darth_ender said:

DominicCobb said:

Even if it is "technically" a psychological disorder, that doesn't matter, because, unlike the other disorders, it's not harmful (in fact the only thing harmful about it is other people making fun of them or comparing them to pedophiles).

And DE you're going to have to explain yourself there.

I explained it in my reply to Ryan McAvoy. I don't understand why one's sensitivities to the plights of certain demographics always makes any analysis or comparison invalid.

Look, if a vegetarian said eating animals makes you like Jeffrey Dahmer, we might complain with a great deal of justification that such a comparison is inappropriate, yet there are valid comparisons when seen from a certain point of view. Yes, we are in fact taking the life of another living creature and eating parts of it for pleasure.

But saying there is no room for comparison between homosexuals and pedophiles is stupid. If we are trying to compare them morally (which I am not, and I'm in fact making nothing even close to such an inference), then there would be a flaw. But we are comparing the actual sexual attraction, something which is technically not the "normal", yet is present in as real a sense for the pedophiles as it is for the homosexuals and heterosexuals.

Ultimately, my point has nothing to do with what is really right or wrong. My point is simply that society's definition does indeed change.

The only time I brought morals into it was to point out that we might be offended by some changes that could very well face society in the future, but at the same time, some people (not me, because, as you hopefully read while incompletely taking in my initial message, I have really liberalized in my views in these matters) are offended by the changes we are facing in today's societal changes of morality. And perhaps they deserve a little slack for being as resistant as you might be in 50 years.

Precisely so...