such a mindset, anyone who criticizes such people is an incestaphobe and a bigot. You see, the lie that the promoters of the homosexual mindset perpetrate is that people are defined by their inclinations and that they must act on them in order to find fulfillment.
But the startling fact is that no one, absolutely no one, is defined by their inclinations. Is someone who is experiencing an inclination to kill others automatically a murderer? Is a man struggling with an inclination to rape automatically a rapist? Is someone who is inclined to overeat automatically a fattened glutton? Of course not. People become who they are by the acts they commit. If this is true, then persons who experience inclinations to the same-sex are not automatically homosexual, but they are simply experiencing an inclination that they can choose to act or not to act upon.
Another fact is that every person alive today struggles daily with disordered tendencies, whether it be a struggle against greed, lust, selfishness, anger, or overeating. The fact is that everybody is looking to love somebody and to be loved by somebody. But it is not true, as the Beatles sing, that “all you need is love”. You also need love to be led by truth. For instance, such as the biological and moral truth that sexual relations are ordered towards the creation of a new life that is best nurtured and reared within a stable marital relationship.
The truth is that some relationships are moral and responsible, such as marriage, just as others are immoral and irresponsible, such as adultery. Society thus far has unanimously condemned relationships that involve grown men having sex with children, calling them disgusting and morally repugnant. Society, once upon a time not very long ago, also condemned homosexual relationships with the same kind of abhorrence. But society has been forced in the name of love and tolerance to accept the homosexual mindset. Shall the homosexual mindset also move us to accept pedophilia and incest?
Top Opinion
-
Tennyson James 2012/08/10 03:11:07+4Two words: Consenting adults. That is the difference between same sex relationships and everything else that was mentioned.





















You and the other homosexuals/homosexualists can continue to inundate these posts until they drown beneath your violent dismissal, create brand new accounts to insult the people who provide alternate viewpoints to your own and proceed to rave yourself (luv2skate89?), but people such as myself will continue to post and get the word out.
Now I'm going to block you since you've decided to create a brand new account in order to respond to this post.
another great post Katherine!!
In the practice of safe sex the following is true.
No homosexuals are harmed, provided they are above the age of consent. It is a practice in a bedroom, out of view between two consenting and responsible adults. (Er...scratch the responsible).
Paedophilia harms children both physically and mentally. I personally define Paedophilia as those involving real minors under the age of 14. Due to a) biological reasons b) legal reasons in my country (although technically it's under 16, again there are some exceptions) and c) freedom of expression/speech laws. It could be said that the same effects of sexual relationships between the ages of 14 - 18, are the same as the effects from 14-24. 24 is roughly when the male (always the last to mature -.-) stops developing. (usually). Up until that point they are still developing and still vulnerable and to be honest (I'm not 24 yet) not really a responsible adult. Anything under that mentally harms the parties involved. Younger than 14 and the mental harm a) increases and b) is accompanied by physical harm to some degree.
In my country thanks to R v Brown, it is not legal to cause GBH (breaking of Several layers of skin/bone breaking and the court tends to have other definitions too, including...
In the practice of safe sex the following is true.
No homosexuals are harmed, provided they are above the age of consent. It is a practice in a bedroom, out of view between two consenting and responsible adults. (Er...scratch the responsible).
Paedophilia harms children both physically and mentally. I personally define Paedophilia as those involving real minors under the age of 14. Due to a) biological reasons b) legal reasons in my country (although technically it's under 16, again there are some exceptions) and c) freedom of expression/speech laws. It could be said that the same effects of sexual relationships between the ages of 14 - 18, are the same as the effects from 14-24. 24 is roughly when the male (always the last to mature -.-) stops developing. (usually). Up until that point they are still developing and still vulnerable and to be honest (I'm not 24 yet) not really a responsible adult. Anything under that mentally harms the parties involved. Younger than 14 and the mental harm a) increases and b) is accompanied by physical harm to some degree.
In my country thanks to R v Brown, it is not legal to cause GBH (breaking of Several layers of skin/bone breaking and the court tends to have other definitions too, including inflicting any wounds on those more susceptible to harm, such as children or oap's) to another person, regardless of whether they have consented to it or not. (Brown was a Masochist and was having large meat hooks shoved through him). Therefore, even if the age of consent were removed completely, Paedophilia would STILL be breaking the law...in fact for a much worse punishment than it is currently being done for. That said, we believe that these offenders can be rehabilitated, treated and educated I haven't actually seen a worthwhile psychological study conclude otherwise.
Now. Incest again, a very different kettle of fish. Incest is defined in a number of countries as not only engaging in sexual relations but also producing offspring. There's absolutely no harm caused by two adults over the age of 18 having sex (just for a moment setting aside my earlier statement, there's no reason, it's just 18 is the defined turning point of being an adult). The harmful act in Incest, comes with procreation, while harm isn't always the case, the laws were instated to prevent the birth of mentally or physically incapacitated children an otherwise drain on society. This isn't always the case, it's just there's an ever increasing likelihood of it due to the way genetics work. The idea is to keep the gene pool as open as possible. Technically the best defence against this problem is to go produce children with someone who might not even be your culture, let alone your race or even born in your country.
Now I understand the advantages and disadvantages of both paedophilia and incest. Paedophilia is in no way similar to Homosexuality due to the cause of harm and the fact we can actually treat it (with a reasonable degree of success) and we can generally regard it as a mental illness rather than a sexuality (I've seen the studies by the APA and the BPA and the statement that it 'is a sexual orientation' is taken way out of context. It fits the definition of a sexual orientation in as much the same way as we fit the definition of a mammal, yet we don't call each other dolphins now do we?). Incest is actually surprisingly legal across many countries provided that children aren't produced which is the only harm that could come from it.
Homosexuality is similar to Incest (although Incest is NOT a sexual orientation) in the fact that it involves consenting adults, done behind closed doors and harms no one. (Again provided that no children are born and everyone is practising safe sex).
Finally your final question and my conclusion.
"Shall the homosexual mindset also move us to accept pedophilia and incest?"
Nothing to do with the homosexual mindset, we should not accept Paedophilia but we should accept Incest, provided that no children are born. (I can't imagine Incest being popular, there are too many inbuilt systems preventing it).
Consuming Urine will not harm you...that's a common biology question actually. Comes up every damn time -.- and it's not as if the teachers (at least the new ones) expect to ever have to answer until they're asked XD
Sexual acts other than missionary position are not taught in the UK at all... maybe in Catholic schools but I doubt it.
Would you like to produce a source for your claim? Preferably something other then Fox or Wnd please.
Link to that article please.
My evidence is: There is no evidence, because they do not teach what you suggest they teach.
I find this statement to be very revealing. Heres why.
1. As a so called "director" you would have easy access to the curriculum and mandates for the schools you oversee.
2. As a so called "director" you would realize that
NO EVIDENCE CAN'T = EVIDENCE
3. As a so called "director" you would realize that the above mentioned documents or excerpts from, would not only serve as evidence but also proof.
You have offered only a personal statement in your defense, "...because they do not teach what you suggest they teach."
So, now I ask you, CAN YOU BACK UP YOUR CLAIM?
" As the owner of the topic blocked me. I do have evidence to back up my own claims. This is the National Curriculum which my school follows to the letter. All videos and literature can be digested by the parents before viewing as and when necessary.
When I said, "they do not teach what you think they teach" I did not say this without basis. Kathleen on the other hand had other ideas and did not have any evidence whatsoever apart from Daily Mail articles. (Oh...they've already been sued...successfully for Libel).
Keystage 1
https://www.education.gov.uk/...
Keystage 2
https://www.education.gov.uk/...
Keystage 3
https://www.education.gov.uk/...
http://www.guardian.co.uk/edu...
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/ne...
http://www.foxnews.com/us/201...
http://www.ktla.com/news/land...
http://www.foxnews.com/us/201...
http://blogs.laweekly.com/inf...
http://www.wnd.com/2008/01/45...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com...
http://www.lifesitenews.com/n...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/ne...
http://www.guardian.co.uk/edu...
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/ne...
http://www.foxnews.com/us/201...
http://www.ktla.com/news/land...
http://www.foxnews.com/us/201...
http://blogs.laweekly.com/inf...
http://www.wnd.com/2008/01/45...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com...
http://www.lifesitenews.com/n...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/ne...
Not to mention, disease, depression and a life expectancy 20 yrs less than those not in that lifestyle.
SEEMS PRETTY HARMFUL TO ME!