Battlezone Forums

Red Spot wrote:

Psychedelic Rhino wrote:All this denied to gay couples, who, in my opinion don't choose to be gay, anymore than I choose to be straight.

Thats an interesting statement. I see it used often for gay-people, but when it comes to pedofiles, those are just sick ....
(Dont get me wrong though, acting upon the feeling is different than having it, but having the feeling already is a very wrong 'choice'.)

True. However the distinction is made that paedophiles have documented psychological trauma and often soft-tissue brain damage.
Sure, every hetero and homo can probably claim the same thing, but not the same kind.

HitchcockGreen wrote:

Red Spot wrote:

Psychedelic Rhino wrote:All this denied to gay couples, who, in my opinion don't choose to be gay, anymore than I choose to be straight.

Thats an interesting statement. I see it used often for gay-people, but when it comes to pedofiles, those are just sick ....
(Dont get me wrong though, acting upon the feeling is different than having it, but having the feeling already is a very wrong 'choice'.)

True. However the distinction is made that paedophiles have documented psychological trauma and often soft-tissue brain damage.
Sure, every hetero and homo can probably claim the same thing, but not the same kind.

I guess I'm obligated to agree with this.

Moralising feelings and desires is pointless, it does not make them go away. They are simply 'there', driven by the mechanisms in the unconscious that we do not have direct access to. The only thing you *can* do, at least in the cases of things like pedophilia is to exercise the common arms of 'justice' that have some degree of effectiveness (deterrence, isolation, and rehabilitation (rehabilitation by treatment))

However, the fact that crimes exist in the first place shows that deterrence fails. Even in societies where the punishment for committing crimes is death itself, deterrence can fail. It goes just to show how irrational the human mind can be. And I don't think that attaching feelings and morals to crime and punishment is the right way to go about it either. Sure it may feel good to watch vengeance being exacted upon someone who you feel to be a terrible person, but that's your lizard brain at play -- it doesnt fix societal problems. It's more the equivalent of how people in medieval times enjoyed watching others getting tortured and executed. People can say that society is more cultured and beyond that kind of thing -- but the desire to harm others who have done no harm to you goes to show you that no matter how much we advance in law and understanding -- that aspect of our humanity will always exist.

Red Spot wrote:You're taking my statement the wrong way. What I mean to say with it is that hetero's homo's and even pedofile's do not choose for their own sexual orientation. The fact that someone feels something isnt something you should refer to as sick or whatever. Even when acted upon it doesnt have to be wrong, I've known plenty of couples where one was over 18 and one was under 18, which makes the one over 18 a pedofile. Yet at the same time an 80year old who dates a 20year old is called a smart man ...

I believe the 'legal age' thing was created for a few reasons
1) Non-adults are more vulnerable to coercion/duress than adults are
2) People who are considered adults are expected (by society and the legal system) to exercise maturity and discretion in choosing sexual partners and are held to be legally responsible for their choices (except in the case of sexual assault)

The legality of an adult who is only a couple of years older than a minor performing sexual acts with that minor is considered to be a 'grey' area because they tend to have a similar level of sexual maturity and thusly it's not seen so much as a person exercising undue power over another person (e.g. like it would be with a 30-year old and a 16-year old)

I dunno what this has to do with homosexuality, but I myself prefer an Argentinean method when it comes to age of consent: If there is no coercion or use of force or any weird stuff (or a complaint from parents) the basic, federal age of consent is 13.

Zero Angel wrote:I believe the 'legal age' thing was created for a few reasons
1) Non-adults are more vulnerable to coercion/duress than adults are
2) People who are considered adults are expected (by society and the legal system) to exercise maturity and discretion in choosing sexual partners and are held to be legally responsible for their choices (except in the case of sexual assault)

The legality of an adult who is only a couple of years older than a minor performing sexual acts with that minor is considered to be a 'grey' area because they tend to have a similar level of sexual maturity and thusly it's not seen so much as a person exercising undue power over another person (e.g. like it would be with a 30-year old and a 16-year old)

I agree totally. Society and media screws with a male's head with advertising and suggestive humor about immature young girls, then frowns when some undisciplined male follows the lead.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/1 ... gay-voices

Lol, 'bout time.

Did you watch the choppy video?

The wishful lust for a savior and a wonderful afterlife seems to spill over and bubble to the surface once the emotion has been turned to 11. Only Jeeeeeeeesus can bring you back from your desire of the same sex!

Zenophas wrote:http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/1 ... gay-voices

Lol, 'bout time.

Psychological re-adjustment should not be illegal in any way if it is fully voluntary and non-medical. Whether it works or not.

i used to be gay, then i got treatment and am now fully recovered.

You have to remember, people go to the doctor to change things about themselves sometimes. Many people get surgical changes to their looks and how come those doctors haven't gotten in trouble for it.If a gay person WANTS (not forced) to be straight then why should it be illegal for the doctor to help them?

Nielk1 wrote:

Zenophas wrote:http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/1 ... gay-voices

Lol, 'bout time.

Psychological re-adjustment should not be illegal in any way if it is fully voluntary and non-medical. Whether it works or not.

I believe the case in question involved a minor who did not want to be "re-adjusted".

AHadley wrote:

Nielk1 wrote:

Zenophas wrote:http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/1 ... gay-voices

Lol, 'bout time.

Psychological re-adjustment should not be illegal in any way if it is fully voluntary and non-medical. Whether it works or not.

I believe the case in question involved a minor who did not want to be "re-adjusted".

Now that's just wrong. Reprogramming people you have power over is not right.

Nielk1 wrote:

Zenophas wrote:http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/1 ... gay-voices

Lol, 'bout time.

Psychological re-adjustment should not be illegal in any way if it is fully voluntary and non-medical. Whether it works or not.

Psychology is by it's own nature 'medical.'
If you remove that from the equation, I think you end up with the video posted above.

doesn't matter if it's right or not - if it fits with the ideology of the people in power, then they'll try it.

Nielk1 wrote:

Zenophas wrote:http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/1 ... gay-voices

Lol, 'bout time.

Psychological re-adjustment should not be illegal in any way if it is fully voluntary and non-medical. Whether it works or not.

Totally agree. I don't hate gays, but I just disagree with their lifestyle. So I actually agree with the father/psychologist, but even if I didn't, I think it'd be ridiculous to outlaw a type of voluntary psychological therapy. It's not necessary. Don't throw a fuss over little things. But that's what most of the pro-gays are doing a lot nowadays.

I don't mean to offend anyone by saying that, but it is true through my eyes.