I'm afraid I don't understand your point. Are you saying that two consenting adults who are harming no one is the same as someone breaking the law and harming a child who has no ability to protect themselves?
Nope, not saying that. But did state in post #148: I doubt someone would be able to make the case for how it actually impacts them, unless they invoke sense of harm as if it is presumed to be automatic.
To me, it is quite plausible that a minor (say 15 years old) could consent. I intentionally used the word minor before. If you are of the opinion that a minor cannot consent, because that is how you interpret legalities or whatever, then it is debatable, but has only a little to do with the point. It's quite plausible that in a case of an adult who is getting freaky with a minor that no one is being hurt. Yet, if you are presuming it to be automatic, then the debate will be short lived. And IMO, is no different than assuming things like homosexuality and transgender are automatically harmful to a society. Sounds all pretty in its righteousness, but I believe is implausible to defend.
Further, that my embrace of society that allows harm to come to children has no affect on me? Or am I misunderstanding you?
Misunderstanding the point that you are asking about in OP. It is found in how you chose to respond to the inquiry I asked. You're coming from what I'd call ignorant righteousness.
Moreover, you still haven't chosen to address that it could very easily be happening right now in your neighborhood (within feet of you) and then explain how that is truly impacting you. Are you inherently unsafe right now?
My point is that the perceived wrongness is really a judgment of own self. But given the projection and the presumption of (automatic) harm to society (really guilt), it creates a convoluted mess whereby ignorant righteousness seems to be the way out, to say it is all on them, when very clearly it is them who are dreaming it up as a problem to begin with. And on top of it, aren't facing the reality that it very much could be happening right next door to them and that it really, truly doesn't impact your life. But the righteousness claims it surely is. I think our back and forth has made this clear. You want to be hung up on consent stuff, that's fine, but that's easily missing the larger picture. I also don't honestly think you could win on the consent thing other than sticking with legalities. But I honestly think that's the only card you have to play in not understanding the larger point.
Really, if just dealing with impact your life, we could go with murder. Already illegal, already well known as not something society will support. And yet it happens and unless it is persons you know, you don't readily have impact on your life when it occurs. Could be neighbors right next to you (that you know, but say aren't close to) and one shoots the other, and yes, it'll have some impact on you, but nothing significant. And that's murder, that's me choosing the extreme to make the point of impact as negligible more succinct.
With other things, the harm has to be read into it, and it's far more the (subjective) morality and then projection of what that says about me if I'm aware it is occurring near me, that is what you're asking about in OP.
I don't see how any anti-homosexual person who is unaware of what goes on between two people could be possible impacted by the situation. When they become aware of it (however that looks), what I believe they are likely to be mostly impacted by is their own judgment, based on their own sense of morality and projection of harm against society / the people involved. I fully expect that it would be a claim of "they are doing this" (bad) stuff. Feeling all righteous in pointing that out. And seemingly overlooking the self evident aspect that the actual pronouncement of it being bad/harmful is ENTIRELY on them. Especially in matters such as what we've been discussing thus far.
