Dekusta
New member
- Joined
- Feb 9, 2015
- Messages
- 48
- Location
- Goiânia
- Basic Beliefs
- Find out what morality is should be our concern. If we are wrong, then we have to stop.
Debating christians over the issue of homosexuality is sort of a pre-requisite for living a secular life in Brazil. While most of them have weak arguments, recently I was impressed by an evangelical psychologist who argued for heterosexual superiority.
Although I am unsure if his conclusion that "heterosexuality is better than homosexuality" is even relevant, or if any sense can be made of it, he presents two reasons under which heterosexuality is "better" than homosexuality.
Both of these reasons are based on a 1992 study by Dr. Kurt Freund and Dr. R.J Watson called "The proportions of heterosexual and homosexual pedophiles among sex offenders against children". Their study found out that the proportion of pedophiles who are more attracted to boys than to girls is larger than the proportion of teleiophiles (people attracted to adults) who are more attracted to men than to women. In other words, "[...]among men with a sexual preference for children, there was an over-representation of men with a same-sex preference. To reiterate, among men with a sexual preference for children, as diagnosed using Dr. Freund's phallometric test, there was a higher relative incidence of homosexuality.".
And then they concluded that "a homosexual development notably often does not result in androphilia [sexual desire for men] but in homosexual pedophilia [desire for boys]. … This, of course, should not be understood as saying that androphiles may have a greater propensity to offend against children than do gynephiles [men interested in sex with women]". They estimate that a homosexual development resulting in pedophilia is twice as likely than a heterosexual one.
Both me and my opponent agree that this does not show that homosexual teleiophiles are more likely to molest children, in fact some studies conducted by Dr. Ray Blanchart show quite the opposite, but he says that heterosexuality is superior because (1) homosexual development is twice as likely to result in pedophilia and (2) if we equated the number of homosexuals and heterosexuals on our society, most pedophiles would be homosexuals. He means "homosexuality" and "heterosexuality" as including pedophile and teleiophile individuals.
On another instance, he told me that "Suppose there are two genes, gene A and gene B. Now suppose that gene B has twice as likely the chance of turning into a cancer than gene A. Aren't we accurate when saying that gene A is better than gene B?".
I agree with (1) and (2) but I don't think they show that one orientation is superior than the other. Actually, (2) looks like an "if everybody was gay no one would reproduce" argument.
Do you guys have any thoughts?
Although I am unsure if his conclusion that "heterosexuality is better than homosexuality" is even relevant, or if any sense can be made of it, he presents two reasons under which heterosexuality is "better" than homosexuality.
Both of these reasons are based on a 1992 study by Dr. Kurt Freund and Dr. R.J Watson called "The proportions of heterosexual and homosexual pedophiles among sex offenders against children". Their study found out that the proportion of pedophiles who are more attracted to boys than to girls is larger than the proportion of teleiophiles (people attracted to adults) who are more attracted to men than to women. In other words, "[...]among men with a sexual preference for children, there was an over-representation of men with a same-sex preference. To reiterate, among men with a sexual preference for children, as diagnosed using Dr. Freund's phallometric test, there was a higher relative incidence of homosexuality.".
And then they concluded that "a homosexual development notably often does not result in androphilia [sexual desire for men] but in homosexual pedophilia [desire for boys]. … This, of course, should not be understood as saying that androphiles may have a greater propensity to offend against children than do gynephiles [men interested in sex with women]". They estimate that a homosexual development resulting in pedophilia is twice as likely than a heterosexual one.
Both me and my opponent agree that this does not show that homosexual teleiophiles are more likely to molest children, in fact some studies conducted by Dr. Ray Blanchart show quite the opposite, but he says that heterosexuality is superior because (1) homosexual development is twice as likely to result in pedophilia and (2) if we equated the number of homosexuals and heterosexuals on our society, most pedophiles would be homosexuals. He means "homosexuality" and "heterosexuality" as including pedophile and teleiophile individuals.
On another instance, he told me that "Suppose there are two genes, gene A and gene B. Now suppose that gene B has twice as likely the chance of turning into a cancer than gene A. Aren't we accurate when saying that gene A is better than gene B?".
I agree with (1) and (2) but I don't think they show that one orientation is superior than the other. Actually, (2) looks like an "if everybody was gay no one would reproduce" argument.
Do you guys have any thoughts?