Sadly, this isn't too surprising when homosexuality is deemed moral because it's natural.
"Pedophilia is another “sexual orientation,” comparable to heterosexuality or homosexuality, according to expert testimony recently presented to the Canadian Parliament." (http://online.worldmag.com/2011/03/04/pedophilia-as-a-sexual-orientation/)
It does demonstrate that the logical slippery slope argument that other sexual orientations will be reconsidered morally is not a fallacy, but true. When an argument supporting homosexuality is accepted, it can't artificially be withdrawn when it makes logical sense to apply it elsewhere.
If morality arises from nature, then anything natural is moral...or so the story goes. If morals are the result of evolution, then they do arise from nature and therefore, natural things are simply moral since nature is the source of all morality. Furthermore, since you have no control over your evolution, you should not be held accountable for any actions determined to be the result of natural evolution. A sociopath must not be held accountable, he is simply a victim of evolutionary bad luck.
Yeah...right!
Posted by: Louis Kuhelj | March 04, 2011 at 04:49 PM
"If morality arises from nature, then anything natural is moral"
-Example of the genetic falacy
Posted by: brandon | March 04, 2011 at 07:08 PM
"Example of the genetic fallacy"
-Which many naturalists tend to commit when they try to extrapolate morality from nature.
Posted by: Contemplative | March 04, 2011 at 08:27 PM
I believe we are the product of our genetic makeup. But I also believe God makes out of the same lump one (family tree) to dishonor, and another to honor as told by Paul in Romans 9. His visiting of the iniquity of the fathers unto several generations, in essence all generations, allows for this.
It doesn't mean that the evil people tend to from birth is excusable, it only means they are cursed of God, and will suffer the consequences.
Posted by: dave | March 05, 2011 at 04:40 AM
Is heterosexuality an orientation? If it is, could it be the case that that is the start of the slippery slope?
Posted by: Jacob | March 05, 2011 at 05:27 AM
When I bring up other forms of sexual sins to people they usually bring up the fact that animals, or children can't consent. Expect of course when I bring up polygamy then they say that those marriages can't be equal.
Has anyone else faced this road block when trying to discuss same sex marriage?
Posted by: Wanda Zippler | March 05, 2011 at 06:02 AM
Wanda
"When I bring up other forms of sexual sins to people they usually bring up the fact that animals, or children can't consent. "
If I understand you correctly, the issue at hand is consent. Does consent make it morally acceptable to do something? How would consent make assault and robbery a moral good? If we all consented to being robbed and allowing ourselves to be robbed, how would that make the act a moral good?
Lets say that I am a sadomasochist and you are a masochist. Does my consenting to being tortured by you make such an act a moral good and my objecting to it make it evil? The consent issue seems to boil down to personal opinion and a relativistic model of morality. What's right for me may not be right for you and there is no contradiction because the two views are held by two different people. The consent issue is rooted in moral relativism, not any form of objective morality. I think that this has to be shown and then the underlying relativism dealt with.
Posted by: Louis Kuhelj | March 05, 2011 at 11:35 AM
I've run in to the consent roadblock too. What's needed is an example where consent doesn't make an otherwise immoral act become moral. This example needs to be convincing to someone who believes homosexuality is morally acceptable.
I'm not sure assault/robbery is a good example, since consent of any such actions is likely to be forced, and thus not true consent. On the other hand if an individual truly consents to assault/robbery, we might question his mental capacity to consent.
As for sadomasochism, I'm not sure this is a convincing example either. Many people, who believe that mutual consent makes homosexuality morally acceptable, will also believe that consent makes sadomasochism morally acceptable.
Posted by: Jesse | March 05, 2011 at 12:18 PM
I found the pro-homosexuality arguments to more like cliffs than slippery slopes. Once you buy their fallacious reasoning you've gone off the cliff. On the way down you realize the other creepy things you've justified.
Posted by: Neil | March 05, 2011 at 06:01 PM
I HAVE A VIEW PERHAPS NOT TAKEN BY MANY.
Do you think that gender really matters in gods eyes? Our souls have no gender. One must consider that it is not mans sexual perspective that really matters to god, its his heart. Do you love all people as your self? You must learn to truly love one self, before you can truly love others...
Posted by: Kara | March 06, 2011 at 02:28 AM
Hes right, sin is not as some perceive it to be, sin is a perception brought upon by maya, the great delusion, that keeps us from being fully aware of all things. This fog in which we are born from berth is only escaped by realizing we are in a fog. There is no good and evil, only the perception of them. For is not creation all but a dream of the divine? In which we all play our part, which is to grow in ever expanding consciousness and love for him. This is an eternal play for you may perceive this world to be physical its not real, its as real as the most vivid dream without knowing you were dreaming :)
Posted by: Ever Full of Wonder | March 06, 2011 at 02:42 AM
No good or evil?
I find moral relativism fails the minute that someone gets the wrong change at the grocery store. You rarely hear people loudly proclaim to everyone within earshot that it is their preference that they get the correct change.
Posted by: Trent | March 06, 2011 at 06:47 AM
or take anyone to court to claim that their preferences have been violated.
Posted by: Trent | March 06, 2011 at 10:15 AM
Consider consensual cannibalism... It seems absurd, but it has happened.
http://www.brianarner.com/weblog/archives/000254.html
Although he had consent, it is no less immoral. "There is no good and evil..?" Just make sure you remember that mantra when you are the one being devoured.
Posted by: Ed | March 06, 2011 at 03:21 PM
Of course gender really matters to God. He created us male and female.
Not sure where you get the idea soul's have no gender. I'm not saying they do, but I've never heard good reason for thinking they don't.
Sin is missing the mark. It is falling short of the standard. We are all aware there is a standard (and we are acutely aware it has been crossed when we're the ones being wronged). so the question is, 'Who grounds that standard. We know it is a who because obligations are things between persons. We know it must be a person other than humans otherwise we are back at relativism.
What evidence is there that all this is just a dream? That's the same kind of argument as the multiverse theory. I forget the term but it's when one throws out an explanation for which there is absolutely no evidence, but that fits the facts because it is tailor made to do so.
Posted by: Matt | March 06, 2011 at 05:17 PM
You guys still don't get it; you instantly dismiss anything that you haven't looked into. The ideas of good and evil are merely akin to our human perspective, to god they are only opposing forces, for without one you cannot have the other. If one must look past good and evil one can only do it with complete love for all of creation, good and bad. YES we must have guidelines for our own lives but never try to enforce your idea or guidlines upon another human, for that is indeed ignorant. You might try to change them, but it is our selves we truly must change first. I don't believe we are all fully there yet. Do you really follow the way of Christ or do you talk like you do? I will not say what Jesus would do for i am not he in flesh, but in spirit, love is the ultimate answer to any judgment. Love the homosexuals for that is all anyone deserves. Love trumps all. In theory and practice... And to your comments, who are we to judge another's morality? all we can be accountable for is our selves. Until we fix that why must we worry?
Posted by: Ever Full of Wonder | March 06, 2011 at 05:21 PM
How often must we stumble over the simple universal law? Do unto others as you do unto yourself. The main hit over the head is how powerful gods love is. You may say hes wrathful, but i refuse to question his endless love he has for all of his creation though it may break his heart to see them in their current condition. They will eventually see the error of their ways one lifetime or another.
Posted by: Love in the final solution. | March 06, 2011 at 05:27 PM
Okay, I'll bite on this hook. I haven't posted anything to any blog or forum in six years, so I might be a little rusty at this.
Ever Full of Wonder, can you clarify how it is that you know that those who have posted to this blog instantly dismiss anything that we haven't looked into? How can one differentiate between dismissing something we haven't looked at and, say, looking at an idea and finding it to be self-referentially incoherent? For instance, if I claim that I'm just an illusion, there would be no point to me typing on my keyboard to let you know that. There's obviously a point to communicating to other beings, even to language itself, and we simply don't behave as though those people are illusory. With regard to good and evil, have you looked into the possibility that rather than being opposing forces, evil might just be most accurately represented as the privation of good and that good might be able to exist quite happily without evil at all?
Since I've asked most of the questions I wanted to ask, the original topic was related to psychologists asserting that pedophilia is acceptable because it's a "preference". This blog posting wasn't about homosexuality to start with; it was about people trying to legislate the acceptance of child molestation where existing laws forbid it. Those of us who are parents can't pretend that the evil perpetrated on our children is an illusion. We might be able to talk the talk, but when it comes down to walking the walk, are we supposed to pretend that our children aren't being harmed or that we don't have a responsibility to them? Who actually lives like that?
As far as Jesus goes, nothing that his contemporaries quoted Him as saying had anything to do with good and evil being illusory, nor did He intimate as far as I could tell that we had more than one lifetime to see the errors of our ways. Those ideas might be consistent with some worldviews, but you'll have to educate me on how they're consistent with what Jesus taught.
As Greg has pointed out, by the way, Christians are expected to use good judgment but are forbidden from judging hypocritically. Anyway, now I'm back to another question: can you tell me why it's ignorant for a person who is charged with the welfare of his child to "judge the morality" of someone who would want to molest one of my kids? I don't know if you have children, but can you imagine "not judging" when your own children absolutely depend on you exercising good judgment? Will they buy into that "illusion" thing or do you think they'll dismiss that idea in favor of something like the law of non-contradiction?
Posted by: Frank | March 06, 2011 at 06:34 PM
Good questions Frank, your rust doesn't even show at all compared to the non rusty characters you're asking questions of. I hope you get some sensible answers but I somehow doubt that this will possible from what I've seen.
No one does unless they are psycopathic deviants who ought to be incarcerated.
Posted by: Brad B | March 06, 2011 at 07:34 PM
Ever Full of Wonder,
I think Frank hit the nail on the head with most of the problems in your post. I would just like to point out one more:
Are you trying to enforce your idea/guideline of "not forcing your idea or guideline upon another human" onto us, other humans?
Posted by: Austin | March 07, 2011 at 08:56 AM
Austin-
"Are you trying to enforce your idea/guideline of "not forcing your idea or guideline upon another human" onto us, other humans? "
Excellent observation, in my opinion. One thing that so many people forget when it comes to the issue of "imposing your morality on me" is that every single law we have on the books imposes someone's morality on society. For example, someone thought that having schoolbuses stop at railroad crossings was a good and moral thing to do. Someone thought that paying taxes was a good and moral thing to do. Someone thought that the minimum wage was a good and moral thing to do. Someone thought that not yelling "FIRE" in a crowded movie theater was a good and moral thing to do. Every law legistlates morality.
The question we need to ask ourselves is not, "Is it right to impose your morality or not," but instead, "Whose morality do we want to have imposed on us?" If a person does not want Christian morality imposed, I say, "No problem. Fine. So does that mean you want Buddhist morality, or Hindu morality, or Muslim morality, or atheistic morality?"
I heard a great question by a pastor once when he was confronted with this issue- he was told it was wrong to impose his morality on anyone, and his question was, "If you were walking down a street and you were about to be brutally mugged by someone, and if there was a bystander watching who could help you, would you or would you not want that bystander to impose his morality on your attacker?"
Posted by: BrotherLonnie | March 07, 2011 at 04:29 PM
With respect to the different "brands" of morality, there also comes a different take on the value of human beings. I remember being taught in grade school that I was worth about a buck and a quarter in various chemicals that made up my physical body; that lesson and the sadness that went with it stuck with me for a very long time. It contrasted so sharply with the value of children taught in Proverbs or the value of each of us taught by Jesus. I think we treat people one way when we believe that we are all image bearers of God and that we are all precious to Him, another way if we believe that we're illusions or dreams or that there's no boundary between us and God, and a completely different way still when we believe that our only value is our ability to propagate the species. What we believe about our value drives our morality.
Do you think those of us who object to sexual restrictions object because we fail to recognize how valuable (and how fragile) we really are? If we recognize that value, wouldn't a loving people want to protect their neighbors, their countrymen, their fellow travelers on this big ball by insisting on recognizing how precious each of us is to our Creator? If that's truly the case, then the laws, commandments, rules, and what have you aren't really an imposition; they're more just attempts to preserve something extraordinarily precious. Is there a more loving course of action?
Posted by: Frank | March 07, 2011 at 06:18 PM
I wonder, since they are quite comfortable pulling out the hate card when it comes to social conservatives criticizing their sexual lifestyle, would pro-sexual diversity gay rights activists also think it hateful of me to criticize pedophile lifestyle by saying that regardless of whether pedophilia is a sexual orientation, pedophilic acts even if 'consensual' are morally unacceptable and ought not be legally permissable in the future, even if popular opinion were to ever sway in support of it?
Would it be too close-minded and bigoted of me to make such a suggestion in this sexually-dynamic culture?
Posted by: Ana | March 07, 2011 at 10:44 PM
Ever Full of Wonder
"This fog in which we are born from berth is only escaped by realizing we are in a fog. There is no good and evil, only the perception of them. "
How do you know that this idea is not part of the fog? How do you distinguish any part of your perception from the fog if you've never been exposed to a fog-free day in your life? Furthermore, why should you even strive to free yourself from the fog since the fog itself is not something bad? You say yourself that there is no such a thing as good and evil. Since there isn't, then why would a fog-free existence be better than a foggy one? The nature of good and evil is that one is preferable over the other, but if no good or evil exists, then all choices are equal and your objection to fog as not being preferable is ridiculous and without any sound basis.
Posted by: Louis Kuhelj | March 09, 2011 at 08:59 AM
Ever Full of Wonder:
With all due respect, many of your charges are "self-refuting" ... they are logically inconsistent and therefore cannot be true:
1) "[We must] realiz[e] we are in a fog."
Response: Since we're in a fog, how do we *know* that your statement is true? Since, as you say, we're in a fog and our beliefs can be wrong, perhaps your belief that we're in a fog is wrong. Is that possible?
2) "Who are we to judge another's morality?"
Response: This statement (in the form of a question) implicitly judges the statements made by others on this blog. Why are you judging our comments? By implicitly asserting that we should not judge, you are actually *judging* others! Can you help us understand the contradiction? Is it possible that making judgements is actually a necessary survival skill?
Summing up: You have made self-refuting, or internally inconsistent assertions. I know this because I applied the law of logical non-contradiction, which states that exclusive truth claims cannot be true in the same sense and at the same time. You can't escape the law of logical non-contradiction. When you try to deny it, you use it.
Knowable truth does exist my friend. If there is truth, then there are also lies. And some lies are dangerous, perhaps even deadly.
Please think critically about the ideas you are expressing. I'd be curious to hear your thoughts!
Posted by: Suhan Ginanrs | March 10, 2011 at 12:19 AM
Ever Full of Wonder,
I noticed another self-refuting statement:
"... never try to enforce your idea or guidlines [sic] upon another human"
Response: By making this statement, you are forcing your guidelines on us! So clearly you think there are instances where it's OK to impose guidelines on others ... can you help us understand in what circumstances you believe it's permissible?
Posted by: Suhan Ginanrs | March 10, 2011 at 12:32 AM
Suhan
You nailed it very nicely. The fact is that moral relativism is self refuting as has often been clearly demonstrated. But I guess it must be that "fog" of moral relativism that keeps people from seeing it. So, when they think that this kind of thinking helps them escape the fog, it is in fact plunging them into a deeper fog. It is a deception and we both know the origin of that deception.
Posted by: Louis Kuhelj | March 10, 2011 at 10:36 AM
Here we go with the "self-refuting" business again. It's ever so much fun isn't it?
But does it show that your view is correct?
RonH
Posted by: RonH | March 14, 2011 at 03:32 AM
RonH
"But does it show that your view is correct?"
If you find fault with the reasoning in the piece that Melinda posted, then please show the error.
Posted by: Louis Kuhelj | March 15, 2011 at 05:46 PM
This news, today, seems to show the real extent of the paedophile problem being linked to homosexuality:
World's largest paedophile ring uncovered
http://tinyurl.com/6kvewv6
Posted by: Paul Rodden | March 16, 2011 at 08:12 AM