Originally posted by carpedm9587
View Post
If someone is genetically predisposed for some behavior, how can you say that they are acting immorally?
Because it is not the genetics that determines if something is moral or not, it is the action. Being a heroin addict is wrong. Not because being an addict is wrong. You can be an addict and NOT be taking drugs. In recovery. So it is the act that is wrong.
You are entitled to your opinion, Sparko, but I'm simply not going to keep repeating myself because you haven't read or don't remember or are ignoring my previous answer to the same question. However, you can review the answer here: http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...l=1#post543482
"Sparko - the ACT in a context is immoral. In this case, the context is disparate age, and it is actually the AGE (or more specifically, the difference in developmental status that age implies) that makes the act of pedophilia immoral. There is no problem with that. "
You actually admitted that the AGE is what makes the act immoral. You are discriminating on AGE, just like I said. You just admitted to what I was saying in my example. You didn't ANSWER my question.
WHY IS IT OK TO DISCRIMINATE ON AGE IN THAT CASE? Age is something you should not discriminate on someone with, correct? People can't help their age, so if you discriminate against someone based on a characteristic they can't control it is bigotry.
I think this is one of those cases where you are pretending to misread what the other person is saying (playing dumb) so you can avoid admitting you are wrong.
Comment