Sometimes I think I have an innate talent for starting discussions that make people want to punch me in the face.
Here's one that's a prime example.
When someone brings up the topic of homosexuality, I have a tendency to ask whether they're also willing to be accepting of pedophilia.
Take a look at the arguments generally used to justify homosexuality.
1) It's just an alternate lifestyle.
Technically, you could define any deviant behavior as "an alternate lifestyle" if you wanted to. Ah, but homosexuality is accepted while pedophilia never will be, right? Thirty or so years ago no one would have bought the idea that homosexuality would be accepted either.
2) It's genetic.
This is the most commonly used argument in defense of homosexuality. Truthfully, it's not proven by any stretch, but it's come to be accepted as "proven" in a lot of the public consciousness. If, however, we can accept that a predisposition to same sex relationships is inborn and that it should be accepted based on this notion, what if it's determined that pedophilia is also an inborn predisposition. Moral consistency demands that we accept this as valid also.
3) There's precedent.
Homosexuality has been part of the culture for a while now, and people have suffered to obtain the rights they now have, so the story goes. If you think there aren't such "pioneers" for pedophilia, think again. And yes, they follow a lot of the same tracks that gay rights advocates did.
4) It's two consenting adults
This is the most common argument against the connection between these ideas, but take a look at the culture. You have younger and younger kids having sex with each other, so people could argue that it would be better to let a responsible adult be involved (try to grip the irony on that one). It can also be argued that while molestation or actual sexual contact might be bad, "passive" pedophilia (i.e. someone who "just looks") is largely harmless, a "victimless crime" like so many other things are these days.
There are plenty of parallels between the two options here. Enough that in the end, I think moral consistency demands that you either accept both or reject both. Naturally, I reject both, but there are many who want to accept one and not the other.
As you might imagine, they tend to be annoyed when I present this argument.
Here's one that's a prime example.
When someone brings up the topic of homosexuality, I have a tendency to ask whether they're also willing to be accepting of pedophilia.
Take a look at the arguments generally used to justify homosexuality.
1) It's just an alternate lifestyle.
Technically, you could define any deviant behavior as "an alternate lifestyle" if you wanted to. Ah, but homosexuality is accepted while pedophilia never will be, right? Thirty or so years ago no one would have bought the idea that homosexuality would be accepted either.
2) It's genetic.
This is the most commonly used argument in defense of homosexuality. Truthfully, it's not proven by any stretch, but it's come to be accepted as "proven" in a lot of the public consciousness. If, however, we can accept that a predisposition to same sex relationships is inborn and that it should be accepted based on this notion, what if it's determined that pedophilia is also an inborn predisposition. Moral consistency demands that we accept this as valid also.
3) There's precedent.
Homosexuality has been part of the culture for a while now, and people have suffered to obtain the rights they now have, so the story goes. If you think there aren't such "pioneers" for pedophilia, think again. And yes, they follow a lot of the same tracks that gay rights advocates did.
4) It's two consenting adults
This is the most common argument against the connection between these ideas, but take a look at the culture. You have younger and younger kids having sex with each other, so people could argue that it would be better to let a responsible adult be involved (try to grip the irony on that one). It can also be argued that while molestation or actual sexual contact might be bad, "passive" pedophilia (i.e. someone who "just looks") is largely harmless, a "victimless crime" like so many other things are these days.
There are plenty of parallels between the two options here. Enough that in the end, I think moral consistency demands that you either accept both or reject both. Naturally, I reject both, but there are many who want to accept one and not the other.
As you might imagine, they tend to be annoyed when I present this argument.
It is for your benefit, not mine. I am sure you have read the Augsburg Confession and Luther's Small Catechism. You seem like a smart cookie, so I am sure you have 
