(August 6, 2015 at 10:03 am)Neimenovic Wrote: You don't see a difference between two people having consensual sex and murder? ._.
1. Am I to answer this under the argument people have free will and may consent or that people do not have free will and may not consent?
2. If people have free will and may consent then the argument becomes is all consensual conduct proper conduct to be recognized by society or the state? The answer to that is quite readily no. Now we begin haggling over price (meaning which conduct is to be recognized).
3. If people do not have free will and may not consent then the argument becomes should society or the state permit conduct according to an irresistible impulse which a person has simply because they cannot resist it? Again the answer to that is no and we begin haggling over price again.
4. It has been pointed out by any number of persons on this board that one may think or believe what they want, but may not necessarily act according to those thoughts or beliefs. To this I would agree and go as step further. One may be inclined to any given activity and their inclination to that activity may be immutable; but, such is not an argument for why society or the state should permit the activity (though it may do nothing about the inclination).
Homos are born that way and cannot change. So be it. So are murders, pedophiles, necrophiles, abusers, psychos, sociopaths, and so on. Just because they are born a specific way does not mean society or the state needs to be accepting of those actions.