Phillip Schofield comes out as gay
- Thread starter Participant
- Start date
Have I said something to upset you?
No I agree with you, 100%
Edited to make it completely clear.
Soldato
@easyrider understood now, have also edited.
As a society we have determined the age where a person can legally make their own choice whether to have sex. We have determined that a child cannot give consent.
Caporegime
In the same way that if your dog could speak you could both discuss the geopolitical situation in the Middle East.
You are missing the point of the original argument that I was replying to of that being homosexual is a choice of the person and not something they are born with. Yet when someone is a pedophile it is considered a mental illness and something they are born with. After all it is considered a sexual orientation.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.com/news/amp/magazine-34858350
I'm not trying to compare a pedo to a homosexual and perhaps I haven't worded my posts clearly enough. It's just after straight and gay they isn't really any more sexual orientations to try and explain why I believe homosexuals are born gay and not through choice.
Whether you believe homosexuality is natural or a choice is one thing, however comparing homosexuality and paedophilia in any context is utterly abhorrent and highly offensive.
The fact you're now saying you believe it's natural and not some choice is just pathetic because you're posts are being commented on for what they are is low. Next you'll be telling us vaccines cause autism and the earth is flat.
The fact you're now saying you believe it's natural and not some choice is just pathetic because you're posts are being commented on for what they are is low. Next you'll be telling us vaccines cause autism and the earth is flat.
Soldato
We're all animals. Did you not know?
Why?
Both are paraphilias, different colours on the same spectrum if you like.
The acceptability of either/both is a cultural thing. not an absolute one
Classical Rome/Greece had no issue with either.
60 years ago in Britain Both would have ended you up in prison.
Caporegime
That is your opinion but I am not comparing. I am saying sexual preference comes from genetics and that is what i believe. You can put heterosexual, homosexual and pedophilia all in that basket. Obviously an opinion you do not like as it ends up with a personal insult against me which is what you infer with the "flat earth" and "vaccine" comment.
Why? Because of the extremely negative connotations that come with being a paedophile of course! One is a sexual orientation that is practised usually between two consenting adults the other is the sexual abuse of children with long lasting consequences. The gay community have been unduly persecuted for generations because of bigoted view points which is highly unfortunate, are you inferring however that being a paedophile should be decriminalised if as you say it's simply an orientation?
The thing the annoys me is people that come out act like they are special and expect other people to treat them as if they are special also if you don’t your classed as homophobic, as far as I’m concerned there is nothing special about you if your gay, straight or a lesbian everyone is the same
It wasn't meant to, it was two different points... firstly we're not really born as either (or both) - that's true in that sense whether it is determined just by genetics or not (as in beards perhaps).
The second point was a separate one - I suspect there isn't a single genetic element (else it perhaps would have been found), there might well be a few genes that give a higher chance of being gay etc.. It's pretty likely to be a probabilistic thing though and I'd be surprised if environmental factors didn't come into it too.
Last edited:
Soldato
I'm really not. You wouldn't make a connection between a heterosexual man and the rape of a girl, so why make a connection between a homosexual man and the rape of a boy?
Man of Honour
Or epigenetics. Or environmental factors before birth. There is, for example, a correlation between birth order and sexual orientation in men with the same parents. It's only a correlation, but it exists. The more older brothers a man has, the more likely he is to be homosexual but only if he and his older brothers have the same biological mother.
It's still well into the realm of "who knows?", although the evidence points extremely strongly towards something biological.
- Joined
- 30 Jul 2006
- Posts
- 12,129
Meanwhile, back on topic . . .
Happy he may have been but also incredibly selfish.
Man of Honour
If everyone was homosexual, maybe. But since nobody with any sense is arguing that, you're fighting a strawman.
Homosexuality is obviously natural because it's not artificial. More importantly, the whole "natural" argument is a logical fallacy, specifically a false appeal to authority. It's also hypocritical, since many other things are far more obviously not natural than homosexuality. Farming, for example. Not to mention the computer you're using. They're don't grow on trees, you know. Besides, what is natural anyway? If humans do something and humans are natural, does that make it natural? I've just turned my gas central heating on. Is that natural? Methane is natural, but is it still natural if it's refined and piped into my house? Fire is natural, but is it still natural if it's started deliberately by a person or by a device invented by a person? Heat transfer from hotter to colder objects is natural, but is it still natural if the colder object is designed by people for the purpose of transfering heat to water in a device designed by people? Water is natural, but is it still natural if it's put into my central heating system by a person and pumped round my radiators by a device designed by a person?
Why should anyone care what is natural anyway? Nature is amoral. It has absolutely nothing to do with right and wrong.
Mental illnesses are natural. Murder is natural. Mass death from disease is natural. 40% of all people dying before reaching adulthood is natural. Famine is natural. Dying from a small cut because you got unlucky and it became infected with something your immune system didn't succeed in fighting off is natural.
Your appeal to nature as an authority is wholly invalid. It's a false appeal to authority, a pretence that you have the authority to decree that you are nature and your decisions must be obeyed because you are The Authority.
A better question is "does it do harm?" followed by the more difficult question "is that harm justified by the greater good?"
But it's simple with homosexuality because the answer to "does it do harm?" is "no" and so the second question doesn't apply.
That's true but the application is very limited because of the question I mentioned above - does it do harm? Sexual activity between adults of the same sex doesn't, sexual activity between adults and children does or at least has a very high chance of doing harm.
Theoretically, maybe, but that question doesn't really apply in real life because a child's ability to consent is limited by the fact that they are a child. It's inherent in being a child. An analogy would be something like harnessing puppies to a dog sleigh - even if they agree, they're not yet capable of pulling it.
I don't. Many other people don't. It's just some bigots who do. Same [Magic Bad Word banned here], different group.
Maybe, maybe not. Genetics is far more complicated than it's often portrayed as being. My favourte example of that is eye colour. It's quite well studied because it's easy to measure. But nobody even knows how many genes are involved in determining eye colour, let alone which ones or how. So far, 14 are pencilled in and 12 of those do other things as well. It doesn't seem to be a probabilistic thing or to have environmental factors.
Last edited by a moderator: