Bit Of Fun

[sixfan]

Ah Plonky,

Truely a can of worms you have opened, I was alluding to what you have said but I didn't think it wise to spell it out as you have. I ask the question as a conundrum, but I think the answer lies in the results of the persons actions, homosexuality between two consenting adults is of no harm to anyone. Paedophilia, however is of great harm to the child and therefore unaceptable. (And despicable!) Do whatever blows your hair back, but not at someone else's detriment.

[Zeke]

Sixfan & Plonky

I just wanted to make a point that I thought should be made and I stand by what I said. I have no "vested interest" in the topic and no wish to prolong the debate.

I can maintain a certain detachment re what consenting adults do with each other, even if the thought of it makes my skin crawl - it's their business and I'll stay out of it.

But paedophilia is an abomination. The protection of kids is paramount and perpetrators deserve everything the law can throw at them and more.

I can see the link you're making and I understand that neither of you are equating the two. The fact is that I simply don't know the answer. I never claimed to be an expert on the subject - I just don't believe people "choose" their sexual orientation.

I think I'll stick to posts about cars in future.

zeke

[Zeke]

Sixfan

Of course you're right - it's all about what people actually do and whether it's legal, acceptable, harmfull to others etc.

But, I think Plonky is raising a more difficult question re where does society draw the line about what's acceptable and legal and what influences that process?

As I said, I think I'll leave it to smarter people than me to try to answer that one.

zeke

[KEN 24T]

I'm no lawyer and I don't pretend to have the answer to any of these questions ... all I can go by is what I feel.

I feel that homosexuals, bisexuals, transsexuals, etc. have a right, like anybody else to live their lives unobtrusively and free from persecution.

I feel that paedophiles should rot in hell!

I'm with Zeke, I'm going back to the car and chit chat topics.

[aniken]

Thought this was supposed to be a bit of fun. Now its degenerated into a serious philosophical discussion... How exciting (and on a car forum too)!

From a morals/ethics standpoint, I think there is a big difference between homosexuals (of either persuasion) and paedophiles - the first group involves informed, consenting parties, whereas the second involves at least one party that is not capable of giving informed consent, and is probably in danger of physical damage. So, paedophiles definitely bad.

But, is homosexuality immoral? Until someone discovers the universal set of rules/morals (and we've been trying unsuccessfully for thousands of years), you will probably get different answers from different people. Personally, I don't think it is immoral, but if there are good arguments out there, then by all means I will change my mind. And don't get me wrong: just because people consent to something does not make what they go ahead and do morally OK; I just need a good reason for believing that those actions are wrong.

Anyhoo, back to the car-related threads now...

[plonky]

Obviously I am playing the Devil's Advocate when I pose the scenario relating to paedophilia and homosexuality.

Back in the early 90's I was attached to the Child Mistreatment Unit. Both peadophilia and homosexuality were, in 80% of cases, interrelated.

Further, with the professional knowledge I have of a number of public figures that are exponents of 'boy love' whilst at the same time openly homosexual, I have posed the 'not so bizarre' scenario of greneral desensitizing of the community by way of legislation and propoganda of a practice/fetish that is openly bizarre.

I too prefer to talk about cars. This thread belongs to Chit Chat. We have already agreed that Chit Chat is about topics that don't relate to cars, ergo, the culmination of free and unalderated exploration of a myriad of topics can ultimately turn to the serious side of things that a lot of people are not comfortable talking about.

I have the luxury where I am immune to all of those abhorrent and perverted facets of human nature as I have faced many of them through my years. I do understand though, that the vast majority don't need to, nor accept, that the human being can be an absolute monster and the acceptable side of human nature that is readily (superficially) seen on the broader media, is not what the true form of human nature can be.

Suffice to say those activities which are not common amongst the vast majority of humans fall into the category of a minority activity. Therefore why is it incumbent upon the majority to adapt their way of thinking to accomodate the minority. After all, the minority may believe themselves to be the only true way of human behaviour.

[Guest Trevor]

16 for me.

A true Red Blooded Aussie apparently.

Interested to see the HgAg and others involved in the colour wars responses.

Could this poll put the niggling to rest once and for all, or does colour choice have no reflection on sexual tendancies? :banghead:

[aniken]

Ah plonky, a variation of the slippery slope argument??? No *beep* rights because who knows what next??

Back in the early 90's I was attached to the Child Mistreatment Unit. Both peadophilia and homosexuality were, in 80% of cases, interrelated.

So, 80% of homosexuals are potential paedophiles... or 80% of paedophiles are homosexual...? Bit of a difference.

[KEN 24T]

Trevor,

Could it be that colour choice is not that at all ... a choice, rather a pre-determined genetic disposition to a particular colour.

:banghead:

[Zeke]

Well HgAg definitely couldn't be regarded as a ga y colour (unlike some of the others) (Using "ga y" in its non-*beep*y sense)