Homosexuality

[Solemn]

Well that went about as well as expected.

[Christiefries]

WRONG

Pedophilia is a sexual attraction to prepubescent children, and is classified as a mental illness. Whether or not there is any sexual conduct done at all does not a Pedophile make. For example, not all Pedophiles are Child Molesters ( and or Child Rapists ).

Mm, people should read Lolita by Vladimir Nabokov.

[TatsuaAiisen]

WRONG

Pedophilia is a sexual attraction to prepubescent children, and is classified as a mental illness. Whether or not there is any sexual conduct done at all does not a Pedophile make. For example, not all Pedophiles are Child Molesters ( and or Child Rapists ).

I figured that since what they said was so ignorant, it didn't warrant a comment, too many people don't realize that sexual attraction does not equal sexual abuse.

[Kestrel]

Bestiality is considered illegal because most - if not all - animals outside of man are incapable of "consent" in the sense that they do not have the required self-awareness (or, more accurately, awareness OF self-awareness, as some animals do have self-awareness) required to consent or not consent. Dogs can't even pass the mirror test; the most basic testing of self-awareness (as in, if you put a mirror in front of a dog, the dog does not understand that it is viewing itself; it has no conception of "self" and so only sees another dog). If the animal isn't self-aware, then it certainly isn't aware of its self-awareness, meaning it's probably not capable of the conscious decision making like "consenting" or "not consenting." Even if it is self-aware, that doesn't mean it can give consent because it's still one step removed from the same degree of sentience/consciousness that we have, it doesn't have the same decision-making tools that we have.

Consent isn't really the issue, the issue is that most animals simply aren't capable of understanding or conveying consent, so you cannot accurately claim that the animal is consenting or non-consenting. So it's best to err on the side of proper ethics and say "Since we don't know, it's best not to do it." Or, if we say that animals can consent, but we simply lack the metrics to objectively verify it, then you end up at the same end. It's not rape because the area is gray, but it can definitely be construed as wrong as long as our present understanding of consciousness points to most animals lacking self-awareness, or any higher mental functions that are derived from self-awareness.

(The fact that an animal is willing to mount or have sex with a human is not proof of consent because said animal's lack of self-awareness means that it's not really "making" a decision in the same way that we do when we consent. Dogs are willing to drink anti-freeze, that doesn't mean the animal is willingly consuming poison or committing suicide, it lacks the fundamental mental capacity to understand that it's drinking poison, or that "it" is even a separate entity from the world around it. The animal doesn't "make" a decision, it cannot consent because the animal lacks the ability for rationalization.)

+1

my point of veiw? If the other guy/girl/seashell/fictional character/dead body consents or couldn't care because they don't have a living mind in them, go frolick through the ocean, fucking seashells.

- - - Updated - - -

Oh, and if by chance the dead body just so happens to be a zombie, you have to take zombie rights into account. That is all.

The above quote pretty much should answer to your mention of necrophilia as well. A seashell is lifeless, so nobody cares about seashells. Living and dead beings are a different category than lifeless objects altogether.

Let's move away from the bestiality and paedophilia discussion, please? Or do we really really really want this topic closed?

[Sophistikit]

This thread needs to be taken out back and shot in the head.

[TripMyHop]

Lol Sophi.

There are a few outright homophobic people here, as well as others who dress it up as joking. But for the most part it's been very tolerant. Interesting terms, OP. I hadn't heard of some of them.

Personally I'd have to say transfolk issues concern more than gay issues. It's an a lot harder road to walk down, and it seems to be acceptable--in some places where people are fine with homosexuality--to be transphobic. So that's a bigger issue to me tbh.

[Darth]

Thank god that the vast majority of the world doesn't seem to agree with you or else society as we know it would have fallen apart a long time ago.

Not really, what you're talking about is ethics, not morality. She's right: morality is individualistic and can vary wildly from person to person; it is ethics that act as a code of behavior for society and maintain it as a cohesive entity.

There's a lot of intermixing going on between the two, but they're definitely separate, and it's ethics, by and large, that (or ought to) dictate societal rules, not morality.

It is the differentiation between ethics and morals, for example, that can allow someone to find homosexuality to be "morally wrong" from their socio-cultural or religious standpoint.. and yet advocate for gay marriage or for the fair treatment/civil rights of homosexuals. That would be a pretty big paradox if not for the differentiation between morals and ethics.

[Contra Fates]

I have never wanted to so generously dish out Banhammer Pie as badly as I do now.

Some of these opinions had better be trolling. Otherwise some users in this thread have IQs lower than their pant size.
/Locked.