Three Rules For Religious/lgbt Understanding

[Tacenda]

3 hours ago, Maedros said:

Would you associate with a pedophile? Would you entrust your children into the care of a known sex offender? Do you keep company with homosexuals and join-in their rallies and marches? Do you watch television programmes where homosexuality is normalized? I do not! I severe ties with negative influences because it is negative. What might be normal in your part of the world is not normal in mine; in my world: good is good and evil is evil. The Lord has commanded us to stand firm in the faith and protect our families against the evils out there in the world and to disassociate ourselves from bad influences. I will never think or teach of homosexuality as anything other than sinful; the behaviour is bad not the person. My children don't have to understand why people choose to be homosexual, they just have to stay clear of it; its the safest path.

I hope and pray none of your children come out as LGBT.

[Maedros]

1 hour ago, Tacenda said:

I hope and pray none of your children come out as LGBT.

Me too (really), I've got too many among extended family members.

[stemelbow]

6 hours ago, Maedros said:

Would you associate with a pedophile? Would you entrust your children into the care of a known sex offender? Do you keep company with homosexuals and join-in their rallies and marches? Do you watch television programmes where homosexuality is normalized? I do not!

 

I find it disgusting and offensive to put pedophilia and homosexuality as comparables like this.  Certainly I view it quite different from you.  I joined in a march not too long ago.  And will do so again. 

With that said, I'm out.  I find nothing productive in your method of thinking on this issue. 

[Calm]

15 hours ago, Maedros said:

To paraphrase Pres Benson from his talk about communism

It was apparently him quoting Marion G. Romney and it was in Oct 1979, when he was an apostle.

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/1979/10/a-witness-and-a-warning?lang=eng

Edited December 8, 2015 by Calm

[Russell C McGregor]

11 hours ago, stemelbow said:

I find it disgusting and offensive to put pedophilia and homosexuality as comparables like this.  Certainly I view it quite different from you.  I joined in a march not too long ago.  And will do so again. 

 

With that said, I'm out.  I find nothing productive in your method of thinking on this issue. 

 

 

Okay, so it offends you.

I'm sure that if there was something actually wrong with comparing one form of sexual immorality with another, you'd be able to say so, rather than merely weaponising your disgust.

 

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

The comparison between homosexuality and pedophilia is a non sequitur. A pedophile denies the informed consent of an underage child. There is absolutely nothing comparable between the sexual relationship between two consenting adults of the same gender and the unrighteous dominion and cruelty of child abuse. I respectfully ask those who are trying to posit a link between them to reexamine their ideas. 

[halconero]

2 hours ago, Russell C McGregor said:

Okay, so it offends you.

I'm sure that if there was something actually wrong with comparing one form of sexual immorality with another, you'd be able to say so, rather than merely weaponising your disgust.

 

Here's a go:

The problem with comparing pedophilia and homosexuality is that it creates a false equivalency with regards to the following:

- Agency

and

- Orientation

Pedophilia violates the moral agency of the victim in so far as their ability to legally and morally consent to sexual activity with the adult predator is limited if not completely non-existent. Homosexual relationships function on the basis of mutual consent and the free use of agency to willingly engage in sexual activities. Drawing a connection between the two is disgusting because of the implications it has with lumping consenting adults in with rapists.

With regards to orientation, the other problem with comparison is that the basis for attraction isn't just with regards to sex, but age level. Pedophiles are specifically attracted to non-adult persons, versus just the same or different sex. Most homosexuals would find such an attraction repugnant, and putting them on the same levels implies a strong deviation from normative behaviours.

[Gray]

9 hours ago, halconero said:

Here's a go:

The problem with comparing pedophilia and homosexuality is that it creates a false equivalency with regards to the following:

- Agency

and

- Orientation

Pedophilia violates the moral agency of the victim in so far as their ability to legally and morally consent to sexual activity with the adult predator is limited if not completely non-existent. Homosexual relationships function on the basis of mutual consent and the free use of agency to willingly engage in sexual activities. Drawing a connection between the two is disgusting because of the implications it has with lumping consenting adults in with rapists.

With regards to orientation, the other problem with comparison is that the basis for attraction isn't just with regards to sex, but age level. Pedophiles are specifically attracted to non-adult persons, versus just the same or different sex. Most homosexuals would find such an attraction repugnant, and putting them on the same levels implies a strong deviation from normative behaviours.

Not to mention, among pedophiles there are plenty of adults who seek to victimize opposite sex children. Are we going to equate such behavior with heterosexuality? 

[Russell C McGregor]

On ‎08‎/‎12‎/‎2015 at 4:44 PM, JeremyOrbe-Smith said:

The comparison between homosexuality and pedophilia is a non sequitur. A pedophile denies the informed consent of an underage child. There is absolutely nothing comparable between the sexual relationship between two consenting adults of the same gender and the unrighteous dominion and cruelty of child abuse. I respectfully ask those who are trying to posit a link between them to reexamine their ideas. 

Oh dear.

Comparing two things, however alike or different they may be, is not a "non sequitur." Nor is it capable of being so.

A "non sequitur" is a specific logical fallacy in which the conclusion of a syllogism does not follow from its premises.

And a syllogism is an argument of the form:

All A are B

X is an A

Therefore X is a B.

But in the case of a non sequitur, the conclusion is going to be something else.

All men use computers

Jeremy uses a computer

Therefore Jeremy is a man.

Note that the argument isn't fallacious because the major premise is wrong; that is an error of fact, not a fallacy of logic.

Nor does the conclusion being true rescue the argument from being a fallacy.

It's a fallacy because the premises, if accepted as true, do not lead to the conclusion.

That's it.

[Russell C McGregor]

On ‎08‎/‎12‎/‎2015 at 6:08 PM, halconero said:

Here's a go:

The problem with comparing pedophilia and homosexuality is that it creates a false equivalency with regards to the following:

- Agency

and

- Orientation

Pedophilia violates the moral agency of the victim in so far as their ability to legally and morally consent to sexual activity with the adult predator is limited if not completely non-existent. Homosexual relationships function on the basis of mutual consent and the free use of agency to willingly engage in sexual activities. Drawing a connection between the two is disgusting because of the implications it has with lumping consenting adults in with rapists.

With regards to orientation, the other problem with comparison is that the basis for attraction isn't just with regards to sex, but age level. Pedophiles are specifically attracted to non-adult persons, versus just the same or different sex. Most homosexuals would find such an attraction repugnant, and putting them on the same levels implies a strong deviation from normative behaviours.

 

Yes, it's true that "consenting adults" has become the popular replacement for actual moral standards.

So we have informed adults agreeing together (IOW, conspiring) to commit wicked acts.

And that makes it a good thing -- how, exactly?

Incidentally, most heterosexuals find homosexual attractions repugnant. Why doesn't that likewise imply a strong deviation from normative behaviours?

[halconero]

36 minutes ago, Russell C McGregor said:

 

Yes, it's true that "consenting adults" has become the popular replacement for actual moral standards.

So we have informed adults agreeing together (IOW, conspiring) to commit wicked acts.

And that makes it a good thing -- how, exactly?

Incidentally, most heterosexuals find homosexual attractions repugnant. Why doesn't that likewise imply a strong deviation from normative behaviours?

You're creating a false dichotomy. I said nothing about the sinfulness of any act. If that is your concern then you could compare homosexual acts to a lot of other things other than pedophilia. 

You should also criticize the church for the importance it places on consent, otherwise known as agency. It distinguishes pedophilia, rape and other acts from homosexual relationships on those grounds.

If we're going to engage in a dialogue don't imply things I never said. I made no moral evaluation regarding the goodness or evilness of any of these acts. What I did was demonstrate the lack of a good comparison between them.