Pedophilia now considered a "sexual orientation".

a reply to: ketsuko

just like liberal arguments to change the definition of marriage have opened to the door to pretty much any pairing

Trees, pandas, and or your car, eh?

Those 'libtard' fools. They have no idea the Pandora Box they've opened...

originally posted by: nwtrucker
Of course, you don't see it. You think you view is logical. I see it as ,again, spin on your part, if not outright denial. I don't expect nor require your version of logic to agree.

You merely see a label and debate it as such. I see a trend of acts/definitions that cover a whole area of our society. The acceptance of and apparently unceasing increase of redefining our culture sexually. One that, in this case, potentially increases the threat to our children.

You ignore in your posts, these points I raise. It is you who cannot rationally debate this issue as you see no consequence, potential or otherwise.

I know my view is logical. You're the one getting all emotional about it. I'm not spinning anything either and I don't require your logic to agree either.

I'm not ignoring your posts either. I understand what you're saying I just think your over reacting. Not that it matters either way though because you have an automatic reflex to oppose anything I say anyway because we never agree.

So why ruin a good thing now. Let's just agree to disagree then. You hold on to your definitions for how things should be and never change them if you want. Personally I don't get too hung up on words, I worry more about actions.

originally posted by: nwtrucker

originally posted by: Abysha

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: dukeofjive696969

Nope, just saying that liberal arguments in favor of other orientations opened the door to this just like liberal arguments to change the definition of marriage have opened to the door to pretty much any pairing, throupling, or whatever that cares to form.

It's all about "love" where love means where I want to stick it.

Ok... let's say that all sexuality was brand new to us and we had never heard of homosexuality or heterosexuality before today. Neither of those have to do with age.

So why would homosexuality be more a step in that direction than heterosexuality? By your rationale, if homosexuality were the norm and heterosexual marriages were finally legalized, heterosexual marriage would be blamed for pedophelia.

In other words, you are somehow making the argument that there is some sort of sliding scale and at one end is pedophilia and the other heterosexuality. Everything in between is somehow a step in that direction to you? I don't get it.

How does that make sense?

Your premise doesn't make any sense. Sexuality isn't 'new to us' and therefore is spin, from what I can see. We seem to forget hetero acts continue the race.

If you don 't see the sense of it, you either have no wish to or refuse to.

You missed the point. Some of you feel keep saying that marriage equality somehow makes things a step closer to pedophilia. My reply to that is to ask if they would still feel that way if it were hetero marriages that were just legalized after a length of time where only same-sex marriage was legal before.

If so, I would then ask why. It would be like saying that a lemon is closer to a coffee table than an orange is. It is ridiculous because neither the orange nor the lemon have anything to do with coffee tables just like homosexuality and heterosexuality have nothing to do with pedophilia. There are straight and gay pedophiles.

originally posted by: Lucid Lunacy
a reply to: nwtrucker
From your source:

the American Psychological Association (APA) drew a very distinct line between pedophilia and pedophilic disorder. Pedophilia refers to a sexual orientation or profession of sexual preference devoid of consummation, whereas pedophilic disorder is defined as a compulsion and is used in reference to individuals who act on their sexuality.

If they act on it, this obviously is harming a child, and becomes pedophilic disorder. The laws are not becoming more lax on this issue, and neither is APA. They are simply making a distinction between those that never act on their attraction.

Draw your lines. Don't let them be crossed

Acknowledging pedophilia is an orientation doesn't imply someone condones pedophilic disorder.

Lines have been drawn, and this isn't cause for wanting them to be crossed. The line is drawn at consenting human adults.

In general, I have little to zero trust of our so-called 'mental experts'. Having said that, the above articulation is ok....as far as codification goes. There is no way there aren't those that will use that label to move the status and therefore consequence of those acts into a more acceptable light.

It is the same mechanism that was used on the now more acceptable 'orientations', of which I've had more than my fill...hence the rant...

originally posted by: Metallicus
Technically speaking they are both deviant sexual behaviors by definition.

Yeah well women wearing pants used to be considered deviant behavior too. Then we grew up, well some of us did and decided that we were wrong on a few things. There is nothing wrong with two consenting adults doing whatever they want together.

It only involves them so outside opinion don't matter. Just like whatever you do with your consenting partner between the two of you is your business. It's that simple.

a reply to: nwtrucker

In general, I have little to zero trust of our so-called 'mental experts'.

Psychology is a scientific field, and they goto school and train in their profession. I think that at least gives them some weight.

There is no way there aren't those that will use that label to move the status and therefore consequence of those acts into a more acceptable light.

Well the acts makes it a pediophilic disorder and APA clarified that deem it terribly immoral and they need to be prosecuted to the full extent of the law if they do act on their attraction. I have held the view pedophilia should be considered its own sexual orientation for many years, but putting child molestation in an acceptable light is absolutely in no way something I support.

It is the same mechanism that was used on the now more acceptable 'orientations'

I just don't see that.

a reply to: nwtrucker

Thats called an opinion, which like asshole we all have one, dosent make it true do.

a reply to: Lucid Lunacy

A scientific field? Really? Show me anything beyond codification that has been achieved by this 'science'. ANYTHING!

a reply to: dukeofjive696969

Yep, I have one too. Keep away from it.....

originally posted by: dukeofjive696969
a reply to: Metallicus

Cause people say homosexuality is wrong does not make it so.

I said it was a deviant behavior by definition...which it is...it deviates from the norm. I can't believe you would even argue this it is so obvious.

a reply to: Metallicus

The only obvious thing is you have a strong opinion with no facts.

Homosexuality exist in nature, so by human standard the norm as you say is again an opinion.

a reply to: nwtrucker

No worries im not going anywhere near your .... opinion lol.

originally posted by: dukeofjive696969
a reply to: Metallicus

The only obvious thing is you have a strong opinion with no facts.

Homosexuality exist in nature, so by human standard the norm as you say is again an opinion.

He is using the strict definition of the word. Yes, in that case, gay folks are "deviants".

But so are gingers, hearing impaired people, people who wear fanny packs, and people who wave rebel flags. All "deviants".

originally posted by: dukeofjive696969
a reply to: Metallicus

The only obvious thing is you have a strong opinion with no facts.

Homosexuality exist in nature, so by human standard the norm as you say is again an opinion.

When you say exists in nature, one has to assume you refer to the animal kingdom. Last time I checked many animals eat their dead young, devour their 'spouses', commit mass suicide...

The difference is we have the ability to suppress impulses, albeit not always with ease.

Just because Rover has designs on my leg is the flimsiest justification I've heard in years. Talk about no facts....LOL

originally posted by: nwtrucker

originally posted by: dukeofjive696969
a reply to: Metallicus

The only obvious thing is you have a strong opinion with no facts.

Homosexuality exist in nature, so by human standard the norm as you say is again an opinion.

When you say exists in nature, one has to assume you refer to the animal kingdom. Last time I checked many animals eat their dead young, devour their 'spouses', commit mass suicide...

The difference is we have the ability to suppress impulses, albeit not always with ease.

Just because Rover has designs on my leg is the flimsiest justification I've heard in years. Talk about no facts....LOL

Then you admit that the tired old argument that "homosexuals is wrong cuz it's unnatural" is totally empty and pointless?

Yes it is natural. No, being natural isn't a prerequisite or determinant for "right or wrong". That's why it's so dumb when conservatives bring it up.

a reply to: nwtrucker

A scientific field? Really?

Yes. Really. It's a scientific discipline.

Generic definition:

the scientific study of the human mind and its functions, especially those affecting behavior in a given context.

I can post the relevant Wiki, pages from APA, and other sites addressing this if you want. Or you can find them yourself by doing a keyword Google search of "what is psychology", "is psychology a science", "what do psychologists do", et cetera.

As for what the field of psychology and or psychologists have accomplished... The fact you don't think there is anything beyond "codification" is ludicrous. Then again it does seem you are wholly unfamiliar with the field so I shouldn't find it surprising.

a reply to: Abysha

What is 'natural', is where the sexual equipment is meant to go and to be used. Decided by NATURE, be it by design or evolution.

So, yet again, a non-argument from what I can see.

Nature designed heterosexual activity to maintain the race.

Funny how that one is ignored......

originally posted by: nwtrucker
a reply to: Abysha

What is 'natural', is where the sexual equipment is meant to go and to be used. Decided by NATURE, be it by design or evolution.

So, yet again, a non-argument from what I can see.

Nature designed heterosexual activity to maintain the race.

Funny how that one is ignored......

Nope, you already admitted it was natural and said that a lot of icky things are natural so it doesn't matter. Now you are saying, once again, that something which occurs in nature is not natural. It is proven to be natural and it is up to you whether or not you think that is significant.

As to heterosexuality being required to continue humanity? No, it is not. If a man and woman were the only two people left on Earth and both were gay, you really don't think they would put their attractions aside and have a baby?

It is only necessary for some humans to be heterosexual to continue our species. We are always talking about population issues. Do you really think there would be any problems if 75% of the world woke up gay tomorrow? None of that matters because we aren't idiots.

a reply to: nwtrucker

I don't care what anyone or any entity says, pedophilia is disgusting, and those people deserve the worst things that can be done to them.

Screw the PC B.S

originally posted by: threeeyesopen
I don't care what anyone or any entity says, pedophilia is disgusting, and those people deserve the worst things that can be done to them.

Screw the PC B.S

If they act on those impulses then yes they must be contained or whatever since they are causing harm. But if they haven't acted on it then what they need is help in changing that part of them. Whether they were born that way and it is a natural thing or something caused by trauma the fact is it's not their fault they feel that way. So unless they act on it they should get some help.

In fact many of them hate it but don't know what to do about it. On the opposite side you have those who enjoy it and become out right predators.