Being Gay, what IS the unnatural reason then?

[Karis]

Once they've done that, then the way we feel towards them is driven by their actions and thus can't be thought of as a prejudice. It's a considered response to behaviour that is damaging.

 

However, one huge difference which isn't factored in here is the fact that, when done properly, one act is consensual and the other almost certainly isn't (although that's not always the case).

 

We should always feel strong emotions toward something that's done to the detriment of another.

[Jessica23]

However, one huge difference which isn't factored in here is the fact that, when done properly, one act is consensual and the other almost certainly isn't (although that's not always the case).

 

We should always feel strong emotions toward something that's done to the detriment of another.

 

Which is consensual? Paedophilia or homophobia?

 

I don't see that either of them are.

[PaliRichard]

 

Originally Posted by PaliRichard

Agreed, but if I may play devils advocate a little here, could we not also say that we ourselves are prejudiced because we disagree with paedophilia which is itself 'natural'. Could the fact that we have put a label of morality on it in fact just be there to cover up our own prejudice?

 

I'll leave that one with you, it's going a little off topic I think but it is relevant to your post.[/Quote]

 

Relevant how?

 

Because the whole topic of this thread has been about whether homosexuality is natural or not. As we have concluded (apart from those who you are terming prejudiced) it is entirely natural.

 

I may say I disagree with those who are against homosexuality using the argument that it is unnatural, but if we acknowledge it is natural, and we acknowledge paedophilia is natural, then what is the difference between their prejudice and ours? Other than our claim of morality there is really little difference in the two stances.

 

As morality and prejudice are both human constructs it's a little bit like a game of tit for tat. ultimately we should look at our own motivations, if they are deemed to be just by the law and societal norms (like being against paedophilia) then we can say (or I would say) that the position I take is justified. But to say we aren't being prejudice in relation to all things being equal (in this case nature) is our hiding behind a moral badge, which is not only arrogant, it is dangerous.

[Jessica23]

Because the whole topic of this thread has been about whether homosexuality is natural or not. As we have concluded (apart from those who you are terming prejudiced) it is entirely natural.

 

I may say I disagree with those who are against homosexuality using the argument that it is unnatural, but if we acknowledge it is natural, and we acknowledge paedophilia is natural, then what is the difference between their prejudice and ours? Other than our claim of morality there is really little difference in the two stances.

 

As morality and prejudice are both human constructs it's a little bit like a game of tit for tat. ultimately we should look at our own motivations, if they are deemed to be just by the law and societal norms (like being against paedophilia) then we can say (or I would say) that the position I take is justified. But to say we aren't being prejudice in relation to all things being equal (in this case nature) is our hiding behind a moral badge, which is not only arrogant, it is dangerous.

 

Which I think I've covered in the post where I compared paedophilia and homophobia.

 

To summarise: I'm not prejudiced against paedophilia. I think it is wrong to sexually assault a child. Once someone has sexually assaulted a child, they have done something wrong and my aversion to it becomes something other than prejudice.

 

I reject the parallel that you're trying to draw here, and I'm a bit tired of having to discuss paedophilia, necrophilia and bestiality in this thread for the reasons esme posted several pages ago.

[PaliRichard]

Let's draw a parallel between paedophilia and homophobia.

 

Unless and until those states are acted on (by the sexual abuse of a child, by the public dissemination of damaging untruths), they don't effect me, or anyone else, and are not causing harm.

 

There's no way of knowing that anyone is either a paedophile or a homophobe until they act on it - and cause harm.

 

Once they've done that, then the way we feel towards them is driven by their actions and thus can't be thought of as a prejudice. It's a considered response to behaviour that is damaging.

 

I think you're missing my point a little. That being that we are talking about what is natural, what occurs in nature.

 

I'm not arguing that homosexuality and paedophilia are to be treated the same.

 

My point is purely philosophical using nature as the equalizer. In nature they are both present. The difference between them for us is ourt moral norms, which are equally as created as the prejudice you are talking about, so it comes down to a balancing act with many, many different factors involved.

 

My question was can we say, from the perspective of nature, that a moral stance against paedophilia is any different from the prejudice against homosexuality? The only difference seems to be we label one as prejudice and the other as morality, which are both man made constructs.

 

I have to go to work now, I hope that clarifyies it a bit for you.

[Jessica23]

I think you're missing my point a little. That being that we are talking about what is natural, what occurs in nature.

 

I'm not arguing that homosexuality and paedophilia are to be treated the same.

 

My point is purely philosophical using nature as the equalizer. In nature they are both present. The difference between them for us is ourt moral norms, which are equally as created as the prejudice you are talking about, so it comes down to a balancing act with many, many different factors involved.

 

My question was can we say, from the perspective of nature, that a moral stance against paedophilia is any different from the prejudice against homosexuality? The only difference seems to be we label one as prejudice and the other as morality, which are both man made constructs.

 

I have to go to work now, I hope that clarifyies it a bit for you.

 

And my answer is that there is no moral stance to take against paedophilia, since paedophilia is an unknowable quantity.

 

There is a moral stance to take against sexually assaulting a child.

[splodgeyAl]

And my answer is that there is no moral stance to take against paedophilia, since paedophilia is an unknowable quantity.

 

There is a moral stance to take against sexually assaulting a child.

Or any form of non-consensual sexual activity

[Jessica23]

Or any form of non-consensual sexual activity

 

Quite.

 

hhjk;

[Fibutton]

Oh, God not this old chestnut again! I'm fast approaching 50 and been gay since before I was tipped out the pram. I have lived through various decades when from time to time the topic of being gay came to the fore and the usual chants are heard with various degrees of venim.

 

I tried to "choose" to be straight once - lasted a very short period of time and was the oddest bit of acting I had ever done. People saw through me without any bother and the only bod I was kidding - me. I love company of gals - as good mates that they are. They will ask my opinion on their choice of handbag, etc, but like most males, I haven't got a bloody clue. Suprised? No. Gay, Straight or Bi - it's the person that counts, not a label. I was in a same sex relationship for 12 years with a fella that I loved (still do, if honest) so much. He was my first and probably last love, that tought me many things about life, people and myself. It was the most natural feeling of completeness and belonging that I ever had and to those who say that being Gay is a lifestyle choice, I for one simply can't believe your arguement...

 

I think you have summed up this whole thread, what a lovely and very honest post x

[PaliRichard]

And my answer is that there is no moral stance to take against paedophilia, since paedophilia is an unknowable quantity.

 

There is a moral stance to take against sexually assaulting a child.

 

I think either you have completely misunderstood what I am asking, or I have made a complete hash of putting across the question I meant to ask.

 

The reason I say this is that your answer, purely in the confines of the philosophy of my question, if I may paraphrase, is saying this.

 

It's ok to be prejudice against homosexuals as long as they're not partaking in any sexual act.

 

Now I'm sure that's not what you're saying, which is what leads me to believe one of us as mucked up somewhere along the line.

 

I simply don't think you are grasping what I'm trying to get at, which is a shame, because other posters seem to have grasped it fine, but anyhow, like I said before it detracts somewhat from the thread so I'm going to let it go, you may take that as you will.