Quote:
Originally Posted by davidmash
There is no evidence to suggest that homosexuality and pedophilia are in any way related. The fact that they may both be genetic does not show that they are in any way linked any more than height and eye color are.
The fact that a gay man was a pedophile is no more surprising than the fact that straight men are pedophile. Linking the two has no basis in science.
As mentioned above, animals and minor do not have the ability to give consent.
Whether the Brinkman was a victim of genetics or not does not matter. One is a criminal act the other is not. The fact that you seem to be trying to link the two when no link is proven further weakens your argument.
The pope knowingly helped hide known rapists so legally he is complicit in the crime. Now you are interested in proof? You do not seem to be concerned with proof in regards to any of the BS spewed above so why the concern now?
|
So you deny that heterosexual, homosexual, pedophilia, beastiality, etc. are not equally valid human sexual proclivities? Seems like a very subjective, prejudiced and bigoted attitude completely unsupported by science unless you have some data to offer to substansiate your declaration that different inherent and immutable human sexual impulses are not related. Do you know of or have any data to support such an intolerant and hateful attitude?
PS I will point out that in fact it was you who raised the issue of linkage between homosexuality and pedophilia by trying to de-couple the two variations of human sexual inclination! I simply asked if Brinkin was a victim of fate or not, you seem to in the case of homosexuality attribute that inclination to an inherent and immutable factor but refuse to apply equal deference to an equally inherent and immutable inclination to sexual gratification with infants. Maybe you can share with the wider audience how in your mind such inclinations are unequal and differ in origin?