tangent thread about labels/assumptions

[Gwen]

to stop derailing this thread (http://www.lds.net/forums/marriage-relationship-advice/40709-advice-homosexual-adultery-needed-5.html) figured it was time to start a new one.

Yes the subject started with issues with homosexuality but the over all problem is the using of labels and assumptions to make decisions instead of facts so it applies to many other situations.

No real goal to this thread other than to allow tangents from the other to have a place to go.

my off topic response to the other thread

So you are saying some are not addicted, just perverted? That doesn't make me feel any better. In my book, perversion is worse than addiction.

Call it whatever you like, if they are a danger to children that is what matters, not the labels.

perversion is a relative term. it means to turn away from the normal or accepted. claiming someone that you decide is perverted (against your normal and accepted) as worse than an addict is an emotional response with no foundation in facts. Other's define normal differently, to them porn may not be a perversion. Addictions are far worse, they not only hurt the person but everyone around them. Addictions are what get out of control and put children at risk.

You are deciding who is a danger to children based on labels. The reality is young children are in more danger from older kids teenage friends than they are from the gay teacher at school. but ppl will look at the gay teacher and get upset and then turn around and leave the 5 yr old alone with the teen sibling and friends. when we create labels we stop listening to the facts. when we stop listening to the facts we create a dangerous situation because our decisions won't actually protect our kids.

when we make decisions to protect our kids it needs to be based on fact. if i want to protect my teenage son from falling into the pit of sexual sin then i do need to take action. picketing and getting the gay teacher at school fired won't protect him. You need to know his friends, they are more likely to introduce him to porn and masturbation and other things that will harm him (could become an addiction) than his gay teacher is.

I want to say i'm not advocating porn, i don't like it and i wish more would be done to get the soft porn out of our ads. however, i am also saying ppl have their agency and they should not be punished for making a decision that is different than mine if they are no danger to anyone else.

let the tangents begin. lol

[skippy740]

Thanks for starting a separate thread. (Now back to the original tangent!)

[Vort]

Let's do a gedankenexperiment. Imagine two men with virtually identical personality makeups. They have very similar strengths and weaknesses; in particular, both have personality weaknesses that predisposes them to three types of sexual behavior:

• Homosexuality
• Voyeurism
• Attraction to children

But while these two men have similar baseline personalities, there is an important difference: Mr. A has experimented with homosexuality and voyeurism, while Mr. B has assiduously kept himself from any such thing.

Which of the two would you want watching your children?

Those who have engaged in sexual perversions of one sort have already shown themselves to be the type of person who indulges their sexual perversions. If they have any predisposition toward child sexual attraction, it seems obvious to me that they would be far more likely to indulge that perversion than would those who deny themselves of ungodliness.

So even if we accept the idea that homosexuals are no more likely than heterosexuals to want to molest children, the very fact that they are willing to act out on their natural, God-given homosexual attraction suggests that they would be equally willing to act out on their natural, God-given sexual attraction to children.

[Bini]

So even if we accept the idea that homosexuals are no more likely than heterosexuals to want to molest children, the very fact that they are willing to act out on their natural, God-given homosexual attraction suggests that they would be equally willing to act out on their natural, God-given sexual attraction to children.

Yup. And the same applies to God-given heterosexual attraction. There are heterosexuals out there that see no wrong in having sexual thoughts or sexual relationships with children of the opposite gender. You see it a lot actually with statutory rape cases. Grown men seeing no issue with bedding a fourteen year old girl.

[Guest LiterateParakeet]

perversion is a relative term. it means to turn away from the normal or accepted. claiming someone that you decide is perverted (against your normal and accepted) as

worse than an addict is an emotional response with no foundation in facts.

Fair enough. It was an emotional response on my part. FWIW, here is my confusion. If one is a member of the church and they chose to repeatedly view pornography, ignoring repeated warnings that it is wrong and dangerous, then I rationalized that in my mind that it must be an addiction. If it is not addiction then what is it? By labeling it an addiction was a kindness on my part. Trying to understand what I view as an aberrant behavior. If addiction is not the problem then... Perhaps there are other sins that are repeated without addiction. Tossing out the labels though, if I were aware that someone was viewing pornography regularly...whatever the reason...I wouldn't want them to be alone with my children. And since often that information is not known and pornography usuage is growing, all the more reason to be careful whom one leaves their children with.

Other's define normal differently, to them porn may not be a perversion. Addictions are far worse, they not only hurt the person but everyone around them. Addictions are what get out of control and put children at risk.

I agree that different people have different definitions of perversion, but this is an LDS board, so I think the LDS definition is fair to use here.

I don't know if your claim that addictions are far worse is true or not...I'm not taking any chances though.

You are deciding who is a danger to children based on labels. The reality is young children are in more danger from older kids teenage friends than they are from the gay teacher at school. but ppl will look at the gay teacher and get upset and then turn around and leave the 5 yr old alone with the teen sibling and friends. when we create labels we stop listening to the facts. when we stop listening to the facts we create a dangerous situation because our decisions won't actually protect our kids.

Clarification, I understand your point and I agree. None of this applies to me personally. I am very careful about leaving my children alone with teenagers, including my kids friends. I don't equate same-sex attraction with "would be molester."

when we make decisions to protect our kids it needs to be based on fact.

I have to disagree here. We do not always have all the facts. If we don't feel good about someone then we shouldn't leave our children alone with them. Period.

I don't think that a teacher and 30 students is alone. I am talking about if I feel uncomfortable with Uncle Joe, no reasonable doubt, I just don't feel good about him, then he is not going to be alone with my children.

picketing and getting the gay teacher at school fired won't protect him.

Again, clarification...I didn't say anything about gay people. I imagine that your post is for everyone, but since you quoted me, I just want to be sure we are clear. I have known (and still do) many people with same-sex attraction, and some homosexuals (the former not acting on those feelings, and the latter acting on them.) I have great respect and admiration for people who struggle with SSA and don't give into the temptation.

[Gwen]

I have to disagree here. We do not always have all the facts. If we don't feel good about someone then we shouldn't leave our children alone with them. Period.

Wanted to say I agree with you here. There are 2 ways we protect our kids. on the general scale of precautions - this is the type I was talking about in my examples and require facts not emotion (internet education, general house rules, etc). then there is the personal/individual level - this is what I would say you are talking about. If the guy next door gives you an off vibe and you just don't feel safe then don't leave your kids alone around him. That is often based on feelings. gut feelings, intuition, etc are different from general assumptions and labels (feelings) about a group of ppl.

[Vort]

Yup. And the same applies to God-given heterosexual attraction. There are heterosexuals out there that see no wrong in having sexual thoughts or sexual relationships with children of the opposite gender. You see it a lot actually with statutory rape cases. Grown men seeing no issue with bedding a fourteen year old girl.

True but non sequitur. Engaging in a heterosexual relationship with another consenting adult, especially through marriage, is not a countersocial occurrence, and so suggests nothing about someone's willingness to engage in a sexual relationship with a child. Various sexual perversions, such as homosexuality and voyeurism, are countersocial. Thus it is reasonable to assume that someone who sates his perverse sexual lust in one area is more likely to do it in another.

[Bini]

True but non sequitur. Engaging in a heterosexual relationship with another consenting adult, especially through marriage, is not a countersocial occurrence, and so suggests nothing about someone's willingness to engage in a sexual relationship with a child. Various sexual perversions, such as homosexuality and voyeurism, are countersocial. Thus it is reasonable to assume that someone who sates his perverse sexual lust in one area is more likely to do it in another.

I'm understanding now. You categorize homosexuality as a perversion, which by its definition of being abnormal, it is. I agree that homosexuality does not fit into the "normal" cycle of life but I disagree that homosexual individuals are more prone to sexual relationships with children. It doesn't add up to me. Mainstream pornography often showcases very very young looking men and women (often times depicted as teens). I think regardless of sexual preference, some porn-addicts may have a tough time separating that seemingly youthful fantasy from real underage individuals. I can't count how many times I've seen adult men winking or whistling at obviously underage girls. What makes that behaviour acceptable in our society? Hard to pinpoint it but possibly the exposure to pornography that introduces the idea of "young tail". Like I said, I don't believe the issue is exclusive to one group, heterosexuals or homosexuals. I think when you get yourself involved with such smut and become numb to it, it's anyone's game, as far as traveling down that forbidden darker road.

[Vort]

I'm understanding now. You categorize homosexuality as a perversion, which by its definition of being abnormal, it is. I agree that homosexuality does not fit into the "normal" cycle of life but I disagree that homosexual individuals are more prone to sexual relationships with children.

I pretty specifically disallowed that idea. You appear not to understand what I wrote, despite your first sentence. You might wish to review what I wrote a bit more closely.

[Backroads]

True but non sequitur. Engaging in a heterosexual relationship with another consenting adult, especially through marriage, is not a countersocial occurrence, and so suggests nothing about someone's willingness to engage in a sexual relationship with a child. Various sexual perversions, such as homosexuality and voyeurism, are countersocial. Thus it is reasonable to assume that someone who sates his perverse sexual lust in one area is more likely to do it in another.

But who is to say that he is prone to so many areas?

[Vort]

But who is to say that he is prone to so many areas?

Did you miss my first post in this thread?

[Backroads]

Did you miss my first post in this thread?

I guess I'm still having trouble relating it to your last post. Or maybe I need more clarification in the grey area.

[Vort]

I guess I'm still having trouble relating it to your last post. Or maybe I need more clarification in the grey area.

Sorry, I'm not understanding. What exactly are you having trouble with in my post?

[Bini]

Vort, if I didn't understand your post as you intended, then I didn't understand it. But you leave me confused. What is the "bottomline" of your comments then?

[Vort]

Of those predisposed to a certain sexual perversion (e.g. child molestation), those who have shown themselves willing to submit to other sexual perversions (e.g. homosexuality) are more likely to submit to the given perversion than are those who have consistently rejected submission to other sexual perversions.

[Suzie]

Where are the documented sources for all these opinions/suggestions or are just personal views?

[Vort]

Does no one actually bother to read these threads?

[Suzie]

Does no one actually bother to read these threads?

You have two people who don't understand your point and by that I mean what exactly are you saying because it seems kind of obvious to me.... so yes, homosexuals and heterosexuals can equally molest children...And?

[PrinceofLight2000]

You have two people who don't understand your point and by that I mean what exactly are you saying because it seems kind of obvious to me.... so yes, homosexuals and heterosexuals can equally molest children...And?

Point:

So even if we accept the idea that homosexuals are no more likely than heterosexuals to want to molest children, the very fact that they are willing to act out on their natural, God-given homosexual attraction suggests that they would be equally willing to act out on their natural, God-given sexual attraction to children.

Edited July 14, 2011 by PrinceofLight2000

[Suzie]

Hi Prince, I read that and that's why I asked if they were just personal opinions or there is documented sources for these "suggestions" particularly that one. Let's see.

[Vort]

Hi Prince, I read that and that's why I asked if they were just personal opinions or there is documented sources for these "suggestions" particularly that one. Let's see.

Here is my original post. Please read it carefully, and it will surely answer the questions that plague you about what I'm struggling to say.

In short: It is neither opinion nor suggestion. It is observation coupled with reasoning.

I know of no one who has done a controlled, double-blind study of men with identical inclinations who choose to react to those inclinations differently and how such reactions might statistically effect their propensity toward child molestation. But my reasoning seems sound to me. If it doesn't seem sound to you, then by all means explain what you think is lacking.

[Suzie]

Here is my original post. Please read it carefully, and it will surely answer the questions that plague you about what I'm struggling to say.

In short: It is neither opinion nor suggestion. It is observation coupled with reasoning.

I know of no one who has done a controlled, double-blind study of men with identical inclinations who choose to react to those inclinations differently and how such reactions might statistically effect their propensity toward child molestation. But my reasoning seems sound to me. If it doesn't seem sound to you, then by all means explain what you think is lacking.

I just read it carefully and I think I am getting a grasp about what you're trying to say based ONLY in the comparison of the two men in your example. Having said that (out of that context), let's not confuse homosexual molestation with the perpetrator being homosexual (a common misconception). You may want to take a look at this for some statistics and erroneous notions about gays being more inclined to child abuse:

Facts About Homosexuality and Child Molestation

[Vort]

I just read it carefully and I think I am getting a grasp about what you're trying to say based ONLY in the comparison of the two men in your example. Having said that (out of that context), let's not confuse homosexual molestation with the perpetrator being homosexual (a common misconception). You may want to take a look at this for some statistics and erroneous notions about gays being more inclined to child abuse:

Facts About Homosexuality and Child Molestation

Thanks for the link. Actually, I have very little interest in it (beyond the fact that UC Davis' psychology department doesn't rate high on my trust list). I do not believe that every homosexual is likely to be a child molester, too. However, I get tired of those who feign confusion at someone's opinion that he would not willingly entrust his child to a homosexual.

That fact that someone has already publicly embraced a sexual perversion does not engender confidence that he will refuse to embrace another, if so inclined. The supposed "confusion" over why a parent might not want his child cared for by a homosexual for fear of molestation is ridiculous. You may not agree that it's a significant problem, but it is dishonest to pretend that there is no reasoned basis for the feeling.

(In addition, a lot of parents probably just don't want their children exposed to the societal normalization of homosexuality. But that's a separate issue.)

PS A quick read-through of the link you provided confirmed my biases: The article makes little attempt at an even-handed analysis. Rather, it is a pedagogical treatise instructing the reader how he ought to think about things.

Edited July 14, 2011 by Vort

[Suzie]

That fact that someone has already publicly embraced a sexual perversion does not engender confidence that he will refuse to embrace another, if so inclined. The supposed "confusion" over why a parent might not want his child cared for by a homosexual for fear of molestation is ridiculous. You may not agree that it's a significant problem, but it is dishonest to pretend that there is no reasoned basis for the feeling.

Well, the problem I have is connecting what you consider the perversion of homosexuality with child molestation. I just cannot understand why if someone is homosexual they could also be a child molester, I just don't see the connection at all IMO but reading your views on homosexuality then I can see why you feel the way you do. Statistics seem to agree most sexual molestation of children doesn't come from gay people, if so then it means they mostly don't act upon these tendencies (if they have them) according to your example.

I think most of the time, people just repeat what they hear, assume, have their own prejudice, different culture, upbringing, fear or act out of ignorance however every parent has the right to choose who is the person best fit to babysit their own children.

I am curious, what about those who watch child porn and consider themselves heterosexual? Do you feel about them in the same way you described homosexuals in your example? Even more at risk? If you do, then does it really matter the sexual orientation?

[Vort]

let's not confuse homosexual molestation with the perpetrator being homosexual (a common misconception).

I failed to respond to this initially. Homosexual molestation is, by definition...well, homosexual. The perpetrator of homosexual molestation is very obviously homosexual, since s/he is molesting someone of the same sex in order to achieve sexual gratification.