miss djax

double post deleted by moderator

Brighid

Bill Snedden

Technically speaking, a fetish is the object. Fetishism is the fixation on the object. Popular usage tends to conflate the two and Webster's gives both definitions, but I would say that dk's definition is correct in this context.

However, homosexuality clearly cannot be fetishism any more than heterosexuality can, unless sex is a fetish (as a fixation on males by a male would be no different than a fixation on females by a male).

Regards,

Bill Snedden

miss djax

yguy and dk and everyone else

i just got an emergency page, im on the next flight out to a client site. Darn servers

I won't be able to be on-line until tomorrow. I can respond then.

Miss djax

Bill Snedden

If you've read through this discussion you've no doubt noticed that this is the favored tactic of our erstwhile opponent. We've been trying to point it out as often as it occurs to try and keep the focus where it should be. Thanks for helping us to keep the discussion on track!

Regards,

Bill Snedden

HelenM

Thanks - I guess I should have looked it up!

Helen

yguy

Since what I said was:

"And of course if pedophiles are neither homo nor hetero, the claim that most pedophiles are hetero is obviously false",

there is nothing to bet on.

yguy

Which proves conclusively that he cannot be found through any of these search engines. Big deal.

If it is nothing more than hearsay, why do the "gay" sites which quote it, whose operators presumably have access to more resources than you or I, utterly fail to debunk it? Would they not have more than a little incentive to do so?

What have I said that is false?

brighid

yguy,

Here is an informative link for you:

http://www.siecus.org/media/press/sexual_abuse.pdf

"Sexual abuse is not about the sexual orientation of the perpetrator, it is about the prepetrators abuse of power and authority. Male pedophiles who molest boys are not expressing a homosexual orientation any more then a male pedophile who molests girls is expressing a heterosexual orientation. "

From the Bureau of Justice Statistics

"Though the vast majority of violent sex offenses involes males assualting female victims, female account for a small percentage of known offenders ... in a VERY small fraction of sexual assault victims (.2%) are of the same sex ...

Overall 91% of victims of rape and sexual assault were female. Nearly 99% of offenders in single victim incidents were male ... 56% of those offenders arrested were white ..."

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/soo.pdf

It seems white, heterosexual males between the ages of 15-35 are more likely then any other group of people to be sexual offenders.

Brighid

Bill Snedden

Oh dear.

At any rate, you've either missed the point completely or simply failed to respond to it. Apparently we both agree that no human relationship is completely autonomous. Why then is "autonomous" one of your criteria and what does it mean in relation to the difference between same-sex and opposite-sex relationships?

This sounds suspiciously like an argument from procreation. In other words, "human life cycle" sounds like you're saying that the fact that male-female sexual contact is necessary for procreation renders such contact moral and all other contact immoral. Is that in fact what you're saying?

Again, this sounds like an "argument from procreation". Is that indeed the basis for your argument?

Immaterial and irrelevant. This is like saying that Roman Catholicism is immoral because of the crusades. We're not talking about praxis or the actions of individuals. We're discussing homosexuality per se. In order to demonstrate a lack of stability, you must show that there is something inherent in same-sex relationships that is less stable than opposite-sex ones. The acts of individuals, even if they were a majority are irrelevant unless they are driven by an inherent characteristic.

Feh.

You've done no such thing.

Your entire schema seems to rest on biological function. We've brought this up before and you've denied it, but after extensive questioning, I'm unable to determine any other basis for your "form". I'm going to try and outline what I believe you're saying in a straightforward, non-jargon-laced manner and you can tell me if I've got it correctly.

P1) Male-female sexual contact is essential for procreation.
P2) Procreation is essential to survival of the species.
P3) Healthy offsping are essential to survival of the species.
P4) Healthy offspring are only ensured in a male-female life-bonded relationship.
P5) Ethics is essential to survival of the species.
P6) Moral status is determined by "fitness" for survival.
C1) Behavior that is not necessarily "fit" for survival is immoral/unethical.

C2) Homosexuality is immoral/unethical

Does that about cover it?

Regards,

Bill Snedden

Dr Rick

You posted claims from Dr Laura's web site about the sexual orientation of pedophiles, and rather than substantiate it, asked others to disprove it. That's about as intellectually dishonest and chicken-sh** as posting something from a white-supremist site about blacks and asking that it be disproved.

You posted the assertion; the burden of proof is upon you to back it up.