Suppressing sexual desires

[Piculet]

There's this idea around among those who believe in God, but reject God's prohibition of homosexual acts, that because people, they say, don't become homosexual out of their choice, homosexuals cannot be required to suppress their sexual desires.

What I would like to know, is where does that leave pedophiles who, too, do not become pedophiles out of their choice? If it was unfair to require homosexuals to suppress their sexual desires 'because they were born that way', wouldn't it be unfair to require pedophiles to suppress their sexual desires if they, too, were 'born that way'?

 

[Secret Chief]

We all have urges that need to be suppressed. I have urges that involve people who voted for Brexit. But for a human society to sustain there have to be taboos, prohibitions and retributions: such as adults engaging in sex with those who have yet to reach sexual maturity, or sex with a close relative, or cannibalism, or murder.

 

[Eddi]

wouldn't it be unfair to require pedophiles to suppress their sexual desires if they, too, were 'born that way'?

No, because paedophilia is inherently abominable whereas homosexuality is not. It's a question of public morality. Being "born that way" has nothing to do with it, and is in my mind a poor argument for LGBTQ rights in part because it could open the door to accepting paedophilia and other depraved practices such as the sexual abuse of animals or corpses.

 

[Stevicus]

There's this idea around among those who believe in God, but reject God's prohibition of homosexual acts, that because people, they say, don't become homosexual out of their choice, homosexuals cannot be required to suppress their sexual desires.

What I would like to know, is where does that leave pedophiles who, too, do not become pedophiles out of their choice? If it was unfair to require homosexuals to suppress their sexual desires 'because they were born that way', wouldn't it be unfair to require pedophiles to suppress their sexual desires if they, too, were 'born that way'?

I thought religion required everybody to suppress their sexual desires.

 

[Secret Chief]

I thought religion required everybody to suppress their sexual desires.

Tantra? - Maithuna.

 

[Piculet]

paedophilia is inherently abominable whereas homosexuality is not

Homosexuality has been considered inherently abominable by the majority of the world's population for thousands of years. It still is by some.

 

[Piculet]

I thought religion required everybody to suppress their sexual desires.

Abrahamic religions ask one to do so when it is outside of marriage or an inappropriate situation, but in general, I would say, not.

 

[Mock Turtle]

There's this idea around among those who believe in God, but reject God's prohibition of homosexual acts, that because people, they say, don't become homosexual out of their choice, homosexuals cannot be required to suppress their sexual desires.

What I would like to know, is where does that leave pedophiles who, too, do not become pedophiles out of their choice? If it was unfair to require homosexuals to suppress their sexual desires 'because they were born that way', wouldn't it be unfair to require pedophiles to suppress their sexual desires if they, too, were 'born that way'?

Well, if you believed, like I do, that the former is just nonsense based on some early lack of knowledge, and projected onto some god-like entity for whatever reasons, then it makes no sense. The existence of homosexuality is a fact, as it is apparently in so many other animal species, so why would we target any for acting so? A bit like condemning predator species rather than for being the herbivores that we should obviously love and admire (yet readily eat).

It is most likely that paedophiles don't choose to be so, and perhaps become such from early experiences or from other causes, but the fact remains that such behaviour, when enacted, is wrong and should be seen as such. Perhaps one day we will find ways to accommodate paedophiles such that they don't cause the harms that so many do currently - but I'm not optimistic.

Life is so much better when gods don't interfere.

 

[crossfire]

There's this idea around among those who believe in God, but reject God's prohibition of homosexual acts, that because people, they say, don't become homosexual out of their choice, homosexuals cannot be required to suppress their sexual desires.

What I would like to know, is where does that leave pedophiles who, too, do not become pedophiles out of their choice? If it was unfair to require homosexuals to suppress their sexual desires 'because they were born that way', wouldn't it be unfair to require pedophiles to suppress their sexual desires if they, too, were 'born that way'?

Another way to approach this: starting from your conclusion regarding pedophiles: Children generally don't have sexual desires, therefore one cannot assume that children want to have sex with adults.

Therefore, children should not be expected to enter into marriage with an adult. Forcing children into marriage is rape.

Likewise, adults who have no sexual desire at all should not be expected to marry. Forcing them into marriage is rape.

Adults who have no sexual desire for the opposite sex should not be expected to marry someone of the opposite sex. Forcing them into such a marriage is rape.

Adults who have no sexual desire for the same sex should not be expected to marry someone of the same sex. Forcing them into such a marriage is rape.

No one should be coerced into having sex against their will--even if they are married, their spouse can't coerce them into having sex--that would also be rape.

This is where the suppressing of sexual desires comes in: if it involves rape, as described above, then yes, such a sexual desire should not be acted upon. If you don't have an enthusiastically willing partner, then don't act upon a sexual desire.

 

[Mock Turtle]

Homosexuality has been considered inherently abominable by the majority of the world's population for thousands of years. It still is by some.

For which we can blame religions perhaps?

 

[Sunstone]

Homosexuality has been considered inherently abominable by the majority of the world's population for thousands of years. It still is by some.

Source?

Even if you are correct to say that homosexuality has been regarded as an abomination by the majority of the world's population for thousands of years (and you are not right), that would not be a logically sound argument against homosexuality since the majority of people can still be wrong about something.

 

[Piculet]

Forcing children into marriage is rape.

Do I have to say out loud why that is false?

Forcing them into marriage is rape.

Where from comes this need to exaggerate?

This is where the suppressing of sexual desires comes in: if it involves rape, as described above, then yes, such a sexual desire should not be acted upon. If you don't have an enthusiastically willing partner, then don't act upon a sexual desire.

Then, do you believe watching, selling, making or distributing child pornography is acceptable?

 

[Piculet]

that would not be a logically sound argument against homosexuality since the majority of people can still be wrong about something.

It wasn't an argument really. It was in reply to someone's comment which failed in logic.

 

[HonestJoe]

There's this idea around among those who believe in God, but reject God's prohibition of homosexual acts, that because people, they say, don't become homosexual out of their choice, homosexuals cannot be required to suppress their sexual desires.

We all need to supress our sexual desires. If I see a woman in the street I find myself sexually attracted to, I can't just run up and have sex with her. Consent is obviously (I'd hope!) required, as is appropriate time and place. Prohibition on homosexuality (religious or otherwise) doesn't just require suppression, it requires either complete denial or (inevitably artificial) reversal. No amount of mutual consent and privacy is deemed to make any difference.

What I would like to know, is where does that leave pedophiles who, too, do not become pedophiles out of their choice?

The main difference for paedophiles is that children can't legally consent regardless.

 

[crossfire]

Then, do you believe watching, selling, making or distributing child pornography is acceptable?

Nope.

 

[Stevicus]

Tantra? - Maithuna.

I was thinking of something more like this:

 

[crossfire]

Do I have to say out loud why that is false?

Where from comes this need to exaggerate?

This is not an exaggeration.

 

[Secret Chief]

enthusiastically

{sighs wistfully}

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

There's this idea around among those who believe in God, but reject God's prohibition of homosexual acts, that because people, they say, don't become homosexual out of their choice, homosexuals cannot be required to suppress their sexual desires.

What I would like to know, is where does that leave pedophiles who, too, do not become pedophiles out of their choice? If it was unfair to require homosexuals to suppress their sexual desires 'because they were born that way', wouldn't it be unfair to require pedophiles to suppress their sexual desires if they, too, were 'born that way'?

Are the ideas of harm and consent completely alien to you?

Because if they weren't, you would already know the difference.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Homosexuality has been considered inherently abominable by the majority of the world's population for thousands of years. It still is by some.

Well, maybe these people can learn to suppress their desire to be jerks to LGBTQ people.