View Single Post
Old 10-25-2012, 06:42 PM
Kenny_C.002's Avatar
Kenny_C.002 Offline
/人◕ ‿‿ ◕人\
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Hina <3
Posts: 12,268
Send a message via AIM to Kenny_C.002
Default Re: Homosexuality Ethically Accepted?

Originally Posted by Teddiursa of the Sky View Post
There are negative psychological effects when pedophilia is acted upon. But, again, I do not hold them responsible for it (unless of course they act upon it, because it is negative).
Again, we are drawing a mirror between homosexuality and pedophilia. Obviously we are talking about ones who are acting on their genetic predisposition, one which we do persecute for and one that we shouldn't. It is not the genetic predisposition that's the issue, but the sociocultural issue that surrounds it that makes us persecute pedophilia but not homosexuality. That's the point I was trying to get across.

Originally Posted by Neptune's Disciple View Post
I think religion keeps getting brought up because a lot of people's sense of ethics and morality are based on religion, and it can be used to justify people's both positive and negative views on homosexuality.

I really cannot fathom how homosexuality is constantly compared to paedophilia. Homosexual acts are committed between consenting adults.

We freely prosecute for paedophilia because, as Teddiursa of the Sky has pointed out, paedophilia has long lasting negative psychological effects. It is also committed with non-consenting people, who often do not have the mental capacity to understand what is happening, or that they have the ability to say no. There are so many things wrong with paedophilia that I couldn't even begin to list them.

Coming back to your point about it being a genetic condition/predisposition, some people are more likely to develop sociopathic tendencies than others, suggesting a predisposition for murder and other heinous crimes (of which, I would include paedophilia), should we not prosecute them for it because of a 'genetic predisposition'?
The study of ethics was born to transcend religion and provide a correct standard to which the rules can be abide by without having to dip into religion. This is why you can objectively state that there is no ethical issues with homosexuality, rather than subjectively state through religion that there is or isn't any issue with homosexuality.

No, we persecute people for acting upon a genetic predisposition. What I wasn't communicating through the text was that, due to the context that Teddiursa placed upon, which dealt with an action towards a particular genetic predisposition that is being persecuted. Where in anybody's right mind would we do something as stupid as "thought policing"?

We compare and contrast pedophilia with homosexuality because...they both have genetic predispositions and one is a hideous crime while the other has no ethical issues. That's why we do that.
Reply With Quote