Lady, I believe the issue now becomes "consent"
Lady
Point-by-point:
•
So God created deviant sexual behavior,right? Assuming for the sake of argument that God exists as described in the Bible,
yes.
•
Despite Scientific Proof, this is what many people are led to believe. Despite
which scientific proof? A lack of evidence in an incomplete process? By the same measure, I might remind you that some people are led to believe that God exists, despite scientific proof.
•
If the above statment holds true ... It doesn't. But I'll pretend it does.
•
Why is it that our laws are hypocritical and society discrimatory against those who practice Pedophilia,bestialism,and incestous lifestyles. Because pedophilia and bestialism involve issues of
consent in the fact that consent is not necessarily present. Bearing
Lysander Spooner in mind, we might examine the notion that the right of sexual consent was given to a ten year-old girl in 1875, and that her favor could be
bought. As a consent issue, is a ten year-old fully conscious of the damage sexual contact can do to her body? If the answer is
yes, then we ought not prosecute pedophiles but work toward normalization of the phenomenon. I find this solution distasteful to say the least. Animals? Show me proper consent in the animal kingdom. That a dog can be compelled to f--k a woman does not show consent. Why not, one might ask. The dog seems to enjoy it. Well ... fine. If a woman has an orgasm, it can't be rape. The necessity of conscious consent is possible between adults. A human and a dog or a goat? I don't see consent. A child? It's going to take some hard convincing to get me to believe that one of my best friends could consent to performing fellatio at age eight. Or six. Or two, for that matter. Incest? My objection is that incest seems quite pathetic. What, you can't go find someone who's
not family who is willing to have sex with you? Buy a hooker, at least.
•
Why show prejudice and pass judgements against sexual behavior's that aren't acceptable by society. Because those behaviors do not respect consent. God and the "sinner" are not the only important ones here. There are the others involved. Two adults of the same gender can consent to gratify each other sexually. Our laws strive to protect individuals from exploitative harm, so it seems quite reasonable to prohibit those sexual conducts which do not respect the necessity of consent.
•
I remind you, bestialism, incest, and pedophilia is the will or creation of God(right?) not a choice. Nonetheless, bestialism and pedophilia, at least, suspend the choices of the other to an unacceptable degree. These acts harm people who are not willing to be harmed. Incest has the same danger in reproduction, and for that reason alone it ought to be curtailed. However, in this day of casual sex, birth control, and sexual fetish, reproduction is not as sure a result of sexual activity as it once was. In this context, we must decide as a society whether incest really is that pathetic. I tend to think it is, but I could be wrong.
•
These people could no more choose their sexual desire's than their skin color. In twelve years of actively involving myself in the political arguments surrounding homosexuality, I have found that even the gays find this comparison distasteful. A homosexual can choose to partake in sexual activities that do not appeal to him or her, much like a wife can choose to partake in bad sex with her husband. A black person cannot choose to not be black without massive violations of the body, and at that point, they would be on par with Michael Jackson.
•
So why I ask you, discriminate against these innocent human beings? Well, near as I can tell, most people are just a little freaked out at the idea of having sex with a child, though the "hot oral high school teens" movement on the internet seems to be a little more successful than it should be. Furthermore, as we see with NAMBLA, some pedophiles proclaim their needs. In that case, I, as a parent, wishing to protect my child against such dangers, would have an obligation to object. If my child isn't that important to me, I suppose I can choose to say nothing.
•
After all, it's not their fault. Just as homosexuals find it repulsive to engage in heterosexual relations so to do these people find it repulsive to engage in the"accepted sexual behaviors" condoned by society. Spend more time with pedophiles and bestialists. The child molester I know certainly enjoys sex with adult women. So it's not quite fair to say he would be repulsed by accepted sexual behaviors condoned by society. Nonetheless, the essence of your question is, in the abstract, fair. Again, I point to issues of consent. As such, there still exists questions about the propriety of attaining sexual gratification without consent or through deception.
•
Therefore, should these people be rejected by society& penalized by our hypocritical law's? If they commit a crime, such as having sex with a child or a dog, then they ought to be penalized. In the case of incest, if they reproduce, they ought to be penalized for any damage the incestuous union might cause to the child. (As an example, one of the most horrific executions in the history of mankind was of a retarded man who killed his parents because, while they raised him to a strict and even ridiculous Christian standard, they were, in fact, incestuous. When the man found out his mom and dad were brother and sister, he acted on the lessons he'd learned in religion, and killed the offenders. As a side note, the state botched his execution, and after 37 minutes of shocking the shit out of him, he still wasn't dead. While I cannot condone murder, we see that the effects of the incestuous union have harmed another person, and I think incestuous sex should be held accountable before the law if it results in birth defects.
•
I ask you, What gives society the right to look down upon certain deviant sexual behaviors and condone others? The issue of consent is a big one, especially in light of the issues you continue to raise.
•
Who gives law maker's the right to punish people for not desiring what society has deemed acceptable? Depends on who you ask. George Bush thinks it's God. The electoral system says that the society so chooses. Among adults, their continued existence inside the political borders and their continued participation in society inherently signifies their consent to the law.
•
If the introductory statment holds true......law maker's and society have no choice but to accept and respect the natural sexual impulses created in every human being. If we restrict the issue only to the individual and God, you might have a point. But we cannot make such a restriction, for it fails to consider the
other entity involved. Thus:
Joe the homosexual comes before his consenting lover, and they have union. To the other,
Jim the molester comes before a child, and must steal the child, restrain the child, and violate the child.
Jack the bestial beast comes before a dog or a horse or a goat or whatever, and
cannot ask consent; he must merely stimulate the animal and hope for a favorable response, which is a strategy a man can employ with a woman forcibly strapped to a table or bound in the basement.
The big issue is consent. The political fight between certain Christians and their homosexual targets has spent at least ten years on this idea in the Pacific Northwest. The same comparisons of homosexuality and bestialism and pedophilia were floated by the Oregon Citizens' Alliance, a Christian-derived PAC. For at least ten years, people have been pointing out issues of consent, and wondering why they're not important to the persecutors.
I can only hope that our present discussion might help you distinguish between consent and a lack thereof. In addition to how God views the individual, there is a more functionally important issue of how the other party involved in the sexual act involves that individual.
thanx,
Tiassa