Ban on Gay Marriage (3 Viewers)

[townie]

To be honest, i am not against all that much, not even paedophilia. Why would i want to go around telling people what they can and cannot do? It's not as if people being homosexual or committing incest has anything to do with me.

I think its a fair comparrison. Really, what is the difference between homosexual activity and incest? They were, a long time ago, both not accetped. So why do we accept homosexuality now but not incest or even paedophilia?

i applaud u for being consistent at least, a rare commodity in these parts

 

[Xayma]

The moral implications of incest is alot deeper (what I gave is what I think the main legal reason is). iamsickofyear12: The dog can not consent, it lacks the mental power to make a decision like that. It presumed that a) it was a human, b) the other person was a dog.

Personally it wouldnt bother me if two closely related people were in love, let them get married etc. they just shouldnt have children.

 

[miss_b]

I am so sick of this talk about "morals"!! Where does everyone get these from anyway?!

 

[townie]

The moral implications of incest is alot deeper (what I gave is what I think the main legal reason is). iamsickofyear12: The dog can not consent, it lacks the mental power to make a decision like that. It presumed that a) it was a human, b) the other person was a dog.

Personally it wouldnt bother me if two closely related people were in love, let them get married etc. they just shouldnt have children.

i dont have that much problem with incest either, if both people are on the same level, or with less close blood relation, similar ages

i.e. brother-sister, cousins.

i couldnt condone Mother-son, Father-daughter, mother-daughter, father-son, and would have trouble Uncle/Aunt-Neice/Nephew (if the Uncle/Aunt is older), i'd be worried about trust implications, whether there was manipulation, abuse etc.

 

[miss_b]

i couldnt condone Mother-son, Father-daughter, mother-daughter, father-son, and would have trouble Uncle/Aunt-Neice/Nephew (if the Uncle/Aunt is older), i'd be worried about trust implications, whether there was manipulation, abuse etc.

What are the "trust implications"?

And, aren't there the same problems with all relationships...

 

[townie]

What are the "trust implications"?

And, aren't there the same problems with all relationships...

yes, there are, and which is y i also dont really approve of doctor-patient relations etc. where the other person is in a position of authority, now, if it could be proven that there wasnt that abuse of trust (i dont know how u'd do that) well, then, i guess i'd be cool with it, but that'd be hard to prove. i just cant conceive how a parent could want to have sex with their child

 

[miss_b]

yes, there are, and which is y i also dont really approve of doctor-patient relations etc. where the other person is in a position of authority, now, if it could be proven that there wasnt that abuse of trust (i dont know how u'd do that) well, then, i guess i'd be cool with it, but that'd be hard to prove. i just cant conceive how a parent could want to have sex with their child

There are other authority figuressuch as the police or politicians; should they be banned from having relationships?



PS just because you can't concieve why a parent would want to have sex with a child, it doesn't mean it doesn't happen. Other's may not be able to concieve how two people of the same gender would want to have sex, but that's not a reason why it should be banned...

 

[townie]

There are other authority figuressuch as the police or politicians; should they be banned from having relationships?



PS just because you can't concieve why a parent would want to have sex with a child, it doesn't mean it doesn't happen. Other's may not be able to concieve how two people of the same gender would want to have sex, but that's not a reason why it should be banned...

but a parent-child one is REALLY close...too much trust, authority

 

[miss_b]

What if the child was given up for adoption and they didn't know until they were to be married?

 

[iamsickofyear12]

The moral implications of incest is alot deeper (what I gave is what I think the main legal reason is). iamsickofyear12: The dog can not consent, it lacks the mental power to make a decision like that. It presumed that a) it was a human, b) the other person was a dog.

Personally it wouldnt bother me if two closely related people were in love, let them get married etc. they just shouldnt have children.

What do you mean lacks the mental power to make a decision. What it is doing is basically fullfilling it's sexual needs, and you can't say animals aren't capable of doing that.

 

[MoonlightSonata]

What do you mean lacks the mental power to make a decision. What it is doing is basically fullfilling it's sexual needs, and you can't say animals aren't capable of doing that.

He means the animal cannot consent, and thus may be harmed - it can still experience suffering. Humans can consent to sex, thus we know that a person is not going to experience harm but in fact pleasure. A human forcing him or her self onto an animal is questionable when there is no way of discerning whether the animal will undergo suffering.

 

[iamsickofyear12]

He means the animal cannot consent, and thus may be harmed - it can still experience suffering. Humans can consent to sex, thus we know that a person is not going to experience harm but in fact pleasure. A human forcing him or her self onto an animal is questionable when there is no way of discerning whether the animal will undergo suffering.

Ok, new example. What if a chick lays down on the ground and then the dog fucks her, would that then be ok cause the dog is in control then.

 

[townie]

What if the child was given up for adoption and they didn't know until they were to be married?

i dont consider the natural person to be the parent, the person who raised the child is the "parent"

 

[MoonlightSonata]

Ok, new example. What if a chick lays down on the ground and then the dog fucks her, would that then be ok cause the dog is in control then.

If the girl consented to it.

Like I said before:

I would say it would be fine (though why one would want to engage in that is completely beyond me). Peter Singer, one of Australia's most famous philosophers (and perhaps one of the world's most important philosophers today), also agrees --

In a 2001 review of Midas Dekkers' Dearest Pet: On Bestiality, Singer stated that humans and animals can have "mutually satisfying" sexual relationships. Bestiality should remain illegal if it involves cruelty, but otherwise is no cause for shock or horror, writes Singer, because "we are animals, indeed more specifically, we are great apes." Thus, Singer concludes, sex between humans and non-humans, while abnormal, "ceases to be an offence to our status and dignity as human beings."

Singer's review can be read here

 

[Jonathan A]

But many people have moral problems with homosexuality, so whats the difference.

Address that question to the author.

 

[Vahl]

mmm i know everyone should be free to do whatever they want..
but marriage is a religious thing.. intended for a man and a woman to ultimately make babies.. and religions dont really promote being gay.. although it is outdated now and everyone seems to be getting divorced..
arent they already recognised as being a couple (like in the census) anyway? its a pretty big step considering how unacceptable being gay was in previous times..
basically my view is.. marriage is between a man and a woman.. i dont have a problem with gay people being a couple but i just dont think the term marriage should be used for them.. like life partners or something but yeh thats just cuz im a stickler for tradition..
ahh now the refuting..
hmm i didnt even cover the adoption issue lol.. me and my friends were debating about this last week
i dont see why they cant adopt children.. seeing as women can just get donor sperm and have kids anyway..
some people can provide all of a childs needs and some people cant.. and its so obvious that not all heterosexual parents are perfect cuz so many kids need to be taken out of their house to be put in foster care due to abuse..
not saying that all gay people who are parents arent going to be abusive.. but yeh if they can promote the childs wellbeing then they should have the right to being a parent..

Even from a Christian perpective gay people have the right to be married, because the basis through which anti-gay Christian groups campaign against equal rights for gay people is false. ie The real crime of Sodom wasn't homosexuality but a lack of hospitality. See:

Genesis 18:16-19:29

Before they lay down, the men of the city, the men of Sodom, surrounded the house, both young and old, all the people from every quarter; and they called to Lot and said to him, "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us that we may have relations with them."

But Lot went out to them at the doorway, and shut the door behind him, and said, "Please, my brothers, do not act wickedly. Now behold, I have two daughters who have not had relations with man; please let me bring them out to you, and do to them whatever you like; only do nothing to these men, inasmuch as they have come under the shelter of my roof."

But they said, "Stand aside." Furthermore, they said, "This one came in as an alien, and already he is acting like a judge; now we will treat you worse than them." So they pressed hard against Lot and came near to break the door.

But the men reached out their hands and brought Lot into the house with them, and shut the door. And they struck the men who were at the doorway of the house with blindness, both small and great, so that they wearied themselves trying to find the doorway.

Then the men said to Lot, "Whom else have you here? A son-in-law, and your sons, and your daughters, and whomever you have in the city, bring them out of the place; for we are about to destroy this place, because their outcry has become so great before the Lord that the Lord has sent us to destroy it."

ie:

Lot was violating the custom of Sodom...by entertaining unknown guests within the city walls at night without obtaining the permission of the elders of the city. When the men of Sodom gathered around to demand that the strangers be brought out to them, "that they might know them," they meant no more than to "know" who they were, and the city was consequently destroyed not for sexual immorality, but for the sin of inhospitality to strangers

Which may seem extreme but at this time these societies depended on hospitality as a means of survival.

 

[Benny_]

I don't know if this has been posted before, but if you haven't tried it, give it a go. It's pretty interesting.

http://www.philosophersmag.com/bw/games/taboo.htm

When answering the questions I found no moral justification for why a family eating its recently deceased family cat wrong. Nor could I find something wrong with a guy having sex with a frozen chicken, and then eating it (assuming that it causes no health problems). Still, I couldn't help but feel repulsed by these images. The reason for this is I believe is that there is no moral justification for why these actions are wrong. We merely believe their are wrong because they've been deemed socially reprehensible.

 

[Iron]

Strange deviation, but no moral justification? You looney. Maybe you wouldn't like it being done to yourself?

 

[Benny_]

If you're referring to the cat thing, there is no moral reasoning that would justifying classifying eating a dead thing as wrong (leaving religion out of it). Dead people and animals cannot be hurt, so there's nothing wrong with it.

Utilitarian reasoning tells me that it's not wrong. Personally I wouldn't like it if someone ate me, or had sexed with my bloated corpse and THEN ate me, but I don't think that's really relevant once I'm dead.

 

[Iron]

It's subjective you goon. I wouldn't like you to be fed on my corpse.