Fr.Andrew

(Fr Andrew): You sound more confident that sexual orientation is genetic than a lot of people do. So far as I know the jury's still out, the good Doctors Freud, Erickson and Kinsey notwithstanding.
In any case, pedophilia is no more a sexual orientation than is a fondness for redheads.
It's about gender, dk. Gender...not age.

99Percent

This strikes me as wrong.

You seem to say that a fondness for eating meat is just that without any distinction if such meat is human or animal. Your emphasis is on "fondness' instead of realizing what the object of this fondness actually is....

99Percent

Then again the ethical considerations between wrong and right of same sex relationships seem to reside in a dichotomous crux of whether there is a greater good besides that of individual happiness, meaning that in the other option, whether individual happiness is the ultimate good.

If two adult human beings of the same sex willingly and even desiredly wish to have sexual relationship, and furthermore, they achieve enjoyment, satisfaction and fulfilment after such acts why would it be wrong if it there wasn't a greater good outside this achievement of individual happiness. The theist indicates that its against "God's will" which is a greater good - the good dictated by God.

Without theistic considerations, a naturalists might for example, presuppose that same sex relationships lead to no procreation which nevertheless indicates a greater "good" ie, no reproductions or perpetuation of genes. Its the same dichotomy.

As an individualist, I side with the idea that individual happiness is what counts the most which nullifies any other 'greater' good asssumptions, theistic or not. Besides. consenting adults engaging in consenting activities hurt no one else. Why not let them by themselves discover if such activities make them happy or not?

Bill Snedden

Eminently reasonable and I quite agree. But, as you can see, the opposing side in this debate seems to care little or nothing about human happiness. They apparently have "higher" goals in mind...

Regards,

Bill Snedden

dk

• Autonomous: I said the nuclear family was autonomous of the nation-state.
  Bill: No human relationships are completely autonomous. As free members of society, we all depend upon and are depended upon by others. dk: Did I say completely autonomous?.
• Capable: Capable means possessing the necessary attributes to perform. For example people 2 people that tried to cross the Atlantic in a canoe would lack the capacity to perform. Bill: One point: your definition of "capable" is still unclear. Perform what? dk: Perform all the necessary tasks essential to survive and prosper from one generation to the next.
• Stable: stable means permanent fixture necessary to human countenance in a volatile world. Bill: I see no reason to believe why same-sex relationships are any more or less necessarily stable than opposite-sex ones. dk: My intent is not to persecute people with a same sex attraction.
• Suitable to human nature: Not only biological, … human nature requires a life ordered by reason, free will and aesthetics to serve and perfect human purposes (ends) i.e. the nuclear family as a foundational unit suits human purposes. Bill: Suitable to human nature: It seems self-evident that people have an innate desire to love and be loved. Human purpose isn't "written" in stone; people decide for themselves what brings meaning to their lives. Again, no reason to believe same-sex relationships are unable to meet this characteristic. dk: Love does no harm, and I’m not out to persecute same sex attraction, that would be unethical.

Bill Snedden: Nice, but none of it militates against same-sex relationships. After all the discussion that's taken place, don't you think you can take it as a given that your opponents understand the meaning and place of ethics in human life? Why would we be here if we didn't?
dk: My intent isn’t to persecute same sex attraction, but to outline and ground the science of ethics using the nuclear family as the moral core. If you accept what I’ve presented so far, then same sex attraction becomes a fetish that stands/falls on its own merits.

dk

That being the case then please distinguish between a same sex attraction and sexual attraction for a child. I quit frankly don't see any.

winstonjen

dk:

I don't think many people will accept what you have presented on the importance of the 'nuclear family.' Children need a caring, nurturing environment. Where that comes from is irrelevant. The nuclear family can be a situation for abuse, which helps no one.

Oh my. :banghead: :banghead: :banghead:

Why would someone be attracted to a child of the opposite gender if that person was homosexual?

seebs

It's very simple. One of them involves an attraction to a body which is simply incapable of meaningful consent; one of them involves an attraction to a person.

dk

dk: My intent isn’t to persecute same sex attraction, but to outline and ground the science of ethics using the nuclear family as the moral core. If you accept what I’ve presented so far, then same sex attraction becomes a fetish that stands/falls on its own merits.
winstonjen: I don't think many people will accept what you have presented on the importance of the 'nuclear family.' Children need a caring, nurturing environment. Where that comes from is irrelevant. The nuclear family can be a situation for abuse, which helps no one.
dk: Children raised in single parent homes and foster homes are tagged AT RISK. Do you know of any human institution free from abuse. The nuclear family is important because its the basic unit of civilization, well not every civilization, but all the living civilizations.

winstonjen: That being the case then please distinguish between a same sex attraction and sexual attraction for a child. I quit frankly don't see any.
Oh my.
Why would someone be attracted to a child of the opposite gender if that person was homosexual?
dk: child sex, same sex, any sex and opposite sex attractions exist, so what distinguishes them apart, ethically speaking.

dk

If a child isn't a person, then why so squimish? If a child is a person then why the pedophobia.