The gay and the Pedophile....
 

I don't compare the 2. They aren't linked whatsoever. I find the subject facinating though so I am going to type my thoughts out and let you all castigate me as a bigot when I am done...

People get mad at the LDS church in general for asking homosexuals to live a life where they are celibate, not succumming to their "natural tendancies" and living life as if they are a straight person that just never married. And we are going to say this in the same breath as saying they are born this way and it isn't a choice.

At the same time...

I preface this part knowing that child porn/all of its ilk is against the "law"...

Society looks at someone who is a "Pedophile" as an outcast. Someone who is sick, dirty, evil vile scum. Society recognizes that perhaps they were "born" that way but they are still a sick individual. As a society we ask them to be celibate (because they are attracted to kids), not succomb to thier "natural tendancies" and live life if they are a straight person. Not even taking into acct. if they are attracted to a child of the same sex or not. They would bring up a whole different issue...like are they a gay pedophile...

What really is the difference? I understand the consenting adult part of it, and that is really the best talking point to refute it.

But what if a young man is 21 years old and in love with a 14 year old girl? She is mature for her age and is sure of herself in life. What if the 21 year old man only seems to be attracted to young women? Wouldn't that still make him a pedophile? I don't think there is a difference in likeing a 10 yr old or a 12 yr old or a 14 yr old.

That is the question I think about.

Society looks at one as says the LDS church is wrong. But no one looks at society and thinks that perhaps they could be wrong.

Again...

I AM NOT SAYING THEY ARE THE SAME OR EVEN LINKED. I just use these as two talking points on how society and the church view things.

I am 99% sure though that the Pedophile doesn't understand why society sees him as evil and doesn't understand why society wont acept him/her.

In that...they fight the same plight.


I know I am talking in the wind, and probably wont get a serious discussion going, but it is interesting to me none the less.

He just needs to wait seven years until she is eighteen. If he loses interest because she is older and he's still attracted to 14 year old girls, he probably is a pedophile.

agreed.

But do we look down upon him if he only likes 14 year old girls...

Was Joseph Smith a pedophile?

Yes.

You must be trolling. I can't believe this is an honest thread.

I am not sure, given the culture of the time, that chasing Fanny's fanny would make him a pedophile. It appears he just really liked tail, no matter the age. A pedophile, I believe, has difficulty becoming aroused by adult partners.

I know I was just being as ridiculous as Tick.

It is an intellectual discussion which nobody wishes to have, because using "pedophile" is akin to drawing an analogy to somebody's actions being like unto "Hitler."

However, some sexual activities are socially acceptable, and some are not. Why?

I remember one of those shows, silly as it was, which involved vampires, who tried to suppress his instincts speaking to an administrative vampire. The bureaucrat pointed out that there were some things which even vampires wouldn't tolerate and the he was relating was how he killed a favorite daughter because she wanted to throw off the last taboo and engage in incest.

Distinctions are already apparent, so making them for me, would assist in the analysis and I'm aware of the Hitler scorched earth policy, but unlike the taboo of incest, aberrant sexuality, and I use "aberrant" referring to statistical incidence not with the usual negative connotations, might be rooted in genetic conditions.

Let's look at those with genetic components. Homosexuality, probably. Bisexuality? Dunno. Pedophilia? Dunno, are there enough studies? Bestiality?

Gay advocates intelligently seek to distinguish their group from the others because they are aware little sympathy exists for persons conducting such activities. So normalizers tend to use "consent" as the distinguishing factor in making the judgment. It sounds reasonable but will society ever eradicate that distinction?

as a side note, and probably one which nobody cares about, I wonder how individuals learned much about sexuality before wide spread studies, internet discussions and playing the field.

How were the reigns initially instituted?

Ignoring a fundamentalist approach, what conditions existed that caused society to start saying, "hey, you can't sleep with whomever you like?" It's an unanswerable question but its answer might shed light on why we are where are today.

The comparison is offensive. But the principle behind the offensive is important.

The bottom line is there are a lot of things the natural man wants that it can't have. I'm not sure very many people in the world are completely sexually satisfied a majority of the time. It seems to be something God wants us to experience and learn from. In light of that, the task the homosexual has in life is a heavy cross to bear but not inordinately special. It's a cross we all bear to some extent.