Siru83 kirjoitti:Valdovas spämmäilee ketjua ylipitkillä viesteillään. Psykopatialla ei ole mitään tekemistä promiskuiteetin kanssa, eikä liity aiheeseen.
Promiskuiteettiteeman nosti esille aivan toinen kirjoittaja, jolle vastasin vastineessani. Kannattaa ehkä skarpata hiukan sen luetun ymmärtämisen kanssa...
Siitä on useammalla sivustolla.
Joo, mutta kaikkea nettiin kirjoitettua ei kannata purematta niellä (ks. seur.)
While no more than 2% of male adults are homosexual, some studies indicate that approximately 35% of pedophiles are homosexual (9). Further, since male-on-male pedophiles victimize far more children than do heterosexual pedophiles (10), it is estimated that approximately 80% of pedophilic victims are boys who have been molested by adult males (11).
Lähteinä on käytetty näitä:
10. Freund, K. and R. I. Watson, The Proportions of Heterosexual and Homosexual Pedophiles Among Sex Offenders Against Children: An Exploratory Study, Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy 18 (Spring 1992): 3443.
Tuossa aiemmin siteeraamassani "ylipitkässä" artikkelissahan keskusteltiin varsin kattavasti noista Freundin ryhmän tutkimuksista ja argumentoitiin erityisesti, että mies-mies- tai paremminkin mies-poikalapsi-pedofilia ja aikuisiin kohdistuva (miespuolinen) homoseksuaalisuus eivät välttämättä korreloi kovinkaan hyvin, ja siksi noissa tutkimuksissa ei pitäisi tehdä sellaisia johtopäätöksiä, mitä niissä itse asiassa ei tutkita.
11. Schmidt, Thomas (1995). Straight and Narrow? Compassion and Clarity in the Homosexuality Debate. Downers Grove, Ill.: Intervarsity Press, p. 114.
Mainittu
Thomas E. Schmidt ei tosin ole lääkäri tai seksologi, vaan entinen Uuden testamentin tutkija, ja kuten oheisista sinänsä teokseen myönteisesti suhtautuvista esittelyistä ja arvioista ilmenee kyseessä on selkeästi uskonnon ja Raamatun näkökulmasta homoseksualisuutta tarkasteleva, ja sehän on kyllä käynyt selväksi mitä siitä noissa piireissä ajatellaan, varsinkin USA:ssa mutta jossain määrin myös Atlantin tällä puolella kuten ns. kirkon homokeskusteluissakin on hyvin käynyt ilmi. Turha kai sanoakaan, että mitään lääketieteellistä validiteettia noissa argumenteissa ei ole edes siteeksi...
Thomas E. Schmidt (Ph.D., Cambridge University) teaches at Rogue Community College in Grants Pass, Oregon. He is former Professor of New Testament at Westmont College. He has written several books and numerous professional journal articles.
Straight & Narrow? Compassion & Clarity in the Homosexuality Debate
By Thomas E. Schmidt
Retail Price: $16.00
Your Price: $12.80 (20% Off Retail)
Add to Cart
Christianbook.com 
Voted one of Christianity Today's 1996 Books of the Year!
Too often, Thomas Schmidt writes, the charged battle over homosexuality generates slogans and accusations--obscuring the struggling persons at the center of the argument.
In this book Schmidt brings the discussion back into empathetic contact with the circumstances and the choices of individuals. At the same time he offers thoroughly researched and up-to-date information and assessment from an evangelical Christian perspective on all the main points of the debate. He includes chapters on what the Bible really says (and means) about homosexuality, the health effects of homosexual behavior, whether or not people are born with homosexual orientations, and the cogency of recent progay reconstructions of history such as John Boswell's.
Lähde:
http://www.ivpress.com/cgi-ivpress/auth ... hor_id=414
Toinen arvio mainitusta opuksesta:
CultureWatch
Bill Muehlenberg's commentary on issues of the day…
A review of Straight and Narrow?: Compassion and Clarity in the Homosexuality Debate.
By Thomas Schmidt.
IVP, 1995.
The debate about homosexuality revolves around a number of crucial and controversial subjects: human sexuality and emotions, politics, religion, the family and relationships, questions of health, privacy and the social good.
While the debate often entails secular homosexuals and Christian straights slugging it out with each other, the debate is increasingly being waged just as fiercely within church circles. Indeed, the Christian debate about homosexuality may be just as explosive as the Reformation was 400 years ago.
Joe Dallas, President of Exodus International, wrote in 1991: “The debate over homosexuality and the Bible – specifically, whether or not the Bible condemns homosexual acts in all cases – will do no less than rip the body of Christ apart within the next decade. It will force believers to declare, in black and white terms, where they stand on issues of sexuality and biblical interpretation.”
By far the best book written to date about this divisive issue is Thomas Schmidt’s Straight and Narrow. This book performs four important tasks, and performs them exceedingly well.
Firstly, it expounds the biblical case against homosexuality. That is, it shows that Scripture teaches unequivocally that homosexual practice is sinful.
Secondly, it provides one of the best summaries of the case against homosexuality on health grounds Thirdly, it examines the nature/nurture debate (are gays born that way?) and concludes that while a number of factors may account for homosexual behaviour, explanation of the behaviour cannot serve as a justification for the behaviour.
And finally, the book attempts to remind us that no other response than the love, mercy and compassion of Christ will suffice. Every homosexual is a human being made in God’s image and likeness. Schmidt reminds us of the human face of homosexuality – he reminds us that beyond the anger and rhetoric and emotion are hurting, lonely people who desperately need Christian compassion and love.
Scripture and homosexuality
Since the publication of D.S. Bailey’s Homosexuality and the Western Christian Tradition in 1955, a number of works have appeared seeking to harmonise homosexuality and the Bible. A number of clever ploys and stratagems have been adopted by the theological revisionists. The sin of Sodom and Gomorrah, for example, has been re-cast as the sin of inhospitality, not homosexuality. Arguments are made that Jesus never condemned homosexuality, and so on. Schmidt examines these arguments, and their many variations, and finds them wanting. While many evangelicals in the past have dissected these faulty arguments, this is among the best critiques of the arguments thus far written.
Homosexuality and health risks
Medical doctors have long known of the extraordinary health risks involved with the homosexual lifestyle. Yet, for various reasons, few doctors feel compelled to speak out about them. Conservative Christians have long used sexual practices as a weapon against homosexuality.
Schmidt’s treatment of this issue is different for two reasons. Firstly, he sees the health risks as a tragedy, not as something to gloat over. Christian compassion should be our response to such lack of mental, physical and emotional well-being. And secondly, the information he uses is taken only from primary, not secondary, sources. And it all comes from secular, scholarly sources, “virtually all of which is either neutral or affirming of homosexuality”. Thus he has marshalled the most impressive, reliable and irrefutable collection of evidence to date on the serious health implications of homosexual practice.
This section alone features 131 footnotes. It is a wealth of information and it all points to one inescapable conclusion: “For the vast majority of- homosexual men and for a significant number of homosexual women – even apart from the deadly plague of AIDS – sexual behaviour is obsessive, psychopathological and destructive to the body.”
The tremendous promiscuity rates among gays, the extra-high incidence of drug and alcohol abuse, the high number of sexual partners, and the sexual activities practised, all contribute to plague proportions of disease and illness. There is simply no comparison to the heterosexual community in this regard. The homosexual lifestyle is simply an invitation to an early grave. And it is not the minority, but the overwhelming majority of homosexuals, who are at risk.
Nature/Nurture
Like the section on health, the evidence used in this section is taken only from recent, scholarly and secular sources. The vast amount of information makes it clear that simplistic causation theories (eg. it’s in my genes) are not scientifically sustainable. The evidence is simply not in for a genetic or biological basis of homosexuality.
Instead, it seems culture and environment are major factors in the incidence of homosexuality. And choice has a large part to play in the whole equation. As Schmidt points out, “A large component of homosexual activists applaud biologic causation theories for their effect on public opinion, but are philosophically committed to personal choice as opposed to any deterministic theory, biologic or environmental.”
Schmidt also examines the social constructionism theory which states that sexual/gender differences are determined not by biology but by society. That is, we learn our sexuality like everything else, and in reality there are numerous genders (not just male and female), and people can embrace many different versions of gender. This theory was especially prominent at the recent Women’s Conference in Beijing, and we can expect to see much more of it. Indeed, it was the approach taken by an academic with whom I recently debated on ABC Radio, who wants to introduce pro-homosexual sex education into primary schools.
Christian compassion
Schmidt distinguishes himself from many conservative critics of homosexuality in that he bends over backwards to show empathy, respect and compassion for homosexuals. He makes it clear that heterosexuals have plenty of dirty laundry as well.
It is all too easy for many evangelicals to judge homosexual behaviour without really loving the homosexual person. We all mouth the platitude, “hate the sin but love the sinner” but for many of us, myself included, the latter part is seldom attained, and probably just as seldom striven for.
Thus the value of this book. It overwhelmingly makes the case that Scripture condemns homosexuality as sinful; that on health grounds alone the homosexual lifestyle should be eschewed; and that the genetic cop-out just doesn’t wash. But it doesn’t let others off the hook. It reminds each person to examine the beam in his or her own eye before judging others.
Schmidt is probably right when he says, “Only when we show that we have a greater concern about our own sin will we have a right to confront sin in others. This is not tolerance It is justice.”
We all need to be informed about the homosexuality debate and we dare not compromise biblical truth and morality. But we also dare not compromise our calling to express Christ’s love and compassion.
Because the debate about homosexuality is such an emotionally charged issue it demands that we do our homework and that we present our case lovingly, intelligently and rationally. Those who can’t should stay out of the debate. Or as Schmidt puts it: “Christians who cannot yet deal with issues calmly and compassionately should keep their mouths shut, and they should certainly stay away from the front lines of ministry and public policy debate – not to mention television talk shows.”
Indeed, an objective stand for God’s truth must be accompanied by an awareness of the fact that we are dealing with human beings. This is important because emotion rather than truth tends to determine how a secular public views such issues.
As Schmidt so incisively observes, “Those who defend the objective approach fail to understand public debate, which is less a search for truth than a spectator sport. Like it or not, spectators respond to emotional stories and cheer for the underdog. Moreover, since the reigning value of- modern culture is not truth but tolerance, anyone who takes a stand disapproving of another’s behaviour is bound to lose a debate.”
That doesn’t mean we cannot be critical of homosexual conduct, it just means we need to carefully examine the way we do it. Any appearance of heterosexual self-righteousness will smack of hypocrisy. Quite often our attitudes will be read easier than our words, so periodic attitude checks are in order. Having all the right words and doctrines, while holding on to wrong altitudes, will hinder our witness in this area.
Schmidt seeks to find a third way between two extremes – between those who want to water down the biblical message concerning homosexuality, who say that homosexual behaviour is not sinful, and those who can only condemn homosexuals without offering them the outstretched hands of Christ.
Moderation without compromise, balance without dilution, is the hallmark of this book. Anyone involved in the debate about homosexuality – and we will all have to make a stand at some point – should get this book.
Lähde:
http://www.billmuehlenberg.com/1995/10/ ... ty-debate/
Koska tämä ei (ainakaan vielä; terkkuja vaan Monsieur Mosselle ja Tohtori Lehtorille!
) ole yleinen homosteluketju, niin en lähde ottamaan kantaa noihin yllämainittuihin väitteisiin, mutta niistä ja niiden sävystä käynee ilmi, ettei kyseessä suinkaan ole mikään neutraali intressitön lähestymistapa kysymykseen, vaan hyvinkin ohjelmallinen ja oman positionsa debatissa jo valmiiksi hyvinkin tiukasti ankkuroitunut. Niin, ja tieteellinen teoshan se siis ei ole, eikä sitä sellaisena tulisi lähdeviitteissä tietysti pitääkään.
Niin, mitä tulee siis puolueettomuuteen ja neutraaliuteen kysymyksessä. Kyseessä oleva
NARTH eli
National Association for Research & Therapy of Homosexuality ei varmastikaan ole, sillä jo nimensä mukaisesti sen fokus on "parantaa" ihmiset homoseksualisuudesta.
Koska minua on kritisoitu turhan pitkistä lainauksista, niin en kopioi tähän koko wikiartikkelia ko. lafkasta, vaan lähinnä alkuesittelyn ja siihen liittyvän kritiikkiosion sekä sen, mitä lääketieteen ja psykologian virallisten edustajien taholla ko. lafkasta ajatellaan.
National Association for Research & Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH), formerly National Association for Research and Treatment of Homosexuality, is part of the ex-gay movement and a non-profit organization that offers conversion therapy and other regimens intended to change the sexual orientation of individuals who experience unwanted sexual attraction to members of the same sex. NARTH's leaders describe their organization as "dedicated to affirming a complementary, male-female model of gender and sexuality." NARTH was founded in 1992 by Joseph Nicolosi, Benjamin Kaufman, and the late Charles Socarides. Its headquarters are in Encino, California, at the Thomas Aquinas Psychological Clinic. Julie Hamilton is the president of NARTH. NARTH's leaders disagree with the prevailing mainstream opinion that homosexuality is not a disorder.
Truth Wins Out
In 2006, gay rights activist Wayne Besen launched the Truth Wins Out project to criticize NARTH and related ex-gay groups. He has strongly criticized NARTH's academic literature as falling short of accepted standards for peer review.
- http://www.truthwinsout.org/narth/
Position of professional organizations on sexual orientation change efforts
Main Article: Sexual orientation change efforts
In 2009 an American Psychological Association research summary included the following statements:
The longstanding consensus of the behavioral and social sciences and the health and mental health professions is that homosexuality per se is a normal and positive variation of human sexual orientation.
SOCE [sexual orientation change efforts] has been controversial due to tensions between the values held by some faith-based organizations, on the one hand, and those held by lesbian, gay and bisexual rights organizations and professional and scientific organizations, on the other.
There are no studies of adequate scientific rigor to conclude whether recent SOCE do work to change a person’s sexual orientation.
Some individuals and groups have promoted the idea of homosexuality as symptomatic of developmental defects or spiritual and moral failings and have argued that SOCE, including psychotherapy and religious efforts, could alter homosexual feelings and behaviors. Many of these individuals and groups appeared to be embedded within the larger context of conservative religious political movements that have supported the stigmatization of homosexuality on political or religious grounds.
No major mental health professional organization has sanctioned efforts to change sexual orientation and most of them have adopted policy statements cautioning the profession and the public about treatments that purport to change sexual orientation. These include the American Psychiatric Association, American Psychological Association, American Counseling Association, National Association of Social Workers in the USA, the Royal College of Psychiatrists,[38] and the Australian Psychological Society.
The American Psychological Association and the Royal College of Psychiatrists expressed concerns that the positions espoused by NARTH are not supported by the science and create an environment in which prejudice and discrimination can flourish.
Lähde:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_A ... osexuality
Kuten todettu, osa pedofiileista on kiinnostunut myös teini-ikäisistä todennäköisesti, koska teinit muistuttavat enemmän lasta kuin aikuiset ja toisaalta osa tyttöihin kohdistuneita seksuaalirikoksia tehneistä on ahdistellut myös poikia.
Niin, tai osa "normaaleista" nuorista ja kauniista seksuaalipartnereista pitävistä liu'uttaa omaa rajaansa hiukan alaspäin. Toimii se niinkin päin kuten tuolla aiemmin toin esille.
Pedofiilien joukossa homo- ja heteroseksuaalisuuden rajat näyttävät olevan hämäriä. Tämä voisi johtua siitä, että sukupuolten väliset erot korostuvat puberteetin jälkeen.
Juuri näin, ja siksi tuo aiempi monisanainen ja ilmeisen innokas homoseksuaalisuuden ja pedofilian samastaminen tai läheinen kytkentä toisiinsa tuntuukin hiukan oudolta ja tarkoitushakuiselta.
Esipuberteetti-ikäisten tyttöjen vartalo muistuttaa pojan vartaloa, ja näin tyttökin saattaa kelvata pohjimmiltaan homoseksuaalin pedofiilin uhriksi.
Tai päinvastoin.
Homoseksuaalisuushan on yhteiskunnallisesti ja sosiaalisesti vähemmän hyväksytty seksuaalisuuden muoto kuin heteroseksuaalisuus.
Niinpä niin... Tuollaisesta ajattelustahan on vielä runsaasti merkkejä tälläkin foorumilla...
Samoin teinien tapailu on hyväksyttävämpää kuin seksuaalisten tarpeiden kohdistaminen lapsiin.
Toisaalta tässä on kyllä se selvä ero, että kumppanin seksuaalisella ja muulla kypsyydellä on kyllä ihan oikeastikin merkitystä arvioitaessa suhteen hyväksyttävyyttä, kun taas aikuisten ihmisten homo- tai heteroseksuaalisuuden hyväksymisessä ei ole tästä kyse, vaan ihan vain arvioijan omista moraaliarvostelmista. Edelleenkään nuo innokkaasti viljelemäsi analogiat homoseksualisuuden ja pedofilian välillä eivät oikein istu.
Pedofiilien käyttäytymiseen vaikuttavat yhteiskunnan normit. Pedofiili, joka on pohjimmiltaan kiinnostunut nuorista pojista, voi tapailla teini-ikäistä tyttöä jolla on poikamainen vartalo koska sitä pidetään sosiaalisesti hyväksyttävänä verrattuna siihen että hän osoittaisi julkisesti olevansa kiinnostunut poikalapsista. Näin ollen osa vielä poikamaisen vartalon omaavia teinityttöjä tapailevista saattaa olla pohjimmiltaan homoseksuaaleja, jotka tapailemalla tyttöjä kykenevät säilyttämään ympäristön ja kaveripiirin hyväksynnän.
Tai todennäköisemmin biseksuaaleja, sillä vahvasti homoseksuaalinen tuskin tuntisi vetoa eri sukupuolen nuoreenkaan edustajaan, aivan kuten vahvasti heteroseksuaalinenkaan tuskin innostuu nuoresta ja kauniista tai komeasta oman sukupuolensa edustajasta. Itsekin pidän monia miehiä komeina, mutta en silti tunne heitä kohtaan yhtään sen enempää seksuaalista vetovoimaa kuin ryppyisiin ukkoihinkaan.
