Right and Wrong

It is common practice in persuasive speaking or in debate to appeal to the audience's sense of moral relativity when trying to gain acceptance for a practice which is considered immoral under the status quo. Two examples in the last 24 hours include:

1. a friend who wrote "With a little understanding and acceptance, the world will be a better place" in trying to persuade his audience to accept effeminate men
   
2. a stranger who was defending c___d pornography on the grounds that people who call it immoral are doing so either because they've been fed that belief by society or else they've come up with it on their own as part of what he considers to be their perverse and narrow-minded views of what's right and what isn't.

To read on, click the blog title. Kinda long, sorta.

I agree with my friend about GLBT acceptance even though I am not G,L,B, or T. Neither am I a fan of CP, and yet I disagree with the stranger about c___d pornography acceptance. We have two men who are each attempting to persuade society to be more accepting of lifestyles in which they have vested interests and which are currently looked down upon by society-at-large.

Obviously, at some point we draw the line. At some point we say, "Person A has persuaded me to be more accepting towards gays, but Person B has not nor can he ever persuade me to be more accepting towards pedophiles." At some point we, as an overall society, transform from saying "homosexuality and pedophilia are immoral" to saying "homosexuality is now morally acceptable but pedophilia remains now and forever immoral."

My question is, what does it take for mankind to redefine his moral compass? Most people today do not live by a 100% moral absolute nor do they live by 100% moral relativity. Most people invoke some absolutes (e.g. "it's not okay to make others suffer") and at the same time invoke some relatives (e.g. "I wouldn't want to live life behind a mask and black robe, but who are we to pass judgment on their way of life?"). My question, I guess, is what does it take for something to no longer be "an acceptable sin, so small that it would be the greater sin to intervene than to let Person B continue as he is doing" and to become "an unacceptable sin, so big that it would be a greater sin to stand by and let Person B continue as he is doing than to intervene" ?

P.S. I know Jay knows this, but because I'm OCD like that I just want to go on record to say that obviously his blog update wasn't convincing to me: rather, it was preaching to the choir as I was already very much in hearty agreement. (As I think he saw from my enthusiastic replies. ^^; )