One of the most common
argument by secular humanist and champions of human’s rights activist
is that everything is fine as long as is it is causing no harm to
others. And from this they conclude that homosexuality is acceptable in
society. Previously Homosexuality was consider bad, unnatural and
mental disorder but due political pressures it is no longer considered
as a mental disorder. As I have refuted the claims the homosexuality not
as natural as they claim, there is no gay gene and what apparently look
as homosexuality in animal is not really the case with humans. Their
perception of morality is relative i.e. what is consider today as moral
may be consider as immoral in future and vice-verse depending upon
social consensus. I will argue that by having homosexual desire just not justify to to act upon it and accept it as a social norm. Our
concern is hypocrisy and double standards. When Islam don't allow
homosexuality and open-sex environment we are labeled as backward,
homophobes and against human freedom. The reasons they think open sex
and homosexuality is ok can used be defend many other acts as well which
still are not allowed. I am going expose the hypocrisy of these so
called humanist because there are acts with similar causes and also
found “naturally” in animal kingdom but acting upon these desire is
still consider as unacceptable and immoral in society. If someone acts
upon it then most the time these people are first to raise their
against it. And I can easily proof that they cause no harm, they are
very “natural” and many of these desire are also supposedly linked with
biological causes.
What about Pedophilic desires?
Many of them try to argue that pedophilia is different than homosexuality. Because one is about fetish and other is about orientation. But that is not the case. If we study the people with Pedophilic desire their case is almost same as homosexuality.
Pedophiles Argue Their Case in the Journal of Homosexuality
Gay culture does not grant the pedophile movement general acceptance. It does, however, offer a peripheral credibility to this movement which pedophilia has never been granted in the culture at large. Members of NAMBLA (The North American Man-Boy Love Association) march in some gay pride parades.
The academic Journal of Homosexuality (vol. 20, nos. 1/2, l990) has also explored the issue of "Male Intergenerational Intimacy" in a generally approving manner. (Back issues of this journal can be ordered by calling Haworth Press at 1-800-HAWORTH.)
Discrimination Against a Minority
The vast majority of the articles in "Male Intergenerational Intimacy" argue that pedophilia should be freed from categorization as child abuse. In the foreword, Dr. Gunter Schmidt closes by saying that "Each individual case must be looked upon on its own merits...the threat to make all pedophile acts punishable by law can barely be labeled civilized...it implies discrimination and persecution of a minority and should be abolished." (p. 4)
Another group of writers (two psychologists and a lawyer--Sandfort, Brongersma, and Naerssen) argue that "the current social climate makes it rather difficult to look at [pedophilic] relationships in an objective way." (p.5)
"Born that Way and Can't Change"
In another article, "'The Main Thing is Being Wanted': Some Case Studies on Adult Sexual Experiences with Children," the author says that one-third of the pedophiles he has studied claimed that "their sexual desire for children is a natural part of their constitution. This desire is variously described as 'inbred,' 'innate,' 'a fact of nature,' 'inherent in them,' etc. The leitmotif of their accounts is 'this is me' or 'just the way I am.'"
The author concludes that the feeling of being "born a pedophile" makes them feel they cannot change, and therefore they are convinced they have the same right as other people to pursue the "natural" expression of their sexuality. (p. 133). The same author quotes a respondent's belief that "if adult-child sex was commonplace, the majority of it would surely be good for both participants." (p. 137).
Psychology Must Remain "Unbiased"
Another article ("Boy-Lovers and their Influence on Boys," by Edward Brongersma) complains about the "bias" which labels man-boy sex as "abuse, molestation, assault, " etc. Dr. Brongersma complains that researchers are unable to remain objective about pedophilia, saying "...many people...exhibit such violently emotional hostility toward boy-lovers because they fear their own...pedophile impulses." (p. l53).
Dr. Brongersma goes on to cite cases in which social workers achieved "miracles with apparently incorrigible young delinquents--not by preaching to them but by sleeping with them." He describes how these sexual relationships "did far more good than years in reformatories." (p. l6l).
He advises that the loving pedophile can offer a "companionship, security and protection" which neither peers nor parents can provide (p. l62) and goes on to say that parents should look upon the pedophile who loves their son "not as a rival or competitor, not as a thief of their property, but as a partner in the boy's upbringing, someone to be welcomed into their home..."
Children's Rights to Autonomy
Another writer, David Thorstad, argues for "freedom of sexual expression for young people and children" (p. 255) and quotes a lesbian who talks of the "rich texture" of her experiences as a molested child.
Writer Gerald Jones says that "same-sex intergenerational intimacy may be developmentally functional" (p. 279) and says, "Some studies have found benign or even beneficial results in boys who were at the time involved with men" (p. 280). Dr. Jones speaks approvingly of recent studies which discuss pedophilia in "value-neutral terms." (p. 280)
Along the same vein, The Harvard Gay and Lesbian Review interviewed poet Allen Ginsberg, a homosexual pedophile, shortly before his recent death. In a generally flattering article, they report Ginsburg's philosophy (not mentioned by the mainstream press) about sex with children, and offer no judgmental comment about it. The article is entitled, "The Liberation is the Word" (Summer 1997):
(Allen Ginsberg): "Like the whole labeling of pedophiles as 'child molesters.' Everybody likes little kids. All you've got to do is walk through the Vatican and see all the little statues of little prepubescents, pubescents, and postpubescents. Naked kids have been a staple of delight for centuries, for both parents and onlookers. So to label pedophilia as criminal is ridiculous."
Notice any similarity? See How they say that their desires are natural i.e. they are born with it. They are also arguing that they are not causing any harm but it is wrong perception of society. But till this day pedophilia is punishable in many countries but acting on this desire is considered as not good.
Cannibalism
Cannibalism is more natural and common in animals than homosexuality. So does that mean that we should we tolerate cannibalism in humans as well? Like if someone say that they interested in eating corpses. What harm it causes to other?
There two type of cannibalism reported in Animals Kingdom:
Sexual cannibalism
Sexual cannibalism is a special case of cannibalism in which a female organism kills and consumes a conspecific (same species) male before, during, or after copulation. Rarely, these roles are reversed.[4][5] Sexual cannibalism has been recorded in the female redback spider, black widow spider, praying mantis, and scorpion, among others.
Filial cannibalism
Another common form of cannibalism is filial cannibalism (a form of infanticide) in which adults eat their own offspring. Classical vertebrate examples include chimpanzees, where groups of adult males have been observed to attack and consume conspecific infants, and cats. In agricultural settings, pigs are known to eat their own young, accounting for a sizeable percentage of total piglet deaths.
Cannibalism is reported thorough out in Human history in different forms. You will find that many people obsessed with eating human flesh. So should we allow them, if they promise just to eat death unwanted and homeless bodies? Surely it will save cost of funeral and cremation.
(from Wiki)
Incest
Incest is sexual intercourse between close relatives that is usually illegal in the jurisdiction where it takes place and/or is conventionally considered a taboo. The term may apply to sexual activities between: individuals of close "blood relationship"; members of the same household; step relatives related by adoption or marriage; and members of the same clan or lineage. Its punishment can be imprisonment upto of few years.
It is also very natural in animals. But why we don’t have acceptance from society if both partner are agreed on it and may not do it for having children? You will see people calling it disguising. For instance see this news report regarding Incest couple in Germany facing lawsuit.
Look at this new report.http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-17690997
Necrophilia
Necrophilia, also called thanatophilia or necrolagnia, is the sexual attraction to corpses. It is classified as a paraphilia by the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of the American Psychiatric Association. It also causes no harm to others and it is also reported in Animals. Let say boyfriend or girlfriend of someone died what harm he or she is causing by having sexual relation with corpses.
Research
In 1958, Klaf and Brown commented that, although rarely described, necrophilic fantasies may occur more often than is generally supposed.
Rosman and Resnick (1989) theorized that either of the following situations could be antecedents to necrophilia (pp. 161):
The necrophile develops poor self-esteem, perhaps due in part to a significant loss;
(a) He/she is very fearful of rejection by women/men and he/she desires a sexual partner who is incapable of rejecting him/her; and/or
(b) He/she is fearful of the dead, and transforms his/her fear — by means of reaction formation — into a desire.
He/she develops an exciting fantasy of sex with a corpse, sometimes after exposure to a corpse.
The authors also reported that, of their sample of 'necrophiliacs,':
68% were motivated by a desire for an unresisting and unrejecting partner;
21% by a want for reunion with a lost partner;
15% by sexual attraction to dead people;
15% by a desire for comfort or to overcome feelings of isolation; and
11% by a desire to remedy low self-esteem by expressing power over a corpse (pp. 159).
At the end of their own report, Rosman and Resnick wrote that their study should only be used like a spring-board for further, more in depth, research.
Minor modern researches conducted in England have shown that some necrophiles tend to choose a dead mate after failing to create romantic attachments with the living
In animals
Necrophilia is known to occur in animals, with a number of confirmed observations. Kees Moeliker allegedly made one of these observations while he was sitting in his office at the Natuurmuseum Rotterdam, when he heard the distinctive thud of a bird hitting the glass facade of the building. Upon inspection, he discovered a drake (male) mallard lying dead outside the building. Next to the downed bird there was a second drake mallard standing close by. As Moeliker observed the couple, the living drake pecked at the corpse of the dead one for a few minutes then mounted the corpse and began copulating with it. The act of necrophilia lasted for about 75 minutes, in which time, according to Moeliker, the living drake took two short breaks before resuming with copulating behavior. Moeliker surmised that at the time of the collision with the window the two mallards were engaged in a common pattern in duck behavior called "attempted rape flight". "When one died the other one just went for it and didn't get any negative feedback — well, didn't get any feedback," according to Moeliker. This is the first recorded case of necrophilia in the mallard duck- though not the only recorded case of homosexuality within the bird family.
The film The Cane Toads: an Unnatural History shows a male toad copulating with a female toad that has been run over by a car. It goes on to do this for eight hours.
In the case of a praying mantis, necrophilia could be said to be part of their methods of reproduction. The larger female will sometimes decapitate or even eat her mate during copulation. However, this only happens in 5-31% of cases.
(from Wiki)
Zoophilia
Zoophilia is the practice of sexual activity between humans and non-human animals, or a preference for or fixation on such practice.
Although sex with animals is not outlawed in some countries, it is not explicitly condoned anywhere. In most countries, zoophilic sexual acts are illegal under animal abuse laws or laws dealing with "crimes against nature"; however, the notion that such acts are "abusive" is disputed. Supporter these acts can also argue that it is not harmful and it is very natural.
Let me show you some:
Brian Cutteridge states the following regarding this argument:
"Animal sexual autonomy is regularly violated for human financial gain through procedures such as [artificial insemination]. Such procedures are probably more disturbing physically and psychologically than acts of zoophilia would be, yet the issue of consent on the part of the animal is never raised in the discussion of such procedures. To confine the 'right' of any animal strictly to acts of zoophilia is thus to make a law [against zoophilia] based not on reason but on moral prejudice, and to breach the constitutional rights of zoophiles to due process and equality before the law. [...] Laws which criminalize zoophilia based on societal abhorrence of such acts rather than any real harm caused by such acts are an unjust and unconstitutional infringement on individual liberty."
Miletski believes that "Animals are capable of sexual consent - and even initiation - in their own way."[103] It is not an uncommon practice for dogs to attempt to copulate with ("hump") the legs of people of both genders.[104] Rosenberger (1968) emphasizes that as far as cunnilingus is concerned, dogs require no training, and even Dekkers (1994) and Menninger (1951) admit that sometimes animals take the initiative and do so impulsively Those supporting zoophilia feel animals sometimes even seem to enjoy the sexual attentionor to initiate it. Animals such as dogs can be willing participants in sexual activity with humans, and "seem to enjoy the attention provided by the sexual interaction with a human." Animal owners normally know what their own pets like or do not like. Most people can tell if an animal does not like how it is being petted, because it will move away. An animal that is liking being petted pushes against the hand, and seems to enjoy it. To those defending zoopilia this is seen as a way in which animals give consent, or the fact that a dog might wag its tail.
Utilitarian philosopher and animal liberation author Peter Singer argues that zoophilia is not unethical so long as it involves no harm or cruelty to the animal. In the article "Heavy Petting," Singer argues that zoosexual activity need not be abusive, and that relationships could form which were mutually enjoyed. Singer and others have argued that people's dislike of bestiality is partly caused by irrational speciesism and anthropocentrism. Because interspecies sex occurs in nature, and because humans are animals, it is argued that zoophilic activity is not "unnatural" and is not intrinsically wrong
Zoophiles claim that they are not abusive towards animal:
"In other recent surveys, the majority of zoophiles scoffed at the notion that they were abusive toward animals in any way—far from it, they said. Many even consider themselves to be animal welfare advocates in addition to zoophiles."
(from Wiki)
What about Pedophilic desires?
Many of them try to argue that pedophilia is different than homosexuality. Because one is about fetish and other is about orientation. But that is not the case. If we study the people with Pedophilic desire their case is almost same as homosexuality.
Pedophiles Argue Their Case in the Journal of Homosexuality
Gay culture does not grant the pedophile movement general acceptance. It does, however, offer a peripheral credibility to this movement which pedophilia has never been granted in the culture at large. Members of NAMBLA (The North American Man-Boy Love Association) march in some gay pride parades.
The academic Journal of Homosexuality (vol. 20, nos. 1/2, l990) has also explored the issue of "Male Intergenerational Intimacy" in a generally approving manner. (Back issues of this journal can be ordered by calling Haworth Press at 1-800-HAWORTH.)
Discrimination Against a Minority
The vast majority of the articles in "Male Intergenerational Intimacy" argue that pedophilia should be freed from categorization as child abuse. In the foreword, Dr. Gunter Schmidt closes by saying that "Each individual case must be looked upon on its own merits...the threat to make all pedophile acts punishable by law can barely be labeled civilized...it implies discrimination and persecution of a minority and should be abolished." (p. 4)
Another group of writers (two psychologists and a lawyer--Sandfort, Brongersma, and Naerssen) argue that "the current social climate makes it rather difficult to look at [pedophilic] relationships in an objective way." (p.5)
"Born that Way and Can't Change"
In another article, "'The Main Thing is Being Wanted': Some Case Studies on Adult Sexual Experiences with Children," the author says that one-third of the pedophiles he has studied claimed that "their sexual desire for children is a natural part of their constitution. This desire is variously described as 'inbred,' 'innate,' 'a fact of nature,' 'inherent in them,' etc. The leitmotif of their accounts is 'this is me' or 'just the way I am.'"
The author concludes that the feeling of being "born a pedophile" makes them feel they cannot change, and therefore they are convinced they have the same right as other people to pursue the "natural" expression of their sexuality. (p. 133). The same author quotes a respondent's belief that "if adult-child sex was commonplace, the majority of it would surely be good for both participants." (p. 137).
Psychology Must Remain "Unbiased"
Another article ("Boy-Lovers and their Influence on Boys," by Edward Brongersma) complains about the "bias" which labels man-boy sex as "abuse, molestation, assault, " etc. Dr. Brongersma complains that researchers are unable to remain objective about pedophilia, saying "...many people...exhibit such violently emotional hostility toward boy-lovers because they fear their own...pedophile impulses." (p. l53).
Dr. Brongersma goes on to cite cases in which social workers achieved "miracles with apparently incorrigible young delinquents--not by preaching to them but by sleeping with them." He describes how these sexual relationships "did far more good than years in reformatories." (p. l6l).
He advises that the loving pedophile can offer a "companionship, security and protection" which neither peers nor parents can provide (p. l62) and goes on to say that parents should look upon the pedophile who loves their son "not as a rival or competitor, not as a thief of their property, but as a partner in the boy's upbringing, someone to be welcomed into their home..."
Children's Rights to Autonomy
Another writer, David Thorstad, argues for "freedom of sexual expression for young people and children" (p. 255) and quotes a lesbian who talks of the "rich texture" of her experiences as a molested child.
Writer Gerald Jones says that "same-sex intergenerational intimacy may be developmentally functional" (p. 279) and says, "Some studies have found benign or even beneficial results in boys who were at the time involved with men" (p. 280). Dr. Jones speaks approvingly of recent studies which discuss pedophilia in "value-neutral terms." (p. 280)
Along the same vein, The Harvard Gay and Lesbian Review interviewed poet Allen Ginsberg, a homosexual pedophile, shortly before his recent death. In a generally flattering article, they report Ginsburg's philosophy (not mentioned by the mainstream press) about sex with children, and offer no judgmental comment about it. The article is entitled, "The Liberation is the Word" (Summer 1997):
(Allen Ginsberg): "Like the whole labeling of pedophiles as 'child molesters.' Everybody likes little kids. All you've got to do is walk through the Vatican and see all the little statues of little prepubescents, pubescents, and postpubescents. Naked kids have been a staple of delight for centuries, for both parents and onlookers. So to label pedophilia as criminal is ridiculous."
Notice any similarity? See How they say that their desires are natural i.e. they are born with it. They are also arguing that they are not causing any harm but it is wrong perception of society. But till this day pedophilia is punishable in many countries but acting on this desire is considered as not good.
Cannibalism
Cannibalism is more natural and common in animals than homosexuality. So does that mean that we should we tolerate cannibalism in humans as well? Like if someone say that they interested in eating corpses. What harm it causes to other?
There two type of cannibalism reported in Animals Kingdom:
Sexual cannibalism
Sexual cannibalism is a special case of cannibalism in which a female organism kills and consumes a conspecific (same species) male before, during, or after copulation. Rarely, these roles are reversed.[4][5] Sexual cannibalism has been recorded in the female redback spider, black widow spider, praying mantis, and scorpion, among others.
Filial cannibalism
Another common form of cannibalism is filial cannibalism (a form of infanticide) in which adults eat their own offspring. Classical vertebrate examples include chimpanzees, where groups of adult males have been observed to attack and consume conspecific infants, and cats. In agricultural settings, pigs are known to eat their own young, accounting for a sizeable percentage of total piglet deaths.
Cannibalism is reported thorough out in Human history in different forms. You will find that many people obsessed with eating human flesh. So should we allow them, if they promise just to eat death unwanted and homeless bodies? Surely it will save cost of funeral and cremation.
(from Wiki)
Incest
Incest is sexual intercourse between close relatives that is usually illegal in the jurisdiction where it takes place and/or is conventionally considered a taboo. The term may apply to sexual activities between: individuals of close "blood relationship"; members of the same household; step relatives related by adoption or marriage; and members of the same clan or lineage. Its punishment can be imprisonment upto of few years.
It is also very natural in animals. But why we don’t have acceptance from society if both partner are agreed on it and may not do it for having children? You will see people calling it disguising. For instance see this news report regarding Incest couple in Germany facing lawsuit.
Look at this new report.http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-17690997
Necrophilia
Necrophilia, also called thanatophilia or necrolagnia, is the sexual attraction to corpses. It is classified as a paraphilia by the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of the American Psychiatric Association. It also causes no harm to others and it is also reported in Animals. Let say boyfriend or girlfriend of someone died what harm he or she is causing by having sexual relation with corpses.
Research
In 1958, Klaf and Brown commented that, although rarely described, necrophilic fantasies may occur more often than is generally supposed.
Rosman and Resnick (1989) theorized that either of the following situations could be antecedents to necrophilia (pp. 161):
The necrophile develops poor self-esteem, perhaps due in part to a significant loss;
(a) He/she is very fearful of rejection by women/men and he/she desires a sexual partner who is incapable of rejecting him/her; and/or
(b) He/she is fearful of the dead, and transforms his/her fear — by means of reaction formation — into a desire.
He/she develops an exciting fantasy of sex with a corpse, sometimes after exposure to a corpse.
The authors also reported that, of their sample of 'necrophiliacs,':
68% were motivated by a desire for an unresisting and unrejecting partner;
21% by a want for reunion with a lost partner;
15% by sexual attraction to dead people;
15% by a desire for comfort or to overcome feelings of isolation; and
11% by a desire to remedy low self-esteem by expressing power over a corpse (pp. 159).
At the end of their own report, Rosman and Resnick wrote that their study should only be used like a spring-board for further, more in depth, research.
Minor modern researches conducted in England have shown that some necrophiles tend to choose a dead mate after failing to create romantic attachments with the living
In animals
Necrophilia is known to occur in animals, with a number of confirmed observations. Kees Moeliker allegedly made one of these observations while he was sitting in his office at the Natuurmuseum Rotterdam, when he heard the distinctive thud of a bird hitting the glass facade of the building. Upon inspection, he discovered a drake (male) mallard lying dead outside the building. Next to the downed bird there was a second drake mallard standing close by. As Moeliker observed the couple, the living drake pecked at the corpse of the dead one for a few minutes then mounted the corpse and began copulating with it. The act of necrophilia lasted for about 75 minutes, in which time, according to Moeliker, the living drake took two short breaks before resuming with copulating behavior. Moeliker surmised that at the time of the collision with the window the two mallards were engaged in a common pattern in duck behavior called "attempted rape flight". "When one died the other one just went for it and didn't get any negative feedback — well, didn't get any feedback," according to Moeliker. This is the first recorded case of necrophilia in the mallard duck- though not the only recorded case of homosexuality within the bird family.
The film The Cane Toads: an Unnatural History shows a male toad copulating with a female toad that has been run over by a car. It goes on to do this for eight hours.
In the case of a praying mantis, necrophilia could be said to be part of their methods of reproduction. The larger female will sometimes decapitate or even eat her mate during copulation. However, this only happens in 5-31% of cases.
(from Wiki)
Zoophilia
Zoophilia is the practice of sexual activity between humans and non-human animals, or a preference for or fixation on such practice.
Although sex with animals is not outlawed in some countries, it is not explicitly condoned anywhere. In most countries, zoophilic sexual acts are illegal under animal abuse laws or laws dealing with "crimes against nature"; however, the notion that such acts are "abusive" is disputed. Supporter these acts can also argue that it is not harmful and it is very natural.
Let me show you some:
Brian Cutteridge states the following regarding this argument:
"Animal sexual autonomy is regularly violated for human financial gain through procedures such as [artificial insemination]. Such procedures are probably more disturbing physically and psychologically than acts of zoophilia would be, yet the issue of consent on the part of the animal is never raised in the discussion of such procedures. To confine the 'right' of any animal strictly to acts of zoophilia is thus to make a law [against zoophilia] based not on reason but on moral prejudice, and to breach the constitutional rights of zoophiles to due process and equality before the law. [...] Laws which criminalize zoophilia based on societal abhorrence of such acts rather than any real harm caused by such acts are an unjust and unconstitutional infringement on individual liberty."
Miletski believes that "Animals are capable of sexual consent - and even initiation - in their own way."[103] It is not an uncommon practice for dogs to attempt to copulate with ("hump") the legs of people of both genders.[104] Rosenberger (1968) emphasizes that as far as cunnilingus is concerned, dogs require no training, and even Dekkers (1994) and Menninger (1951) admit that sometimes animals take the initiative and do so impulsively Those supporting zoophilia feel animals sometimes even seem to enjoy the sexual attentionor to initiate it. Animals such as dogs can be willing participants in sexual activity with humans, and "seem to enjoy the attention provided by the sexual interaction with a human." Animal owners normally know what their own pets like or do not like. Most people can tell if an animal does not like how it is being petted, because it will move away. An animal that is liking being petted pushes against the hand, and seems to enjoy it. To those defending zoopilia this is seen as a way in which animals give consent, or the fact that a dog might wag its tail.
Utilitarian philosopher and animal liberation author Peter Singer argues that zoophilia is not unethical so long as it involves no harm or cruelty to the animal. In the article "Heavy Petting," Singer argues that zoosexual activity need not be abusive, and that relationships could form which were mutually enjoyed. Singer and others have argued that people's dislike of bestiality is partly caused by irrational speciesism and anthropocentrism. Because interspecies sex occurs in nature, and because humans are animals, it is argued that zoophilic activity is not "unnatural" and is not intrinsically wrong
Zoophiles claim that they are not abusive towards animal:
"In other recent surveys, the majority of zoophiles scoffed at the notion that they were abusive toward animals in any way—far from it, they said. Many even consider themselves to be animal welfare advocates in addition to zoophiles."
(from Wiki)
No comments:
Post a Comment