Who cares if homosexuality is "unnatural"? Why does everyone get so bent out of shape when guys want to hump and marry each other? I could give less of a shit if two guys want to have sex. As far as I'm concerned, it's the same kind of choice as choosing a sexual position. For example, to a gay person, having sex with a woman is virtually repellant. This is supposed to be a free country, not a country where ANYONE can tell ANYONE ELSE either how to have sex or that how they are having sex is wrong. Wrong is in the eye of the beholder. The Aztecs believed that human sacrifice was good to the point where the sacrificee actually considered it an honor to be sacrificed. They had totally different concepts of right and wrong, and ours are no more legitimate than anyone else's. That is why this is supposed to be a free country, so persecuted people would have refuge. Now, we just persecute them ourselves.

 But we're not talking about weirdness, but rather naturality; the distinction is paramount. And I would argue that weirdness is not as much an issue of the % of the population doing it as it is the degree of bizarre from some standard (of course that standard is generally set by the majority but there are other standards such as religious standards to consider as well.) Our more-or-less acceptance of bondage is more a matter of degree of bizarre, evidenced by the fact that the more bizarre the particular type of bondage fetish, the more weirded out we are by it. And I sure hope there are more if not at least as many people disgusted by *pedophilia* as homosexuality, no? But then again what's the difference? Why couldn't someone argue it's natural to have sex with kids through whatever argument they use to say it's natural to have gay sex?

I'll continue the argument through PM - wouldn't want to weird everyone out with all this.

Oh... and I don't actually have a nun fetish. I hope it's clear enough that that was a joke that I ran with to prove a point.

You can't really compare pedophilia to homosexuality. Pedophilia, or rather acting on pedophilia, is illegal because of potential harm to children. Homosexuality carries no such risk. As far as I'm concerned, two grown men or women should be able to have sex with whoever they want. So long as it is over the legal age of consent.

Besides, what would you propose? Laws against homosexuality? How about laws against people who like certain colors? How about us???? Videogames aren't natural, therefore, they must be wrong.

Edit---Or plastic, or dental work, or freaking clothes. None of those are natural, it doesn't make them bad or wrong. 

If you read previous posts, I never said we should stop gays from being gay; it wouldn't happen. However, we can certainly hold the belief that it's wrong. That's what makes the country free, no? Or is it just free for the side you sympathize with?

If the Aztecs sacrificing people and thinking it was "right" makes it right, then go sacrifice someone... Something tell you that's wrong? And I don't mean just from what society tells you, I mean something inherent, natural. Odd thing, that. You do highlight the core issue, though. Wrong, these days, is in the eye of the beholder for many people, because we've lost the core source of moral code since we declared "God is dead." But I'm not going to pick up that argument right now; it's a bit hefty.

Okay now you just sound ignorant. Natural fibers and natural behaviors are rather different issues, don't you think?

And "potential to harm children?" That's why it's illegal? Then why isn't consentual sex with a child legal? You could harm an adult in any way you can harm a child. They're just younger people; why do you inherently draw the line at guarding children against sexual situations... is there some inherent sense in you that it's wrong to have sex with kids? Interesting. (Hint: it comes back to my point about morality being able to be something inherent.)

PM me if you have more to say.

jack thompson is  nutbag he needs to be kicked from the legal system

Dude, my entire point was that there is no inherently natural view of right and wrong. You put a baby on a desert island, and if he managed to survive, I'll bet you he would have TOTALLY different beliefs regarding right and wrong than anyone else. You aren't just born knowing "right" from "wrong". Therefore right and wrong are learned, and are therefore subject to differring opinion in all their forms. Right, in this country, is basically anything that doesn't hurt anyone else. Gays don't think they're wrong, they're not hurting anyone, and your view of right and wrong is no more accurate than theirs just because you think god doesn't want gay people to have sex.

And consentual sex with a child is illegal because the age of consent implies that people under that age do not have the ability to control their surroundings and depending on age have no concept of sex. A parent could abuse them, and what are they going to do? Go home? An adult figure has ultimate authority, and if he told the child to tell everyone else that the child said it was okay, the child would do it even if it wasn't true. Also, physical sexual maturity occurs before mental sexual maturity, and if something occurs during development like that, it can be detrimental to the child's emotional and psychological well being.

Edit---Furthermore, I see no reason to PM you, this conversation fits well within the boundaries of this topic, and I have no intention of becoming offensive.

Very well. (But it really isn't within the bounds of the topic, which is more about homosexuality as it relates to Jack Thompson's case.)

At least we've established that anything that doesn't hurt anyone physically is right. Like stealing. How wonderful that mankind has come to that place, where, since we can't depend on a moral authority anymore, we're forced to lower morality to the level of what "doesn't hurt anybody." I'm sorry, but a practical moral code that philosophy does not make.

Who decides that the child is not aware? At what age? Is a 16 year old not aware? And children don't always do what they're told; they're not puppets - that's a poor argument. Let's say a kid's parents never had any sexual interaction with their 16 year old, and someone in their 20s or 30s offers them sex. They can refuse, or they can accept. Who decides if they "knew" what they were doing? Who decides if they are "emotionally prepared"? Aren't different kids potentially more or less prepared emotionally for something like that than others of the same age, even if that age is 20? All these explanations you're giving for the rules of our society are just pretences to conceal having some kind of moral code that, without which, would lead to societal chaos. NOTHING is wrong without a moral authority. And because we now depend on that moral code's continuing concealment within cold logic, we will eventually justify everything (as the concealment is gradually and inevitably undone), unless we re-enstate a moral authority instead of being so afraid of one that we have to hide it within laws of seeming significance that are in fact, on a philosophical level, empty.

Whew... I hope that last bit came out right.

"Moral" authority does not stem from religion, particularly not christianity. That leads only to intolerance. Cold logic is the only thing one can count on, and as such, the current psycholoanalytic community does not say that being gay is bad or wrong. Pedophilia, or, more fittingly, child molestation, is wrong and illegal because of detrimental effects on children. Look at most any murderer, serial killer, or generally people who suffer from many different brands of psychosis, and oftentimes you will find child abuse in their past, sexual or physical. THAT is why pedophilia is looked down on. Just because you don't like the thought of gay sex and think it's wrong does not make you right, regardless of which "moral authority" you cite. And I did not say stealing was right, as that hurts people financially, and even then, there are shades of gray. For example, is it wrong to steal 10 dollars from a billionaire? If you have no money and need food?

Back on topic, if they want to get married, what does it matter to anyone else? If they want to have sex with each other, who cares? Just because it isn't "natural"? There have been gay people since the beginning of time. And it is already illegal to discriminate against anyone based on sexual orientation. The only reason homosexuality is looked down upon is because christians, with their massive superiority complex, decided about 1500 years ago that anything to do with carnal pleasure was sinful, and since man on man or woman on woman has no biological purpose as far as procreation, they deemed it wrong and sinful, even more wrong and sinful than having sex with a woman just for pleasure. Basing modern law and morals on a 2000 year old book is nothing short of illegal anyway.

Also, thinking that I must have no "morals" just because I think that people should have freedom of choice, expression, and religion does not make me a bad person. I don't kill people. Not because I think I'll go to hell if I do, but because I know that I wouldn't want anyone to kill me. I don't steal. Again, not out of fear of god/hell, but out of genuine empathy for other people. The ultimate good, to me, is doing good without thought of reward or punishment. Even a bad person can be made to do good under threats. That doesn't make him a good person.

And I never said anything about proper or improper methods of sex. Having sex with someone who has not yet reached the level of maturity, whatever their age, where they can intelligently make their own decisions is detrimental to them. And thus, to me, wrong. Anything two people want to do with each other is fine by me. It's not like they're forcing me to watch. They can do their pets for all I care, so long as it doesn't escalate to animal cruelty.