Born this way?
 

Nature or nurture?

Larry Brinkin, San Francisco gay rights icon, arrested on child porn charges: police - NY Daily News

No idea. Are you asking if being a pedophile is genetic or are you asking is being gay is genetic or are you asking if both are genetic or are you asking if one cause the other and if so which cause which?

Are you trying to link being gay with being a pedophile? Can we substitute the Pope and get the same answer?

I guess if we're Christian about it, predestined from all eternity.

Cool story bro. Do you have a point?

1990 called. It wants its media back.

What are you implying?
 

Are you implying that that homosexual and pedophilic sexual impulses are not equally valid manifestations of human sexuality?

Gay men and their advocates claim the desire to engage in homosexual anal sex and oral sex are the result of impulses which are inherent and immutable, how is a gay man who claims the desire to engage in homosexual anal sex and oral sex with an infant are the result of impulses which are inherent and immutable, any less valid?

Or for that matter, any man whose inherent and immutable impulses manifest as a desire to engage in sexual contact with any animal, is less vaild how?

Because we know that the "Born this way!" human right argument is that the inherent and immutable homosexual impulse is in no way any less valid than the inherent and immutable heterosexual impulse to fufill the human species' biological imperative to produce progenial recombinant mutations, right?

That's is the basis for the demand for unequivical equality of every human right, correct? Homosexuals and their advocates decry any real or imagined inequality based on inherent and immutable impulse as a violation of their human rights.

With regard to the original question, was Brinkin born a homosexual pedophile with an inherent and immutable impulse to rape male infants?

Based on numerous past arguments I'll assume that homosexuals and their advocates will argue that the racist aspect of Brinkin's impulse is the result of nurturing, because if racism is the result of nature it would be an inherent and immutable impulses that people can't choose because they are "Born this way!", right?

PS any evidence the Pope raped any male babies of African descent or has any interest in the same? In the absence of any looks like nothing more than anti-religious bigotry on your part?

Because adults are capable of giving legal consent and minors are not.

I suppose he has a point there. There's a huge body of evidence already concerning straight pedophiles. I bet if you used that as a control group you could come up with some interesting crossover characteristics.

Yes, that's why I think it is probably better to concede the Christian point that our impulses are pre-determined and not base our social policy on the assumption that they aren't. The relevant question in regards to adult homosexual relationships and adult/child sexual relationships is not whether the impulses that lead to them are innate or not but whether the good that comes from the relationships outweigh the bad.

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?

Obviously the point raised here is that gays are born wanting sex with men and it's part of ingrained nature- not part of learning. Gays have no choice and it's natural. We see gay traits in the animal world and I think a gay is gay because he is gay, not because he saw some great advertising which made him gay, or that he had a traumatic childhood experience.

Knowing that- how is wanting to have sex with infants any different? Did a person learn to want to have sex with infants? This behavior is no different with that regard- it's ingrained nature.

We have societal laws regarding sex because those laws have helped create a strong society. Now many of those laws are being changed- if they help or hurt society is up for debate.

Not sure the point is that obvious but what ever. I still do not see the point of the thread. One act involves consenting adults the others do not.

So what is the purpose of linking the two together in a thread? The fact that something genetic or not does not dictate legality or not.

How does looking at naked pictures of infants involve consent? I believe the point is that once this "ingrained" and not learned is on solid footing then a whole host of other "ingrained" behavior is now closer to having a legit reason for otherwise inexcusable actions.

Heterosexuality, homosexuality, pedophilia, beastiality etc. are all nothing more than data points within the spectrum of human sexual inclination none any better or any worse than any other the other, the only criteria is whether or not there exists a societial consensus is that by some subjective metric there is an imbalance between percieved "good" and "bad" impact?