Fireman suspended for Gay Parade refusal

[kenod]

Originally Posted by cavalier

comparing homosexuality to paedophilia is irrational, no matter how much you are sickened by the act. Homosexuality takes place between consenting adults, paedophilia does not.

There are separate aspects here - normality, consent, and personal reaction.

If consent is the most important criterion for acceptability, how do we regard extreme S&M?

What about "Lolita"?

Is the pornography industry just another industry?

Are women working in a brothel living a healthy life?

[cavalier]

Originally Posted by kenod

There are separate aspects here - normality, consent, and personal reaction.

If consent is the most important criterion for acceptability, how do we regard extreme S&M?

That's not my point. I'm not commenting on the normality or acceptability of homosexuality, I'm just trying to make the point that it isn't exactly fair to put homosexuality in the same box as paedophilia.
It is my opinion that homosexuality is fine, but that is just my opinion. The comparison of homosexuality and paedophilia though is not about opinion, there are things which seperate them.

Originally Posted by kenod

What about "Lolita"?

What about Lolita? This story could raise the question of whether all acts of paedophilia are child abuse, that some minors may consent or even be the dominant partner in a relationship. This story has no more effect on homosexuality than it does on heterosexuality.

Originally Posted by kenod

Is the pornography industry just another industry?

Yes or no, depending on your stance. Again this doesn't affect the grouping together or seperation of homosexuality and paedophilia.

[Paladin]

Originally Posted by kenod

There are separate aspects here - normality, consent, and personal reaction.

If consent is the most important criterion for acceptability, how do we regard extreme S&M?

What about "Lolita"?

Is the pornography industry just another industry?

Are women working in a brothel living a healthy life?

I don't think consent is the key criterion here Kenod, you make a good point there. But again, using a "slippery slope"argument against homosexuality doesn't work either. Personal reaction, is just that, it is personal and is the responsibility of that person. No one else is responsible for how you or anyone else "feels" To think otherwise leads to dysfunctional behavior.

Oh, and Cav? Have you been hanging out with my ex again?

[kenod]

Originally Posted by cavalier

That's not my point. I'm not commenting on the normality or acceptability of homosexuality, I'm just trying to make the point that it isn't exactly fair to put homosexuality in the same box as paedophilia.
It is my opinion that homosexuality is fine, but that is just my opinion. The comparison of homosexuality and paedophilia though is not about opinion, there are things which seperate them.

I don't think that homosexuality and paedophilia are comparable either, but the only argument that you have given to distinguish them is that of consent. What other differences do you see?

As I pointed out, there are a number of activities that involve consent that are not considered to be the regular behaviour of a normal healthy person.

[kenod]

Originally Posted by Paladin

I don't think consent is the key criterion here Kenod, you make a good point there. But again, using a "slippery slope" argument against homosexuality doesn't work either. Personal reaction, is just that, it is personal and is the responsibility of that person. No one else is responsible for how you or anyone else "feels" To think otherwise leads to dysfunctional behavior.

I didn't address the issue of personal reaction. The only time I feel disgusted by sexual behaviour is when it becomes a public display - hetero or homo.

"Slippery slope" has become a rather ambiguous expression these days, so I'm not exactly sure what you meant. I merely gave examples to demonstrate that consent, of itself, is not always regarded as sufficient justification for any behaviour.

[Paladin]

Originally Posted by kenod

There are separate aspects here - normality, consent, and personal reaction.

If consent is the most important criterion for acceptability, how do we regard extreme S&M?

What about "Lolita"?

Is the pornography industry just another industry?

Are women working in a brothel living a healthy life?

And

[Paladin]

Originally Posted by kenod

There are separate aspects here - normality, consent, and personal reaction.

If consent is the most important criterion for acceptability, how do we regard extreme S&M?

What about "Lolita"?

Is the pornography industry just another industry?

Are women working in a brothel living a healthy life?

And this w

[Paladin]

Originally Posted by kenod

There are separate aspects here - normality, consent, and personal reaction.

If consent is the most important criterion for acceptability, how do we regard extreme S&M?

What about "Lolita"?

Is the pornography industry just another industry?

Are women working in a brothel living a healthy life?

And this would be...?

[Paladin]

OOOPss. Sorry for the repeated messages, chalk it up to early senility.

the slippery slope fallacy, even if overused is still a faulty logic. I do not think consent in itself is a good criteria either, so I agree whole heartedly there. I seem to sense that you wish a justification for homosexuality? That would be shifting the burden of proof though.

[kenod]

Originally Posted by Paladin

I seem to sense that you wish a justification for homosexuality? That would be shifting the burden of proof though.

I think it is helpful to examine one's behaviour to ask whether it is appropriate or not.

"Because I want to" may be sufficient justification for some ... but that type of reasoning doesn't really work for a lot of things (eg, smoking) does it?

[cavalier]

Originally Posted by kenod

I think it is helpful to examine one's behaviour to ask whether it is appropriate or not.

"Because I want to" may be sufficient justification for some ... but that type of reasoning doesn't really work for a lot of things (eg, smoking) does it?

It might not work for smoking but I'm not sure how smoking relates to homosexuality. Smoking damages non-smokers. I'm not sure how non-homosexuals are damaged by homosexuals.

[Paladin]

Who gets to decide what is appropriate, and what criteria is used?
And what is wrong with doing what you like? I would think that as long as I do no harm, what I wish to do is my own affair not so?

[kenod]

Originally Posted by Paladin

Who gets to decide what is appropriate, and what criteria is used?

behind closed doors, you do; in public, society does

And what is wrong with doing what you like? I would think that as long as I do no harm, what I wish to do is my own affair not so?

sure, but you can't tell others what to believe ... they have a right to believe it is wrong!

[kenod]

Originally Posted by cavalier

I'm not sure how non-homosexuals are damaged by homosexuals.

Goodness gracious, now I'm not even heterosexual any more ... I'm "non-homosexual" (only kidding!)

A number of churches have been split over the issue. Depending on who you talk to, that is either a good thing or a bad thing.

Others are concerned about the issues of marriage, adoption, "recruitment", school curriculum, and so on.

It is not my intention to try to defend any of those positions, but do these "non-homosexuals" have a right to believe as they do?

[Paladin]

Originally Posted by kenod

behind closed doors, you do; in public, society does



sure, but you can't tell others what to believe ... they have a right to believe it is wrong!

Ok, so then what does this "society" believe in light of our topic? Further, I don't think the issue here is the right to believe, just human rights.