Skip to main content

FEARING SONS BECOMING PEDOPHILES, RAPISTS AND ABUSIVE "AS MUCH AS" BEING GAYS?

FEARING SONS BECOMING PEDOPHILES, RAPISTS AND ABUSIVE "AS MUCH AS" BEING GAYS?


There is a viral post that caught my attention which attempts to show the incoherence of conservative parents [1]. As such, I think it's worth the time to consider the caption and show that the opposite is true. If there is incoherence, it's not from the conservative perspective.  

Although I think that it's natural for a parent to have "fears" in all cases that are mentioned, there should be degrees to such "fear" because of the gravity of acts. As such, I disagree when he uses the word "as much as" implying as if all categories have the same gravity.

I think it's understandable for parents to have a fear that their children may be attracted to someone of the same sex (homosexual relationships) in the same way that they have a fear that their children could be interested in a polyamorous relationship (threesome is an example) or fear that their children could be attracted to people of the same family (incest relationships). 

Obviously, that would be different when it comes to having a fear that they may be rapists, pedophiles (which, in my opinion, can be defended from a liberal ethical perspective hence the worry should be on the liberal side), or abusive.

The examples of same-sex, threesome, and incest relationships would fall under morally wrong consensual acts that are contrary to the nature of our sexuality. 

However, the examples of rape, pedophilia, and abusive relationships would fall under morally wrong acts that violate justice, for these actions are also contrary to consent, besides the physical harm one experiences. 

I think it's obvious that we should not treat all of the examples mentioned in the photo as if everything is of the same gravity. I will now move on to my point that this photo shows the incoherence of the liberal side. 

I rarely use the counter-example of pedophiles in order to not give the impression that I am accusing them as such which is common to people who misunderstood the argument in the first place. 

However, an advocate of LGBT ideology should be worried about it for the sake of consistency. If the reason why our actions are morally permissible is that it's consensual, on what basis can they say that being a pedophile is wrong?

First, I don't see how it would be wrong, from a liberal perspective, for a pedophile to objectify a child. One person may think of a child without the consent of the child. 

I can imagine a five-year-old without the consent of a five-year-old, and I don't think it's necessarily wrong to imagine a five year old existing. But, why would it be wrong to objectify a child if imagining a child does not violate any consent?

Second, let's suppose a pedophile engaged in a sexual relationship with a child. If a 10-year-old or 12-year-old gave consent, why is that morally problematic according to liberals? We don't do that in other cases. 

We don't say that it's morally wrong for an adult to carry a child if the child consented to be carried. Why is it wrong for an adult to engage in a sexual relationship with a child even if the child consented to while carrying a child is morally permissible if the child consented to?

It seems to me that to answer at least two of these issues is to admit that there is something intrinsic about our sexuality, specifically the necessity (not sufficiency) of procreation that should be factored in sexual ethics. 

However, to say that there is intrinsic about the sexual act and/or procreation in evaluating a moral case means that the liberal claim is wrong., This claim can be summarized as "the use of sexual faculty towards procreation is not a necessary condition for the moral permissibility of the sexual act" which shows the incoherence of the foundation that justifies the morality of homosexuality.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

THE TERRIBLE STORY OF LT. COL.RONALD SPEIRS.

 THE TERRIBLE STORY OF LT. COL.RONALD SPEIRS. Lt. Col. Ronald Speirs, one of the toughest soldiers in Easy Company (Band of Brothers) was born in Edinburgh, Scotland, April 20, 1920. His family moved to Boston, Mass, when he was 7. He enlisted in 1942 & trained as a paratrooper, becoming a platoon leader in Dog company and later company commander of Easy Company, both of 506th PIR, 101st Airborne.  In January 1945, when Easy Company's initial attack on the German-occupied town of Foy bogged down due to the commander 1st Lieutenant Norman Dike, being wounded, battalion executive officer Captain Richard Winters ordered Speirs to relieve Dike of command. The selection of Speirs was incidental; Winters later stated that Speirs was simply the first officer he saw when he turned around. Speirs successfully took over the assault and led Easy Company to victory. During this battle, Lt. Dike had ordered a platoon to go on a flanking mission around the rear of the town. To countermand th
Post a Comment
Read more

femina agabbadòra hammer

“In Sardinia, the use of the "femina agabbadòra hammer" was a women's practice.  Whenever an elderly man or woman of a given family was dying and in great pain, the family would call for the Accabadòra or Lady of the Good Death.  She would usually be a widow dressed entirely in black, who likely inherited her role from her own mother or grandmother. The title Accabadora means "She is the One Who Ends." She arrives with a large hammer of carved olive wood wrapped in heavy wool, and is left alone with the individual who may yet be screaming in agony and terror. A witness testimonial of the practice translates: "It was dark. The room was illuminated by a single wick in mastic oil.  The Accabadòra entered the house -- the door had been left open for her. She passed no one as she enters her patient's room at at the bedside.  "She caressed the face of the dying person, chanted the rosary, sang one of the many lullabies usually sung to children. Finally s
Post a Comment
Read more

US executes first woman Lisa Montgomery on federal death row in nearly 70 years.

US executes first woman Lisa Montgomery on federal death row in nearly 70 years. Montgomery was the first female prisoner to be executed in by the US government since 1953. Montgomery, 52, was put to death by lethal injection of pentobarbital. The US government executed convicted murderer Lisa Montgomery, the only woman on federal death row, on Wednesday, after the Supreme Court cleared the last hurdle by overturning a stay. Challenges were fought across multiple federal courts on whether to allow the execution of Montgomery, 52, who was put to death by lethal injection of pentobarbital, a powerful barbiturate in the Justice Department`s execution chamber at its prison in Terre Haute, Indiana. The U.S. Supreme Court, with its conservative majority, cleared the way for her execution after overturning a stay by the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. Kelley Henry, Montgomery`s lawyer, called the execution "vicious, unlawful, and unnecessary exercise of authoritarian power." &quo
Post a Comment
Read more