Gays and paedohiles - "they're all the same"

[sp1814]

Can someone explain why some people cannot recognise the difference between a relationship between two adults, and the forced sexual relationship (often accompanied by threats) between an adult and a child?

I've just read a thread where someone commented along the lines of 'paedophilia is bad but two men togther is not far behind".

How popular is this (slightly bizarre) point of view?

Is it the natural extention of the Pope's claim that saving the world from homosexuality is "Like saving the rainforests"

The rants of religious dinosaurs, or somehing genuine concern?

[sp1814]

daftgrandad

You wrote:

Are you saying there is no medical reason why gays should not have a sexual
relationship.
Aids and HIV are two pretty good ones.

No they're not. They're both really good reasons why no-one should have unprotected sex.

[sara3]

there's been a huge rise in new HIV cases in the UK in the straight over-50s bracket. the government is preparing an awareness campaign aimed at that group.

[craft1948]

^ think I'll keep on with the abstinence...

[daftgrandad]

I,m sorry I dont agree.
Each of us is entitled to our own theories and I stick by what I said.

[jackthehat]

Quite right, again, DG...............
Don't let any facts get in the way of a deeply held prejudice.

[mike11111]

I always thought that HIV was the precursor of AIDS, so to that extent they are not two factors but one.

[sara3]

daftgrandad, you are living up to your name.

old and very out-dated views.

[NOX]

Mike- yeah that's true but by no means now does everyone who is HIV positive develope full blown AIDS

[daftgrandad]

Jack and sara
I agree with you both.When it comes to gays,I am perhaps predjudiced.
I remember well the times when it was illegal.I,m sorry if it offends,both of you,but last
time I checked,we were still living in a democracy and still had freedom of speech, so therefore allowed to express our opinions.

[jackthehat]

Of course you are entitled to voice your prejudices.
I was merely trying to prevent you looking like a complete pillock by pointing out that your 'theory' has no merit whatsoever........

[daftgrandad]

What theory is this that I have Jack ?

[jackthehat]

<Are you saying there is no medical reason why gays should not have a sexual
relationship.
Aids and HIV are two pretty good ones.>

<I,m sorry I dont agree.
Each of us is entitled to our own theories and I stick by what I said.>

Did you forget writing the above ?

[mike11111]

I'm sorry, Jackthehat, but despite ypur best endeavours to prevent Daftgrandad looking like a complete pillock, it seems that you have failed.

[daftgrandad]

Jack
Dont take my user name to mean i am a senile old fool.
That is a theory,because I cannot prove it to be right or wrong.
If you cannot yet grasp the gist of my posts,I will try to explain in words of one syllable.
I think gays are wrong.There,that is not a theory,that is a belief.

[sp1814]

daftgrandad

I don't want to sound like a torch-wielding villager chasing you through town...but what do you mean when you think 'gays are wrong'?

Wrong about what?

Or do you mean that you think that homosexuality is wrong?

If so, how could it be 'righted'?

[jackthehat]

That much was obvious.

Others, far more qualified, have proved that your 'theory' is flawed. However, happily for you, your prejudice is probably irreversible.............

[Answerprancer]

DG: "last time I checked,we were still living in a democracy and still had freedom of speech, so therefore allowed to express our opinions".

LOL the last refuge prejudiced: the old "ooh they're trying to gag me" cop out.
No one is saying you don't have the right to free speech, similarly those that disagree with you have *their* right to react and argue back to you ...don't they?

[Kromovaracun]

Daftgrandad:

Yes, we do live in a democracy. Yes, you absolutely have the right to hold your views.

But consider the reason that right exists? The reason is that democracy is a system that accepts plurality of views, and the reason this freedom is protected is partly because it's just easier but mostly because if people can argue and exchange their views. If they're debated, each view can be assessed based on its merits and demerits and figure out if it makes a valid point that contributes to how we think about running society.

If views are demonstrably shown to be based on poor evidence or false premises, then it is in the interest of everyone that they be discarded. That's the whole point - that can't happen in any other system than a democracy.

So you are exercising your democratic right by holding to your views when your evidence has been undermined - nobody's trying to take that away from you. But others are also exercising their democratic right to argue with you seeing as you bothered to post your views in the first place. If your ideas don't hold water when they're being debated, then they are simply inferior.

[Kromovaracun]

"is protected is partly because it's just easier but mostly because if people can argue and exchange their views."

Woops. Meant to write:

"but mostly because if people can argue and exchange their views it's just better for society."

[sara3]

↑ well said.