The Hitch:On Morality

ElCrapula

Christopher Hitchens on morality.
He does not buy the fact that someone could be a better or more ethical person because of their faith,and issued a challange.He states that he has not,as yet,recieved a satisfactory answer.Lets put it out there.He asks:

Name me an ethical statement made or an action performed by a believer that could not have been made or performed by a non-believer.

He followes this up by asking:

Can you think of a wicked action taken or a wicked statement made because of religion.He rightly adds,that no one has a difficulty doing so.

Can this thread enlighten Mr Hitchens?

PDN

My God, Hitchens really is an ass, isn't he?

Neither of those questions mean that someone cannot be a better person because of their faith. And I fail to see how anyone, other than more asses, could think that they do.

(PS In calling Hitchens an ass I am assuming that you have actually represented his argument accurately).

ElCrapula

PDN wrote: »

My God, Hitchens really is an ass, isn't he?

Neither of those questions mean that someone cannot be a better person because of their faith. And I fail to see how anyone, other than more asses, could think that they do.

(PS In calling Hitchens an ass I am assuming that you have actually represented his argument accurately).

That settles it then.Thread closed.

Dades

ElCrapula wrote: »

Name me an ethical statement made or an action performed by a believer that could not have been made or performed by a non-believer.

A non-believer can't baptise someone?

Personally I think the challenge is meaningless. Proving that non-believers can do any good works a believer can does not disprove the idea that faith makes people more ethical. That idea is still up for grabs.

ElCrapula

Dades wrote: »

A non-believer can't baptise someone?

Personally I think the challenge is meaningless. Proving that non-believers can do any good works a believer can does not disprove the idea that faith makes people more ethical. That idea is still up for grabs.

I imagine anyone who is not a christian would see baptism as unethical.

Faith makes people more ethical?What about a someone who kills in the name of their faith?

Call Me Jimmy

While I definitely don't agree with his second statement about wicked actions, I do agree with the idea that religion is not needed to provide us with an ethical compass. Correct me if I'm wrong but his argument was simply to oppose people who say "how would we know right from wrong without religion?".

ElCrapula

Call Me Jimmy wrote: »

While I definitely don't agree with his second statement about wicked actions, I do agree with the idea that religion is not needed to provide us with an ethical compass. Correct me if I'm wrong but his argument was simply to oppose people who say "how would we know right from wrong without religion?".

How can you disagree with the second statement.People kill in the name of religion,people threaten others with damnation in the name of religion.The list goes on.

PDN

ElCrapula wrote: »

Faith makes people more ethical?What about a someone who kills in the name of their faith?

But that's not the point you claimed Hitchens was making.

A person who kills in the name of their faith simply proves that religion doesn't make everybody behave ethically. It doesn't address the issue of whether someone can be more ethical because of their faith.

ElCrapula

PDN wrote: »

But that's not the point you claimed Hitchens was making.

A person who kills in the name of their faith simply proves that religion doesn't make everybody behave ethically. It doesn't address the issue of whether someone can be more ethical because of their faith.

If I understand you.Youre saying that if two people were to do a good deed,one was a believer and one was not,that the believer is a better person because of his faith.

robindch

Dades wrote: »

A non-believer can't baptise someone?

Nope, I checked it a couple of weeks back -- the Vatican allows anybody to perform baptisms, even atheists.

And that's assuming that baptism is "an ethical statement made or an action", something that I wouldn't imagine most religious people would agree with.

Dades

ElCrapula wrote: »

I imagine anyone who is not a christian would see baptism as unethical.

Hardly. Pointless, maybe, but not unethical.

Call Me Jimmy wrote: »

While I definitely don't agree with his second statement about wicked actions, I do agree with the idea that religion is not needed to provide us with an ethical compass. Correct me if I'm wrong but his argument was simply to oppose people who say "how would we know right from wrong without religion?".

Well according to the OP Hitchins disagreed that "someone could be a better or more ethical person because of their faith". That's not the same thing at all. What he is really asking cannot be determined by a single question, but by endless internet debates and quoting of anecdotes.

hivizman

Hitchens' challenge may be read in context here.

He makes the rather shabby debating trick of setting up two statements that appear to be opposites but in fact are not. On the one hand: "name me an ethical statement made or an action performed by a believer that could not have been made or performed by a non-believer". On the other:"if you ask an audience to name a wicked statement or action directly attributable to religious faith, nobody has any difficulty in finding an example". If one reformulates the second statement so that it has the same structure as the first, it would be: "name me a wicked statement or action performed by a believer that could not have been made or performed by a non-believer."

It is trivially possible to construct various self-referential statements, for example: "God made me give my wealth to the needy", or "God made me smite the unbelievers", which could not self-consistently be uttered by anyone who did not believe in God, but perhaps Hitchens would deny that these are ethical/wicked statements.

Dades

robindch wrote: »

Nope, I checked it a couple of weeks back -- the Vatican allows anybody to perform baptisms, even atheists.

How did it go for you?

Tim Robbins

ElCrapula wrote: »

Christopher Hitchens on morality.
He does not buy the fact that someone could be a better or more ethical person because of their faith,and issued a challange.He states that he has not,as yet,recieved a satisfactory answer.Lets put it out there.He asks:

Hitchens is an absolute loser. He's full of rhetoric and an embarrassment really.

Name me an ethical statement made or an action performed by a believer that could not have been made or performed by a non-believer.

Which is meaningless. An ethical action can be performed of a human irrespective of their beliefs. The only thing that differentiates is whether they do it or not.

Can you think of a wicked action taken or a wicked statement made because of religion.He rightly adds,that no one has a difficulty doing so.

Can this thread enlighten Mr Hitchens?

Again another stupid statement. Causality is one of the hardest things to argue in logic. That's why we have the scientific method.

Furthermore, wicked actions have been performed because of many things. Nationalism, technology, capitalism, socialism. You want to be 100% certain no-one will do anything bad to the next person, go and live on the moon.

It's just more sophistry. What I find embarassing is that these so called spokes people for atheism - Hitchens, Dawkins etc. are what the public's perception of what an atheist is.

It would be a better approach to compliement all the good from religion and then just explain why they don't believe it. Offending people has never been a good way of persuasion even if it is a good way of selling books.

ElCrapula

hivizman wrote: »

Hitchens' challenge may be read in context here.

He makes the rather shabby debating trick of setting up two statements that appear to be opposites but in fact are not. On the one hand: "name me an ethical statement made or an action performed by a believer that could not have been made or performed by a non-believer". On the other:"if you ask an audience to name a wicked statement or action directly attributable to religious faith, nobody has any difficulty in finding an example". If one reformulates the second statement so that it has the same structure as the first, it would be: "name me a wicked statement or action performed by a believer that could not have been made or performed by a non-believer."

It is trivially possible to construct various self-referential statements, for example: "God made me give my wealth to the needy", or "God made me smite the unbelievers", which could not self-consistently be uttered by anyone who did not believe in God, but perhaps Hitchens would deny that these are ethical/wicked statements.

Ok,lets take your alternate form of the statement,you write:"name me a wicked statement or action performed by a believer that could not have been made or performed by a non-believer."

Homosexuality is immoral,Contraception is immoral.I dont think many non-believers would fight a holy war,make themselves human sacrifices for a godly purpose.Again the list goes on

PDN

ElCrapula wrote: »

If I understand you.Youre saying that if two people were to do a good deed,one was a believer and one was not,that the believer is a better person because of his faith.

What? Where on earth did I say anything that could be interpreted as meaning that?

ElCrapula

PDN wrote: »

What? Where on earth did I say anything that could be interpreted as meaning that?

I misunderstood then,explain to me what you meant.

Fanny Cradock

ElCrapula wrote: »

Ok,lets take your alternate form of the statement,you write:"name me a wicked statement or action performed by a believer that could not have been made or performed by a non-believer."

Homosexuality is immoral,Contraception is immoral.I dont think many non-believers would fight a holy war,make themselves human sacrifices for a godly purpose.Again the list goes on

So only believers in the Divine are homophobes and all of us think that contraception is immoral?

Dades

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

only believers in the Divine are homophobes and all of us think that contraception is immoral

Selective quoting rocks!

hivizman

ElCrapula wrote: »

Ok,lets take your alternate form of the statement,you write:"name me a wicked statement or action performed by a believer that could not have been made or performed by a non-believer."

Homosexuality is immoral,Contraception is immoral.I dont think many non-believers would fight a holy war,make themselves human sacrifices for a godly purpose.Again the list goes on

My reformulation of Hitchens specifically asks for a statement that could not have been made or performed by a non-believer. Some non-believers in God believe that homosexuality is immoral and others that contraception is immoral. Some believers in God believe that homosexuality is moral and other believers in God believe that contraception is moral.

I agree, though, that a non-believer wouldn't fight a holy war - that's exactly the sort of self-referential statement that easily refutes Hitchens.

ElCrapula

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

So only believers in the Divine are homophobes and all of us think that contraception is immoral?

probably not the only ones but,in general,barring some lunatics,are the only ones who teach it to their children and try to impose this belief on others.

robindch

Dades wrote: »

How did it go for you?

I felt most, er, relieved afterwards

ElCrapula

hivizman wrote: »

My reformulation of Hitchens specifically asks for a statement that could not have been made or performed by a non-believer. Some non-believers in God believe that homosexuality is immoral and others that contraception is immoral. Some believers in God believe that homosexuality is moral and other believers in God believe that contraception is moral.

I agree, though, that a non-believer wouldn't fight a holy war - that's exactly the sort of self-referential statement that easily refutes Hitchens.

Ok,mentioning holy war was a little unfair........I get back to dammnation.A non believer would not threaten another with eternal fire and brimstone and all that mullarkey because they were living in a manner that was different.

Fanny Cradock

Dades wrote: »

Selective quoting rocks!

Well, I'm under no obligation to respond to every point made. But to humour you, here are a couple of responses to the latter charges that I didn't respond to.

With regards to self-sacrifice - do you suppose, for instance, that every soldier who willingly lays down his life is a raging theist? The answer is no. People allow their own death for man reasons beyond religious beliefs. But suppose that it was the case that self sacrifice was a trait unique to the religious. What then? Because, in it purest form, self-sacrifice is surely one of the most noble deeds one can do.

As for so called 'Holy Wars', surely all wars have a root in the same selfish desires and fears? Sticking 'Holy' in front doesn't change the fact that wars are common to all mankind, not unique to the religious.


::Edit::

hivizman wrote: »

I agree, though, that a non-believer wouldn't fight a holy war - that's exactly the sort of self-referential statement that easily refutes Hitchens.

Just saw this now. Completely agree!

ElCrapula

ElCrapula wrote: »

probably not the only ones but,in general,barring some lunatics,are the only ones who teach it to their children and try to impose this belief on others.

Actually,I want to change my statement here.I do think that people of religious belief are the ONLY ones who deplore homosexuality.There is nothing inate within us to show an aversion to it and I would say that anyone who does,has this view founded in their religious beliefs,whether they still hold them or not,or the religious beliefs of those with whom they are close.

ElCrapula

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Well, I'm under no obligation to respond to every point made. But to humour you, hear are a couple of responses to the latter charges that I didn't respond to.

With regards to self-sacrifice - do you suppose, for instance, that every soldier who willingly lays down his life is a raging theist? The answer is no. People allow their own death for man reasons beyond religious beliefs. But suppose that it was the case that self sacrifice was a trait unique to the religious. What then? Because, in it purest form, self-sacrifice is surely one of the most noble deeds one can do.

As for so called 'Holy Wars', surely all wars have a root in the same selfish desires and fears? Sticking 'Holy' in front doesn't change the fact that wars are common to all mankind, not unique to the religious.


::Edit::



Just saw this now. Completely agree!

You didnt see my correction.I concede mentioning holy war is unfair.
I never said "any solider willing to lay down their life is a raging theist"
And I refer you also to my answer to dammnation,something a non believer would not inflict or threaten another with

Fanny Cradock

ElCrapula wrote: »

I concede mentioning holy war is unfair

It wasn't unfair, it was simply wrong.

ElCrapula wrote: »

I never said "any solider willing to lay down their life is a raging theist"

No, I did and I never stated otherwise. It was used as an example to dispel the notion that self-sacrifice is unique to religion.

ElCrapula wrote: »

And I refer you also to my answer to dammnation,something a non believer would not inflict or threaten another with

That it is a potential consequence is undeniable when talking about Christianity. But I fail to see why would a non-believer would 'inflict' on anyone a concept that they don't subscribe to. This is the same self-referential nonsense that Hivisman was talking about.

PDN

ElCrapula wrote: »

Actually,I want to change my statement here.I do think that people of religious belief are the ONLY ones who deplore homosexuality.There is nothing inate within us to show an aversion to it and I would say that anyone who does,has this view founded in their religious beliefs,whether they still hold them or not,or the religious beliefs of those with whom they are close.

Wrong. Atheist regimes such as those in China and North Korea are virulently homophobic.

I misunderstood then,explain to me what you meant.

What I meant is what I said, that Hitchens' argument as you present it makes little or no sense.

You say that he does not buy the fact that someone could be a better or more ethical person because of their faith - yet neither of the two questions address that issue. Just because an atheist can do anything I can do makes no difference at all to whether my faith can make me more ethical. The fact that some religious people do bad things because of their religion also makes no difference to whether my faith can make me more ethical.

Having said that, this train wreck of a thread has not been a complete waste of time. It's the first time I've seen Tim Robbins use the words 'sophistry' and 'rhetoric' in a post that was not directed at me.

Dades

PDN wrote: »

Having said that, this train wreck of a thread has not been a complete waste of time. It's the first time I've seen Tim Robbins use the words 'sophistry' and 'rhetoric' in a post that was not directed at me.

All hail ElCrapula. The new PDN!

Tim Robbins

PDN wrote: »

Wrong. Atheist regimes such as those in China and North Korea are virulently homophobic.

You've an absence in precision there PDN.

An "atheist regime" by definition is non - sensical. Because atheist is effectively a meaningless word - especially used in conjunction with the word "regime".

It's a bit like saying "regimes that don't believe in magic unicorns" are very evil or they are very good.

You're really referring to Totalitarian Regimes that were against Freedom of Expression.

But by making your logic and language imprecise, you're creating a different argument. Good sophistry technique and in fairness, it must be pointed out that Richard Dawkins and Hitchens do something similar and a huge amount of atheists fall for it.

PDN

Tim Robbins wrote: »

You've an absence in precision there PDN.

An "atheist regime" by definition is non - sensical. Because atheist is effectively a meaningless word - especially used in conjunction with the word "regime".

It's a bit like saying "regimes that don't believe in magic unicorns" are very evil or they are very good.

You're really referring to Totalitarian Regimes that were against Freedom of Expression.

But by making your logic and language imprecise, you're creating a different argument. Good sophistry technique and in fairness, it must be pointed out that Richard Dawkins and Hitchens do something similar and a huge amount of atheists fall for it.

If you want to be precise about it then let me give the pedantic version:
"Regimes that are founded and governed by atheists, which teach atheism as a compulsory subject in schools, and which actively persecute those who are not atheists, such as North Korea and China"
Which, I think, does not create a different argument at all.

Your point about 'atheist' being meaningless is very interesting. I look foward to observing how, on the A&A Board, you will now correct everyone for talking about 'an atheist bus' when they might as well be discussing a bus that doesn't believe in magic unicorns. That is, of course, assuming that you were making a serious point and not just indulging in sophistry.

Dades

The real question is are all the buses in North Korea "Atheist Buses", or just buses in a regime that promotes atheism? :pac:

Tim Robbins

PDN wrote: »

If you want to be precise about it then let me give the pedantic version:
"Regimes that are founded and governed by atheists, which teach atheism as a compulsory subject in schools, and which actively persecute those who are not atheists, such as North Korea and China"
Which, I think, does not create a different argument at all.

Yes it is because you are leaving out the fact they also persecute atheists.

Your point about 'atheist' being meaningless is very interesting. I look foward to observing how, on the A&A Board, you will now correct everyone for talking about 'an atheist bus' when they might as well be discussing a bus that doesn't believe in magic unicorns. That is, of course, assuming that you were making a serious point and not just indulging in sophistry.

It's being brought up several times in those boards that it's effectively meaningless. It's a statement of disbelief not belief.

All Christians are atheist about every single God and Religion except their own.

crotalus667

PDN wrote: »

If you want to be precise about it then let me give the pedantic version:
"Regimes that are founded and governed by atheists, which teach atheism as a compulsory subject in schools, and which actively persecute those who are not atheists, such as North Korea and China"
Which, I think, does not create a different argument at all.

Bad PDN go give yourself an infraction North Korean religion (which I doubt many of them take seriously) is based on the head of state (the head of state is technically the dead father of the guy that is currently in charge)

By the way the op has taken the statement out of context (and made it incomplete) If I recall correctly it was used in response to a challenge placed Al Sharpten (you can find the debate on you tube )

PDN

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Yes it is because you are leaving out the fact they also persecute atheists.

They also persecute people with black hair and women with birthmarks on their left cheek. However having black hair (or birthmarks on the left cheek, or being atheists) are not the grounds on which people are being persecuted. Whereas, in China and North Korea, people are persecuted specifically for disagreeing with the State's enthusiastic support of atheism.

Dades wrote:

The real question is are all the buses in North Korea "Atheist Buses", or just buses in a regime that promotes atheism?

Probably agnostic buses since the buses themselves have not rejected the concept of God per se - they just don't know if there is a God or not. :pac:

robindch

PDN wrote: »

If you want to be precise about it then let me give the pedantic version: "Regimes that are founded and governed by atheists, which teach atheism as a compulsory subject in schools, and which actively persecute those who are not atheists, such as North Korea and China"

Quite apart from the question of whether or not atheism, a completely natural condition of humanity, can be taught, I have to say that "God does not exist. Any questions?" would make a rather short class.

And more to the point, unless things have changed since I was in a classroom in North Korea in August 2005 and heard it directly from the headmistress, atheism is not taught in North Korean schools. Here's a pic from my trip there:



Note the picture of the two Kims at the top of the classroom, occupying the position that Jesus and/or Mary occupied in the classrooms that I went to some 30 years ago, and gazing down over the schoolkids with the same distant, immensely fake paternal/maternal smiles. The pics down the right side of the room are fawning tributes to the Great Leader (Kim Il Sung) and a purported history of his exploits. The Dear Leader (Kim Jong Il) has a separate, similar classroom on the other side of the corridor which is festooned with improving posters, one of which shows a North Korean soldier stabbing an American GI in the throat with a bayonet.

You should consider spicing up your pedantry with the salt of accuracy

.

Tim Robbins

PDN wrote: »

However having black hair (or birthmarks on the left cheek, or being atheists) are not the grounds on which people are being persecuted. Whereas, in China and North Korea, people are persecuted specifically for disagreeing with the State's enthusiastic support of atheism.

Their lack of atheism isn't the grounds for their persecution either.
This is simple a priori logic based on the definition and philosophical meaning of the word atheism which unlike "Christianity" can be objectively and consistently defined.

PDN

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Their lack of atheism isn't the grounds for their persecution either.
This is simple a priori logic based on the definition and philosophical meaning of the word atheism which unlike "Christianity" can be objectively and consistently defined.

I have a friend in China whose hands are twisted beyond repair because his fingers were repeatedly smashed by an interrogator. In repeated sessions of torture over several days he was constantly reminded that all he had to do to stop the pain was to admit that, as he had been taught in school, there is no God. The only other demand made by his torturers was that he should give them the names of "other people in your village who believe in God".

I will be visiting Tom again (not his real name) in a couple of months time. How would you like to accompany me? We could argue sophistry and rhetoric as we drive over the mountains and shake off our police 'tail'. Then you could see Tom's hands, then look him in the eyes and explain to him how simple a priori logic means that he was not persecuted on the grounds of his lack of atheism.

Zombrex

People are missing PDN's point. The claim made was that only religious people persecute homosexuals, and that without religious teaching that homsoexuality is wrong no one would have reason to feel that way.

That assertion doesn't hold because, as PDN pointed out, regimes that were atheist (ie not religious people) have persecuted homosexuals. That is a perfectly valid point to a rather silly statement.

There is something inherent in our nature that makes homosexuality distasteful to us. You don't need religion for that (blame evolution), I would argue that religious attitudes to homosexuality are a consequence of this, not the cause.

Fanny Cradock

Thank you for that (mostly :pac:) balanced post.

robindch

PDN wrote: »

look him in the eyes and explain to him how simple a priori logic means that he was not persecuted on the grounds of his lack of atheism.

As you're aware, China is a one-party state. It does not tolerate underground mass-movements, such as non-state-controlled churches because such movements have a habit of rising up and consuming the administrations that ignore them. The Chinese government seems to have a good knowledge of world history.

Distasteful and all as your friend's persecution is, it is not on account of the state's atheism, but on account of his own divided loyalty to the state's authority. Which, in turn, is causing the state to demand from him what he will not provide -- his undivided devotion.

robindch

Wicknight wrote: »

I would argue that religious attitudes to homosexuality are a consequence of this, not the cause.

+1.

The Mad Hatter

robindch wrote: »

+1.

+1 more

Goduznt Xzst

Ah good aul Hitch I find his musings consistently amusing. His arrogance is really a by-product of his complete lack of respect for religious people, and why should he respect them? I'd imagine a lot of Atheists feel the same as him, in that they are talking to grown adults who are still under the delusion of believing fairy tales. Grown adults, who when asked whether they believe invisible creatures are flying around in the skies and clouds outside their window, or who can be present in the shadows of their bedrooms at night, will answer "Yes"

His point, whether a form of, as Tim Robbins likes to use ad nauseam, "rhethoric", is that if not for morality, then what else do we need religion and God for? He is making the point that all real aspects of religion can be replaced, and that for a religion to hinge itself on the good deeds of its members is a fallacy, when these good deeds are not unique to them, and certainly not an indication that they are doing them because they are the one true religion. I'm sure PDN will admit that even apostate religions can be known for their generosity and charity, probably even more notably so than even Heterodox Christian sects.

ergo, the morality of the members of a religion is not a proof of its validity or a reason for its necessity

Tim Robbins

Wicknight wrote: »

There is something inherent in our nature that makes homosexuality distasteful to us. You don't need religion for that (blame evolution), I would argue that religious attitudes to homosexuality are a consequence of this, not the cause.

I'm sure the Spartans and Ancient Greeks agree with you.

Tim Robbins

PDN wrote: »

I have a friend in China whose hands are twisted beyond repair because his fingers were repeatedly smashed by an interrogator. In repeated sessions of torture over several days he was constantly reminded that all he had to do to stop the pain was to admit that, as he had been taught in school, there is no God. The only other demand made by his torturers was that he should give them the names of "other people in your village who believe in God".

I will be visiting Tom again (not his real name) in a couple of months time. How would you like to accompany me? We could argue sophistry and rhetoric as we drive over the mountains and shake off our police 'tail'. Then you could see Tom's hands, then look him in the eyes and explain to him how simple a priori logic means that he was not persecuted on the grounds of his lack of atheism.

What would be the point in that? Are you trying to scare me into thinking you're right? How ironic.

Glasshouse and stones come to mind.

PDN

Tim Robbins wrote: »

What would be the point in that? Are you trying to scare me into thinking you're right? How ironic.

Glasshouse and stones come to mind.

Scare you? You are reaching conclusions about something without knowing the facts or examining the evidence. I am offering you an opportunity to actually see some evidence. Why should that be scary? -

Tim Robbins

PDN wrote: »

Scare you? You are reaching conclusions about something without knowing the facts or examining the evidence. I am offering you an opportunity to actually see some evidence. Why should that be scary? -

"A priori" is an argument that doesn't use experience of evidence.
Here's a good link.

Your friend is being scared into say something is true / not ture.
All you're doing (ironically) is trying to do the same to me. What I see or don't see makes no different to the argument you've ignorned.

Fanny Cradock

Goduznt Xzst wrote: »

Ah good aul Hitch I find his musings consistently amusing. His arrogance is really a by-product of his complete lack of respect for religious people, and why should he respect them? I'd imagine a lot of Atheists feel the same as him, in that they are talking to grown adults who are still under the delusion of believing fairy tales. Grown adults, who when asked whether they believe invisible creatures are flying around in the skies and clouds outside their window, or who can be present in the shadows of their bedrooms at night, will answer "Yes"

Yeah... we get it.

Zombrex

Tim Robbins wrote: »

I'm sure the Spartans and Ancient Greeks agree with you.

Well yes, they would. Homosexual relationships between adult men, while not uncommon, still were considered a social taboo. I imagine you are confusing this with the relationship between an adult man and an adolescent boy, which was considered more acceptable.

Tim Robbins

Wicknight wrote: »

Well yes, they would. Homosexual relationships between adult men, while not uncommon, still were considered a social taboo. I imagine you are confusing this with the relationship between an adult man and an adolescent boy, which was considered more acceptable.

No. I have read about homosexuality and relationships with adolescent boys.
Check here for example.