|
On November 25 2012 10:28 soon.Cloak wrote:Show nested quote +On November 25 2012 10:11 mcc wrote:On November 25 2012 09:34 soon.Cloak wrote:
As I keep saying, these laws are arbitrary. The government doesn't owe anyone the benefits of marriage. That's why the argument of "I want to marry an animal/computer/table, recognize the marriage" isn't a good argument. So the government decided to give this benefit to heterosexual couples. Fine. Either argue that there shouldn't be benefits for anyone, or there should be benefits for everyone, including people that want to marry animals. Anything in the middle is inconsistent.
No it is not. It is black and white fallacy that you commit. Government provides benefits for married couples to achieve some goal. If giving those benefits to homosexual couples furthers that goal, but giving it to couples from your examples does not further that goal it is perfectly consistent to stay in the middle. Problem is you are mixing apples and oranges. In case of marriage benefits the line is drawn by the state based on the goals of those incentives. In case of couple's rights (visiting in hospital,...) the line is drawn based on ethics. That is a different issue and it is pretty clear there that homosexual couples should have the same rights as heterosexual ones. Most of those rights make absolutely no sense in case of bestiality. Case of incest is more complicated, but also completely irrelevant to this thread, as is the whole marriage thing as in Uganda it is not about marriage, but about punishing victimless crimes. Interesting point, but a few things: First, that argument doesn't apply to incest. So you think that incest should be legalized? Second, you talk about the governments definition of marriage, as it relates to governments benefits. Thus, you seem to be saying that you have no issue recognizing bestiality on a moral/ethical level, just not on a monetary/government level. Don't want to misquote you, but is that your position? And it is relevant to Uganda, as bestiality and incest is also a victimless crime, yet it's punished in the USA.
I have no opinion on incest and since it has nothing to do with this topic and was only brought up by you I see no reason to devote time to create such an opinion.
No I was not saying anything like that. I was saying exactly what I wrote, which was that there is no inconsistency that you claim exists. I oppose bestiality on the same grounds as I oppose any mistreatment of animals. Again bestiality has nothing to do with this thread as it is an issue of animal treatment.
Even if accepted your position about incest and bestiality, it would still not have anything to do with the topic. Topic is about mistreatment of homosexuals. The fact that there are political prisoners in China or that incest is banned in Andorra is completely irrelevant.
|
On November 25 2012 09:34 soon.Cloak wrote:
As I keep saying, these laws are arbitrary. The government doesn't owe anyone the benefits of marriage. That's why the argument of "I want to marry an animal/computer/table, recognize the marriage" isn't a good argument. So the government decided to give this benefit to heterosexual couples. Fine. Either argue that there shouldn't be benefits for anyone, or there should be benefits for everyone, including people that want to marry animals. Anything in the middle is inconsistent.
Anything in the middle is inconsistent? Incorrect. The idea that heterosexual marriage, gay marriage, bestiality, and incest are of the same ethical weight is the view which is inconsistent.
Marriage in its current state is a legal contract
it a contract between two persons of opposite genders
marriage requires informed consent
Marriage cannot be between relatives of a certain closeness
Underlined is the part which gay people wish to change
Bolded is the part that the bestiality camp wants to change
Italicized is the part that the incest camp wishes to change
Now, unless my logic fails me, you can change any one of these without changing the other ones. I assume your point is that there is an ethical imperative to accomplish all of these things if one also wishes to implement gay marriage. This is false.
Lets weight the ethical problems of changing each of these things.
Gay marriage
- Population: 3% of total
- Problems: This would require a removal of the gender requirements for marriage. I cannot think of any externalities which this could create.
- Detriments: Degradation of religious moral values (alleged)
Bestial marriage and intercourse
-Population: Let's be generous: .1% of all people in the united states want to marry an animal
-Problems: This would require a removal of the consent stipulation, which is a basis of most human law.
-Problems: This would require a removal of the personhood requirement for marriage. This is also a big deal.
-Detriments: Many sexually transmitted diseases await discovery! (See AIDS)
Incest
-Population: Again lets be generous: 1% of all people in the United States want to marry closer than their second cousin.
-Problems: Parent child marriages are a shaky ethical area because the parent has the ability to bypass informed consent because they have 18 years to limit the information that their child receives. (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_School_for_Wives)
-Problems: There is no clear solution for the aforementioned problem. As long as the parent is a power figure (guardianship laws) the ability of their child to give informed consent is lessened. Any attempt to legalize incest parent-child incest would have to sort out this gray area.
-Detriments: Repeated inbreeding can cause severe birth defects
First off, you can say that by simple population alone, gay marriage is far more important. I made up the numbers for incestuous marriage and bestiality. That being said, I am fairly certain they are overestimates, which would mean that gay marriage has a greater weight by population.
Second, it takes a lot less to make gay marriage legal. You only have to remove the gender requirement. You don't have to change the consent, personhood, or guardianship laws.
Third, the legalization of gay marriage is the least detrimental from a utilitarian point of view.
So no, you don't have to put them all in the same boat. In fact, it is erroneous to do so.
|
On November 25 2012 10:42 mcc wrote:Show nested quote +On November 25 2012 10:28 soon.Cloak wrote:On November 25 2012 10:11 mcc wrote:On November 25 2012 09:34 soon.Cloak wrote:
As I keep saying, these laws are arbitrary. The government doesn't owe anyone the benefits of marriage. That's why the argument of "I want to marry an animal/computer/table, recognize the marriage" isn't a good argument. So the government decided to give this benefit to heterosexual couples. Fine. Either argue that there shouldn't be benefits for anyone, or there should be benefits for everyone, including people that want to marry animals. Anything in the middle is inconsistent.
No it is not. It is black and white fallacy that you commit. Government provides benefits for married couples to achieve some goal. If giving those benefits to homosexual couples furthers that goal, but giving it to couples from your examples does not further that goal it is perfectly consistent to stay in the middle. Problem is you are mixing apples and oranges. In case of marriage benefits the line is drawn by the state based on the goals of those incentives. In case of couple's rights (visiting in hospital,...) the line is drawn based on ethics. That is a different issue and it is pretty clear there that homosexual couples should have the same rights as heterosexual ones. Most of those rights make absolutely no sense in case of bestiality. Case of incest is more complicated, but also completely irrelevant to this thread, as is the whole marriage thing as in Uganda it is not about marriage, but about punishing victimless crimes. Interesting point, but a few things: First, that argument doesn't apply to incest. So you think that incest should be legalized? Second, you talk about the governments definition of marriage, as it relates to governments benefits. Thus, you seem to be saying that you have no issue recognizing bestiality on a moral/ethical level, just not on a monetary/government level. Don't want to misquote you, but is that your position? And it is relevant to Uganda, as bestiality and incest is also a victimless crime, yet it's punished in the USA. I have no opinion on incest and since it has nothing to do with this topic and was only brought up by you I see no reason to devote time to create such an opinion. No I was not saying anything like that. I was saying exactly what I wrote, which was that there is no inconsistency that you claim exists. I oppose bestiality on the same grounds as I oppose any mistreatment of animals. Again bestiality has nothing to do with this thread as it is an issue of animal treatment. Even if accepted your position about incest and bestiality, it would still not have anything to do with the topic. Topic is about mistreatment of homosexuals. The fact that there are political prisoners in China or that incest is banned in Andorra is completely irrelevant.
You only form opinions on topics brought up by OP's on Teamliquid?
Bestiality is more than just mistreatment of animals, as many things we do are worse to animals than what falls under the lgeal definition of bestiality.
And it has everything to do with this thread. See my first post. I made two points. The first was that if you believe purely in the argument of a victimless crime, then you should recognize incest and bestiality as okay. My second point was that it is okay to feel uncomfortable around people that are in heterosexual, gay, bestial, or incestual marriages. As you are not saying what your opinions are, I can't really argue with you.
|
On November 25 2012 10:40 soon.Cloak wrote:Show nested quote +On November 25 2012 10:35 farvacola wrote:On November 25 2012 10:33 soon.Cloak wrote:On November 25 2012 10:20 SkysLa wrote:On November 25 2012 10:04 soon.Cloak wrote:On November 25 2012 09:47 SkysLa wrote:On November 25 2012 09:09 soon.Cloak wrote:On November 25 2012 08:58 SkysLa wrote:On November 25 2012 08:51 soon.Cloak wrote:On November 25 2012 08:42 SkysLa wrote:
[quote]
I think your examples are completely arbitary. Gay marriages are not related to beastiality or incest, it is a marriage between humans. We have given the right to certain humans but not others, it is not related to other species. Since you used the concept of a "true" marriage when saying gay marriages are not "true", I'll assume you believe in the concept of marriage in general. In that regard, you consider a subset of humans being married but not the other subset. This is where you seem to contradict yourself when you say you demand fair treatment for gay individuals but then don't treat them equally as other humans. Incest is between humans... But even ignoring that, you just decided that marriage is only between humans. Let's say a human wants to marry a member of a different species. You are denying their right to marry an animal. Why isn't that marriage recognized? PROVE to me that that shouldn't be recognized as a marriage. . I had edited in the incest part afterwards. You do know you're quoted as calling gay marriages "untrue"? From that, I assumed you only call male-female marriages as being "true". You're the one that needs to prove that gay marriages are "untrue". We haven't even equalized human rights for gay individuals since they cannot be married yet you claim to treat them fairly? But even so, I shall answer about other species; another species cannot consent to marriage, hence of course it won't be recognized. If an alien species were to drop down and have intelligence relative to ours or greater and could consent, I would call to recognize such a relationship. Even if you edited it, you still have to address the incest part. According to your argument, incest should be recognized as a legit marriage. Which is fine. But just recognize that that's your position. And it is fair. Nobody is owed the right to the the benefits of marriage, as long as everybody is given the right to marriage. So what that the animal has no idea what's going on? Why can't somebody demand that their union to the animal be recognized a marriage? Because according to YOUR definition of marriage, it's between two consenting humans? Who cares what you think? I demand that my right to marry a tree be recognized. That my right to marry a table be recognized. That my right to marry my computer be recognized. But of course that's ridiculous. Our government has, for whatever reason, given us the present of the benefits of marriage, as long as you get married by what they define marriage to be. Gays have that right- THAT'S WHY IT'S FAIR. And the law doesn't give gays those benefits to a gay marriage? So what? Who owes it in the first place? I think we should state a definition of marriage, in my definition of marriage, it includes consent AND a specific type of relationship between the individuals. I'm pretty sure most definitions or marriage ceremonies have a part of it that needs consent. You state the definition by the government is the one to be followed, why is that? Because it's the one we must follow? Firstly, we(the government) owe it because we have to say why we recognize male/female marriages and not gay ones or else we have a question of inequality. You say there isn't any inequality but if you believe that homosexuality is not a choice, then you are not giving the equal choice between individuals. The government does actually have to answer for why it treats others differently. Now we're getting into a debate about the government's responsibility but I believe the govt does have to answer for giving rights only to some and not others. Also, since there is going to be multiple definition of marriages, I would agree that a christian ceremony of marriage would not need to accept homosexual marriages. I do believe there needs to be some type of marriage between gay individuals though. You still have dodged your first statement of your own beliefs. After a long rant of "arbitary concepts" from you, you go on to state that gay marriages are "untrue". I recognize that an individual can have a special relationship with a tree or a dog or whatever, but I don't think that goes under the definition of marriage if we agree on the definition above. Again, they could have a certain TYPE of relationship though. I'm sure you will go why don't we just keep it at that for gay individuals then? Because we have set upon a certain amount of rights for humans and have excluded gay people from that group. Consent is there and the the love or whatever you want to call it can be there as well. I hold that religion is against certain types of bonds but that doesn't mean the govt should hold that as well. Also, yes, I do believe a non-sexual incestual marriage is acceptable. I say non-sexual because who could control sexual behaviour completely, that's why I argued it's illegal in the first place though. Procreation in incestual couples can lead to future harm of the children, I think we agree on that. (This paragraph is for arguments sake only, please don't take this literally) And in MY definition of marriage, you don't need consent if it's an animal. In MY definition of marriage, all you need is a person to commit to living with something. According to my definition, you can marry anything. Can you prove that I'm wrong? No. I don't think the government has any better idea of what marriage is than we do. My point is that people are fighting over what the government should and shouldn't recognize. All I'm saying is that we should be consistent, and deciding that gay and heterosexual marriage is okay, while bestiality and incest is not, is arbitrary. So if you want the government to recognize any "union", fine. If you want the government to recognizer no union, fine. But don't tell the government to recognize some unions. I don't agree with your definition of marriage, so your second paragraph is irrelevant. For that last part, that's fine, that's consistent. Then you get to the second half of my first post, where I say that I don't have to be comfortable around incestual/gay couples. even if I feel they have a right to what they do. Do you agree to that too? (Feel free to leave this part for later, so that this whole debate doesn't get too confusing) You're saying all definitions are arbitrary though at this point just because a human can want otherwise. This is an argument but it is not one we're going after. We have drifted off from the main topic. You have purposely gone to the point where any definition will be cast away because someone doesn't want it. What is there to argue at this point when you can create any definition you want? I want to go back to the part where you called gay marriages "untrue". You never bring that up again, you argue about everything being arbitrary but one of your first statements was a value judgment on gay marriage. I told you how I felt about incest and I stated beastiality is a seperate issue under my definition. If we go back to the fact that right now, only humans can get married and more importantly, only heterosexual marriages are allowed, then I want to ask again, why can't there be gay marriages? You say this is arbitrary but that's just throwing the topic into another area completely. I just want to know why you think gay individuals can be denied that right while heterosexual individuals are allowed it. Is there a valid reason for this not being allowed other than it doesn't matter, it's all arbitrary? Well, you're not going to like this (at all), but I'm religious. I follow the bible. The bible says gay marriage isn't a marriage. My definition is based off of god, not off a subjective (human) moral standard.So if you want, we can have a completely separate argument (in a different thread, I suppose) about the legitimacy of religion. But if you don't believe in an objective definition of marriage based off of god, you are saying your morals are subjective, and that anyone else's view is as legitimate as yours. So that's how I defend my viewpoint. But you still haven't said how you defend yours. Your definition may be based off of God, but it is still YOUR definition and is therefore subject to the additional considerations of subjective moral implication. You cannot escape the fallibility of your own viewpoint. It's not "based" off of God's view. It is God's view. And God has decided that God is the decided or morality. Where did my definition come into that?
Because you are the speaker, you are the one telling us you've somehow received intelligible communication from a higher being and are setting forth a standard based on that. Consider it this way. Since you are not "God", you cannot assuredly make an utterance in his name. Therefore, you must use your own subjective agency as a conscious human being to interpret or analyze purported utterances of "God", complete with according recognition of the possibility of flaw, miscommunication, or inherent antiquated belligerence.
|
On November 25 2012 10:14 soon.Cloak wrote:Show nested quote +On November 25 2012 10:10 Djzapz wrote:On November 25 2012 10:08 soon.Cloak wrote:On November 25 2012 09:53 Djzapz wrote:On November 25 2012 09:41 soon.Cloak wrote:On November 25 2012 09:38 Djzapz wrote:
That's to screw around with semantics, it can easily be abused to put a position above another without ever passing your own judgment. Stating that you're fine with the status quo is not very interesting. What specific point are you replying to...? The premise of your entire rhetoric. Your theme is broken because it seems to assume that judgments are arbitrary if you don't personally agree with the arguments that support those judgments. Those arguments don't need to be universally true to have value either, even though you're trying to be objective about a subjective topic (and I would argue that you aren't doing too well, given that your personal subjective opinion is obvious even though you're trying to hide it by defending the status quo, may it be indirect). You throw arbitrary around like you know shit. Tell me what arguments you're referring to, if you can. I still don't know exactly what you're saying. And I'm not defending the status quo. Check out my first post, where I said it's consistent to support gay and heterosexual marriage benefits, if you also support bestiality and incest marriage benefits. Describe the steps to make a non-arbitrary moral judgment, soon.Cloak: I'll watch you trip over your own foot as you wander in limbo. Don’t you dare respond to anything else until you’ve figured that out, because like I said, your entire rhetoric seems to float on the idea that these topics should be handled with hard evidence and truths, hence your aversion to this word, "Arbitrary" – a word that you toss in full caps all over the place. But if you dig into it, you’ll notice that any moral judgment that doesn’t seem arbitrary to you only seems objective because you agree with it so strongly, or because it’s in line with other human constructs that you consider to be true. Hell we can push even farther and say that moral judgments can be based on arbitrarily selected reasons that are good or bad based on other arbitrary reasons – and so on so forth. You pick a bunch of different definitions of marriage and assume they’re all equal because you think you’re a robot and that’s what you ought to be. But this isn’t science and shouldn’t be treated as such. At best, science provides us with data upon which we can base subjective opinions. Until you get out of that little phase where you pretend to be Objectivotron, your input is as useless as my understanding of Quantum Physics. That being said, I want to say that your position isn't that objective because of its very nature which ignores morality. It's pretty paradoxal, and that's why science doesn't meddle with morality or religion: it can't. Your definition of "consistency" is based on ignorance, may it be willful ignorance or plain old ignorance, you dismiss moral arguments because you refuse to process anything arbitrary. Um, I don't believe in a non-arbitrary moral judgement... ... Were you just trying to get me to admit that?
Sigh, hopeless =_=
|
On November 25 2012 10:38 soon.Cloak wrote:Show nested quote +On November 25 2012 10:32 mcc wrote:On November 25 2012 09:52 soon.Cloak wrote:On November 25 2012 09:43 Jormundr wrote:On November 25 2012 08:51 soon.Cloak wrote:On November 25 2012 08:42 SkysLa wrote:On November 25 2012 08:31 soon.Cloak wrote:On November 25 2012 08:23 Glurkenspurk wrote:On November 25 2012 08:16 soon.Cloak wrote:Okay, I think I disagree with most people in this thread. Let's look at some other laws, shall we? I'm going to use the model of the USA just for ease, but there's probably a lot of similarity in Europe. Incest between consenting adults: In many states, you can be imprisoned for 10 years, 14 years, 20 years, 25 years, or for life. In some, you are put on the Sex Offenders List for life. SourceBestiality: Illegal in approximately thirty states. In many of these states, bestiality is a felony. SourceIndecent Exposure: Illegal to some extent in most states, though the definition of "indecent" varies. Punishments can include fines, imprisonment, or being registered on the Sex Offenders List. SourceNow, what are these? These are laws that express some sort of morality in our society. Our society, as a whole, and as represented through our government, has decided that some things are simply inappropriate. Obviously, marriage is not recognized in cases where it's illegal. The issue is that these laws are almost completely subjective, and therefore almost completely arbitrary. Can anyone tell me why I shouldn't be able to walk around naked? Can anyone tell me why I shouldn't be allowed to marry my mother? There's no objective reason. It's based on what society feels is correct and incorrect. So my first point is that any discussion related to morality/marriage rights is probably arbitrary. If you want to allow gay marriage, but are also comfortable with incest, bestiality, and indecent exposure, I may consider you strange, but I can't call you inconsistent. If you support gay marriage, but don't support those other things, then you are arbitrarily deciding what is legitimate and what is not. And if Uganda disagrees with you, their laws aren't any less legitimate than yours. But there's one more point. Even if you do feel that all those things should be allowed, that doesn't mean that they won't make you feel uncomfortable. Even if you think people should have the right to do whatever they want, as long as it doesn't harm others, you may feel...uncomfortable watching a man marry his daughter, or watching a woman marry a cow, or watching people walk around naked. And that's perfectly okay. If you grow up with a certain standard of what's marriage and of what's not, of what's okay and what's not, of what's "normal" and what's not, there's no reason to feel any pressure to change that. It's NOT okay to be discriminatory, to be rude or hurtful. But if I can think you're strange because you wear funny clothes, or because you speak in a weird voice, or because you have a ridiculous layup in basketball, why can't I feel uncomfortable with incest, bestiality, indecent exposure, or gay couples? So to the gay members of this wonderful community; I respect you, I respect your feelings, and I demand that you be given fair treatment by everyone around you. But I don't recognize a gay marriage as a true marriage, and I am uncomfortable around gay couples. And I don't feel guilty about that at all. Bestiality is against the law because animals can't consent. Incest is a bit trickier, but the much higher rate of birth defects probably accounts for that now (although in the past it may have just been a religious thing.) I still don't get the point. There are a lot of silly laws that should be removed in the US. I think most intelligent people agree that even though you may feel a bit uncomfortable around something doesn't mean you should try to ban it. I don't really feel comfortable around any couple making out in public, but I don't think it should be against the law to show affection in public. I think you should accept the fact that some people are different and not make up arbitrary reasons to defend your blatant homophobic thoughts. Incest is still illegal, even if you use a condom. By that argument of bestiality, you shouldn't be allowed to ride horses, because they can't consent. The point I think you're saying is whether or not it hurts the animal, and many of the laws covered under bestiality don't hurt the animal. There are bestiality laws in place because society isn't okay with bestiality. As if you are among those that think everything should be legal, that's specifically what I addressed in my second point. I didn't say they should be banned in that part- I said that you have the right to be uncomfortable. Reread, maybe. And as I explicitly said, I am okay with people being different than me, but again, that doesn't mean I have to be comfortable with their lifestyles. If that makes me homophobic, fine. But unfortunately, there's no derogatory word describing you, who feels uncomfortable with people making out in public, even though by logical extension it's just as bad as my being homophobic. I think your examples are completely arbitary. Gay marriages are not related to beastiality or incest, it is a marriage between humans. We have given the right to certain humans but not others, it is not related to other species. Since you used the concept of a "true" marriage when saying gay marriages are not "true", I'll assume you believe in the concept of marriage in general. In that regard, you consider a subset of humans being married but not the other subset. This is where you seem to contradict yourself when you say you demand fair treatment for gay individuals but then don't treat them equally as other humans. Incest is between humans... But even ignoring that, you just decided that marriage is only between humans. Let's say a human wants to marry a member of a different species. You are denying their right to marry an animal. Why isn't that marriage recognized? PROVE to me that that shouldn't be recognized as a marriage. . Edit: On November 25 2012 08:48 Thereisnosaurus wrote:Bestiality is against the law because animals can't consent. Incest is a bit trickier, but the much higher rate of birth defects probably accounts for that now (although in the past it may have just been a religious thing.) Indeed, comparing these two isn't valid. Bestiality falls into the same category as rape in an ethical/moral framework Incest (between consenting adults in any case) falls into a wierd edge case like the religious laws against eating pork. It comes from a very legitimate socio-cultural source, but one that is rendered obsolete by modern culture and science (since incest is only problematic if it ends in several consecutive generations of children, and even then is probably less of an issue than a mother smoking or a parent with a serious genetic condition reproducing in a 'how is this going to fuck up the children' sense). In the context of homosexuality, incest between consenting partners should be governed by precisely the same doctrine that governs homosexuality- it is consent, not format that is important. It's an interesting kind of provocative point- if you're okay with gay and lesbian rights, you should have no issues with incestuous ones until procreation becomes involved. As I said before, by that argument of bestiality, you shouldn't be allowed to ride a horse, or milk a cow, or, heck, own a pet. The reason for bestiality laws is because people are uncomfortable with bestiality. Your second thing is exactly my (second) point. If you're okay with all of that, you're being logically consistent, and making laws based off of that is logical. But that doesn't mean you have to be comfortable with the idea, or be uncomfortable with being uncomfortable. Animals cannot legally consent to contracts. This is because animals cannot read, write, or speak on a level that would enable them to give informed consent. Thus they cannot enter into a marriage contract. Please quit comparing gay marriage to bestiality. It is degrading. Bestiality laws exist as a very basic, low level moral standard. When partnered with animal cruelty laws it effectively says that while animals are property, they have the right to not be tortured or raped. Thus it has nothing to do with our ability to ride a horse or milk a cow. As stated by many others previously, it has little to do with the issue of gay marriage. The gay marriage front wishes to change the gender requirement for secular marriage. It is not a movement which wishes to deregulate marriage to the point of it being between any two things. You are correct in saying that laws against incest provide a similar problem from a purely ethical point of view. Unfortunately for your argument, the two ethical problems are independent of one another. Thus it is not hypocritical to support gay marriage while not supporting consensual incest. I'm comparing gay marriage to bestiality just as much as I'm comparing bestiality to a heterosexual marriage. All are arbitrary. Now you decide that a marriage needs "informed consent". Well maybe I don't think marriage needs informed consent. Again, it's ARBITRARY- as in, you can't defend your argument for what marriage is/isn't based off of any objective standard. Similar to your animal cruelty position. Why are animals allowed to be owned? Maybe they want to be free? What gives you the right to pull a dog on a leash? What gives you the right to ride a horse? What's defined as "torture"? Again, all these things are ARBITRARY. Thus it is not hypocritical to support gay marriage while not supporting consensual incest. Why? Simple question. Why? Let me replace your quote with the word "incest" instead of gay marriage. (I also replaced your "incest" with "bestiality", because you are against that) The incest marriage front wishes to change the gender requirement for secular marriage. It is not a movement which wishes to deregulate marriage to the point of it being between any two things. You are correct in saying that laws against bestiality provide a similar problem from a purely ethical point of view. Unfortunately for your argument, the two ethical problems are independent of one another. Thus it is not hypocritical to support incest marriage while not supporting bestiality. Now try to PROVE that that statement is illogical. Are you really that out of touch with logic and reality ? By your argumentation there is nothing that can be said using human language that is not arbitrary. You can take that position, but then everything you say has no meaning. Which would explain a lot as your arguments are just one big exercise in empty semantic games. Word marriage has some meaning, and that meaning requires informed consent. Only a person who does not understand what meaning of the words is can ask someone to justify the meaning of the word. Meaning of the word is created by people using the language, there is no need to justify it. The meaning is given. If you disagree with the meaning of the word you are welcome to do so, but then you are not using the same language as others and there is no point in talking with you. As for animals, they are allowed to be owned, because of historical and practical reasons and the fact we do not include them into our ethical calculus on the same level as humans. I expect you to not be satisfied with that justification, because you will call it arbitrary. Strangely I do not care as according to you everything is arbitrary. As for torture, again questioning meaning of the word. If you do not know what torture is, it is probably your lack of understanding of the language. It is pretty simple word. We are not writing a legal document here, so there is no need for detailed definition of "torture", knowing the meaning is enough for everyone, except people who do not actually want to debate the topic, but instead want to play semantic games. Not at all. I'm saying that nothing in the human language relating to morality isn't arbitrary.It's an argument about objective morality, and I'm not the first to argue about it. Then suddenly you define marriage as consent. Well I define marriage as heterosexual. Are we now arguing about what the dictionaries define marriage as? Why do you assume your definition is the right one? And your argument about torture is simply wrong, because we are exactly arguing legalities. We are defining the legal status of bestiality. You called it torture. I don't want to call it torture. It's not for fun; it's about the law.
Of course there is objective morality, and you vehemently protesting so will not change a thing. Actions speak louder than words and in your everyday life and by your inner ethical code you are either proving that objective morality exists by observing its rules (as 95+% percent of the world does), or you are a psychopath.
As for the rest you still miss the point. Definitions are arbitrary, meaning is not. You do not get to choose your own meaning of the words. You can choose your definition. But even though definitions are arbitrary, they have different value. There are useless definitions and useful ones. If your definition of the word does not conform to the meaning of the word it is useless. Also note I never said a word about marriage not being heterosexual. I said it requires informed consent. Which it does. If your definition of marriage does not require consent, than you go contrary to the meaning of the word and your definition is useless. Notice I did not say wrong, as definitions cannot be wrong and cannot be right, they can be useful or useless.
As for you point about torture, you completely missed the point. You asked what is torture. That is nonsensical nitpick unless you are writing document on torture.
|
On November 25 2012 10:46 Jormundr wrote:Show nested quote +On November 25 2012 09:34 soon.Cloak wrote:
As I keep saying, these laws are arbitrary. The government doesn't owe anyone the benefits of marriage. That's why the argument of "I want to marry an animal/computer/table, recognize the marriage" isn't a good argument. So the government decided to give this benefit to heterosexual couples. Fine. Either argue that there shouldn't be benefits for anyone, or there should be benefits for everyone, including people that want to marry animals. Anything in the middle is inconsistent.
Anything in the middle is inconsistent? Incorrect. The idea that heterosexual marriage, gay marriage, bestiality, and incest are of the same ethical weight is the view which is inconsistent. Marriage in its current state is a legal contract it a contract between two persons of opposite gendersmarriage requires informed consent
Marriage cannot be between relatives of a certain closeness
Underlined is the part which gay people wish to change Bolded is the part that the bestiality camp wants to change Italicized is the part that the incest camp wishes to change Now, unless my logic fails me, you can change any one of these without changing the other ones. I assume your point is that there is an ethical imperative to accomplish all of these things if one also wishes to implement gay marriage. This is false. Lets weight the ethical problems of changing each of these things. Gay marriage - Population: 3% of total - Problems: This would require a removal of the gender requirements for marriage. I cannot think of any externalities which this could create. - Detriments: Degradation of religious moral values (alleged) Bestial marriage and intercourse -Population: Let's be generous: .1% of all people in the united states want to marry an animal -Problems: This would require a removal of the consent stipulation, which is a basis of most human law. -Problems: This would require a removal of the personhood requirement for marriage. This is also a big deal. -Detriments: Many sexually transmitted diseases await discovery! (See AIDS) Incest -Population: Again lets be generous: 1% of all people in the United States want to marry closer than their second cousin. -Problems: Parent child marriages are a shaky ethical area because the parent has the ability to bypass informed consent because they have 18 years to limit the information that their child receives. (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_School_for_Wives) -Problems: There is no clear solution for the aforementioned problem. As long as the parent is a power figure (guardianship laws) the ability of their child to give informed consent is lessened. Any attempt to legalize incest parent-child incest would have to sort out this gray area. -Detriments: Repeated inbreeding can cause severe birth defects First off, you can say that by simple population alone, gay marriage is far more important. I made up the numbers for incestuous marriage and bestiality. That being said, I am fairly certain they are overestimates, which would mean that gay marriage has a greater weight by population. Second, it takes a lot less to make gay marriage legal. You only have to remove the gender requirement. You don't have to change the consent, personhood, or guardianship laws. Third, the legalization of gay marriage is the least detrimental from a utilitarian point of view. So no, you don't have to put them all in the same boat. In fact, it is erroneous to do so.
Let's go through each point one by one
Bestial:
- We don't have any human/animal laws that require consent. You can own an animal, you can ride an animal, you can slaughter an animal...why can't you marry an animal?
- Why is removing the personhood requirement a big deal? You want to say because then we'll lose the benefits of marriage. Fine. But then your arguing that your willing to recognize bestial marriage in principle, if not in the legal sense.\
- If I know my history (which I do not, honestly), AIDs spread through homosexuals. Where does bestiality come into that?
Incest:
- So you can permit non-parent incestual relationships, or those among children aged 30 or over, when they are already mature. But at least you seem to agree that if it's not parent-child, it should be allowed.
- Again, just a technicality. Then if people got tested for specific STD's before marriage, it would be okay? And it's not illegal for non-relatives with genes leading to STD's to marry.
Your three points just talk about the ease of making gay marriage legal, but they don't address the fact that nobody wants to make incest or bestiality legal. It's not just a practical issue; it's simply not recognized as okay.
But focus on Uganda. They want to punish homosexuals, because they feel it's immoral. That sounds like the ethical equivilant of punishing bestial or incestual relationships, because they're immoral. If you really want, you can turn the argument around, and punish heterosexuals, because they define all sexual contact as immoral. In terms of that, they're all equal.
|
On November 25 2012 10:49 soon.Cloak wrote:Show nested quote +On November 25 2012 10:42 mcc wrote:On November 25 2012 10:28 soon.Cloak wrote:On November 25 2012 10:11 mcc wrote:On November 25 2012 09:34 soon.Cloak wrote:
As I keep saying, these laws are arbitrary. The government doesn't owe anyone the benefits of marriage. That's why the argument of "I want to marry an animal/computer/table, recognize the marriage" isn't a good argument. So the government decided to give this benefit to heterosexual couples. Fine. Either argue that there shouldn't be benefits for anyone, or there should be benefits for everyone, including people that want to marry animals. Anything in the middle is inconsistent.
No it is not. It is black and white fallacy that you commit. Government provides benefits for married couples to achieve some goal. If giving those benefits to homosexual couples furthers that goal, but giving it to couples from your examples does not further that goal it is perfectly consistent to stay in the middle. Problem is you are mixing apples and oranges. In case of marriage benefits the line is drawn by the state based on the goals of those incentives. In case of couple's rights (visiting in hospital,...) the line is drawn based on ethics. That is a different issue and it is pretty clear there that homosexual couples should have the same rights as heterosexual ones. Most of those rights make absolutely no sense in case of bestiality. Case of incest is more complicated, but also completely irrelevant to this thread, as is the whole marriage thing as in Uganda it is not about marriage, but about punishing victimless crimes. Interesting point, but a few things: First, that argument doesn't apply to incest. So you think that incest should be legalized? Second, you talk about the governments definition of marriage, as it relates to governments benefits. Thus, you seem to be saying that you have no issue recognizing bestiality on a moral/ethical level, just not on a monetary/government level. Don't want to misquote you, but is that your position? And it is relevant to Uganda, as bestiality and incest is also a victimless crime, yet it's punished in the USA. I have no opinion on incest and since it has nothing to do with this topic and was only brought up by you I see no reason to devote time to create such an opinion. No I was not saying anything like that. I was saying exactly what I wrote, which was that there is no inconsistency that you claim exists. I oppose bestiality on the same grounds as I oppose any mistreatment of animals. Again bestiality has nothing to do with this thread as it is an issue of animal treatment. Even if accepted your position about incest and bestiality, it would still not have anything to do with the topic. Topic is about mistreatment of homosexuals. The fact that there are political prisoners in China or that incest is banned in Andorra is completely irrelevant. You only form opinions on topics brought up by OP's on Teamliquid? Bestiality is more than just mistreatment of animals, as many things we do are worse to animals than what falls under the lgeal definition of bestiality. And it has everything to do with this thread. See my first post. I made two points. The first was that if you believe purely in the argument of a victimless crime, then you should recognize incest and bestiality as okay. My second point was that it is okay to feel uncomfortable around people that are in heterosexual, gay, bestial, or incestual marriages. As you are not saying what your opinions are, I can't really argue with you.
No I do not form opinions lightly. And since I see no point to devote time to incest relationships and this discussion does not require it, as it is non-related tangent that you introduced, I will not devote the time to think about it.
As for mistreatment of animals. What is your point ? I oppose also other forms of mistreatment of animals.
Bestiality is not a victimless crime as for incest I really do not care. Feeling uncomfortable is one thing, basing policy on such feelings is another.
|
On November 25 2012 10:49 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On November 25 2012 10:40 soon.Cloak wrote:On November 25 2012 10:35 farvacola wrote:On November 25 2012 10:33 soon.Cloak wrote:On November 25 2012 10:20 SkysLa wrote:On November 25 2012 10:04 soon.Cloak wrote:On November 25 2012 09:47 SkysLa wrote:On November 25 2012 09:09 soon.Cloak wrote:On November 25 2012 08:58 SkysLa wrote:On November 25 2012 08:51 soon.Cloak wrote:
[quote]
Incest is between humans...
But even ignoring that, you just decided that marriage is only between humans. Let's say a human wants to marry a member of a different species. You are denying their right to marry an animal. Why isn't that marriage recognized? PROVE to me that that shouldn't be recognized as a marriage. . I had edited in the incest part afterwards. You do know you're quoted as calling gay marriages "untrue"? From that, I assumed you only call male-female marriages as being "true". You're the one that needs to prove that gay marriages are "untrue". We haven't even equalized human rights for gay individuals since they cannot be married yet you claim to treat them fairly? But even so, I shall answer about other species; another species cannot consent to marriage, hence of course it won't be recognized. If an alien species were to drop down and have intelligence relative to ours or greater and could consent, I would call to recognize such a relationship. Even if you edited it, you still have to address the incest part. According to your argument, incest should be recognized as a legit marriage. Which is fine. But just recognize that that's your position. And it is fair. Nobody is owed the right to the the benefits of marriage, as long as everybody is given the right to marriage. So what that the animal has no idea what's going on? Why can't somebody demand that their union to the animal be recognized a marriage? Because according to YOUR definition of marriage, it's between two consenting humans? Who cares what you think? I demand that my right to marry a tree be recognized. That my right to marry a table be recognized. That my right to marry my computer be recognized. But of course that's ridiculous. Our government has, for whatever reason, given us the present of the benefits of marriage, as long as you get married by what they define marriage to be. Gays have that right- THAT'S WHY IT'S FAIR. And the law doesn't give gays those benefits to a gay marriage? So what? Who owes it in the first place? I think we should state a definition of marriage, in my definition of marriage, it includes consent AND a specific type of relationship between the individuals. I'm pretty sure most definitions or marriage ceremonies have a part of it that needs consent. You state the definition by the government is the one to be followed, why is that? Because it's the one we must follow? Firstly, we(the government) owe it because we have to say why we recognize male/female marriages and not gay ones or else we have a question of inequality. You say there isn't any inequality but if you believe that homosexuality is not a choice, then you are not giving the equal choice between individuals. The government does actually have to answer for why it treats others differently. Now we're getting into a debate about the government's responsibility but I believe the govt does have to answer for giving rights only to some and not others. Also, since there is going to be multiple definition of marriages, I would agree that a christian ceremony of marriage would not need to accept homosexual marriages. I do believe there needs to be some type of marriage between gay individuals though. You still have dodged your first statement of your own beliefs. After a long rant of "arbitary concepts" from you, you go on to state that gay marriages are "untrue". I recognize that an individual can have a special relationship with a tree or a dog or whatever, but I don't think that goes under the definition of marriage if we agree on the definition above. Again, they could have a certain TYPE of relationship though. I'm sure you will go why don't we just keep it at that for gay individuals then? Because we have set upon a certain amount of rights for humans and have excluded gay people from that group. Consent is there and the the love or whatever you want to call it can be there as well. I hold that religion is against certain types of bonds but that doesn't mean the govt should hold that as well. Also, yes, I do believe a non-sexual incestual marriage is acceptable. I say non-sexual because who could control sexual behaviour completely, that's why I argued it's illegal in the first place though. Procreation in incestual couples can lead to future harm of the children, I think we agree on that. (This paragraph is for arguments sake only, please don't take this literally) And in MY definition of marriage, you don't need consent if it's an animal. In MY definition of marriage, all you need is a person to commit to living with something. According to my definition, you can marry anything. Can you prove that I'm wrong? No. I don't think the government has any better idea of what marriage is than we do. My point is that people are fighting over what the government should and shouldn't recognize. All I'm saying is that we should be consistent, and deciding that gay and heterosexual marriage is okay, while bestiality and incest is not, is arbitrary. So if you want the government to recognize any "union", fine. If you want the government to recognizer no union, fine. But don't tell the government to recognize some unions. I don't agree with your definition of marriage, so your second paragraph is irrelevant. For that last part, that's fine, that's consistent. Then you get to the second half of my first post, where I say that I don't have to be comfortable around incestual/gay couples. even if I feel they have a right to what they do. Do you agree to that too? (Feel free to leave this part for later, so that this whole debate doesn't get too confusing) You're saying all definitions are arbitrary though at this point just because a human can want otherwise. This is an argument but it is not one we're going after. We have drifted off from the main topic. You have purposely gone to the point where any definition will be cast away because someone doesn't want it. What is there to argue at this point when you can create any definition you want? I want to go back to the part where you called gay marriages "untrue". You never bring that up again, you argue about everything being arbitrary but one of your first statements was a value judgment on gay marriage. I told you how I felt about incest and I stated beastiality is a seperate issue under my definition. If we go back to the fact that right now, only humans can get married and more importantly, only heterosexual marriages are allowed, then I want to ask again, why can't there be gay marriages? You say this is arbitrary but that's just throwing the topic into another area completely. I just want to know why you think gay individuals can be denied that right while heterosexual individuals are allowed it. Is there a valid reason for this not being allowed other than it doesn't matter, it's all arbitrary? Well, you're not going to like this (at all), but I'm religious. I follow the bible. The bible says gay marriage isn't a marriage. My definition is based off of god, not off a subjective (human) moral standard.So if you want, we can have a completely separate argument (in a different thread, I suppose) about the legitimacy of religion. But if you don't believe in an objective definition of marriage based off of god, you are saying your morals are subjective, and that anyone else's view is as legitimate as yours. So that's how I defend my viewpoint. But you still haven't said how you defend yours. Your definition may be based off of God, but it is still YOUR definition and is therefore subject to the additional considerations of subjective moral implication. You cannot escape the fallibility of your own viewpoint. It's not "based" off of God's view. It is God's view. And God has decided that God is the decided or morality. Where did my definition come into that? Because you are the speaker, you are the one telling us you've somehow received intelligible communication from a higher being and are setting forth a standard based on that. Consider it this way. Since you are not "God", you cannot assuredly make an utterance in his name. Therefore, you must use your own subjective agency as a conscious human being to interpret or analyze purported utterances of "God", complete with according recognition of the possibility of flaw, miscommunication, or inherent antiquated belligerence.
That's not arbitrary at all. That's a historical argument. What's the historical legitimacy of the Bible? I bring points, you bring points, we have a lovely debate. But we each bring things that objectively support our side. You bring timelines, I bring timelines. You bring comparison works, I bring comparison works. That's completely different than "Well, I feel marriage is this way because I feel marriage is this way".
I can't claim that I am definitely correct, but I can claim that facts support me, not just opinions.
|
On November 25 2012 10:56 Djzapz wrote:Show nested quote +On November 25 2012 10:14 soon.Cloak wrote:On November 25 2012 10:10 Djzapz wrote:On November 25 2012 10:08 soon.Cloak wrote:On November 25 2012 09:53 Djzapz wrote:On November 25 2012 09:41 soon.Cloak wrote:On November 25 2012 09:38 Djzapz wrote:
That's to screw around with semantics, it can easily be abused to put a position above another without ever passing your own judgment. Stating that you're fine with the status quo is not very interesting. What specific point are you replying to...? The premise of your entire rhetoric. Your theme is broken because it seems to assume that judgments are arbitrary if you don't personally agree with the arguments that support those judgments. Those arguments don't need to be universally true to have value either, even though you're trying to be objective about a subjective topic (and I would argue that you aren't doing too well, given that your personal subjective opinion is obvious even though you're trying to hide it by defending the status quo, may it be indirect). You throw arbitrary around like you know shit. Tell me what arguments you're referring to, if you can. I still don't know exactly what you're saying. And I'm not defending the status quo. Check out my first post, where I said it's consistent to support gay and heterosexual marriage benefits, if you also support bestiality and incest marriage benefits. Describe the steps to make a non-arbitrary moral judgment, soon.Cloak: I'll watch you trip over your own foot as you wander in limbo. Don’t you dare respond to anything else until you’ve figured that out, because like I said, your entire rhetoric seems to float on the idea that these topics should be handled with hard evidence and truths, hence your aversion to this word, "Arbitrary" – a word that you toss in full caps all over the place. But if you dig into it, you’ll notice that any moral judgment that doesn’t seem arbitrary to you only seems objective because you agree with it so strongly, or because it’s in line with other human constructs that you consider to be true. Hell we can push even farther and say that moral judgments can be based on arbitrarily selected reasons that are good or bad based on other arbitrary reasons – and so on so forth. You pick a bunch of different definitions of marriage and assume they’re all equal because you think you’re a robot and that’s what you ought to be. But this isn’t science and shouldn’t be treated as such. At best, science provides us with data upon which we can base subjective opinions. Until you get out of that little phase where you pretend to be Objectivotron, your input is as useless as my understanding of Quantum Physics. That being said, I want to say that your position isn't that objective because of its very nature which ignores morality. It's pretty paradoxal, and that's why science doesn't meddle with morality or religion: it can't. Your definition of "consistency" is based on ignorance, may it be willful ignorance or plain old ignorance, you dismiss moral arguments because you refuse to process anything arbitrary. Um, I don't believe in a non-arbitrary moral judgement... ... Were you just trying to get me to admit that? Sigh, hopeless =_=
Link!
May want to check it out before dismissing an opinion as hopeless simply because it disagrees with yours.
|
On November 25 2012 09:52 soon.Cloak wrote:Show nested quote +On November 25 2012 09:43 Jormundr wrote:On November 25 2012 08:51 soon.Cloak wrote:On November 25 2012 08:42 SkysLa wrote:On November 25 2012 08:31 soon.Cloak wrote:On November 25 2012 08:23 Glurkenspurk wrote:On November 25 2012 08:16 soon.Cloak wrote:Okay, I think I disagree with most people in this thread. Let's look at some other laws, shall we? I'm going to use the model of the USA just for ease, but there's probably a lot of similarity in Europe. Incest between consenting adults: In many states, you can be imprisoned for 10 years, 14 years, 20 years, 25 years, or for life. In some, you are put on the Sex Offenders List for life. SourceBestiality: Illegal in approximately thirty states. In many of these states, bestiality is a felony. SourceIndecent Exposure: Illegal to some extent in most states, though the definition of "indecent" varies. Punishments can include fines, imprisonment, or being registered on the Sex Offenders List. SourceNow, what are these? These are laws that express some sort of morality in our society. Our society, as a whole, and as represented through our government, has decided that some things are simply inappropriate. Obviously, marriage is not recognized in cases where it's illegal. The issue is that these laws are almost completely subjective, and therefore almost completely arbitrary. Can anyone tell me why I shouldn't be able to walk around naked? Can anyone tell me why I shouldn't be allowed to marry my mother? There's no objective reason. It's based on what society feels is correct and incorrect. So my first point is that any discussion related to morality/marriage rights is probably arbitrary. If you want to allow gay marriage, but are also comfortable with incest, bestiality, and indecent exposure, I may consider you strange, but I can't call you inconsistent. If you support gay marriage, but don't support those other things, then you are arbitrarily deciding what is legitimate and what is not. And if Uganda disagrees with you, their laws aren't any less legitimate than yours. But there's one more point. Even if you do feel that all those things should be allowed, that doesn't mean that they won't make you feel uncomfortable. Even if you think people should have the right to do whatever they want, as long as it doesn't harm others, you may feel...uncomfortable watching a man marry his daughter, or watching a woman marry a cow, or watching people walk around naked. And that's perfectly okay. If you grow up with a certain standard of what's marriage and of what's not, of what's okay and what's not, of what's "normal" and what's not, there's no reason to feel any pressure to change that. It's NOT okay to be discriminatory, to be rude or hurtful. But if I can think you're strange because you wear funny clothes, or because you speak in a weird voice, or because you have a ridiculous layup in basketball, why can't I feel uncomfortable with incest, bestiality, indecent exposure, or gay couples? So to the gay members of this wonderful community; I respect you, I respect your feelings, and I demand that you be given fair treatment by everyone around you. But I don't recognize a gay marriage as a true marriage, and I am uncomfortable around gay couples. And I don't feel guilty about that at all. Bestiality is against the law because animals can't consent. Incest is a bit trickier, but the much higher rate of birth defects probably accounts for that now (although in the past it may have just been a religious thing.) I still don't get the point. There are a lot of silly laws that should be removed in the US. I think most intelligent people agree that even though you may feel a bit uncomfortable around something doesn't mean you should try to ban it. I don't really feel comfortable around any couple making out in public, but I don't think it should be against the law to show affection in public. I think you should accept the fact that some people are different and not make up arbitrary reasons to defend your blatant homophobic thoughts. Incest is still illegal, even if you use a condom. By that argument of bestiality, you shouldn't be allowed to ride horses, because they can't consent. The point I think you're saying is whether or not it hurts the animal, and many of the laws covered under bestiality don't hurt the animal. There are bestiality laws in place because society isn't okay with bestiality. As if you are among those that think everything should be legal, that's specifically what I addressed in my second point. I didn't say they should be banned in that part- I said that you have the right to be uncomfortable. Reread, maybe. And as I explicitly said, I am okay with people being different than me, but again, that doesn't mean I have to be comfortable with their lifestyles. If that makes me homophobic, fine. But unfortunately, there's no derogatory word describing you, who feels uncomfortable with people making out in public, even though by logical extension it's just as bad as my being homophobic. I think your examples are completely arbitary. Gay marriages are not related to beastiality or incest, it is a marriage between humans. We have given the right to certain humans but not others, it is not related to other species. Since you used the concept of a "true" marriage when saying gay marriages are not "true", I'll assume you believe in the concept of marriage in general. In that regard, you consider a subset of humans being married but not the other subset. This is where you seem to contradict yourself when you say you demand fair treatment for gay individuals but then don't treat them equally as other humans. Incest is between humans... But even ignoring that, you just decided that marriage is only between humans. Let's say a human wants to marry a member of a different species. You are denying their right to marry an animal. Why isn't that marriage recognized? PROVE to me that that shouldn't be recognized as a marriage. . Edit: On November 25 2012 08:48 Thereisnosaurus wrote:Bestiality is against the law because animals can't consent. Incest is a bit trickier, but the much higher rate of birth defects probably accounts for that now (although in the past it may have just been a religious thing.) Indeed, comparing these two isn't valid. Bestiality falls into the same category as rape in an ethical/moral framework Incest (between consenting adults in any case) falls into a wierd edge case like the religious laws against eating pork. It comes from a very legitimate socio-cultural source, but one that is rendered obsolete by modern culture and science (since incest is only problematic if it ends in several consecutive generations of children, and even then is probably less of an issue than a mother smoking or a parent with a serious genetic condition reproducing in a 'how is this going to fuck up the children' sense). In the context of homosexuality, incest between consenting partners should be governed by precisely the same doctrine that governs homosexuality- it is consent, not format that is important. It's an interesting kind of provocative point- if you're okay with gay and lesbian rights, you should have no issues with incestuous ones until procreation becomes involved. As I said before, by that argument of bestiality, you shouldn't be allowed to ride a horse, or milk a cow, or, heck, own a pet. The reason for bestiality laws is because people are uncomfortable with bestiality. Your second thing is exactly my (second) point. If you're okay with all of that, you're being logically consistent, and making laws based off of that is logical. But that doesn't mean you have to be comfortable with the idea, or be uncomfortable with being uncomfortable. Animals cannot legally consent to contracts. This is because animals cannot read, write, or speak on a level that would enable them to give informed consent. Thus they cannot enter into a marriage contract. Please quit comparing gay marriage to bestiality. It is degrading. Bestiality laws exist as a very basic, low level moral standard. When partnered with animal cruelty laws it effectively says that while animals are property, they have the right to not be tortured or raped. Thus it has nothing to do with our ability to ride a horse or milk a cow. As stated by many others previously, it has little to do with the issue of gay marriage. The gay marriage front wishes to change the gender requirement for secular marriage. It is not a movement which wishes to deregulate marriage to the point of it being between any two things. You are correct in saying that laws against incest provide a similar problem from a purely ethical point of view. Unfortunately for your argument, the two ethical problems are independent of one another. Thus it is not hypocritical to support gay marriage while not supporting consensual incest. I'm comparing gay marriage to bestiality just as much as I'm comparing bestiality to a heterosexual marriage. All are arbitrary. Now you decide that a marriage needs "informed consent". Well maybe I don't think marriage needs informed consent. Again, it's ARBITRARY- as in, you can't defend your argument for what marriage is/isn't based off of any objective standard. Similar to your animal cruelty position. Why are animals allowed to be owned? Maybe they want to be free? What gives you the right to pull a dog on a leash? What gives you the right to ride a horse? What's defined as "torture"? Again, all these things are ARBITRARY. Show nested quote +Thus it is not hypocritical to support gay marriage while not supporting consensual incest. Why? Simple question. Why? Let me replace your quote with the word "incest" instead of gay marriage. (I also replaced your "incest" with "bestiality", because you are against that) Show nested quote +The incest marriage front wishes to change the gender requirement for secular marriage. It is not a movement which wishes to deregulate marriage to the point of it being between any two things. You are correct in saying that laws against bestiality provide a similar problem from a purely ethical point of view. Unfortunately for your argument, the two ethical problems are independent of one another. Thus it is not hypocritical to support incest marriage while not supporting bestiality. Now try to PROVE that that statement is illogical.
I don't need to prove that the statement is illogical with your substitution. No matter what you substitute, it still states that the issues are independent.
Furthermore, to address your 'arbitrary' charge, I must ask that you be realistic. To expect law to be morally objective is naive, even in this day and age. Human government cannot have an objective morality because morality is a subjective concept created by subjective humans. There is no moral absolute. It is however, the job of government to be as objective as possible in its attempts to deal with shifting ideas of morality. We didn't need to give black people the right to ride next to a white man on the bus. We didn't need to let women vote. Both of these incidents were as arbitrary as any other law. They are important because they were a logical moral progression in achieving human equality on a social scale.
|
On November 25 2012 11:09 mcc wrote:Show nested quote +On November 25 2012 10:49 soon.Cloak wrote:On November 25 2012 10:42 mcc wrote:On November 25 2012 10:28 soon.Cloak wrote:On November 25 2012 10:11 mcc wrote:On November 25 2012 09:34 soon.Cloak wrote:
As I keep saying, these laws are arbitrary. The government doesn't owe anyone the benefits of marriage. That's why the argument of "I want to marry an animal/computer/table, recognize the marriage" isn't a good argument. So the government decided to give this benefit to heterosexual couples. Fine. Either argue that there shouldn't be benefits for anyone, or there should be benefits for everyone, including people that want to marry animals. Anything in the middle is inconsistent.
No it is not. It is black and white fallacy that you commit. Government provides benefits for married couples to achieve some goal. If giving those benefits to homosexual couples furthers that goal, but giving it to couples from your examples does not further that goal it is perfectly consistent to stay in the middle. Problem is you are mixing apples and oranges. In case of marriage benefits the line is drawn by the state based on the goals of those incentives. In case of couple's rights (visiting in hospital,...) the line is drawn based on ethics. That is a different issue and it is pretty clear there that homosexual couples should have the same rights as heterosexual ones. Most of those rights make absolutely no sense in case of bestiality. Case of incest is more complicated, but also completely irrelevant to this thread, as is the whole marriage thing as in Uganda it is not about marriage, but about punishing victimless crimes. Interesting point, but a few things: First, that argument doesn't apply to incest. So you think that incest should be legalized? Second, you talk about the governments definition of marriage, as it relates to governments benefits. Thus, you seem to be saying that you have no issue recognizing bestiality on a moral/ethical level, just not on a monetary/government level. Don't want to misquote you, but is that your position? And it is relevant to Uganda, as bestiality and incest is also a victimless crime, yet it's punished in the USA. I have no opinion on incest and since it has nothing to do with this topic and was only brought up by you I see no reason to devote time to create such an opinion. No I was not saying anything like that. I was saying exactly what I wrote, which was that there is no inconsistency that you claim exists. I oppose bestiality on the same grounds as I oppose any mistreatment of animals. Again bestiality has nothing to do with this thread as it is an issue of animal treatment. Even if accepted your position about incest and bestiality, it would still not have anything to do with the topic. Topic is about mistreatment of homosexuals. The fact that there are political prisoners in China or that incest is banned in Andorra is completely irrelevant. You only form opinions on topics brought up by OP's on Teamliquid? Bestiality is more than just mistreatment of animals, as many things we do are worse to animals than what falls under the lgeal definition of bestiality. And it has everything to do with this thread. See my first post. I made two points. The first was that if you believe purely in the argument of a victimless crime, then you should recognize incest and bestiality as okay. My second point was that it is okay to feel uncomfortable around people that are in heterosexual, gay, bestial, or incestual marriages. As you are not saying what your opinions are, I can't really argue with you. No I do not form opinions lightly. And since I see no point to devote time to incest relationships and this discussion does not require it, as it is non-related tangent that you introduced, I will not devote the time to think about it. As for mistreatment of animals. What is your point ? I oppose also other forms of mistreatment of animals. Bestiality is not a victimless crime as for incest I really do not care. Feeling uncomfortable is one thing, basing policy on such feelings is another.
So if you feel that bestiality, on a fundamental marriage-based level, isn't wrong (the issue is just the cruelty to animals), and you feel that incest isn't wrong, then we are in agreement, as per the second part of my first post.
But I'm assuming that part about incest. Again, I can't argue if you won't say your opinion, when your opinion is relevant (because my whole point is that we have to be consistent).
|
On November 25 2012 11:16 Jormundr wrote:Show nested quote +On November 25 2012 09:52 soon.Cloak wrote:On November 25 2012 09:43 Jormundr wrote:On November 25 2012 08:51 soon.Cloak wrote:On November 25 2012 08:42 SkysLa wrote:On November 25 2012 08:31 soon.Cloak wrote:On November 25 2012 08:23 Glurkenspurk wrote:On November 25 2012 08:16 soon.Cloak wrote:Okay, I think I disagree with most people in this thread. Let's look at some other laws, shall we? I'm going to use the model of the USA just for ease, but there's probably a lot of similarity in Europe. Incest between consenting adults: In many states, you can be imprisoned for 10 years, 14 years, 20 years, 25 years, or for life. In some, you are put on the Sex Offenders List for life. SourceBestiality: Illegal in approximately thirty states. In many of these states, bestiality is a felony. SourceIndecent Exposure: Illegal to some extent in most states, though the definition of "indecent" varies. Punishments can include fines, imprisonment, or being registered on the Sex Offenders List. SourceNow, what are these? These are laws that express some sort of morality in our society. Our society, as a whole, and as represented through our government, has decided that some things are simply inappropriate. Obviously, marriage is not recognized in cases where it's illegal. The issue is that these laws are almost completely subjective, and therefore almost completely arbitrary. Can anyone tell me why I shouldn't be able to walk around naked? Can anyone tell me why I shouldn't be allowed to marry my mother? There's no objective reason. It's based on what society feels is correct and incorrect. So my first point is that any discussion related to morality/marriage rights is probably arbitrary. If you want to allow gay marriage, but are also comfortable with incest, bestiality, and indecent exposure, I may consider you strange, but I can't call you inconsistent. If you support gay marriage, but don't support those other things, then you are arbitrarily deciding what is legitimate and what is not. And if Uganda disagrees with you, their laws aren't any less legitimate than yours. But there's one more point. Even if you do feel that all those things should be allowed, that doesn't mean that they won't make you feel uncomfortable. Even if you think people should have the right to do whatever they want, as long as it doesn't harm others, you may feel...uncomfortable watching a man marry his daughter, or watching a woman marry a cow, or watching people walk around naked. And that's perfectly okay. If you grow up with a certain standard of what's marriage and of what's not, of what's okay and what's not, of what's "normal" and what's not, there's no reason to feel any pressure to change that. It's NOT okay to be discriminatory, to be rude or hurtful. But if I can think you're strange because you wear funny clothes, or because you speak in a weird voice, or because you have a ridiculous layup in basketball, why can't I feel uncomfortable with incest, bestiality, indecent exposure, or gay couples? So to the gay members of this wonderful community; I respect you, I respect your feelings, and I demand that you be given fair treatment by everyone around you. But I don't recognize a gay marriage as a true marriage, and I am uncomfortable around gay couples. And I don't feel guilty about that at all. Bestiality is against the law because animals can't consent. Incest is a bit trickier, but the much higher rate of birth defects probably accounts for that now (although in the past it may have just been a religious thing.) I still don't get the point. There are a lot of silly laws that should be removed in the US. I think most intelligent people agree that even though you may feel a bit uncomfortable around something doesn't mean you should try to ban it. I don't really feel comfortable around any couple making out in public, but I don't think it should be against the law to show affection in public. I think you should accept the fact that some people are different and not make up arbitrary reasons to defend your blatant homophobic thoughts. Incest is still illegal, even if you use a condom. By that argument of bestiality, you shouldn't be allowed to ride horses, because they can't consent. The point I think you're saying is whether or not it hurts the animal, and many of the laws covered under bestiality don't hurt the animal. There are bestiality laws in place because society isn't okay with bestiality. As if you are among those that think everything should be legal, that's specifically what I addressed in my second point. I didn't say they should be banned in that part- I said that you have the right to be uncomfortable. Reread, maybe. And as I explicitly said, I am okay with people being different than me, but again, that doesn't mean I have to be comfortable with their lifestyles. If that makes me homophobic, fine. But unfortunately, there's no derogatory word describing you, who feels uncomfortable with people making out in public, even though by logical extension it's just as bad as my being homophobic. I think your examples are completely arbitary. Gay marriages are not related to beastiality or incest, it is a marriage between humans. We have given the right to certain humans but not others, it is not related to other species. Since you used the concept of a "true" marriage when saying gay marriages are not "true", I'll assume you believe in the concept of marriage in general. In that regard, you consider a subset of humans being married but not the other subset. This is where you seem to contradict yourself when you say you demand fair treatment for gay individuals but then don't treat them equally as other humans. Incest is between humans... But even ignoring that, you just decided that marriage is only between humans. Let's say a human wants to marry a member of a different species. You are denying their right to marry an animal. Why isn't that marriage recognized? PROVE to me that that shouldn't be recognized as a marriage. . Edit: On November 25 2012 08:48 Thereisnosaurus wrote:Bestiality is against the law because animals can't consent. Incest is a bit trickier, but the much higher rate of birth defects probably accounts for that now (although in the past it may have just been a religious thing.) Indeed, comparing these two isn't valid. Bestiality falls into the same category as rape in an ethical/moral framework Incest (between consenting adults in any case) falls into a wierd edge case like the religious laws against eating pork. It comes from a very legitimate socio-cultural source, but one that is rendered obsolete by modern culture and science (since incest is only problematic if it ends in several consecutive generations of children, and even then is probably less of an issue than a mother smoking or a parent with a serious genetic condition reproducing in a 'how is this going to fuck up the children' sense). In the context of homosexuality, incest between consenting partners should be governed by precisely the same doctrine that governs homosexuality- it is consent, not format that is important. It's an interesting kind of provocative point- if you're okay with gay and lesbian rights, you should have no issues with incestuous ones until procreation becomes involved. As I said before, by that argument of bestiality, you shouldn't be allowed to ride a horse, or milk a cow, or, heck, own a pet. The reason for bestiality laws is because people are uncomfortable with bestiality. Your second thing is exactly my (second) point. If you're okay with all of that, you're being logically consistent, and making laws based off of that is logical. But that doesn't mean you have to be comfortable with the idea, or be uncomfortable with being uncomfortable. Animals cannot legally consent to contracts. This is because animals cannot read, write, or speak on a level that would enable them to give informed consent. Thus they cannot enter into a marriage contract. Please quit comparing gay marriage to bestiality. It is degrading. Bestiality laws exist as a very basic, low level moral standard. When partnered with animal cruelty laws it effectively says that while animals are property, they have the right to not be tortured or raped. Thus it has nothing to do with our ability to ride a horse or milk a cow. As stated by many others previously, it has little to do with the issue of gay marriage. The gay marriage front wishes to change the gender requirement for secular marriage. It is not a movement which wishes to deregulate marriage to the point of it being between any two things. You are correct in saying that laws against incest provide a similar problem from a purely ethical point of view. Unfortunately for your argument, the two ethical problems are independent of one another. Thus it is not hypocritical to support gay marriage while not supporting consensual incest. I'm comparing gay marriage to bestiality just as much as I'm comparing bestiality to a heterosexual marriage. All are arbitrary. Now you decide that a marriage needs "informed consent". Well maybe I don't think marriage needs informed consent. Again, it's ARBITRARY- as in, you can't defend your argument for what marriage is/isn't based off of any objective standard. Similar to your animal cruelty position. Why are animals allowed to be owned? Maybe they want to be free? What gives you the right to pull a dog on a leash? What gives you the right to ride a horse? What's defined as "torture"? Again, all these things are ARBITRARY. Thus it is not hypocritical to support gay marriage while not supporting consensual incest. Why? Simple question. Why? Let me replace your quote with the word "incest" instead of gay marriage. (I also replaced your "incest" with "bestiality", because you are against that) The incest marriage front wishes to change the gender requirement for secular marriage. It is not a movement which wishes to deregulate marriage to the point of it being between any two things. You are correct in saying that laws against bestiality provide a similar problem from a purely ethical point of view. Unfortunately for your argument, the two ethical problems are independent of one another. Thus it is not hypocritical to support incest marriage while not supporting bestiality. Now try to PROVE that that statement is illogical. I don't need to prove that the statement is illogical with your substitution. No matter what you substitute, it still states that the issues are independent. Furthermore, to address your 'arbitrary' charge, I must ask that you be realistic. To expect law to be morally objective is naive, even in this day and age. Human government cannot have an objective morality because morality is a subjective concept created by subjective humans. There is no moral absolute. It is however, the job of government to be as objective as possible in its attempts to deal with shifting ideas of morality. We didn't need to give black people the right to ride next to a white man on the bus. We didn't need to let women vote. Both of these incidents were as arbitrary as any other law. They are important because they were a logical moral progression in achieving human equality on a social scale.
If you agree that there is no moral absolute, then on a moral level, there's nothing wrong with bestiality and incest. That's the sum total of what I was trying to argue (in my first point).
|
On November 25 2012 11:19 soon.Cloak wrote:Show nested quote +On November 25 2012 11:09 mcc wrote:On November 25 2012 10:49 soon.Cloak wrote:On November 25 2012 10:42 mcc wrote:On November 25 2012 10:28 soon.Cloak wrote:On November 25 2012 10:11 mcc wrote:On November 25 2012 09:34 soon.Cloak wrote:
As I keep saying, these laws are arbitrary. The government doesn't owe anyone the benefits of marriage. That's why the argument of "I want to marry an animal/computer/table, recognize the marriage" isn't a good argument. So the government decided to give this benefit to heterosexual couples. Fine. Either argue that there shouldn't be benefits for anyone, or there should be benefits for everyone, including people that want to marry animals. Anything in the middle is inconsistent.
No it is not. It is black and white fallacy that you commit. Government provides benefits for married couples to achieve some goal. If giving those benefits to homosexual couples furthers that goal, but giving it to couples from your examples does not further that goal it is perfectly consistent to stay in the middle. Problem is you are mixing apples and oranges. In case of marriage benefits the line is drawn by the state based on the goals of those incentives. In case of couple's rights (visiting in hospital,...) the line is drawn based on ethics. That is a different issue and it is pretty clear there that homosexual couples should have the same rights as heterosexual ones. Most of those rights make absolutely no sense in case of bestiality. Case of incest is more complicated, but also completely irrelevant to this thread, as is the whole marriage thing as in Uganda it is not about marriage, but about punishing victimless crimes. Interesting point, but a few things: First, that argument doesn't apply to incest. So you think that incest should be legalized? Second, you talk about the governments definition of marriage, as it relates to governments benefits. Thus, you seem to be saying that you have no issue recognizing bestiality on a moral/ethical level, just not on a monetary/government level. Don't want to misquote you, but is that your position? And it is relevant to Uganda, as bestiality and incest is also a victimless crime, yet it's punished in the USA. I have no opinion on incest and since it has nothing to do with this topic and was only brought up by you I see no reason to devote time to create such an opinion. No I was not saying anything like that. I was saying exactly what I wrote, which was that there is no inconsistency that you claim exists. I oppose bestiality on the same grounds as I oppose any mistreatment of animals. Again bestiality has nothing to do with this thread as it is an issue of animal treatment. Even if accepted your position about incest and bestiality, it would still not have anything to do with the topic. Topic is about mistreatment of homosexuals. The fact that there are political prisoners in China or that incest is banned in Andorra is completely irrelevant. You only form opinions on topics brought up by OP's on Teamliquid? Bestiality is more than just mistreatment of animals, as many things we do are worse to animals than what falls under the lgeal definition of bestiality. And it has everything to do with this thread. See my first post. I made two points. The first was that if you believe purely in the argument of a victimless crime, then you should recognize incest and bestiality as okay. My second point was that it is okay to feel uncomfortable around people that are in heterosexual, gay, bestial, or incestual marriages. As you are not saying what your opinions are, I can't really argue with you. No I do not form opinions lightly. And since I see no point to devote time to incest relationships and this discussion does not require it, as it is non-related tangent that you introduced, I will not devote the time to think about it. As for mistreatment of animals. What is your point ? I oppose also other forms of mistreatment of animals. Bestiality is not a victimless crime as for incest I really do not care. Feeling uncomfortable is one thing, basing policy on such feelings is another. So if you feel that bestiality, on a fundamental marriage-based level, isn't wrong (the issue is just the cruelty to animals), and you feel that incest isn't wrong, then we are in agreement, as per the second part of my first post. But I'm assuming that part about incest. Again, I can't argue if you won't say your opinion, when your opinion is relevant (because my whole point is that we have to be consistent).
No, my opinion is that bestiality has no fundamental marriage-based level as marriage requires consent and animals cannot give it to you. I was talking about my opinion on bestiality as general practice. As pertaining to marriage it is like talking about flying penguins.
Your whole point is complete non-sequitur to the debate. I do not have to talk about human right violations in country A to be able to condemn them in country B. I do not have to talk about issue A to discuss issue B if they can be solved independently. And issues of homosexuality can easily be solved independently from issues of incest or bestiality. So stop acting like there is any need to bring them into the issue.
|
On November 25 2012 11:31 mcc wrote:Show nested quote +On November 25 2012 11:19 soon.Cloak wrote:On November 25 2012 11:09 mcc wrote:On November 25 2012 10:49 soon.Cloak wrote:On November 25 2012 10:42 mcc wrote:On November 25 2012 10:28 soon.Cloak wrote:On November 25 2012 10:11 mcc wrote:On November 25 2012 09:34 soon.Cloak wrote:
As I keep saying, these laws are arbitrary. The government doesn't owe anyone the benefits of marriage. That's why the argument of "I want to marry an animal/computer/table, recognize the marriage" isn't a good argument. So the government decided to give this benefit to heterosexual couples. Fine. Either argue that there shouldn't be benefits for anyone, or there should be benefits for everyone, including people that want to marry animals. Anything in the middle is inconsistent.
No it is not. It is black and white fallacy that you commit. Government provides benefits for married couples to achieve some goal. If giving those benefits to homosexual couples furthers that goal, but giving it to couples from your examples does not further that goal it is perfectly consistent to stay in the middle. Problem is you are mixing apples and oranges. In case of marriage benefits the line is drawn by the state based on the goals of those incentives. In case of couple's rights (visiting in hospital,...) the line is drawn based on ethics. That is a different issue and it is pretty clear there that homosexual couples should have the same rights as heterosexual ones. Most of those rights make absolutely no sense in case of bestiality. Case of incest is more complicated, but also completely irrelevant to this thread, as is the whole marriage thing as in Uganda it is not about marriage, but about punishing victimless crimes. Interesting point, but a few things: First, that argument doesn't apply to incest. So you think that incest should be legalized? Second, you talk about the governments definition of marriage, as it relates to governments benefits. Thus, you seem to be saying that you have no issue recognizing bestiality on a moral/ethical level, just not on a monetary/government level. Don't want to misquote you, but is that your position? And it is relevant to Uganda, as bestiality and incest is also a victimless crime, yet it's punished in the USA. I have no opinion on incest and since it has nothing to do with this topic and was only brought up by you I see no reason to devote time to create such an opinion. No I was not saying anything like that. I was saying exactly what I wrote, which was that there is no inconsistency that you claim exists. I oppose bestiality on the same grounds as I oppose any mistreatment of animals. Again bestiality has nothing to do with this thread as it is an issue of animal treatment. Even if accepted your position about incest and bestiality, it would still not have anything to do with the topic. Topic is about mistreatment of homosexuals. The fact that there are political prisoners in China or that incest is banned in Andorra is completely irrelevant. You only form opinions on topics brought up by OP's on Teamliquid? Bestiality is more than just mistreatment of animals, as many things we do are worse to animals than what falls under the lgeal definition of bestiality. And it has everything to do with this thread. See my first post. I made two points. The first was that if you believe purely in the argument of a victimless crime, then you should recognize incest and bestiality as okay. My second point was that it is okay to feel uncomfortable around people that are in heterosexual, gay, bestial, or incestual marriages. As you are not saying what your opinions are, I can't really argue with you. No I do not form opinions lightly. And since I see no point to devote time to incest relationships and this discussion does not require it, as it is non-related tangent that you introduced, I will not devote the time to think about it. As for mistreatment of animals. What is your point ? I oppose also other forms of mistreatment of animals. Bestiality is not a victimless crime as for incest I really do not care. Feeling uncomfortable is one thing, basing policy on such feelings is another. So if you feel that bestiality, on a fundamental marriage-based level, isn't wrong (the issue is just the cruelty to animals), and you feel that incest isn't wrong, then we are in agreement, as per the second part of my first post. But I'm assuming that part about incest. Again, I can't argue if you won't say your opinion, when your opinion is relevant (because my whole point is that we have to be consistent). No, my opinion is that bestiality has no fundamental marriage-based level as marriage requires consent and animals cannot give it to you. I was talking about my opinion on bestiality as general practice. As pertaining to marriage it is like talking about flying penguins. Your whole point is complete non-sequitur to the debate. I do not have to talk about human right violations in country A to be able to condemn them in country B. I do not have to talk about issue A to discuss issue B if they can be solved independently. And issues of homosexuality can easily be solved independently from issues of incest or bestiality. So stop acting like there is any need to bring them into the issue.
You are trying to define what marriage is, and argue that marriage"requires" certain fundamental aspects, while denying that other aspects of marriage (i.e. heterosexuality) can be considered fundamental. How did you come up with that?
My argument is about consistency, which by definition relates to multiple issues. I am arguing that it is inconsistent,and thus illogical, to consider some things marriage, while not other things. That is very related to Uganda, as it is arguing that it is illogical to feel that hetero and homosexual relationships are okay, while others are not, which is what I perceive to be the position of many in this thread.
|
On November 25 2012 11:41 soon.Cloak wrote:Show nested quote +On November 25 2012 11:31 mcc wrote:On November 25 2012 11:19 soon.Cloak wrote:On November 25 2012 11:09 mcc wrote:On November 25 2012 10:49 soon.Cloak wrote:On November 25 2012 10:42 mcc wrote:On November 25 2012 10:28 soon.Cloak wrote:On November 25 2012 10:11 mcc wrote:On November 25 2012 09:34 soon.Cloak wrote:
As I keep saying, these laws are arbitrary. The government doesn't owe anyone the benefits of marriage. That's why the argument of "I want to marry an animal/computer/table, recognize the marriage" isn't a good argument. So the government decided to give this benefit to heterosexual couples. Fine. Either argue that there shouldn't be benefits for anyone, or there should be benefits for everyone, including people that want to marry animals. Anything in the middle is inconsistent.
No it is not. It is black and white fallacy that you commit. Government provides benefits for married couples to achieve some goal. If giving those benefits to homosexual couples furthers that goal, but giving it to couples from your examples does not further that goal it is perfectly consistent to stay in the middle. Problem is you are mixing apples and oranges. In case of marriage benefits the line is drawn by the state based on the goals of those incentives. In case of couple's rights (visiting in hospital,...) the line is drawn based on ethics. That is a different issue and it is pretty clear there that homosexual couples should have the same rights as heterosexual ones. Most of those rights make absolutely no sense in case of bestiality. Case of incest is more complicated, but also completely irrelevant to this thread, as is the whole marriage thing as in Uganda it is not about marriage, but about punishing victimless crimes. Interesting point, but a few things: First, that argument doesn't apply to incest. So you think that incest should be legalized? Second, you talk about the governments definition of marriage, as it relates to governments benefits. Thus, you seem to be saying that you have no issue recognizing bestiality on a moral/ethical level, just not on a monetary/government level. Don't want to misquote you, but is that your position? And it is relevant to Uganda, as bestiality and incest is also a victimless crime, yet it's punished in the USA. I have no opinion on incest and since it has nothing to do with this topic and was only brought up by you I see no reason to devote time to create such an opinion. No I was not saying anything like that. I was saying exactly what I wrote, which was that there is no inconsistency that you claim exists. I oppose bestiality on the same grounds as I oppose any mistreatment of animals. Again bestiality has nothing to do with this thread as it is an issue of animal treatment. Even if accepted your position about incest and bestiality, it would still not have anything to do with the topic. Topic is about mistreatment of homosexuals. The fact that there are political prisoners in China or that incest is banned in Andorra is completely irrelevant. You only form opinions on topics brought up by OP's on Teamliquid? Bestiality is more than just mistreatment of animals, as many things we do are worse to animals than what falls under the lgeal definition of bestiality. And it has everything to do with this thread. See my first post. I made two points. The first was that if you believe purely in the argument of a victimless crime, then you should recognize incest and bestiality as okay. My second point was that it is okay to feel uncomfortable around people that are in heterosexual, gay, bestial, or incestual marriages. As you are not saying what your opinions are, I can't really argue with you. No I do not form opinions lightly. And since I see no point to devote time to incest relationships and this discussion does not require it, as it is non-related tangent that you introduced, I will not devote the time to think about it. As for mistreatment of animals. What is your point ? I oppose also other forms of mistreatment of animals. Bestiality is not a victimless crime as for incest I really do not care. Feeling uncomfortable is one thing, basing policy on such feelings is another. So if you feel that bestiality, on a fundamental marriage-based level, isn't wrong (the issue is just the cruelty to animals), and you feel that incest isn't wrong, then we are in agreement, as per the second part of my first post. But I'm assuming that part about incest. Again, I can't argue if you won't say your opinion, when your opinion is relevant (because my whole point is that we have to be consistent). No, my opinion is that bestiality has no fundamental marriage-based level as marriage requires consent and animals cannot give it to you. I was talking about my opinion on bestiality as general practice. As pertaining to marriage it is like talking about flying penguins. Your whole point is complete non-sequitur to the debate. I do not have to talk about human right violations in country A to be able to condemn them in country B. I do not have to talk about issue A to discuss issue B if they can be solved independently. And issues of homosexuality can easily be solved independently from issues of incest or bestiality. So stop acting like there is any need to bring them into the issue. You are trying to define what marriage is, and argue that marriage"requires" certain fundamental aspects, while denying that other aspects of marriage (i.e. heterosexuality) can be considered fundamental. How did you come up with that? My argument is about consistency, which by definition relates to multiple issues. I am arguing that it is inconsistent,and thus illogical, to consider some things marriage, while not other things. That is very related to Uganda, as it is arguing that it is illogical to feel that hetero and homosexual relationships are okay, while others are not, which is what I perceive to be the position of many in this thread.
I think you missed my post where I already answered this. I am not trying to define anything. Marriage has some meaning and consent is one of its attributes. I said nothing about homosexuality or heterosexuality, I think you are confusing me with someone else. Also after you read the post I was referring to I would like to stress that you have no point outside of playing semantic games.
|
On November 25 2012 11:48 mcc wrote:Show nested quote +On November 25 2012 11:41 soon.Cloak wrote:On November 25 2012 11:31 mcc wrote:On November 25 2012 11:19 soon.Cloak wrote:On November 25 2012 11:09 mcc wrote:On November 25 2012 10:49 soon.Cloak wrote:On November 25 2012 10:42 mcc wrote:On November 25 2012 10:28 soon.Cloak wrote:On November 25 2012 10:11 mcc wrote:On November 25 2012 09:34 soon.Cloak wrote:
As I keep saying, these laws are arbitrary. The government doesn't owe anyone the benefits of marriage. That's why the argument of "I want to marry an animal/computer/table, recognize the marriage" isn't a good argument. So the government decided to give this benefit to heterosexual couples. Fine. Either argue that there shouldn't be benefits for anyone, or there should be benefits for everyone, including people that want to marry animals. Anything in the middle is inconsistent.
No it is not. It is black and white fallacy that you commit. Government provides benefits for married couples to achieve some goal. If giving those benefits to homosexual couples furthers that goal, but giving it to couples from your examples does not further that goal it is perfectly consistent to stay in the middle. Problem is you are mixing apples and oranges. In case of marriage benefits the line is drawn by the state based on the goals of those incentives. In case of couple's rights (visiting in hospital,...) the line is drawn based on ethics. That is a different issue and it is pretty clear there that homosexual couples should have the same rights as heterosexual ones. Most of those rights make absolutely no sense in case of bestiality. Case of incest is more complicated, but also completely irrelevant to this thread, as is the whole marriage thing as in Uganda it is not about marriage, but about punishing victimless crimes. Interesting point, but a few things: First, that argument doesn't apply to incest. So you think that incest should be legalized? Second, you talk about the governments definition of marriage, as it relates to governments benefits. Thus, you seem to be saying that you have no issue recognizing bestiality on a moral/ethical level, just not on a monetary/government level. Don't want to misquote you, but is that your position? And it is relevant to Uganda, as bestiality and incest is also a victimless crime, yet it's punished in the USA. I have no opinion on incest and since it has nothing to do with this topic and was only brought up by you I see no reason to devote time to create such an opinion. No I was not saying anything like that. I was saying exactly what I wrote, which was that there is no inconsistency that you claim exists. I oppose bestiality on the same grounds as I oppose any mistreatment of animals. Again bestiality has nothing to do with this thread as it is an issue of animal treatment. Even if accepted your position about incest and bestiality, it would still not have anything to do with the topic. Topic is about mistreatment of homosexuals. The fact that there are political prisoners in China or that incest is banned in Andorra is completely irrelevant. You only form opinions on topics brought up by OP's on Teamliquid? Bestiality is more than just mistreatment of animals, as many things we do are worse to animals than what falls under the lgeal definition of bestiality. And it has everything to do with this thread. See my first post. I made two points. The first was that if you believe purely in the argument of a victimless crime, then you should recognize incest and bestiality as okay. My second point was that it is okay to feel uncomfortable around people that are in heterosexual, gay, bestial, or incestual marriages. As you are not saying what your opinions are, I can't really argue with you. No I do not form opinions lightly. And since I see no point to devote time to incest relationships and this discussion does not require it, as it is non-related tangent that you introduced, I will not devote the time to think about it. As for mistreatment of animals. What is your point ? I oppose also other forms of mistreatment of animals. Bestiality is not a victimless crime as for incest I really do not care. Feeling uncomfortable is one thing, basing policy on such feelings is another. So if you feel that bestiality, on a fundamental marriage-based level, isn't wrong (the issue is just the cruelty to animals), and you feel that incest isn't wrong, then we are in agreement, as per the second part of my first post. But I'm assuming that part about incest. Again, I can't argue if you won't say your opinion, when your opinion is relevant (because my whole point is that we have to be consistent). No, my opinion is that bestiality has no fundamental marriage-based level as marriage requires consent and animals cannot give it to you. I was talking about my opinion on bestiality as general practice. As pertaining to marriage it is like talking about flying penguins. Your whole point is complete non-sequitur to the debate. I do not have to talk about human right violations in country A to be able to condemn them in country B. I do not have to talk about issue A to discuss issue B if they can be solved independently. And issues of homosexuality can easily be solved independently from issues of incest or bestiality. So stop acting like there is any need to bring them into the issue. You are trying to define what marriage is, and argue that marriage"requires" certain fundamental aspects, while denying that other aspects of marriage (i.e. heterosexuality) can be considered fundamental. How did you come up with that? My argument is about consistency, which by definition relates to multiple issues. I am arguing that it is inconsistent,and thus illogical, to consider some things marriage, while not other things. That is very related to Uganda, as it is arguing that it is illogical to feel that hetero and homosexual relationships are okay, while others are not, which is what I perceive to be the position of many in this thread. I think you missed my post where I already answered this. I am not trying to define anything. Marriage has some meaning and consent is one of its attributes. I said nothing about homosexuality or heterosexuality, I think you are confusing me with someone else. Also after you read the post I was referring to I would like to stress that you have no point outside of playing semantic games.
I am not trying to define anything. Marriage has some meaning and consent is one of its attributes.
Do you not see the self-contradiction in that statement?
And in the post you are quoting now, I explained why it's not simply semantics, and how it relates to Uganda.
|
On November 25 2012 12:03 soon.Cloak wrote:Show nested quote +On November 25 2012 11:48 mcc wrote:On November 25 2012 11:41 soon.Cloak wrote:On November 25 2012 11:31 mcc wrote:On November 25 2012 11:19 soon.Cloak wrote:On November 25 2012 11:09 mcc wrote:On November 25 2012 10:49 soon.Cloak wrote:On November 25 2012 10:42 mcc wrote:On November 25 2012 10:28 soon.Cloak wrote:On November 25 2012 10:11 mcc wrote:
[quote]
No it is not. It is black and white fallacy that you commit. Government provides benefits for married couples to achieve some goal. If giving those benefits to homosexual couples furthers that goal, but giving it to couples from your examples does not further that goal it is perfectly consistent to stay in the middle. Problem is you are mixing apples and oranges. In case of marriage benefits the line is drawn by the state based on the goals of those incentives.
In case of couple's rights (visiting in hospital,...) the line is drawn based on ethics. That is a different issue and it is pretty clear there that homosexual couples should have the same rights as heterosexual ones. Most of those rights make absolutely no sense in case of bestiality. Case of incest is more complicated, but also completely irrelevant to this thread, as is the whole marriage thing as in Uganda it is not about marriage, but about punishing victimless crimes. Interesting point, but a few things: First, that argument doesn't apply to incest. So you think that incest should be legalized? Second, you talk about the governments definition of marriage, as it relates to governments benefits. Thus, you seem to be saying that you have no issue recognizing bestiality on a moral/ethical level, just not on a monetary/government level. Don't want to misquote you, but is that your position? And it is relevant to Uganda, as bestiality and incest is also a victimless crime, yet it's punished in the USA. I have no opinion on incest and since it has nothing to do with this topic and was only brought up by you I see no reason to devote time to create such an opinion. No I was not saying anything like that. I was saying exactly what I wrote, which was that there is no inconsistency that you claim exists. I oppose bestiality on the same grounds as I oppose any mistreatment of animals. Again bestiality has nothing to do with this thread as it is an issue of animal treatment. Even if accepted your position about incest and bestiality, it would still not have anything to do with the topic. Topic is about mistreatment of homosexuals. The fact that there are political prisoners in China or that incest is banned in Andorra is completely irrelevant. You only form opinions on topics brought up by OP's on Teamliquid? Bestiality is more than just mistreatment of animals, as many things we do are worse to animals than what falls under the lgeal definition of bestiality. And it has everything to do with this thread. See my first post. I made two points. The first was that if you believe purely in the argument of a victimless crime, then you should recognize incest and bestiality as okay. My second point was that it is okay to feel uncomfortable around people that are in heterosexual, gay, bestial, or incestual marriages. As you are not saying what your opinions are, I can't really argue with you. No I do not form opinions lightly. And since I see no point to devote time to incest relationships and this discussion does not require it, as it is non-related tangent that you introduced, I will not devote the time to think about it. As for mistreatment of animals. What is your point ? I oppose also other forms of mistreatment of animals. Bestiality is not a victimless crime as for incest I really do not care. Feeling uncomfortable is one thing, basing policy on such feelings is another. So if you feel that bestiality, on a fundamental marriage-based level, isn't wrong (the issue is just the cruelty to animals), and you feel that incest isn't wrong, then we are in agreement, as per the second part of my first post. But I'm assuming that part about incest. Again, I can't argue if you won't say your opinion, when your opinion is relevant (because my whole point is that we have to be consistent). No, my opinion is that bestiality has no fundamental marriage-based level as marriage requires consent and animals cannot give it to you. I was talking about my opinion on bestiality as general practice. As pertaining to marriage it is like talking about flying penguins. Your whole point is complete non-sequitur to the debate. I do not have to talk about human right violations in country A to be able to condemn them in country B. I do not have to talk about issue A to discuss issue B if they can be solved independently. And issues of homosexuality can easily be solved independently from issues of incest or bestiality. So stop acting like there is any need to bring them into the issue. You are trying to define what marriage is, and argue that marriage"requires" certain fundamental aspects, while denying that other aspects of marriage (i.e. heterosexuality) can be considered fundamental. How did you come up with that? My argument is about consistency, which by definition relates to multiple issues. I am arguing that it is inconsistent,and thus illogical, to consider some things marriage, while not other things. That is very related to Uganda, as it is arguing that it is illogical to feel that hetero and homosexual relationships are okay, while others are not, which is what I perceive to be the position of many in this thread. I think you missed my post where I already answered this. I am not trying to define anything. Marriage has some meaning and consent is one of its attributes. I said nothing about homosexuality or heterosexuality, I think you are confusing me with someone else. Also after you read the post I was referring to I would like to stress that you have no point outside of playing semantic games. Show nested quote +I am not trying to define anything. Marriage has some meaning and consent is one of its attributes. Do you not see the self-contradiction in that statement? And in the post you are quoting now, I explained why it's not simply semantics, and how it relates to Uganda.
Nope, there is no contradiction. Only if you do not know what meaning is you would think so. As I said it seems you did not read a post where I addressed this. It is on this page, look it up.
|
The point is that you "think" and "feel" homosexual marriage is morally acceptable, the Ugandans do not.
Once you admit that you "think" and "feel" that incest marriage and bestiality marriage are not morally acceptable, you become no different from the Ugandans passing judgement; judgements based on your own set of morals.
Your mind cannot comprehend this, thus you refuse to answer.
Most people feel the same way, as do I. For the purpose of discussion however it's important to go through the motions and be objective.
|
On November 25 2012 11:02 mcc wrote:Show nested quote +On November 25 2012 10:38 soon.Cloak wrote:On November 25 2012 10:32 mcc wrote:On November 25 2012 09:52 soon.Cloak wrote:On November 25 2012 09:43 Jormundr wrote:On November 25 2012 08:51 soon.Cloak wrote:On November 25 2012 08:42 SkysLa wrote:On November 25 2012 08:31 soon.Cloak wrote:On November 25 2012 08:23 Glurkenspurk wrote:On November 25 2012 08:16 soon.Cloak wrote:Okay, I think I disagree with most people in this thread. Let's look at some other laws, shall we? I'm going to use the model of the USA just for ease, but there's probably a lot of similarity in Europe. Incest between consenting adults: In many states, you can be imprisoned for 10 years, 14 years, 20 years, 25 years, or for life. In some, you are put on the Sex Offenders List for life. SourceBestiality: Illegal in approximately thirty states. In many of these states, bestiality is a felony. SourceIndecent Exposure: Illegal to some extent in most states, though the definition of "indecent" varies. Punishments can include fines, imprisonment, or being registered on the Sex Offenders List. SourceNow, what are these? These are laws that express some sort of morality in our society. Our society, as a whole, and as represented through our government, has decided that some things are simply inappropriate. Obviously, marriage is not recognized in cases where it's illegal. The issue is that these laws are almost completely subjective, and therefore almost completely arbitrary. Can anyone tell me why I shouldn't be able to walk around naked? Can anyone tell me why I shouldn't be allowed to marry my mother? There's no objective reason. It's based on what society feels is correct and incorrect. So my first point is that any discussion related to morality/marriage rights is probably arbitrary. If you want to allow gay marriage, but are also comfortable with incest, bestiality, and indecent exposure, I may consider you strange, but I can't call you inconsistent. If you support gay marriage, but don't support those other things, then you are arbitrarily deciding what is legitimate and what is not. And if Uganda disagrees with you, their laws aren't any less legitimate than yours. But there's one more point. Even if you do feel that all those things should be allowed, that doesn't mean that they won't make you feel uncomfortable. Even if you think people should have the right to do whatever they want, as long as it doesn't harm others, you may feel...uncomfortable watching a man marry his daughter, or watching a woman marry a cow, or watching people walk around naked. And that's perfectly okay. If you grow up with a certain standard of what's marriage and of what's not, of what's okay and what's not, of what's "normal" and what's not, there's no reason to feel any pressure to change that. It's NOT okay to be discriminatory, to be rude or hurtful. But if I can think you're strange because you wear funny clothes, or because you speak in a weird voice, or because you have a ridiculous layup in basketball, why can't I feel uncomfortable with incest, bestiality, indecent exposure, or gay couples? So to the gay members of this wonderful community; I respect you, I respect your feelings, and I demand that you be given fair treatment by everyone around you. But I don't recognize a gay marriage as a true marriage, and I am uncomfortable around gay couples. And I don't feel guilty about that at all. Bestiality is against the law because animals can't consent. Incest is a bit trickier, but the much higher rate of birth defects probably accounts for that now (although in the past it may have just been a religious thing.) I still don't get the point. There are a lot of silly laws that should be removed in the US. I think most intelligent people agree that even though you may feel a bit uncomfortable around something doesn't mean you should try to ban it. I don't really feel comfortable around any couple making out in public, but I don't think it should be against the law to show affection in public. I think you should accept the fact that some people are different and not make up arbitrary reasons to defend your blatant homophobic thoughts. Incest is still illegal, even if you use a condom. By that argument of bestiality, you shouldn't be allowed to ride horses, because they can't consent. The point I think you're saying is whether or not it hurts the animal, and many of the laws covered under bestiality don't hurt the animal. There are bestiality laws in place because society isn't okay with bestiality. As if you are among those that think everything should be legal, that's specifically what I addressed in my second point. I didn't say they should be banned in that part- I said that you have the right to be uncomfortable. Reread, maybe. And as I explicitly said, I am okay with people being different than me, but again, that doesn't mean I have to be comfortable with their lifestyles. If that makes me homophobic, fine. But unfortunately, there's no derogatory word describing you, who feels uncomfortable with people making out in public, even though by logical extension it's just as bad as my being homophobic. I think your examples are completely arbitary. Gay marriages are not related to beastiality or incest, it is a marriage between humans. We have given the right to certain humans but not others, it is not related to other species. Since you used the concept of a "true" marriage when saying gay marriages are not "true", I'll assume you believe in the concept of marriage in general. In that regard, you consider a subset of humans being married but not the other subset. This is where you seem to contradict yourself when you say you demand fair treatment for gay individuals but then don't treat them equally as other humans. Incest is between humans... But even ignoring that, you just decided that marriage is only between humans. Let's say a human wants to marry a member of a different species. You are denying their right to marry an animal. Why isn't that marriage recognized? PROVE to me that that shouldn't be recognized as a marriage. . Edit: On November 25 2012 08:48 Thereisnosaurus wrote:Bestiality is against the law because animals can't consent. Incest is a bit trickier, but the much higher rate of birth defects probably accounts for that now (although in the past it may have just been a religious thing.) Indeed, comparing these two isn't valid. Bestiality falls into the same category as rape in an ethical/moral framework Incest (between consenting adults in any case) falls into a wierd edge case like the religious laws against eating pork. It comes from a very legitimate socio-cultural source, but one that is rendered obsolete by modern culture and science (since incest is only problematic if it ends in several consecutive generations of children, and even then is probably less of an issue than a mother smoking or a parent with a serious genetic condition reproducing in a 'how is this going to fuck up the children' sense). In the context of homosexuality, incest between consenting partners should be governed by precisely the same doctrine that governs homosexuality- it is consent, not format that is important. It's an interesting kind of provocative point- if you're okay with gay and lesbian rights, you should have no issues with incestuous ones until procreation becomes involved. As I said before, by that argument of bestiality, you shouldn't be allowed to ride a horse, or milk a cow, or, heck, own a pet. The reason for bestiality laws is because people are uncomfortable with bestiality. Your second thing is exactly my (second) point. If you're okay with all of that, you're being logically consistent, and making laws based off of that is logical. But that doesn't mean you have to be comfortable with the idea, or be uncomfortable with being uncomfortable. Animals cannot legally consent to contracts. This is because animals cannot read, write, or speak on a level that would enable them to give informed consent. Thus they cannot enter into a marriage contract. Please quit comparing gay marriage to bestiality. It is degrading. Bestiality laws exist as a very basic, low level moral standard. When partnered with animal cruelty laws it effectively says that while animals are property, they have the right to not be tortured or raped. Thus it has nothing to do with our ability to ride a horse or milk a cow. As stated by many others previously, it has little to do with the issue of gay marriage. The gay marriage front wishes to change the gender requirement for secular marriage. It is not a movement which wishes to deregulate marriage to the point of it being between any two things. You are correct in saying that laws against incest provide a similar problem from a purely ethical point of view. Unfortunately for your argument, the two ethical problems are independent of one another. Thus it is not hypocritical to support gay marriage while not supporting consensual incest. I'm comparing gay marriage to bestiality just as much as I'm comparing bestiality to a heterosexual marriage. All are arbitrary. Now you decide that a marriage needs "informed consent". Well maybe I don't think marriage needs informed consent. Again, it's ARBITRARY- as in, you can't defend your argument for what marriage is/isn't based off of any objective standard. Similar to your animal cruelty position. Why are animals allowed to be owned? Maybe they want to be free? What gives you the right to pull a dog on a leash? What gives you the right to ride a horse? What's defined as "torture"? Again, all these things are ARBITRARY. Thus it is not hypocritical to support gay marriage while not supporting consensual incest. Why? Simple question. Why? Let me replace your quote with the word "incest" instead of gay marriage. (I also replaced your "incest" with "bestiality", because you are against that) The incest marriage front wishes to change the gender requirement for secular marriage. It is not a movement which wishes to deregulate marriage to the point of it being between any two things. You are correct in saying that laws against bestiality provide a similar problem from a purely ethical point of view. Unfortunately for your argument, the two ethical problems are independent of one another. Thus it is not hypocritical to support incest marriage while not supporting bestiality. Now try to PROVE that that statement is illogical. Are you really that out of touch with logic and reality ? By your argumentation there is nothing that can be said using human language that is not arbitrary. You can take that position, but then everything you say has no meaning. Which would explain a lot as your arguments are just one big exercise in empty semantic games. Word marriage has some meaning, and that meaning requires informed consent. Only a person who does not understand what meaning of the words is can ask someone to justify the meaning of the word. Meaning of the word is created by people using the language, there is no need to justify it. The meaning is given. If you disagree with the meaning of the word you are welcome to do so, but then you are not using the same language as others and there is no point in talking with you. As for animals, they are allowed to be owned, because of historical and practical reasons and the fact we do not include them into our ethical calculus on the same level as humans. I expect you to not be satisfied with that justification, because you will call it arbitrary. Strangely I do not care as according to you everything is arbitrary. As for torture, again questioning meaning of the word. If you do not know what torture is, it is probably your lack of understanding of the language. It is pretty simple word. We are not writing a legal document here, so there is no need for detailed definition of "torture", knowing the meaning is enough for everyone, except people who do not actually want to debate the topic, but instead want to play semantic games. Not at all. I'm saying that nothing in the human language relating to morality isn't arbitrary.It's an argument about objective morality, and I'm not the first to argue about it. Then suddenly you define marriage as consent. Well I define marriage as heterosexual. Are we now arguing about what the dictionaries define marriage as? Why do you assume your definition is the right one? And your argument about torture is simply wrong, because we are exactly arguing legalities. We are defining the legal status of bestiality. You called it torture. I don't want to call it torture. It's not for fun; it's about the law. Of course there is objective morality, and you vehemently protesting so will not change a thing.
Let's see you prove that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
