sandyleelee wrote:The messenger is not the message, and the attempt to smear liberals with the "child molester" and "depraved, sexual pervert" garbage is one of the more revolting and evil forms of misdirection coming from the right these days.I have raised this question again and again, and liberals have always been mute about it. It is a telling silence.Why not, as a liberal, support a person's right to pedophilia, beastiality, and so forth? What is the left's moral basis for such opposition? Pretty obvious, isn't it, Mr. Cynic? And the reason liberals believe pedophilia is immoral has been posted on this board more times than I can count.SEX IS MORAL IN ALL CASES WHERE IT DOES NOT HARM ANYONE. SEX IS IMMORAL WHEN IT IS FORCED UPON PEOPLE WHO HAVE NO POWER TO REFUSE TO CONSENT. CHILDREN ARE, BY DEFINITION, NEITHER MATURE ENOUGH TO GIVE INFORMED CONSENT NOR PHYSICALLY CAPABLE OF RESISTING THE "ADVANCES" OF A LARGER ADULT.Morality is about how human beings treat others. Immoral behavior is behavior which deliberately causes harm to others. All behavior which causes no harm to others is without moral import, and moral. Pedophilia causes harm to children. Beastiality causes harm to animals. When any sexual act -- whether heterosexual or homosexual -- is between CONSENTING ADULTS, it is none of anyone else's business. When any sexual act -- whether heterosexual or homosexual -- is forced upon anyone powerless to prevent it, it is IMMORAL and, fortunately, illegal.That you can't differentiate, Mr. Cynic, between acts of love and passion between adults who freely consent to engage in those acts and forcing or "seducing" children, who have neither the power to resist nor the maturity to give informed consent, is frankly astonishing.Perhaps it's because so many on the right are possessed of the mindset that other people exist merely to be used, and that a child is no less legitimate an object of selfishness than adults. Certainly, the way in which the right treats the poor children of this nation gives some credibility to this conjecture. If they're not important enough to guarantee that they have access to health care, perhaps you think they're not important enough to worry about being used sexually, as they're being used economically, to advance the pleasures of the rich and powerful and heartless.Most of us on the left, however, don't share this view of children. We think that depriving children of health care on the basis of the argument that it's the parents' sole responsibility to be able to purchase it is immoral as hell. We think that the CRITERION for judgments about MORALITY is whether or not one's acts HARM OTHER PEOPLE. The acts and policies of those on the right are harming other people. We don't think that allowing two gays who love one another to marry and enjoy the same rights as everyone else is immoral, because there's nothing harmful to those involved about homosexuality. We don't allow people to molest children because we know perfectly well that doing so is harmful to the child.Now. If you continue to pretend you don't understand the difference between homosexuality and child molestation, everyone will know for sure that you're being disingenuous. And you surely wouldn't want that, now, would you?SLL
Best Of |
Favorites & Replies |
Start a New Board |
My Fool |
BATS data provided in real-time. NYSE, NASDAQ and NYSEMKT data delayed 15 minutes.
Real-Time prices provided by BATS. M