re: Why do folks try so hard to distinguish between homosexuality and pedophilia?

Above my pay grade but I’ll say this: the idea that because homosexuality occurs in animals means it’s natural and therefore “ok “ is total Bs. Lots of things occur in nature that we abhor.
Mother dogs eat their babies for instance.

quote:

---

Heterosexual Pedophiles outnumber Homosexual Pedophiles by about 10-to-1.

---

Maybe.

If the numbers you quoted rely on self-identification by the perps, they are way off.

If a man diddles a boy, that perp is gay or bi.

If a woman diddles a girl, that perp is gay or bi.

Wise

quote:

---

The OP isn't saying that Homosexuality and Pedophilia are the same thing - but that they are both "abnormal" or disordered, thus are more related to each other BECAUSE they are disordered action - rather than heterosexuality which is ordered.

---

Thanks for clearing that up.

To me, abnormal and disordered are not quite the same. Something "abnormal" is simply "not normal" and there can be very subjective views on that. Disorder, at least to me, is a bit more concrete.

With that, something could be "abnormal" but not disordered, especially when we're defining "order" as God's will or His creations. Mammals that lay eggs, for instance. They certainly qualify as "abnormal" but they are God's creations... or does their abnormality make them "other" (I was going to go with something like "Satan-spawn" but couldn't come up with a way to do it without it sounding like assholish snark )?

quote:

---

Or better said - God created an order to the world that we are supposed to align to - that's the point of literally everything. The more we align with God's will - the more we are ordered. The more we don't - the more we aren't. (There's a slippery slope conversation in here).

---

So then we come to a question of whether people can be born gay or not (note: this is different than someone saying all people claiming to be -or behaving- gay are born that way). Generally, if someone is old enough they can retrospectively look back and see some they grew up with who were likely born gay or else they've watched kids grow up and could see extreme signs of it in a child. To me, this lends heavily to there being a genetic foundation in there somewhere. If that's true, then doesn't that make such people, by default, part of the order even though they are abnormal?

quote:

---

Great point, but why do you think that's the case? Because disorder finds itself in other disorders? Because "victimhood," which is NOT understanding what suffering actually, perpetuates itself, thereby perpetuates disorder? Or because the power of those things being related, driven by whatever forces are out there, creates the slippery slope in and of itself?

---

I think it's the over-empathizing of viewing it through the lens of shared victimhood ("others shunned us because we are different and we didn't like it so how can we subject others who are even more different to that?") combined with the rhetorical amplification of the internet and Hollywood on the very vague subject of "general acceptance of all". So (quite a bit differently than how you see it) I see it as not just understanding the suffering, but understanding it so well they over-compensate for it in an attempt to avoid any possibility of being guilty of doing it themselves. There seems to be a grand fear of hypocrisy in overly-empathic philosophy. It makes the Golden Rule (do unto others as you would have them do unto you) into a sophist quagmire.

No problem with spelling both out. Problem is equating the two. Homos aren’t pedos and pedos aren’t homos. Not aging either is normal or right but pero is way worse than homo. I don’t use curse words because I don’t want to get banned from forum. I also don’t go to church very often and when I do it’s good ole sacred heart.