LGBT News Trump nominee Sam Clovis: 'As far as we know' homosexuality's a choice...

CNN

Still, much of what he said isn't new, it's what many have been saying/warning for years.

""Follow the logic, if you engage in a particular behavior, what also becomes protected? If we protect LGBT behavior, what other behaviors are we going to protect? Are we going to protect pedophilia? Are we going to protect polyamorous marriage relationships? Are we going to protect people who have fetishes? What's the logical extension of this? It can't be that we're going to protect LGBT and then we'll pull up the ladder. That's not going to happen, it defies logic. We're not thinking the consequences of these decisions through.""

I remember reading how many believe pedophilia is also a sexual orientation, a 'sexual disposition they don't choose' 'it's genetic'. It's why it's such a sticky topic, because not only is there conflicts of worldview, but if you take a hard dogmatic stance it's implications either seal off or open doors, of which some doors may be disastrous. From a morality standpoint based on genetics and a classical Darwinian model of philosophy, if you accept the one then you accept the other, and the other, and the other, ad infinitum.

 

Still, I think people who thought Trump would do anything to uphold or help with LGBT rights is woefully ignorant, and willling naive, given the base that propelled him to power, and their beliefs.

His Justice Department Appointee Jeff Sessions is already fighting against gay rights in the workplace, and in terms of housing; Trump issued the transgender military ban, and is loading the courts with anti-gay nominees.

I think we'll see the gay marriage ruling slowly chipped away, much like Roe. V. Wade; if they can't overturn it, they will work to make gay marriage as legally meaningless as possible, and slowly chip away at it.

It is truly beyond me that anyone thought Trump could possibly be benign to the causes of the LGBT community.

 

Dorian makes an important point here. The LGBT community does need to distance itself morally and logically from pedophilia and other "paraphilias". Pedophilia is not a "sexual orientation" and it shouldn't be treated like one, yet even on this site I have seen some problematic language surrounding the discussion of pedophilia. The slippery slope is a potential logical consequence, not a logical necessity. But its lack of necessity needs to be demonstrated philosophically and legally. I attempted to post a thread about this topic once. It quickly turned nasty and was shut down. If this is something that the LGBT community cannot adequately discuss or resolve, then you may see same-sex marriage defeated on the altar of comparison with pedophilia and incest and that would be a moral loss.

Relevant tangent aside, I do not see Trump's choice of potentially LGBT-unfriendly staff as surprising in the least. Whatever Trump's personal ambivalence toward the LGBT community may be, there's no doubt that most of his presidency so far has been characterized by pandering to a base of far more socially conservative mores, and this is expected.

 

This is just more of the ignorance and 'fake facts' you would expect from Trump amd his ilk, by making a false comparison linking sexual orientation to pedophilia. Pedophiles rarely experiece sexual attraction for adults of either gender. The majority of pedophiles identify as heterosexual, even those who abuse children of the same gender. The sex of the child is less relevant to the pedophile than accessibility.

Trump and his team continue to use hate-fueled rhetoric against groups they don't like and should face a Human Rights complaint for spewing misinformation which incites hatred and potential violence against the LGBTQ population.

 

Okay, but being LGBT isn't abuse. Pedophilia is always abusive. Sure, any relationship can be abusive, but pedophilia always is.

 

Well, it's the idea that belief and philosophy in terms of the world and how we view or judge things is based on worldview. For example, in a classical Darwinian or more naturalistic or Atheist worldview, humans are not different from animals in the sense that both are 2 dimensional beings having a body and soul. Because of this thought, people are the sum of their product, their genetics if you will. As such in terms of science and Atheism free will is considered an illusion or a construct simply because by definition it isn't possible to go outside of your making.

This presupposition based on this worldview, therefore makes it hard to draw moral distinctions on the basis of a lack of free will and an objective morality. So if morality is subjective, then one cannot assertedly be a Lawmaker to supersede another's moral standing (hence why it's easy to argue or having differing views on right or wrong if there is no transcendental morality going outside subjectivity).

Though, going back to in terms of the notion of sexuality; if being gay is not a choice ergo genetic or as part of the person's sum, then it stands to reason if someone is also predisposed to pedophilia, incest, beastiality or what have you it is effectively no different. If it's asserted as a choice, it would face different legality and presuppostion regarding the nature of it, of which a more plausible/arguable stance may be derived (To the chagrin but also pride of some).

Now a person could argue personal morals regarding such issues, but the conflict comes into play based on the foundation of the premise itself. A person could argue ideology or philosophy, but those work with the presuppostions that stem from the underlying worldview/faith/belief by which people carry themselves (Example: If Islam is true, then the 'good' works one commits will sway the actions ideals and even personal morals of the one adhering to such belief. I worked with an Atheist coworker who stole company jackets and said 'it's only wrong if I get caught', which according to his worldview is correct).

For a more indepth example, a Christian's worldview is stemmed with God and subsequently the Bible. God is morality itself, God is the standard of good, so anything going outside of God's nature is effectively 'bad' or 'sin'. Just like darkness is the absence of light, so too do we define what is bad by a lack of it's 'good'. The reason why homosexuality is a sin to Christians as example, is that marriage itself represents the Triunity of God bearing God's image, and also as a testimony to the 3 dimensional nature of man (Body Soul Spirit, as God is Body(Son) Soul(Father) Spirit(Spirit/Ghost). It also represents the Church and Bride of Christ, so on and so forth.
Homosexual relations are in effect simply put as 'not how it's meant to be', since it breaks the harmony and nature of God and man's image (Father Son Spirit, 3 in 1 and 1 in 3. Man has a body soul spirit, 3 in 1 and 1 in 3. When a man and a woman come together, they create a child, 3 in 1 and 1 in 3).
It's categorically a sin, but it's often overstated compared to others (Adultery and general immorality is a more endemic sin, since it effectively just means any sex outside of the marriage) .

Another example is from Beauty and the Beast. 'Little Town' is a song about Belle not conforming to the ideals and notions of the society in which she lives. In the song there is the line 'It's a pity and a sin, that she doesn't quite fit in'. In this context, the 'sin' she commits is that she is not doing what is 'good' or 'right' in concordance with the town and it's customs/culture. In sports 'golf sin' could simply be poor form in golfing.


It's a very longwinded (Though largely summarized) expression on the simple premise that, the reason why people have so many differences on even moral things is because the foundation and worldview that supports them comes with differing presuppositions. Christianity would tell you that because all people are Imago Dei beings (Made in God's Image), that all have intrinsic value and rights as sovereign beings, so to violate the individual is evil (Even if that freedom is used for evil, of which that is to be dealt with by God alone as righteous judge).
From a naturalistic standpoint, this may not be a universally held view, seeing as morals and beliefs and values evolve with the times and societies and individuals in which they perpetuate; as such there are many denominations (Not withstanding Atheism (IE. Hard/Positive Atheism vs Soft/Negative Atheism)) and walks of life through the ages (Paganism (nature worship) was largely a spiritual expression of a naturalist view, Mayan blood sacrifice was seen as not only moral, but a thing to be rewarded or revered).


If the LGB community wants to settle the issue imo, the only way I see it is to either:

Accept it as a choice (Thus the argument becomes the nature and implication of the choice itself based on it's own merit and evidences, in concordance with the worldview espousing it).

That it's not a choice as determined by genetics (In which case it opens the floodgates or the 'slippery slope' notion by which other philia or desires may be argued).

And/or to take control of a country or government to enforce a legislation that supports the thoughts beliefs and worldviews of some but not others (Because it does not necessarily presume either of the former outcomes). This is currently going on. Some see it as an 'agenda', but it's effectively a shift in cultural/world belief as being enforced into the rules via a growing worldview supplanting a growing minority, in which the presuppositions and positions of the culture/society is so prominent that it becomes gospel to the time and place in which it dwells.

How do you define abuse though? What I said above ties into this; what you find as abuse I may not find as abuse. We could perhaps agree on a base definition, but to some being homosexual or rather engaging in homosexual activity is also abuse. Unless a person can assert an objective morality, or enforce a subjective morality through law as being objective (Objective-relative/subjective-societal morality), then to define and quantify such a thing is complicated at best.

In certain pockets of history, pedophilia was actually seen as more moral (Or perhaps, less immoral) as to how it is today (Though even in our current time it's starting to gain some acceptance).
Our society has begun to reflect a Greek/Roman hellenistic zeitgeist in which gregarious, hedonistic living has become the standard. Entertainments, foods, lusts, vices are often treated as virtuous or 'cool'. In those times homosexuality was very common, as was pederasty (sexual activity involving a man and a boy). It was not uncommon for a heterosexually-married man to have a boy on the side.

This is an excerpt from wikipedia (Wikipedia is a regrettable source to cite meaningful information from, but it often suffices in more layman issues) on "Homosexuality in ancient Rome" which reads: "Roman men were free to enjoy sex with other males without a perceived loss of masculinity or social status, as long as they took the dominant or penetrative role. ... Although Roman men in general seem to have preferred youths between the ages of 12 and 20 as sexual partners, freeborn male minors were strictly off limits, and professional prostitutes and entertainers might be considerably older." " The usual age of betrothal for upper classes girls was 14, but for patricians as early as 12. Weddings were often postponed until the girl was considered mature enough."

This is just an example from Roman times, but the pedophilic acts were not considered abuse. They had many laws and regulations, and drew distinctions between the consensual and the dissensual in terms of acts.

We could use Islam/Muhammad as an example, a much more recent one coming from an entirely different worldview and system of beliefs.

"Aisha had an important role in early Islamic history, both during Muhammad's life and after his death. ... She contributed to the spread of Muhammad's message and served the Muslim community for 44 years after his death. She is also known for narrating 2210 hadiths, not just on matters related to the Prophet's private life, but also on topics such as inheritance, pilgrimage, and eschatology.

Aisha was one of Muhammad's many wives, and "her name is thus often prefixed by the title "Mother of the Believers" (Arabic: أمّ المؤمنين umm al-mu'minīn), per the description of Muhammad's wives in the Qur'an."

She was the daughter of Abu Bakr, who became the first caliph to succeed Muhammad.
"The majority of traditional hadith sources state that Aisha was married to Muhammad at the age of six or seven, but she stayed in her parents' home until the age of nine, or ten according to Ibn Hisham, when the marriage was consummated with Muhammad, then 53, in Medina."

I once worked with a Muslim man, and talked to him regarding this and his thoughts on the age of Aisha. His response was a chuckle with 'Hey, age is just a number'.

'allah's ideal prophet' according to Islam was a pedophile among other things, and is defended as their main prophet.

So while I could even be inclined to agree with your sentiment, it's at best subjective and is carried forth by your own worldview, so it's not that cut and dry =\

 

There is no comparison between being gay and being a pedophile.

Polygamy is already justified in the Bible so when Christians say stuff like slippery slope they look like hypocrites to me.

If your religion prevents you from doing wrong things then something is fundamentally flawed with your character.

Sometimes I don't trust religious people because of that.

They are only doing good things to get into heaven.

You don't need religion to tell you that pedophilia is wrong.

 

Incest is also justified in the Bible. All the men were supposedly dead so they had no choice but to have sex with their father.

Genesis 19: 33 - 35

 

So the entire religion of Christianity would not be possible without this incestuous act.

 

As someone who has read the book for herself, there's unfortunately a lot more to it than that. Let me add their "marriages" also contained rape and slavery, which I'll just say is the lowest possible bar to aim for.

It's incredibly ironic when they judge the "sanctity" of ours. But I digress, the US craved incompetence, and that's just what we got.

Though one thing is a choice; and that's remaining ignorant and treating it as a virtue.

 

I believe that God offers no condemnation as long as you try and be the best person you can be. In the old books of the bible Gods chosen people could not follow his instructions, so how can we. Hence he sent his son to die for us on the cross. We need to teach the younger generation not to hate, the old ones, like this idiot in the article won't live forever.......

Dean

 

Many things wrong with this guy for such a position, but typical of trump/pence picks. He said, "...then other people genetically-disposed like left-handed people should receive constitutional protections as well." That alone shows what an idiot he is unless he's aware of cases where left-handed people have been refused marriage license or fired from a job, etc. Same deal for people with fetishes. He gives a pass to religion which is fully a choice, due to tradition, but then goes on to say in order to include being gay in civil rights protection it has to be obvious by visual examination. Typical contorted "logic." He argues there aren't enough gay people to warrant protection. As for pedophilia, that harms someone. Everything he says on the subject is obvious BS and were smacked down by the USSC.

If him being an ignorant bigot who can't form solid arguments isn't enough, "...his lack of scientific background makes him unqualified for the USDA post overseeing science." Once again this is consistent with other nominees and part of the plan to weaken government departments and abolish them.

As for people who thought trump would do good for anyone other than himself and other billionaires, just sad.

 

This guy will be in the department of agriculture. There is evidence of sheep and cattle being gay.
Will he send these animals to 'pray the gay away' conversion therapies?

It appears that the only requirement for a 'science' position in the Trump administration is to be a village idiot!

 

Regardless on whether you pedophilia is an actual orientation or not, having sex with children is always abusive and can't be justified while having sex and being in a relationship with someone of the same sex isn't necessarily abusive. Because you can't not affect a child negatively by having sex with them, having sex with children is unacceptable but since being attracted to someone the same sex doesn't inherently have a negative impact on other's people's life you can't compare those two and say 'if you accept one you have to accept the other as well'.

 

You're preaching to the choir, it's just that this is what, virtually, the ENTIRE VILLAGE OF IDIOTS running this cursed country believe and say about lgbt. They also compare us to bestiality. People in charge. Of a country. And every single one has said something awful or stupid about gays.

 

So, let's think about this a bit here...

The argument that conservatives generally give is a variation on the 'slippery slope' which says that if society accepts homosexuality and/or same-sex marriage than it logically follows that we are on a path to societal acceptance of pedophilia. Although it is rarely stated, pedophilia in this context virtually always seems to mean (Among both the anti-LGBT and (even) pro-LGBT sides) 'adult men having sex with underage boys' . However, this line of argument seems to virtually ignore the fact that the vast majority of sex going on between adults and underage children is going on between adult men and underage girls.

Some admittedly quick-n-dirty googling turned up this site, which indicates that 15% of all sexual assault victims are under the age of 17 and that 82% of all juvenile victims are female. This related site, drills down even further on juvenile victims, and indicates that "One in 9 girls and 1 in 53 boys under the age of 18 experience sexual abuse or assault at the hands of an adult."

The upshot of all this is that the vast majority adults having sex with underage children are apparently straight men having sex with girls. And a key point is that this is deemed 'assault' or 'abuse'.

But wait, there's more. A quick bit of googling on school girl lingerie turns up a host of websites selling provocative (And often quite revealing) costumes that are based on the sort of private/parochial school uniforms underage girls supposedly wear, as well as a mix of other outfits including cheerleader outfits emblazoned with such labels as (and I am not making this up) 'Daddy', 'Papi', and 'Cherry'. Any number of TV shows, movies and music videos have also played with this trope btw.

This, all in a society that sanctions opposite-sex marriage both legally and socially while legally (and in theory) condemning adult men having sex with underage females (although apparently the fantasy of having sex with an underage female is acceptable, although not widely discussed or acknowledged).

Perhaps we should make opposite sex marriage illegal since its legality apparently promotes a host of sexual assaults and an entire industry built on the fantasy of an adult man having sex with a female child?

But wait, I can hear people saying - that's not how it works in practice. Society doesn't consider it acceptable for female children to be sexually assaulted (they probably don't want to talk about the lingerie thing). We have laws against that, and the multi-thousand year tradition of opposite sex marriage is separate from that. One is a cherished tradition, the other is a deviant behavior society takes steps to prevent and punish.

Ok then - if acceptance of heterosexuality and opposite sex marriage can exist while society does NOT simultaneously slide down the slippery slope to acceptance of adult men having sex with underage girls (and indeed the very concept of an age of consent and the virtual extinction of legal child marriage in Western societies and so on would seem to actually point to societal movement AWAY from acceptance of such things over the last 300-500yrs or so) then it would seem to logically follow that society could accept homosexuality and same-sex marriage while not also simultaneously accepting adult men having sex with underage boys.

In other words, conservatives really don't have a leg to stand on when they try to argue that acceptance of same-sex relationships opens the door to acceptance of pedophilia. Decades, perhaps even centuries of social development with regards to opposite-sex relationships show that this is not the case (at least on the basis of the laws on the books and the lip-service given to them - the whole lingerie thing and related is a rather dark counter-point with whiffs of hypocrisy, perhaps). Unless, they also want to argue that acceptance of straight relationships also leads down a slippery slope to acceptance of pedophilia. Which would be an interesting argument to hear, but not one I'm going to hold my breath on.

My 2c worth,

Todd

 

He doesn't mean that. It's just fake news stories. You guys can't believe what you hear on the news except for HLN because they're the only ones who tell the truth.