[ninurta]

Sodomy/homosexuality was once illegal too. So I fail to see your logical reasoning above.
I mean if sodomy/homosexuality can be overturned why not man/boy love?

If two men can marry because they are born that way who are you to say ageist laws are justified?

Exactly because of what I said and you ignored, it's not because they are born that way, but because its victimless and pleasurefull and good and great for them.

[Nets]

I can't believe that I am defending the homosexuals, but, as other posters have written, there is a fundamental difference between homosexuality and pedophilia. Homosexual sex can occur between two consenting persons, pedophilia cannot. End of story.

[QatzelOk]

Thing is, in the biblical Sodom story, it was male-on-male exclusivity that lead the homophobic Israelis to scapegoat homosexuals.

Pedophilia was A-okay in this story as long as it was male-on-female.

[ninurta]

Thing is, in the biblical Sodom story, it was male-on-male exclusivity that lead the homophobic Israelis to scapegoat homosexuals.

Pedophilia was A-okay in this story as long as it was male-on-female.

We don't know the age of Lot's daughters and until we do, we can't say it was. But if it was, wow......a god would be fine with pedophilia but not homosexuality?

Though you are right that it was their male-on-male activities that sealed their fate, but if they accepted Lot's daughters then they themselves weren't homosexuals, at least not by modern standards.

[QatzelOk]

a god

A god-text that wanted to sell to an already homophobic audience.

[Brio]

Then what did he become?

Then Pharaoh said to Joseph, "Since God has shown you all this, there is none so discerning and wise as you are. You shall be over my house, and all my people shall order themselves as you command. Only as regards the throne will I be greater than you." And Pharaoh said to Joseph, "See, I have set you over all the land of Egypt." - Genesis 41: 39-41 (English Standard Version)

Joseph rose to become viceroy of Egypt, not pharaoh.

[ninurta]

Then Pharaoh said to Joseph, "Since God has shown you all this, there is none so discerning and wise as you are. You shall be over my house, and all my people shall order themselves as you command. Only as regards the throne will I be greater than you." And Pharaoh said to Joseph, "See, I have set you over all the land of Egypt." - Genesis 41: 39-41 (English Standard Version)

Joseph rose to become viceroy of Egypt, not pharaoh.

What is a viceroy of what Nome?

Or do you mean the whole country? They didnt have that, the ruler (of any sort) was called a pharaoh. Yeah I know, its just a story and there was never a ruler by that name, but still, its gotta fit the location. He ruled egypt therefore he was pharaoh or didn't rule all of egypt, nor half.

[Brio]

In the biblical story Joseph was responsible for ruling over all of Egypt and was second only to the Pharaoh in power. Maybe viceroy is the wrong word to use, but at least in the story, he is not a Pharaoh. I thought this was all evident by the biblical verses I provided.

And yes this is just a story that most probably never happened, but if you are going to use biblical stories in your debate, you have to use the source material provided by the Bible.

[Nets]

Though you are right that it was their male-on-male activities that sealed their fate, but if they accepted Lot's daughters then they themselves weren't homosexuals, at least not by modern standards.

Sodom's fate had been decided before the events with Lot.

[Donna]

Sure there is. Pedophiles are born that way too and deserve equal protections and rights like homosexuals.
One cannot discriminate one deviance from another just because it's illegal.


Keep in mind I'm against mainstreaming homosexuality because of what must also be done to protect a pedophiles rights.

Laws that criminalized gay sex were scrapped not because courts felt that homosexuality was 'normal', but because they were deemed an unconstitutional invasion of privacy. While it was a graduated process in the United States that became federal precedent in 2003, the parliament of Canada debated sodomy law in 1969, shortly before the law was gutted, and the minutes reveal a great deal of legal discipline; not one single MP defended the nascent gay rights movement, not one single MP regarded homosexuality as normal or healthy, and many used strong moral language--perversion, deviancy, sickness--but the majority of them agreed that the government had no business in the bedrooms of citizens when consenting adults were concerned. The legality of homosexuality today has absolutely nothing to do with how it is being viewed today.

[DanDaMan]

Laws that criminalized gay sex were scrapped not because courts felt that homosexuality was 'normal', but because they were deemed an unconstitutional invasion of privacy.

I never meant to imply the law was changed because it's supposed to be normal.
Regardless of that... Liberals that opened the door for one set of deviants have to open the door for all deviants.

[ninurta]

[]Though you are right that it was their male-on-male activities that sealed their fate, but if they accepted Lot's daughters then they themselves weren't homosexuals, at least not by modern standards.[]

Sodom's fate had been decided before the events with Lot.

What are you talking about? I already agreed, yeah it's fate was decided before the events with Lot. But From what we know afterward, in the events with Lot, where they were getting with his daughters instead, they couldn't be considered homosexuals by our definition. And since it is us in our language using the term, we can say homosexual behavior, but they weren't homosexuals. they were bisexuals.

I never meant to imply the law was changed because it's supposed to be normal.
Regardless of that... Liberals that opened the door for one set of deviants have to open the door for all deviants.

No, just the ones that aren't causing any harm to anyone in any way.

[Nets]

What are you talking about? I already agreed, yeah it's fate was decided before the events with Lot. But From what we know afterward, in the events with Lot, where they were getting with his daughters instead, they couldn't be considered homosexuals by our definition. And since it is us in our language using the term, we can say homosexual behavior, but they weren't homosexuals. they were bisexuals.

No argument. The bible does not forbid homosexuality, per se, just homosexual sex. So, to pardon the anachronism, they were being punished (in part) not for homosexuality, but for sodomy.

"Who" was getting with his daughters? The mob refused the daughters, to whom are you referring?

[ninurta]

No argument. The bible does not forbid homosexuality, per se, just homosexual sex. So, to pardon the anachronism, they were being punished (in part) not for homosexuality, but for sodomy.

"Who" was getting with his daughters? The mob refused the daughters, to whom are you referring?

They didn't take the daughters?

[Potemkin]

Have you ever actually read the Bible, ninurta?

[QatzelOk]

The bible does not forbid homosexuality, per se, just homosexual sex.

This is a case where the bible tries to change human nature in order to "improve" it.

It's a guaranteed failure. You can't improve on nature no matter how many seas you pretend to part.

[ninurta]

Have you ever actually read the Bible, ninurta?

Have you ever actually read this thread, Potemkin?

I answered that already.

This is a case where the bible tries to change human nature in order to "improve" it.

It's a guaranteed failure. You can't improve on nature no matter how many seas you pretend to part.

Very true. You can only adapt yourself within it, thats all you can do. Though I love human nature the way it naturally is, the way we are is the way we should all be.

[Donna]

Regardless of that... Liberals that opened the door for one set of deviants have to open the door for all deviants.

One problem: liberals see homosexuality as a sexual variancy, not a deviancy. The gay rights movement also coincided with second-wave feminism, and not to show you up on your profound understanding of society, pedophilia is something of an antithesis to feminism.

[Godstud]

BDSM, swinging, etc. is also sexual variancy. It's all stuff that consenting adults do in the privacy of their bedrooms. Homosexuality fits into that category too. Sexual experimentation is normal.

Pedophilia is nothing to do with homosexuality. Pedophilia is a deviancy caused by psychological problems. It has nothing to do with liberalism or conservatism. It's not just from a specific point of view based on an ideology. Trying to link homosexuality to liberalism is like trying to link weather to conservatives.

[Donna]

BDSM, swinging, etc. is also sexual variancy. It's all stuff that consenting adults do in the privacy of their bedrooms. Homosexuality fits into that category too. Sexual experimentation is normal.

Pedophilia is nothing to do with homosexuality. Pedophilia is a deviancy caused by psychological problems. It has nothing to do with liberalism or conservatism. It's not just from a specific point of view based on an ideology. Trying to link homosexuality to liberalism is like trying to link weather to conservatives.

My problem with the logical trappings of medical psychology and sexuality is that it assumes that all who feature x object/situation of attraction are of the same crown of psychosexual experience and development. Just as people might be homosexual for many different reasons, experiences and contrasting acumen, I think the same grid of multiple theoretical possibilities is applicable to any human sexual manifestation, pedophilia included. It's just that pedophilia, when practiced, violates a whole latticework of ethics tailored for centuries to safeguard the weak from harm. Of which, the idea that 'liberals' will seek to abrogate the secular narration of morality that they helped create, one that now seeks to protect the homosexual, the woman, the child, is wholly absurd.