Because to him it may have been taught differently.
I know the distinction between lust and love. Anyone who doesn't has never really had a relationship
LGBT and the US Conservative Movement
- Thread starter FriedCFour
- Start date
I know the distinction between lust and love. Anyone who doesn't has never really had a relationship
KilroywasNOTHere
"BEEP!"
I think it's a nice Way of saying "say it to my face."
Doomsought
Well-known member
I have before, it lead to childish insults and ad hominum attacks. So I counted it as a win.
@Doomsought doesn't seem to know the definition of the words he is using. A sexual orientation is which gender one is attracted to. A fetish is a particular action or thing one derives an unusually large amount of sexual gratification from, including feet, bondage, etc. Fetishes also differ from sexual orientation in that they can be learned and even taught (though some are innate), while repeated studies show that sexual orientation cannot, including ones that use objective measurement of arousal such as blood flow in the penis.
Now, in the Transgender rights thread we had a huge discussion about it, with Doomsought constantly claiming with no evidence that conversion therapy worked, and denying that sexual orientation was fixed from a young age. It went nowhere.
Given your rampant idiocy on the subject, you aren't a reliable source either. I very much do know the difference between the two, you just want:
See, my impression of Doomsought is that he can't let gays be real, or he'd have to call himself a bigot. As long as he can pretend they aren't real, his disgust is (in his mind) justified. But there's a teensy tiny problem with that. We're real.
If you count shouting the same thing over and over again and presenting no evidence a win, that says sad things about you.
Doomsought
Well-known member
Sexual orientation has been proven to be influenced by environmental factors via twin studies. It is just a fetish, nothing more. You have no more right to practice your homosexual fetish that someone with a foot fetish or a fetish for bondage.
Anyone who has claimed that it is innate since the twin studies is a liar.
See, again, you try to misquote me. Here's my statement from the previous quote, which you just read and apparently ignored:
Again, it's mostly not genetic, though there are genetic predispositions, but also environmental as well. But what is true is that it gets stuck at a young age, and is immutable after that. Things don't have to be genetic to be unchangeable. Again, I have repeatedly asked you for studies showing that attraction can change and you have consistently provided nothing. Meanwhile, I can provide evidence from 1960 showing that sex change therapy doesn't actually work, namely Some problems in the Treatment of Homosexual Males, K. Fruend. It shows that when blood flow to penis was measured, there was no change in attraction, despite client's claims. And Fruend was someone trying to get conversion therapy to work!
Last edited:
Doomsought
Well-known member
Psychology is a very new area of medicine, and use not having a treatment now doesn't mean we can't develop one eventually.
But more importantly, you have failed to make an argument that homosexuality is healthy or moral, just at what ages the injury can occur.
But more importantly, you have failed to make an argument that homosexuality is healthy or moral, just at what ages the injury can occur.
This continues to be an intellectually dishonest argument, and it only makes you and anyone else who tries to use it look foolish. This is about being able to marry the person you love, period.
Sexual attraction is a chemical reaction in our brains, it has fuck-all to do with getting married. This is just a rationalization on your part to justify the bigotry you have toward non-heterosexuals, because apparently you just can't accept that fact that they have the same feelings as you, and have to dismiss them as just "fetishes." If it was only about sexual gratification, there would not be a push of marriage equality like there is, as they would be satisfied just going to big gay orgies or whatever. However, there are plenty of same-sex couples who are in committed relationships with each other, and are in them for years. You need to accept the fact that they love one another, and have every right to marry on another.
Psychology really isn't all that new. Also, you have it backwards - you need to prove the harm, not the other way around, as you're the one claiming that it's harmful.
Homosexuality was one of the first things studied. There has been about 100 years of trying to cure it with no success.
Second, no, I don't have to show it to be moral, that has never been the question with you. I've showed it to be immutable, and you have no evidence otherwise, so it's not a fetish.
Doomsought
Well-known member
No its not just a chemical reaction. It is a sophisticate statistical prediction algorithm that servers a specific purpose. There is no legitimacy to and alterations of the algorithm that do not serve that purpose.
You are wrong here on multiple levels, a vast majority of marraiges these days are based on lust even among heterosexuals, leading to a staggering divorce rate. Beyond that, much of the activism responsible for gay marraige is by left wing lunatics who hate tradition on principle.
The only purpose it servers is sexual pleasure, therefor it is just a fetish. Your perversion is not important, it is in fact very unimportant.
The purpose of marriage is to provide the financial stability and dual complimentary caretakers that a child needs. The farce gay marriage does not provide the capacity to bear children, nor the different psychologies of the man and woman. The sexual desires of heterosexuals should not be first and formost in this instatution, much less the sexual desires of psychologically damaged perverts.
So again, you don't know what fetish means. Enjoying using a dildo, for example, isn't necessarily a fetish, despite the only use being sexual pleasure. A fetish is an object or act that gives unusual amounts of sexual arousal to a person. A dildo is just a tool though, and gay attraction is no more a fetish than hetero attraction.
In addition, fetishes can be taught, which isn’t true for lgb's.
On top of that, given the exclusivity of most gay relationships, which lower the amount of sex had and that lesbian relationships frequently suffer lesbian bed death, we can tell that sex isn't the sole goal of homosexual relationships, which isn't the case for fetishes. In addition, lesbians and gays aren't attracted to the opposite sex as they would be if it was a fetish.
So again, from your definition, how does gay marriage not work if they adopt? And given that the sexual desires of gay men and women aren't maximized by marriage, this isn't a viable argument you are going down. In fact, the availability of gay marriage has cut down on nonmonogamy significantly in the gay population.
Doomsought
Well-known member
Because a man and a woman serve different roles in a child's psychological development.
King Arts
Well-known member
Also an adopted child is not your own. If a child is orphaned, and the entire village of 30 people decides to take care of it they aren't it's real parents, so why would it apply if two men take care of it, or even one? Adopting a child is a great act of mercy for a normal person to take as they are ensuring someone else's child will live on to pass on their blood, but that child is not their own.
So they can adopt or use artificial insemnation/surrogacy, but more importantly, this wasn't the topic. You seem to desert the topic at hand (homosexuality not being a fetish) because you have no evidence for it. This was a side comment that I made off of something revealing that you said.
Now on top of this, if you want to show that two men or two women are worse art parenting adopted kids than hetero couples are for adopted kids, show me some evidence. Find a study.
Okay, so this is crap. Is my adopted sister no longer my sister?
Doomsought
Well-known member
Wow, you are so good at juggling those goal posts, you should join the circus.
I have proven that homosexuallity is a fetish because it only provides self pleasure and does not provide a family. Your only argument that it is not a fetish is that if forms early and seems to be permanent, neither of which make it not a sexual fetish.
If pedophilia is permanent and immutable, would you claim that it is not a fetish and deserves the same respect as homosexuality? What argument do you have that would make pedophilia any different?
You haven't "proven" anything; you've aggressively asserted, but failed to provide any actual facts, logic, or evidence.
In any case, "fetish" in actual psychology is a much more specific term than the colloquial usage. A sexual fetish isn't a non-mainstream or non-procreative sexual interest; it's when overwhelming sexual interest or excitement is associated with a nonsexual object or part of the body.
In any case, "fetish" in actual psychology is a much more specific term than the colloquial usage. A sexual fetish isn't a non-mainstream or non-procreative sexual interest; it's when overwhelming sexual interest or excitement is associated with a nonsexual object or part of the body.
King Arts
Well-known member
It’s not a popular opinion but she isn’t the same like a blood sibling is. You may love her you may have grown up with her, but adopted siblings and step siblings aren’t real. Your relationship with them is based on outside sources as opposed to intrinsic nature. For example if your adopted sister had a brother that your family did not adopt would he be your brother? If someone is your sibling then their siblings should be your siblings right? It only gets complicated with half siblings. However he would still be her brother even if they don’t grow up together or have a sibling relationship it would be wrong for them to have a romantic relationship, because they are siblings.
No, you very much haven't. You are redefining terms to suit yourself. You don't know what a fetish is. Also, you've presented no evidence (read: studies) for any of your statements, nor any logic other than repeated insistence.
So first, it doesn't matter if pedophilia is an orientation. Almost all expressions of it is inherently nonconsensual (age play with adults only can be consensual, as are drawn pictures not based on a real person), that's the problem with it. It's not morally wrong because it's disgusting, it's not morally wrong because its a fetish, it's morally wrong because of the lack of consent being inherent. So even if someone insists its an orientation, you can still agree to disagree, then resume calling any expression of it morally abhorrent.
As for it being a fetish vs an orientation, this is a false dilemma. There are other ways to be sexually screwed up or different besides fetishes and orientations. Pedophilia is one of these, but there certainly are others, almost all more benign.
Here's where'd I'd draw the line: My sister's blood siblings, if she had any, wouldn't be her actual siblings. They didn't grow up with her. But let's say they did for a time. Then we'd just have a non-transitive family (the transitive property states if x=y and y=z, then x=z, for various purposes of =. In this case, we'll let = mean 'in the same family'). But this reflects the real world. For example, if you consider first cousins to be family with you, that doesn't mean your first cousin's first cousin needs to be family to you. Family is ultimately a measure of nearness, and nearness is inherently not transitive.
As noted, for one, that's not what a fetish is. Two, even if it was a fetish....ok? Fetish's aren't illegal, if you want to have a BDSM wedding you can, why is that legal while a gay one isn't?
Pedophilia is different because it's harmful.