Conversations with Christians over pedophilia and homosexuality

[Dekusta]

It's not incoherent. If I put oranges and apples under the same label "orapples", that is not incoherent, either.
I'm not sure how to clarify my previous posts without making them excessively long, and that would take considerable time. What part of the reasoning in my previous post you don't understand?

There is plenty of literature discussing the link between homosexuality and pedophilia, but suppose there is a link (in the sense that they have a similar cause or a phenomenon that results on attraction to either children or adults ). Would his argument be sound?

No, but he still has not presented the evidence in question, and that's enough of an objection.

Still, the answer is no: Suppose there are two genes, A and B. A gives you blue yes, and 5% of the times, it gives you nearsightedness. B gives you brown eyes, and 1% of the times, it gives you nearsightedness (I'm matching his argument; genes wouldn't be like that). In the rest of the cases, sight is fine. Are brown eyes better than blue eyes? No, even if gene B is better (suppose no other genes give you blue eyes, etc.), blue eyes are not per se worse. You could still say blue eyes are overall worse in the sense that a greater percentage of people with blue eyes have nearsightedness, but that "overall worse" is just shorthand for "a greater percentage of people with blue eyes have nearsightedness", and would not say anything about the trait about blue-eyed people without nearsightedness.

Moreover, even in that case, there would be no good reason to discriminate against people with nearsightedness.

Let me put it in a different way. Do you know of a trait that is strongly associated with child molestation? Maleness.
Indeed, males are grossly overrepresented among child molesters - and among rapists in general, bank robbers, spouse beaters, serial killers, assassins for hire, and so on.
Suppose there is at least one common cause: say, having XY chromosomes.
Would then maleness be inferior?
If so, what kind of discrimination against males would that afford?

Incidentally, and regardless of the cause, you could ask the Christian: Two couples want to adopt a baby: a man and his wife, and a woman and his wife. Let's consider the odds of child molestation. Who should have a preference for adoption?

That sounds like a good counter-argument. "The development of male sexuality is more likely to result in pedophilia than the development of female sexuality, therefore female sexuality is better than male sexuality".

An objetcion would be that both male and female sexuality development are not entirely different, because both of them lead to the same things (either bisexuality or homo/heterosexuality, and many others). The difference between them may occur because of the differences between the male and female bodies, and is not a difference "in the sexuality itself", as it is with male homosexuality and male heterosexuality.

But I'm not sure this is a good reason to reject your argument, since the claim could change from "male sexuality" to the male body. In other words, "the development of a male body is more likely to result in a disorder of sexuality than the development of a female body, therefore female bodies are superior". I think it would be hard for him to bite the bullet in this case, but perhaps he could appeal for other aspects of the male and female bodies to show that, despite using the same logic as his argument for the superiority of heterosexuality, the conclusion that "female bodies are superior" is false.

Still, the term "difference in the sexuality itself" seems difficult to define. Certainly, homosexuality in females and homosexuality in males are different, but they are both "same-sex attraction". However, heterosexuality and homosexuality are different because one is "same-sex attraction" while the other is not. I'm still not sure if this is a relevant point at all.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

It's not incoherent. If I put oranges and apples under the same label "orapples", that is not incoherent, either.
I'm not sure how to clarify my previous posts without making them excessively long, and that would take considerable time. What part of the reasoning in my previous post you don't understand?


No, but he still has not presented the evidence in question, and that's enough of an objection.

Still, the answer is no: Suppose there are two genes, A and B. A gives you blue yes, and 5% of the times, it gives you nearsightedness. B gives you brown eyes, and 1% of the times, it gives you nearsightedness (I'm matching his argument; genes wouldn't be like that). In the rest of the cases, sight is fine. Are brown eyes better than blue eyes? No, even if gene B is better (suppose no other genes give you blue eyes, etc.), blue eyes are not per se worse. You could still say blue eyes are overall worse in the sense that a greater percentage of people with blue eyes have nearsightedness, but that "overall worse" is just shorthand for "a greater percentage of people with blue eyes have nearsightedness", and would not say anything about the trait about blue-eyed people without nearsightedness.

Moreover, even in that case, there would be no good reason to discriminate against people with nearsightedness.

Let me put it in a different way. Do you know of a trait that is strongly associated with child molestation? Maleness.
Indeed, males are grossly overrepresented among child molesters - and among rapists in general, bank robbers, spouse beaters, serial killers, assassins for hire, and so on.
Suppose there is at least one common cause: say, having XY chromosomes.
Would then maleness be inferior?
If so, what kind of discrimination against males would that afford?

Incidentally, and regardless of the cause, you could ask the Christian: Two couples want to adopt a baby: a man and his wife, and a woman and his wife. Let's consider the odds of child molestation. Who should have a preference for adoption?

That sounds like a good counter-argument. "The development of male sexuality is more likely to result in pedophilia than the development of female sexuality, therefore female sexuality is better than male sexuality".

An objetcion would be that both male and female sexuality development are not entirely different, because both of them lead to the same things (either bisexuality or homo/heterosexuality, and many others). The difference between them may occur because of the differences between the male and female bodies, and is not a difference "in the sexuality itself", as it is with male homosexuality and male heterosexuality.

But I'm not sure this is a good reason to reject your argument, since the claim could change from "male sexuality" to the male body. In other words, "the development of a male body is more likely to result in a disorder of sexuality than the development of a female body, therefore female bodies are superior". I think it would be hard for him to bite the bullet in this case, but perhaps he could appeal for other aspects of the male and female bodies to show that, despite using the same logic as his argument for the superiority of heterosexuality, the conclusion that "female bodies are superior" is false.

Still, the term "difference in the sexuality itself" seems difficult to define. Certainly, homosexuality in females and homosexuality in males are different, but they are both "same-sex attraction". However, heterosexuality and homosexuality are different because one is "same-sex attraction" while the other is not. I'm still not sure if this is a relevant point at all.

You can ask him what he has to say; still, the parallel argument is only if for some reason one is not persuaded by the rest of the more direct counterpoints.

 

[Dekusta]

Ok, so I sent him the discussion, and his response was a bit confusing. Here's what he said:

"About the gene reply, well, that is not totally parallel with my argument. When I say " male homosexual" I mean a male individual who is attracted to another male individual, be it adult or child. In that sense, homosexual teleiophilia and homosexual pedophilia share something in common: they are both ways of same-sex attraction. The same doesn't happen to the feature of having "blue eyes" and "nearsightedness". One doesn't share anything in common with the other the same way "homosexual teleiophilia" and "homosexual pedophilia does.

Further, even this is not relevant, I still see that having gene B is better than having gene A, for simply the reduced risk of having nearsightedness. I'd ask what he meant by overall worse being just shorthand for "a greater percentage of people with blue eyes have nearsightedness". Worse is still worse, no?

I must say that I haven't read significant research about female pedophilia, but my answer to the other counter-argument and the question about adoption will be the same, I think. Sexuality is different in males and in females because of the different configuration their bodies have. It is not like homosexuality and heterosexuality, which the difference resides in the sexuality itself (one is towards same-sex while the other isn't) so I think it makes no sense comparing the two".

 

[Angra Mainyu]

Let "homosexual*" mean what he means by "homosexual", and let "homosexual" mean what the word "homosexual" usually means in English. The same for "heterosexual*".

Ok, so I sent him the discussion, and his response was a bit confusing. Here's what he said:

"About the gene reply, well, that is not totally parallel with my argument. When I say " male homosexual" I mean a male individual who is attracted to another male individual, be it adult or child. In that sense, homosexual teleiophilia and homosexual pedophilia share something in common: they are both ways of same-sex attraction. The same doesn't happen to the feature of having "blue eyes" and "nearsightedness". One doesn't share anything in common with the other the same way "homosexual teleiophilia" and "homosexual pedophilia does.

The gene argument was a reply to your question:

There is plenty of literature discussing the link between homosexuality and pedophilia, but suppose there is a link (in the sense that they have a similar cause or a phenomenon that results on attraction to either children or adults ). Would his argument be sound?

His original gene argument was:

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?".

Obviously, genes do not turn into cancer. So, what did he even mean by that?
It seems he meant a gene increases your chances of cancer, or even causes you to have cancer. If he didn't mean that, what did he even mean?

Here's what he said:

...

Further, even this is not relevant, I still see that having gene B is better than having gene A, for simply the reduced risk of having nearsightedness. I'd ask what he meant by overall worse being just shorthand for "a greater percentage of people with blue eyes have nearsightedness". Worse is still worse, no?

Actually, better or worse are relative to different matters. It may be that trait A1 is better than trait A2 with respect to some matter M1, but not M2.

Now, it would be better with respect to sightedness, and with respect to reproduction (in terms of passing on genes to one's children to have that gene than to have the other, all other things equal.
But let's say that adults who have gene A and who are not shortsighted are not more likely to develop shortsightedness than adults who have gene B and who are not shortsighted (this is to parallel the case of adult homosexual* men vs. adult heterosexual* men, unless he claims that adult homosexual* men who are not pedophiles are more likely to develop pedophilia in the future than adult heterosexual* men who are not pedophiles).
In that case, it is not better for adults, and with respect to sightedness, to have gene B than to have gene A, and it's not better for adults, with respect to sightedness, to have brown eyes than to have blue eyes.
Granted, it would still be better with respect to reproduction to have gene B. But that is not relevant in the case under consideration, for the following reason:

Assuming - what he has not shown - a common cause, then heterosexuality* is better than homosexuality* with respect to the chances of developing pedophilia. But on the other hand, that does not imply that it's better for adults who are not pedophiles to be heterosexual* than to be homosexual*, with respect to developing pedophilia.
What about "overall better"?
If he argues it's overall better, he would have to show (among many other things) that it's better for adult men who are not pedophiles and with respect to some matter M, to be heterosexual* than to be homosexual*.

Here's what he said:
...

I must say that I haven't read significant research about female pedophilia, but my answer to the other counter-argument and the question about adoption will be the same, I think. Sexuality is different in males and in females because of the different configuration their bodies have. It is not like homosexuality and heterosexuality, which the difference resides in the sexuality itself (one is towards same-sex while the other isn't) so I think it makes no sense comparing the two".

He's picking and choosing without giving any reason. How would it make no sense to compare therm? What does it matter whether their bodies have "a different configuration"?
Didn't he say "worse is still worse", when comparing the genes blue vs. brown eyes example?
And yet, in that case, there is also a different configuration (one has blue eyes, the other has brown eyes, and that's a difference).
For that matter, homosexual and heterosexual men also have different configurations of the brain (some part of the brains are different, hence the difference in orientation).

Of course, one can be compared femaleness with maleness with respect to the chances of developing pedophilia, and the former is better because the chances are lower. How does that possibly make no sense? What part of it makes no sense, if he claims that? (it's a rhetorical question, since that clearly makes sense, and it's better in the sense females are less likely to develop pedophilia (though my argument was actually about child molestation, where there is more data)). Of course, that does not entail that it's better for an adult person who isn't a pedophile to be a woman than to be a man...

So, I would ask him:


1. When you say "better", or "worse", do you mean with respect to the chances of developing pedophilia, or with respect to what matter?
2. If it's "overall better", that also requires better with respect to some specific matter, so what matter is that?
3. More precisely, why is it better for adult males who are not pedophiles to be heterosexual* than to be homosexual*?
4. What are you advocating on the basis of that alleged better quality and what's your argument for that?
5. How do you pick and choose what sort of things can be compared in terms of whether they're better or worse?


Is there a link to some place where he makes his arguments?

By the way, here is a link discussing the evidence: (though the Christian should explain what his argument is about (see questions above)).

http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/faculty_sites/rainbow/HTML/facts_molestation.html

 

[George S]

Shall we divide the world into those who have molested and been caught and those who have not? Or might it be better to include everyone with an inappropriate sexual attraction to children? Or try to figure out from reported data what a PSA might say to raise people's awareness of pedophilia.

Given a random child who has been molested, who was it?

First* place is ... Incest. (parent, uncle/aunt, cousin)
Second is ... Trusted Stranger. (coach, teacher, priest, janitor, policeman, security guard, babysitter, and many others... neighbor, maid...)

They get themselves into positions where they have access to children. (A lot of children in one family were molested by their uncle -- a fireman who gave tours, (sometimes with a group as small as 1 or 2, I hear,) of the firehouse to children. He was a married man, hetero with adults, bisexual with children.)

_____

Prior probability of being a child molester is estimated at 1 in 100 to 5 in 100. Let's try 5% first and see what happens when we add in homosexuality. It doubles from a 1 in 20 chance to a 1 in 10 chance. Should you tolerate either one??? Just put your brother in charge of your kids and not know what is going on? He's straight with adults. There is only a 1 in 10 chance. The same as the chance your social security numbers end with the same digit. Would you place your child in a place where there was 'only' a 9 in 10 chance of survival? Really?

In the 1% case the probability doubles from 1% to 2%. If there were even a 1% drop-rate among infants in the hospital, I would declare an emergency, not argue whether it is related to where the nurse was educated.

___________________
Sorry for the interruption.
___________________


Judging homosexuality as if it is black and white is nonsense. It is a spectrum. Probability curves of degree of attraction/rejection by sex. They may or may not be mirror images. Consider someone (of either sex) who has been attracted to men and women equally, but only been attracted back by women. (Is there a spectrum to pedophilia? Degree of love of defloration of innocents?, but I digress.)

__________
Source: http://www.yellodyno.com/html/child_molester_stats.html

 

[Potoooooooo]

"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 is a pretty dishonest use of language here. What exactly does 'notably often' mean?

in regards to 1); Twice as likely as among heterosexuals, as he claims? Even if that is true, and I have no reason to believe that it is, pedophilia would still represent an absolutely tiny minority of *either* heterosexual or homosexual individuals. 2 out of a million homosexual adults compared to only 1 out of a million heterosexual adults does NOT provide an argument for the "superiority" of heterosexuality.

in regards to 2); Not only are (if these figures are accurate) most pedophiles homosexuals... but in fact ALL of them are mammallian humans. Therefore, lizards are superior.

Maybe that is why Jesus chose to back as one

 

[Dekusta]

Good thing. I'm familiar with the link you cited. I'll tell him and see if I can get him to answer.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

Good thing. I'm familiar with the link you cited. I'll tell him and see if I can get him to answer.

Okay, but it's not just the link. Could you please ask him to answer the questions I asked in my previous post? It's difficult to reply to arguments as obscure as his. If there is a link where he made his argument, could take a look (though I'm a bit busy these days, so I can't guarantee a quick reply, but I will reply sooner or later)
.

 

[Dekusta]

So, I've been trying to get an answer from him for a couple days, and here's what he came up with:

"With regards to the link you shared with me, it appears the author focuses only on the studies provided by Paul Cameron and his Research Institute. Those are obviously not trustworthy, but there is much more to this issue than that, such as the studies conducted by Graham Glancy and Kurt Freund. Furthermore, the LGBT culture seems to place a lot of importance on what they call 'twinks', a term used to designate teenager homosexuals, or homosexuals who resemble teenagers. The number of people attracted to 'twinks' as well as their enourmous place in gay porn industry is evidence that homosexuals are more attracted towards young traits than heterosexuals are, as there is no such presence of young girls in straight culture, and when there is, these girls resemble adults and not the other way around".

With regards to the "overall better" confusion, we can go back to the eye-color gene example. If there is a gene A who gives you blue eyes but a higher chance of nearsightedness, and if there is another gene B who gives you the same blue eyes buth with a lesser chance of nearsightedness, then on the overall comparison, the gene B presents more advantages than gene A, as well as less impactful disadvantages".

 

[dystopian]

So, I've been trying to get an answer from him for a couple days, and here's what he came up with:

"With regards to the link you shared with me, it appears the author focuses only on the studies provided by Paul Cameron and his Research Institute. Those are obviously not trustworthy, but there is much more to this issue than that, such as the studies conducted by Graham Glancy and Kurt Freund.

I have no idea who Graham Clancy is; a quick google doesn't come up with anything.

As for Kurt Freund, your friend might not want to actually use him as a reference... Freund provided strong evidence for a genetic cause behind homosexuality; which if true kind of makes your friend out to be a huge dick (more so than he already appears to be) for reacting this way to a group that was born that way.

Furthermore, the LGBT culture seems to place a lot of importance on what they call 'twinks', a term used to designate teenager homosexuals, or homosexuals who resemble teenagers. The number of people attracted to 'twinks' as well as their enourmous place in gay porn industry is evidence that homosexuals are more attracted towards young traits than heterosexuals are, as there is no such presence of young girls in straight culture, and when there is, these girls resemble adults and not the other way around".

...Wat.

He can't possibly believe this nonsense. First of all, "Twink" does not explicitly refer to teenage homosexuals; it simply refers to young (though still 18+ at the least) men with a certain build. Secondly, it is flat-out wrong to claim there is no similar presence of girls in straight culture... very much the opposite in fact. Even a casual comparison of gay and straight porn reveals that twinks don't look any noticeably younger than the women who appear in 'teen' straight porn... and there's a vast market for such straight porn. Either your friend has very little experience with straight porn, or he's just straight up lying to himself in order to prop up his argument.

 

[Keith&Co.]

The number of people attracted to 'twinks' as well as their enourmous place in gay porn industry is evidence that homosexuals are more attracted towards young traits than heterosexuals are, as there is no such presence of young girls in straight culture, and when there is, these girls resemble adults and not the other way around".

Wow.
Let's use the trends in porn to find out what real people really want? That's solid investigation, there. I'll go see how much Lolita-themed porn there is and determine that straights are pedophiles, too. And Lolita costumes at Spender's. Sex-flavored lollypops....

 

[Bronzeage]

So, I've been trying to get an answer from him for a couple days, and here's what he came up with:

"With regards to the link you shared with me, it appears the author focuses only on the studies provided by Paul Cameron and his Research Institute. Those are obviously not trustworthy, but there is much more to this issue than that, such as the studies conducted by Graham Glancy and Kurt Freund. Furthermore, the LGBT culture seems to place a lot of importance on what they call 'twinks', a term used to designate teenager homosexuals, or homosexuals who resemble teenagers. The number of people attracted to 'twinks' as well as their enourmous place in gay porn industry is evidence that homosexuals are more attracted towards young traits than heterosexuals are, as there is no such presence of young girls in straight culture, and when there is, these girls resemble adults and not the other way around".

With regards to the "overall better" confusion, we can go back to the eye-color gene example. If there is a gene A who gives you blue eyes but a higher chance of nearsightedness, and if there is another gene B who gives you the same blue eyes buth with a lesser chance of nearsightedness, then on the overall comparison, the gene B presents more advantages than gene A, as well as less impactful disadvantages".

You need to spend more time researching straight porn, as you have some obvious gaps in your data.

 

[Dekusta]

I have no idea who Graham Clancy is; a quick google doesn't come up with anything.

As for Kurt Freund, your friend might not want to actually use him as a reference... Freund provided strong evidence for a genetic cause behind homosexuality; which if true kind of makes your friend out to be a huge dick (more so than he already appears to be) for reacting this way to a group that was born that way.

Furthermore, the LGBT culture seems to place a lot of importance on what they call 'twinks', a term used to designate teenager homosexuals, or homosexuals who resemble teenagers. The number of people attracted to 'twinks' as well as their enourmous place in gay porn industry is evidence that homosexuals are more attracted towards young traits than heterosexuals are, as there is no such presence of young girls in straight culture, and when there is, these girls resemble adults and not the other way around".

...Wat.

He can't possibly believe this nonsense. First of all, "Twink" does not explicitly refer to teenage homosexuals; it simply refers to young (though still 18+ at the least) men with a certain build. Secondly, it is flat-out wrong to claim there is no similar presence of girls in straight culture... very much the opposite in fact. Even a casual comparison of gay and straight porn reveals that twinks don't look any noticeably younger than the women who appear in 'teen' straight porn... and there's a vast market for such straight porn. Either your friend has very little experience with straight porn, or he's just straight up lying to himself in order to prop up his argument.

He is referring to Graham 'G'lancy, with G, not Clancy. He or She worked with Kurt Freund in the study cited in the OP. Also, my reaction to this last part was the same as yours, but I didn't know what 'twink' was about. I don't understand him when he says that teen girls look like adult women but twinks look like teenagers. I think he is just desperate.

 

[blastula]

By the guy's logic, the prevelance of the shaved pube look means heteros are inferior.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

"With regards to the link you shared with me, it appears the author focuses only on the studies provided by Paul Cameron and his Research Institute. Those are obviously not trustworthy, but there is much more to this issue than that, such as the studies conducted by Graham Glancy and Kurt Freund.

Actually, that's clearly not true - it should be clear just by clicking on the link and reading it that he does take into consideration a study by Freund.

But that aside, it seems he refuses to clearly answer my basic clarification questions, like:

1. When you say "better", or "worse", do you mean with respect to the chances of developing pedophilia, or with respect to what matter?
2. If it's "overall better", that also requires better with respect to some specific matter, so what matter is that?
3. More precisely, why is it better for adult males who are not pedophiles to be heterosexual than to be homosexual?
4. What are you advocating on the basis of that alleged better quality and what's your argument for that?
5. How do you pick and choose what sort of things can be compared in terms of whether they're better or worse?

Definitions: By "homosexual*" I mean what he means by "homosexual", and by "homosexual" mean what the word "homosexual" usually means in English. The same for "heterosexual*" and "heterosexual".
I would press on the questions:

As for the only thing he did to approach my questions (but failing to address them):

With regards to the "overall better" confusion, we can go back to the eye-color gene example. If there is a gene A who gives you blue eyes but a higher chance of nearsightedness, and if there is another gene B who gives you the same blue eyes buth with a lesser chance of nearsightedness, then on the overall comparison, the gene B presents more advantages than gene A, as well as less impactful disadvantages".

But I already addressed that!

Again, let us consider the following scenario:

Let's say that adults who have gene A and who are not shortsighted are not more likely to develop shortsightedness than adults who have gene B and who are not shortsighted (this is to parallel the case of adult homosexual* men vs. adult heterosexual* men, unless he claims that adult homosexual* men who are not pedophiles are more likely to develop pedophilia in the future than adult heterosexual* men who are not pedophiles).
In that case, it is not better for adults, and with respect to sightedness, to have gene B than to have gene A, and it's not better for adults, with respect to sightedness, to have brown eyes than to have blue eyes. Granted, it would still be better with respect to reproduction to have gene B. But if two adults, say Adam and Steve, have genes A and B respectively, neither is short sighted, and neither of them intends to reproduce, then why would it be overall better to have gene B than gene A?

But let's leave the genes aside, because he will probably keep missing the point, given the record.

Let me put it as follows:

Assuming heterosexuality* is better than homosexuality* with respect to the chances of developing pedophilia, that does not imply that it's better for adults who are not pedophiles to be heterosexual than to be homosexual.
If he argues it's overall better, he would have to show (among many other things) that it's better for adult men who are not pedophiles and with respect to some matter M, to be heterosexual* than to be homosexual*, or some other advantage. But what is it?

That aside, what does he advocate in terms of policy?
And how does he pick and choose what sort of things can be compared in terms of whether they're better or worse?

 

[credoconsolans]

Quote Originally Posted by Dekusta View Post
The number of people attracted to 'twinks' as well as their enourmous place in gay porn industry is evidence that homosexuals are more attracted towards young traits than heterosexuals are, as there is no such presence of young girls in straight culture, and when there is, these girls resemble adults and not the other way around".

Sure. That's why women over 40 have excellent careers in cinema and can look forward to many more decades of roles in movies and women at that age who are still single can look forward to a large group of single men their age looking for them to date and not say....oh, some woman 20 years younger...

/sarcasm off