dk

dk: I've argued the concept of homosexuality lacks an ethical form, not that gays or lesbians are wrong. If you disagree, then please correct me by offering an ethical form. Short of an ethical form then homosexuality becomes a fetish. A fetish doesn't determine a person's identity because a fetish is non-essential.
HelenM: Are you saying that all sexual relationships that are between adults of opposite gender have an 'ethical form'? What about people who have casual sex once or twice?
dk: No, quite the opposite. Ethics is normative, so must take a discernable form.

HelenM: Do homosexuals who live together and adopt children have the same ethical form as a nuclear family and if not, why not?
dk: I’m saying the ethics of adoption has nothing to do with homosexuality, because homosexuality lacks an ethical form. Is it [un]ethical for 2, 3..10 homosexuals that live together to adopt a child? In my opinion you’ve ventured into a world where ethics has no meaning.

HelenM: Please define 'fetish'.
dk: an object associated with a psychological fixation essential for sexual gratification.

HelenM: What is essential about heterosexuality? Some heterosexual people never marry or have children.
dk: I have the same problem with the term heterosexual as homosexual, they are both concepts based on Freudian egotism, and claim to serve as an underlying theory to explain human sexual behavior in the post modernist world. There’s no empirical, predictive or exculpatory basis to verify or support the model. Gays have been decimating themselves in LA, SF and NYC in an egotistical hedonistic culture ripe with promiscuous values and pornographic landscapes for the last 40 years. In the 1990s when HAART treatments came online many hiv+ gays celebrated by taking the gloves off, reopening the anonymous sex venues and infected a whole new generation of gay protégés with AIDs. Earth to Moon, we have an ethical crisis that manifests in a culture of disease and death. It is ethically untenable, implausible and impossible for such a catastrophic event to take place.

dk

Ok, then a male pedophile that likes little boys is a homosexual, or perhaps a bisexual.

Women are rarely pedophiles, and little boys are molested about 10% less than little girls. Therefore gay men that compose from 1 to 3% of the male population are disproportionately gay.

Can you explain why pedophiles are so disproportionately gay?

Given the disproportionate number of gay pedophiles, should being gay be classified as a personality disorder?

Fr.Andrew

(dk): Ok, then a male pedophile that likes little boys is a homosexual, or perhaps a bisexual.
(Fr Andrew): Most probably.


(dk): Therefore gay men that compose from 1 to 3% of the male population are disproportionately gay.
(Fr Andrew):

(dk): Can you explain why pedophiles are so disproportionately gay?
(Fr Andrew): They're not, actually. They're disproportionately straight. Can't say why.

(dk): Given the disproportionate number of gay pedophiles, should being gay be classified as a personality disorder?
(Fr Andrew): Again, you're misinformed. Most pedophiles are straight.
Should heterosexuality be classified as a personality disorder?

yguy

http://www.hatecrime.org/subpages/hatespeech/laura.html

HATE SPEECH OR LOVE?

Warning: this site contains examples of extreme prejudice which may be unsuitable for younger visitors.

<snip>

Gays are pedophiles
"Well, according to Dr. Aarden VanWeg (sp?), an expert in homosexuality and other forms of deviant sexual behavior in Holland, that although numerically there are more pedophiles that are heterosexual, percentage-wise in a population, it's much greater in the homosexual community. So there is some relationship. No, not every homosexual is a pedophile - obviously not - but it's a greater percentage - much greater. So they ought to do their homework before they say these things." - Dr. Laura, June 9, 1999, transcribed by GLAAD, <snip>

One can find similar quotes on several pro-homosexual websites, which generally paint them as hate speech. What one cannot find is any denial of the veracity of the claim in bold.

Is telling the truth hate speech if it evokes hatred in those who hear it?

miss djax

are you saying you seriously believe that dr laura knows of what she speaks? you're kidding, right??

yguy

Dr. Laura's general credibility is not at issue. The veracity of the specific claim in bold is. If you have evidence that it is false, kindly produce it, if you will.

Maybe GLAAD can help you in that regard.

dk

Bill Snedden: Did I say completely autonomous?.
dk: Yes you did. Bill said, “No human relationships are completely autonomous.”

Bill Snedden: In what way is an opposite-sex relationship autonomous and a same-sex relationship not autonomous? I don't see the difference as we're all dependent upon each other and the law to no differing extent.
dk: The autonomy of the nuclear family rest upon the human life cycle whereas civilization, nations, societies and cultures are contingencies.

dk: Perform all the necessary tasks essential to survive and prosper from one generation to the next.
Bill Snedden: Well, I've never heard of homosexuality causing an inability to eat, breathe, or locate shelter. As both hetero- and homo-sexuality further the happiness and well-being of persons of those orientations, both would seem to enable humans to prosper as well. That's two down.
dk: Gays and lesbian can’t reproduce in and of themselves. The idea of gays and lesbian proliferation raises a number of ethical flags.

Bill Snedden: I'm glad to hear it, but what has that got to do with the question? How are same-sex relationships inherently less stable than opposite-sex ones?
dk: Yes gay communities and relationships are less stable. The instablity generated by same sex relatonships spills over into the greater society. For example gay communities have been decimated by risky behaviors that threaten the whole society.

dk: My intent isn’t to persecute same sex attraction, but to outline and ground the science of ethics using the nuclear family as the moral core. If you accept what I’ve presented so far, then same sex attraction becomes a fetish that stands/falls on its own merits.
Uh, where do you think you've presented anything that would lead to that conclusion?
Bill Snedden: You've outlined the four criteria of your "ethical form", and we've seen that none of them militates against homosexuality. Therefore, homosexuality fits within your ethical form and should be considered ethical by your standards. If you accept what you've presented, you should therefore abandon your ad-hoc rationalizations and admit that there is no reason to consider homosexuality immoral.
dk: I have no idea what you’re talking about. I’ve detailed why the nuclear family serves adequately as the basic unit of civilization. I’ve ground ethics in categories of causation i.e. material, essential, formal and final. So far our discussions haven’t progressed past material and essential causes, and gays and lesbians rank contingent, conceptually flawed and sterile.

Dr Rick

Bullshit.

Studies have shown that:

1) Male pedophilia is associated with attitudes supportive of sexual dominance over women.

2) Sexual abuse by a female in childhood may be a risk factor for a cycle of abuse in males, and pedophilia may be related to sexual abuse in childhood

3) The adult heterosexual male constitutes a greater risk to the underage child than does the adult homosexual male.

4) Both female and male pedophilia perpetrators abuse more girls than boys.

However, your's is.

yguy

Which of these contradict the claim in question, and how?

Dr Rick

I can produce the studies to show every thing that I posted; if I can't, I'll go away.

If you can't produce the studies to support what you say, then you must go away.

Agreed?