Mikeuk

A strange comment.

Presumably you envisage a time when paedophilia wil no longer be 'taboo'? Does this imply future acceptance of such activity?

Its only when they 'act' that the question of locking them up arises.
Not in my experience.

Tell me. Do you feel that people should be made ashamed to be racists?

If so, why?

This-England

If the Public was aware of the states on Homosexual rates of Paedophilia, disease, drug use and lifestyle I would think over 90% of people would then be against Gay adoption and a good portion would favour a ban on homosexuality itself.

Feldoon

I have no idea what the future holds and therefore I will not make a concrete
statement on it.

That's why I related it to being current.

Wholly agreed. However I have known people who consider the mere thought of somebody having sexual attraction to children warrant enough to lock them up.

Not in my experience.[/quote]But your experience isn't enough to justify group discrimination on a national legal scale.

Given most of the "gay diseases" are easily explained.

No. They shouldn't.

They should be made ashamed when they act upon their racism.

Mikeuk

Are you suggesting that you could live with a future position where paedophilia became socially acceptable?

Phagocyte

Sex between a child and an adult is not/has not been universally taboo, and neither is/has been paedophilia.

Societal normality plays a major role. Regardless of the feelings of anyone here, if the world changes significantly over the next 50 years (and it likely will), our grandchildren will experience far different customs. There is some possibility that children will be allowed to embrace sexuality more openly, or be encouraged to do so.

Phagocyte

Paedophilia is often exhibited in heterosexual males. I'm not sure what state you're referring to on that account.

Disease among those engaging in homosexual intercourse is encouraged by the underground culture forced by societal taboo. Several years ago, HIV/AIDS spread in part because of the clandestine sexual encounters undertaken by many to avoid public scrutiny. Many chose to deny the victims assistance, dubbing it "the gay plague" or God's retribution against homosexuals. Of course, it soon spread to the heterosexual community and now threatens everyone. I'd like to take this moment to thank the pseudo-religious nutjobs who decided to speak as though they knew God's will and played a part in ruining things for the rest of us. Thanks, you asshats, now we all live in fear.

Elevated drug use I'm not sure about any statistics on. However, if higher levels do exist, they may be linked to higher levels of societal pressure.

Lifestyle is a useless term, as it has no meaning in this context.

Suggesting that gay adoption be disallowed on account of the high levels of depression, et al that are often found in known homosexuals is much like suggesting that blacks should not be allowed to adopt, on account of similar factors. Of course, most of these factors can be directly associated with things like socioeconomic status, which black people tend to have the short end of the stick on. This is one reason I do not inherently trust mob rule.

Homosexuality itself is not something that can be realistically banned at this time.

Mikeuk

Nobody is suggesting that homosexuality should be 'banned'.

Studies in the US suggest that paediphile abuse is higher among homosexuals than heterosexuals. Full weight should be given to these findings in prohibiting 'gay adoption'

Obviously the 'average' characteristics of coloured peoples are likely to be dragged down by the fact that many are poor and underprivileged. However, the most successful and the most religious among them are likely in every respect to make good adoptive parents.

I would guess that homosexuals are, on average, wealthier than heterosexuals. Their high depression and suicide rates can be put down to their frequently debauched lifestyle.

Who knows but a blanket ban on gay adoption may occasionally be 'unfair'. That's tough, but that's life. Sometimes it's necessary to proclaim that Christian/tratitionalist principles will be upheld for the benefit of a healthy society.

Phagocyte

Thank goodness.

Which studies? I insist that undue weight not be given to these figures unless causation is established.

As such, I would expect that the most successful/religious/et al homosexuals are likely to make good adoptive parents as well.

I think that's jumping the gun. First, I don't know many homosexuals who aren't or weren't in dire financial straits (many face fewer job prospects or are kicked out of their homes at a young age on account of honest confessions or perceptions), and second, I don't believe for a moment that homosexuals are necessarily 'frequently debauched' or have some manner of lifestyle that is separate from the norm.

Since when is it the province of any Christian to promote an unjust law?

Mikeuk

I'm surprised you should assume anything else. I have personally known four men who were jailed for paedophile offences - all against boys. I should think that's the general experience/expectation of normal people.

Here's just one of a host of learned articles on the subject

Mikeuk

And again...
Not telling us anything we didn't know already, really.

<<yawn...>>