Printable View
Making a choice not to act on an impulse is not the same thing as that avoided act being inherently harmful. Going back to broccoli as an example, if someone doesn't like broccoli they can still make the choice to eat it if they force themselves but it's not actually harmful to anyone either way, and that's the same with homosexuality. The same cannot be said of paedophilia because there is always at least one victim when those urges are acted upon, and therefore the act itself is harmful
To read all that is really interesting. It's comical I know that this grabbed my attention, but it's the sort of debate that gets shunned on & nobody talks about due to it being pure taboo. Gay marriage was very much like that, nobody would dare utter the word but hey look at the world now. Difference is though, people accepted Gays way before whereas this sort of thing is shunned worldwide.
I'm intrigued on where this debate goes, I don't think any laws will be changed as there are some despicable people in this world who would hurt children for their own sexual gains, but for this to be spoken about in a sensible manner is a breath of fresh air.
How is it sensible? It just reinforces that terrible stereotype that men think about sex, sex, sex. A stupid idea that means that people wonder about a ulterior motive when you try to work in childcare or teaching.
Given those people talking about that likely know there's such people who are asexual, I doubt that is their intention. Might be a by-product of it, but I think it's something to discuss. The amount of times I hear about young lads dating girls who look much older than they actually are. I'm aware of whose underage around here and whose not because I used to work in a damn school, and I pull up my mates tons of times like yeah she's a LOT younger than she looks (for clarity, some of these girls look 17-18 and are wearing bikinis everywhere). But it's the guys fault that they find that attractive I guess, Bikinis are all about function >.>Quote:
Originally Posted by Inseriousity.
Because otherwise people will bend morality to whatever suits them. I feel or want X so i'll say that Y is now moral, as we've now seen with the sky high abortion rates in which thousands of babies are butchered every year, as well as the rise of STDs (among gay and straight).Quote:
Originally Posted by Chippiewill
Without a moral code, which I believe Christianity provided the best one, you get relative morality which is incredibly dangerous.
A moral code still needs to actually make sense and not just be NO IT'S WRONG BECAUSE
And again I would say that the STD/HIV rates speak for themselves.Quote:
Originally Posted by FlyingJesus
Aaaaaaaaand again we're back to your belief that gay sex magically creates STDs
You can't justify having a moral code by saying immoral things will happen without it.Quote:
Originally Posted by -:Undertaker:-