Whom do we have a right to love?

[Ken Carman]

I suppose this thread could as easily go under theology or politics, but I think the main thrust (chuckle ) is here.

Over at another thread I made the comment that we have a perfect right to hate anyone we wish. I'm not referring in any way to what hate does to us, although I have found that an interesting topic. I find hate keeps me from people who are dangerous, through either their (or my) stupidity, arrogance or perhaps even their evil nature... it's best to just keep the hell away from them. Others think hate always a destructive emotion to be avoided.

Perhaps that would make another interesting thread. But the question I am posing is simply... whom do we have a right to love? It covers Gay rights, pedophile, multiple partners.. all the perversions and supposed perversions we debate as a society. Of course, included in the debate, would be... if we don't have the right to love someone, what should society do about it? How much can we, and how should we, interfer in personal choices?

Here's one of many topics that could be covered within this thread...

Recently there has been a tift about pedophiles looking at drawings of children and adults together. Now I view pedophile as one of the worst of crimes on a social scale. I do believe in severe punishment and banishment. Children by the very definition of being a child cannot consent. But... a drawing? Just how much can we legislate regarding what people imagine? Now of course we can argue that this is in no way "love," and I buy that... somewhat. But let's say that someone really does "love" in the physical sense, a child... and does not act upon it, is a productive member of society and essentially celebate. All he does is draw and look upon his fantasy "love." One day his fetish is discovered and exposed to all of society. What should we do, if anything?

A lot of this brings out the libertarian in me.

So, let's have at it. I'm opening the "flood gates," which leaves us, considering the topic, with a suggestive image some might regret?!

[underbear1]

This thread automaticly links gay lovers with pedofiles and multiple partner couples and every other type of fetish. That's an old ploy, disengenious and not a game I'll play.I do find it amusing anything other than one man one woman is the author's definition of perversion, (and if you looked at things from my point of view), your hetero lovers seem equally perverse.

[tman_ndsu08]

But the question I am posing is simply... whom do we have a right to love?

A simple answer to a simple question.

You can love anyone.

As long as that emotion does not cause action that is unacceptable to that person, there is nothing wrong with the emotion itself.

[tman_ndsu08]

One day his fetish is discovered and exposed to all of society. What should we do, if anything?

Legally, you can do nothing so long as he didn't act on it.

You may choose to outcast him socially, as I imagine many people would.

[xyzer]

There is a difference between loving someone and adopting some sort of aberrant behavior. As long as loving a puppy is legal who cares? It's when you start acting like a puppy that the problems begin.

If we get around to adopting some sort of behavioral lifestyle it does cause problems because behavior is a temporary thing. You can turn it on or turn it off. It's your behavior after all?

Of late we have behavioral victim classes being created. To me this is ridiculous! It implies I choose to behave in a different way therefore I deserve special treatment? Nonsense. Why not just behave in accordance with societal norms at least while you are out in society?

[Ken Carman]

Quote by: underbear1 This thread automaticly links gay lovers with pedofiles and multiple partner couples and every other type of fetish. That's an old ploy, disengenious and not a game I'll play.I do find it amusing anything other than one man one woman is the author's definition of perversion, (and if you looked at things from my point of view), your hetero lovers seem equally perverse.

Actually, I understand your view. That was not, and is not, my intent. I do not think they are connected. You may notice I said "perversions" and "supposed perversions." I do not agree with this...

anything other than one man one woman is the author's definition of perversion

And, equally, I do believe that sometimes...

hetero lovers seem equally perverse

In fact, during another thread a few years ago, I commented, for instance, I found it obnoxious when heteros decide to have what I call "a slurp fest" in public. It's not something you'll find in the Gay world... simply because of social convention. I just feel that affection, while not banned in public, should be treated with a little more privacy amongst couples.

I'm sorry if the intent you thought you saw in the thread offends you. If I wished to approach the topic as you think I have I would have asked, "Do you believe Gays and pedophiles are connected?" Or I would have asked, "Do you believe that all the different things considered 'perversions' are connect." I don't, and I wouldn't even ask because either of those would be leading questions.

Most pedophiles, statistically are hetero.

The main intent of the thread is exactly what the title says it is. I don't care what "flavor" of love people are discussing under the thread. What amount of control the government or theological entities should have over any of the different "loves" society doesn't accept is the topic.

[SteveA]

We overuse the word "love" in too many contexts.

Quote by: tman_ndsu08 A simple answer to a simple question. You can love anyone. As long as that emotion does not cause action that is unacceptable to that person, there is nothing wrong with the emotion itself.

There you go. Problem resolved.

The only thing I'd add is that we typically don't view children as having a full understanding of the consequences of sexual relations, that's part of why we have parents/guardians, whereas adults we expect to be aware of issues like pregnancy, venerial disease (or even religious concerns).

So I agree with tman's view but want to point out that 'fraud' can still exist, if someone knowingly endangers the wellbeing of someone else. This can even apply between adults, IMO. For example, if you know you have a venerial disease, you have an obligation to assure the other person has an understanding of the possible consequences and is able to make an informed decision with regard to this.

[Ken Carman]

Quote by: xyzer There is a difference between loving someone and adopting some sort of aberrant behavior. As long as loving a puppy is legal who cares? It's when you start acting like a puppy that the problems begin. If we get around to adopting some sort of behavioral lifestyle it does cause problems because behavior is a temporary thing. You can turn it on or turn it off. It's your behavior after all? Of late we have behavioral victim classes being created. To me this is ridiculous! It implies I choose to behave in a different way therefore I deserve special treatment? Nonsense. Why not just behave in accordance with societal norms at least while you are out in society?

Interesting. I enjoyed this posted, but I'm a little bothered by the first paragraph. I don't think it was the poster's intent... but it raises a crucial question...

There are those who feel loving someone of the same sex is "aberrant." They might even equate that with your example of "acting like a puppy." Therefore, should that be banned? I think not. I believe our definition of both love and aberrant often needs to be a lot wider than it is.

I think few here wish to elevate man-boy organization onto the pedestal of acceptibility. But as one poster stated, paraphrased of course, as long as the object of said love isn't endangered or hurt... my definition is pretty wide.

[underbear1]

You may love anyone or any thing, the crux comes what actions does that love produce if any.
I'm not certain if Ken Carmen was refering to me as in favor of man-boy love, I'll just say I'm against any adult/child love affairs, if teens are curious about love and relations they can figure those things out with someone their own age. Adults would always be in an unfair position of power with a child.
Adults even if they are female teachers who think they are too pretty to go to jail, MUST be given the exact same sentence you would bestow on a gay adult teacher with an underage boy

[Ken Carman]

Quote by: SteveA We overuse the word "love" in too many contexts.

I do agree with this. "Love" has become your favorite cereal and a commercial con. It cheapens the concept. But, then again, I often complain about the word "friend." Surely many of us have had the experience, dating, of the breakup artist who claims, "I want to be your friend" and then treats you like you were stable droppings? In fact, as an aisde, I think that usually doesn't work. Two people who have been so close almost always wind up away from each other because one always wants the other back and finds slight in every word... the other can never be considerate enough and usually doesn't even bother.

Well, that's another topic. But I find "friend" is an equivocation. If you are involved in a relationship with someone, even if it's "friend," it is a form of love... just a different kind of love, that's all. :rolleyes: "Just friends" is all too often an excuse to be an insensitive jackass. So, there... now I've widened the use of "love" too.

So "overuse?" No. But "context?" YES.

[Ken Carman]

Quote by: underbear1 You may love anyone or any thing, the crux comes what actions does that love produce if any. I'm not certain if Ken Carmen was refering to me as in favor of man-boy love, I'll just say I'm against any adult/child love affairs, if teens are curious about love and relations they can figure those things out with someone their own age. Adults would always be in an unfair position of power with a child. Adults even if they are female teachers who think they are too pretty to go to jail, MUST be given the exact same sentence you would bestow on a gay adult teacher with an underage boy

You may love anyone or any thing, the crux comes what actions does that love produce if any.

YES.

I'm not certain if Ken Carmen was refering to me as in favor of man-boy love,

GOOD GOD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Of course not. I'm using examples. Why is it when people use examples someone always assumes you're attacking them? UNDERBEAR! If I meant YOU I'd address you. Otherwise it would be a stab in the rhetorical back. No Brutus am I.

Besides, to paraphrase my own comment, statistically most peds are hetero. But to go back to a point I made in a previous post, if you and I can so quick mistunderstand each others intent... two people who know squat about each other... how can two people who were so close not have problems when someone suddenly decides to say "just friends?"

Ah, and again, that IS another topic.

Adults even if they are female teachers who think they are too pretty to go to jail, MUST be given the exact same sentence you would bestow on a gay adult teacher with an underage boy

I agree. But this does bring up another topic. After they are both of age, and the teacher has served her sentence, should they be allowed to get together? Some think not. I'm uncomfortable with it, but once of age IS once of age. I also think MALE teachers who sleep with underage FEMALES should be treated the same. We shouldn't be doing some gender or sexual preference thing here... but protecting those who are not of age and punishing those who don't have enough self-discipline to keep themselves from crossing that line.

[brien]

Quote by: Ken Carman I suppose this thread could as easily go under theology or politics, but I think the main thrust (chuckle ) is here. Over at another thread I made the comment that we have a perfect right to hate anyone we wish. I'm not referring in any way to what hate does to us, although I have found that an interesting topic. I find hate keeps me from people who are dangerous, through either their (or my) stupidity, arrogance or perhaps even their evil nature... it's best to just keep the hell away from them. Others think hate always a destructive emotion to be avoided. Perhaps that would make another interesting thread. But the question I am posing is simply... whom do we have a right to love? It covers Gay rights, pedophile, multiple partners.. all the perversions and supposed perversions we debate as a society. Of course, included in the debate, would be... if we don't have the right to love someone, what should society do about it? How much can we, and how should we, interfer in personal choices? Here's one of many topics that could be covered within this thread... Recently there has been a tift about pedophiles looking at drawings of children and adults together. Now I view pedophile as one of the worst of crimes on a social scale. I do believe in severe punishment and banishment. Children by the very definition of being a child cannot consent. But... a drawing? Just how much can we legislate regarding what people imagine? Now of course we can argue that this is in no way "love," and I buy that... somewhat. But let's say that someone really does "love" in the physical sense, a child... and does not act upon it, is a productive member of society and essentially celebate. All he does is draw and look upon his fantasy "love." One day his fetish is discovered and exposed to all of society. What should we do, if anything? A lot of this brings out the libertarian in me. So, let's have at it. I'm opening the "flood gates," which leaves us, considering the topic, with a suggestive image some might regret?!

If someone loves a child, there is absolutely no room for pedophelia. I think you may be confusing love with lust. There is no way a adult could "love" a child and violate their personal safety and development. This is a sick excuse to allow a pedophile to be excused for their actions. Pedophiles are criminals who require incarceration and Psychiatric rehablitation.

That said, I don't care what type of visual stimuli people look at to get their jollies, but when they cross the line and violate the personal safety of another, they should be arrested, tried and if found guilty, sentenced appropriately.

People have the right to love anyone they choose. But let's not confuse lust, violence(rape), and the personal harm to others, with love.

[Osborn F Enready]

I can, AND WILL, love whomever I wish, without any regard to laws, social norms, or any other BS that is put up to stop independent decision making.

I am not a pedophile, I am not a rapist, I am not anything but an average man.

If society doesn't like what I do, society doesn't HAVE TO LOOK!

[Ken Carman]

Quote by: brien If someone loves a child, there is absolutely no room for pedophelia. I think you may be confusing love with lust. There is no way a adult could "love" a child and violate their personal safety and development. This is a sick excuse to allow a pedophile to be excused for their actions. Pedophiles are criminals who require incarceration and Psychiatric rehablitation. That said, I don't care what type of visual stimuli people look at to get their jollies, but when they cross the line and violate the personal safety of another, they should be arrested, tried and if found guilty, sentenced appropriately. People have the right to love anyone they choose. But let's not confuse lust, violence(rape), and the personal harm to others, with love.

Love in the sense of a physical act?


You're right... no room. Actions such as that cannot be excused. But the other side to this coin, if someone can "love" someone and not act on it addresses another comment you made...

Pedophiles are criminals who require incarceration and Psychiatric rehablitation.

I suppose, technically, if someone does not act on such feelings one is, legally, not defined as a "pedophile." But unacted upon feelings do not translate into...

lust, violence(rape), and the personal harm to others

In fact, if someone has such feelings and does not act upon them. perhaps the fact that they don't... maybe they don't out of "love?"

I do not pretend to understand the mind of such a person. I'm kind of an oddball myself. At 52 I look upon women in their 60s and think, "They're going to just right in a few years." My tastes have always grown with my years. I actually think that's unusual amongst males. I can't count ther number of males I've met who drool over some young thing when, to me, I have no interest.

Now I'm married, and have been for 30 years... happily so, so all this is mostly an "academic" exercise on my part. But the same was true when I was dating.

I'm not referring to "stimulation" here, unless you believe it's impossible that one can love someone so young. Obviously one shouldn't, but that not my point. We confuse sexual desire with love far too often. Sex is vastly over-rated. Always has been. Always will be. If someone believes they love an under-age person and acts upon it? Then they obviously didn't love that person... they lusted. For me, personally, sex without at least some love, or hope for love, is sexual organ manipulation through using someone as an object. One cannot "hope" to love someone who cannot possibly consent unless they have severe mental problems that go far beyond the intent of this thread.

(BTW, if someone wishes to go there while discussing this topic, I'm no anal policeman who wants to whip everyone into being "on topic." I don't care for control freaks either. Damn, hard to make such comments on this topic without innuendo, isn't it? :eek: )

[Samildanach]

I tend to look at all this kind of behaviour as inherited animalistic survival and gene transfer traits that in the past have probably served us as a species quite well.
I don't necessarily think that the individuals themselves have a problem. If you look at the animal world rape is a common behavioural reproductive instinct and I would guess that is because the animals that have raped in the past have been more successful at passing on their genes. I would say that that is probably also the case in situations like pedophilia as young animals are more vunerable and also have a good chance at producing healthy offspring. I think its probably a genetic legacy rather than an actual choice as such.
This being the case it should be possible to breed it out of the population by making it illegal and therefore inhibiting the reproductive prospects of said individuals. I am in no way trying to excuse the behaviour of people afflicted with these behavioural traits however I do believe it is not a completely conscious choice to choose what you are attracted to and what you are not attracted to. In fact I know its not a conscious choice. If anyone doubts that try being attracted to something that you are not attracted to....its pretty much not possible.
The only thing you can choose really is to act or not to act...and some of them buckle...in some sad ways it is understandable....well not understandable but pitiable. The sex drive is the strongest drive humans have and it can be very very hard to suppress in some circumstances as most of you will know.
Realistically for people who are pedophiles and cannot suppress it castration is the only option. Let the punishment fit the crime.

[underbear1]

Quote by: Samildanach I tend to look at all this kind of behaviour as inherited animalistic survival and gene transfer traits that in the past have probably served us as a species quite well. I don't necessarily think that the individuals themselves have a problem. If you look at the animal world rape is a common behavioural reproductive instinct and I would guess that is because the animals that have raped in the past have been more successful at passing on their genes. I would say that that is probably also the case in situations like pedophilia as young animals are more vunerable and also have a good chance at producing healthy offspring. I think its probably a genetic legacy rather than an actual choice as such. This being the case it should be possible to breed it out of the population by making it illegal and therefore inhibiting the reproductive prospects of said individuals. I am in no way trying to excuse the behaviour of people afflicted with these behavioural traits however I do believe it is not a completely conscious choice to choose what you are attracted to and what you are not attracted to. In fact I know its not a conscious choice. If anyone doubts that try being attracted to something that you are not attracted to....its pretty much not possible. The only thing you can choose really is to act or not to act...and some of them buckle...in some sad ways it is understandable....well not understandable but pitiable. The sex drive is the strongest drive humans have and it can be very very hard to suppress in some circumstances as most of you will know. Realistically for people who are pedophiles and cannot suppress it castration is the only option. Let the punishment fit the crime.

You state castration is the only option to stop pedofiles which denies the fact women may be pedofiles. All the drum beating about lifetime sentencing of pedofiles are all aimed at men and predominately at gay men. This is why I brought up the female teachers getting the SAME sentence, what ever the sentence the women get, the men get!
I also am uncomfortable with the people who fall on either side of an arbitrary line of adult/teen, love between someone 17 and 20 or 17 and 21 doesn't know the boundaries that say someone 35 and 15 should observe. The power difference is slight at best for a 21yo over a 17yo and I hope Justices make some allowances for these cases.

[underbear1]

Quote by: Ken Carman Quote by: xyzer There is a difference between loving someone and adopting some sort of aberrant behavior. As long as loving a puppy is legal who cares? It's when you start acting like a puppy that the problems begin. If we get around to adopting some sort of behavioral lifestyle it does cause problems because behavior is a temporary thing. You can turn it on or turn it off. It's your behavior after all? Of late we have behavioral victim classes being created. To me this is ridiculous! It implies I choose to behave in a different way therefore I deserve special treatment? Nonsense. Why not just behave in accordance with societal norms at least while you are out in society? Interesting. I enjoyed this posted, but I'm a little bothered by the first paragraph. I don't think it was the poster's intent... but it raises a crucial question... There are those who feel loving someone of the same sex is "aberrant." They might even equate that with your example of "acting like a puppy." Therefore, should that be banned? I think not. I believe our definition of both love and aberrant often needs to be a lot wider than it is. I think few here wish to elevate man-boy organization onto the pedestal of acceptibility. But as one poster stated, paraphrased of course, as long as the object of said love isn't endangered or hurt... my definition is pretty wide.

Ken Carman there were only 5 posters besides yourself when you said a FEW here wish to elevate man-boy love to acceptable. I am the only openly gay one of those 5 (to my knowledge) and man-boy by definition is GAY. So if few is 3 or more people = few , you have to admit my guess that I MIGHT be one of those your comment addressed isn't out of bounds.
Rereading your quote I realize I made the mistake of thinking you said "A few" and you just said "few", as in not many.Sorry.

[brien]

Quote by: Ken Carman Love in the sense of a physical act? You're right... no room. Actions such as that cannot be excused. But the other side to this coin, if someone can "love" someone and not act on it addresses another comment you made... I suppose, technically, if someone does not act on such feelings one is, legally, not defined as a "pedophile." But unacted upon feelings do not translate into... In fact, if someone has such feelings and does not act upon them. perhaps the fact that they don't... maybe they don't out of "love?" I do not pretend to understand the mind of such a person. I'm kind of an oddball myself. At 52 I look upon women in their 60s and think, "They're going to just right in a few years." My tastes have always grown with my years. I actually think that's unusual amongst males. I can't count ther number of males I've met who drool over some young thing when, to me, I have no interest. Now I'm married, and have been for 30 years... happily so, so all this is mostly an "academic" exercise on my part. But the same was true when I was dating. I'm not referring to "stimulation" here, unless you believe it's impossible that one can love someone so young. Obviously one shouldn't, but that not my point. We confuse sexual desire with love far too often. Sex is vastly over-rated. Always has been. Always will be. If someone believes they love an under-age person and acts upon it? Then they obviously didn't love that person... they lusted. For me, personally, sex without at least some love, or hope for love, is sexual organ manipulation through using someone as an object. One cannot "hope" to love someone who cannot possibly consent unless they have severe mental problems that go far beyond the intent of this thread. (BTW, if someone wishes to go there while discussing this topic, I'm no anal policeman who wants to whip everyone into being "on topic." I don't care for control freaks either. Damn, hard to make such comments on this topic without innuendo, isn't it? :eek: )

[quote=Ken Carman]Love in the sense of a physical act?


I think we should all understand that love is NOT a physical act. Intercourse is, fellatio is, as is cunnilingus. Love is an emotion.

One can love another and not act upon it in a way that involves physical intercourse. We all love our mothers but we don't "make love with them." We can show our love through kind acts and the giving of gifts, but as for "making love", unless you are Edipus Rex, then you don't engage in this activity.

Now do we understand the difference between the emotion and the physical acts?

I think you are perhaps confusing the fact that since one may feel love then it is a natural extension that they have to show that love physically. One can love a dog but are they going to make love with that dog? Well some might, but generally speaking, they don't. This is why I think some may interchange the word love for lust. People lust in a physical way but love in an emotional way.

You wrote: In fact, if someone has such feelings and does not act upon them. perhaps the fact that they don't... maybe they don't out of "love?"

I say: This is a perverse sense of love. It is like saying if I think that I can show love by physically abusing someone, then if I don't do it, it is perhaps because I "love" them? To quote Tina Turner: "What's love got to do with it"? This is not love. Just because someone restrains themselves from doing something immoral, one cannot contstrue this as acting out of love. It is probably more out of fear of the consequences, be that an overiding sense of guilt or getting exposed to the authorites. Excuse the pun.

By "sex" I take it you mean sexual intercourse. Sexual intercourse, and the emotions that are derived from the act, are subjective. It is a completely personal and distinctive feeling for the individual. No one individual can define the power of the emotions derived from it for another. So to conclude that "sex is over rated" is a conclusion upon your part that may or may not mean something valid for another individual.

The fact that other guys your age "drool" over young "things" says more about you than it does about them. It suggests that your emotional maturity is farther advanced than your friends, assuming they are you age as well. I am 54 and admire beauty. However, because I may admire a beautiful young woman, it doesn't mean I want to have sexual relations with her. Those who assume this, have it in their mind, and in Psychology it is called projection. They, because they feel this way, "project upon another" that the other person feels this way also, when in reality the other person doesn't feel that way at all.

In summary, love is an emotion that shouldn't be confused with sexual relations. Sexual relations can be the physical demonstration of love on one level, and be immorally wrong on another level. Sexual relations can be had with a prostitute and mean nothing at all in terms of love. One can demonstrate love without having sexual relations as well. These levels of "love" demonstrate the different types of "love" which is a word we use as a catch all for emotional feelings that we experience within our minds and seek to understand with others.

[PatrickHenry]

The definiton of love is the issue here.

Love and sex are related, but not identical. It can be very loving to REFRAIN from sex. We love our children. Does this give us an excuse to have sex with them? Of course not!

Love is not just an emotion. It is a verb.
Love is doing loving things.

Here's what the Bible says about love:

Quote by: 1Corinthians 13:4-8 Love is never tired of waiting; love is kind; love has no envy; love has no high opinion of itself, love has no pride; Love's ways are ever fair, it takes no thought for itself; it is not quickly made angry, it takes no account of evil; It takes no pleasure in wrongdoing, but has joy in what is true; Love has the power of undergoing all things, having faith in all things, hoping all things. Though the prophet's word may come to an end, tongues come to nothing, and knowledge have no more value, love has no end.

Love can have as its object any person or thing. I suggest loving people is the best.

I love people of all genders. I have sex only with my wife. :)

[underbear1]

"Love means never having to say you're sorry.....that's the stupidest thing I ever heard"

Streisand in What's Up Doc?