The Conservative's Guide to Homosexuality
- Thread starter Satya
- Start date
My objection to this claim is that it only raises questions of agency, or freewill. Not that that's a bad thing! But it shows that the issue isn't as easy to resolve as most people think it is.
It's easy for an outside observer to judge the sexual relationship between a therapist and his patient as being unethical. But if the patient willingly agrees to have sex with her therapist, then the decision is consensual and any interference on our part as outsiders is, I assume, as meddlesome as religious objectors' interference with the practices of homosexuality. We can harbor our own private judgments, of course, but anything beyond that is unacceptable.
Given the priority of consent, how is this any different between, say, a 12-year-old student who willingly engages in sexual intercourse with her 25-year-old teacher? And if the answer has to do with some concept concerning persuasion and impressionability, then, my goodness! We're going to be very busybodies, indeed.
The second argument I presented had nothing to do with consent. A person can very willingly enter a sexual relationship with someone who has authority over them. The argument is that the person who is in authority has an ethical responsibility not to do so because the relationship has an inherent imbalance of power and therefore there is a natural coercion inherently involved in such a relationship. A homosexual relationship between two consenting adults has no such power imbalance and therefore is not naturally coercive. Therefore, your comparison is irrelevant.
Furthermore, it is highly unethical for a teacher to have a sexual relationship with a student.
But since you object to that argument, then I will present another...
I can make literally dozens of rational arguments against pedophila.
- Nov 12, 2008
- 14,153
- 1,334
- 0
- MBTI
- INFJ
- Enneagram
- 1w2 sx/so/sp
Nik, I'm sorry you feel the power imbalance argument is arbitrary, but I can assure you it is not. The rules exists between therapists and patients because therapists naturally assume a lot of power over their patients by what patients tell them in confidence. Furthermore a patient makes themselves emotionally vulnerable to a therapist and in doing so, when the therapist responds as they should by giving much needed empathy and concern, the patient can develop strong feelings for the therapist. This is to be expected and why such boundaries exist. Does that mean such a power imbalance exists in every therapeutic relationship? No. But the potential for harm and exploitation is great enough, that society cannot endorse it.
In essence this is where the power imbalance lies between children and adults. Adults are naturally in a position of authority over children, and as such the risk of exploitation is too great. Now you can play the game of "what ifs" and suggest that there would be cases that an adult could engage in sex with children and it would not be exploitation or coercion to the child, but society has drawn the boundary to protect children from the greater threat of being exploited.
Furthermore, you ignored the argument that pedophilia is largely a disorder. Call it, "too broad" all you want, but the truth is that pedophiles only care for children because they are children. In essence, they are using the youngest, most impressionable, most emotionally vulnerable people among us to satisfy what amounts to a sexual fetish. That is incredibly disrespectful to children, if not outright exploitative by its very nature. Do adults exploit each other? Yes. Does that make it right for adults to exploit children? No. Many of society's mores, such as waiting until marriage to have sex, are an attempt to protect adults from being exploited by one another. It can be traumatic enough to an adult when they realize they have simply been exploited by someone, but for a child it can easily be traumatic.
In virtually no civilized culture have they married off children before puberty, and even cultures which marry off children as young as 12 rarely do so, and only with the parent's consent. Furthermore, pedophiles aren't seeking to marry children and form a lifelong bond with a child, they are looking to have sex with them and once the child grows into an adult, they will no longer have any interest in them so the argument is completely irrelevant to what we are discussing.
Now perhaps you have deluded yourself into seeing no difference between children and adults, but there are fundamental differences in the degree to which children can consent, form a power balanced relationship with an adult where they will not be coerced or manipulated, make mature decisions regarding their own health and welfare, and protect themselves from individuals who are interested in them purely for sexual purposes. Most of society can see these differences, and they are in fact measurable and scientifically observed. Developmental psychology continues to support that children develop through stages and are considerably different than adults. Furthermore the effects resulting from trauma from children who have been sexually abuse are of a great cost to society and are wroth preventing.
So no offense Nik, but where I see us differing is you are gravely ignorant of developmental psychology, lack concern for the greater welfare of children for fear of hindering incidental situations, and ignore the obvious fact that their is virtually no benefit to either society or the individual to allow adults to have sex with children but there is considerable potential for harm. Of course, I would love to hear what benefit a pedophile receives aside from sexual gratification by molesting a child, what benefit a child receives by being molested, and how society would benefit from molestations in general? If you cannot think of suitable reasons, then I would say that the potential harm far outweighs the good and it is simply not a liberty that society can afford to give to individuals.
I'm guessing that no matter how many valid arguments I present you will simply sidestep them with incidental arguments or by arguing that you feel the freedom is more important than the harm. The former is an irrational way to approach the issue and the latter is a value judgment, and so it doesn't really address my arguments, simply avoids them, and that I find to be a waste of my time.
Regardless, I feel that I have obliterated your earlier argument that no rational arguments can be made against pedophilia. I have made several and you have failed to provide valid evidence to the contrary. Rather you have made several false assumptions about children which I hope you will explore via research into developmental psychology.
In essence this is where the power imbalance lies between children and adults. Adults are naturally in a position of authority over children, and as such the risk of exploitation is too great. Now you can play the game of "what ifs" and suggest that there would be cases that an adult could engage in sex with children and it would not be exploitation or coercion to the child, but society has drawn the boundary to protect children from the greater threat of being exploited.
Furthermore, you ignored the argument that pedophilia is largely a disorder. Call it, "too broad" all you want, but the truth is that pedophiles only care for children because they are children. In essence, they are using the youngest, most impressionable, most emotionally vulnerable people among us to satisfy what amounts to a sexual fetish. That is incredibly disrespectful to children, if not outright exploitative by its very nature. Do adults exploit each other? Yes. Does that make it right for adults to exploit children? No. Many of society's mores, such as waiting until marriage to have sex, are an attempt to protect adults from being exploited by one another. It can be traumatic enough to an adult when they realize they have simply been exploited by someone, but for a child it can easily be traumatic.
In virtually no civilized culture have they married off children before puberty, and even cultures which marry off children as young as 12 rarely do so, and only with the parent's consent. Furthermore, pedophiles aren't seeking to marry children and form a lifelong bond with a child, they are looking to have sex with them and once the child grows into an adult, they will no longer have any interest in them so the argument is completely irrelevant to what we are discussing.
Now perhaps you have deluded yourself into seeing no difference between children and adults, but there are fundamental differences in the degree to which children can consent, form a power balanced relationship with an adult where they will not be coerced or manipulated, make mature decisions regarding their own health and welfare, and protect themselves from individuals who are interested in them purely for sexual purposes. Most of society can see these differences, and they are in fact measurable and scientifically observed. Developmental psychology continues to support that children develop through stages and are considerably different than adults. Furthermore the effects resulting from trauma from children who have been sexually abuse are of a great cost to society and are wroth preventing.
So no offense Nik, but where I see us differing is you are gravely ignorant of developmental psychology, lack concern for the greater welfare of children for fear of hindering incidental situations, and ignore the obvious fact that their is virtually no benefit to either society or the individual to allow adults to have sex with children but there is considerable potential for harm. Of course, I would love to hear what benefit a pedophile receives aside from sexual gratification by molesting a child, what benefit a child receives by being molested, and how society would benefit from molestations in general? If you cannot think of suitable reasons, then I would say that the potential harm far outweighs the good and it is simply not a liberty that society can afford to give to individuals.
I'm guessing that no matter how many valid arguments I present you will simply sidestep them with incidental arguments or by arguing that you feel the freedom is more important than the harm. The former is an irrational way to approach the issue and the latter is a value judgment, and so it doesn't really address my arguments, simply avoids them, and that I find to be a waste of my time.
Regardless, I feel that I have obliterated your earlier argument that no rational arguments can be made against pedophilia. I have made several and you have failed to provide valid evidence to the contrary. Rather you have made several false assumptions about children which I hope you will explore via research into developmental psychology.
So basically I have dismantled your arguments in support of pedophilia, and the result is that you now wish to turn your sights on homosexuality? Very well, let's discuss natural teleology.
To begin, natural teleology is not a rational basis for determining law or policy. By extending your logic to infertile couples, since they are incapable of producing children, they should be denied marriage and other such basic rights. The same could be argued for elderly couples, since a post menopausal woman's body naturally can no longer produce offspring, she should be denied marriage and other such basic rights. Furthermore, you can argue that it is just as immoral for infertile or elderly people to continue to have sex since they are not fulfilling the biological imperative that act is meant to satisfy.
I guess if you want to further discuss morality utilizing natural teleology, you could try to argue that the sphincter is not meant for penetration but only for eliminating wastes. Of course, by that same logic, then I guess oral sex can be considered just as immoral since the mouth's only purpose is to absorb food. Masturbation of course would be a grave sin, since not only is the hand not a reproductive organ, but it allows an individual to not even engage in the sexual act with another human being. If you wish to argue that all these things, which are practiced by just about everyone, are just as immoral as homosexuality, then I suppose you have a case. But I suppose that makes about 99% of humanity on their way to hell.
There, I dismissed your argument not as unreflective paranoia, simple bigotry, etc. but rather as simply irrational and defeated with simple logic. Was that suppose to be a real argument, or were just incapable of deducing that much yourself?
Homosexuality was released from the DSM because studies at the time demonstrated that gays and lesbians could be just as happy and functional as the rest of society. Their sexual actions had no measurable affect on other people. The APA is a notoriously political organization and there were other forces at work, but the studies were the primary motivating force for getting it removed. Pedophiles are inhibited in forming long term, committed relationships with adults due to their paraphilia, and this greatly inhibits their ability to healthily function in society. Futhermore, studies have found that their actions do harm others. So my argument for why pedophilia is a disorder has little to do with the fact that it is listed in the DSM, and that the evidence indicates that it causes inhibiting dysfunction in the people who posses it and considerable harm to the people they engage with it. Therefore, it is incomparable to homosexuality and your argument is irrelevant.
Contrary to the myth, pedestry primarily occurred between teenage boys and adult males. A man would court a boy, and would not only take him as his lover, but would take him under his tutelage and would serve as the boy's social and financial support until the boy reached adulthood. That is a very different scenario than a grown man finding a prepubescent child and engaging in sexual activity with them until they reach puberty and they are no longer interested in them. As such, that comparison is also irrelevant to our discussion.
I never suggested that such relationships could not exist. I only suggested that the relationships have no significant value to the people who engage in them or to society as a whole, and that society has an imperative to protect the far greater number of children who could be exploited or manipulated. Reasonable laws are not dictated by incidental cases, but by what boundary will protect the most number of people. Furthermore, a pedophile has no right to make that decision. A pedophile does not get to decide that a willing child is indeed capable of consent, mature enough to make the decision, and in no way being coerced. If a pedophile does decide that of their own accord, then they are acting selfishly and only in their interest.
The problem with comparing the Bible to science is that science is actually based on observation and measurement, and therefore is applicable to reality. The Bible is simply a text which combines real events with cultural myths to form a cultural illusion. If I were you, I would start by reading up on Piaget's Cognitive Stages of Development. Next I would move on to Kohlberg's stages of moral development. Finally, perhaps read up on Ericson's stages of psychosocial development. All are readily available online with a quick Google search. Years of studies have greatly substantiated these models and if you are genuinely interested in the discussion then I'll bring up some specific studies of brain development.
Unfortunately, that is probably the truth. However, you can hinder bigotry from spreading with reason, and that is usually my goal.
A quick comment jumping back. Technically, if a relationship develops between a therapist and patient, it is allowed to continue. However, it is the responsibility of the therapist to suggest a new therapist.
I may be mistaken in how it works, I'm not exactly licenced. I think its that if the potential that that will happen, then the psychologist suggests a new therapist BEFORE anything happens. I'm pretty sure its ok to have a relationship with someone who is no longer a client.
Haha, I don’t know whether you’ve dismantled my arguments or not. I would simply say we’re equally not persuaded by what the other has put forth. Whether that amounts to some sort of victory on the battlefield of ideas is a judgment I’ll leave to you and others. However, I think it’s unfair to reduce my disagreement with your points to mere obstinacy, especially when your own disposition toward my points is equally obstinate. Still, I suppose there are a few additional comments I’d like to make. It’s difficult for me to tie the different topics together, so my apologies if things are a bit scattered.
Natural Teleology
The little that I do know about the concept of natural teleology seems to align fairly well with what you’ve said. Obviously, the principal idea is that there is something important to be said about the relationship between form and function. The difficulty in discussing philosophic concepts like this is that they inevitably bleed into other topics. For instance, natural teleology naturally would prompt a discussion of intelligent design, which in turn might be discarded out of hand by someone who rejects the design argument. And so on and so forth. For example, I might say, “Natural teleology reveals the intended design of the human body.” And you might respond, “Intended by whom?” To which I might reply, “Intended by God.” But if you are fundamentally opposed to arguments couched in theological terms, then it’s difficult to see how we could proceed with the inquiry. And given your argumentative style, thus far, I’m inclined to believe that you would judge this impasse to be a reflection of my idiocy or supposed bigotry, rather than an honest disagreement over fundamental principles.
I will, however, make a couple of counterpoints to your objection to natural teleology, and you can summarily reject them as you see fit.
The Infertility Objection: First, some preliminary remarks. A critic of homosexual marriage once said that such a marriage represents a distorted imitation of the true thing itself. That remark is useful because is prompts us to ask what marriage actually is or should be. Traditionally, it was believed that the word “marriage” is distinct from other words such as “association,” “partnership,” or “cohabitation.” Marriage was believed to serve a purpose in accordance with the natural teleology of the body. That the penis delivers semen, and that the vaginal system receives it, is plain. Now perhaps I’m more easily amazed by the wonders of life than others, but I find the process of reproduction—not just in humans but even in plants—fascinating. If ever form and function were blindingly obvious, this is perhaps the best example. As the Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith observed, there may not always be tribes, nations, and empires, but there must always be men and women (hat-tip to scholar Hadley Arkes for this reference). Marriage as a political institution is intended to recognize, honor, and preserve the natural union that in turn preserves our race.
That being said, a couple that is involuntarily deprived of fertility does not, in my opinion, distort the definition of marriage. Nor do they contravene the natural teleology of the body. Indeed many couples make the woeful discovery that they are infertile after they are married. Nonetheless their actions—i.e., proclaiming their vows and consummating their marriage—are both respectful of the institution and their bodies. Notwithstanding the involuntary defect, their public union serves the cause of both nature and the city.
The same can be said for post-menopausal women and the elderly.
The Everybody’s-Doing-It Objection: You’re correct. I do take the position that oral sex and masturbation are on par with homosexuality, in terms of the natural teleology of the body. But I’m not persuaded that actions are right simply because people do them. One-hundred percent of the population could engage in oral sex and it wouldn’t prove that oral sex is moral or right or proper.
Pedophilia
Two points.
Pederasty: I’m not sure what myth you’re referring to, but your description of ancient pederasty fits with my own knowledge about it, namely, that men would (ideally) tutor and support boys as recompense for having them as sexual partners. Still, it would be na
Natural Teleology
The little that I do know about the concept of natural teleology seems to align fairly well with what you’ve said. Obviously, the principal idea is that there is something important to be said about the relationship between form and function. The difficulty in discussing philosophic concepts like this is that they inevitably bleed into other topics. For instance, natural teleology naturally would prompt a discussion of intelligent design, which in turn might be discarded out of hand by someone who rejects the design argument. And so on and so forth. For example, I might say, “Natural teleology reveals the intended design of the human body.” And you might respond, “Intended by whom?” To which I might reply, “Intended by God.” But if you are fundamentally opposed to arguments couched in theological terms, then it’s difficult to see how we could proceed with the inquiry. And given your argumentative style, thus far, I’m inclined to believe that you would judge this impasse to be a reflection of my idiocy or supposed bigotry, rather than an honest disagreement over fundamental principles.
I will, however, make a couple of counterpoints to your objection to natural teleology, and you can summarily reject them as you see fit.
The Infertility Objection: First, some preliminary remarks. A critic of homosexual marriage once said that such a marriage represents a distorted imitation of the true thing itself. That remark is useful because is prompts us to ask what marriage actually is or should be. Traditionally, it was believed that the word “marriage” is distinct from other words such as “association,” “partnership,” or “cohabitation.” Marriage was believed to serve a purpose in accordance with the natural teleology of the body. That the penis delivers semen, and that the vaginal system receives it, is plain. Now perhaps I’m more easily amazed by the wonders of life than others, but I find the process of reproduction—not just in humans but even in plants—fascinating. If ever form and function were blindingly obvious, this is perhaps the best example. As the Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith observed, there may not always be tribes, nations, and empires, but there must always be men and women (hat-tip to scholar Hadley Arkes for this reference). Marriage as a political institution is intended to recognize, honor, and preserve the natural union that in turn preserves our race.
That being said, a couple that is involuntarily deprived of fertility does not, in my opinion, distort the definition of marriage. Nor do they contravene the natural teleology of the body. Indeed many couples make the woeful discovery that they are infertile after they are married. Nonetheless their actions—i.e., proclaiming their vows and consummating their marriage—are both respectful of the institution and their bodies. Notwithstanding the involuntary defect, their public union serves the cause of both nature and the city.
The same can be said for post-menopausal women and the elderly.
The Everybody’s-Doing-It Objection: You’re correct. I do take the position that oral sex and masturbation are on par with homosexuality, in terms of the natural teleology of the body. But I’m not persuaded that actions are right simply because people do them. One-hundred percent of the population could engage in oral sex and it wouldn’t prove that oral sex is moral or right or proper.
Pedophilia
Two points.
Pederasty: I’m not sure what myth you’re referring to, but your description of ancient pederasty fits with my own knowledge about it, namely, that men would (ideally) tutor and support boys as recompense for having them as sexual partners. Still, it would be na
Last edited:
If I reduce it down to the theological component then I've succeeded in my task. I'm not going to get any further than that with a social conservative. I can't prove that their specific interpretation of Christianity is incorrect, nor do I have any interest in doing so. I only needed to demonstrate that their arguments are not based on reason but rather on theological assumptions. They are entitled to believe whatever they want in this respect. I simply cannot reason them out of something that they were never reasoned into to be begin with.
That was not an argument for natural teleology but an argument for the traditional definition of marriage. It is little more than an appeal to tradition fallacy, whereby you are arguing that this is the way it has always been done, so this is the correct way.
Humans, like all primates, naturally exist in tribes. And just like other primates, humans practice sex, both heterosexual and homosexual, not only for reproductive purposes but for recreation and as a social bonding agent.
Marriage exists as a civil contract, and despite whatever religious or traditional definition of marriage you may endorse, there is no reasonable justification to deny same sex couples the right to civil marriage.
You are trying to overbroaden the definition of natural teleology to the point that you make it useless. The fact is that infertility occurs naturally and it makes the reproductive process impossible. Thereby the logic of natural teleology, such people cannot reproduce, therefore they should not have sex. They aren't serving the cause of "nature". If you don't like it, then perhaps natural teleology wasn't the "logical" path that you should follow, but there just is no reasonable argument to support their union with using natural teleology. If anything, it seems like you are agreeing with me that it is an absurd way of categorizing people's unions and you hate to imagine that people could be out their unknowing acting immoral even if they are unaware of the fact that they infertile.
Once a woman cannot have children, she should stop having sex, otherwise she is acting immorally. Your opinion doesn't change that fact.
Well if you feel that masturbation is on par with homosexuality, then you have made the concept of sin so vague that it no longer has any real meaning. Whereby my simple concept of, "It's immoral if it harms someone" was never threatened by either. But moral judgments are inherently based on values and beliefs, so I guess you are entitled to your, despite the fact that virtually every human being does not live in accordance with yours.
You’re certainly free to end the conversation at any time. But I’ll continue to respond as long as I find the discussion interesting or useful. =b
Just a quick point about your comments regarding theology. Theology is, literally speaking, knowledge or the science of God. Many secularists dismiss this field of study on account that it doesn’t provide any opportunity to conduct the so-called scientific process. Granted; however, Aristotle offered some wise advice when he suggested that we ought not to expect a higher degree of precision from any category of investigation than it can reasonably provide. It would be unrealistic, for example, to expect the same level of accuracy from the science or study of politics as we expect from geometry. And yet both fields of study are important to human existence. Moreover, theology is not equivalent to Christianity inasmuch as the former isn’t a religion.
Re: Natural Teleology: I think my comments about marriage are at least somewhat pertinent to our discussion. You raised the issue in an earlier post (#29) because, I assume, you felt it wasn’t unreasonable to discuss the institution in relation to natural teleology. I felt the same way and so attempted to show how natural teleology makes a case for traditional marriage. And by using the term “traditional” I’m simply distinguishing marriage between a man and a woman from homosexual marriage. I really didn’t think I gave the impression that I was appealing to tradition for its own sake, but if that’s how my comments came across, my apologies.
Having said that, I’m trying to figure out what it is that would make sex between an infertile couple violate the law of natural teleology. To the extent that they engage in normal sexual intercourse, they would seem to be using their bodies as intended. Again, the defect of infertility is something for which they’re not responsible. And at any rate, even fertile couples don’t conceive during every instance of copulation. But I wouldn’t consider their failed efforts to be immoral.
Re: Pedophilia/Pederasty: I agree with you that pedophilia and pederasty are not always the same thing, but I do think they’re similar enough (and depending on the society, even overlap) that we could still incorporate the former into an institutionalized version of latter. Part of my reason for staying on this topic is that it’s possible pedophilia is wrongly stigmatized in the same way as homosexuality was several decades ago. At its most fundamental level, homosexuality is defined by its sexual aspect. The same goes for pedophilia and any number of other sexual orientations currently branded as “disorders” (e.g., transsexualism, though unlike pedophiles, transsexuals have had more success making political inroads). My efforts here are to extend the homosexual argument of free consensual love to its widest possible sphere.
Pederasty demonstrates that adults and children can have mutually beneficial sexual relationships. But if you’re concerned that current definitions of pedophilia make the age cut-point for children too low, then that’s something I think we can negotiate. If 9 years old is “too young,” we can make 10 the legally appropriate age, since it’s somewhere between 10 and 13 or 14 years of age that puberty and adolescence are said to overlap. Beyond that, the goal should be to establish an institution that, as I said earlier, channels pedophiles’ desires in a way that encourages them to have an interest in children beyond just sex.
Now if the new institution of pederasty fails to satisfy the needs of some pedophiles, then I’ll be happy to side with you during those instances. But I think an absolute ban on the practice and continued stigmatizations are unjustly discriminatory.
Re: Consent vs. Coercion: As I mentioned in an earlier post, I have seen children consent to all sorts of things, including things intended to satisfy their bodily desires. This behavior, to me, seems to approximate the definition of rational choice. Of course, when speaking in terms of age, there’s always a sliding rule. Why is 18 the appropriate age to exercise suffrage and not 17? Why 17 and not 16? And so on. At some point, children begin demonstrating rational behavior, including the decision to engage in sexual acts. Several years ago, while I was studying to earn my teacher credential, an instructor who was also a principal at a local elementary school told us that one of his teachers had caught two 7-year-old boys engaged in mutual oral sex behind a classroom. An acquaintance of mine who teaches middle school recently expressed her concern that her sixth graders (10- to 12-year-olds) now openly talk about their sexual encounters with one another. It seems clear to me that children not only have a curiosity for sex but rationally seek it out to fulfill a type of a priori desire.
Just a quick point about your comments regarding theology. Theology is, literally speaking, knowledge or the science of God. Many secularists dismiss this field of study on account that it doesn’t provide any opportunity to conduct the so-called scientific process. Granted; however, Aristotle offered some wise advice when he suggested that we ought not to expect a higher degree of precision from any category of investigation than it can reasonably provide. It would be unrealistic, for example, to expect the same level of accuracy from the science or study of politics as we expect from geometry. And yet both fields of study are important to human existence. Moreover, theology is not equivalent to Christianity inasmuch as the former isn’t a religion.
Re: Natural Teleology: I think my comments about marriage are at least somewhat pertinent to our discussion. You raised the issue in an earlier post (#29) because, I assume, you felt it wasn’t unreasonable to discuss the institution in relation to natural teleology. I felt the same way and so attempted to show how natural teleology makes a case for traditional marriage. And by using the term “traditional” I’m simply distinguishing marriage between a man and a woman from homosexual marriage. I really didn’t think I gave the impression that I was appealing to tradition for its own sake, but if that’s how my comments came across, my apologies.
Having said that, I’m trying to figure out what it is that would make sex between an infertile couple violate the law of natural teleology. To the extent that they engage in normal sexual intercourse, they would seem to be using their bodies as intended. Again, the defect of infertility is something for which they’re not responsible. And at any rate, even fertile couples don’t conceive during every instance of copulation. But I wouldn’t consider their failed efforts to be immoral.
Re: Pedophilia/Pederasty: I agree with you that pedophilia and pederasty are not always the same thing, but I do think they’re similar enough (and depending on the society, even overlap) that we could still incorporate the former into an institutionalized version of latter. Part of my reason for staying on this topic is that it’s possible pedophilia is wrongly stigmatized in the same way as homosexuality was several decades ago. At its most fundamental level, homosexuality is defined by its sexual aspect. The same goes for pedophilia and any number of other sexual orientations currently branded as “disorders” (e.g., transsexualism, though unlike pedophiles, transsexuals have had more success making political inroads). My efforts here are to extend the homosexual argument of free consensual love to its widest possible sphere.
Pederasty demonstrates that adults and children can have mutually beneficial sexual relationships. But if you’re concerned that current definitions of pedophilia make the age cut-point for children too low, then that’s something I think we can negotiate. If 9 years old is “too young,” we can make 10 the legally appropriate age, since it’s somewhere between 10 and 13 or 14 years of age that puberty and adolescence are said to overlap. Beyond that, the goal should be to establish an institution that, as I said earlier, channels pedophiles’ desires in a way that encourages them to have an interest in children beyond just sex.
Now if the new institution of pederasty fails to satisfy the needs of some pedophiles, then I’ll be happy to side with you during those instances. But I think an absolute ban on the practice and continued stigmatizations are unjustly discriminatory.
Re: Consent vs. Coercion: As I mentioned in an earlier post, I have seen children consent to all sorts of things, including things intended to satisfy their bodily desires. This behavior, to me, seems to approximate the definition of rational choice. Of course, when speaking in terms of age, there’s always a sliding rule. Why is 18 the appropriate age to exercise suffrage and not 17? Why 17 and not 16? And so on. At some point, children begin demonstrating rational behavior, including the decision to engage in sexual acts. Several years ago, while I was studying to earn my teacher credential, an instructor who was also a principal at a local elementary school told us that one of his teachers had caught two 7-year-old boys engaged in mutual oral sex behind a classroom. An acquaintance of mine who teaches middle school recently expressed her concern that her sixth graders (10- to 12-year-olds) now openly talk about their sexual encounters with one another. It seems clear to me that children not only have a curiosity for sex but rationally seek it out to fulfill a type of a priori desire.
I think this discussion has lagged on beyond what is beneficial to developing mutual understanding so I will withdraw from it. I'll yield to the point of institutionalized pedestry, not because I agree or consider it moral, but because I don't think we are going to form any consensus with discussion and I think it will make a good place to conclude. I think we can agree that if assuming that much of the problem were systematic, then the fact that a pedophile knows that choosing to have sex with a child could cause the child to be harmed through the systematic process, if not by their own behavior, is still an exploitation. I say that not because I agree with you that it is a systematic problem, but hypothetically if it were, then a pedophile would still knowingly be harming a child by putting them through that system.
So in essence, if pedophiles want change, they will have to go about it the way every group has, and I highly doubt they are going to meet a sympathetic society for all the reasons I have mentioned and more. Furthermore, society is very adamant about not reshaping itself to accommodate small minorities as you can witness with the resistance to allow same sex marriage, so the likelihood is very small that society will reshape itself since fewer than a 1/10th of a percent of people are pedophiles. The accepted numbers is that 5-8% of the population is gay and bisexual and the arguments for homosexuality are considerably stronger given that it only involves adults, and homosexual couples can provide a measurable benefit to society, and yet it is still considerably difficult to obtain tolerance and recognition. Furthermore, as I've stated before, science is continually developing its understanding of child psychology and development, and there is nothing in those studies which suggests that an institution of pedestry would benefit children. However, there are 8 to 10 million children of gay parents and same sex couples in this country who would benefit from greater societal acceptance of homosexuality and same sex marriage. The latest 25 years of research of the parenting abilities of same sex couples further substantiates that argument.
As such, you aren't going to get anywhere by comparing homosexuality to pedophila because, they are not only fundamentally different issues, but homosexuality can actually provide a benefit to society, whereas pedophilia is purely about self indulgence.
I stand by my position that pedophilia is generally immoral, exploitative, coercive, and a disorder. Howvever, I will concede that our values and reasoning differ on this issue and you are entitled to your beliefs.
So in essence, if pedophiles want change, they will have to go about it the way every group has, and I highly doubt they are going to meet a sympathetic society for all the reasons I have mentioned and more. Furthermore, society is very adamant about not reshaping itself to accommodate small minorities as you can witness with the resistance to allow same sex marriage, so the likelihood is very small that society will reshape itself since fewer than a 1/10th of a percent of people are pedophiles. The accepted numbers is that 5-8% of the population is gay and bisexual and the arguments for homosexuality are considerably stronger given that it only involves adults, and homosexual couples can provide a measurable benefit to society, and yet it is still considerably difficult to obtain tolerance and recognition. Furthermore, as I've stated before, science is continually developing its understanding of child psychology and development, and there is nothing in those studies which suggests that an institution of pedestry would benefit children. However, there are 8 to 10 million children of gay parents and same sex couples in this country who would benefit from greater societal acceptance of homosexuality and same sex marriage. The latest 25 years of research of the parenting abilities of same sex couples further substantiates that argument.
As such, you aren't going to get anywhere by comparing homosexuality to pedophila because, they are not only fundamentally different issues, but homosexuality can actually provide a benefit to society, whereas pedophilia is purely about self indulgence.
I stand by my position that pedophilia is generally immoral, exploitative, coercive, and a disorder. Howvever, I will concede that our values and reasoning differ on this issue and you are entitled to your beliefs.