Wondering

[sistermagpie]

> Del:
> I cannot elaborate since this would be OT, however I do want to 
point
> out that most people who oppose homosexuality *do* see both a crime
> and a set of victims, not necessarily in the act or the partners
> themselves, but in the more global concept of homosexuality. It's a
> matter of different worldviews and entirely different moralities -
> something much more akin to the "House-Elf enslavement" problem 
than
> to the Muggleborn problem, IMO.
> 
> Del"
> 
> lizzyben:
> 
> Here, you aren't talking about ephebophiles, but homosexuality in 
> general. And stating that there is both a crime & a set of victims 
> in the concept of homosexuality in general. As requested, I'm 
> posting to the OT site to ask if you could elaborate on that. 
> Because Lanval did create a moral limitation "things that HURT 
> people/things that do not", and you stated that homosexuality is 
> still in the first category, but I don't understand the reasoning 
> behind this statement. What is the crime/victim in the "global 
> concept of homosexuality? How is homosexuality in any way paralell 
> to "House elf enslavement"? I'm not seeing the analogy there.

Magpie:
I'm not Del, but as I understood what she was saying, she's saying 
that people who oppose homosexuality say they do so because it is 
harmful, so they do consider it harmful. Whether or not Del herself 
thinks it's harmful is a different issue. 

Based on things I have heard people say who think it's wrong come up 
with reasons why it is harmful. I have heard people explain to me 
that you become gay because you're molested as a child and then you 
go out to molest other people--so that's harmful. To me that's 
indicative of just how wrong-thinking the whole position is, because 
it's really hard to argue that a man touching another man or a woman 
touching another woman is really harmful to anybody, so they have to 
come up with other crimes that allegedly gay people are guilty of as 
a group like child molestation. Or I've also heard people speak 
against gay people adopting children with the claim that it's 
harmful for children to not be raised with a mother and a father, 
and that we want to raise "moral" children. Again, imo this falls 
apart because lots of kids are raised without a mother and a father 
without being harmed, and also there's a desire to say that 
straight=more moral, as if gay people are also guilty of some other 
moral crimes.

I think with the house elf enslavement Del's saying it's about the 
right way to treat people and what's natural to people. Hermione 
says it's wrong to enslave house elves, but Wizards say this is what 
makes them happy. So the parallel would be that one person says why 
shouldn't a gay person act according to his/her nature when it 
doesn't harm anyone (and in fact as a group they're very valuable 
and productive members of society and so help society), while the 
other person says that it doesn't matter if it's in their nature, 
it's harmful to them and to others. They just don't know it.

-m