holmes writes:
Appealing to current legal definitions is NOT appropriate for making an argument, particularly when the whole point is that laws need to be changed for the specific group in question (gays).
Holmes, I'm not a philosopher so I can't think in terms of philosophical la-la land like you. But if you go back and read the responses leading up to NJ's comparason between homosexual relationship and pedophilia, the argument wasn't about gay marriage or the legality of homosexual acts. The argument was leaning toward the moral issue with homosexual acts between 2 consenting adults (which I still don't understand why you think that's a smoke screen). When crashfrog and I refer to consent, we meant both legal and moral consent. NJ then compared homosexual acts between 2 consenting adults to pedophilia, which I pointed out is nothing more than poisoning the well. There is absolutely no connection between sex acts between 2 consenting adults and sex acts between an adult and a child. The only reason I can think of why NJ (in his god-fearing mindset) thinks there is a connection is if gay people can't give legal or moral consent.
Currently homosexual marriage is still NOT legal. We are wanting to change it.
But marriage wasn't what we were discussing at the time. NJ deliberately made the comparason between homosexual acts between 2 consenting adults and pedophilia after he said something about the gay "life style". Nothing to do with marriage.
Its called a reductio ad absurdum. Its a valid technique and NJ employs it to good effect. It is not "poisoning the well" unless one assumes that one must be absolutely right and so in no need to answer his point regarding the argument.
All right, point taken. Again, I'm not a philosopher so I can't think in the deep la-la land like you. Whatever it is, he deliberately compared gay people with children.
Normally I wouldn't care, but you guys happen to be on my side of this argument and are really looking ignorant.
I'll tell you this much, I never quite understand philosophers like yourself. I simply don't understand why introducing a theme that has nothing to do with the subject a valid argument.
Two consenting adults having sex has nothing to do with an adult raping a child no matter how you look at it. I don't care if you have the bulk of the philosophy community behind you, there is no connection between 2 consenting adults having sex and an adult raping a child.
Further I did not in any way claim there were no ways around NJ's argument. The only thing which is NOT valid, is to simply appeal to current law. That is not argument it is merely a non sequitor.
All right, fair enough. Leaving the law out of the argument, would you say that comparing homosexual acts between 2 consenting adults and pedophilia valid?
Gay marriage is a new concept and it is equally a change in the traditional definition. It raises the question (for some) of if a traditional social/legal definition can or should be changed, if other methods allow for equal legal protection?
This ignorant but tolerant liberal is reminded of segregation and how the concept of "seperate but equal" was used to provide so-called "legal protection" to the negros. It failed miserably and only resulted in much intolerance.
But what do I know? I can't write philosophy papers in obscure philosophical language like some. What I offer is my sincere tolerance and love for my fellow men and women, which is more than comparing 2 consenting adults to children and dogs.
Place yourself on the map at http://www.frappr.com/evc
The thread about this map can be found here.
™ Version 4.2