'Pride Month'

We don't really need both of them (as I said earlier on this thread, I do believe that it would be more logical to combine both months into one; however, only positive things come from their being two months. It's not like Gay Pride Month harms anyone or really even affects anyone who isn't in the LGBT community, so what is the issue with allowing it to occur even though LGBT History Month already exists?

 

I've already explained how there's not an issue with them making two months, but as for the other claims, I personally have not seen a single gay person draw too much attention to Gay Pride Month. From what I've seen, Gay Pride Month seems like the type of thing that LGBT people tend to celebrate which each other, not something that they try to use to bring outside attention to themselves.

I definitely agree that certain people make certain social issues worse, especially SJWs; however, I don't think that any gay person who celebrates Pride Month but is otherwise minding their own business is making anything worse.

The difference between saying, "I'm proud to be black," and, "I'm proud to be gay," is that there are many people that think that being gay is wrong. I have never seen anybody say that it's wrong to be black (have you?); I have, on the other hand, seen many people claim that it's wrong to be gay. Therefore, saying that you're proud to be gay means something different than saying that you're proud to be black, because you're accepting that you can be proud about who you are, even if other people think it's wrong for you to be that way.

 

Er, yes. That's why racism started. Because people believed that blacks were inferior.

 

Explain how pedophilia is different in it's structure from any sexuality.

 

because (most) other sexualitys are done by 2 consenting people who understand what they are doing.

 

First of all, yes, people believed that black people were inferior to white people (I wouldn't guarantee that that's how racism started though, considering that racism has existed between many other races); however, claiming that someone is 'inferior' isn't the same thing as claiming that the way that they are is 'wrong.'

Second of all, considering that we're talking about whether or not Gay Pride Month should currently exist, my arguments are based around the present, not the past. Back in the day, when a huge amount of white people claimed that black people were inferior, I would've totally understood the purpose of black people wanting to take place in a "Black Pride Month. Despite the fact that racism still occurs today, it's rarely in the form of someone legitimately claiming that another race is inferior to their own and when it is, it usually occurs between all races; therefore, partaking in "black pride" today wouldn't serve the same purpose that it would've served years ago, nor would it serve the same purpose that Gay Pride Month serves. Furthermore, years from now, when hopefully few people still claim that being gay is wrong, Gay Pride Month will no longer serve the purpose that it does today.

--- Double Post Merged, Jun 30, 2016, Original Post Date: Jun 30, 2016 ---

Pedophiles are attracted to people (children) who are not sexually developed. Regardless of anyone's opinion on being gay/bi/etc., I think it's obvious that an attraction to any sexually developed adult is not the same thing as a sexual attraction to a child that is not sexually developed.

Furthermore, as has been discussed earlier on this thread and mentioned again by @DwarFmorf101 , another big difference is that other sexualities can be acted upon in a consensual way. Pedophilia, on the other hand, cannot be acted upon in a way that is consensual and/or okay (are you arguing with this?).

 

I can say that this month is a great time to come out of the closet.
I came out as lesbian to my family this month on lesbian pride day.
It went better then accepted, and my family's taking me to the pride parade in my hometown soon.

 

I disagree, I think it is the same concept - at least, from the viewpoint of the, oppressor I guess is the word, these people are worth less, because of an intrinsic trait they can't change. If they had a black child, or a gay child, then both would be viewed as an abomination in those times. It can also be phrased as both groups having something wrong WITH them, a specific trait people don't like.

can you re-quote it?

But, both are saying you're accepting that you can be proud about who you are, even if people are bigoted.

The majority now believe that being gay is fine. The majority believe that racism is wrong. There are now gay celebrities, gay tv characters, buzzfeed videos (really, do they ever have a straight couple? my god), etc. There is equal rights under law. So when does it stop serving a purpose?
I think it already has served it's purpose when people obtained equal rights.

 

I don't think that most of the oppressors view/viewed it in the same way; whether they believe that the existence of gay people is wrong or that gay people simply have something wrong with them, most of them don't seem like they viewed black people in the same way. Instead, it seems more like black people were viewed as being rightfully inferior; that is, instead of being viewed as a supposedly equal being that had something wrong with them, making them worth less, I think that black people were more so viewed as inherently lesser beings.

Regardless, we can at least agree that they are very similar concepts and as I've said, back when this was the way that a lot of people felt about black people, I would've completely understood black people wanting to partake in a pride month, because having to deal with this would've been awful.

The reason that there's not as issue is because it causes no issue. If people who get hate for the way that they are and possibly struggle with it want a time to celebrate with other people that are going through the same thing, the only things that are caused by them doing so are positive.

In response to this, you quoted yourself explaining that:

1. It's silly to have two months - I agreed that it would be more logical to combine both Gay Pride Month and LGBT History Month into one, but again, having two months doesn't cause anything that's not positive.

2. People are going over the top with stuff like this and drawing too much attention to themselves, which makes things worse (Paraphrasing for simplicity) - I wholeheartedly agreed that, for instance, SJWs go way over the top with 'social equality;' however, as I explained, I don't see any gay people going over the top with Pride Month (I'm sure there are some, but it definitely seems like it would be the minority) and, if anything, gay people mostly use it as a time to just celebrate and feel comfortable with other people in the LGBT community.

Sure, that's true. Like I said, I think there's a (minor) difference between the claims made about gay people and the claims that were made about black people in the past, but even more importantly than that, it's a lot more common to see someone say that being gay is wrong in our modern day than it is to see someone say that black people are inferior to white people, so someone saying that they're proud to be gay can hold a different level of significance.

Yes, the majority believe that being gay is fine, but the majority is not large enough that gay people don't see people all the time that think being gay isn't fine. While I'm sure everybody sees some racism even though the majority believes that racism is wrong, the difference there is that it's very rare to see any of this racism occur in the extremities that it did in the past. I know that there are extreme racists alive, but I've never personally met anyone that has legitimately claimed that one race is inferior to another, whereas I've met a whole lot of people who have legitimately claimed that being gay is wrong. We've discussed how both of these oppressive claims are similar, so I think it can be assumed that this type of homophobia is still more widespread than this type of racism is.

I think it will have served its purpose when homophobia has dwindled away to the point that most gay people no longer feel like they want stuff like this to help them feel comfortable and supported.

 

In other words... It's different not because of it's structure or effects, but because of it's target? That's not different at all.

--- Double Post Merged, Jul 5, 2016, Original Post Date: Jul 5, 2016 ---

That is what pedophilia is...

How is it different?

I think it's obvious that an attraction to any sexually compatible (someone with the opposite 'parts') is not the same as a sexual attraction to someone sexually incompatible (same 'parts').

That's not a different in the sexualities though. That's a difference in the law.
This is basically the same as Christians using the Bible against gay marriage. "Oh, this lawbook (many consider the Bible as something of a lawbook) says that this is wrong, therefore it is actually wrong."

Again, difference in law, not sexuality.

 

Yes, and it is what makes pedophilia different from other 'sexualities.'

I don't know how to make it any clearer than that.

Regardless of their sexes, two sexually developed adults can participate in sexual acts in a way that is okay, consensual, and not harmful.

If your 'sexuality' can only be acted upon in a way that harms other people, there's an inherent difference between it and non-harmful sexualities.

Sure, that's valid. Being sexually attracted to the same sex is different than being sexually attracted to the opposite sex, yes, but neither of them are the same as being sexually attracted to someone who isn't sexually developed. Furthermore, unlike being attracted to children, being attracted to people of the same sex and being attracted to people of the opposite sex are both okay to act upon.

Let me elaborate, because you have the wrong idea on what I meant there.

I'm not saying that acting on pedophilia is wrong because it's illegal; I'm saying that acting on pedophilia is wrong because it's immoral. Before you jump in and say, "People can say that gay marriage is wrong because it's immoral too," I'm going to go ahead and dispute that. Sure, anybody can say that gay marriage is immoral; however, gay marriage harms nobody. An adult being sexually involved with an undeveloped child, on the other hand, is definitely harmful to that child. Therefore, unlike being gay, pedophiles cannot act on their 'sexuality' in a way that isn't harmful.

 

I mean, as a person who is LGBTQ I do think that pride month is necessary. It gives a space to be heard and to be seen without the fear that comes with just living day to day as a queer/trans person. It's not about dividing those who are LGBT and those who aren't and I always find it funny how straight people immediately think that. Pride is about unity and love, and does not mean in any way to divide. Pride was created out of a need to be visible and a need for basic rights and that's still applicable today-- people can be fired for being LGBT, people can be denied housing and healthcare because they are LGBT-- and this is all legal in most states. If you don't believe me on that last point I'm happy to pull up some articles.

And honestly, the reason that there isn't straight pride is the same reason that when you're playing mario kart and you're in 1st place you don't get the blue shells. YOU DON'T NEED IT. Your straight/cis privilege allows you to not have to fight tooth and nail over human rights like those in the LGBTQ community have been doing for years.

Also, @y'all trying to equate being LGBT and pedophilia- you could not be more wrong. Pedophilia is not a sexuality. Pedophilia is disgusting, harmful, and just downright wrong. Give me one example where a straight person has been traumatized, like actually mentally traumatized, by the actions of an LGBT person. Go on.

 

Except it doesn't. It's the exact same mechanisms; the exact same desire, only directed at a different target.

Not really. If you take a gun, lets say, and use it to shoot targets, then it's O.K. Now if you take the same gun, and use it to shoot people, it's not O.K. The gun hasn't changed at all, only it's target.

This is an argument against homosexuality...

(not one I personally believe in, just to make a point)

And?

And?
Refer to gun analogy.

--- Double Post Merged, Jul 6, 2016, Original Post Date: Jul 6, 2016 ---

Umm, yes. It is. In the same way I am attracted to females, and a gay man is attracted to men, and a Lesbian woman is attracted to women, a pedophile is attracted to children.

How do you think it makes a pedophile feel to hear EVERYBODY IN THE ENTIRE WORLD say this to them? Don't you think it'd be worse to be a pedophile than a gay person? Since EVERYBODY hates them? NOBODY supports them AT ALL.


Normally I don't care for the Huffington Post, but this article is good: http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/devon-murphy/rehabilitating-pedophiles_b_3845546.html

It makes the claim that pedophilia is a mental disorder while being gay isn't, but like the people on this thread, it doesn't seem to be able to back that up. But otherwise, it brings up some good points.

 

It's directed at a target that can't reciprocate and a target that makes it not okay to act upon.

You're analogy is completely leaving out the attraction and desire. The gun hasn't changed, but the target has and so has the shooter's desire.

A more accurate analogy would be to say that the shooter gets sexual gratification from shooting whatever it is that they're shooting. If a shooter has a sexual desire to shoot a regular target and gets sexual gratification from doing so, that's not really a problem; however, if a shooter has a sexual desire to shoot other human beings and gets sexual gratification from doing so, that's obviously an issue.

If your 'sexuality' can only be acted upon in a way that harms other people, it's set aside from sexualities than can be acted upon in a non-harmful and consensual way. The only way that you can really argue that pedophilia is the same as another 'sexuality' is if you believe that acting upon it isn't wrong.

I don't see why that has to be an argument against homosexuality. The 'parts' of your partner can alter what 'activities' you can partake in, and furthermore, being with somebody with the same 'parts' prevents you from being able to reproduce with them. It seems biologically inaccurate to claim that being attracted to people with the same parts is "the same" as being attracted to those with the opposite parts. That does not mean that either attraction is better than the other though; they're different, but equal in value, as they can both be acted upon in an equally non-harmful and consensual way (again, this makes both of them drastically differ from pedophilia).

Are you saying that pedophilia is not disgusting? Pedophilia is not the same as the pedophile themselves, as pedophilia is the attraction to children, not the person that's attracted to the children. Pedophilia is disgusting, in the same way that someone having a sexual desire to shoot people with guns for gratification would be, but that doesn't make the person that has these desires a disgusting person. Pedophiles can't control the attraction that they feel, so the fact that they feel it doesn't make them a bad person; HOWEVER, they should realize that their feelings are bad and try to get help trying to get rid of them.

 

That doesn't change what it is, though.

The shooters desire is to hit whatever the gun is aiming at (sex drive)

That just proves my point though, that it is the same thing, but pedophiles aren't allowed to act on their desire.

No... I'm not sure how else to explain this, so I'll stick with the gun metaphor. Shooting a target (object of desire) with a gun (sexuality) is O.K. in some cases, but not in others. (if that target were a person, instead of foam or paper). That doesn't change what the gun is, does, or how it works. The gun is the gun.

That's what our culture (and most cultures, granted), would say.

What I'm getting at, with this whole 'pedophilia is a sexuality like being gay' thing, is that pedophiles are reviled by EVERYBODY. It's akin to being a Jew in Nazi Germany. And I think it's hypocritical that some people think that gays need acceptance and pedophiles should be shunned, when it's the exact same mechanism in gays, straights, and pedophiles.

No.

And people still hate the person.

I wouldn't equate having sexual urges towards children with murder.

Yes, and? How do they get help in a society that hates their very existence?

 

But it makes it inherently different from sexualities that can be acted upon without causing somebody harm.

The gun can't be the person's sexuality.

The gun is the 'tool' that is used to act upon the desire, meaning that for the analogy to work, the gun is the person's 'parts,' since it's used for the action. The person's sexuality is what dictates what their object of desire is.

So,

Sexuality = What dictates person's object of desire

Sex drive = Desire to hit object

Person's 'parts' = Gun

Person acting on sex drive = Shooter

Object of desire = Target

The gun is just the weapon being used and is thus irrelevant. What's relevant is that the person who desires to hit a specific target desires to hit that target. If someone has a desire to shoot a person for sexual gratification, that's different from someone that has a desire to shoot a target for gratification, as the latter harms nobody. Sure, the weapon or 'part' is the same and the 'sexuality' causing the attraction functions in the same way, but the fact that the sex drive/desire is to act in a way that is harmful creates a difference between it and a 'sexuality' that causes a drive/desire that can be acted on in an okay way.

Gay people and pedophiles both need acceptance, but in completely different ways. Gay people need acceptance because being gay and acting upon being gay are both perfectly okay and both cause no harm. Pedophiles, on the other hand, need acceptance because they can't control the way that they are and shouldn't be hated for it, BUT that doesn't mean that the way that they are is okay or good. If someone has the uncontrollable sexual urge to do something that harms others, that's not okay and it shouldn't be regarded as okay, but that doesn't mean that the person is at fault for having those urges, since the urges are uncontrollable.

Pedophilia is bad and pedophiles need acceptance in people helping them change and realizing that as long as they control their urges, the way that they are doesn't make them bad people.

Homosexuality is perfectly fine and gay people need acceptance in people realizing that it is fine.

Do you see the difference here?

We're talking about a different issue now. Just because I've been claiming that there's a difference between a 'sexuality' that can be acted upon in an okay way (homosexuality) and a 'sexuality' that cannot (pedophilia), I have said that pedophiles shouldn't be hated for what they can't control. Pedophiles need to be accepted as people that have an issue that they need to work on overcoming, but saying that they are the same as people that have no issue does not help.

I didn't equate to two; I equated having sexual urges towards children and having murderous urges.

 

Omfg...
I've explained how it's not different. That it's the same mechanism, the same drive, just directed at a different target. You have yet to refute this. All you've said is that since a pedophile acting upon it's target is socially unacceptable, it's different than other sexualities. I've given you reason why this is irrelevant, that the target is irrelevant in the mechanisms, and yet you keep repeating this.

No... That's not the case. If you really want to dissect it this way, then the gun is still the sexuality, and the bullet is the 'parts'.

If I gave you three statements:
I am sexually attracted to men
I am sexually attracted to women
I am sexually attracted to children

You could, based upon your position, tell me how the last one is different from the other two. Except that the only difference is the target. And since we have established many times in many threads that being gay is the same as being straight, save for the target of your affections, then it follows that being a pedophile is the same as being gay or straight, save for the target of their affections.

Exactly. So doesn't it seem hypocritical for a gay person to demand TWO whole months for their community, but then dismiss pedophiles as evil, worthless beings?

The only difference is the target.

 

Omfg...
I've explained how it is different. If your 'sexuality' cannot be acted upon in a way that's okay, it's different from ones that can. You have not disputed this either, except for saying that it's the same mechanism, which is true; however, in cases like pedophilia where the entire 'sexuality' exists based off of a desire that can't be acted upon, that desire shouldn't exist in the first place.

Then the gun is what has the urges to shoot, not the shooter themselves?

But there's also a difference in the 'sexuality' that makes them attracted to those targets. As I've been saying all along, if someone's 'sexuality' is being attracted to someone in a way that they can't act upon it without causing harm, there's an obvious difference between that and a 'sexuality' that can be acted upon. It's not that the target just happens to be different, but that the person has the desire to act on a target that is not okay for them to act on, making it different from other 'sexualities.'

Oh, so we're back here now?

Well, it doesn't seem hypocritical, considering that pedophilia, being a mental illness that people need acceptance in helping get through, not just a sexuality that people need to be comfortable with, is a completely different issue, but I see what you're saying. I feel like you're putting words in other people's mouths though; I don't see many gay people "demanding" two months or saying that pedophiles who refrain from acting on their urges are evil and worthless.

 

There is a "Pride Month" because LGBTQIA+ have been oppressed for so long. I mean, being gay used to be classified as a mental illness. Pride Month is to honour all of the sh*t LGBTQIA+ has had to deal with, and bring awarness to the problems they are still facing today. The reason there should be no "Heterosexual Pride Month" is because Heterosexuals have never been oppressed. It's the same thing as Black History Month.