pop morality

[TheRocketSurgeon]

Your introducing a red herring while moving the goal posts!

In my senerio I go to great lengths to explain science has given it's blessing stating their is no physical or mental harm that comes to certain children. Likewise their is a genetic predisposition for pedophilia. Just like science gave it's blessing on homosexuality clearing the way from physical and mental concerns and is hasn't yet but is still striving to find that gay gene. It took it a step further even and verified a pedo gene, so technically their is a more legitmate reason for pedophilia in this senerio than homosexuality. Now using the very same metric that got homosexuality in every single show now on tv (pop culture/morality) explain why you have a reservation on pedophilia? Obviously science and reason are not working for you, because they contradict your morality. so what then tells you that 'science' got it wrong with pedophilia and right with homosexuality?

If you can/won't put a lable on it I can and will if you like.

Re: Goalposts... I have done no such thing. Your own counter-analysis shows why this is so.

I'm not sure what you mean by "certain children" are not harmed by someone having sex with them despite their inability to consent to the acts being performed on them. If you're trying to argue that pedophilia is not harmful to children, you're going to have an uphill battle (to put it nicely) against the people I've known who were deeply harmed by their childhood molesters.

While it is true that there seem to be genetic factors that contribute to the emergence of pedophilia, it does not follow that "well, it's genetic, therefore it must be acceptable behavior". Thus my discussion of the harm factor, which you (seem to have) deemed goalpost-moving. There are also genetic factors which make a person prone to fits of rage and violence, yet because of the harm factor (inflicting the desires of the perpetrator on those who do not wish to be harmed) we still prosecute them for Assault/Battery in the same way as those who simply chose to become violent for other reasons. It's literally the difference between sparring and assault... if I consent to spar with you, then no matter how bloody I become in our bout, it's not a crime. Indeed, it's a career for people like Holyfield, Tyson, Ali, etc. But the moment I say stop, or if you do it to me when I cannot or did not give consent to be punched, then you have committed a felony.

I am also unaware of science having "given it's [sic] blessing" to homosexuality, and as far as I am aware the development of human sexual attraction is an epigenetic or developmental factor, rather than there existing such a thing as "a gay gene". That changes nothing; it's clearly not a choice for people who are homosexual (nor is it a choice for pedophiles; this factor just does not matter when it comes to whether or not it's acceptable for the State to prohibit the behavior of consenting adults, just as whether or not predispositions to enjoy violence does not make it acceptable or unacceptable for two people to spar).

Science may contribute to the future acceptance of hebephilia, as I stated above, if it is shown that it is not harmful despite our current (including my own) reservations on the question. Pedophilia, on the other hand, remains a separate question, and I don't see a future in which science ever will say, "It's okay now, go ahead and screw kids."

I understand that, in the minds of Christians who have been taught all their lives that only male-female, procreative sex is acceptable behavior, it may seem that freedom for homosexuals equates to freedom for any and all "perversions" from that "norm", as you see it... but it does not follow that A = B. For a secular thinker (including by definition, the Law under a secular government), the question is always "does this liberty do harm to others, such that it must be restricted?", and homosexuality is not a category that qualifies, as you would know if you had read Lawrence v. Texas, the SCotUS case in which that prohibition was forever lifted.

The case did not say "okay, now, all sexual behavior is permissible". It said, quote:

The Court began its substantive discussion in Bowers as follows: “The issue presented is whether the Federal Constitution confers a fundamental right upon homosexuals to engage in sodomy and hence invalidates the laws of the many States that still make such conduct illegal and have done so for a very long time.” That statement, we now conclude, discloses the Court’s own failure to appreciate the extent of the liberty at stake. To say that the issue in Bowers was simply the right to engage in certain sexual conduct demeans the claim the individual put forward, just as it would demean a married couple were it to be said marriage is simply about the right to have sexual intercourse. The laws involved in Bowers and here are, to be sure, statutes that purport to do no more than prohibit a particular sexual act. Their penalties and purposes, though, have more far-reaching consequences, touching upon the most private human conduct, sexual behavior, and in the most private of places, the home. The statutes do seek to control a personal relationship that, whether or not entitled to formal recognition in the law, is within the liberty of persons to choose without being punished as criminals.

This, as a general rule, should counsel against attempts by the State, or a court, to define the meaning of the relationship or to set its boundaries absent injury to a person or abuse of an institution the law protects. It suffices for us to acknowledge that adults may choose to enter upon this relationship in the confines of their homes and their own private lives and still retain their dignity as free persons. When sexuality finds overt expression in intimate conduct with another person, the conduct can be but one element in a personal bond that is more enduring. The liberty protected by the Constitution allows homosexual persons the right to make this choice. [...]

The present case does not involve minors. It does not involve persons who might be injured or coerced or who are situated in relationships where consent might not easily be refused. It does not involve public conduct or prostitution. It does not involve whether the government must give formal recognition to any relationship that homosexual persons seek to enter. The case does involve two adults who, with full and mutual consent from each other, engaged in sexual practices common to a homosexual lifestyle. The petitioners are entitled to respect for their private lives. The State cannot demean their existence or control their destiny by making their private sexual conduct a crime. Their right to liberty under the Due Process Clause gives them the full right to engage in their conduct without intervention of the government. “It is a promise of the Constitution that there is a realm of personal liberty which the government may not enter.” The Texas statute furthers no legitimate state interest which can justify its intrusion into the personal and private life of the individual.

Protection from harm is a "legitimate state interest", the occurrence of which may be legislated to prohibit, as I stated above. The same applies to this moral question. That's why I won't say these things are "forever wrong", even though I express strong reservations about even the possibility of later acceptance of pedophilia. I'll leave you with the closing statement (bold emphasis my own) by Justice Kennedy, who wrote the Majority Opinion in the case:

"Had those who drew and ratified the Due Process Clauses of the Fifth Amendment or the Fourteenth Amendment known the components of liberty in its manifold possibilities, they might have been more specific. They did not presume to have this insight. They knew times can blind us to certain truths and later generations can see that laws once thought necessary and proper in fact serve only to oppress. As the Constitution endures, persons in every generation can invoke its principles in their own search for greater freedom."