Expression of homosexual urges towards consenting adults does not of itself cause harm, any more than does the expression of heterosexual urges towards consenting adults. So we do not require those urges to be suppressed.

There is no inconsistency. Unless one's morality is based on some notion of taboo, it all revolves around the question of harm. — andrewk

There is no question of conjugal relations being the basis of the formation of future generations, nor of moral obligations that were traditionally thought to regulate sexual acts. Consent is the only criterion for what constitutes a proper sexual relationship. Provided all the participants are of the age of consent, and all freely participate, then that is all that is required. 'Do what thou wilt', said Alistair Crowley, 'shall be the whole of the law'.

Consent is the only criterion for what constitutes a proper sexual relationship. Provided all the participants are of the age of consent, and all freely participate, then that is all that is required. 'Do what thou wilt', said Crowley, 'will be the whole of the law'. — Wayfarer

Lol... you can't actually be serious now. Crowley was a Satanist. And consent being the only criteria for sexual relationships is insane, and most certainly not moral. What would Buddha say if he heard this nonsense?

irony1
ˈʌɪrəni/
noun
the expression of one's meaning by using language that normally signifies the opposite, typically for humorous or emphatic effect.
"‘Don't go overboard with the gratitude,’ he rejoined with heavy irony"
synonyms: sarcasm, sardonicism, dryness, causticity, sharpness, acerbity, acid, bitterness, trenchancy, mordancy, cynicism.

Ok, so how am I to understand you meant that ironically? How does the context suggest you meant it ironically? I can clearly not perceive this - maybe I'm just terrible, or maybe you've not explained yourself adequately.

Irony is sometimes useful as a defensive shield when navigating minefields.

I knew it was irony, as Wayfarer just isn't the kind of guy to quote Crowley with veneration. He stole the quote from Augustine, and omitted the thing that made all the difference. "love, and do as thou wilt, and that will be the whole of the law".

Crowley stole it. I quoted Crowley.

Irony is sometimes useful as a defensive weapon when navigating minefields. (If you don't understand that, then maybe you are just terrible.) — Wayfarer

Surely, but I doubt most people would understand your post as ironic, especially if they didn't know you. Since the belief that consent is all that is required for sexual morality is so prevalent today, yours would seem to be an adequate defence for it, to someone who doesn't know.

Yes, that's what I mean, not you, him.

I mean your post may be read as ironic - in Victorian England :P

Crowley was a Satanist. — Agustino

He wasn't. As explained here, "Both during his life and after it, Crowley has been widely described as a Satanist, usually by detractors. Crowley stated he did not consider himself a Satanist, nor did he worship Satan, as he did not accept the Christian world view in which Satan was believed to exist."

But even if he were, how would that be relevant?

The devil's best defence is to say he doesn't exist X-)

The devil's best defence is to say he doesn't exist — Agustino

"Satan has been the best friend the Church has ever had, as he has kept it in business all these years" - Anton LaVey (an actual Satanist, albeit not one who believed in the existence of a supernatural Devil)

albeit not one who believes in the existence... — Michael

Got you fooled, hasn't he? ;-)

Ok, we've established that @andrewk worships Aleister Crowley and is possibly on a mission to spread Satanism across the globe. Good for him. What exactly was wrong with his argument though?

OK, I get your point. Of course I agree that pedophilia (paedophilia) is harmful. It's just that attraction to pre-pubescent children isn't a sexual orientation, and neither are any of the other paraphilias. It's an attraction to children of one sex or the other. Most of the other paraphilias are pretty much harmless. They might be annoying or embarrassing, but they don't result in much harm. — Bitter Crank

Well, I'm not really going to dispute that. I'm not going to claim that it's not a paraphillia or that it is a sexual orientation. It would certainly be controversial to categorise the attraction to prepubescent children as a sexual orientation along with heterosexuality, homosexuality, and other widely accepted sexual orientations. But I don't know enough about it to rule out the possibility. Of course, if it's called something which contains the suffix -phillia, which, according to a google definition, denotes fondness, especially an abnormal love for a specified thing, then, by that interpretation, it would seem close to a contradiction in terms to claim otherwise. That definition is similar to the definition of paraphillia, except that paraphillia is about sexual desire as opposed to fondness or love, and brings in an element of extreme or dangerous activities. (Again, according to the google definition). And sexual desire or attraction is what we're talking about here.

But, hypothetically, if we called it paedosexuality, and it wasn't abnormal and almost universally condemned...?

It would certainly be controversial to categorise the attraction to prepubescent children as a sexual orientation along with heterosexuality, homosexuality, and other widely accepted sexual orientations. But I don't know enough about it to rule out the possibility. — Sapientia

I don't think it's a matter of being controversial but just a matter of "sexual orientation" being defined as "a person's sexual identity in relation to the gender to which they are attracted".

I don't think it's a matter of being controversial but just a matter of "sexual orientation" being defined as "a person's sexual identity in relation to the gender to which they are attracted". — Michael

Okay, so then, if you identified in that way but exclusively about children, then wouldn't what we call paedophilia count as a sexual orientation (by that definition)?

Okay, so then, if you identified in that way but exclusively about children, then wouldn't what we call paedophilia count as a sexual orientation? — Sapientia

No, the sexual orientation would be heterosexual/homosexual/bisexual. Paedophilia would then be one's paraphilia.

No, the sexual orientation would be heterosexual/homosexual/bisexual. Paedophilia would then be one's paraphilia. — Michael

Yes, that's how it is normally categorised. I get that. But that definition you gave would not rule out paedophilia, would it? Since it doesn't contain anything about the need for this to be about adults.

@Michael, contrary to my view in that other discussion, I don't think that a semantic approach gets to the heart of the issue. I'd want to see scientific evidence that this is always a paraphillia or fetish or whatever, and cannot, by its nature, possibly be the same sort of thing as homosexuality or heterosexuality under any circumstance.

The fetish theory is just a theory, and not a proof, isn't it? And not a theory quite like the theory of evolution or the big bang theory?

Yes, that's how it is normally categorised. I get that. But that definition you gave would not rule out paedophilia, would it? Since it doesn't contain anything about the need for this to be about adults. — Sapientia

I don't know what you mean by this. I'm simply saying that one's sexual orientation is defined as one's gender preference. So saying that someone is a paedophile doesn't say anything about their sexual orientation.

Contrary to my view in that other discussion, I don't think that a semantic approach gets to the heart of the issue. I'd want to see scientific evidence that this is always a paraphillia or fetish or whatever, and cannot, by its nature, possibly be the same sort of thing as homosexuality or heterosexuality under any circumstance.

What do you mean by it being the "same sort of thing" as homosexuality or heterosexuality? They're the same in that they're both about sexual preferences, but they're different in that paedophilia is about one's preferred age group and heterosexuality is about one's preferred gender, with "sexual orientation" being a term that refers to one's preferred gender.

I don't know what you mean by this. I'm simply saying that one's sexual orientation is defined as one's gender preference. So saying that someone is a paedophile doesn't say anything about their sexual orientation. — Michael

Okay. I understand now, and, going by that definition, I agree.

What do you mean by it being the "same sort of thing" as homosexuality or heterosexuality? They're the same in that they're both about sexual preferences, but they're different in that paedophilia is about one's preferred age group and heterosexuality is about one's preferred gender, with "sexual orientation" being a term that refers to one's preferred gender. — Michael

Okay, yes, that makes sense. But my replies were addressed to those who didn't seem to be just making that distinction, but saying something more: that they are categorically different by the nature of desire, not just that they're differentiated by age or gender.

What exactly was wrong with his argument though? — Baden

Crowley was an afterthought - it simply occurred to me that his maxim 'do what you wilt shall be the whole of the law' really sums up the general attitude towards sexual morality in the developed world, doesn't it? Because

Unless one's morality is based on some notion of taboo, it all revolves around the question of harm. — andrewk

This gay man, having lived in a large city where there was sort of a community, learned fairly early on to not speak on behalf of lesbians. Ever. In the 70s Minneapolis had a relatively large group of ferocious lesbian feminist separatists. Their coffee house on Fridays in the basement of Plymouth Congregation Church discouraged mothers from bringing even young male children with them. A 10 year old boy was anathema, let alone a man.

In Minneapolis, lesbians and gay men didn't mix a lot. So, brothers, I don't speak for our lesbian sisters, and thereby I lived long and prospered. — Bitter Crank

Oh, I wasn't suggesting that gay men should speak on behalf of gay women or vice-versa. I was just pointing out that discussions of male homosexual behavior seem to dominate discussions about homosexuality generally (for instance, when one condemns homosexual relations as "disgusting," one gets the feeling they have male-on-male anal sex in mind, and not, say, "scissoring" between two females).

As men and women each constitute roughly half of the population (with women perhaps even constituting slightly more than half), there are presumably as many gay women as there are gay men, and yet they often seem to be omitted from the discussion. (For instance, a good retort to the claim that homosexuality spreads STDs at higher rates is to ask whether this applies to lesbians.)

Thanks for the input. There's a lot of fodder for thought.



This got me thinking.
I think I can safely assume that just because homosexuality is innate doesn't make it 'justified' (aka naturalistic fallacy, or appeal to nature.)
Sorry for the lack of a better word.

Homosexuality seems (at least to me) to be quite a shaky topic. And I think it is so, because it's just a specific case of moral luck. And the consequence is something that not everyone can agree too.

A couple of thoughts on lesbians...

You are right that lesbians get omitted or get scant attention from homosexual-topic discussions, most of the time, and not just here.

when one condemns homosexual relations as "disgusting," one gets the feeling they have male-on-male anal sex in mind, and not, say, "scissoring" between two females) — Arkady

Many heterosexual men seem to find lesbian sex interesting and stimulating (ask Hanover), where they definitely do not find males performing sex with each other stimulating or interesting. That's one. The other is that, historically, it hasn't mattered what powerless low status women do between themselves anyway, so who cares.

there are presumably as many gay women as there are gay men, and yet they often seem to be omitted from the discussion — Arkady

Surveys consistently show that a significantly smaller percentage of women identity as gay, than men identifying as gay. Homosexual women have tended to self-identify as gay somewhat later in life than homosexual men. I haven't read a lot about bisexuality in women, so I don't know.

[The distinction, "gay men / lesbians" happened to the early 1970s. Initially, there was the Gay Liberation Front, gay liberation, gay people, gay community, gay pride. Within a few years that changed to "gay, lesbian, bisexual" or GLB, and in a couple of decades, gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender or GLBT, and sometimes GLBTQ (questioning, confused...) Why all the initials? It is part of the culture wars, where every minority needs to be allocated status, I suppose.)

I'd want to see scientific evidence that this is always a paraphillia or fetish or whatever, and cannot, by its nature, possibly be the same sort of thing as homosexuality or heterosexuality under any circumstance.

The fetish theory is just a theory, and not a proof, isn't it? And not a theory quite like the theory of evolution or the big bang theory? — Sapientia

I'm not sure that a huge amount of research has been done on paraphilias or fetishes. After all, it's mostly "not very important". If preferring red heads and green eyes is a fetish, so what? Or, if liking plump women and not twiggy thin women is a fetish, who cares? It's not worth a big grant to study it.

Paedophilia, hebephilia (sexual interest in pubescent children--11 to 14); and ephebophilia (sexual interest in late adolescents--15-19) is a different story. Where an odd-ball fetish, like requiring a kitchen setting to have satisfying sex might be inconvenient or problematic, paedophilia, hebephilia, and ephebophilia has been criminalized with severe punishments.

Where sexual orientation and paraphilia match is in permanence: Like sexual orientation, fetishes are established early and they don't change. Again, not a problem with most fetishes, but it is a problem when the fetish is criminalized: It's illegal and the person can't change their preference.

We don't have a solution to this problem, just like there isn't a solution to the moderately psychopathic personality. It has been practice in this state (and others) to sentence paedophiles to prison and then place the parolee in mental health facilities after the prison sentence is served. What it amounts to is indefinite institutionalization for which there is no end. Last year the state supreme court ruled that this practice was unconstitutional, and an end point to institutionalization had to be provided. We don't know, at this point, how this decision will be put into effect.

I don't think 'do what thou wilt' comes anywhere near capturing the notion that harm is what matters. One example will suffice - unwanted pregnancy is a harm that frequently comes from applying 'do what thou wilt' to sex. The dictum implies thinking only of oneself, and only for what one immediately wants, with no regard for future consequences for the self or others.

I think I can safely assume that just because homosexuality is innate doesn't make it 'justified' (aka naturalistic fallacy, or appeal to nature.) — NukeyFox

The twist here is that you're taking away one of the main points against homosexuality -- that it is not natural. If you believe the one is committing the naturalistic fallacy, then you'd believe the other is doing so as well.

Innateness does not a justification make -- but the reason people argue this has more to do with objections to homosexual acts.

What most people mean when they say it is innate isn't as much about whether it conforms to nature, though. I'd say that people mean that there is no choice in the matter. People don't choose their sexual orientations. This is also a counter-point to one of the reasons homosexuality is considered immoral, since it goes against God's law and we all have a choice whether or not to follow God's law.

These appeals are more counters to reasons why homosexuality is wrong than they are justifications for homosexuality.

Think -- how would you justify heterosexual acts? What, precisely, is it that makes heterosexual acts permissable? Surely you see the difference between heterosexual acts and, say, psychopathy? No?