Replies to '06/06 "I'm Gay, OK?"'

I think Dr. Phil should have a show about the difference between the rape of a child and mutually consenting adults who wish to pleasure and love eachother, because some of you obviously just don't get it.

Just because someone you love consents to participate in what you do, it's ok? So, on that line of logic, if your partner agrees to do drugs with you, doing drugs is ok? Or, if your partner agrees to go out and help you murder someone, since you love one another and consent to participate together in the act, the act is ok? NO, i'm not comparing homosexuality to murder, so don't go there...I'm comparing the line of thinking that if someone you love agrees to participate then what you do tobether is ok because they agreed...I used the ridiculous analagy to point out the falacy of that line of logic. I have many desires to do many things that are wrong to do, some stronger than others, but I am responsible for denying myself those pleasures that are wrong, even though it is uncomfortable, even though I may find someone I love to do it with me, even though it causes me anguish to deny myself. For you, your pleasure is homosexuality. For a straight person it might be adultery, or for me it might be something that society generally doesn't even consider sin, like overeating...but each of these things that are for us a great temptation (even though others may not experience the same attraction to that act) are the "self" against which we must struggle in order to become more as we should be. We all have things we struggle against....I can no more put you down for being tempted in the area of sexuality than I can put down the little child who is tempted to steal a piece of candy, or the old lady who is tempted to gossip, or the angry man who is tempted to murder, or the...you get the point...none of our temptations are our fault---it's our response to those temptations that matters. And our response to failure of someone else in dealing with their temptations should be tempered with our our own humility when we realize how poorly we ourselves deal with the things (large or small) that are tempting to us. Just because I don't share your temptation does not mean I don't have my own that is equally compelling to me as yours is to you. I can label the act as a sin, but I cannot throw a stone at the sinner because I would most definitely deserve to be the next one in line for stoning because of my own sins! As for the many mentions on the board about Christians....in my view I am not higher or lower than any other person because I label myself Christian. I am simply forgiven and accept that I am forgiven, and have made a committment to try my very best to avoid all things that are labeled as sin. As to how I decide what is or isn't sin, I refer to the bible and rely on communication with God to reveal to me those things that are sins. Learning my rules for living is my responsibility--between me and God. I must guard against choosing rules I like and avoiding those I don't like, but earnestly desire to know God's will. Herein lies the true struggle of the Christian life. You can not learn from me what the rules for your life are. If you want to live as a Christian you must search the bible and seek God's heart and will for yourself. If you do not want to live as a Christian, then you need not worry about what the bible says or listen to any warnings or rules the Christians expound. Unfortunately, and I think this perhaps causes much friction and even the idea of Christians being pious, too many Christians feel that it will make a difference for a person who does not wish to be a Christian to live according to Christian rules or avoid sinning. According to my belief, if you are not a Christian it won't matter a bit how you live your life when it's time for your eternity to begin. I believe this because I accept the teaching of the bible that we cannot be saved by our deeds, but only by acceptance of Jesus Christ (which I consider to be becoming a Christian). So, I do not judge you. I have an opinion about whether or not homosexuality is a sin, but I consider it your responsibility to discover the truth of this for yourself, and totally between you and God to determine whether your deeds are good in His sight. I also understand that if you are not a Christian it won't matter to you, and that you have the choice of deciding that as well. I hope I've done an adequate job of explaining how I can have a firm opinion and belief, a set of standards to which I believe I must conform, and call myself Christian and also know that you may well consider all of my beliefs to be foolish, which is your choice. I must also state that I believe that I am required by my Christianity to care about you and love you as Christ would have loved you even if you do not agree with me, and whether or not you do what I believe to be sinful things. Am I judging? No, I'm saying that it is my understanding that those particular things are against the law. I'm not a policeman or a judge...I have no power or authority over you, and only the responsibility of MY abiding by what I believe to be the law . It's ok for me to say what I believe the law to be, and it's ok for you to decide what your choices will be. Naturally, as all of us do, I would prefer that you believe as I do...but I am not allowed to hate you because you don't...in fact, I am required to love you anyway! I hope that in your belief system you agree with me on at least on that one point--that we have a responsibility to our human race to extend to the best of our ability a maximum of love and kindness.

 

The term "pedophile" has long been used to describe people who are sexually and romantically attracted to prepubescent minors. The connotation of the word has shifted from its original neutral/romantic connotation into one which many in western society would consider offensive and vile. Even in its most neutral use, the romantic connotation has all but vanished, and now merely describes the sexual aspect of pedophilia rather than the full, encompassing classical definition which described the positive, romantic attraction of adults to both children and youth.

  

 

"Pedophilia" also comes from Ancient Greek, and it too means "boylove." However, paidophilia was never used to describe the pedagogical eros of the classical period. Two terms, paidophiles and philopais, both meaning "boylover," were coined late by Greek poets as a substitute for the word paiderastes because the accent in the given word for boylover did not lend itself to the metre the poets used in their works about boylove.[6]

  

 

The suffix -phile in its classical use did not signify a clinical paraphilia, but rather a natural, accepted, romantic connotation. With the rise of the Victorian era's shift in concepts of psychology and sexology, the uprise of child-rights activism and reform [7] in the late 19th century, the eventual rise of age of consent laws in the U.S. from 10-12 to 16-18 years of age[8], and the following shift in public discourse revolving pederastic sentiment, the term fell into a negative connotation.

  

 

Because of this shift from "romance" to "illness", certain activists in the modern childlove movement decided to adopt a new term which they feel more fairly and accurately represents their attractions as how it relates to modern atonement of the sentiment and practice of pederasty. This term is pedosexual. The word reflects the gay rights movement's decision to shift from "homophile" to "homosexual".

  

 

Unlike "boylover" or "girllover", "pedosexual" does not connotate classic romantic sentiment as did "pedophile", but rather more specifically refers to the explicit, primary sexual interests and self-labelling of the individual. Just as "homosexual" is to "gay", references of lifestyle and attitudes are also cut from its meaning.

  

 

The word is not without controversy, even amongst its own activists within the movement. Some activists feel the abandonment of the word "pedophile" is a cop-out and is not the correct move for public acceptance. Others feel it is the "only" way to go and that positive connotative reestablishment of "pedophile" is futile. The term "childluster" is also used interchangably in this fashion. Then, there are those which prefer not to use either "pedophile" or "pedosexual", sticking only to "boylover" or "girllover", exclusively.

  

 

Another word to describe boylove is "bay" (e.g.: "boy"+"gay") to describe boylove and pedosexuality. The term was coined by a 15 year old to describe his partner at the time