19% of Canadians Believe that Pedophilia is Acceptable
June 13, 2006 · By H. Cameron
I’m speechless…
Overall, 81% of Canadians said that they considered pedophilia to be immoral. Of all the immoral behaviours listed by Leger Marketing, pedophilia - being sexually attracted to young children - had the highest rate of condemnation by Canadians. But flip the answer around, and we find a far more disturbing statistic. If 81% of Canadians think pedophilia is immoral, then 19% of Canadians either refused to answer or believe that pedophilia is, in fact, a moral behaviour. A good behaviour. One that should not be judged by society.
I’m not sure whether I should be disgusted or disturbed - can someone explain how 19% of Canadians don’t have a problem with pedophilia? We can only hope that the 19% are too stupid to know what the word pedophilia means.
I place those who passively accept pedophilia (ignoring those that commit pedophilia, for example) in the same category as the actual scum-bag pedophiles.
I think it’s time we bring back the death-penality.
I’m guessing the 19% know what the word means. Like many they would explain themselves along classic libertarian lines; well, if it’s consensual; and, well, you can’t really put a “number” on the age of sexual maturity, so if they aren’t being taken advantage of, it’s OK.
Honestly this number doesn’t suprise me and we can only expect it to rise. Just as 40 years ago most would express outrage at abortion-on-demand and flagrant homosexuality there remains stern opposition to paedophilia. Eventually the liberal moral relativists in our midst will winnow it down as well on the grounds I’ve stated.
I don’t know how such a trend can be reversed except by some form of religious awakening, by some reversal of fortunes for the authority of the state on moral questions of sex and family. In a secular liberal society it is far too easy to base one’s morality on personal whim, there no longer being a respectable adherence to a divine measure; “inequality” and “intolerance” being the ultimate offences to human dignity.
[...] When I posted about the morality poll the other day one thing that crossed my mind was that there was certain to be more than a few stupid people who would look at the pedophilia item and declare that because only 81% of Canadians said it was immoral it must mean that 19% think it’s acceptable. And I was right. 19% of Canadians Believe that Pedophilia is Acceptable I’m not sure whether I should be disgusted or disturbed - can someone explain how 19% of Canadians don’t have a problem with pedophilia? We can only hope that the 19% are too stupid to know what the word pedophilia means. [...]
George,
What do you mean by flagrant homosexuality? Are you referring to people being honest and open about their homosexuality and living their lives out of the closet? Or are you referring to men who where t-shirts that say “Your boyfriend gives good head”?
As for religious awakening, which religion? I am not sure all religions or religious groups would agree with your point of view. Given the influx of multiple ethno-cultural groups to Canada via immigration, I doubt a Christian awakening would bring back God’s kingdom in Canada.
And Holden, bring back the death penalty? Are you serious? Is that an appropriate or adequate response to a sourceless survey reported in a rag publication? I mean, the Edmonton Sun is not the best journalism that can be found. They opine on what they think they read in a survey, and sensationalize it.
Try finding an actual copy of the survey, and then lets talk. Just because the editorial inferred that 19% of Canadaians thought molesting kids was OK, doesn’t mean that the survey actually said so. The editorial didn’t tell us what the repondants choices were to answer the question, and I doubt it was “Do you think peodophelia is good or bad”?
More facts, less rhetoric.
By flagrant homosexuality I do not mean those who act on some homoerotic desire for physical intimacy with people of the same sex, irrespective of whether or not they come out of the closet and tell the world about it. However, I am referring to those who flout social conventions concerning acceptable, along with disreputable, physical intimacy between people of the same sex, or at least conventions concerning what is acceptable to talk about in the open. I think we can all agree that being “gay” is an expression of rebellion against such conventions as historically understood. So for those who appreciate the virtue of such conventions, being “gay” is “flagrantly homosexual” and therefore not a good thing.
Opponents of “gay rights” are not so much offended by homoerotic longing or homosexual conduct as they are offended by this flouting of what they consider to be good conventions of behaviour in society. They tend to see such conventions as necessary for guarding human beings from immoral behaviour, not unlike standards for abortion or paedophilia meant to protect the unborn from being killed off for convenience or the youth from “sexual predators”.
Concerning religion, I mean Christianity, it being over-whelmingly dominant in Canada. Furthermore, Christianity, along with Judaism, forms of the foundation of Western civilisation, Canada included, and any idiot knows that they should not cut and run from their past otherwise they will never make sense of why things are the way they are.
But I admit, it’s not this cut and dry. While Christianity offers salient spiritual truth, other religions can too and will attract those who like what they have to offer.
As for your last paragraph, as a good liberal would see it, paedophilia does not necessarily mean “molesting children”, as I pointed out in my first comment.
“As for your last paragraph, as a good liberal would see it, paedophilia does not necessarily mean “molesting childrenâ€?, as I pointed out in my first comment.”
I think this is a key point, although I’m not sure if many of the people who answered this survey thought about it.
My point on religious awaking was meant to explain how traditional moral authority finds support from people directing their moral disposition beyond inner-worldly longing and in faith towards some higher spiritual truth. So religious awakening is therefore necessary to turn the pathos of ultra-liberal relativism that is entirely inner-worldly.
“Opponents of “gay rightsâ€? are not so much offended by homoerotic longing or homosexual conduct as they are offended by this flouting of what they consider to be good conventions of behaviour in society.”
Could you give me an example of homosexual conduct that offends, and homosexual conduct that does not? I am still not clear on what you mean.
Offensive: same-sex marriage, nude dudes walking down the street in Toronto for gay pride, the popular lie that people are born with certain sexual dispositions and THEREFORE not morally responsible for them, the false academic notion that gender is entirely independent of sex, etc.
Inoffensive: keep it to yourself, don’t expect special treatment when special treatment is not due.
To think of it another way, people tend to think of “gay” and “straight” as opposites. They are not, besides being pathological varieties when it comes to explaining sexual conduct.
Technically, Bill Clinton told the truth when he said that he did not have sexual relations with Monica Lewinksy because sex involves putting a penis into a vagina (procreation of the species is the logical outcome). While anything else is not sex, it may or may not be offensive to human dignity. Ever wonder how a same-sex marriage is supposed to get consummated? The short answer is, given that sex is sex, it can’t, in all possible worlds.
I agree. Homosexuals should not be treated differently, or specially under the law. They should be treated the same as you and I and every other Canadian by the law and citizens alike. Gay rights activist are not asking for special treatment at all. Hell, if I were to ask for special treatment as a gay activist, I would ask for no speed limit if I had a rainbow flag on my car! Would that happen? No. Is this what they ask? No. They just want to be allowed to live free from public shame in a society that accepts them as human beings worthy of protection from discrimination.
And until you can prove otherwise, George, if someone would like to believe that they were born gay, then who are you or anyone to say they are not? Certainly not an expert on sexology.
The same can be said of a belief in (g)od/s. No one has ever seen (s)he/it, so how can you be so sure that God exists? You can’t. No one can. Does this mean that the belief is somehow illegitimate? Nope.
The nurture vs. nature debate is irrelivant to the laws of Canada. And while I agree that some behavior (i.e. having sex with strangers in the park and walking down the street naked during a parade) is not the most fantastic thing. Neither is tieing up a gay kid to a fence post and pistle whipping him until he is dead, or not hiring a kid because he is gay, or telling him he cannot show up to the prom with his boyfriend, simply because it doesn’t fit into your world view.
So, if you want gay people to “shut up” then treat them the same as you would treat anyone else. Let them get married, raise families, and for the sake of all that is righteous, stay the hell out of their bedrooms. Treating them like equals will reduce the exact behavior you are describing as offensive (save the same sex marriage).
I have often wondered why the “righteous” are so hell bent on exposing sex and sexual activity? Why do you care? People get off (since you refuse to call it sex) every single day in the privacy of their own homes, and have since the beggining of time. Has Western Civilization fallen as a result? No, I think it is still going strong.
“They just want to be allowed to live free from public shame in a society that accepts them as human beings worthy of protection from discrimination.”
How do you propose to do this?
“if someone would like to believe that they were born gay, then who are you or anyone to say they are not?”
I’m not disputing this, just stating the obvious; people are responsible for the choices they make to act one way rather than another. Sexual desire is no exception, especially when you consider the expectation that paedophiles will behave themselves, not acting on their desires.
Regarding your other points:
- Belief in God requires faith, but then so does belief in anything human beings experience and act towards.
- Human beings are nutured because they are intelligent and have free will, and besides no one human being can ever be in a position to assess human nature like a biologist studies ants. To be human is to be moral so any science of mankind must be ethically conducted. And there’s no accounting for the shear unpredictability of human choice even in the face of the absurd.
- And this is relevant to Canadian law, especially when you consider matters like gay adoption and the different qualities that men and women bring to raising children.
- I don’t know what you mean by treating gay people like everyone else. I treat every person I meet differently, some better, some worse. So what?
- Most gay people aren’t hurting materially in any way, rather just a little to tender hearted because they cannot explain why they live the way they do, even to themselves. Well, of course, except to say they were born that way, which is an irresponsible and pathetic excuse. The ancient Greeks never spoke such nonsense, and homosexual conduct was rather more open in their society.
In the case of Matthew Shepard, he was a victim. He was beaten and murdered. But his being gay was the excuse his killers gave for their own murderous rage.
- Gay people can’t get married and I don’t feel sorry about stating the obvious. While one could conceivably call any kind of human relationship marriage, it really isn’t marriage unless it’s a consummated oath between one man and one woman.
And by the way, please enlighten me on how a same-sex marriage is supposed to be consumated if homosexuals can’t actually have sex.
- If gay people want to raise families, it’s a free country and they can have at it. But since they can’t offer a balanced two parent family with a mother and father, they certainly should not be treated with equal preference to married couples when it comes to adoption.
- I’m not interested in visiting their bedrooms. People will do what people will do in their own bedrooms. Unless some heinous crime is going down, most people really don’t care about what goes on in a homosexual’s bedroom. They really don’t!
Yet amazingly, gay activists, like you, seem to think everyone should derive all meaning in life from what they like to shag, unable to fathom that gay people really aren’t that special or disadvantaged. Stop expecting me to think that you are!
I don’t expect you to think anything. I do, however, expect that my government take steps to prevent people like you, who see fit to treat people differently based on flawed assumptions and religious bias, from doing so in a way that has a negative impact on the lives of gay and lesbian citizens.
The Government of Canada did that in February of 2005 by passing the Civil Marriage Act.
As you know very well,
Section 1 sets out the short title of the Act.
Section 2 legislates the legal capacity for two persons of the same sex to marry civilly.
Section 3 recognizes that religious officials are already protected by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms from being compelled to perform marriages that would be contrary to their religious beliefs, as confirmed by the Supreme Court of Canada in its opinion on the marriage Reference.
Section 4 clarifies that civil marriages between same-sex couples cannot be ruled by the courts to be void or voidable only because the couple are of the same sex, overruling existing common law.
Btw, after reading the Civil Marriage Act, and the legislation it made ammendments to, there is no mention of cosumation as a legal requirement of marriage.
“Most gay people aren’t hurting materially in any way, rather just a little to tender hearted because they cannot explain why they live the way they do, even to themselves. Well, of course, except to say they were born that way, which is an irresponsible and pathetic excuse. The ancient Greeks never spoke such nonsense, and homosexual conduct was rather more open in their society.”
Except for having to deal with discrimination from jerks who share your sentiments (i.e. Matthew Shepard, and countless other young men and women who find themselves the victims of gay-bashing, being kicked out of the house when their “loving” mothers and fathers find out they are gay, being looked over for promotions, or being asked to stay longer at work because “you don’t have a family to go home to anyway, right?” or making retarded assumptions like you must be a sex crazed maniac that wants to hit on anything with a penis, irregardless of the size, having police officers break into the club you are dancing in and arresting you, or how about in the Arab world where you are publicly exicuted for being gay?)
“In the case of Matthew Shepard, he was a victim. He was beaten and murdered. But his being gay was the excuse his killers gave for their own murderous rage.”
Yep… still sucks though, you must admit. Could you imagine what it would be like to be beaten in rage because someone didn’t like you as a Christian? I think the Greeks did that too, once upon a time, so did the Romans.
So rather than looking to the golden age of western society, and putting my favourite bumb pirates up on a pedistal (Socrates and Plato) why don’t Christians look to the future? When Jesus will return and restore his Kingdom on Earth in the latter days when there will be 1,000 years of peace? Is it because you are afraid that when this time comes we will all have to get along and be nice to each other because the Son of God will be watching? Sounds like Big Brother to me.
See, I can make silly arguments too based on my bias and limited knowledge of Christian dogma.
Again, I am glad the Government of Canada chooses not to follow all types of silly / dogmatic arguments when they make decisions that affect people’s lives. Heck, if you or I were in charge, there would be a lot of angry people.
Vivre le Quebec Grec!
Huh, I never said I was a Christian. Whether or not I am is beside the point. However, I do find it funny that you equate “being gay” with being a Christian, equating “being gay” with religious practice. An astute observation, one that hardly accounts for human beings and homoerotic desire but says loads about how hung-up on sex gay people really are, not unlike their “straight” pathological cousins.
The Government of Canada did not pass the Civil Marriage Act, the Parliament of Canada did. This fall the Parliament of Canada will redress that issue and hopefully defend traditional marriage. On common sense grounds gay marriage is not an issue of equality rights because it is not, never was, and never will be equivalent to traditional marriage, even if there is a law saying so. Gay marriage is simply not an equivalent type of human relationship in any way whatsoever. Even the number of persons privy to marriage, two, can apply to upteen types of “civil unions”, be it between two men, two women, an unmarried adult child and an elderly parent, two good friends, whatever.
Consummation of marriage is usually raised when a marriage is dissolved, particularly concerning whether or not the marriage will simply be annulled or the couple divorced. Again, beside the point, answer the question, how is a gay marriage supposed to be consummated if two persons of the same sex can’t actually have sex?
Discrimination is a fact of living a human life. We cannot transfigure reality to however we dream it to be, expecting such a deformation of reality to stand the test of truth. Again, even when it is legal, gay marriage is not the same kind of human relationship as real marriage and everyone knows this is the case. And even you because no one can deny what is obvious and expect to be considered reasonable.
I’m not saying homosexuals don’t get a rough go of it from time to time. But most of those hard times are not that extraordinary and every human life has its hardships. The criminal code is more than sufficient for punishing acts of violence against homosexuals.
I’ve never claimed to be a Christian nor praised a golden age of Western civilisation. Maybe you need to read with closer attention to detail.
Back to the topic of this discussion, how do you explain the increasing tolerance for paedophilia in Canada? I’ve made my case so please make yours.
Well, since you would like to look at the topic at hand, I do not believe that the “study” did say anything about tolerance for paedophilia increasing. In fact, I believe I mentioned the fact that the Sun article did not source the study, tell us what the survey questions were about, or described whether or not it was longditudinal. I also said that the editorialist does not understand how statistics work, and just because a survey says that x% are against something that y% are not necessarily for it or tolerate it.
My point is that too often the Politic reports psuedo-”research” from pretty shaddy sources, and, quite frankly, find it insulting that such inferrences are made about the Canadian public rit large, in order to sensationalize topics they mis-represent. Only to have it followed up by equally assinine comments such as “and this is why we need the death penalty” and “see, gay marriage is the slipperly slope, and this “research” PROVES it.”
Are you anonymous?
“In fact, I believe I mentioned the fact that the Sun article did not source the study, tell us what the survey questions were about, or described whether or not it was longditudinal.”
Huh, it was Leger Marketing, as reported by the Sun. As for the specifics of the study, you’ll have to ask Leger Marketing, but it is a reputable organisation.
As for this:
“… just because a survey says that x% are against something that y% are not necessarily for it or tolerate it.”
Then what does y% mean? I believe the editorialist was more generous and accurate: “… 19% of Canadians EITHER refused to answer OR believe that pedophilia is, in fact, a moral behaviour. A good behaviour. One that should not be judged by society.” I guess he could have also said, “… OR they misunderstood the intent of the question.”
And as for longitudinal analysis, it isn’t very thorough but there nonetheless: “The Leger poll also offers up a statistic that suggests Canada’s tolerance of pedophilia will slowly grow with time, noting that older Canadians are far more likely to see the practice as immoral versus those in the 18- to 24-year-old crowd, where only 74% agreed lusting after pre-pubescent kids is wrong.”
How is this overall interpretation inaccurate? Why should it not raise some concern? Statistics are used every day to make one point or another. When people like what they say they embrace them. When people don’t like what they say they don’t. This is nothing new to political conversation, but it doesn’t mean we are not justified in speaking to the implications of a potential rise in tolerance for paedophilia.
So I don’t understand your comment about psuedo-”research”. Is Leger Marketing not a good group? I really don’t think you have addressed how this study is off base, nor have you explained why increasing tolerance of paedophilia should not be a concern, if it is actually occurring. I believe I offered the “liberal” justification for such tolerance above. Is such reasoning off base in a secular liberal society?
The death penalty comment was “out there”, but maybe you should get a sense of humour. As for “gay marriage is the slipperly slope”, I said gay marriage isn’t real marriage, which it isn’t … obviously. How can you not agree?
Lastly, I never said this particular study said anything about gay marriage. I said same-sex marriage was something conservatives find offensive in the gay rights movement, part and parcel of flagrant homosexuality. Clearly, tolerance for flagrant homosexuality has increased in Canada over the last number of years. And given how this increasing tolerance has been justified, similar explanation may be made for any increasing tolerance for paedophilia.
I don’t agree that same sex marriage is not real, since I happen to be in one, and it seems pretty real to me (along with the real sex, btw). Real enough to be recognized by both legislative and judicial systems in Canada. And since the Civil Marriage Act guarantees that the Government of Canada cannot over-turn my marriage; (Section 4 clarifies that civil marriages between same-sex couples cannot be ruled by the courts to be void or voidable only because the couple are of the same sex, overruling existing common law) it looks like “till death do us part” applies to me as well as anyone else who gets legally married in this country. And if that is being flagrant, then so be it. I will show up to your parties with my husband, shop in your malls, and hold my head high. Use some of that sense of humour to humour me, or else take some of your own advice, and shut up, you are offensive to my sensibilities.
Do you have a vagina? If not, maybe you should try finding one.
Most legislatures in Canada did not OK same-sex marriage and neither did the Supreme Court. And Section 4 of the Civil Marriage Act is ludicrously offensive to common sense, let alone common law, and should be repealed.
“… it looks like “till death do us partâ€? applies to me as well as anyone else who gets legally married in this country”
Or at least until you, or they, get divorced.
“I will show up to your parties with my husband, shop in your malls, and hold my head high.”
Fabulous! My parties could use a couple of good dancing queens, and with excellent posture as well. How lovely. And I suspect shopping malls will too once Santa Claus becomes too “hetero-normative” for liberal liking.
You go girl friend!
This is exactly the attitude that makes it necessary for gay rights activists to exist. We lobby Governments to put measures in place to protect us from your homophobic behavior. So, keep it up, dip-shit. You are helping us win the battle with your ridiculous rhetoric.
Ridiculous rhetoric? Nah. Not as much as yours. At least I make sense.
And homophobic? Please. I neither hate nor fear homosexuality or homosexuals, as clearly demonstrated in what I have said. The gay rights movement is simply misguided and wrong on all fronts.
You trolls might consider this description of an example of trolling rightly understood.
http://www.firstthings.com/onthesquare/?p=281
“I will show up to your parties with my husband, shop in your malls, and hold my head high.”
Is the point here to annoy me or to raise my conciousness? Neither attempt is likely to be successful.
I suppose that since the reigning sexual dogma is to extend Charter rights to all those who “feel” the need, then I guess our SC will soon legalize it.
Yes, as goes every whim or fancy, so goes equality rights. The fact that to be human is to struggle to be moral doesn’t seem to phase Canadian courts; people are basically good afterall, don’t you know.
What qaulifies something a “whim” or a “fancy”, and what do you refer to? Groups that have acheived equality rights in this country, such as women, racial minorities, religious and non-religions minorities, and gays and lesbians, fought and debated long and hard to get to where they are now in society. I don’t know why people “feel” the need to deny rights based on the most subjective and outrageously broad illogical arguments as the ones presented here.
I may as well argue, using the same logic, that since we grant rights to hetero couples, based on consent, pretty soon the same “libertarian” reasoning will apply to the prepubescent, because, well, you can’t really put an age on consent.
By whim or fancy I mean a desired inclination.
“Groups that have acheived equality rights in this country, such as women, racial minorities, religious and non-religions minorities, and gays and lesbians, fought and debated long and hard to get to where they are now in society.”
This is a poor progressivist reading of history. Just as liberty can be gained, it can also recede.
“I don’t know why people “feelâ€? the need to deny rights based on the most subjective and outrageously broad illogical arguments as the ones presented here.”
What arguments are you refering to? Do you disagree?
“I may as well argue, using the same logic, that since we grant rights to hetero couples, based on consent, pretty soon the same “libertarianâ€? reasoning will apply to the prepubescent, because, well, you can’t really put an age on consent.”
Yes. What’s your point?
No one has argued that heterosexuality is necessarily superior to homosexuality. That would require some read on human nature, a read which I have said above is pretty hard to come by being that none of us can play God. But at present, the dogma of sexual orientation seems to have displaced the dogma of religion as a guiding light informing how people are to live their lives. Like the God of religion, the god of sexual orientation demands recognition by all. The problem with sexual orientation is that it is entirely inner worldly, lacking any transcendental divinity–bearing no responsibility beyond the here and now. It accommodates an excuse for those who want to be victims of their own sexual angst, who want to avoid taking responsibility for what they choose to do sexually, irrespective of what they desire.
Sexual orientation has become a common excuse: “I can’t help myself because I’ve always felt this way.” So there’s no accounting for better or worse desires that human beings, being moral, must choose between. And by logical extention, a paedophile can also claim to have paedophilia as a sexual orientation. This only reinforces his claim to legitimacy in a secular liberal society, otherwise based on consent and arbitrariness of age of consent laws.
Simply stated, in a secular liberal society overrun with the religion of sexual orientation there’s no accounting for the fact that sex is not a necessity, that human beings don’t have to have it, or at least, that sex is a human impulse that must be moderated. So I should have also mentioned that “flagrant heterosexuality” is a problem too. One has only to appreciate he stupidity of shows like The Bachelor to know what I mean; the quintessential heterosexual fantasy world, especially for the dude.
“By whim or fancy I mean a desired inclination.”
Well, judge me as suits your own fancy, if that is your whim or how you desire to be inclined.
“This is a poor progressivist reading of history. Just as liberty can be gained, it can also recede.”
Yes, with fear and prejudice and illogical arguments. But people can only be fooled for so long, hopefully.
“What arguments are you refering to? Do you disagree?
Yes. What’s your point?”
My point was already made. Overly broad and illogical.
“No one has argued that heterosexuality is necessarily superior to homosexuality. That would require some read on human nature, a read which I have said above is pretty hard to come by being that none of us can play God. But at present, the dogma of sexual orientation seems to have displaced the dogma of religion as a guiding light informing how people are to live their lives. Like the God of religion, the god of sexual orientation demands recognition by all.”
Well, gay or homosexually oriented people do exist. Why shouldn’t that be recognized?
“The problem with sexual orientation is that it is entirely inner worldly, lacking any transcendental divinity–bearing no responsibility beyond the here and now.”
Oh, I hardly think so. Being gay is not just about how one relates to one’s self, but how one relates to others in the outside world, and of course there is responsibility beyond the here and now.
“It accommodates an excuse for those who want to be victims of their own sexual angst, who want to avoid taking responsibility for what they choose to do sexually, irrespective of what they desire.”
Whoa, hold it! I don’t know if you meant to imply it, but gays are not victims of sexual angst, gays take responsibility for what they do sexually, and are doing what they desire. You also need to realize that “sexual orientation” is not generally used to refer to the paraphilias like pedophilia. There are other terms for that. Sexual orientation refers in most usage, to gay, straight or bi people. It also has a different meaning there, then it would have referring to other things.
“Sexual orientation has become a common excuse: “I can’t help myself because I’ve always felt this way.â€?”
That’s been the chorus in many love songs geared to those of heterosexual orientation for years. It’s called romance, isn’t it?
“So there’s no accounting for better or worse desires that human beings, being moral, must choose between.”
Well, not in that alone, no. There are other things to consider. There are people who are immoral in their hetero or gay relations, depending upon how they treat their partners.
“And by logical extention, a paedophile can also claim to have paedophilia as a sexual orientation. This only reinforces his claim to legitimacy in a secular liberal society, otherwise based on consent and arbitrariness of age of consent laws.”
This secular liberal society, does not term pedophilia a “sexual orientation”, like gay or straight. Pedophilia is a paraphilia.
“Simply stated, in a secular liberal society overrun with the religion of sexual orientation there’s no accounting for the fact that sex is not a necessity, that human beings don’t have to have it, or at least, that sex is a human impulse that must be moderated.”
Oh, I think that is far too simply stated. It is not that simple at all. Obviously sex is to be moderated like anything else. How would you moderate it? Would it be by an ancient book or relgious authority? I may have different books and a different religious authority. I may also use reason to decide.
“So I should have also mentioned that “flagrant heterosexualityâ€? is a problem too. One has only to appreciate he stupidity of shows like The Bachelor to know what I mean; the quintessential heterosexual fantasy world, especially for the dude.”
Ah, go ahead and openly enjoy it if you are not hurting anyone, as with being gay!
Don’t you think having “overly broad and illogical” as your point of criticism might just be overly broad and illogical.
“Well, gay or homosexually oriented people do exist. Why shouldn’t that be recognized?”
Everyone knows that erotic desire is directed towards both the same and opposite sex. This is too obvious to recognise in most circumstances. My criticism of sexual orientation scrutinises how it explains the experience of sexual desire as pathological fixation, and permanent fixation at that.
“That’s been the chorus in many love songs geared to those of heterosexual orientation for years. It’s called romance, isn’t it?”
Sure. But romantics are still responsible for their actions, irrespective of whatever they romance about. They are still human and therefore still moral. How could they romance about anything if they didn’t have some appreciation for the Good?
“Being gay is not just about how one relates to one’s self, but how one relates to others in the outside world, and of course there is responsibility beyond the here and now.”
I said sexual orientation, which extends my criticism beyond “gay people” to anyone so stupid as to say they have a sexual orientation. If people want to be gay, then so be it. It’s a free country. But that doesn’t mean they are justified in seeking special rights in law. And yes, same-sex marriage is a special right because it’s certainly not an equality right. There’s nothing equivalent about it to traditional marriage (as I stated above).
You speak very elloquently of sexual orientation and being gay. But the problem you face is that none of it is true. Like a cult, for those who accept it religiously, accepting the distinctions you make between sexual orientation and paraphilia, the world is raw substance that must be molded into how they wish it to be. And yet reality is the way it is, human beings free to do as they wish irrespective of such nice and easy distinctions. The rules of what popularly constitute sexual orientation or paraphilia, at any one time, can be broken.
Again, by logical extention, paedophiles do have a sexual orientation towards children, and there’s no good reason to exclude them from such a category. Paedophiles have as much reason to say their desires constitute a “sexual orientation” as do “straights”, “gays”, and “masturbators-who-love-well-carved-water-mellons”. What you call paraphilia is a trite way of avoiding responsibility for the language you use to justify yourself in the world. And to that, I say, having a sexual orientation is not a virtue but an excuse given for a hang-up!
And here we come to where your comments are proving my point, that in a secular liberal society, tolerance for paedophilia, when consensual, is justifiable given the arbitrariness of age of consent laws.
You say that sex can be moderated; yet when it comes to how sex is to be moderated, you say it is entirely relative. You are completely unwilling to submit to any authority, be it the law, traditional religion, or even the ostracism that comes from breaking social conventions governing what is considered appropriate conduct.
Your liberal excuse, “go ahead and openly enjoy it if you are not hurting anyone”, is the reason why tolerance for consensual paedophelia will only increase as Canada becomes progressively secular and liberal.
This has been my point all along!
>
Not so when that is true, from a logical standpoint.
>
Sexual orientation doesn’t do that. There is no consensus that sexual orientation is pathological or fixation, among those who are the authority on the subject.
>
Yes, but they also have impulses. Those impulses are not necessarily bad. Reason will determine if they are bad or good. You would like absolute, unquestioned, authority to make that determination?
>
You were talking about how society has created sexual orientation. Therefore, we should look at how society generally uses the term, for what purpose.
>
Gay people aren’t seeking anything. It already exists as an eqaulity right in the society that determines what is a right. Your assertion that sex must lead to reproduction or else it is not sex, would mean that the overwhelming majority of the sex or perhaps intimate acts that occur are not really sex.
>
Anything is possible, and no law is perfect. There is and can be the distinction, because we do indeed mold our subjective reality.
>
Fine. If this is what you believe, you are free to start a campaign. There are good reasons we don’t give pedophilia respect by putting it under the label of sexual orientation, as we do for gay and straight. Adults are the authority figures in a child’s life, and a child cannot freely consent. There is vastly inequal power between the adult and child.
>
No, I use that word specifically to refer to where it appllies.
>
Who says it’s a hang-up, you? Why should I care? Tell me why you believe it is a hang-up.
>
Pedophilia isn’t consensual in this secualr liberal society. It may be arbitrary to an extent and may be imperfect. However, we are not limited to two choices: either accept your absolute authority, or else accept pedophilia.
>
This is a false dilemma logical fallacy as I explained just above. We are not limited in this society to the two choices you present. Things are never so black or white. I am glad I am permited to use my head in this society, and not just without question accept your absolutes or your morality. Your morality is good, when you convince me it is good, with good arguments.
>
No, people are quite convinced it does hurt someone, for good reasons, as I explained in this post. You are really looking into a crystal ball, trying to predict the future. How do you know it is not decreasing? Hundreds of years ago, before this modern liberal society, there were 9 year olds who were brides. Women were treated as merely the property of their husbands and unable to question such moral absolutes, as were slaves unable to question the absolute moral order of things. It was morally right to burn “heretics” for questioning, etc. Absolutely the sun revolves around the Earth, because our absolute authority can never be wrong, etc, etc. How do we learn if we do not question? We should be open to considering new information as it comes along. We should be open to admitting we were wrong and learning from our past mistakes.
“Don’t you think having “overly broad and illogicalâ€? as your point of criticism might just be overly broad and illogical.”
Not so when that is true, from a logical standpoint.
“Everyone knows that erotic desire is directed towards both the same and opposite sex. This is too obvious to recognise in most circumstances. My criticism of sexual orientation scrutinises how it explains the experience of sexual desire as pathological fixation, and permanent fixation at that.”
Sexual orientation doesn’t do that. There is no consensus that sexual orientation is pathological or fixation, among those who are the authority on the subject.
“Sure. But romantics are still responsible for their actions, irrespective of whatever they romance about. They are still human and therefore still moral. How could they romance about anything if they didn’t have some appreciation for the Good?”
Yes, but they also have impulses. Those impulses are not necessarily bad. Reason will determine if they are bad or good. You would like absolute, unquestioned, authority to make that determination?
“I said sexual orientation, which extends my criticism beyond “gay peopleâ€? to anyone so stupid as to say they have a sexual orientation. If people want to be gay, then so be it. It’s a free country. But that doesn’t mean they are justified in seeking special rights in law. And yes, same-sex marriage is a special right because it’s certainly not an equality right. There’s nothing equivalent about it to traditional marriage (as I stated above).”
Gay people aren’t seeking anything. It already exists as an eqaulity right in the society that determines what is a right. Your assertion that sex must lead to reproduction or else it is not sex, would mean that the overwhelming majority of the sex or perhaps intimate acts that occur are not really sex.
“You speak very elloquently of sexual orientation and being gay. But the problem you face is that none of it is true. Like a cult, for those who accept it religiously, accepting the distinctions you make between sexual orientation and paraphilia, the world is raw substance that must be molded into how they wish it to be. And yet reality is the way it is, human beings free to do as they wish irrespective of such nice and easy distinctions. The rules of what popularly constitute sexual orientation or paraphilia, at any one time, can be broken.”
Anything is possible, and no law is perfect. There is and can be the distinction, because we do indeed mold our subjective reality.
“Again, by logical extention, paedophiles do have a sexual orientation towards children, and there’s no good reason to exclude them from such a category. Paedophiles have as much reason to say their desires constitute a “sexual orientationâ€? as do “straightsâ€?, “gaysâ€?, and “masturbators-who-love-well-carved-water-mellonsâ€?.”
Fine. If this is what you believe, you are free to start a campaign. There are good reasons we don’t give pedophilia respect by putting it under the label of sexual orientation, as we do for gay and straight. Adults are the authority figures in a child’s life, and a child cannot freely consent. There is vastly inequal power between the adult and child. We can see in therapy, etc., that children are hurt by these experiences.
>
No, I use that word specifically to refer to where it appllies.
“And to that, I say, having a sexual orientation is not a virtue but an excuse given for a hang-up!”
Who says it’s a hang-up or excuse, you? Why should I care? Tell me why you believe it is a hang-up or an excuse. I don’t see how people need an excuse for not following your moral code or for not using the terms you want them to use. Most have a good understanding of what sexual orientation means as it applies to gays and lesbians, bi or straight.
“And here we come to where your comments are proving my point, that in a secular liberal society, tolerance for paedophilia, when consensual, is justifiable given the arbitrariness of age of consent laws.”
Pedophilia isn’t consensual in this secualr liberal society. It may be arbitrary to an extent and may be imperfect. However, we are not limited to two choices: either accept your absolute authority, or else accept pedophilia.
“You say that sex can be moderated; yet when it comes to how sex is to be moderated, you say it is entirely relative. You are completely unwilling to submit to any authority, be it the law, traditional religion, or even the ostracism that comes from breaking social conventions governing what is considered appropriate conduct.”
This is a false dilemma logical fallacy as I explained just above. We are not limited in this society to the two choices you present. Things are never so black or white. I am glad I am permited to use my head in this society, and not just without question accept your absolutes or your morality. Your morality is good, when you convince me it is good, with good arguments.
“Your liberal excuse, “go ahead and openly enjoy it if you are not hurting anyoneâ€?, is the reason why tolerance for consensual paedophelia will only increase as Canada becomes progressively secular and liberal.
This has been my point all along!”
No, people are quite convinced it does hurt someone, for good reasons, as I explained in this post. You are really looking into a crystal ball, trying to predict the future. How do you know it is not decreasing? Hundreds of years ago, before this modern liberal society, there were 9 year olds who were brides. Women were treated as merely the property of their husbands and unable to question such moral absolutes, as were slaves unable to question the absolute moral order of things. It was morally right to burn “heretics� for questioning, etc. Absolutely the sun revolves around the Earth, because our absolute authority can never be wrong, etc, etc. How do we learn if we do not question? We should be open to considering new information as it comes along. We should be open to admitting we were wrong and learning from our past mistakes.
My, you are a true believer in the inner-worldly religion of sexual orientation.
“Gay people aren’t seeking anything. It already exists as an eqaulity right in the society that determines what is a right. Your assertion that sex must lead to reproduction or else it is not sex, would mean that the overwhelming majority of the sex or perhaps intimate acts that occur are not really sex.”
What? Are you saying gay rights advocates did not seek out same-sex marriage and are not now seeking to defend it? How could same-sex relations constitute an equality right when two penis’s don’t make a vagina. Get real. Sex is a penis in a vagina. If this isn’t happening, it’s something other than sex.
“Anything is possible, and no law is perfect. There is and can be the distinction, because we do indeed mold our subjective reality.”
Ridiculous! Mold your subjective reality? Great, but since basic physiology is pretty objective, that men and women are unique beings relative to each other, there is an objective reality that such distinctions must truthfully relate. Men and women are different, arriving at reason from physiologically different experiences of reality. Heterosexual and homosexual relations are, by definition, different, and therefore cannot be equivalent. Even relations between two men and two women are not equivalent and everyone knows this.
“If this is what you believe, you are free to start a campaign. There are good reasons we don’t give pedophilia respect by putting it under the label of sexual orientation, as we do for gay and straight. Adults are the authority figures in a child’s life, and a child cannot freely consent.”
No thanks. Why campaign on something everyone knows is true already. Even you! As for the rest: Who’s WE? What about the arbitrariness of age of consent laws? The Tories are currently increasing the age of consent in Canada from 14 to 16.
“Who says it’s a hang-up or excuse, you? Why should I care? Tell me why you believe it is a hang-up or an excuse.”
I didn’t say sexual orientation is a hang-up OR an excuse. It is an excuse given for a hang-up, a pathological fixation on what one desires sexually and so having one is, by definition, morally irresponsible.Â? People desire all sorts of things in the real world, making good choices on what you actually do is what counts.Â? How can you argue with that?
Whenever human beings speak they start to justify why they do what they do. Excuses are explanations people give so that they don’t have to take responsibility for their actions. So in the case of sexual orientation, people justify their sexual acts on the grounds that “nature made them that way”.
“Pedophilia isn’t consensual in this secualr liberal society. It may be arbitrary to an extent and may be imperfect. However, we are not limited to two choices: either accept your absolute authority, or else accept pedophilia.”
What on earth are you talking about? How are you refuting my point?
“This is a false dilemma logical fallacy as I explained just above. We are not limited in this society to the two choices you present. Things are never so black or white. I am glad I am permited to use my head in this society, and not just without question accept your absolutes or your morality. Your morality is good, when you convince me it is good, with good arguments.”
What are you talking about? I haven’t even begun to speak of morality. Just the ways in which human beings are moral (all humans are moral) and how secular liberal societies erode traditional authorities to the point that tolerance for sexual hang-ups becomes more prevalent. So as long as Canada continues to become progressively secular and liberal, that is, some contrary movement does not intervene, tolerance for paedophilia will increase according to liberal reasoning: consent and the arbitrariness of age of consent laws.
I’ve said all I want to say on this thread. If you wish to continue bantering, check out:
http://www.thepolitic.com/arch...../#comments
“My, you are a true believer in the inner-worldly religion of sexual orientation.”
I wouldn’t call it that. It’s a term that’s been coined to apply to those of homosexual orientation.
“What? Are you saying gay rights advocates did not seek out same-sex marriage and are not now seeking to defend it? How could same-sex relations constitute an equality right when two penis’s don’t make a vagina. Get real. Sex is a penis in a vagina. If this isn’t happening, it’s something other than sex.”
Well, that may be how you define sex, most don’t. I don’t.
“Ridiculous! Mold your subjective reality?”
Humans define their terms, their language.
“Great, but since basic physiology is pretty objective, that men and women are unique beings relative to each other, there is an objective reality that such distinctions must truthfully relate. Men and women are different, arriving at reason from physiologically different experiences of reality. Heterosexual and homosexual relations are, by definition, different, and therefore cannot be equivalent. Even relations between two men and two women are not equivalent and everyone knows this.”
As a society, we determine how we will recognize each relationship. That is sujective. Physiology can’t tell us if something is bad or good. Surely you don’t want physiology to be a moral guide.
“No thanks. Why campaign on something everyone knows is true already. Even you!”
What is the problem, then?
“As for the rest: Who’s WE? What about the arbitrariness of age of consent laws? The Tories are currently increasing the age of consent in Canada from 14 to 16.”
No law is perfect. A debate about the age of consent didn’t suddenly come up only in this secular liberal society.
“I didn’t say sexual orientation is a hang-up OR an excuse. It is an excuse given for a hang-up, a pathological fixation on what one desires sexually and so having one is, by definition, morally irresponsible.”
Wrong. It is neither pathological, nor morally irresponsible, the way it is used to refer to certain behaviours. This is the issue here, not your predictions about how it may be used in the future.
“People desire all sorts of things in the real world, making good choices on what you actually do is what counts. How can you argue with that?”
I’m not. However, the action can happen because of the desire. The desire and the action are not necessarily wrong, or right.
“Whenever human beings speak they start to justify why they do what they do. Excuses are explanations people give so that they don’t have to take responsibility for their actions. So in the case of sexual orientation, people justify their sexual acts on the grounds that “nature made them that wayâ€?.”
That may be, that nature gives the desire. I think it is only part of the picture, however. I don’t think we need to totally disregard the desire, but that does not make an action, coming from the desire, good or bad.
“What are you talking about? I haven’t even begun to speak of morality. Just the ways in which human beings are moral (all humans are moral) and how secular liberal societies erode traditional authorities to the point that tolerance for sexual hang-ups becomes more prevalent. So as long as Canada continues to become progressively secular and liberal, that is, some contrary movement does not intervene, tolerance for paedophilia will increase according to liberal reasoning: consent and the arbitrariness of age of consent laws.”
How do you know tolerance for sexual hang-ups is more prevelent, then it is in more conservative societies? The traditional authority in conservative societies can approve of things we find morally wrong in our society. It seems to me there is less approval for relations with the very young.
I also wanted to add that all our body parts perform multiple functions, including the penis and vagina. Therefore, who is to say that the penis is limited to being in the vagina, or the vagina is limited to being penetrated by the penis?
[...] Now on that party’s chances of success in any election, I have no comment. Whether or not this party should be allowed to exist, I have no comment. However, this does tie in with my comments to a post by Holden back in June. There I was trying to point out that amoral thinking with respect to sexual conduct will eventually lead to increasing tolerance for paedophilia. Paedophilia is, quite defensibly, a “sexual orientation,” afterall. [...]
asking “are you an idiot?” Surprisingly, the two poll results match up almost perfectly. (Some fervently denounced the poll, outraged by the assumption that they were Canadian.) Of course, this is the same country where one in five Canadians have no problem with pedophilia and the same Canadians who believe the United States government orchestrated 9/11 to invade Iraq, so what can we expect? Raging Right Wing Republican
My guess is that the majority of those who don’t oppose paedophilia are those who use the definition on its own - sexually attracted to a minor. Despite a lot not admitting it in public (many will in private, in cofidence, as long as they feel comfortable), many men who identify as heterosexual have had an interest in a person of the same sex - but as society has showb, that doesn’t mean they’re going to act on it.
By the same logic, just because an adult is attracted to minors, that in no way means they ARE going to act on it. Some may act on it, in which case they become child molestors (and you may see very different poll results had this been the term used), but a simple attraction to someone or something does not mean a person is going to act on that attraction - and if they don’t act on it, they don’t harm anyone, so there is no reason to oppose paedophilia on that basis.
Child molestors are, of course, a completely different story - even when they claim it’s “consensual”
P.S. Do the homophobes wanna stop trolling now? Go to google and look up “heterosexuality questionnaire” and have a read of the questionnaire link that you see, then perhaps you’ll realise how stupid you’re being.
And to clarify my above post - I am not in ANY WAY suggesting that molesting a child, even supposedly “consensually” is O.K. - I am simply saying that desires don’t necessarily equal action.
Too often people automatically equate pedophilia with child molestation. In post number 3, the person quoted “19% of Canadaians thought molesting kids was OK”. That poster did the exact same thing. The statistic in question was in regards to pedophilia, not child molestation. Pedophilia does not equal child molestation, yet people often use the words interchangeably as though they were synonyms. Perhaps anyone who is attracted to adults should then be referred to as adult rapists, as in “81% of Canadians think it’s okay to rape adults”. Yes, I realize that would be a ridiculous statement. Yet that is the type of statements people make about pedophiles all the time.