LGBTQ+ Rights / Similar Discussion

Please Note: The TotalFreedom Forum has now been put into a read-only mode. Total Freedom has now closed down and will not be returning in any way, shape or form. It has been a pleasure to lead this community and I wish you all the best for your futures.

    @Darth#12021

    Quote

    @Darth#12021 He's not saying that the number has or has not changed, he is saying that if it did we can't prove it.

    but the number has and continues to change? logically when a ton of people come and say they are gay, that means the number has changed, what is wrong is to than say that the number has remained constant through history.

    Quote

    @Darth#12021 Why is that the most reasonable? You can't change your core sexuality. It's a a part of your brain.

    this is the delusion part, there is no "core sexuality", there is no test that will tell you if you are gay or not. Its not part of your "brain" or genetics. for millions of years people have managed to act normal. the article you linked to talks about "the genetics of sexual orientation", it has been proven many times that there is no "gay gene" and that being LGBTQ is not based on genetics.
    https://harvardmagazine.com/2019/08/there-s-still-no-gay-gene
    https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/massiv…exual-behavior/
    https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-02585-6

    Quote

    @Darth#12021 Sexual orientation is complex and is impossible to pin with "it's genetic" or "it's caused by our culture" - why can't we just accept that it is what it is and embrace it rather than calling it wrong?

    because its disguising and comes with a ton of problems (and its wrong)

    Quote

    @Darth#12021 If you are gay in a society that discourages or bans homosexuality, you will not "become" straight. You will suffer from cognitive dissonance (that is, feel your mind being torn apart because of the constant battle between "it's who I am" and "it's wrong") but your sexual orientation will remain.

    and somehow still have a lower suicide rate than countries who don't ban it? and you still have a higher disapproval rate? if "suppressing your sexuality" was really so hard that "you feel your mind being torn apart", no religion could stop you from killing yourself, or at least advocating for LGBT rights.

    Quote

    @Darth#12021 Actually, using Occam's razor, the simplest explanation would be that the number has stayed relatively stable over time (it's more simple that the number has not changed than the number changing over time).

    so you are trying to tell me that its more simple that (for thousands of years) 5% of society had "cognitive dissonance" and "felt that their minds were being torn apart", than homosexuality simply being influenced by society? (LOL)

    Quote

    @Darth#12021 it stands to reason that they may choose to hide it.

    i thought hiding it tears your brain apart?

    Quote

    @Darth#12021 Simulated child porn - controversial, but many courts have ruled that it is legal to create/distribute such material (e.g animations, text, etc).
    Homosexuality is legal without question in the US.

    legality has nothing to do with anything, i was referring to morality. simulated child porn is disguising, deviant and amoral

    Quote

    @Darth#12021 You have still not told me why homoxesuality is wrong/harmful,

    yea i did, i mentioned STD's, the fact that gays cant reproduce, they are more likely to commit suicide (statistically) and many more. the links you posted were already posted in this thread.

    Quote

    @Darth#12021 child molestation and bestiality

    do you have something wrong with simulated child porn? what about child/animal sex dolls (because if you do thats a contradiction) funny meme to de-escalate

    Quote

    @billy7oblos#12023 but the number has and continues to change? logically when a ton of people come and say they are gay, that means the number has changed, what is wrong is to than say that the number has remained constant through history.

    Because if admitting you were homosexual would get you murdered, then you would not admit it. Thus, anyone doing a survey would get a large amount of dishonest answers.

    Quote

    @billy7oblos#12023 this is the delusion part, there is no "core sexuality",

    Sexuality isn't an entirely tangible thing. It takes many forms, so yes you're correct in that there is no "sexuality" part of the brain that decides it - but sexuality still exists.

    Quote

    @billy7oblos#12023 there is no test that will tell you if you are gay or not.

    There is. It's called exploration, and experimenting. Some people can look at another person and feel the attraction instantly, and some need more time. There is a test, it's just different for everyone and not universal.

    Quote

    @billy7oblos#12023 Its not part of your "brain" or genetics.

    No, but it's a combination of that and many other factors. No one thing controls it.

    Quote

    @billy7oblos#12023 because its disguising and comes with a ton of problems (and its wrong)

    So, "it's wrong because it's wrong, and it's wrong because I say so," basically?

    Quote

    @billy7oblos#12023 if "suppressing your sexuality" was really so hard that "you feel your mind being torn apart", no religion could stop you from killing yourself, or at least advocating for LGBT rights.

    Cognitive dissonance is when you believe/feel one thing, but have another belief or experience that pulls you in a different direction. Symptoms can include depression, anxiety. and a bunch of other bad stuff.

    Quote

    @billy7oblos#12023 so you are trying to tell me that its more simple that (for thousands of years) 5% of society had "cognitive dissonance" and "felt that their minds were being torn apart", than homosexuality simply being influenced by society? (LOL)

    Yes. If homosexuality was entirely influenced by society, we would not see it in other animals, which we do.

    Quote

    @billy7oblos#12023 i thought hiding it tears your brain apart?

    It's a metaphorical phrase meanting having a mental struggle with yourself. Being LGTBQ+ but having a lot of people in your life telling you it's wrong is harmful because someone believes their own feelings and instincts, but also value the thoughts of others in their life. It's a nuanced situation.

    Quote

    @billy7oblos#12023 yea i did, i mentioned STD's, the fact that gays cant reproduce, they are more likely to commit suicide (statistically) and many more. the links you posted were already posted in this thread.

    Except STD's are not exlusive to homosexual encounters. Like heterosexual activities, if practiced safely by two (or more) consenting people, it's perfectly fine. So what if LGTBQ+ people can't reproduce? A lot of heterosexual couples can't have kids. That's why foster homes and adoption agencies exist - there are a lot of children who need guardians.

    Quote

    @billy7oblos#12023 do you have something wrong with simulated child porn? what about child/animal sex dolls (because if you do thats a contradiction)

    I don't give a fuck what other people do as long as it's not harming anyone/anything that didn't/can't consent to it (underage children can't consent, they don't understand what it means and it's illegal, and animals can't consent for obvious reasons). If it doesn't involve anyone/anything illegal or that can't consent, I don't care.

    @Darth#12024

    Quote

    @Darth#12024 Because if admitting you were homosexual would get you murdered, then you would not admit it. Thus, anyone doing a survey would get a large amount of dishonest answers.

    anonymous studies have been conducted in KSA, there is no place in the world that will kill you for "admitting you are a homosexual" (they kill you if you have gay sex)

    Quote

    @Darth#12024 but sexuality still exists.

    lmao can you prove that?

    Quote

    @Darth#12024 Sexuality isn't an entirely tangible thing. It takes many forms, so yes you're correct in that there is no "sexuality" part of the brain that decides it - but sexuality still exists.

    not sure i completely understand this test, but are you gonna tell me that political views dont influence this test. For example if a group of conservative Muslims and a group of liberal Americans both take the test, do you really expect them to get the same results? this does not sound like a real test.

    Quote

    @Darth#12024 So, "it's wrong because it's wrong, and it's wrong because I say so," basically?

    did you not read the part that says "it comes with a ton of problems"?

    Quote

    @Darth#12024 Cognitive dissonance is when you believe/feel one thing, but have another belief or experience that pulls you in a different direction. Symptoms can include depression, anxiety. and a bunch of other bad stuff.

    lmao really! im sure thats true!
    who knew?
    I sure feel bad for all those depressed gay people in KSA, with their evil government repressing them (its satire they dont have the symptoms of cognitive dissonance you mentioned )

    Quote

    @Darth#12024 Yes. If homosexuality was entirely influenced by society, we would not see it in other animals, which we do.

    bad argument, animals dont know the difference. they rape, kill and sometimes kill homosexuals in their species. I refuted this argument in this thread.

    Quote

    @Darth#12024 It's a metaphorical phrase meanting having a mental struggle with yourself. Being LGTBQ+ but having a lot of people in your life telling you it's wrong is harmful because someone believes their own feelings and instincts, but also value the thoughts of others in their life. It's a nuanced situation.

    ? i said it metaphorically too, but what are you trying to say in the rest of the paragraph "[..] wrong is harmful because someone believes their own feelings and instincts, but also value the thoughts of others in their life. It's a nuanced situation." who is the person who believes their own feelings?

    Quote

    @Darth#12024 Except STD's are not exlusive to homosexual encounters.

    yea but people in LGBT tend to have many many many more relationships than others "So what if LGTBQ+ people can't reproduce?" a hetrosexual couple can reproduce most of the time, while a homosexual couple cannot. its ok when a hetrosexual couple can not reproduce because its not all about reproduction, but i wouldn't encourage an entire culture/"sexuality" that cant reproduce at all

    Quote

    @Darth#12024 I don't give a fuck what other people do as long as it's not harming anyone/anything that didn't/can't consent to it (underage children can't consent, they don't understand what it means and it's illegal, and animals can't consent for obvious reasons). If it doesn't involve anyone/anything illegal or that can't consent, I don't care.

    so you don't care if someone has sex with an animal (rape is less bad than killing and eating them)? I personally would be repulsed and maybe throw up. also you said you care if its illegal? being gay used to be illegal. interesting mentality

    Quote

    @Darth#12024 Yes. If homosexuality was entirely influenced by society, we would not see it in other animals, which we do.

    This argument implies that the behavior of other animals is not influenced by the societal decisions of humans. In any natural environment, "homosexuality" being exhibited by hermaphroditic organisms would contradict the biological imperative of that species and should not be considered as a validation of something that is fruitless. Animals also engage in infanticide and are known to exploit human environments to their advantage.

    Quote

    @Darth#12024 Except STD's are not exclusive to homosexual encounters.

    Sexually transmissible diseases are not exclusive to "homosexual" encounters however are much more prevalent among homosexuals. In the year 1982, seventy eight percent of homosexuals were recorded to have been affected by sexually transmitted diseases (see "The Homosexual Network," Rueda, E.) and the spread of AIDS, along with other immunodeficiency syndromes in the United States, can be partially attributed to the "exploration and experimenting" discussed in your post even though they only account for 1-3% of the population.

    Quote

    @Darth#12024 If it doesn't involve anyone/anything illegal or that can't consent, I don't care.

    Setting legality as a standard for whether or not you should care about something is a terrible idea. Laws are exploitable whereas moral standards do not contain ambiguities in their provisions, having derived from one's particular faith, although I am speaking only for myself in that regard.

    Quote

    @Darth#12024 As for the theory that homosexuals are more likely to be child molesters, here is a page that reviews various scientific articles and claims, putting all the pieces together, and reaches the conclusion that homosexuality is not linked to pedophilia.

    This statement does very little to disprove the notion that child molestation is prevalent among homosexuals. I had a first-had look at the website you looked and it is laughable in how it dismisses various reports. Various surveys were discredited for their antiquity, while others were thrown out on the basis that they were not "legitimate scientific studies" (despite the fact that "legitimate" studies tend to be even laughable) and one of the sources was claimed to not have been subject to a peer review, even though I could find an academic peer review in the category of "queer studies" with a simple online search.

    When going to click on the blog of the person who published this site, it redirects you to "beyondhomophobia.org." The footer links consist of "hate crimes" and "sexual prejudice," among others. It goes without saying that this is not an unbiased source.

    Going back to the topic of child molestation being prevalent among homosexuals, the idea that every scientific or academic study which has made this link is somehow flawed in its nature is absurd. A variety of studies have found that homosexuals constitute roughly one third (this figure varies marginally between each study, conceded or not) of child molesters. (K. Freund and R. J. Watson, "The Proportions of Heterosexual and Homosexual Pedophiles Among Sex Offenders Against Children: An Exploratory Study," Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy). It is also estimated that approximately eighty percent of children molested by pedophiles are boys who have been molested by adult males.

    @billy7oblos#12018

    Quote

    Yea no we can leave suicide, i just explained why i used it as an example. You can realistically link every example i give with something else

    Correlation does not equal causality. And what examples are you thinking of?

    Which is why I called you out on your falicious reasoning that I should somehow be able to disprove an unfalsifiable claim.

    Quote

    no, i said that the unfalsifiable claim is the claim that the number of LGBT people has remained steady through history, this claim cant be falsified but it cant be proven either. If we want to go by Occam's razor, the most simple explanation would be that the number of LGBT people has increased from very little to 5%+ because we used to kill LGBT people, to claim otherwise is essentially claiming that 5% of society being forced to hide their "sexuality" is the simplest and most logical explanation (especially in contrast to many other explanations).

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor

    You’re using Occam’s Razor wrong. The tool is a suggestion that the most simple explanation with – least – assumptions typically is the correct one. So no, the explanation with the least amount of assumptions is not that the percentage of homosexuals has increased overtime, as that is predicated on the assumption that as society becomes more open thus will magically appear a vast amount of new homosexual individuals. My contention was that the percentage of homosexuals (repressed or not) has remained relatively constant throughout time. Also, the burden of proof lies upon the one making the claim (you were the one to first assert that the percentage of homosexuals is increasing), and you have yet to supply a single source examining this – specific - notion. I never said that the percentage can’t have increased slightly, since homosexuality is indeed somewhat correlated with nurture / culture as well, but by your wording, one would be lead to assume that it has increased dramatically, which you haven’t showcased as of yet.

    This is your own quote. Can you honestly tell me that your claim is the one with the least assumptions?

    Quote

    the number of LGBT people has increased from very little to 5%+ because we used to kill LGBT people

    vs.

    Quote

    5% of society being forced to hide their "sexuality" [therefore the number of homosexuals, repressed or not, has remained relatively constant throughout history]

    And going by your own logic, if we used to kill homosexuals en mass, wouldn’t that just mean that the percentage of homosexuals nowadays has “risen” to the natural percentage of the population? i.e. meaning that the natural percentage of homosexuals throughout history has indeed remained relatively constant?

    Quote

    strong disapproval of homosexuality was reported for 41% of 42 cultures; it was accepted or ignored by 21%, and 12% reported no such concept. Of 70 ethnographies, 59% reported homosexuality absent or rare in frequency and 41% reported it present or not uncommon." -Adolescence and puberty By John Bancroft, June Machover Reinisch, p.162

    It is common courtesy (or just academical practice) to explain your citation instead of copy-pasting it without further explanation. I have no idea what you want to tell me with this quote.

    Quote

    On top of this we already have many studies and anonymous questionnaires implying that a huge amount of the population are attracted to children

    Citation needed.

    Quote

    pedophiles were also forced to hide their "attraction" for thousands of years

    Are you implying that pedophiles don’t have to hide their illness today, be it in a Western country or in the KSA?

    Quote

    according to wikipidia estimated 5% of people are pedos

    You’re being deliberatively misleading and lying. Wikipedia doesn’t claim that 5% of people are pedos. The quote you cited is literally:
    “The prevalence of pedophilia in the general population is not known,[25][33] but is estimated to be lower than 5% among adult men”.

    This could mean that 4,99% of men are suffering from pedophilia, or that 0,001% of men are pedophiles. To state bluntly that 5% of people are pedos is a blatant falsehood.
    It is tough to get an accurate estimate on the prevelance of pedophelia in society. One reason being that pedophilia is very much a taboo, and even mentioning that you’re suffering from pedophilia will in most instances get you in trouble with your peers.

    Quote

    5% but 1% if a strict definition is used

    This is from your link:

    “One person who has attempted an estimate is Dr Michael Seto, a clinical and forensic psychologist at the Royal Ottawa Healthcare group. “

    “In 2008 he wrote a book in which he put the prevalence of paedophilia in the general population at 5%.”

    “But Seto stresses that 5% was an upper estimate, and that the studies were limited in what they revealed.”

    “What those surveys don't include are questions on the intensity of those thoughts and fantasies, whether they were repeated or not. Someone might say 'Yes' because they once had a fantasy but our understanding of paedophilia would be that that person recurringly had sexual thoughts and fantasies about children."

    "Now, with more data and better methodology, he has revised his figure down to about 1% of the population, though he makes clear this is still only an educated guess. “

    “One problem is that the term "paedophile" means different things to different people.

    "It's very common for regular men to be attracted to 18-year-olds or 20-year-olds. It's not unusual for a typical 16-year-old to be attractive to many men and the younger we go the fewer and fewer men are attracted to that age group,"

    Quote

    religious source dont read unless you want to get super angry

    If you acknowledge that your source is unreliable, then why would you even link it in the first place?

    I never claimed that homosexuality contributes to a longer life. Just as you can’t claim that being straight contributes to a longer life. And I don’t even get why this is relevant if something contributes to a longer life or not, when that has nothing to do with the ethical nature of homosexuality.

    Quote

    lmao, "ethical nature of homosexuality", homosexuality is about as ethical as watching simulated child porn (or using a child sex doll), it does not hurt anyone or lead to anyone getting hurt (99.9% of the time). its just someone "being how they were born". there are hundreds of articles defending this online . saying "it leads to rape" is wrong in most cases and is not a valid argument, can you ban video games for leading to violence?

    Nice tautology argument there. Circular reasoning seems to be your specialty. I said “ethical nature of homosexuality” as another way to say that homosexuality is an unmoral act. i.e. it has nothing to do with morality.

    The fact that you claim homosexuality “ is about as ethical as watching simulated child porn” is silly. Why? Because you don’t demonstrate why either of those things are morally abhorrent. Also, you have still to answer my previous question:

    Why is simulated child porn or child sex dolls inherently bad? Kindly answer specifically, and not just that “it might lead to child molestation” because that has nothing to do with the inherent moral nature of child sex dolls.
    If you said this, you’d be forced to agree that cars are inherently morally bad as well, because some people kill others with them.

    Quote

    can you ban video games for leading to violence?

    I never advocated for this. But it seems as though you would ban it, because you’re for the banning of child sex dolls, hmm.

    Quote

    “its just someone "being how they were born"

    Thank you for agreeing with me.

    Quote

    a simple google search yields many results, when you tell someone that they are a different gender in their heads its easy for them to think that they are getting periods. example, example and example 3

    I don’t want to do a “simple google search” I want you to link me to the vast amount of articles about transgender men (F>M) claiming they have periods. I want you to link me to them, because I don’t know of them. Your own sources don’t even say what you think they say. Your first example (https://helloclue.com/articles/cycle…en-you're-trans) is about transgender men (Female > male) sad about the fact that they still might menstruate: “Menstruation is a reminder that my body will never be the way I want it”, even though they now have transitioned to being a male. You’re saying the opposite, which is not what the article is about. Deeply disingenuine argument once again.

    Quote

    https://theestablishment.co/yes-trans-wome…9e8c/index.html

    Is about a woman feeling symptoms of having a period, not that she’s having an actual period. She doesn’t claim that blood is gushing out of her pussy.

    Quote

    https://www.emmavalentina.com/journal/2020/6…an-have-periods

    Please read your own articles before citing them.

    Quote

    logical thinking is not a conspiracy theory (note that most psychologists and such will not explicitly say that you can be born in the wrong gender, they will say "its very complicated and we don't fully understand it"). Nice that you brought climate change, because thats another huge issue but its also filled with alot of fake studies and scientists and corporations with personal interests. the issue of homosexuality and the issue of climate change are both not addressed nearly enough.

    Claiming your own belief to be “logical thinking” is awfully convenient, don’t you think (also a logical fallacy ironically) This is once again a nice example of an appeal to tautology. And to assert that , “Most psychologists” won’t claim that you can be born in the wrong gender” is once again a falsehood. And even if I were to grant you this notion, you have still to actually link me to any scientific articles on the matter.

    Quote

    Nice that you brought climate change, because thats another huge issue but its also filled with alot of fake studies and scientists and corporations with personal interests

    Yeah, the fossil fuel corporations have deliberatively mislead the public for years. Here’s NASA’s own words on the topic (https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/:( “The evidence for rapid climate change is compelling: Global Temperature Rise […] Warming Ocean, […] Shrinking Ice Sheets, […] Glacial Retreat, […] Decreased Snow Cover, [...] Sea Level Rise, [...], Declining Arctic Sea Ice, [...] Extreme Events, [...] Ocean Acidification.

    Quote

    the issue of homosexuality and the issue of climate change are both not addressed nearly enough.

    Yeah, the fact that 99,97% of all scientists in relevant scientific fields agree that anthropogenic climate change is the cause of global warming is definitely not “addressed nearly enough”. The fact that homosexuality and gender both have their own specialized fields in psychology and sociology is not “addressed nearly enough”.

    Quote

    My disapproval of homosexuality is a mixture of the fact that its harmful and that i find it disgusting (just like how i disapprove of zoophilia)

    Except you have yet to demonstrate why it is harmful except for saying “because it is”.

    Quote

    but the number [of homosexuals] has and continues to change? logically when a ton of people come and say they are gay, that means the number has changed, what is wrong is to than say that the number has remained constant through history.

    except you have not demonstrated that it “continues to change”. IF you think you did, then kindly re-link said article / study. And no, when a “ton of people come and say they are gya” that doesn’t mean the number has changed, as I have explained to you time and time over in this thread. It can simply mean that as acceptance of homosexuality becomes more prevelant the more homosexuals will come out of the closet.

    Quote

    this is the delusion part, there is no "core sexuality", there is no test that will tell you if you are gay or not. Its not part of your "brain" or genetics. for millions of years people have managed to act normal. the article you linked to talks about "the genetics of sexual orientation", it has been proven many times that there is no "gay gene" and that being LGBTQ is not based on genetics.

    It is indeed part of your brain and somewhat tied to genetics, but you still continue to link to studies only showcasing that there is no “Gay gene” which is not what we’re claiming at all, but you continue to fight this strawman argument. All your 3 links are attacking a strawman argument.

    Quote

    and somehow still have a lower suicide rate than countries who don't ban it? and you still have a higher disapproval rate? if "suppressing your sexuality" was really so hard that "you feel your mind being torn apart", no religion could stop you from killing yourself, or at least advocating for LGBT rights.

    You just agreed that suicide is irrelevant to the discussion in your previous comment my dude. Why do you continue to bring this stat up: "Yea no we can leave suicide". And your reasoning for why you wouldn’t kill yourself is absurd.

    Quote

    i thought hiding it tears your brain apart?

    If by “tears your brain apart” you mean that it damages you mentally with illnesses such as anxiety, depression or gender dysphoria, then yes it does.

    Quote

    legality has nothing to do with anything, i was referring to morality. simulated child porn is disguising, deviant and amoral

    It’s fine if you think that, but you still have yet to actually give any reason for it being “disguising, deviant and amoral”. At the moment, you’re just arguing it’s wrong because it’s wrong.

    Quote

    There is no place in the world that will kill you for "admitting you are a homosexual" (they kill you if you have gay sex)

    Citation needed.

    Quote

    did you not read the part that says "it comes with a ton of problems"?

    What problems?

    @fssp#12029

    Quote

    Going back to the topic of child molestation being prevalent among homosexuals, the idea that every scientific or academic study which has made this link is somehow flawed in its nature is absurd. A variety of studies have found that homosexuals constitute roughly one third (this figure varies marginally between each study, conceded or not) of child molesters. (K. Freund and R. J. Watson, "The Proportions of Heterosexual and Homosexual Pedophiles Among Sex Offenders Against Children: An Exploratory Study," Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy). It is also estimated that approximately eighty percent of children molested by pedophiles are boys who have been molested by adult males.

    I don’t think that’s the point Darth was arguing against (At least I wasn’t). I asked the individual above as to why they would assert that their linked study claimed that homosexuals are more prone to child molestation, when that is in fact not what said study examined. The study examined the commonality of child abuse (child molestation) in straights vs homosexual children.

    @sergio24m#12010 I don't see any point in closing a thread wherein no participant has insulted the other party and no drama is going on. Of course it's a touchy subject, but this exact thread is a great example as to why the "Deep Discussion" subforum exists.

    If people don't want to participate (or even view) the discussion, then they're free to not click on the thread. But insofar as this thread is concerned: no forum guidelines has been broken.

    Quote

    @redeastwood#12052 This thread dehumanises LGBT individuals by presenting them as simply a number on a fact sheet. Show some more compassion for the humans behind those figures.

    This thread does no such thing. Rather, citing legitimate academic studies and "presenting [communities] as simply a number on a fact sheet" allows for the fabric of those communities to be quantified (i.e. how prevalent are predators among the homosexual community?) thus leading to discussions about the very nature of that fabric (i.e. why are predators so prevalent among the homosexual community?) which should only be regarded as beneficial for any community, as opposed to "dehumanizing." It has no regard for the individual, unless you are delving into an argument about the moral objections to "homosexuality" which is of no direct relevance to these statistics.

    Quote

    Miwojedk I asked the individual above as to why they would assert that their linked study claimed that homosexuals are more prone to child molestation, when that is in fact not what said study examined. The study examined the commonality of child abuse (child molestation) in straights vs homosexual children.

    Determining whether or not (or why) homosexuals are more prone to child molestation is avoided in the written conclusions of several academic journals which concede that "the resulting proportion of true pedophiles among persons with a homosexual erotic development is greater than that in persons who develop heterosexually," however continue to assert that the aforementioned information does not indicate that androphilic (homophilic) men would have a greater propensity to offend against children. It should be mentioned that the majority of studies which avoid this conclusion were published after the "homosexual liberation" movement spanning the mid-seventies and eighties, while the majority of studies which make the conclusion that androphilic (homophilic) men would have a greater propensity to offend against children were published before said "liberation." In conclusion, the likelihood of recent studies not having made a conclusion regarding Billy's claim for reasons of political viability appears to be higher than that of recent studies not having made the conclusion for scientific reasons, as it was deemed methodological with studies predating certain political events.

    Quote

    @sergio24m#12010 Oh, and by the way.. ancient greece did in fact support homosexuality, they even thought homosexual duos would do better in war because they care for their partner in more than one way.

    Yeah, they supported doing it with little boys and teenagers. This does very little to make your case against homosexuality having no direct link with "pedophilia, being abused as a child, et cetera" as the historical situation you brought up in Ancient Greece involved pedophilia, accounts of children being abused, and modern interpretations of post-traumatic stress disorder being lumped in with the many effects of child sex abuse.

    I've split this out into a dedicated post because it wasn't really relevant for the original post. Apologies Miwojedk as I managed to trim one of the posts (The first one here) by accident and merging it back will be a pain but yeah...

    I've not read through all of this in detail, and am certainly not going to shut the debate down, rather though I do have some comments to chime in just to highlight.

    The first is please remember the forum guidelines, and that we're all human. This thread has had A LOT of flagged posts and I've had to delete some and some have been flagged "For no reason". Please be civil in your debate.

    I will also say that it is my personal position, along with ATLAS as a companies and therefore by extension TF's as a project of ATLAS that equality and treating each other with respect despite our differences is a core value, as someone who falls within the LGBTQ+ "Name" as it were, there are a number of comments here that are concerning and personally upsetting, especially when those comments have in some cases been given without proper evidence, or are clearly an opinion.

    TF will always strive to be accepting and as safe of a place as we can make it for all individuals regardless of background, gender, sexuality, skin colour or anything else. If you're interested in my full thoughts on Equality, I wrote a blog about it a few months back - https://blog.atlas-media.co.uk/2020/06/27/equality/

    In short, I'm not here to debate with folks, and I will absolutely support an open forum for discussion, but please remember to be kind to one another, and that there are forum posting guidelines that will be enforced if this spirals again or folks try to thread-jack.

    Wild1145

    Network Owner at TotalFreedom

    Managing Director at ATLAS Media Group Ltd.

    Founder & Owner at MastodonApp.UK

    @fssp#12092

    Quote

    the resulting proportion of true pedophiles among persons with a homosexual erotic development is greater than that in persons who develop heterosexually, however continued to assert that the aforementioned information does not indicate that androphilic (homophilic) men would have a greater propensity to offend against children.

    I’m assuming that you’re talking about this study. The major quarrel I had with the claims in this thread was that it was implied (or said) that there was a natural proclivity for homosexual men to be child predators, which was absolutely not what said study found.

    Quote

    It should be mentioned that the majority of studies which avoid this conclusion were published after the "homosexual liberation" movement spanning the mid-seventies and eighties, while the majority of studies which make the conclusion that androphilic (homophilic) men would have a greater propensity to offend against children were published before said "liberation." In conclusion, the likelihood of recent studies not having made a conclusion regarding Billy's claim for reasons of political viability appears to be higher than that of recent studies not having made the conclusion for scientific reasons, as it was deemed methodological with studies predating certain political events.

    Unless you have some sort of evidence to back this notion up, then I am going to classify this as conjecture. This same "skepticism" is applied by a a lot of climate-skeptics as well in that their research is simply “silenced” because it isn’t “politically viable”. However, this is ignoring the fact that general acceptance for homosexuality (that’s not even to mention LGBTQ+) was far from a normality. I want to make sure I don’t put words in your mouth, but if you meant that academic research is indeed being censored due to the inherent political nature in LGBTQ+-related research, then I don’t understand why research coming from less-accepting nations wouldn’t be publishing this research, unless you’re of the opinion that academic scholars in KSA or Nigeria are all liberals wanting to further the gay agenda.
    It just sounds like an easy out to say that the academic consensus is (likely) wrong because of associated political consequences (across the globe) instead of just adhering to the scientific consensus.

    Quote

    Yeah, they supported doing it with little boys and teenagers.

    This is ripped from your linked Wikipedia article, note 4:

    Quote

    “Pederasty in ancient Greece was a socially acknowledged romantic relationship between an adult male (the erastes) and a younger male (the eromenos), usually in his teens”

    (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pederasty#cite_note-4).

    I will admit that I am not well-enoughed versed in this subject to speak in detail about the prevelance of child (0-13)-adult male relations, but I think that there should be made a clear distinction between an adult male raping a 7-year old and an adult male “raping” a 15-year old. Raping is in inverted commas because the age of consent is different from country to country, and some do define 15-year olds today as legally competent to consent to sexual acts.
    I don’t think it’s worthwhile to further induldge in this topic, because I don’t this this is relevant to the overarching theme of this conversation.

    Quote

    @Miwojedk#12117 However, this is ignoring the fact that general acceptance for homosexuality (that’s not even to mention LGBTQ+) was far from a normality. I want to make sure I don’t put words in your mouth, but if you meant that academic research is indeed being censored due to the inherent political nature in LGBTQ+-related research, then I don’t understand why research coming from less-accepting nations wouldn’t be publishing this research, unless you’re of the opinion that academic scholars in KSA or Nigeria are all liberals wanting to further the gay agenda.

    During the period through which "homosexuality" (homophilia) became prevalent in media and politics, I fully agree that the layman would generally reject the aforementioned "movement," however it goes without saying that scientific communities do not originate from identical sources to those of average citygoers, and are more likely to have liberal alliances based on what we know about beneficiaries. Professors have become strikingly more liberal over the past twenty years and there have always been recorded tensions between universities, their students, and governments.

    Quote

    @Miwojedk#12117 I will admit that I am not well-enoughed versed in this subject to speak in detail about the prevelance of child (0-13)-adult male relations, but I think that there should be made a clear distinction between an adult male raping a 7-year old and an adult male “raping” a 15-year old. Raping is in inverted commas because the age of consent is different from country to country, and some do define 15-year olds today as legally competent to consent to sexual acts.

    This reply understates the extent to which pederasty was practiced in Ancient Greece, and some laws from the time address children as young as twelve being "engaged" in relationships with grown men. Because romantic relationships between men and boys were not considered to be immoral, there have been depictions of younger boys being courted by middle-aged men.

    Quote

    Homosexual relations between a man and a boy; homosexual anal intercourse, usually with a boy or younger man as the passive partner.

    For you to put the word "raping" in quotations somewhat downplays the issue at hand. There is no question in my mind that a fifteen-year old boy cannot submit to the kind of act described above, especially at the hands of a grown man. Certain nations have laws which permit this, but certain nations (such as Nigeria) set the age of consent at 11, which is equally unacceptable.

    @fssp#12153

    Quote

    During the period through which "homosexuality" (homophilia) became prevalent in media and politics, I fully agree that the layman would generally reject the aforementioned "movement," however it goes without saying that scientific communities do not originate from identical sources to those of average citygoers, and are more likely to have liberal alliances based on what we know about beneficiaries. Professors have become strikingly more liberal over the past twenty years and there have always been recorded tensions between universities, their students, and governments.

    The fact of the matter is that students have (almost) always been more liberal than their professors and the general public. And of course professors have become more - liberal -over the past years. a natural tendency also seen in society as a whole, with the University in front. But this has nothing to do with your claim; at least what I interpreted it as. Research is not being stiffled in any Western University besides issues involving grants or other forms of funding, and to insinuate otherwise without any evidence is fitting of how most would describe a conspiracy theory. Of course, if you could find anything to contrary, then I would have something to work with.

    Quote

    This reply understates the extent to which pederasty was practiced in Ancient Greece, and some laws from the time address children as young as twelve being "engaged" in relationships with grown men. Because romantic relationships between men and boys were not considered to be immoral, there have been depictions of younger boys being courted by middle-aged men.

    And again, evem if I were to grant you this to be true, I still don’t think this is relevant to the conversation at hand.

    Quote

    For you to put the word "raping" in quotations somewhat downplays the issue at hand. There is no question in my mind that a fifteen-year old boy cannot submit to the kind of act described above, especially at the hands of a grown man. Certain nations have laws which permit this, but certain nations (such as Nigeria) set the age of consent at 11, which is equally unacceptable.

    I can’t help but think you’re being disingenuine here. I clearly explained why I put “raping” in quotations, and that was because I wanted to make it clear that I was – not – downplaying the issue. And the fact that you point to a socially-regressive country like Nigeria is even more reason for me to assume that you’re being obtuse/insincere to somehow construe it as only staunchly conservative countries having a low sexual age of consent. Why not point to the fact that average (sexual) age of consent in Europe (or the Western world for that matter) is 16-17 years old? Sweden, Denmark, France, Iceland, Poland, Czech Republic, Croatia, Greece and more all have a legal age of consent at 15. UK, Spain, Norway, The Netherlands have it at 16. And Germany, Portugal and Italy have it at 14. Of course this is not to say that it would be morally justified for a 40-year old man to have sexual relations with a 15-year old, and it is indeed looked down upon in these countries, but that wasn’t the point I was making – I was merely stating that there is a distinction to be made between an adult male (>30) having relations with a 15-year old vs. an adult male (>30) having relations with a 6-year old.

    Quote

    @Miwojedk#12164 The fact of the matter is that students have (almost) always been more liberal than their professors and the general public. And of course professors have become more - liberal -over the past years. a natural tendency also seen in society as a whole, with the University in front.

    If you read the article linked in the post to which you replied: college freshmen surveyed by the Higher Education Research Institute were "much more likely to refer to themselves as "moderate" than as liberal or conservative." While there has been a rise in students who identify themselves as "liberal" over the past twenty years, it has been less dramatic than "the increase in liberalism among professors."

    Quote

    The fact that you point to a socially-regressive country like Nigeria is even more reason for me to assume that you’re being obtuse/insincere to somehow construe it as only staunchly conservative countries having a low sexual age of consent. Why not point to the fact that average (sexual) age of consent in Europe (or the Western world for that matter) is 16-17 years old?

    Nigeria has the youngest age of consent in the world. "A person who commits an offence of defilement with a child aged eleven years or less shall upon conviction be sentenced to imprisonment for life." (Section 7, Provision 2, Sexual Offences Act Bill 2013.)

    Quote

    Of course this is not to say that it would be morally justified for a 40-year old man to have sexual relations with a 15-year old, and it is indeed looked down upon in these countries, but that wasn’t the point I was making – I was merely stating that there is a distinction to be made between an adult male (>30) having relations with a 15-year old vs. an adult male (>30) having relations with a 6-year old.

    This reply understates the extent to which pederasty was practiced in Ancient Greece, and some laws from the time address children as young as twelve being "engaged" in relationships with grown men. Because romantic relationships between men and boys were not considered to be immoral, there have been depictions of younger boys being courted by middle-aged men.

    I fail to see the point you are making, considering historical pederastic (and archaic homosexual) relationships took place between prepubescent children and middle-aged men, while also including children who had approached or passed the Greek standard of puberty.

    "The archetypal homosexual relationship was that between a childlike or prepubescent boy and a mature man. The contact had strong paternal overtones, and it involved affectionate response from the child partner and mild sexual response from the pubescent partner." (Chapter 5, Types of Homosexualities, L. Houston.)

    "Pederasty, παιδεραστία, paiderastia; "love of boys," derives from the combination of παίδ- (the Greek term for boy- or child) with ἐραστής (Greek for lover)." "paiderastía from παιδεραστής (paiderastḗs, “pederast”), from παῖς (paîs, “child, son, boy”) + ἐραστής (erastḗs, “lover”), from ἔραμαι (éramai, “to lοve”)." (Etymology, Wikitionary.)

    "For instance, [Symonds in A Problem in Modern Ethics] insists on asking, “how far … instincts are capable of being communicated by contagion” and emphasises [sic] that the prepubescent individual is open to influences that might result in sexuality “be[ing] perverted into a false channel”. This insistent return to questions of influence has to do with the fact that Symonds held conflicting views about the causes of same-sex desire. More importantly, he believed same-sex desire in ancient Greece to have been acquired rather than congenital." (Funke J. "We Cannot Be Greek Now": Age Difference, Corruption of Youth and the Making of Sexual Inversion.)

    @Miwojedk#12059 sorry for taking so long to answer,

    Quote

    @Miwojedk#12059 My contention was that the percentage of homosexuals (repressed or not) has remained relatively constant throughout time. Also, the burden of proof lies upon the one making the claim

    homosexuality was invented not long ago, and before that it was illegal (it was only legalized in 2003). you cannot claim that the number of LGBT did not increase because they never used to exist before. You are the one making the claim that somehow the number was constant through time so you must prove your claim. The percentage has not only increased, it went from 0 to whatever it is today (because the number of people identifying as lgbt went from 0-whatever it is today)

    Quote

    @Miwojedk#12059 And going by your own logic, if we used to kill homosexuals en mass, wouldn’t that just mean that the percentage of homosexuals nowadays has “risen” to the natural percentage of the population? i.e. meaning that the natural percentage of homosexuals throughout history has indeed remained relatively constant?

    we did not used to kill them "en mass" they were just not as many of them to kill, i cant prove this historically because of lack of data but if we look at the KSA; >200 people received the death penalty total , soo no.

    Quote

    @Miwojedk#12059 It is common courtesy (or just academical practice) to explain your citation instead of copy-pasting it without further explanation. I have no idea what you want to tell me with this quote.

    what i was trying to show is how little homoseuxlity was accepted, 74% of societies either hated, ignored or did not even know about homosexuality. (surely this statistic would be much less if 5% of people are born gay)

    Quote

    @Miwojedk#12059 Are you implying that pedophiles don’t have to hide their illness today, be it in a Western country or in the KSA?

    pedophilia is more stigmatized than LGBT so according to your logic they can be a huge % of people

    Quote

    @Miwojedk#12059 “But Seto stresses that 5% was an upper estimate, and that the studies were limited in what they revealed.”

    he still wrote 5%

    Quote

    @Miwojedk#12059 The fact that you claim homosexuality “ is about as ethical as watching simulated child porn” is silly. Why? Because you don’t demonstrate why either of those things are morally abhorrent. Also, you have still to answer my previous question:

    morality. If you are referring to objective morality, they are both morally wrong because they contribute to a sexual deviancy and sexual deviancy is morally wrong

    Quote

    @Miwojedk#12059 Why is simulated child porn or child sex dolls inherently bad?

    morally wrong and inherently bad are two different things; for example torturing someone is morally wrong but its not inherently bad, it can even be inherently good if you are torturing them for information.

    Quote

    @Miwojedk#12059 I never advocated for this. But it seems as though you would ban it, because you’re for the banning of child sex dolls, hmm.

    ok what about bestiality? we kill animals for food, surely rape is less better than killing? would you accept bestiality? what about watching real child porn, as long as you don't pay anyone you are not supporting the child being raped, you are only enjoying it. would you really advocate for child porn? what is inherently wrong with it as long as you don't support the rapist?
    these things are morally wrong, but morals can be twisted. You wont be able to find inherent harm in these things but you can tell they are morally wrong.

    Quote

    @Miwojedk#12059 Is about a woman feeling symptoms of having a period, not that she’s having an actual period. She doesn’t claim that blood is gushing out of her pussy.

    sorry about the wrong link, i thought i posted another one. When i said transgenders cant get a period i was talking about the mental stress and hardships of a period. It is laughable to think that someone can have 30 trillion cells with a y chromosome and still claim to get a period. this article the first thing this article says is "Why isn’t the medical community looking into this phenomenon?" lol

    Quote

    @Miwojedk#12059 And no, when a “ton of people come and say they are gya” that doesn’t mean the number has changed, as I have explained to you time and time over in this thread. It can simply mean that as acceptance of homosexuality becomes more prevelant the more homosexuals will come out of the closet.

    yea but you would need to prove that because you are the one making the claim that the gay people we say now were always there

    Quote

    @Miwojedk#12059 It is indeed part of your brain and somewhat tied to genetics, but you still continue to link to studies only showcasing that there is no “Gay gene” which is not what we’re claiming at all, but you continue to fight this strawman argument. All your 3 links are attacking a strawman argument.

    not really, the link i was replying talked about "the link of genetics and LGBT community" and claims there is a gay gene or similar

    Quote

    @Miwojedk#12059 If by “tears your brain apart” you mean that it damages you mentally with illnesses such as anxiety, depression or gender dysphoria, then yes it does.

    and strangely we don't see those symptoms in conservative countries like the KSA, weird.
    next time my reply will be faster sry

    Quote

    @billy7oblos#12200 homosexuality was invented not long ago

    What? If you mean relative to the creation of the Earth a few billion years ago, then sure homosexuality hasn't been around for long. But if you mean relative to the evolution of humans, then it has been around longer than we have. We have seen it in animals that existed before we did,

    Quote

    @billy7oblos#12200 and before that it was illegal (it was only legalized in 2003)

    Illegal where? Legalized where? It was already "legal" in the United States, please provide a citation.

    Quote

    @billy7oblos#12200 you cannot claim that the number of LGBT did not increase because they never used to exist before.

    I've provided evidence to the contrary that you've ignored. We see homosexual behavior in animals older than humanity.

    Quote

    @billy7oblos#12200 You are the one making the claim that somehow the number was constant through time so you must prove your claim.

    The claim: The number of homosexuals has stayed relatively constant throughout human history, and as it becomes more accepted in society, more will come out of the closet, giving the appearance of the "real" number rising.

    Evidence: Until relatively recently, it was much more of a taboo, and homosexual people were discouraged from revealing themselves (out of fear that they would be targeted).

    -We see homosexual behavior in animals that have existed longer than humans.
    -From what we know about the cause of sexuality, it's not something that can be set entirely by how one is raised (e.g, there are homosexuals that were raised by religious parents that would have told them many times that homosexuality is "wrong").
    -It is depicted in historical imagery.
    -The major rise in the numbers coincides with the awareness movement of the late 1900's, which would have encouraged more people that were in the closet (but who already existed) to come out.

    Quote

    @billy7oblos#12200 The percentage has not only increased, it went from 0 to whatever it is today (because the number of people identifying as lgbt went from 0-whatever it is today)

    Where is this "zero" statistic from? Can you cite a source for that number? That seems like a figure you just materialized from your own head.

    Quote

    @billy7oblos#12200 we did not used to kill them "en mass"

    Yes we did. In fact, it's happened in the last hundred years (e.g the targeting and execution of homosexuals in Nazi Germany).

    Quote

    @billy7oblos#12200 they were just not as many of them to kill

    There "weren't as many" because they wouldn't have revealed themselves, knowing that doing so would result in their death.

    Quote

    @billy7oblos#12200 pedophilia is more stigmatized than LGBT so according to your logic they can be a huge % of people

    It's likely that the number of people with pedophilia is much larger than our current estimates - the people we hear about and that get sentenced are the ones who can't control themselves and actually go commit those crimes. People who have pedophilia are generally not going to admit that because they know it would result in social exile.

    Quote

    @billy7oblos#12200 morality. If you are referring to objective morality, they are both morally wrong because they contribute to a sexual deviancy and sexual deviancy is morally wrong

    You have not explained why it is morally wrong.

    Quote

    @billy7oblos#12200 they are both morally wrong because they contribute to a sexual deviancy

    Let's start here - you are claiming that homosexuality is morally wrong because it contributes to sexual deviancy. That's great, let's continue to examine your argument.

    Quote

    @billy7oblos#12200 and sexual deviancy is morally wrong

    Here's the problem - WHY is sexual deviancy morally wrong? According to religious scripture? Because that is also circular reasoning.

    Quote

    @billy7oblos#12200 ok what about bestiality? we kill animals for food, surely rape is less better than killing? would you accept bestiality?

    Killing animals for food is a necessary evil to survive in some cases. Bestiality is simply harming the animal for pleasure.

    Quote

    @billy7oblos#12200 what about watching real child porn, as long as you don't pay anyone you are not supporting the child being raped, you are only enjoying it.

    Providing traffic to the "real child porn" or seeking it out for enjoyment is still indirectly supporting the rapist.You are providing validation for their work and actions

    Quote

    @billy7oblos#12200 It is laughable to think that someone can have 30 trillion cells with a y chromosome and still claim to get a period.

    They can still experience the mental changes (mood swings, etc) of a period even if they don't actually menstruate.

    Quote

    @billy7oblos#12200 not really, the link i was replying talked about "the link of genetics and LGBT community" and claims there is a gay gene or similar

    There is no "gay gene" that directly causes homosexuality - it's a combination of a multitude of factors, and genetics is just one of those.

    Quote

    @billy7oblos#12200 and strangely we don't see those symptoms in conservative countries like the KSA, weird.

    Citation needed.

    @Darth#12208

    Quote

    @Darth#12208 What? If you mean relative to the creation of the Earth a few billion years ago, then sure homosexuality hasn't been around for long. But if you mean relative to the evolution of humans, then it has been around longer than we have. We have seen it in animals that existed before we did,

    animals don't count, animals are not human and they don't know the difference. stop bringing animals into the conversation because they are irrelevant here, animals rape and kill and do bad things, they don't know the difference.
    as for the legality, it was legalized in 2003 because it was illegal in 14 states (more states had laws against it but they changed the laws before 2003) source

    Quote

    @Darth#12208 I've provided evidence to the contrary that you've ignored. We see homosexual behavior in animals older than humanity.

    again bringing up animals in invalid so...

    Quote

    @Darth#12208 Evidence: Until relatively recently, it was much more of a taboo, and homosexual people were discouraged from revealing themselves (out of fear that they would be targeted).

    point 1: animals were gay
    yea but they rape steal and kill, they don't know the difference and the don't exclusively have sex with the same gender (they would be considered 'bi' in modern terms)

    point 2: it has nothing to do with how you were raised
    yea it does, many studies link homosexuality with being molested as a child. if your claim was true why are there no gay people in the KSA (you need to prove that there are claiming they are repressed means nothing)
    point 3: it is depicted in historical imagery
    yea some societies were degenerate, they also had raped children and animals and did some horrible stuff, any society can start to have gay people in it

    Quote

    @Darth#12208 Where is this "zero" statistic from? Can you cite a source for that number? That seems like a figure you just materialized from your own head.

    what part of "there was no such thing" do you not understand? you would not just "claim to be gay". even if there was [a very small number of] gay people, they did not 'identify' as lgbt.
    i cited this:

    Quote

    strong disapproval of homosexuality was reported for 41% of 42 cultures; it was accepted or ignored by 21%, and 12% reported no such concept. Of 70 ethnographies, 59% reported homosexuality absent or rare in frequency and 41% reported it present or not uncommon." -Adolescence and puberty By John Bancroft, June Machover Reinisch, p.162

    12% of the cultures studied in this study did not even know homosexuality was a concept, that doesn't sound like they were opressed to me. they had full freedom to come forward (5% of society right?)

    Quote

    @Darth#12208 Yes we did. In fact, it's happened in the last hundred years (e.g the targeting and execution of homosexuals in Nazi Germany).

    look at KSA today where it is leagal, is natzi Germany your only example?

    Quote

    @Darth#12208 Here's the problem - WHY is sexual deviancy morally wrong? According to religious scripture? Because that is also circular reasoning.

    sexual deviancy is morally wrong, where do morals come from? the come from religious scripture or from nature (where else)

    Quote

    @Darth#12208 Killing animals for food is a necessary evil to survive in some cases. Bestiality is simply harming the animal for pleasure.

    killing is harming animals for pleasure. its not necessary in our modern day. Are you a vegan?

    Quote

    @Darth#12208 Providing traffic to the "real child porn" or seeking it out for enjoyment is still indirectly supporting the rapist.You are providing validation for their work and actions

    so its ok if i don't let the rapist know that i am watching it?

    Quote

    @Darth#12208 They can still experience the mental changes (mood swings, etc) of a period even if they don't actually menstruate.

    lmao (i actually laughed)

    Quote

    @Darth#12208 There is no "gay gene" that directly causes homosexuality - it's a combination of a multitude of factors, and genetics is just one of those.

    Citation needed.

    Quote

    @Darth#12208 Citation needed.

    i provided citation for this earlier in the thread. scroll up