Yahoo: "Mormon Mom Who Fought For Prop 8 Now Fights for Gay Son"

[Eddie]

In the context of Christianity, I think many of the explanations or answers regarding these things are unsatisfactory on a logical basis.

Taking religion out of it, there are rational societal explanations for why we treat pedophiles as criminals, but not homosexuals - our society views the protection of children and those who cannot reasonably consent to sexual conduct as more important than the individual desires of pedophiles. Homosexuals conduct their sexual activities with consenting adults - therefore, nobody's rights are trampled, and no children or persons unable to consent are harmed.

The problem is - I'm not talking about someone who harms a child. I get why we are unsympathetic on those cases. What about situations where someone is sexually attracted to children but never act out on a child? I don't see many folks offering sympathy for what they are going through. That's just pure evil. No one is arguing that they are born that way so we should accept them. They won't even argue to accept the person but not the behavior (the normal church answer.) No one is arguing against using therapy to try to help them change - which would be described as barbaric when referring to someone who is gay.

As you pointed out, the main distinction between homosexuality and pedophilia (aside from who they're attracted to) is one of morality. Homosexuality is between two consenting adults and pedophilia is preying on children. There's a victim in one of these types of relationships but not the other. An increasing number of people accepting homosexuality.

With that said, homosexuality is most definitely, like pedophilia, one of those variations. Pedophiles feel sexually attracted to children. Homosexuals feel attracted to other people of the same sex. Both behaviors are found in a very low percentage of the population. I wouldn't be surprised if pedophilia is even more prominent than homosexuality. There are people that feel compelled to do all kinds of either unusual, bizarre or unsavory/illegal things. Some are accepted and some aren't. We draw the line at whether there is a victim of the behavior. On one hand, Rex Ryan can continue to have his foot fetish without repercussion, but a kleptomaniac, if caught, will be prosecuted. I point out foot fetishes for a reason too, because I assume for some couples, the foot fetish thing is a big part of their relationship and draws them closer together. I feel homosexuality, as opposed to many if not most other unusual behaviors -- especially pedophilia, creates and facilitates long-lasting human relationships.

BTW, I don't understand foot fetishes at all. I know the word "fetish" itself is derived from word foot itself, so it's somewhat common. But how awesome would it be to be turned on by the sight of women's feet? Wouldn't it be like for most of us women walking around topless and/or bottomless? Good heavens.

Interesting that you point out pedophilia is not conducive to long-term relationships. Obviously the child eventually grows up. Though I could see someone developing a long-term relationship with someone who continues to have child-like qualities into adulthood (meaning they have a babyface, etc.)

[Indy Coug]

Are men who are attracted to very pettite women just sublimated pedophiliacs?

[Donuthole]

Are men who are attracted to very petite women just sublimated pedophiliacs?

Probably.

[SoCalCoug]

Are men who are attracted to very pettite women just sublimated pedophiliacs?

No. Your midget porn stash is safe.

[woot]

The problem is - I'm not talking about someone who harms a child. I get why we are unsympathetic on those cases. What about situations where someone is sexually attracted to children but never act out on a child? I don't see many folks offering sympathy for what they are going through. That's just pure evil. No one is arguing that they are born that way so we should accept them. They won't even argue to accept the person but not the behavior (the normal church answer.) No one is arguing against using therapy to try to help them change - which would be described as barbaric when referring to someone who is gay.



Interesting that you point out pedophilia is not conducive to long-term relationships. Obviously the child eventually grows up. Though I could see someone developing a long-term relationship with someone who continues to have child-like qualities into adulthood (meaning they have a babyface, etc.)

I think you're actually onto something here. After I read a bunch of books about brain variation I became much more sympathetic to folks with various behavioral problems like compulsive gambling, laziness, overeating, smoking, and anger management issues. Although we don't understand the brain well enough to pinpoint exact causes for all these things, there have been many cases where an unknown tumor causes all sorts of behavioral issues that subside after the tumor is removed, and certain genetic markers have been identified that makes one much more likely to, e.g., smoke cigarettes. I'm sure we've all known someone who is endlessly kind and hardworking. It's easy to admire such a person, but it's also likely that that person just has a predisposition for these admirable qualities. Someone without this predisposition can strive to fight against their tendencies, forcing themselves to have these qualities, but they will generally not be as successful as someone with a natural inclination, and we can presume, have less willpower left over for other things (various studies suggest that willpower is finite).

Anyway, I sympathize with those who are attracted to children. It must be miserable. I also don't doubt that to some degree, such attractions are within the "normal" range of human variation. As others have pointed out, folks who act on such desires are subject to harsh punishment because such acts are necessarily without consent. Given the consequences, I certainly couldn't blame anyone for being very wary of someone with such tendencies, even if they have never acted on them, and even as we sympathize with their plight. I'm also fine with certain types of "normal" variation being labeled pathological or immoral, inasmuch as they are not compatible with the society we are trying to curate. For me, homosexuals living happily together fits nicely in that vision, whereas the rape of children does not. In either case, that determination is made based on maximizing the well-being of the individuals involved, not on appeals to unfounded religious doctrine.

[cowboy]

Sure, there are good people who just are anti-gay simply because they feel the Church and its inspired leaders have asked them to be that way. Too bad.

You know how your sitting at church and someone mentions less active members, or members whose testimony is waning, and then someone else pipes up and says people only become less active because they’re selfish, and another pipes up that inactivity is usually correlated to sin, and another person adds that it would never happen if people read their scriptures daily, and the whole time you’re sitting there thinking that you don’t believe in the church, and it doesn’t have anything to do with selfishness or sin or lack of study and then you think these people are a bunch of crap baffles and you wonder why you ever associate with them? I hate that.

[Indy Coug]

You know how your sitting at church and someone mentions less active members, or members whose testimony is waning, and then someone else pipes up and says people only become less active because they’re selfish, and another pipes up that inactivity is usually correlated to sin, and another person adds that it would never happen if people read their scriptures daily, and the whole time you’re sitting there thinking that you don’t believe in the church, and it doesn’t have anything to do with selfishness or sin or lack of study and then you think these people are a bunch of crap baffles and you wonder why you ever associate with them? I hate that.

The silver lining is you have tapped into a weekly source of self-congratulatory reinforcing feedback.

[Dr. Heinz Doofenshmirtz]

You know how your sitting at church and someone mentions less active members, or members whose testimony is waning, and then someone else pipes up and says people only become less active because they’re selfish, and another pipes up that inactivity is usually correlated to sin, and another person adds that it would never happen if people read their scriptures daily, and the whole time you’re sitting there thinking that you don’t believe in the church, and it doesn’t have anything to do with selfishness or sin or lack of study and then you think these people are a bunch of crap baffles and you wonder why you ever associate with them? I hate that.

You're just not looking at it objectively, you selfish lazy sinner.

[Topper]

You know how your sitting at church and someone mentions less active members, or members whose testimony is waning, and then someone else pipes up and says people only become less active because they’re selfish, and another pipes up that inactivity is usually correlated to sin, and another person adds that it would never happen if people read their scriptures daily, and the whole time you’re sitting there thinking that you don’t believe in the church, and it doesn’t have anything to do with selfishness or sin or lack of study and then you think these people are a bunch of crap baffles and you wonder why you ever associate with them? I hate that.

Most people are good at doing what they understand, no matter the camp. Those who find value and comfort in the confines of the LDS Church, also find agreement for many of the same reasons. Those who struggle on the fringes often see those all inside in the same two dimensional light as those on the fringes. The truth is people are usually not very good at psychologically understanding the perspective which differs from their own.

I imagine that somebody all in is much more three dimensional in how he tackles life, even through his believing prism. He may be unable to articulate the nuances, or he chooses not to articulate them. I appreciate many may not understand the fringe, but if the two shall bridge these lack of understanding, who will start the communication?

[byu71]

You know how your sitting at church and someone mentions less active members, or members whose testimony is waning, and then someone else pipes up and says people only become less active because they’re selfish, and another pipes up that inactivity is usually correlated to sin, and another person adds that it would never happen if people read their scriptures daily, and the whole time you’re sitting there thinking that you don’t believe in the church, and it doesn’t have anything to do with selfishness or sin or lack of study and then you think these people are a bunch of crap baffles and you wonder why you ever associate with them? I hate that.

Good, very good.

I think members should be forced to go out and play golf with a large group of other members. You see everything. Guys smoking cigars to hold their nerves in check, a string of profanity from an Elders Quorum President and as he apologizes to a recently returned MP, the MP says "some things are allowed on a golf course". Of course you have the guys looking over at some guys shapely younger wife and then quickly look back saying, "we shouldn't do that". You have cheaters taken care of and by the way honesty is held in higher esteem on the course than in a TR interview.

All that going on and yet no one is discussing why anyone is a lesser mormon than another.

[Guest]

Good, very good.

I think members should be forced to go out and play golf with a large group of other members. You see everything. Guys smoking cigars to hold their nerves in check, a string of profanity from an Elders Quorum President and as he apologizes to a recently returned MP, the MP says "some things are allowed on a golf course". Of course you have the guys looking over at some guys shapely younger wife and then quickly look back saying, "we shouldn't do that". You have cheaters taken care of and by the way honesty is held in higher esteem on the course than in a TR interview.

All that going on and yet no one is discussing why anyone is a lesser mormon than another.

So what you are saying is that many members, including many leaders, are hypocrits? I agree. I would never claim to not be a hypocrit myself but there are plenty of members and leaders that would go that far. Or at least they would attempt to ignore the question if ever asked about their hyposcrisy. I support your golf idea. It would put everyone on a level playing field.

[clackamascoug]

Good, very good.

I think members should be forced to go out and play golf with a large group of other members. You see everything. Guys smoking cigars to hold their nerves in check, a string of profanity from an Elders Quorum President and as he apologizes to a recently returned MP, the MP says "some things are allowed on a golf course". Of course you have the guys looking over at some guys shapely younger wife and then quickly look back saying, "we shouldn't do that". You have cheaters taken care of and by the way honesty is held in higher esteem on the course than in a TR interview.

All that going on and yet no one is discussing why anyone is a lesser mormon than another.

It's funny that you use the golf analogy in this manner, as it's exactly as I've been thinking for years. Golf will expose who you really are. Play it long enough, and your playing partners will know you better than you know yourself. You have good moments, you have opportunity to praise others, and you have general consideration of others. You have many, many opportunities to show anger and frustration, and how you deal with disappointment is up front and in bold view of your playing partners. Jokes are told, funny things said, and If you play long enough with someone, you will get to know the inner most core of who they are.

Being aware of this, also allows me to act appropriately 90% of the time, whereas my church behavior is appropriate 98% of the time. I'm not the real me at church, whereas I'm the real me on the golf course.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Being aware of this, also allows me to act appropriately 90% of the time, whereas my church behavior is appropriate 98% of the time. I'm not the real me at church, whereas I'm the real me on the golf course.

What version are we getting here?

[byu71]

So what you are saying is that many members, including many leaders, are hypocrits? I agree. I would never claim to not be a hypocrit myself but there are plenty of members and leaders that would go that far. Or at least they would attempt to ignore the question if ever asked about their hyposcrisy. I support your golf idea. It would put everyone on a level playing field.

Not at all on the hypocrite side. Overly judgemental members may consider them hypocrites. My suggestion to them is they work out their own salvation with fear and trembling.

What I am saying is the golf course is reality and Sacrament meeting is a fascade. You look out over that congregation and tell me everyone in it is living the straight and narrow, about to be translated any moment life. Only the dip shits in the congregation are naive enough to feel that way about themselves.

Nope, what I am saying is we mormons are a pretty dang good group of folks who ain't as perfect as some would like to portray. PR vs reality. So who is really the hypocrite?

Out of curiousity though, what did I say that would lead you to believe any of them were hypocrites?


Edit: Shame on me. I have no right to label people who think they are about to be translated as dip shits. I should have said, I am very uncomfortable around them.

[Guest]

Out of curiousity though, what did I say that would lead you to believe any of them were hypocrites?

Just how folks act and preach differently on Sunday than they do the rest of the week. I would be curious to see what would happen if a bunch of active members skipped church one Sunday and went golfing. Who would we see then?