No zero tolerance?

[Ramo]

How is being an egoist being selfish? Egoism (and narcissism) is simply an inflated admiration of oneself.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Ramo
How is being an egoist being selfish?

From American Heritage Dictionary:

e·go·tist n.- A selfish, self-centered person

I am sorry for misspelling the word earlier.

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by Ramo


So if everyone but pedophiles miraculously get killed, pedophilia would no longer be a mental disorder?

Well, obviously yes.

Are there some instances in which psychiatry uses socially acceptible behavioral norms as a factor in determining what behaviors are disordered and what are not? Yes.

Let me point a few things out to you: If you're a pedophile and manage to keep it to yourself you're not going to wind up in treatment unless you ask for it, are you? If you ask for treatment your pedophilia is obviously a disorder, because it's bothering you enough to cause you to shell out HUGE amounts of money for treatment. ( You're not going to send the bills for treatment of pedophilia to your insurance comany are you? )

[MrFun]

Kleptomania, schizphrenia, celibacy, priesthood, pedophiles, homosexuals, property inheritance patterns, and statistics!!!

Ah yes --- welcome to another Off-Topic thread that has an entire crock pot of sub-topics.



But seriously --- celibacy in the Catholic clergy is not pratical. And it has no real moral purpose either.

[Spiffor]

Once I heard a "scientific" definition of perversion. It's open to critics, but it obeys to the laws of a definition :

"A perversion is a sexual attraction to an individual you can't reproduce with."

This definition doesn't consider "perversion" negative, only non-reproductive. With this definition, homosexuality, pedophila, but also gerontophilia are considered perversions. Even "doing" (errm, how can I get past the vocabulary interdiction ?) a pregnant woman can be considered as a perversion. Only straight sex with someone able to reproduce is not.

This definition, of course, has nothing to do with morals. It just gives a reference.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Spiffor
Once I heard a "scientific" definition of perversion. It's open to critics, but it obeys to the laws of a definition :

"A perversion is a sexual attraction to an individual you can't reproduce with."

This definition doesn't consider "perversion" negative, only non-reproductive. With this definition, homosexuality, pedophila, but also gerontophilia are considered perversions. Even "doing" (errm, how can I get past the vocabulary interdiction ?) a pregnant woman can be considered as a perversion. Only straight sex with someone able to reproduce is not.

This definition, of course, has nothing to do with morals. It just gives a reference.

It does not really matter that the intelligentia does not see perversion as a negative connotation. Society does see it as something negative or bad.

I would have to disagree with classifying sexual behavior between two mutually consenting adults as perverted, just because they are of the same gender.

[Az]

Mr.Fun : I think what he tries to say is : "hey , I really discourage it , and I think we should educate people not to do this, but If you do this anyway, I am ok with that. " . like smoking.

do you have a problem with this statement?

[Adam Smith]

Originally posted by Lefty Scaevola

Inded ther is the possiblility of a married person becoming a priest, and it occurs rarely, but when someone does so HE IS STILL REQUIRED TO BECOME CELIBATE.

Not the case. There currently are some married priests in the Catholic Church. These priests were Episcopalians ministers who converted to become Roman Catholics, or Orthodox priests who converted to become Byzantine Catholics. In each case they were married before they converted to Catholicism, and they are not required to be celibate. (Hard to see how their wives would approve.)

[Guynemer]

Originally posted by Osweld
As for the 'American Psychiatric Association', or Strangelove's post -

Seems to me that they are concerned about little more then dictating what is to be 'normal' or accepted and what is to be 'abnormal' or deviant.

Quite frankly, I couldn't care less about what they have to say.

Seems to me that they are concerned about little more than helping people deal with their problems, in order to live a full life.

If people have the motivation you describe, there are far more efficient ways of achieving that goal than becoming a psychiatrist.

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by Spiffor
Once I heard a "scientific" definition of perversion. It's open to critics, but it obeys to the laws of a definition :

"A perversion is a sexual attraction to an individual you can't reproduce with."

This definition doesn't consider "perversion" negative, only non-reproductive. With this definition, homosexuality, pedophila, but also gerontophilia are considered perversions. Even "doing" (errm, how can I get past the vocabulary interdiction ?) a pregnant woman can be considered as a perversion. Only straight sex with someone able to reproduce is not.

This definition, of course, has nothing to do with morals. It just gives a reference.

Whose definition was this?

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by Adam Smith
Not the case. There currently are some married priests in the Catholic Church. These priests were Episcopalians ministers who converted to become Roman Catholics, or Orthodox priests who converted to become Byzantine Catholics. In each case they were married before they converted to Catholicism, and they are not required to be celibate. (Hard to see how their wives would approve.)

Yes tere have been a few, but from what I understand the Catholic church wasn't happy with the results and there won't be any more.

[Lefty Scaevola]

Originally posted by Adam Smith
There currently are some married priests in the Catholic Church. These priests were Episcopalians ministers who converted to become Roman Catholics, or Orthodox priests who converted to become Byzantine Catholics. In each case they were married before they converted to Catholicism, and they are not required to be celibate.

I was thinking of the few that were ordained directly into Catholosism after being married, most of them who had already become celibate for personal or medical reasons, I had forgotten about the conversions.

[Ned]

Although this may sound stupid, but aren't celibacy and marriage two different topics?

Ned

[Shi Huangdi]

While I admit to being disappointed by this ruling, we will have to wait for the US council of Catholic Bishops meeting in Dallas in June. There is some chance they might adopt a zero tolerance policy.

[Lefty Scaevola]

Originally posted by Ned
Although this may sound stupid, but aren't celibacy and marriage two different topics?

They are pretty much intertwined to the catholic church.