stopman Posted February 16, 2013 Share Posted February 16, 2013 "...I am looking to discuss how people view the argument for gay acceptance because homosexuality is a natural sexual orientation and not a choice, in light that paedophile sexual orientation is possibly natural and not a choice." I have a problem with the word "natural". It's too arbitrary. If people would be more effective with 5 fingers on a hand instead of 4, then does it follow that having 4 fingers is an unnatural handicap. From this perspective, everything is natural. The desire to love, the desire to murder, the desire to have sex with a member of the opposite sex or with a member of the same sex. For this reason, I think it's pointless to argue about whether something is natural or not. Instead, we can only argue about whether something hurts another person, as in the case of an adult having sex with a child, or whether it is a good thing, as is the case with two people of the same sex who love each other and who find satisfaction with each other. My concept of God and goodness is truth, justice, mercy, kindness, love, honesty, and all the other "good" words I can think of. I don't really want to argue about what's in the Bible or how God made us. I only want to argue about what adheres to these good words and what doesn't. God made some people like children, some like members of the opposite sex, some like members of the same sex, some with horrible deformities and diseases, some with almost supernatural intelligence, some with a hateful heart, some with a loving heart. I don't think we can determine what is right and what is wrong, or what is good and what is bad, by looking at the way God made us in order to determine whether he really made us that way or not. Because yes... however we are, good or bad, he really did make us that way. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
minsocal Posted February 17, 2013 Share Posted February 17, 2013 "...I am looking to discuss how people view the argument for gay acceptance because homosexuality is a natural sexual orientation and not a choice, in light that paedophile sexual orientation is possibly natural and not a choice." I have a problem with the word "natural". It's too arbitrary. If people would be more effective with 5 fingers on a hand instead of 4, then does it follow that having 4 fingers is an unnatural handicap. From this perspective, everything is natural. The desire to love, the desire to murder, the desire to have sex with a member of the opposite sex or with a member of the same sex. For this reason, I think it's pointless to argue about whether something is natural or not. Instead, we can only argue about whether something hurts another person, as in the case of an adult having sex with a child, or whether it is a good thing, as is the case with two people of the same sex who love each other and who find satisfaction with each other. My concept of God and goodness is truth, justice, mercy, kindness, love, honesty, and all the other "good" words I can think of. I don't really want to argue about what's in the Bible or how God made us. I only want to argue about what adheres to these good words and what doesn't. God made some people like children, some like members of the opposite sex, some like members of the same sex, some with horrible deformities and diseases, some with almost supernatural intelligence, some with a hateful heart, some with a loving heart. I don't think we can determine what is right and what is wrong, or what is good and what is bad, by looking at the way God made us in order to determine whether he really made us that way or not. Because yes... however we are, good or bad, he really did make us that way. What does harm, and what does not? One VERY difficult concept, not? How does Progressive Christianity directly face this issue? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
minsocal Posted February 17, 2013 Share Posted February 17, 2013 In the United States, children became a "protected class" because they are NOT fully developed. That change came about, in part, BECAUSE of Progressive-Liberal elements is our society, and those elements have a strong link to Progressive Christianity. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaulS Posted February 17, 2013 Author Share Posted February 17, 2013 The term "sexual orientation" has more than one interpretation. It could be behavioral or emotional or both. As used in American academic circles it refers to the emotional or affective component, the behavioral component is another issue. The problem here is more complex than a definition. Agreed - hence why I am trying to undersatnd it. A concept to consider is the emotional development of children and the element of "doing harm". Where I live (California) all psychotherapists are mandated reporters. They must report pedophiles who act on their impulses. They are also governed by a set of ethics which requires them to "refer out" a client if their own internal ethics conflict. This is quite often the case, BTW. I understand this. Of course allowing paedophils to ACT on their sexual orientation (if that is what it is) is NOT ACCEPTABLE. I was trying to discuss the 'naturalness' (or not) of such a sexual orientation. Another concept has to do with mutuality and consenting. That is where a line becomes drawn that, in my experience, most Progressive Christians I know are willing to accept. What line are you drawing Steve - the line that paedophillic sexual orinetations are not natural, or the line that has been drawn and identified and agreed to so many times here - that paedophillic actions are not acceptable or permissible exactly beacsue they harm the other party? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
minsocal Posted February 17, 2013 Share Posted February 17, 2013 Agreed - hence why I am trying to undersatnd it. I understand this. Of course allowing paedophils to ACT on their sexual orientation (if that is what it is) is NOT ACCEPTABLE. I was trying to discuss the 'naturalness' (or not) of such a sexual orientation. What line are you drawing Steve - the line that paedophillic sexual orinetations are not natural, or the line that has been drawn and identified and agreed to so many times here - that paedophillic actions are not acceptable or permissible exactly beacsue they harm the other party? Your second quote refers to 'Steve' and I'm not 'Steve'. Why do you think I want to leave this site? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaulS Posted February 17, 2013 Author Share Posted February 17, 2013 Your second quote refers to 'Steve' and I'm not 'Steve'. Why do you think I want to leave this site? Minsocal, my sincerest apologies. Names were never my strong point and I am sorry I have stuffed yours up on occasions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
romansh Posted February 17, 2013 Share Posted February 17, 2013 "...I am looking to discuss how people view the argument for gay acceptance because homosexuality is a natural sexual orientation and not a choice, in light that paedophile sexual orientation is possibly natural and not a choice." I have a problem with the word "natural". It's too arbitrary. Not only is the concept arbitrary it is also unnecessary. If Paul had said: homosexuality is a sexual orientation it would not make any difference to the argument. Paul goes on to say and not a choice. I would have qualified it a little and called it conscious choice. But that leads into the concept of free will and I don't think we have an appetite for this at this time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Raven Posted February 26, 2013 Share Posted February 26, 2013 Lots of things occur in nature, or occur naturally, that cause harm. Just because something is "natural" doesn't mean it's automatically good. As Dutch pointed out at the start of this thread, there is a difference between a relationship between consenting adults of the same sex, and a relationship between and adult and child. Those who like to make a connection between homosexuality and pedophilia are unable or unwilling to see the difference, and it drives me crazy. Whether or not pedophilia is a sexual orientation is outside my area of expertise. However, as an opinion I would say it likely IS a sexual orientation, if we are defining sexual orientation as relating to with whom we wish to engage in sexual activity. However, if it is in fact a sexual orientation, it's still not "ok" in my book, because there is irreparable harm done to the child. Child molestation is not an orientation, IMO, but an activity. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neon Genesis Posted February 27, 2013 Share Posted February 27, 2013 Short answer: It doesn't really matter why someone is gay or not. If they're not hurting anybody else then there's nothing wrong with being gay. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AnnieG Posted March 18, 2013 Share Posted March 18, 2013 The issue of how to behave towards pedophiles was raised in a sermon yesterday, and reminded me of this thread. As far as memory serves me, the minister said *pedophiles too have the right to a spiritual home *certain pedophiles who he had talked to remarked that the church they attended was the only place in the community where they felt that they were being treated as human *the line between good and evil runs through each of us. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.