“What it boils down to is this: if we change laws which validate one particular type of sexual relationship which is entirely based on sexual preference to validate one other type of sexual relationship, still based on sexual preference, how are we not still discrimintating against other types of sexual preference, whatever they may be, by not validating them as well?“

I would like to attempt to answer your question but I am not clear as to what that question is. You are saying we have laws that “validate” a type of sexual relationship. And you are asking “if we change” those laws that “validate one particular type of sexual expression” (making certain sexual acts illegal?) in order to “validate one other type of sexual realtionship” —

And that is where I am confused. How could making a certain sexual relationship illegal actually validate another? If you would be so kind to reword your question – perhaps use an example?

Since I’ve always framed the debate in this manner, and nobody has ever wanted to debate me on facts, I’ve never been able to see how badly the semantically loaded terms I was using seem to bias my point. Thanks for helping me to see that.

That being said, I now understand what my actual point is, but since I’ve worn the thread out pretty badly coming to this understanding, I don’t know if anybody is willing to still talk about it. What it boils down to is this: if we change laws which validate one particular type of sexual relationship which is entirely based on sexual preference to validate one other type of sexual relationship, still based on sexual preference, how are we not still discrimintating against other types of sexual preference, whatever they may be, by not validating them as well?

While I know see the straw nature of my comparison to pedophilia, I’m still left with my question… Any takers?

“Why is it okay to move it past homosexuality but not past pedophilia?“

I think the obvious difference between the two is that the latter implies “children”. Of course, we should immediately put aside a definition of “child” according to age – as that would miss the point entirely and produce a superficial look at the matter. To me, what is implied by the term “child” is one who has not psychologically and emotionally developed to a sufficient enough level in order to discern that someone may be manipulating them. You go on to say –

“In the same way that there is a genetic predispoisition for homosexuality, there is also a genetic predisposition to love children.“

I am curious as to what you mean by “love”. To me, love goes hand in hand with respect and selflessness. If I flirt with a child in order to get that child to gratify my sexual desires, am I acting in a “loving” way to that child? Am I caring for and respecting that child? One deserves, do they not?, an opportunity to emotionally grow without being coerced (no matter how gently it may appear on the surface) to perform sexual acts in order to satiate an adult’s desires. Love has nothing whatsoever to do with sexual gratification. There is nothing wrong with sexual desire – please don’t get me wrong – but do not equate the act of sex with love. The way you have used the word “love” makes one think that loving children is like loving chocolate or a television show or a bottle of wine. Children are thinking, feeling, cognitively and emotionally undeveloped human beings. And although this unfortunately all-too-often occurs, they are not objects for adult, sexual use.

In fact, neither are other adults. We only tolerate the objectivism of adult human beings because we see that your average adult has the mental capacity to decide for themselves if they want to enter into

A) a relationship based on sexual gratification without love

or

B) a loving relationship that may or may not include sexual gratification

I hope I have made myself clear.

At any rate, it looks like this discussion and attempt at having my (unwitting) straw man burnt, or at least at having my question answered has utterly failed. Hopefully me and the Misters Mice will be able to find some other occassion where I can be enlightened.

Let me make this clear one more time, I’m not trying to troll, I’m just trying to see the logical distinction here, which I’m clearly missing due to my cultural background.

An error occurred:

You must define a Comment Pending template.

Sorry, I am determined to get this posted…

It was not so long ago Homosexuality was considered a disease, people were thought to have been “made” this way and could be “unmade” or “cured” of their “mental illness.” paranoia was rampant, homosexuals were – ARE – widely feared to be in the business of “indoctrinating” children or preying upon them.