General Question

mammal's avatar

Ever heard somebody infer that Homosexuality isn't as bad as Pedophilia?

Asked by mammal (9431points) April 11th, 2009

like it’s the most natural thing in the world to tacitly assume there is some kind of sexuality hierarchy…and let me guess… Heterosexual is at the topper-most

Observing members: 0 Composing members: 0

20 Answers

Mamradpivo's avatar

Are you implying that homosexuality is somehow on the same level as pedophilia?

Pedophilia is a perversion that often causes direct harm to children.

Gay people who have consensual sex with partners capable of making informed consent decisions do no harm to anyone.

I’m not sure what hierarchy you had in mind, but to link these two terms seems awfully ignorant and dangerous to me.

eambos's avatar

Homosexuality doesn’t hurt anyone. Pedophilia can, and usually does, hurt all affected.

MrMeltedCrayon's avatar

I think mammal is asking if any of us have encountered someone who has implied that homosexuality is as bad as or worse than pedophilia, not that they believe that is the case.

Mamradpivo's avatar

@MrMeltedCrayon My 80 year old grandmother believes that. She also believes that Barack Obama is a Muslim. I love her, but she’s not someone whose opinions on either science or social issues I trust.

Kelly27's avatar

Yes, but I also think that people tend to want to organize things, be that a good thing or a bad thing.

jbfletcherfan's avatar

Thankfully, no, I’ve never heard this. The issue of homosexuality doesn’t hold a candle to the vileness of pedophilia.

tinyfaery's avatar

Most pedophiles are heterosexual males.

SeventhSense's avatar


SeventhSense's avatar

Sounds like a leading question based on a premise that homosexuality is bad.

cwilbur's avatar

Yes, I have heard people imply that. And even state it outright.

“If we let them get married, what’s next? Marrying a 12-year old? Marrying a dog?”

Danielzilla's avatar

“Most pedophiles are heterosexual males.”

What a broad generalization. I guess that also depends on your definition of pedophile. Personally, I believe our society teaches females that they are victims so they are more likely to profess to having been molested than a male. I can’t think of a single young male who would go to the police about an older woman making sexual advances towards him. Right?

tinyfaery's avatar

“There are both heterosexual and homosexual pedophiles, but there are far more heterosexuals pedophiles than homosexuals.”

From this link.

Danielzilla's avatar

Of course there are, there are far more heterosexual people than homosexual. I don’t think any individual is less likely to be a pedophile than any other. Statistics are weird, haha.

SeventhSense's avatar

From my subjective reading it always seems that the majority of pedophiles seem to be men attracted to boys, the most vocal of course being N.A.M.B.L.A. It skeeves me out to even think that these guys have an organization. Why don’t the abortion bombers….....never mind. ~_~

tinyfaery's avatar

Pedophilia as well as all sexual assuaults are not about sex, but about power. Ask the perp. Most will tell you that they’re straight.

susanc's avatar

Tinyfaery knows the ropes. You can trust her on this stuff.

SeventhSense's avatar

Well they say it’s about power but I just don’t get it. As a hetero male I just can’t see being attracted to a boy. I mean the Britney Schoolgirl fantasy yes, but not a boy. That has to be a homosexual man who either is still in the closet or just kidding himself. I know what you’re saying that it’s about power but there is a sexually stimulating component for the perpetrator. I’m not trying to single out gay men as a target either, I’m just saying.

tinyfaery's avatar

@seventh Well, that’s you. You should talk to the researchers. Maybe they’ll change their minds.

SeventhSense's avatar

—Just my opinion or as Buckwheet says to Banky.

Hypocrisy_Central's avatar

A very provocative question, certainly one I would not be at liberty to breach without stern rebuke

Let’s look at it as a logical or reasonable issue of debate. We have to use facts of biology, since most here cannot or will not see the side of faith.

• Nature developed two sexes, female and male, the male and females have sexual parts that are to fit or work with that of the opposite sex, we can agree with that I hope.
• Nature doesn’t specify age, when the female hits a certain level of development she is able to reproduce, mental state notwithstanding as it has no bearing with nature.
• Any male mating with a female once hitting that level of development is still using the male parts with the female parts, and if the timing is right, life is promoted and the species carried on.
• It would be the same before that development but it would be useless, and physically not possible without physical damage to the female.
• In a same sex situation it is totally outside the sphere of nature as it has parts not made to go together, so apart from ideology the union is completely useless in procreation, species surviving sense.
• By biology alone, it cannot be said to be better because it is outside what nature intended where the other would be possible misuse of biological intentions.

Now, if one sees it from the aspect of faith, both are in the same boat, because a miss is a miss, and there is only one correct way sexuality can be acted upon, acting on it any other way is amiss.

Of course most want to have their cake and eat it too with a large glass of milk, so they filter it through ideology that has nothing to do with biology, but want the biology to somehow be important.

Answer this question




to answer.

This question is in the General Section. Responses must be helpful and on-topic.

Your answer will be saved while you login or join.

Have a question? Ask Fluther!

What do you know more about?
Knowledge Networking @ Fluther