On a philosophy forum I was in a debate with an agnostic over something related to this–although he seems more like an atheist.
Most people prefer political rhetoric and cultural norms but I prefer to go to the roots and reality of thing. Best I can at least.
The agnostic I debated was correct that homosexuality does not cause harm in the sense of PTSD when carried out consensually between two adults or two fourteen year old kids.
We disagreed about the harm done to a fourteen year old having sex with an adult be it a heterosexual or homosexual encounter.
He argued it causes harm. I argued it does not. Speaking of two people attracted to each other that want to have sex with one another that is.
I’m even open to the possibility it does not cause “harm” to children eight or ten years old–depending on the context.
And by harm what I’m referring to is PTSD.
But whether or not something causes “harm” is only a principle for agnostics and atheists as to whether something should be regard as moral (or amoral) or immoral.
(I would argue that atheist can logically only subscribe to ethics and not any objective morality but that is a different issue or topic)
My feeling is that pedophilia is immoral (even if thought about) but attraction to young teens that have entered puberty and developed the characteristic in their physiques most adults find sexually attractive, is neither abnormal or immoral. That it’s criminalized points to a schizophrenia that’s characteristic of our secular age regarding sex.
I use the term schizophrenia in this way:
dictionary.reference.com/browse/schizophrenia
You might notice that secular society usually contradicts itself over the issues of sex. Usually, they say sex causes no harm, not even when children engage in it, ergo we ought give children condoms.
Ad hocs tend to be created to bolster a sides positions. The term homophobia fits this purpose. Agephobia exists too when secular society flips out over a thirty year old having sex with a willing fourteen year old. But you’ll note the absence of the term agephobia in any of the rhetoric. But another ad hoc must be created to explain agephobia. The ad hoc explanation is “harm.” What harm? Few can explain. They just know it mystically exists out there. What they usually are referring to but have no idea they are is PTSD. But why would they be harmed if they are willing? The ad hoc explanation of “A fourteen year old can not consent.”
Basically, in terms of sexual selection we are dealing with prejudices and discrimination. We all have prejudices formed one way or another and we all discriminate. But we may feel compelled to create ad hoc moral explanations for our prejudices or what traits we discriminate against and attempt to justify them as universally objective truths.
I would argue pedophilia is immoral but based upon my views of the existence of innocence in children, what that innocence is, and the role of an older person to guide the younger person in morally appropriate directions.
One might argue my views of the innocence of a child and what the proper role of an older person should be are subjective views. And maybe they are. But they are views I’ve come to believe in and I’m confident they are true.
I’d like you to review what I wrote on the previous page and consider that the FBI calls them “children” or “kids” (infant, toddler, or teenager). I think the reason is a child/kid has a parent(s). The FBI has a section on CHILD PREDATORS. I hope that helps you better understand so as to avoid confusion. Thank you for your patience.