Posted on 08/09/2002 8:59:43 AM PDT by NYer
It's not really all that convincing as a rational argument. It merely shifts the debate to other issues, such as whether it really ruins sex (and we know there are "reputable" people who say it doesn't), or perhaps something else. And then we're back to worrying about whether that is "just wrong."
I have seen a young person face homosexuality and I have seen it before he saw it, I have seen him struggle to hide his problems as he tried to understand how what he viewed as normal was different than what other people considered normal.
I know all the pat sayings that they choose this lifestyle but I beg to differ - something goes wrong in some of their development. I feel there are two types of homosexuals - those that don't develop naturally for what ever reason and those that seek deviation same as other sexual deviancy. The deviant seekers I condemn, the others I hold judgement on and pray for.
Now, the first group may be caused by the actions of the latter group - I have no way of knowing. Yet, I know what I have seen and it is a horrible tragedy for that young person. I cannot add to his hurt although I deplore the activities that his desires might lead him to.
This is another reason that I hate child porn, child sexual promoters - they care not what they do to that child and how they bring tragedy to the child's life.
Essentially to assert moral superiority of homosexuality over any other sexually deviant practice is to assert moral absolutes which they cannot back up except through examples of "social norms" and other relative arguments.
Unfortunately, in discussions such as this, I am always amazed about the lack of interest. You would think this thread would be over 1,000 posts by now so horrible is the notion of child sex of any kind - but we are so complacent about it that we just see an article about it and go on to things such as " Hillary Accepts Contributions from Boston Area Muslim Terrorist Supporters" which has 500+ responses or "House Majority Leader warns against unprovoked attack on Iraq"which has 403 responses and so on. Those are important issues but I watch announcements such as this go by with a few sarcastic barbs and think - but this is inevitable in light of our acceptance of other sexually deviant behaviors unless we stop and examine why we believe something is right or wrong.
Anyway - we're on the same side is the important message here.
Who knows?
Just to clarify I think they could say "It's not like we're raping anyone - it's consentual after all."
Umm... am I spelling that word wrong? Consentual? *goes to get a dictionary*
I'm afraid that the same rationality can be used in terms of child sex. You think of this as only an issue of "rape" but for those who have come to see the possibilities of child-sex as a normal social function it's not rape at all. It would not be long before people are saying "there are two types of pedophiles." Those who develop naturally to no fault of their own and those that seek deviation same as "other" sexual defiancy.
In my opinion homosexuality and pedophilia of any kind (rape or not) is based on the same fundamental issue - the fallen state of man.
The problem is, if homosexuals have an argument to pursue that lifestyle, because they have those desires and that it harms no one else, then pedophiles, too will have the same argument once more phycologists and doctors say that a sexually active child does not suffer harm in all cases.
What's to rethink?
There is a world of difference between "tolerating" and "normalizing". That is why the battle will not die down.
And although "tolerating" is possible when "consenting adults" are involved (even though in my opinion "normalizing" is not) where children are involved it's apples and oranges.
Isn't it nice that societies and cultures all around the world are capable of demonstrating the nature of God after which they were fashioned?
It used to be difficult.
Now they wear tee shirts.
This idea is alive in the land. It is penetrating mainstream culture at various points, and the "monster-NAMBLA" archetype is slowly morphing into something else --- something less odious and less roundly condemned. The flood of pornography available on the net certainly plays a role in the change.
As impossible as it seemed just a few decades ago when they first engaged the issue, sexual liberationists are winning the battle for the minds and hearts of large portions of the American people. They wanted people to think of sexual expression as nothing more significant than a sneeze. And guess what? Based on their behavior, tens of millions of Americans now agree with them. It is hard to imagine any counter-force gaining steam in today's culture. On the contrary, I see attitudes becoming more and more libidinous, up to and including advocacy groups publicly speaking out in defense of the kind of people we read about in today's report.
Bingo. After seeing millions of spam emails advertising "Lolita sex and incest" even the most staunch conservative would start to be less and less offended by hearing such things.
"But why are they?"
"They just are."
I don't see a lot of progress.
I believe it's because there is a God, and that He has set before us certain standards, which He has made known to us, which we know to be true, and for which we will be held accountable.
I also believe that without God it is impossible to say that something is wrong.
One interesting thrust of this debate is that religion and God are being held up as mere points of view by both believers and non-believers -- at which point the religious argument is lost, because believers have given up the right to fall back on God.
The only remaining grounds for debate are pragmatic and emotional, and neither of them allows us to say pedophilia is "wrong, wrong, wrong."
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.