DeletedUser5669
Guest
LGBTQA - LMNOP (for "pedophile" perhaps?) is a long winded way of saying that sexual attraction comes in all shapes and sizes. But it has been transformed into a way of saying that whatever sexual attraction you feel should be allowed to be expressed.
1) LMNOP = nice way to use humor to minimize a point you disagree with. Minimize and lightly ridicule. If something is funny, it doesn't have to be taken seriously.
2) No. Just no. No one in the responsible portion of the LGBTQA community has EVER said that any way your sexuality hangs out is okay. Never nonconsenting. Never between those below the age of consent and those above it, and while there may be no firm way to psychologically draw that line in the sand, we, as a culture, have made a valid attempt. Not perfect, but valid, and ignoring/minimizing/dismissing that line is not useful as all it does is encourage those with the P word that you so lightly add to that acronym (more about that later) to also ignore it. Oh, AJ says it's meaningless, see! Not claiming that as your intent, not even really saying you have that kind of influence, but if you add that attitude to the public discourse, that is part of what you're saying. Please consider more than your intended interpretation when you say things.
If it has been transformed into such, and I don't agree that it has, it is not by us.
3) As the person who actually added the A to the original poster who commented on the LGBTQ community, I would like to say that it is not amusing, it is not funny, and it is not minor to be excluded. You who (I presume) are part of the majority seem to think it is, but it really isn't. I am asexual. I don't want sex. With anyone. Ever. And that's okay. But I am a person with a sexuality that is different than yours, and I know that some people (not saying you, so don't react as if I am, please) are threatened by this. My own mother can't accept that I feel no desire for sexual intercourse. She'd be happier if I were gay because she can understand that.
... but it was the effect. I'm sorry if you don't like the fact, but by adding pedophilia so blandly to the list, you did equate that with all the others. To start with, I'd like to remind you of what I said above. Please pay attention to more than your own interpretation of your words. If I compare someone's beliefs with those of Hitler, they may very well get upset, even if I was talking about their belief in their own artistic talent. If you indeed did not intend that addition to be offensive, then, whether you intended the offense or not, you nevertheless offended. If you are being disingenuous, then you know what I'm saying and did it on purpose. I can't know which, and your telling me it was accidental doesn't actually mean anything. I'll either believe you or I won't, and thus far, I'm not sure. Interpretation is such a sticky problem, you see. What you may have said in all innocence may yet make people think ill of you.Equating paedophilia and homosexuality was not the intention ...
Now, on to other topics. Yes, most people do have their first sexual encounter before the age of 18. Mine was at the age of 7 and involved an adult. Fortunately, most people have theirs at a more reasonable age of around 15 or 16 with another person of that age. It doesn’t even always go “all the way.” This is not what we were talking about with pedophilia. One 15-year-old having sex with another is not pedophilia on either part. An adult having sexual relations with a minor is what pedophilia is about, and that is what I believe was being referenced with the "developing minds" comment. A 26-year-old teacher having sex with a 15-year-old student, whatever their genders, is not appropriate because it's an adult putting adult sexual mores into play with a developing adolescent, possibly skewing their whole worldview and outlook on life. You continue to equate pedophilia with normal human sexual development. It is normal for people to start having sexual feelings at around 13-15 because their bodies are getting ready for maturity. Whether it's a good idea for them to have sex with each other is a different matter, and not what we're really talking about.
My point is this. By making it about underage sex, you are changing the topic. By making it about pedophilia, you are changing the topic.
When people who are honest and straightforward about their feelings about sexualities that make them uncomfortable or to which they object, they don't shift the footing and pull in side matters that are not relevant, and to which no one can raise an objection. No one here is going to say pedophilia is a good thing. No one here is going to say that all those 15-year-olds out there should start getting it on. Those are not what we're talking about.
Of course, if one cannot stop and give a listen to another person's point of view one has to wonder if the very narrow mindedness attributed to the other person or group. isn't also part of their own self.
I have listened to a lot of other points of view. I've read posts and articles and long-winded narratives and well thought out essays on other points of view. When we're talking about sexuality, what they usually all come down to is "the way that isn't mine is wrong because it isn't mine." Rarely have I come across one that doesn't. For example, yours comes down to "that way is wrong because the logic of it justifies people who are awful doing things that are awful." Sorry, but logic isn't your strong suit. Me being in a long term relationship with another asexual woman does not in any way suggest that a pedophile acting on his/her leanings is okay. My friends who have been married for years in their church and for fewer years in the eyes of the law, and who have raised two children to brilliant and responsible adulthood do not encourage underage sex by their very existence. Apples. Oranges.
... the logic that says "love" or "falling in love" justifies whatever behaviors used in expressing that love, is a dangerous slope upon which to stand.
Now, this is the real fallacy. I don't believe that anyone proposed "falling in love" as the logic behind supporting Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transsexual, Queer and Asexual lifestyles. It can certainly be a symptom of fitting into one of those groups, but it isn't a justification. The justification is that they all exist. Nobody woke up one morning and said, "I think I'll court society's disapproval and have sex with people of my own gender." Well, probably a few people did, but those few don't invalidate my point. Very, very few people are out there saying, "Hey, I don't want to fit in!" or "Come on, beat me up because I'm different!" What you're saying is the same old tired argument: "We shouldn't let people have these kinds of relationships openly because they're just choosing to be out of step with the rest of us. When they choose to get back in step, they can join in again. Till then, leave them out in the cold."
Stating that you don't like it is fine, but trying to deny its validity by saying allowing people to feel that way publicly is the same as saying that 26-year-olds can have sex with 14-year-olds is not logic, it's fear-mongering and shifting the argument to more winnable ground. If you were actually posing an argument against the lifestyles of adults, you would use arguments about adults. We aren't discussing pedophilia - or we weren't until you inserted it into the conversation, said you didn't mean to imply anything by it, and then kept bringing it up again and again. You may really believe that you didn't intend to imply a connection, but if you reread your posts, you just can't stop harping on it. You finally shift to underage sex, but that's still not the issue. And that's the point. You start with a post about adult relationships and argue it into a support for pedophilia and underage sex. And you seem to think you're arguing the same topic. Just a hint, you're not.
Another point on the "justification" for LGBTQA relationships is that there's nothing to justify. It's none of your business what consenting adults do together. Moreover, arguing about what constitutes "adult" and whether it's valid or not is just persiflage, meant to obscure the real issues. As a note, it isn't the LGBTQA community that decreed what "adult" means, it's the government, and they did it a while ago.
Just some thoughts. (I know it's a "wall of text" but ask yourself if it's repetitious and thus wastes time, of if it actually has a number of points requiring the space it takes.)
I asked myself if it was repetitious, and I'm afraid the answer was yes.
Unfortunately, most of your points aren't to the point, so to speak. You very politely tell us queers and gays, etc, that our request to have our lifestyles recognized and acknowledged as valid just provides justification for pedophiles to molest and children to fornicate. Several times. Using different approaches.
I'd be very interested in a cogent argument on this topic that doesn't stray into areas that aren't relevant and aren't designed to make it hard to disagree with.
Amusingly, all the original poster was saying was that they didn't believe that God would cast someone into hell for falling in love. @burningeden, if it even needs said at this point, I agree.
PS. I see that other people have responded before I finished writing. I apologize if I have repeated their points. It took a while to compose this … and then edit it to fit.