gay not being a choice and the slippery slope.

Post Reply New Topic

If homosexuality is in itself in some way harmful above and beyond anything similar in heterosexuality, I would assume those in the know - medical sorts - would give good advice. Everyday human activity abounds with stuff that's harmful, to ourselves and others.

Homosexuality being a choice or not is moot. It's invoked as part of an argument that thinks homosexuality is wrong or bad, or 'lesser' than heterosexuality, and that, if it's a choice, they can choose otherwise.

As part of a move against that, there has been an embrace of the idea that it's not a choice. I don't believe it is. I can't choose who I find sexually attractive, and I think that's true for all of us.

So I have some sympathy for paedophiles. But I would essentially agree with Thomas81. I've long had in mind some sort of large overseen facility, away from society, but maybe an island would suit them. Except where a crime has been commited, when there should be a custodial sentence.

Tequilla - I can't but be a little confused. Muslims are evil and beyond reason and understanding, let alone sympathy, even where they simply think bad thoughts, but "won't somebody please think of the paedophiles?". Really?

Never said that. You're lying again.

A lot of Muslims are fully capable of fighting against the bigotry amongst many in their faith, yet they are often abused, assaulted, threatened and even murdered by fellow Muslims for doing that. Kasim Hafeez? Hasan Afzal? Manal al-Sharif (this lady has balls of steel!)? Zuhdi Jasser? Tawfik Hamid? Irshad Manji? Tashbih Sayyed? Salah Choudhury? Salim Mansur? I can mention the apostates who have left Islam if you like and now have to be careful for their own safety and often receive death threats when in public - Ibn Warraq, Wafa Sultan, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Taslima Nasrin, Magdi Allam, Maryam Namazie (not a bad rack either!) are a few I can think of. There are so few of them because Islam is so violent and repressive. If the violence and terrorism towards dissenters, "blasphemers", "non-believers" and "apostates" stopped, you wouldn't be able to move for Muslim critics of Islam.

Now, back to the drawing board with you.

I was talking about nuancing the view of crime and sanctions. Not nuancing the categorization of people, or the view of the problem in its entirety. I read your post. I can't see where I misunderstood. You seem to take this very personal. I was challenging you, on one part of your post, because it may lead to critical questioning of that particular part of this problem. But if this is so personal to you, I'm sorry. That is the only part I can see that I did wrong. How is forum manners in a discussion like this so important in the first place? You can just say that I'm an idiot and that I am wrong, which seem to be more common than having a reaction and taking it personal, at least on this forum..

Here is what you posted.


And I get your point. It's ok.

I do apologise. I must have gotten the wrong impression, what with all the anti-Islam rhetoric coming from you, talk of 'a monster settle in Europe', and so on.

I know full well there are many Muslims who take issue with all sorts of aspects of Islam. That's been one of my main points against the assumption that Islam is a monolith.

I still find the difference in your approaches to Muslims and Paedophiles quite odd.

its because the paedophiles may be villains, but at least they're our villains.

I said this because whilst there are a lot - no doubt most - good people who happen to be Muslims, there are also a lot who are not (not just because of terrorism or fanaticism, but also more basic criminal problems like drug-dealing, sexual assault, violence and so on - a huge amount of young Dutch Moroccan Muslim men have been arrested; now, you could say that this is racism on the part of the police, but they have disproportionately higher crime rates that don't affect other ethnic groups like Chinese for instance).

It isn't racist or bigoted to level genuine criticism at particular ethnic groups if this criticism is valid. Like the Poles who had a habit of nicking our carp, or, hell, English people expecting everyone to speak English when in Europe! It's enormously different from saying "kick all the (insert racial slur) out".

My point was that had we had a sensible, limited immigration (not complete open-door) policy in the first place and sorted out a proper integration policy as a country (and modified it as problems were on the horizon), we would not have this problem. This has not happened, because the politicians ignored the public and carried on blindly ahead anyway. I remember reading a quote from a veteran Labour Party MP saying something along the lines of how "proud" he was that he defied the wishes of his constituents. Some democrat. I wish I could find it now - it was very telling.

It's not rocket science. Really, it isn't. If immigrants who want to come from country/region A have a reputation for those values being diametrically opposed to country/region B, then they should be given a chance (as a group) to check these at the door if they conflict with our values. If country B needs new people and they are compatible, no problem - immigration can be beneficial and good for everyone if it's done correctly. I'm not anti-immigration, just anti-mass immigration. Immigrants should be a net benefit to the country they arrive in. A country is perfectly entitled to say that people from XYZ country aren't welcome for whatever reason - it doesn't matter what the reason is. No-one has (or should have) the right to live in another country just like that. It's a privilege, not a right.

Instead of constantly celebrating different ethnic cultures within our own nation and constantly playing up the differences, we should be celebrating our common, shared values (see the likes of Mo Farah for instance - instead of defining himself as a Somali - as the multicultis would like - he defines himself as a British man competing for Britain). I really think that a lot of the problems that Europe faces are because we've stopped believing in anything, so anything goes.

I'm equally condemnatory of those British expats who go and live in Spain and live in awful "English" ghettoes, live on fried bread and English bacon and never bother to learn Spanish. That, IMO, is just as bad and I can more than understand the Spaniards being very pissed off with people like that.



'Scuse me? Being a paedophile doesn't make you a criminal in itself. Child abusers (that may or may not be paedophiles) are vile criminal scum. Nothing deserves the harming of a child. I think it's best to look to ways to overcome this social problem without making it worse.

To the best of my (media-informed) knowledge, gay men generally use oral and anal sex, and gay women use oral and manual sex. I would be extremely surprised (to say the least) if any of these behaviors were found to be more harmful in same-sex couples than in opposite-sex couples.
As for depression, being told by society for your entire life that you are an evil deviant, regardless of any harm you might do, might lead to some depression, yes. Being kicked out of your home as a 15 year old by your fundamentalist parents might lead to homelessness and vulnerability to drug addiction and prostitution, yes. Show me an actual /controlled/ study that says that randomly selected gays from the general population have psychological problems that randomly selected straight people from the general population do not, and again: I will be very surprised.
Part of the reason that I would be surprised by these studies is that I have seen studies that show the opposite, peer-reviewed and published in reputable journals.

Even for those of us who haven't read your whole post, visagrunt, your persistent reasonableness and intelligent comments over time gives you the benefit of the doubt for anyone who frequents the PPR forum.

I think I read a Dutch study to that effect. From what I understand, 90% of ethnic Dutch people in the Netherlands view homosexuality as moral, so you don't have the same stigma that you might see in more conservative areas.

Here's the study if you're interested:
http://archpsyc.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=481699

Thank you for clarifying your meaning. And I apologize for flying off the handle.

This substance of the issue isn't personal to me, but I take very seriously the view that we cannot--we must not--punish people for who they are, but only for the things that they do that are wrong and that they know are wrong. The person who has committed no wrongful act is blameless, regardless of the desires over which they have no control. The person who genuinely does not know that their actions are wrong merits treatment, not punishment.