Unfortunately the question posed is not about behavior but about the inherent and immutable inclination, you do understand that, right?

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?

I do not care if a behavior is genetic or not. I think what is being argued is whether or not the behavior violates a persons rights. If no rights are violated then have at it. If a behavior violates another rights then you better find a.way.to control it or society will. Whether a behavior is genetic or not is irrelevant.

I find it obscene to try and link homosexuality with pedophiles or beastiality just because the they may be genetic.

There is no basis in law to violate someone's personal rights based on thru genetic make up of another.

Did you read the article? Because it is quite clear that the facts of the circumstance link homosexuality with pedophilia not the thread about the circumstance! What is your purpose of attempting to delink these two co-joined facts of this circumstance?

Why are you trying to interject the subjectivity of "legalities" when as far as I can see no one has questioned whether sex with infants should or should not be "legal"?

Why shouldn't people view your own portrayed intolerance of pedophilic inclination as evidence of repressed latent pedophilic inclinations just as homosexuals and their advocates view the portrayed intolerance of homosexual inclination as evidence of repressed latent homosexual inclinations?

Thanks for ably demonstrating the cognative superiority of a chess master among a field of checker chumps! It is refreshing and appreciated.

After reading the question and reading the article is that really the best conclusion you're capable of?

If so, it seems that the capacity to understand the nature and intent of the question that was originally posed has been exceeded. Instead it appears that in response the only refuge is to veer off into territory divorced from the the thread's clear central question. Perhaps there is some comfort in avoiding a disturbing reality and cowering behind prejudice and bigotry of those with whom you deny empathy towards their inherent and immutable selve? Does hating feel good?

A very interesting case study would be the of the Mattachine Society and NAMBLA, not inconsequentially Harry Hay's involvment and support in the advocacy strategies and efforts of both organizations!

Damn, I have a genetic attraction to women. It doesn't mean I should rape them.

Damn, the fact that the question posed was about inherent and immutable inclination of being "Born this way" isn't obvious even after all the discussion thus far?

Because there is no evidence yet to suggest that Brinkin himself committed homosexual rape of an infant of African descent contained in the article, he thus far apparently just enjoyed observing it happen and discussing it happening with others, or doesn't the article's fact set make that clear enough?

Damn how would I know? It's obvious that for them it's a somewhat uncontrollable urge. What does DSM IV say about it?

I for one, really appreciate you openly and frankly sharing your lack of knowing! I think that is a vastly underappreciated quality!

The DSM IV? Is that a particularly authoritative favorite for some reason?

Yes, the issue is 'good' and 'bad' as determined by human beings. What else could moral judgments possibly be determined by? I don't think 'good' or 'bad' are perceived. They are judgments a person makes, related to perception but not perceived.
You're stirring the pot with a complete red herring. Many forms of sociopathy and psychopathy seem to be rooted in different brain structures, yet this provides no reason for thinking that allowing sociopaths to engage in violent behavior is a social good. Bone up on your Catholic moral theology.

Clearly, I spoke specifically of the perception of the imbalance between judgements good and bad not of the basis for the judgements thenselves, is that not clear?

On what basis is my question about whether an inherent and immutable inclination to homosexual gratification with infants of African descent is any more or less of a red herring than the purported contention that the inherent and immutable inclination to homosexual gratification with persons other than infants of African descent is not any less valid than the inherent and immutable inclination to heterosexual gratification congruent with the biological imperative of the species?

Inherent and immutable heterosexuality is within the huge range of the specie's "Normal", correct?

Inherent and immutable homosexuality is within the huge range of the species "Normal", correct?

Inherent and immutable homosexual pedophilia is within the huge range of the specie's "Normal", not correct?


I don't think that I have made an argument that allowing a particular behavior is good or bad, have I done so in your mind? In fact it seems that there exists a distiction between inclination and behavior is beyond the cognative grasp of a particular faction of responders, no?

What do you imagine my questioning has anything to do with "Catholic moral theology"? Seems to be more of a personal touchstone for you, having referenced it twice when no one else has.

Yes, you have. You use the word 'valid' repeatedly. What could that word mean in this context apart from 'acceptable' or 'good'.

I reference Catholic moral theology because it is a longstanding moral tradition in our culture which clearly draws a line between judging whether something is genetic or 'natural' is different than judging whether it is good or bad. Catholic moral theologians think that it is a least possible, if not likely that homosexuality is not a choice, but this does not cause them any problems in judging that it is not good.

Killer: you don't get much thrill from actually pulling the trigger, do you?