Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Is Gay Marriage Immoral?
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 106 of 134 (336279)
07-29-2006 8:13 AM
Reply to: Message 101 by AlienInvader
07-28-2006 11:18 AM


Re: bigotry
urinals take less time, oh and less water.
How does it take less time to pee in a urinal than a toilet. If you have ten people seeking to use 4 toilets, or 2 toilets and 2 urinals, you will only potentially have longer wait times at the latter (less options). I might add that instead of urinals you could just use a trough system which is usable by both. If water is an issue then you get toilets with separate flush buttons for nature of waste (which is useful for men and women).
It doesn't cut the other way because it's never necessary and never happens.
I'm sorry, you are claiming that men never find themselves in a position where they need to use a woman's toilet? Now wait, your claim goes further in that it never has been done. How did you arrive at that conclusion? I know I have had to... and did. Now where is your theory?
i don't think it matters in as much as public norms.
There goes your argument. At least you get it in the end, this is about norms and not about physical necessity.
not quite as easy to use privacy and safety across race. Sexual dimorphism is a little more... pronounced than racial... ??poly-morphism??
So you say. It may be less common that people cross sexual lines but that does not make them any more clear.
... says you. seperate urinary openings justify different toilets. different toilets are facilitated by separate facilities.
You realize you keep reasserting, rather than constructing any sort of argument. How do different openings justify different toilets? Women's toilets are exactly the same as men's toilets. And in what way do different toilets necessitate separate facilities? If your argument is correct then we should have a bathroom for sitdown toilets and one for urinals.
some things were harsher than laws. society was wrong.
Uhhhhh... I didn't say minorities weren't hurt by racism. I said separate toilets weren't by law, any more than separate toilets for women, and minorities were able to use them in the same way people of different sexes use opposite sex bathrooms.
By the way, when bathrooms were first divided based on sex in western culture, were women considered equals with men, and enjoying full rights?
for lack of a better word, the "shaft" makes all the difference.
How? Men can use women's toilets and vice versa because they are identical. Urinals as they are presently designed can be changed to allow all women to use them (more of a trough design seen in some european areas). Or we can just stick with toilets.
i may go back and forth, but at least i'm on target.
I don't know, you seem to be splashing around a bit.
i'm actually highlighting developmental differences, in that it is impossible for women to impregnate women
What does that have to do with the kind of toilet one needs to use? If this is the rape issue, what prevents a rapist from raping a woman in a women's room... the sign on the door?
that i can argue for it at all, whereas i cannot argue for racial segregation, indicates that there is a decent difference between the two.
All this may mean is that you aren't fully thinking through your arguments. Its pretty easy to say "I don't understand X therefore no one can", but its not logical.
That I can argue a difference between a proper argument and your own, indicates there is a decent difference between the two.

holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode}
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 101 by AlienInvader, posted 07-28-2006 11:18 AM AlienInvader has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 111 by AlienInvader, posted 07-29-2006 8:31 PM Silent H has not replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 107 of 134 (336281)
07-29-2006 8:48 AM
Reply to: Message 104 by Silent H
07-29-2006 6:21 AM


sexual minorities
What? This makes no sense. A person could just as easily get married to someone else for tax purposes, rather than someone that is already married to someone else. And why couldn't two hetero guys get "married" for the same tax reasons, though not being gay at all?
You misunderstand me. Sorry.
I didn't mean 'tax fraud could be committed therefore we shouldn't let it happen'. I meant 'somebody may be able to generate some reason for banning polygamy and it might be legit...tax reasons spring to mind'. Though in hindsight it needn't be tax reasons but some other legal reasons.
I'm not building a case against polygamy here. If there are no legal reasons like tax etc then I have no problem with polygamous marriage. One possible issue that jumps into my brain is this:
abe: If you had eight wives and you were critically ill and not conscious. The spouse must be consulted before a high risk operation is attempted. Four of the wives say yes, four say no. What now? Sticky situations regarding status of each wife need to be addressed, does it go in order of marriage (first being most important), how much power to does each wife wield? Does one get a veto?
Certainly, these can be tailored to each individual marriage, which is fine for executing wills (and possibly fine for divorce procedings - though child custody could be a nightmare) where time can be taken to pour through the legal details - but medical staff might be unable to establish which wife has primacy in emergency situations. Sticky wickets indeed.
/abe
Hey, homosexuality WAS illegal. It was just made legal in the US within the last couple years. People were clamoring for gay marriage BEFORE THAT. And as I have noted before, in past threads, incestuous and minor related sexual relationships ARE allowed in varying degrees from state to state... though not the same for all states.
Yes homosexuality was illegal, and so was marriage. Once it was established to the courts content that homosexuality was no a 'bad thing', then it became legal. I see no reason why marriage is still banned. For the other relationships, where they are legal, I see no reason to ban marriage.
In any case your appeal to them being illegal is circular. The question begins if they should be illegal at all!
Exactly! Should they be illegal? That's a matter to be decided before the question of marriage should even crop up. If they are legal, I contend, then so should the associated marriage contract. Though there might be further issues with contracts and minors depending on local laws.
Okay, for that group you are right. But that still does not make it illogical for homosexuality to be felt immoral.
Of course not. Though 'feelings' and 'logic' are unusual bedfellows. It doesn't make the concept of homosexuality as immoral being illogical. However, we can tell that the reason that it is immoral is nothing to do with child bearing. Hence the reason they get asked for their actual reason.
I suppose a society could deem what feels right and wrong to be the sole compass for law building and morality. But who decides what feels right etc? Hence we use rhetoric and logic and reason to decide if a law should be enacted or a practice banned. There was a time when we used to do what 'felt right' as part of law - but those times are past and the laws built then are being challenged now.
It felt right to keep slaves, persecute black people and ban evolution teaching in many places around the world. That kind of lawmaking has been abandoned and laws based on reason and the universality of laws to all is the way its done now because we know that the former method leads to bad places.
We could just say gay marriage is both moral and immoral - depending on your point of view. It wouldn't make for much of a debate. Usually, in discussions on ethics and morality a list of pros and cons for each decision is put forward and weighted depending on morale system.
Obviously from certain religious systems when God says something is immoral it is, and is given an infinte weight. However, the OP clearly says 'God says so' is out...is there is a non 'God says so' reason why gay marriage is immoral?
While I agree with this sentiment, anyone arguing that laws should reflect morality cannot.
They should reflect morality of a certain kind, not just any morality. That morality should be based on reasoned argumentation, the rights established as part of a constitution and consistency with other laws etc.
Laws against polygamy, incest, and minor-related sexual activities (from now on I am calling them "other sexual minorities") are purely culture related. If they are not, please explain how they are not.
As I said, there are pragmatic reasons that could be put forward for all of them. Incestual relationships increase the chances of severely disabled children, minors that can physically have children are not necessarily well built for the task and under certain ages sexual activities can harm them physically. Also there is the emotional considerations which is partially or maybe even wholly related to culture. I never said we should ignore culture entirely.
I'm not going to build a case against polygamy because I don't care for the topic. I am keeping an open mind that there might be a valid tax etc related reason, but I don't care if there isn't. If there isn't I believe that there should also be legalized polygamous marriage.
That's the same reasons given for all other sexual minorities. Oh yeah, except the claims to "harm" sometimes brought in by liberals against others, despite the absence of any solid evidence for such claims (still have threads waiting for people to present the evidence).
I have no disgust for the sexual minorities you mention. There are good reasons for incest laws, good reasons against sexual relationships with the young - especially those that are able to get pregnant/get their partner pregnant or would be physically or emotionally harmed by the affair given the society it occurs in.
This isn't the thread for such discussions. The point is that we agree on the fundamentals here: If there is a valid reason for banning it -that's fine. If not, then the ban should not be there. 'Disgusting' is not a valid reason, nor is 'God says so'.
That's not to mention if statistical correlation from sexual pref or activity to mental and physical health is sought... and conservatives have shown this accurately... gays do not come off well.
This is irrelevant to gay marriage though. This is just about homosexuality. There are increased health risks with being homosexual not with marrying one (as far as I am aware).
If those health risks are too much of a burden to society then a case could be made to make homosexuality illegal (or at least homosexual practices). However, as it stands, society has for whatever reason, decided homosexual activities are not too great a risk to society to make them legal. So why no marriage?
One reason I thought of for banning gay marriages that is based in reasoned argument is the massive increase in potential marital fraud and the strain it could place on the system (immigration for one). If that was the reason for wanting the ban I'd be happy with the explanation - we could argue whether it was a good reason, put different sides up for examination etc.
In any case, as I am pointing out the perceived illogic and inconsistency in this matter rests on both sides. You yourself just appealed to tradition and culture to exclude the other sexual minorities legally, while suggesting it shouldn't be so for gays.
I hope I cleared that up. I have no problem with the legality of other sexual minorities. If they can be shown to be on a par with homosexuality for the number of problems that come with them, then legalize away! If not, then consideration should be made and a decision will be more difficult. However, if sexual minorities are legal they should be able to marry.
Polygamy stands as an interesting example since it involves more than two parties in the marriage. This may, or may not, mean there are valid tax or other legal reasons for limiting or banning polygamous marriages. I'm sure some guidelines could be brought up that would help prevent the issues that polygamous marriages could bring, and if they covered all the bases I'm happy for it to be made legal.
Edited by Modulous, : added a random thought about polygamy that occured to me.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 104 by Silent H, posted 07-29-2006 6:21 AM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 114 by Silent H, posted 07-30-2006 6:34 AM Modulous has replied

  
happy_atheist
Member (Idle past 4913 days)
Posts: 326
Joined: 08-21-2004


Message 108 of 134 (336282)
07-29-2006 9:00 AM
Reply to: Message 104 by Silent H
07-29-2006 6:21 AM


Re: Constitution
Added by edit:
Note, I typed this response before Mod submitted his response above .
Holmes writes:
Modulous writes:
polygamous marriage has been brought up here, I said that there is no direct moral reason for banning polygamous marriage, but there might be good tax related reasons.
What? This makes no sense. A person could just as easily get married to someone else for tax purposes, rather than someone that is already married to someone else. And why couldn't two hetero guys get "married" for the same tax reasons, though not being gay at all? In any case, just as with marriage codes which inherently exclude gays, tax laws were written with the assumption of monogamous heterosexual marriage. That means you are going to use the circular argument that because we based tax credits for marriage on a system that excluded polygamists, should be a reason to identify polygamy as different and so excluded from marriage.
I seem to remember reading Mod making an argument similar to this on a seperate thread. I may be completely wrong (and I'm sure he'll correct me on this if I am), but I don't think his argument is strictly to do with exploitation of the tax system. I think it's more to do with the added complications that would arrise with tax issues (and other things such as inheritance and pensions after death etc) if there were more than two people in the marriage.
That certainly isn't a reason to disallow it though (assuming that the complications would even exist, I have no idea if they would), unless the complications were so great that it became impossible to administrate in a reasonable way.
Personally I see no reason not to allow polygamous marriages.
Holmes writes:
Modulous writes:
The other two involve illegal acts. If they were legal, I'd see no reason to ban marriages surrounding them.
I can't believe you said this. Hey, homosexuality WAS illegal. It was just made legal in the US within the last couple years. People were clamoring for gay marriage BEFORE THAT.
I see little reason in asking for a legal recognition of a union involving something that itself is not legal. That's a clear case of running before you can walk. I think Mod was trying to make this point too. Before incestuous marriage and marriages of minors could even be considered you first have to make incestuous relationships and relationships with minors legal. One step at a time... (N.B I'm not arguing for or against either of these things being made legal, that would be something for a seperate thread).
Holmes writes:
Lets say the US had not overturned laws against homosexuality a few years back, would you maintain that homosexual marriage should not be pursued in the US?
Of course it shouldn't, well at least not until it was made legal to be homosexual. It is a contradiction for homosexuals to be legally able to marry other homosexuals, but not allowed to actually be homosexual. Again, one step at a time.
Edited by happy_atheist, : Just pointing out I typed this before seeing Mod's response above

This message is a reply to:
 Message 104 by Silent H, posted 07-29-2006 6:21 AM Silent H has not replied

  
Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2492 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 109 of 134 (336313)
07-29-2006 12:15 PM
Reply to: Message 105 by Silent H
07-29-2006 7:06 AM


Re: bigotry
I was going to respond to your entire post, but one sentence struck me as so profoundly ridiculous that I will stick solely to it.
2) If its not about the sex, then why don't gays get such contracts with people they aren't going to have sex with (namely women)?
So, let me get this right, your position on gay marriage is: "Gays can get married, just not to the person they want to marry. A simple solution would be for every gay person to marry some other random person and still not enjoy any of the rights they seek to get."
Here's a little play --
int. hospital
Gary - "Excuse me, I heard the Steve Miller was brought he. He's been in a car accident."
Nurse - "Yes, Mr. Miller was in an accident. He's in very serious condition."
Gary - "What room is he in?"
Nurse - "I'm sorry, only family can visit."
Gary - "But, I'm married to Susan."
Nurse - "Who's Susan?"
Gary - "Oh, just some girl I met at the post office. Can I visit Steve now?"
Nurse - "No."
Gary - "Gee, this doesn't seem like it solves any of the problems with gay marriage."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 105 by Silent H, posted 07-29-2006 7:06 AM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 113 by Silent H, posted 07-30-2006 6:11 AM Nuggin has replied

  
berberry
Inactive Member


Message 110 of 134 (336398)
07-29-2006 5:23 PM
Reply to: Message 104 by Silent H
07-29-2006 6:21 AM


Re: Constitution
holmes writes:
quote:
And why couldn't two hetero guys get "married" for the same tax reasons, though not being gay at all?
I realize you were making a larger point, holmes, and I'm in general agreement with you, but I want to address this absurd notion that two heterosexual men might want to marry each other for tax purposes. It's usually presented as an anti-gay-marriage argument, not in the context by which you've brought it up here, but still...
I have a very difficult time believing that anything could ever be put into the tax code that would make two straight guys want to marry each other. Does anyone really believe that two straight guys are going to be comfortable signing up for conjugal rights to each other? That they wouldn't have the slightest worry about what might happen in the likely event of an eventual divorce?
I doubt you're going to disagree with me about this, and I only picked your post to respond to because you're the latest to present the idea. You were talking about something else, though, so please continue.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 104 by Silent H, posted 07-29-2006 6:21 AM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 112 by Silent H, posted 07-30-2006 6:03 AM berberry has not replied

  
AlienInvader
Member (Idle past 4924 days)
Posts: 48
From: MD
Joined: 07-07-2006


Message 111 of 134 (336481)
07-29-2006 8:31 PM
Reply to: Message 106 by Silent H
07-29-2006 8:13 AM


Re: bigotry
quote:
know I have had to... and did. Now where is your theory?
then you must not be a man ^_^. and i was joking with the never
i've never been in a situation, hell i can't even dream of a situation in which a man needs to use the women's facilities... of course that statement also argues for the disparity between the two facilities, but yeah.
quote:
How does it take less time to pee in a urinal than a toilet. If you have ten people seeking to use 4 toilets, or 2 toilets and 2 urinals
don't have to navigate a stall/door, hence negligible save in time so comes down to water.
quote:
you will only potentially have longer wait times at the latter (less options).
... i've never heard of more options being a bad thing or taking more time.
quote:
I might add that instead of urinals you could just use a trough system which is usable by both.
privacy and space constraints
quote:
If water is an issue then you get toilets with separate flush buttons for nature of waste (which is useful for men and women).
wouldn't work like that, unless you mean those high pressure low flows.
quote:
So you say. It may be less common that people cross sexual lines but that does not make them any more clear.
... i'm actually saying, there's a definitive line. racial differences are not really structural differences, more like structural modifications.
quote:
Uhhhhh... I didn't say minorities weren't hurt by racism. I said separate toilets weren't by law, any more than separate toilets for women, and minorities were able to use them in the same way people of different sexes use opposite sex bathrooms.
i'm saying it was an unwritten law and minorities weren't able to use them any more than minorities were able to talk to white women. That wasn't a law either i don't believe.
quote:
How? Men can use women's toilets and vice versa because they are identical. Urinals as they are presently designed can be changed to allow all women to use them (more of a trough design seen in some european areas). Or we can just stick with toilets.
the great thing about the design is the small space requirements, the conservation of water, the accesibility, and the easy privacy.
urinals for women, would get rid of the space for a stall, because it's not easy to make private. All it would retain is the conservation of water. a toilet with less funcionality basically.
quote:
There goes your argument. At least you get it in the end, this is about norms and not about physical necessity.
quote:
quote:
Oh by the way, you may not be aware but there is a physical condition where men's urethras do not open at the tip and instead open under or back toward the shaft, forcing guys to use sit down methods of peeing. If they can use men's rooms, why couldn't women.
i wasn't aware and i don't think it matters in as much as public norms.
i don't think these, i'm assuming rare cases, should effect public policy, and i don't really get what you are pointing out.
quote:
What does that have to do with the kind of toilet one needs to use? If this is the rape issue, what prevents a rapist from raping a woman in a women's room... the sign on the door?
nothing at all prevents him, but you don't really need to go and facilitate the contact
quote:
If your argument is correct then we should have a bathroom for sitdown toilets and one for urinals.
i think that would be my ideal, but somehow they don't go for it.
arghh this is frustrating and so so so so off topic.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 106 by Silent H, posted 07-29-2006 8:13 AM Silent H has not replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 112 of 134 (336586)
07-30-2006 6:03 AM
Reply to: Message 110 by berberry
07-29-2006 5:23 PM


Re: Constitution
I have a very difficult time believing that anything could ever be put into the tax code that would make two straight guys want to marry each other.
Okay, think beyond tax regs if you must... though I can see two greedy enough guys looking to do such a thing (I didn't say homophobic heteros after all).
There would certainly be such a reason for guys to do such a thing for immigration purposes, as well as for adoption as a family (even gay) may have an easier time getting adoption or foster family rights than a single man.
As soon as anyone mentions tax and other reasons for dismissing individual rights I tend to roll my eyes, so I'm sure we're in agreement that this shouldn't be used against gays. It's just my point, which it looks like you understood, was that it can't be used against others as well without cutting both ways.

holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode}
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 110 by berberry, posted 07-29-2006 5:23 PM berberry has not replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 113 of 134 (336589)
07-30-2006 6:11 AM
Reply to: Message 109 by Nuggin
07-29-2006 12:15 PM


Re: bigotry
I was going to respond to your entire post, but one sentence struck me as so profoundly ridiculous that I will stick solely to it.
Well that's nice. You can't respond to other points so you only respond to the one you feel you can make look ridiculous.
In any case you are wrong. I was addressing your profoundly ludicrous assertion that marriage had nothing to do with sex. If it had nothing to do with sex then gays would NOT care if it did not involve a person they were in a sexual relationship with.
Even your hospital play example misses the point. I'm sure there are lots of people a gay person would want to visit after an accident. Who do they want to GUARANTEE the right to see? The person they are having sex with regularly.
Or are you willing to give a play where someone is married to a same sex partner they have no interest in having sex with because they just WANT the right to do so, without any attraction of that kind?
If you dealt with the rest of my post you would have seen that was what I was driving at.

holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode}
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 109 by Nuggin, posted 07-29-2006 12:15 PM Nuggin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 118 by Nuggin, posted 07-30-2006 3:39 PM Silent H has replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 114 of 134 (336591)
07-30-2006 6:34 AM
Reply to: Message 107 by Modulous
07-29-2006 8:48 AM


Re: sexual minorities
Ugh... sorry mod. I saved yours for last and now I am out of time. I really doubt I'll be back tomorrow.
I have read your entire post, and I think you sort of missed my argument. Okay I see that IF it is legal THEN marriage should be okay. So you want to argue waiting for one until the other.
But my point is that gay marriage was going on as an issue well before gay sex was legalized everywhere. And the idea that such acts are legal (as compared to some other minorities) is only because of political pressure that was INCONSISTENTLY applied just for homosexuals.
In other words you didn't address my main point, and I apologize if speed killed the clarity of my argument. IF the people supporting gay rights had been as consistent as you are all claiming those against gay rights should be, THEN the others would have been legalized just the same.
Using the inconsistency of gay rights activists as a way of excusing their inconsistency on both sexual and marriage rights is circular and quite unfair.
The evidence is just as much in on other sexualities as it is for gay sex, and as I have stated homosexual activity fares worse statistically. That people supporting gays do not look at the evidence and accept teh evidence does not help their case. If antigay activists must look into ALL other issues possible to be knocked then gay rights supporters must look into ALL other issues possible to be supported using the same criteria.
I might note that the "bad procreation" argument against incest is loaded as many heteros that aren't related can also have badly deformed children as a result of their genetics. It is picking and choosing to attack all incestuous people, especially if they explicitly can't have children.
The infertile couple example is a two edged sword in this case. If you use them to defend homsoexuals, then why don't they count for infertile incestuous relationships? Heck, what about homosexual incestuous relationships?
And about harming minors physically during sex, that is true but it is also true for adults with parts that do not match up. Care for one's partner's physical limits must be assumed, otherwise why should we allow ANY relationship? Anal sex alone can be damaging to lots of people (gay or straight). Do we disallow relationships based on THAT potential? How about that pregnancy is dangerous physically, even to adult women?
Hell we could even go into sex between mentally and physically handicapped individuals which cross both reasons you cite against incest and minors. Yet they are allowed sex and marriage... why?
One can always refer to the slight descriptive differences between each type of sexual minority activity, to create a seeming distinction, but that does not create a legitimate difference for exclusion. Otherwise gay sex can be cancelled the same way. There is a statistical difference in mental and physical health between gays and straights. Thus it poses a danger? You may say no, I may say no, but someone else can reasonably take what you just argued to say YES.
On the marriage issue, polygamy would be no different from corporate law involving multiple business owners. It would not add any complexity that does not already have precedence their, or involving rights from divorced individuals (oh custody issues are horribly complex in that regard and a product of not allowing polygamy).
As it is people could use gay marriage to get around tax, immigration, and custody issues.
Okay, sorry I have to leave it there. You get the last word (unless I luck out and can sneak back on monday).

holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode}
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by Modulous, posted 07-29-2006 8:48 AM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 115 by Modulous, posted 07-30-2006 8:26 AM Silent H has replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 115 of 134 (336597)
07-30-2006 8:26 AM
Reply to: Message 114 by Silent H
07-30-2006 6:34 AM


Re: sexual minorities
Ugh... sorry mod. I saved yours for last and now I am out of time. I really doubt I'll be back tomorrow.
Heh - not a bad reply given you're out of time
But my point is that gay marriage was going on as an issue well before gay sex was legalized everywhere. And the idea that such acts are legal (as compared to some other minorities) is only because of political pressure that was INCONSISTENTLY applied just for homosexuals.
I didn't miss your point, honest. That gay marriage was an issue before gay sex was legalized everywhere is not relevant to the situation now. If you asked me then I would have said the same thing I am saying now. I think both the sex and the marriage should be legal. I will happily accept that the pressure was inconsistently applied (ie just for homosexuals), without any problem.
It should be applied consistently, so any other minorities who are deemed to be equivalent to homosexuals should also be legalized (I don't know of any minorities which are equivalent which are not already legal).
In other words you didn't address my main point, and I apologize if speed killed the clarity of my argument. IF the people supporting gay rights had been as consistent as you are all claiming those against gay rights should be, THEN the others would have been legalized just the same.
Yes - and I've been agreeing with this point all along. My last post I tried to clear that up for you:
quote:
If they can be shown to be on a par with homosexuality for the number of problems that come with them, then legalize away! If not, then consideration should be made and a decision will be more difficult. However, if sexual minorities are legal they should be able to marry
I might note that the "bad procreation" argument against incest is loaded as many heteros that aren't related can also have badly deformed children as a result of their genetics. It is picking and choosing to attack all incestuous people, especially if they explicitly can't have children.
I'm not defending nor attacking it. I have no inherent problem with incest - though you made an error here. Yes, many non-related heteros have badly deformed children, but the statement was that incestuous relationships produce more (because rare recessive allele's are likely to be paired and thus expressed).
And about harming minors physically during sex, that is true but it is also true for adults with parts that do not match up. Care for one's partner's physical limits must be assumed, otherwise why should we allow ANY relationship?
Indeed. As I said, I'm not here to provide detailed reasons to you for prevention of certain sexual practices. I'm here to argue that if a sexual practice is legal, then marriage should be allowed (assuming all parties can enter a contract as legal entities).
On the marriage issue, polygamy would be no different from corporate law involving multiple business owners.
Hopefully it is clear now that I was not trying to justify banning marriage I was just trying to assure you that I am happy to accept there may be some valid reason associated with such issues or other ones for the ban - but if there are no such issues then I have no problems with it being legal. This is not a pro-sexual minorities thread its about marriage of sexual partners engaged in legal relationships...as such only polygamy really counts for comparison. If you haven't got my opinion on polygamous marriage by the time you've done reading, let me know.
Okay, sorry I have to leave it there. You get the last word (unless I luck out and can sneak back on monday).
Holmes you do have a habit of assuming the other person is directly opposing everything you say which leads to rather odd scenarios where you are arguing against someone who is largely agreeing with your points. I have a problem with child abuse, but I don't think that all sexual contact with minors is abusive. However, I also appreciate the pragmatic nature law has to take which includes arbitrary lines such as age. Age is a continuum, so either sex with any age is legal or sex below some age is illegal, and the line is basically arbitrary. The same applies to relatedness.
I wasn't arguing for or against the morality of having sex with a twelve year old (As an aside I always wondered what would (and should) happen if a person was convicted of statutary rape and their 'victim' grows up and says that they give retrospective permission for the entanglement), I was always arguing that marriage shouldn't be barred from couples that engage in legal sexual relations.
I entered this discussion to say that we can't really use Biblical justification to ban a marriage between people that can legally engage in sexual activities, and we need to have some reason for the ban.
The reason incestuous or paedo marriages are banned is because the sexual practices are (validly or invalidly). I don't care to investigate the arguments, if any, for or against polygamous marriage. In principle I have no qualms with it, but I am open minded enough to appreciate that there might be some valid reason for the ban.
Hopefully - I'll hear from you on Monday. Take care!
Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 114 by Silent H, posted 07-30-2006 6:34 AM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 116 by Silent H, posted 07-30-2006 11:58 AM Modulous has not replied
 Message 121 by Silent H, posted 08-04-2006 4:11 AM Modulous has not replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 116 of 134 (336621)
07-30-2006 11:58 AM
Reply to: Message 115 by Modulous
07-30-2006 8:26 AM


Re: sexual minorities
Whew, an interview took less long than I expected and I find I have some time to get back to this discussion. And I'm glad because I realized I didn't emphasize the morality angle... which is all I really meant to discuss in this thread.
I'll start by addressing something we need to get out of the way...
Holmes you do have a habit of assuming the other person is directly opposing everything you say which leads to rather odd scenarios where you are arguing against someone who is largely agreeing with your points.
I understand we do not hold vastly opposing positions. I apologize if it seems I am thinking something else, I think its an artifact of how I attack your arguments which involve chasing down possible positions others might have stemming from any given argument. You don't have to hold such a position, nor do I have to think you hold such a position, to try and cut it off. Hope that makes it more clear.
If you asked me then I would have said the same thing I am saying now. I think both the sex and the marriage should be legal. I will happily accept that the pressure was inconsistently applied (ie just for homosexuals), without any problem. It should be applied consistently, so any other minorities who are deemed to be equivalent to homosexuals should also be legalized (I don't know of any minorities which are equivalent which are not already legal).
This I have a problem with. Remember I started by addressing the main argument of this thread which was that those opposed to gay marriage needed to use logical and consistent arguments against gay marriage... otherwise their position is suggested to be bankrupt.
I am turning the tables to show that that line of reasoning is fallacious, and your own argument above indicates a double standard.
You say any minorities that are equivalent of homosexuals should be legalized but you don't know of any that haven't been. Of those other minorities I mentioned, what is the logical and consistent argument which rules them immoral compared to homosexuality? What is the criteria being used? (side note: to be on topic it should be both moral and legal judgement. So lets talk about your criteria for morality and legality.)
I have a hard time understanding what the difference is between homosexuality and ANY of those other minority groups. Other than the physical description, there is no criteria I can think of to base a reason for different moral or legal standing.
You even seem to admit that the legalization process was biased (inconsistent), which would then suggest you should agree that bible thumpers are fine with applying their stated criteria unevenly. If not, why not?
Yes, many non-related heteros have badly deformed children, but the statement was that incestuous relationships produce more (because rare recessive allele's are likely to be paired and thus expressed).
You've made an error. For any given couple with specific genetic problems they may be more predisposed to having deformed children than any specific incestuous couple. As it is it has been found that it takes more than one generation of inbreeding to bring out the issues you are discussing, and the problems created often result in no birth at all, or short lived. And ultimately, what does the possibility of healthy offspring have to do with regulating any and all sexual activity?
If your above stated standard is to remain consistent, we should regulate sex and marriage based on probability for birth problems, then you'd need to create a eugenics oriented program that has little to do with incest per se (and might even mandate it in some cases). If you don't believe sex and marriage should be regulated according to such issues, then logically there is no reason for you to be bringing it up against incest.
This is not a pro-sexual minorities thread its about marriage of sexual partners engaged in legal relationships...as such only polygamy really counts for comparison.
Actually it is about the moral and or logical arguments made against homosexuality. Part of the argument is that for those arguing the Bible as a reason to be antigay, they are being inconsistent by not being against alot of other things. I am pointing out that the progay side is being JUST AS INCONSISTENT.
Whatever the moral and or logical criteria being used to be progay, if it is consistent it would HAVE to force that person into being pro-sexual minorities in general. I have yet to see any argument in support of gays that would not cover the other sexual minorities, and I have seen no argument against the other sexual minorities which is not the result of patently inconsistent criteria being applied to them.
In fact I can construct a more logically valid argument for the immorality and illegality of homosexuality than the other minorities.
1) From a Bible perspective, they view homosexuality as inherently leading to negative health effects as God said it would. This can be seen as statistically true. Therefore they have evidentiary support for their belief and want to protect people from its effects.
2) From a nonbible perspective, a person can view homosexuality as inherently leading to negative health effects. This can be seen as statistically true. While the SC struck down anti gay laws as a Constitutional inequality, because oral or anal sex between heteros is the same as between gays, this is NOT TRUE AT ALL. If you are familiar with risk factors (and you can check just about any disease info center to back this up) male homosexual behavior (oral or anal) contains much more risk than for heterosexuals. It is quantifiably different such that it is treated by medical professionals as different. They even have to use different programs (usually more aggressive) to combat spread of problems. And if you look at statistics regarding homosexuals vs homosexuals commiting sexual criminal activity you will find that they are higher as well. Given that many argue viewing certain porn should allow people to be arrested because they MIGHT commit other crimes, we have even greater statistical evidence that gays might. Whoops.
Now in either case you can start arguing how these might be the result of societal pressures or coincidences to a specific population, and not the inherent result of the behavior.
That is to say just engaging in homosexual sex does not mean one inherently faces such risks, or end up commiting coercive sexual acts. Care may be applied by any individual to eliminate these possibilities. It breaks down on the individual level.
Okay, you can say this, but then the same goes for every other sexual minority given the criteria you listed against them!
You may also want to ask where the evidence is for my claims. Well its been given at evc in the past so I know it is here for you to find, and there is more out there for you to find as well. My press for time means I am not about to look the stuff up again. You can believe me or not (though I think the differential std stats are known well enough). But on the flip side, I'd have to note that not one shred of evidence has been given on the other side against other sexual minorities, yet you have allowed such arguments to be considered valid.
Therefore, since you accept the possibility of logical arguments against other sexual minorities (even if you don't necessarily agree with them or have all the evidence), then here you have just as solid an argument against homosexuality!
If I have not constructed a logically valid argument for both moral and/or legal proscription of homosexuality then I'd like to know why not (the criteria). And if you are going to reject it, then shouldn't you logically be fighting all other proscriptions?
Age is a continuum, so either sex with any age is legal or sex below some age is illegal, and the line is basically arbitrary.
Think outside the box. Sex can be limited by consent, rather than age, tightening the rules for consent based on age. Until recently pressured into changing their sex laws, Holland allowed sex between ages 12-16 with allowances for kids or parents to complain (even afterward). In that way molesters could use the excuse that the kid allowed it at the time. This could be made from 0-16 just as easy, with other qualified individuals being able to complain from 0-12 (such as doctors and teachers who are in a place to know the activity took place and there are signs of nonconsensuality/injury).
As an aside I always wondered what would (and should) happen if a person was convicted of statutary rape and their 'victim' grows up and says that they give retrospective permission for the entanglement
What's to wonder? It already happened and was an extremely high profile case. There was a teacher named Lateurneau (sp?) who had sex with a 12 year old student, repeatedly. She eventually became pregnant by the student. We locked her away for years and took away their child despite the fact that they both said they loved each other. She was released only to "reoffend" with the same boy and get pregnant again. Eventually she served her sentence and tried to comply with state requirements that she never see the guy again. He turned 18 or 21 (I forget which) and filed to have all the restrictions removed from her. They are now happily married, though she is still a convicted sex offender for having "raped" him repeatedly.
In a similar case (more recent) a woman got pregnant by a minor. She then attempted to marry the minor using existing law which allowed for the marriage of a minor if a pregnancy was involved (the assumption was usually that it would be a guy that had impregnated a girl). Despite its legality on the books, they squashed the marriage and arrested the lady for molestation. I guess we'll have to wait and see if the kid is willing to wait throughout her incarceration to marry her as happened in the previous case.
I might add that given the diversity of age and marriage requirements across nations and states, what is a valid logically consistent moral and legal position against it?
After all there are still plenty of laws against homosexuality around the world. If the presence of some laws against other sexual minorities means there is a potentially sound reason for their existence (and laws against marriages which involve such practices), why does that not work for homosexuality?
Indeed homosexuality is sometimes only allowed in Western nations given a totally different age than hetero sex (usually higher). Is that fair simply because such differential regs exist?
The reason incestuous or paedo marriages are banned is because the sexual practices are (validly or invalidly).
Honestly, the reason why almost any sexual practice is banned is that people do not like it, and they search until they find some plausible possibility (generalization) which can be used to demonize it. No one really cares to do the investigation as the possibility is deemed enough given the level of hatred for it.
The only exceptions are those involving blatant violence. Yet even in recent times, viewing or reading porn and simply masturbating to internal fantasies has been treated as immoral and criminal. There is no criteria which separates homosexuality from these others, unless one bases it only on the difference in physical description. Something potentially negative can always be said about something, even homosexuality.
I have presented two such generalizations based on health issues above. As long as one does not care to investigate, or in this case deconstruct how this effects the individual, then they are both valid arguments. If one chooses to investigate or deconstruct, then there is NO reason not to do so for other sexual minorities, where the results will be the same, except that one has less interest in helping other sexual minorities (or more interest in helping gays).
Hope this works. Oh yeah, don't think I'm upset or even slightly put out personally by your arguments. I think you and others have been doing a good job advancing your position so I can't complain. I just disagree on the points in question and am trying to present those counters to equally provoke thought on the subject.

holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode}
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 115 by Modulous, posted 07-30-2006 8:26 AM Modulous has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 117 by macaroniandcheese, posted 07-30-2006 2:03 PM Silent H has not replied
 Message 119 by happy_atheist, posted 07-30-2006 5:09 PM Silent H has replied

  
macaroniandcheese 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3927 days)
Posts: 4258
Joined: 05-24-2004


Message 117 of 134 (336644)
07-30-2006 2:03 PM
Reply to: Message 116 by Silent H
07-30-2006 11:58 AM


Re: sexual minorities
using existing law which allowed for the marriage of a minor if a pregnancy was involved (the assumption was usually that it would be a guy that had impregnated a girl).
cause clearly it's okay for a guy to fuck a little girl and get her pregnant, but not the other way around.
what the hell is wrong with people?
Edited by brennakimi, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 116 by Silent H, posted 07-30-2006 11:58 AM Silent H has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 120 by happy_atheist, posted 07-30-2006 5:12 PM macaroniandcheese has not replied

  
Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2492 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 118 of 134 (336654)
07-30-2006 3:39 PM
Reply to: Message 113 by Silent H
07-30-2006 6:11 AM


Re: bigotry
You're assuming that sex is the only factor in marriage. This is false.
Yes, people in a relationship tend to have sex.
But, people who are not in a relationship also have sex.
The point is that there are MANY other aspects (legal, emotional, etc) to marriage besides sex, and the Fundies want to deny ALL RIGHTS because they don't like the sex part.
Why don't the fundamentalists really speak their mind and demand an ammendment that simply bans Gay Sex?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 113 by Silent H, posted 07-30-2006 6:11 AM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 122 by Silent H, posted 08-04-2006 4:27 AM Nuggin has not replied

  
happy_atheist
Member (Idle past 4913 days)
Posts: 326
Joined: 08-21-2004


Message 119 of 134 (336686)
07-30-2006 5:09 PM
Reply to: Message 116 by Silent H
07-30-2006 11:58 AM


Re: sexual minorities
Hi Holmes. Before I reply I'd like to say that largely I agree with everything you've stated. There's just a few things I'd like to comment on.
Holmes writes:
You even seem to admit that the legalization process was biased (inconsistent), which would then suggest you should agree that bible thumpers are fine with applying their stated criteria unevenly. If not, why not?
I'm not sure that the legalisation process was biased by homosexuals. I don't think all sexual minorities should be lumped together as one and legalised in one go. They are all different practically, and they will all have different subtleties that need to be ironed out. This couldn't be done very easily if they were all lumped in together.
Firstly it's possible that there may be some hidden reason not to legalise a particular practice. In most of the cases you've listed I think it's unlikely there is, but that doesn't mean they shouldn't be explored equally.
Secondly each of the cases presents their own procedural problems for legalisation. For example polygamy brings up very complicated tax/inheritance issues that need to be ironed out. If it was lumped in with homosexuality and all the others the case could get so long and drawn out when each case was examined in depth it would take forever.
(Note that I'm not stating that any other the other cases shouldn't be legalised, just that they should be argued seperately and indepently so as not to confuse matters).
Holmes writes:
You've made an error. For any given couple with specific genetic problems they may be more predisposed to having deformed children than any specific incestuous couple. As it is it has been found that it takes more than one generation of inbreeding to bring out the issues you are discussing, and the problems created often result in no birth at all, or short lived. And ultimately, what does the possibility of healthy offspring have to do with regulating any and all sexual activity?
If your above stated standard is to remain consistent, we should regulate sex and marriage based on probability for birth problems, then you'd need to create a eugenics oriented program that has little to do with incest per se (and might even mandate it in some cases). If you don't believe sex and marriage should be regulated according to such issues, then logically there is no reason for you to be bringing it up against incest.
I agree. If incestuous relationships are banned because of a higher risk of deformities then I don't see why relationships for people with known risks of genetic disorders (possibly a 50% risk) shouldn't be banned either. (And no, I don't think they should be banned).
Holmes writes:
Actually it is about the moral and or logical arguments made against homosexuality. Part of the argument is that for those arguing the Bible as a reason to be antigay, they are being inconsistent by not being against alot of other things. I am pointing out that the progay side is being JUST AS INCONSISTENT.
Just a subtle point here. I don't think it's the job of the pro-gay side to argue for the rights of all sexual minorites. They're understandably being selfish and arguing for their own rights. However, if a gay person where to argue for his/her rights but claim that other peoples rights should be denied even though the situations are logically equivalent then yes that would be horribly inconsistent (and would weaken their own case).
Holmes writes:
Sex can be limited by consent, rather than age, tightening the rules for consent based on age.
I think it's more than just consent, the issue is about informed consent. For example, I'm pretty sure that I could get a child who has just learnt to say "yes" and "no" to consent to pretty much anything. Problem is that child would have no idea what he/she had consented to or the consequences. It wouldn't be informed consent.
Now it's pretty obvious that a newly born baby can't give informed consent. A 16 year old probably can give informed consent. Somewhere in the middle there will be a transition between the two. The problem is, that this will likely occur at different times for different individuals. This leaves two choices...evaluate each case on a "case by case" basis (which would need to be done before the event or risk being found guilty of statutory rape), or have an arbitrary line for consent that makes it likely that all children that age would be able to give informed consent (which is what is done now). However I agree that the age 16 is a completely arbitrary age.
And there is a subtle logical difference between minor-marriage (for want of a better term) and homosexual marriage. The former is simply a "not yet" situation, whereas the latter is a "never" situation. Is this enough of a difference to mean they can be treated differently? I'm not sure.
Holmes writes:
From a nonbible perspective, a person can view homosexuality as inherently leading to negative health effects. This can be seen as statistically true.
The "homosexuality is statistically less healthy" argument doesn't ring true in my opinion (and you touched on this yourself so we're probably in agreement). I haven't looked at the papers myself so my argument may not be applicable (but I suspect it is), but it seems to be very similar to saying:
There is a statistical link between the number of ice-creams sold on a beach, and the number of people drowning in the ocean. This shows that ice-creams can cause people to drown.
Not good statistical analysis at all
My response is a little longer than I expected! lol. Anyway, again I agree with the main point of your argument. I too see little reason why a lot of other sexual minorities cannot be made legal using similar rationale to legalising homosexuality. But I'm still open to being shown a reason I'm not aware of (which is why I think all cases should be considered seperately, even if the end conclusion is they are in fact all logically the same).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 116 by Silent H, posted 07-30-2006 11:58 AM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 123 by Silent H, posted 08-04-2006 6:18 AM happy_atheist has replied

  
happy_atheist
Member (Idle past 4913 days)
Posts: 326
Joined: 08-21-2004


Message 120 of 134 (336688)
07-30-2006 5:12 PM
Reply to: Message 117 by macaroniandcheese
07-30-2006 2:03 PM


Re: sexual minorities
brennakimi writes:
cause clearly it's okay for a guy to fuck a little girl and get her pregnant, but not the other way around.
what the hell is wrong with people?
This brings to mind something I heard about laws in England in Victorian times. If I remember correctly male homosexual sex was illegal, but lesbianism was not. I think this was because people didn't even consider the notion that women could ever do such a thing! lol

This message is a reply to:
 Message 117 by macaroniandcheese, posted 07-30-2006 2:03 PM macaroniandcheese has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024