Just wanted to respond to one of your earlier posts, sorry if I'm repeating other folks arguments:
The same exact arguments have been made by pedophiles and zoophiles alike. If one is copacetic in your mind, why can't other groups extrapolate your opinion to a broader sense as they have?
Its all about love, they say. We're loving the animals. We're loving the little kids and trying to release the shackles of their sexual oppression. Its typical.
Through the exact same way homosexuality came through the acceptance door, will be the same way pedophilia will come through.... the guise of supposed love.
And now you are telling me that consent is some kind of untouchable quality to determine the morality of something. But you forget the fact that you don't ask a cow, "pretty please, with sugar on top, can I slaughter you and your flesh?" So why would you ask their permission to have sex with them by the same premise?
Answer: Obviously consent isn't the sole qualifier of such things.
However, in those sorts of 'relationships' it is only one of the parties involved who are saying that this is an act of love. They are then presuming to speak on behalf of the other parties involved, who are either incapable of expressing their feelings or understanding such a situation. To take another example, if a rapist said he 'loved' his victim, this obviously couldn't be considered a loving relationship since the victim would disagree and point to the fact he forced himself on her. But if the rapist slipped his victim rohipnol so she was incapable of objecting to what was going to happen, that is still rape.
In a homosexual relationship, both parties involved are capable of expressing their feelings. Yes, at a basic level this is consent, but as others have pointed out, this is not the only consideration. As I understand it, the whole issue of consent is brought up not to justify homosexual relationships, but to show how homosexual relationships cannot be compared to paedophilia/bestiality/rape. Consent may not define an action as morally right, but would you agree that if consent is missing the act is morally wrong?
Also a homosexual relationship is more than just sex, another reason why comparisons to paedophilia/bestiality/rape are redundant. There is the emotional ties and reciprocated love, in fact exactly the same as heterosexual relationships. I don't think I can give a catch-all qualifier for sexual relationship without it being relativistic, but aren't you just as relative in your approach. For example, in the question of gay marriage you hold to a 'traditional' view that marriage should be defined as between one man and one woman. However, traditionally marriage has also often involved polygamy, and the marriageable age has been around 10-13. Why do you not include these in your definition of marriage?
™ Version 4.2