DVDizzy Forum

Neal wrote:Well, I don't think we should ever hate someone for who they truly fall in love with.

However, if someone is not in love but rather in it for the sexual gratification, then we cannot excuse that.

So for me - gays, bis, straights and pansexuals (it's different than being bi) fall in love with their peers (people of similar or acceptable age) and they are born into having those feelings.

Pedophiles - some may truly fall in love with a child somehow - say they work as a janitor or teacher and get to know a child. I think there is a possibility that 'pedophilia' could be an offshoot of sexuality, like being gay or bi - because someone may desire to love someone their own age, but they are only romantically attracted to children. It's a touchy subject (no pun intended) - and as someone who knows/believes homosexuality and bisexuality are not a choice, who am I to say "pedophilia" is. Although it is inappropriate my societal standards, they could wait until it was not illegal such as Mary Kay Letourneau did. However, if it is purely lust and not love and the pedophile rapes or brainwashes a child for sex - there is no excuse.

Like, someone f*****g an animal for the pleasure of it is wrong.

Sexuality is so interesting - have you ever heard that people fall in love with objects? Do you think they choose or desire for that life? Some people fall in love with certain buildings or things like cars.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Object_sexuality

unlike gays and bi, pedophilia is not biological. Many scientists and psychologists have found out and proved it.

Alphapanchito and Neil have taken this topic to a disturbing place. To actually question and debate the morality of such awful things as beastiality, rape, and pedophilia, as well as drug use, and recreational sex is shocking. This just shows that when you take God out of the picture, anything goes. There is then no clear moral compass, and right and wrong is defined and determined by what each person deems acceptable and what makes them feel good. It's also bogus to throw homosexuality in that mix! You can have a healthy and holy homosexual relationship which is impossible with the others mentioned.

As for Ms Benson she has a right to have and share her opinions. To all those who feel your enjoyment of her talent and work in TLM has been affected negatively by her personal views I would just say this: LEARN TO SEPERATE THE ARTIST FROM THE ART. I certainly dont approve of the lifestyles and actions of many musicians and entertainers I enjoy but that doesnt mean I cant enjoy their talent.

ALSO being a Christian is most certainly a choice. I imagine you can feel that you have been born into a faith but at some point you have to make a conscious decision to have a relationship with God and seek his will for your life or not.

Aside from the fact that pedophelia/necrophelia/beastiality are disgusting. Children, dead people and animals aren't human adults that can give consent. So there's that. I agree, debating the morality of the above-mentioned things is unneeded, to say the least.


Back on-topic. . .


From the looks of things, she feels strongly about her religious views. There usually isn't much of a point to debate people on this when they aren't open to discussion. I doubt this will be detrimental to people's viewing pleasure of The Little Mermaid. Though specifically saying to someone who admires you that "you'll pray for him/her" seems in poor taste -but maybe that's just me. Then again, I've never really cared for people with holier-than-thou attitudes, religious or not-religious.

Super Aurora wrote:unlike gays and bi, pedophilia is not biological. Many scientists and psychologists have found out and proved it.

I was not aware of this, but I still think we should not (as society tends to do) start to scream "sicko!" "weirdo!" "freak!" at pedophiles - because if it is not biological, I assume it is psychological? Unless you are saying that there's no proof it's nothing more than men (and a few women) who abuse children but show no sign of a chemical brain change during that decision process. If it's psychological, than that shows they do not have full/if any control over it. We should not excuse what happens and we should separate them from those they could hurt, but we should also feel sorry for them.

a-net-fan wrote:Alphapanchito and Neil have taken this topic to a disturbing place. ... This just shows that when you take God out of the picture, anything goes.

I apologize for anything said that has been disturbing. This siderailed debate needs to end soon. I am glad to hear you say you can have a 'healthy, holy' homosexual relationship. It sounds like you are fairly christian, no? That's a kind and open-minded stance to take on the issue if so. I hope it was clear I make no excuses for the acts of pedophilia, bestiality or rape and do not think any of them can ever be morally acceptable. However, I think we should beware of crucifying those who commit these offenses because their actions could be psychological and not a personal choice. Not ever murder was premeditated, and neither is every sexual misconduct. Love the sinner, hate the sin.

I will say I do not condemn drug use, though - within reason. Such drugs as heroin, cocaine, PCP - I do not agree with their use under any circumstance. However, I believe marijuana to be much safer and gentler than alcohol any day and even some lower tier hallucinogens are not at all dangerous as propagandists would have you believe.

Homosexuality was equated with pedophilia in a different thread a while back, which I found utterly appalling. I have many friends and a relative that are gay. How could anyone possibly compare what consenting adults do to someone taking advantage of a child? As I've said many times before, where are the victims in a homosexual relationship? The reason we have morals is to protect the innocent and keep them out of harm's way.

And when it comes to being "tolerant of the intolerant," I agree with those that have stated that in some cases people need to be stood up for. Speaking out against individuals or groups of people that do no harm is a form of bullying (or worse, in some cases). Speaking out against individuals or groups of people that actively hurt others is an attempt to protect the innocent.

Sigh . . . as for Jodi, it's disappointing, but I'm really not surprised. Despite the fact that Jesus never even spoke about gays that I know of, somehow many that worship him use him as an excuse to either gay bash or to carry an overall holier-than-thou attitude. Or perhaps in Jodi's case, she's been brainwashed into believing that she needs to pray for those that weren't born the same as her.

I hope that in no way have I made it sound like homosexuals are pedophiles or are in the same ballpark.

That is a mindset of conservatives and homophobes who want to make homosexuality seem like an offense and something to fear.


All of my best friends at every phase of my life have been homosexual.

In elementary school, my best friend in 3rd/4th grade turned out to be lesbian.

My best friend 6th through 9th grade (he moved after freshman year) came out to be two years ago.

My best friend in my travel group to Australia in 2007 turned out to be gay.

My best friend as a freshman in college was gay (he also moved).

And now, my best friends in college (all winter/spring quarter of this sophomore year and now going into junior year) are lesbians.

I would never say one of them have anything to do with pedophilia in the least.

What I was indicating is that people are born gay (so it's biological) and perhaps pedophiles' feelings are in their head uncontrollably (so it's psychological) and so while a homosexual relationship is consensual and healthy while a pedophiliac 'relationship' is 99.9% of the time rape or molestation and causes harm to the victim, we should damn neither group.

We should not ever say gays/bis choose to be gay/bi because they don't. Natural and biological factors created their sexuality, they didn't.

As for pedophiles, we should not always assume the worst in them and scream 'lock them up' or 'send them to the chair' - because we don't know what's going on inside them. They are screwed up people. That doesn't make it okay or something we should allow. It just means we should be able to empathize somewhat that some wiring in their brain is off and has led them to an illegitimate, hurtful lust.

There are no victims in homosexual relationships. Children are victims of pedophiles.

They are not the same thing in the slightest. I am merely saying, be thoughtful of situations before crucifying either group.

Neal, sorry if I gave the impression that I was directing that at you, I wasn't. I'll give a more detailed reply once I'm back home again.

Yes, I was also only trying to say the same thing as Neal, but Neal said it above much better than I ever could. I was definitely not saying the homosexuals are anything like sexual offenders, but rather that they should not be seen as inherently evil, but again, Neal said it with the most class. Again, I myself am in a very small minority, which shares many of the same prejudices as homosexuals, so in no way am do I think the two parties are similar.

DisneyJedi wrote:Makes me wonder if she really is nice to gay people. If she's a homophobe, then why would she be nice to Poody, let alone work with a gay like Howard Ashman? She even sang at his memorial service.

Hey, like I said, she was very nice to me and my boyfriend. Of course we weren't carrying a sign that said "yay we're gay!" but loving The Little Mermaid and more specifically loving Jodi Benson is pretty high on auto-gay.

EDITED TO ADD *EVEN* MORE

Jay wrote:I find it funny how these ultra Christians forget that Jesus had two dad's

ROTFLMAO

Disney Duster wrote:Ah, not quite. First, love itself is not something biological. Love is not physical. It transcends all that. Some would say it comes from the soul. Just like love of, or belief in, God. I will never believe in the "wired" way of looking at humans and their desires. It's not good to think just biology and experiences are at work, there's also a will, or a soul, you know.

Er... Duster, we can argue and debate everything... and I mean: literally everything... and I will respect your opinions, even when I think they're crazy... but not on this. You see, biology is not something for you to 'believe' in or to 'agree with'. It's just a given fact. It's scientifically proven that either you're born gay or you aren't. You believe that, right? You don't believe being gay is a 'choice', do you? Well, that's the way you are biologically wired. Love works the same way. Love is a chemical process in your body. It makes you like some people but dislike other. It's great to see love as this powerful, grand, all-consuming emotion -which is it-, but that doesn't change the scientific fact that it is a chemical process in your body. It's not given to you by God or a 'soul'.

I'm sorry, this has been proven. This can't be argued.

Disney Duster wrote:So maybe in Pakistan I would be suppressed and taught God is something I don't quite think he is here and now, but my soul may just believe other things than I am taught, just like no one in my family likes Disney like me,[...]

But if you had never heard about Disney all your life, you wouldn't have 'started to like it' because you 'felt it in your soul'. That's not possible. It's the same with Christianity. Why do you think 'uncivilized' people who live in the rainforests all have their own gods instead of believing in the God of the Bible? Because they've never heard of him, that's why! That's why your whole hypothetical story is nonsense. It's possible you would convert from Islam to Christianity (though you would risk your life in countries like Pakistan for just doing that), but not until you had been taught about it and been convinced by others. You don't become a Christian all by yourself.

Disney Duster wrote:[...] And by the way, your reasoning actually would go for gays, too. Gay people do rely partially on the experiences of knowing that other people have been with the same sex, or that the same sex ever could like them back, otherwise they'd be in the dark about what the heck they were feeling. [...]

You seem to be saying that being gay is a choice, based upon learning about other people's experiences. Surely you don't believe that, do you Because that's how you worded it. Your reasoning as I quoted it, is the same as that of religious zealots who want to roll back gay rights because they think it's a bad 'choice'. Like I said: being gay is something you're born with, so your anology is totally wrong. It's sad that a straight person, of all people, should have to explain this to you.

Disney Duster wrote:And since I believe I feel both gay love and God's love inside of me, I'd say both are part of my soul, not a choice, just perhaps a choice to listen to and go with either my sexuality, God, or both.

Okay, now I'm confused. Not that that's the first time after I've read on of your posts.


This thread turns out to be way more interesting than I thought it would.

magicalwands wrote:Love itself is not biological but being GAY IS. Goliath has done such a good job explaining, I do not know how Duster still is not getting it. Christians do not have genes that make them want to be Christians, but gays (like straights) have genes that make them fall in love with certain people.

Thank you, I appreciate that.

Super Aurora wrote:

ajmrowland wrote:For once, I agree with Duster. We should love no matter what.

Even pedophiles??

Of course. It's important to make a distinction between pedophiles and pedosexuals. The former are attracted to children who show no sign of sexual maturity (breasts/pubic hair); the latter are people who actually live out their fantasies with young kids, which is reprehensible. But we have to remember that pedophilia is listed as a mental illness which scientists say is there from birth. I'm not a member of the thought-police, so I can't condemn a person for their fantasies (especially when they're not a choice, but a compulsion). I only condemn them when they act upon those fantasies and molest children (or when they use child porn).

Super Aurora wrote:unlike gays and bi, pedophilia is not biological. Many scientists and psychologists have found out and proved it.

I don't know that's true.

Pedophilia was first formally recognized and named in the late 19th century. A significant amount of research in the area has taken place since the 1980s. At present, the exact causes of pedophilia have not been conclusively established.[27] Research suggests that pedophilia may be correlated with several different neurological abnormalities, and often co-exists with other personality disorders and psychological pathologies. In the contexts of forensic psychology and law enforcement, a variety of typologies have been suggested to categorize pedophiles according to behavior and motivations.[21]

More: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedophilia

Neal wrote:[...] Pedophiles - some may truly fall in love with a child somehow - say they work as a janitor or teacher and get to know a child.[...] Although it is inappropriate my societal standards, they could wait until it was not illegal such as Mary Kay Letourneau did. [...]

I think the term 'pedophilia' is often used the wrong way. It's used in common conversation to mean: an adult who is attracted to an underage gilr/boy, but this is the wrong definition. Like I've written above, a pedophile is interested only in children who have not developed 'adult' body parts (breasts/pubic hair). As soon as they do, a pedophile is not interested anymore. An adult who has an interest in teenagers, is called a Ephebophile. In today's society, people generally disapprove of this, also. But biologically speaking, there's nothing weird or wrong about it. Once a girl has developed adult 'features', she becomes interesting to men. It's as simple as that. Why else do girls have their first menstruation around age 12-13? After they have, they're able to conceive, which was perfectly normal for a very large period of time in history.

I'm not saying we should repeat that nowadays. Society has changed a lot. People used to live much shorter, so it was logical that 30 year olds had babies with 14 year old girls. After all, that was the age girls were most 'fruitfull'. Today, we live much longer and we can allow our kids to stay children much longer than we did before. The idea of letting kids be kids is fairly recent in human history. But we're still 'wired' that way by biology --yes, Duster, we are.

I've seen girls whom I thought were attractive, only to learn later they were only 15 or 16 years old. Is that my fault? Should I feel ashamed or guilty because of it? No, because apparantly, they looked a certain way that made me think they were at least 18. Which proves the point I made above. As long as you don't act upon it, there's no harm done. But one final point: what's '18 years' other than an arbitrary limit? So it's okay to go after an 18 year old, but not someone who is 17 years and 8 months old?

Just some food for thought. Some philosophical musings. I hope I haven't painted a wrong picture of myself here. And even if did: see if I care. You know I won't.

a-net-fan wrote:Alphapanchito and Neil have taken this topic to a disturbing place. To actually question and debate the morality of such awful things as beastiality, rape, and pedophilia, as well as drug use, and recreational sex is shocking. This just shows that when you take God out of the picture, anything goes. There is then no clear moral compass, and right and wrong is defined and determined by what each person deems acceptable and what makes them feel good. It's also bogus to throw homosexuality in that mix! You can have a healthy and holy homosexual relationship which is impossible with the others mentioned.

Why do you throw 'recreational sex' on the same heap as rape and bestiality? Where is the harm in 'recreational sex'? If both people (or all three, or all four, or what have you) have consented to it, what's the problem? Where does God fit into the picture? I can't recall pre-marital sex being forbidden in the Bible. It was outlawed by the church because of practical objections: sex outside of marriage would often produce illegitimate children (in the age of no contraception), which could be the cause of conflict in issues of heritage (marriage was invented to settle issues of heritage/ownership). To solve this, pre-marital sex was decided to be a sin. God didn't invent it; we did.

And what's the harm in drug use? Shouldn't everybody be able to decide for themselves what they want to do with their bodies? As long as they don't harm other people, I cannot object to it. I don't think Neal or anybody else has ever approved of rape.

a-net-fan wrote:As for Ms Benson she has a right to have and share her opinions. To all those who feel your enjoyment of her talent and work in TLM has been affected negatively by her personal views I would just say this: LEARN TO SEPERATE THE ARTIST FROM THE ART. I certainly dont approve of the lifestyles and actions of many musicians and entertainers I enjoy but that doesnt mean I cant enjoy their talent.

Actually, I agree with that 100%. I don't understand why some people are saying they will view the character Ariel different from now on.

Goliath - even as a logophile (yes, I enjoy raping dictionaries for the pleasure of discovering words) - I was not aware of the distinction between pedosexual and pedophile or of the term Ephebophile. Quite interesting!

I cannot condemn someone who truly, naturally is attracted to a younger person outside of 'the age of consent' any more than a 70 year old man should be persecuted for thinking a 20-something on the beach is hot, or teen girls who want to seek out 'daddies.'

The world tries to paint a black and white picture of sexuality. That what's 'normal' is to love someone of the opposite sex who is your age +- a few years.

In reality, people can be sexually attracted to objects, themselves, people of any age, or even not interested in sex at all for the entirety of their lives.

We have so much more to learn about the world in terms of sexuality and need to stop limiting it to 'LGBT' as that's just a very narrow sample of the diversity of love.

Neal wrote:Goliath - even as a logophile (yes, I enjoy raping dictionaries for the pleasure of discovering words) - I was not aware of the distinction between pedosexual and pedophile or of the term Ephebophile. Quite interesting!

There's even one more nuance: there's also hebephilia (being attracted to children aged 11-14).

Neal wrote:I cannot condemn someone who truly, naturally is attracted to a younger person outside of 'the age of consent' any more than a 70 year old man should be persecuted for thinking a 20-something on the beach is hot, or teen girls who want to seek out 'daddies.'

Right now, Italy's prime-minister, 73 year old Silvio Berlusconi, is standing trial for having sex with a then 17 year old Moroccan prostitute. The crux is that prostitution is not illegal in Italy, but of course one has to be 18 to be allowed to engage in it. Most of the commentators and the people are crucifying Berlusconi not for the 'prostitutuion'-part of it, but simply because he's 73 and she was 17. But, had she not been a prostitute, it would've been entirely legal, and I wouldn't blame him. I've seen pictures of her. She's no little girl, she's an experienced woman. Berlusconi should be jailed for lots of things (corruption, ties with organized crime), but sex with a young girl should not be one of them.

Neal wrote:The world tries to paint a black and white picture of sexuality. That what's 'normal' is to love someone of the opposite sex who is your age +- a few years.

What's 'normal' depens on the state society is in at a certain time. Most people don't seem to grasp that. Anybody who tries to point that out is painted a 'pervert' --as I'm sure we will be. Historical or biological facts mean nothing to certain people.

Have you seen the film "Little Children?"

a-net-fan wrote:Alphapanchito and Neil have taken this topic to a disturbing place. To actually question and debate the morality of such awful things as beastiality, rape, and pedophilia, as well as drug use, and recreational sex is shocking. This just shows that when you take God out of the picture, anything goes. There is then no clear moral compass, and right and wrong is defined and determined by what each person deems acceptable and what makes them feel good. It's also bogus to throw homosexuality in that mix! You can have a healthy and holy homosexual relationship which is impossible with the others mentioned.

This. This right here. And honestly, I don't think there's anything left to discuss in this thread. Jodi believes being gay is a sin. That's unfortunate, but there's nothing we can do to change that.

Super Aurora wrote:

ajmrowland wrote:^Ever thought that we might be more twisted than them? they're only pedo because we say so.

I can't see myself more twisted than someone who tries to lust/fuck little kids.

But what *is* twisted? Naturally? every view we have of "twisted" is something we're taught by our fellow man.

a-net-fan wrote:Alphapanchito and Neil have taken this topic to a disturbing place. To actually question and debate the morality of such awful things as beastiality, rape, and pedophilia, as well as drug use, and recreational sex is shocking.

Bestiality and Pedophilia and Rape are one thing, but recreational sex and pot are far more harmless than you've been led to believe(there are threads here about drugs that you may find shocking). There's no comparison so dont make one.

Goliath wrote: Of course. It's important to make a distinction between pedophiles and pedosexuals.

I'm aware of this.

Goliath wrote:But we have to remember that pedophilia is listed as a mental illness which scientists say is there from birth.

Goliath wrote:

Super Aurora wrote:unlike gays and bi, pedophilia is not biological. Many scientists and psychologists have found out and proved it.

I don't know that's true.

Pedophilia was first formally recognized and named in the late 19th century. A significant amount of research in the area has taken place since the 1980s. At present, the exact causes of pedophilia have not been conclusively established.[27] Research suggests that pedophilia may be correlated with several different neurological abnormalities, and often co-exists with other personality disorders and psychological pathologies. In the contexts of forensic psychology and law enforcement, a variety of typologies have been suggested to categorize pedophiles according to behavior and motivations.[21]

More: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedophilia

If that was truly the case, then majority of the cases involved with this, the suspect would of ended in a mental hospital to get helped, not prison(where they're going get their ass fucked by bubba). But majority of pedophilia cases, the defendant, if guilty, goes to prison as oppose to mental intuition as psychologist and other mental doctors had determine that pedophilia isn't a psychological genetic that the person inhabited.

ajmrowland wrote:

Super Aurora wrote: I can't see myself more twisted than someone who tries to lust/fuck little kids.

But what *is* twisted? Naturally? every view we have of "twisted" is something we're taught by our fellow man.

It's true that naturally there is no such thing as something twisted by natural law and reality of the universe. HOWEVER, we are highly developed animals- capable of making decisions, reasoning, building and forming civilizes communities, and holding laws to keep things in order as oppose to chaos.

Something like pedophilia or as Goliath worded better- pedosexuals, isn't something that should be practice in a society that is highly civilized.

If I came over your house and slaughtered you, would you find that twisted or no?

Super Aurora wrote:If that was truly the case, then majority of the cases involved with this, the suspect would of ended in a mental hospital to get helped, not prison(where they're going get their ass fucked by bubba). But majority of pedophilia cases, the defendant, if guilty, goes to prison as oppose to mental intuition as psychologist and other mental doctors had determine that pedophilia isn't a psychological genetic that the person inhabited.?

Well, all I can retort is: since when has the justice system/jury of your peers been an iron-clad, fair, answers all system? Casey Anthony, anyone?

Idunno I'd be dead.

Neal wrote: Well, all I can retort is: since when has the justice system/jury of your peers been an iron-clad, fair, answers all system? Casey Anthony, anyone?

I will admit that i'm not familiar nor paid any attention to that case or trail, and while not all courts are fair, I think pedophilia is one of the cases courts take bit seriously. I could be wrong, but that's the impression I get.

ajmrowland wrote:Idunno I'd be dead.

Ok I'll see you on Saturday in the back ally at 8 p.m.

Make sure you kiss and say goodbye to everyone.