Do Foes of Gay Marriages Simply Fear Joy?

correction:
in #255: ``And finally, let`s not forget, this issue is about boylove.``

Romair,
Still waiting on your reply to `waht actions?`
Let`s make this a quid pro quo.

Romair:
[though polygamy should be allowed under special conditions, with the written consent of all parties, in my opinion)]

Do you mean polygamy, polygny or polyandry? Definitions:
Polygamy: One spouse having more than one spouse of the other sex (no limit)
Polygny: A husband having more than one wives (no limit)
Polyandry: A wife having more than one husbands (no limit)

Romair: ``It is very scary when people start making decisions, which affect other individuals, based on a study carried out by someone. For everyone of your studies, I can provide you many others which will counter them``
Then go ahead. Find ONE! And we`ll take it from there.
You`d be surprised to find how little your understanding is based on any credible facts (or real; studies) as opposed to the rantings and raving, and psychobabble of the morally watchdogs, who, not so long ago, precribed the mental asylum for anyone indicating whati s now regarded as ``normal`` homosexual tendencies.
But now I fear I am sounding like a broken record. Irony is, no one seems to belistenting to the record; everyone is intent only on breaking it.
The Rind Report is a meta analysis, that is, a study of many other studies-- 90 if memory serves. If anyone is really interested in the truth, as opposed to finding reasons and `logic` to support their position, I challenge them to fight with the facts.
``A high proportion of the people who abuse children sexually tend to have been abused themselves as children.``
I don`t careto talk about sexual abuse here. Please define `abuse`, and then we can decide whether we have anything to discuss or not. My position is very simple: (1) Children of twelve should have the right to say `Yes`, keeping certain safeguards in pace. And (2) sex between adoloscents and adults is not necessarily abusive. Far Fethced? The people (majority) of several European states don`t seem to think so.
And finally, let`s not forget, this article s about boylove.
As for your questions relating to my past personal experiences, you`ll havta work for your answers. Find them on the boylove interact board.
rgds,
PM

romair,

would you address #243?

urstruly,

i take it that you are busy composing an answer...

PM #249: ``“Nice try :-) but the questions aren`t ``technical`` at all.``

My questions were actually very technical. Let me give you the reason I asked them:

It is very scary when people start making decisions, which affect other individuals, based on a study carried out by someone. For everyone of your studies, I can provide you many others which will counter them. You can only site the study to justify an action, if you are carrying out any action, with the individual who believes in the study. You do not have a right to apply the study to someone else.

I have worked with kid(s) who have been sexually abused as children. I used to get career counseling in a dept., while in college. The counsellor was also a psychologist, and through her, I got involved in this. I have had long discussions with her on these issues. The affects of child sexual abuse on children is so damaging, that it is impossible to express it in words. I would put it as the next worst thing to actually killing the child. It can and does disturb the child psychologically, forever. One of the facts the psychologist brought out (with studies) is as follows:

- A high proportion of the people who abuse children sexually tend to have been abused themselves as children. (this does not mean, all individuals who are abused as children, become sexual abusers of children)

Such individuals, who carry out such acts with children, are thus in need of psychiatric help. They would obviously, themselves, not recognize this. One maybe able to live one’s own life, based on studies carried out somewhere. But one cannot impose those studies on others, especially on children. Just ask yourself, could the child you are mentioning even understand the study, to its completeness, that you are quoting?

Based on this, I will ask you the same techincal question, again. With the hope that since you have already disclosed so much about yourself (and you seem to agree with my, “philosophies,”) you will answer the question honestly. In any case, if you feel justified in your actions, you should not have any problem in answering the question. And if you cannot answer this question, or do not want to, then maybe your actions aren’t as justified as you may seem to think. So,:

- Were you abused, either physically, emotionally, or sexually as a child?

S. Where is Shankar when he is needed......................``
Pobably working on the next big theory of Pseudo-scientific Psychology. Maybe Repressed and Recovered Memory Syndrome II?
The less of the qualified idiots, the better.
But if you really are interested in what the American Journal of Psychiatry has to say about pedophilia, look up the Rind Report.
Go ahead, it can`t beTHAT difficult!

PM

For rationalists ``do no harm`` is not a value. Its a cover. Especially when harm is directed at them.

Folks, am in transit at the airport. Can`t answer at any length.
Dost-Mittar: Your questions have all been answered on the original boylove board. Take a trip there. I promise it won`t be boring.
Just one comment on the questions you asked. Faulting me for not `informing the parents` is disingenuous. Assuming I did, you would then fault the parents for not reporting me. Point is: My not informing the parents is a breach of trust issue, but not at all germane to the issue at hand here.

---

Someone wrote:
``[PM] admits to mutual fondeling of a boy of 11 he had charge of ``
Looks like that someone definitely needs remedial reading comprehension classes.

---

Urstruly:
I knew where you were getting with your `logic`. Yes, as David Hume `proved` (and as anyone can deduce through a little mental effort), there can be no rational basis for morality.
Guess what? Even intractable rationalists like myself know that. But that doesn`t stop us from having basic values anyway. Only, these values (the most basic of which is `do no harm`) come from a source other than revealed word.
Neither does your appeal to revealed word solve any problem: there is always the question as to which revelaed word, tio mention nothign of proof of it`s revelation. So, in the end, you reason for ascription to a values system is really as fundamentally arbritary as mine.
Oh, btw, when you find the time, define `sexual predator` please, and tell me what in my essay made me one. (Just testing reading skills here, nothing else :) )

---

TAhmed:
This is also my last reply to you, just to let you know that are not only seriously mentally/linguistically challenged, but probably the most self-righteous idiot I have ever seen here on chowk. You want an answer to your question so bad? Ok.. here it is. :``Yes``
Now, kindly tell me what difference it makes to the debate. Or what difference it would have made had I answered in the negative. Is this debate about me??
And another thing: You can take your US statutory rape laws and shove them up where the sun don`t shine. That would probably satisfy your anal urge for a while.

---

Romair:
Nice try :-) but the questions aren`t ``technical`` at all. As to asking myself whether my actions cause damage to the kids (what actions do you have in mind anyway??), well, why would you want just my answer. I could be lying; or, I could answer in all earnestness and still be wrong. In any case, itwould be merely anecdotal. That is why I have posted links to studies on the subject here aplenty.
But it seems like science is no match for preconceived notions and prejudices.

---

All:
If your position is that all forms of physical erotic contact between adults and minors is wrong, ignore the rest of the post. (And make sure you don`t go to Holland or Spain!)
Folks here ned to know that there are various forms physical activity that come under the rubric sexual (at least in the West-- out here in Pakistan, you`d be surprised what doesn`t, as witnessed in broad daylight in parks-- but that`s another subject.)
Point is... no matter how much it satisfies your fancy for titillation, it would probably be a good thing to not think `sodomy` every time you hear someone supporting fredom of choice for minors. Most states (even in the US) anyway have structured laws that state the limits of activities (touching/fondling etc.) invovling minors at different ages.

---

To all the self-righteous idiots who insist, despite tonnes of objective evidence, that all sexual activity between adults and minors is harmful, well, grow up!! Read a little! And stop watching so much cable!

urstruly,

[...neither I nor tahmad (I suppose) paraised Prophet Mohammad (pbuh) in any of our posts below...]

do you have to write something in every one of your thousands of posts on chowk for it to be considered valid?

[...If you are interested to know the answer to your #243 you must first admit that you wrongly attributed something to me and tahmad...]

fair enough. i admit that you did not condemn PM.

[...By the way what you just did is termed as ``poisoning the well`` in the science of logic...]

not really. the topic is the same. actually it is very relevant for people who praise the prophet and are interacting on this board.

Concerned1

I took out the `sexual predator` sentence out because I am not here to issue character certificate to others. We are here to evaluate each others opinions and not each others characters.

The question in # 243 does not stand. because the question was based on wrong premise - neither I nor tahmad (I suppose) paraised Prophet Mohammad (pbuh) in any of our posts below, and atleast I did not condemn PM.

If you are interested to know the answer to your #243 you must first admit that you wrongly attributed something to me and tahmad. By the way what you just did is termed as ``poisoning the well`` in the science of logic.

urstruly,

since you took out the `sexual predator` sentence as an afterthought, i assumed you consider PM could be one.
the question in #243 still stands.

concerned1

I am not criticising PM, I am actually supporting his point of view to the extent that rational justification of human behavior eventually lead us to a morality free animalism. (he is stating it only differently). Let me elborate it for you:

PM supports the idea of a sex with a 12 year old.

His opponent say that if they support his opinion, then what is wrong with:

1. Incest

2. Pedophilia in general

3. Polygamy.

4. fetish - as long as parties are willing.

5. adultery

6. fornication

7. homosexuality (or heterosexuality)

10. Suicide

11. Any moral value in general

PM bases his arguments on naturalism (what is ``natural``) and humanist secularism. His logic is correct. He wins the case. What I am trying to say is that although he wins the argument yet it does not mean that his argument was strong, instead I am saying that the arguments presented by secular humanists are week.. That shows the week and immoral basis of both naturalism and humanist secularism. David Hume wrote his thesis on morality of suicide, presenting the same arguments as that of PM.

The above argument proves that we as human beings are incapable of rationalizing the moral values. There will always be a rationale that will cancel the previous one. Now that is where divinity steps in. Divinity provides us a sort of a package or a framework of moral values that cannot be altered. It is like a constitution where all laws must be derived and be made in conformance with that constitution.

tahmed#239:
I am not sure if you wanted a response from. I stand by my opinion that in relative scale of values, the society back home regards adultery as more unacceptable than paedophilia (which implies that it is still unacceptable!). As regards my statement re. courage and honesty, please notice my later remark to roohi that ``I take back my remark about PM`s courage and honesty if he did not inform the boy`s parents. ``

And I do not see any moral equivocation on my part. I dispprove of paedophilia but not someone`s right to express a different opinion about it.

roohi:
I hope my post#234 answers your questions.

PM:
Yes, I think it is okay to discuss matters philosophically but as a responsible citizen of a society, one has to accept the codified morality of the society or face the consequences. The society`s mores change and with that the acceptable behaviour.
So, while I personally disapprove of your act in no uncertain terms, I defend your right to speak up your mind. If you feel strongly about the moral correctness of your philosophy you have the right to campaign to change the societal views on the subject, which it views as the most abhorent at the present time.

does the prophet mohammad`s `consummation` with a 9 year old girl qualify as pedophilia? i am asking this only to find out how urstruly/tahmad are able to criticize PM on one hand and have nothing but respect for the prophet.