On November 25 2012 10:28 soon.Cloak wrote: [quote]
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.
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.
Oh, my bad, skipped that. There's been a lot of posts...
"Of course there is objective morality", you say? Can I point you to this thread? 40 pages about people arguing about the topic, and the poll says it's subjective. Don't try to say that everyone agrees with you on this.
So now I argue that the "meaning" of marriage is heterosexual, while you argue that the "meaning" is consent. How can you defend the position that you're definitely correct?
On November 25 2012 12:13 Reason wrote: 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.
This isn't about marriage. This is about innocent people being slaughtered for being attracted to the same gender.
On November 25 2012 12:13 Reason wrote: 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.
This isn't about marriage. This is about innocent people being slaughtered for being attracted to the same gender.
On November 25 2012 12:13 Reason wrote: 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.
This isn't about marriage. This is about innocent people being slaughtered for being attracted to the same gender.
Which I personally, and most well educated and open minded people believe to be completely wrong.
I was responding to the tangent on the previous page.
Specifically, we feel they are innocent, but they are guilty in the eyes of some. It's opinion vs opinion, there's no absolute truth.
On November 25 2012 11:06 soon.Cloak wrote: 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?
- Because marriage is a human - human law. The concept of marriage is intended to benefit humans. Humans are also the only ones who understand what marriage is. Consent is important. If you want to disagree about the importance of consent in a legal framework, you are not qualified to even use the words ethical and objectivity in the same sentence. - Removing the personhood ideal contradicts the idea of consent, because humans are the only ones who can consent. - You don't. HIV was originally contracted by blood from monkeys. It spread heavily in Africa largely due to the success of anti-prophylactic propaganda(Popey Pope Pope) in Africa. AIDS is easier spread by men (women are most likely to get infected by men and men are more likely to get infected by men).
On November 25 2012 11:06 soon.Cloak wrote: 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.
-Yes I definitely agree on both those points. However I would also like to stress the importance of mitigating the effects of any other familial power roles. I am not currently campaigning actively to end the oppression of people in same family relationships for three reasons: --1. There's little point in it. Society just recently accepted the consensus that incest causes genetic defects. This is unlikely to go away for a generation or two, even though the current scientific consensus differs from majority opinion. Majority opinion is only going to be swayed by time and education. --2. I don't know any people who currently want to marry their kin and are unable to do so. Therefore I have no personal investment --3. I don't have the personal interest to come up with a logical framework for incestuous marriage that produces an ethically neutral or positive result, if such a thing is possible. This can also be attributed to --2.
On November 25 2012 11:06 soon.Cloak wrote: 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.
You talk about the benefits of making incest and bestiality legal, but you don't address the fact that nobody wants to make human-mountain relations legal.
The reason people are less concerned with human - rock formation marriages than with bestiality and incest is because laws on human-mountain relations only affect a fraction of the people that incest and bestiality laws would affect. In case you don't understand, I'm pointing out that there is an order of magnitude in terms of who is actually affected by relationship laws, in terms of population. I.E. Heterosexual is affected far > than Homosexual, which is affected far > than Incest > than Bestiality > than Human-mountain relations > than Artificial intelligence -> solar system relations
Should gay people be concerned about intelligent computers and their erotic galactic desires? The answer is no, in case you're wondering.
To summarize I do not support bestiality, and it is idiotic to compare gay marriage and bestiality. I will put it in the simplest terms I know how: 1. I believe that sex requires consent. This is reflected by legal consensus. 2. I believe that animals are unable to consent. This is reflected by scientific and legal consensus. 3. Thus I believe that sex with animals is equivalent to sex without consent. This is equivalent to rape. 4. Rape is morally wrong in my world view. This is reflected by legal consensus.
I support incest, as long as consent can be clearly established. This means that the unequal power distribution of the family unit should be considered.
On November 25 2012 11:06 soon.Cloak wrote: 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?
- Because marriage is a human - human law. The concept of marriage is intended to benefit humans. Humans are also the only ones who understand what marriage is. Consent is important. If you want to disagree about the importance of consent in a legal framework, you are not qualified to even use the words ethical and objectivity in the same sentence. - Removing the personhood ideal contradicts the idea of consent, because humans are the only ones who can consent. - You don't. HIV was originally contracted by blood from monkeys. It spread heavily in Africa largely due to the success of anti-prophylactic propaganda(Popey Pope Pope) in Africa. AIDS is easier spread by men (women are most likely to get infected by men and men are more likely to get infected by men).
On November 25 2012 11:06 soon.Cloak wrote: 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.
-Yes I definitely agree on both those points. However I would also like to stress the importance of mitigating the effects of any other familial power roles. I am not currently campaigning actively to end the oppression of people in same family relationships for three reasons: --1. There's little point in it. Society just recently accepted the consensus that incest causes genetic defects. This is unlikely to go away for a generation or two, even though the current scientific consensus differs from majority opinion. Majority opinion is only going to be swayed by time and education. --2. I don't know any people who currently want to marry their kin and are unable to do so. Therefore I have no personal investment --3. I don't have the personal interest to come up with a logical framework for incestuous marriage that produces an ethically neutral or positive result, if such a thing is possible. This can also be attributed to --2.
On November 25 2012 11:06 soon.Cloak wrote: 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.
You talk about the benefits of making incest and bestiality legal, but you don't address the fact that nobody wants to make human-mountain relations legal.
The reason people are less concerned with human - rock formation marriages than with bestiality and incest is because laws on human-mountain relations only affect a fraction of the people that incest and bestiality laws would affect. In case you don't understand, I'm pointing out that there is an order of magnitude in terms of who is actually affected by relationship laws, in terms of population. I.E. Heterosexual is affected far > than Homosexual, which is affected far > than Incest > than Bestiality > than Human-mountain relations > than Artificial intelligence -> solar system relations
Should gay people be concerned about intelligent computers and their erotic galactic desires? The answer is no, in case you're wondering.
To summarize I do not support bestiality, and it is idiotic to compare gay marriage and bestiality. I will put it in the simplest terms I know how: 1. I believe that sex requires consent. This is reflected by legal consensus. 2. I believe that animals are unable to consent. This is reflected by scientific and legal consensus. 3. Thus I believe that sex with animals is equivalent to sex without consent. This is equivalent to rape. 4. Rape is morally wrong in my world view. This is reflected by legal consensus.
I support incest, as long as consent can be clearly established. This means that the unequal power distribution of the family unit should be considered.
I support gay marriage, which affects gay people.
Animals do not, can not, consent to ownership, slavery and being farmed. We do all of these things because they suit our own purposes without the blink of an eye. Why should sexual relations with an animal be any different than keeping one as a pet, using it as a slave for manual labour or rearing it inside a cage with the intention of slaughtering and devouring it at a later date?
The direct comparison between gay marriage and bestiality is indeed idiotic, as one involves two consenting parties and the other does not, however this seperate issue is not a simple one nor entirely unrelated when discussing morality.
You say you support incest as long as consent can clearly be established. I admire your judgement and agree for the same reasons that gay marriage should be allowed.
There we have established that backing from legal consensus is irrelevant when discussing morality and considering the topic of this thread that should already be abundantly clear.
The problem with the order of magnitude argument is that it proposes you need only act appropriately when a large enough number of people are concerned, which is a fallacy.
The torture, mistreatment or discrimination of a single individual is unnacceptable and to argue otherwise is frankly, also idiotic.
On November 25 2012 11:06 soon.Cloak wrote: 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?
- Because marriage is a human - human law. The concept of marriage is intended to benefit humans. Humans are also the only ones who understand what marriage is. Consent is important. If you want to disagree about the importance of consent in a legal framework, you are not qualified to even use the words ethical and objectivity in the same sentence. - Removing the personhood ideal contradicts the idea of consent, because humans are the only ones who can consent. - You don't. HIV was originally contracted by blood from monkeys. It spread heavily in Africa largely due to the success of anti-prophylactic propaganda(Popey Pope Pope) in Africa. AIDS is easier spread by men (women are most likely to get infected by men and men are more likely to get infected by men).
On November 25 2012 11:06 soon.Cloak wrote: 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.
-Yes I definitely agree on both those points. However I would also like to stress the importance of mitigating the effects of any other familial power roles. I am not currently campaigning actively to end the oppression of people in same family relationships for three reasons: --1. There's little point in it. Society just recently accepted the consensus that incest causes genetic defects. This is unlikely to go away for a generation or two, even though the current scientific consensus differs from majority opinion. Majority opinion is only going to be swayed by time and education. --2. I don't know any people who currently want to marry their kin and are unable to do so. Therefore I have no personal investment --3. I don't have the personal interest to come up with a logical framework for incestuous marriage that produces an ethically neutral or positive result, if such a thing is possible. This can also be attributed to --2.
On November 25 2012 11:06 soon.Cloak wrote: 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.
You talk about the benefits of making incest and bestiality legal, but you don't address the fact that nobody wants to make human-mountain relations legal.
The reason people are less concerned with human - rock formation marriages than with bestiality and incest is because laws on human-mountain relations only affect a fraction of the people that incest and bestiality laws would affect. In case you don't understand, I'm pointing out that there is an order of magnitude in terms of who is actually affected by relationship laws, in terms of population. I.E. Heterosexual is affected far > than Homosexual, which is affected far > than Incest > than Bestiality > than Human-mountain relations > than Artificial intelligence -> solar system relations
Should gay people be concerned about intelligent computers and their erotic galactic desires? The answer is no, in case you're wondering.
To summarize I do not support bestiality, and it is idiotic to compare gay marriage and bestiality. I will put it in the simplest terms I know how: 1. I believe that sex requires consent. This is reflected by legal consensus. 2. I believe that animals are unable to consent. This is reflected by scientific and legal consensus. 3. Thus I believe that sex with animals is equivalent to sex without consent. This is equivalent to rape. 4. Rape is morally wrong in my world view. This is reflected by legal consensus.
I support incest, as long as consent can be clearly established. This means that the unequal power distribution of the family unit should be considered.
I support gay marriage, which affects gay people.
Bestiality - You are deciding that marriage is based off of consent of marriage. I say that I love my dog, and my dog loves me, so we should be allowed to get married. You say that the dog is lacking consent, and that marriage is between humans. I say that's your opinion, but it's not any better than mine. - I do not want to get rid of consent; I'm pointing out that no such concept exists in human/animal relationships. That's why you are allowed to own an animal, even if it hates you. - Interesting about HIV, good to know. Thanks.
Incest - I understand your point. I'm not campaigning to legalize it either. I'm just saying that to be consistent, you should agree to it in principle.
I agree that nobody wants to make human-mountain relations legal, for lack of caring. But in terms of incest and bestiality (and I can also throw in polygamy, which probably has arguments similar to incest), it's illegal not just because people don't care for it; it's illegal because people think it's wrong. Or, to put it another way, why was it ever made illegal in the first place? Because people think there's something wrong with it. Thus, I'm not calling anybody hypocritical for fighting for gay rights, but not fighting for these other rights. I'm calling them hypocritical for believing in gay rights, but not believing in these other right.
1. I believe that sex requires consent. This is reflected by legal consensus.
Legal consensus often doesn't recognize gay rights either. You can't argue against the legal consensus, and then defend your position with legal consensus.
(On a completely different point, how were you able to quote each of my points individually, while still having the "At ....soon.Cloak said.... tag on top? Did you just copy and paste it? Makes this stuff easier to follow)
On November 25 2012 11:06 soon.Cloak wrote: 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?
- Because marriage is a human - human law. The concept of marriage is intended to benefit humans. Humans are also the only ones who understand what marriage is. Consent is important. If you want to disagree about the importance of consent in a legal framework, you are not qualified to even use the words ethical and objectivity in the same sentence. - Removing the personhood ideal contradicts the idea of consent, because humans are the only ones who can consent. - You don't. HIV was originally contracted by blood from monkeys. It spread heavily in Africa largely due to the success of anti-prophylactic propaganda(Popey Pope Pope) in Africa. AIDS is easier spread by men (women are most likely to get infected by men and men are more likely to get infected by men).
On November 25 2012 11:06 soon.Cloak wrote: 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.
-Yes I definitely agree on both those points. However I would also like to stress the importance of mitigating the effects of any other familial power roles. I am not currently campaigning actively to end the oppression of people in same family relationships for three reasons: --1. There's little point in it. Society just recently accepted the consensus that incest causes genetic defects. This is unlikely to go away for a generation or two, even though the current scientific consensus differs from majority opinion. Majority opinion is only going to be swayed by time and education. --2. I don't know any people who currently want to marry their kin and are unable to do so. Therefore I have no personal investment --3. I don't have the personal interest to come up with a logical framework for incestuous marriage that produces an ethically neutral or positive result, if such a thing is possible. This can also be attributed to --2.
On November 25 2012 11:06 soon.Cloak wrote: 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.
You talk about the benefits of making incest and bestiality legal, but you don't address the fact that nobody wants to make human-mountain relations legal.
The reason people are less concerned with human - rock formation marriages than with bestiality and incest is because laws on human-mountain relations only affect a fraction of the people that incest and bestiality laws would affect. In case you don't understand, I'm pointing out that there is an order of magnitude in terms of who is actually affected by relationship laws, in terms of population. I.E. Heterosexual is affected far > than Homosexual, which is affected far > than Incest > than Bestiality > than Human-mountain relations > than Artificial intelligence -> solar system relations
Should gay people be concerned about intelligent computers and their erotic galactic desires? The answer is no, in case you're wondering.
To summarize I do not support bestiality, and it is idiotic to compare gay marriage and bestiality. I will put it in the simplest terms I know how: 1. I believe that sex requires consent. This is reflected by legal consensus. 2. I believe that animals are unable to consent. This is reflected by scientific and legal consensus. 3. Thus I believe that sex with animals is equivalent to sex without consent. This is equivalent to rape. 4. Rape is morally wrong in my world view. This is reflected by legal consensus.
I support incest, as long as consent can be clearly established. This means that the unequal power distribution of the family unit should be considered.
I support gay marriage, which affects gay people.
Animals do not, can not, consent to ownership, slavery and being farmed. We do all of these things because they suit our own purposes without the blink of an eye. Why should sexual relations with an animal be any different than keeping one as a pet, using it as a slave for manual labour or rearing it inside a cage with the intention of slaughtering and devouring it at a later date?
The direct comparison between gay marriage and bestiality is indeed idiotic, as one involves two consenting parties and the other does not, however this seperate issue is not a simple one nor entirely unrelated when discussing morality.
You say you support incest as long as consent can clearly be established. I admire your judgement and agree for the same reasons that gay marriage should be allowed.
There we have established that backing from legal consensus is irrelevant when discussing morality and considering the topic of this thread that should already be abundantly clear.
The problem with the order of magnitude argument is that it proposes you need only act appropriately when a large enough number of people are concerned, which is a fallacy.
The torture, mistreatment or discrimination of a single individual is unnacceptable and to argue otherwise is frankly, also idiotic.
I know you weren't responding to me, but as I have made like 20 posts, and I understand if you haven't read them all, I just want to mention two things I had said earlier.
1- I compared bestiality to gay marriage just in terms of showing how the definition of marriage is arbitrary. I also, multiple times, compared bestiality to a heterosexual marriage, in terms of defining marriage. I am not, by any means, trying to call them synonymous. 2-"The torture, mistreatment or discrimination of a single individual is unnacceptable and to argue otherwise is frankly, also idiotic." As I agreed to in my first post (last part)
On November 45 2099 27:53 soon.Cloak wrote: (On a completely different point, how were you able to quote each of my points individually, while still having the "At ....soon.Cloak said.... tag on top? Did you just copy and paste it? Makes this stuff easier to follow) I like to sleep with a teddy bear at night :3
Yes you can just copy paste it, and also edit if you so desire to change any part of it, as you may observe by the futuristic and personal nature of your post.
On November 25 2012 11:06 soon.Cloak wrote: 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?
- Because marriage is a human - human law. The concept of marriage is intended to benefit humans. Humans are also the only ones who understand what marriage is. Consent is important. If you want to disagree about the importance of consent in a legal framework, you are not qualified to even use the words ethical and objectivity in the same sentence. - Removing the personhood ideal contradicts the idea of consent, because humans are the only ones who can consent. - You don't. HIV was originally contracted by blood from monkeys. It spread heavily in Africa largely due to the success of anti-prophylactic propaganda(Popey Pope Pope) in Africa. AIDS is easier spread by men (women are most likely to get infected by men and men are more likely to get infected by men).
On November 25 2012 11:06 soon.Cloak wrote: 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.
-Yes I definitely agree on both those points. However I would also like to stress the importance of mitigating the effects of any other familial power roles. I am not currently campaigning actively to end the oppression of people in same family relationships for three reasons: --1. There's little point in it. Society just recently accepted the consensus that incest causes genetic defects. This is unlikely to go away for a generation or two, even though the current scientific consensus differs from majority opinion. Majority opinion is only going to be swayed by time and education. --2. I don't know any people who currently want to marry their kin and are unable to do so. Therefore I have no personal investment --3. I don't have the personal interest to come up with a logical framework for incestuous marriage that produces an ethically neutral or positive result, if such a thing is possible. This can also be attributed to --2.
On November 25 2012 11:06 soon.Cloak wrote: 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.
You talk about the benefits of making incest and bestiality legal, but you don't address the fact that nobody wants to make human-mountain relations legal.
The reason people are less concerned with human - rock formation marriages than with bestiality and incest is because laws on human-mountain relations only affect a fraction of the people that incest and bestiality laws would affect. In case you don't understand, I'm pointing out that there is an order of magnitude in terms of who is actually affected by relationship laws, in terms of population. I.E. Heterosexual is affected far > than Homosexual, which is affected far > than Incest > than Bestiality > than Human-mountain relations > than Artificial intelligence -> solar system relations
Should gay people be concerned about intelligent computers and their erotic galactic desires? The answer is no, in case you're wondering.
To summarize I do not support bestiality, and it is idiotic to compare gay marriage and bestiality. I will put it in the simplest terms I know how: 1. I believe that sex requires consent. This is reflected by legal consensus. 2. I believe that animals are unable to consent. This is reflected by scientific and legal consensus. 3. Thus I believe that sex with animals is equivalent to sex without consent. This is equivalent to rape. 4. Rape is morally wrong in my world view. This is reflected by legal consensus.
I support incest, as long as consent can be clearly established. This means that the unequal power distribution of the family unit should be considered.
I support gay marriage, which affects gay people.
Animals do not, can not, consent to ownership, slavery and being farmed. We do all of these things because they suit our own purposes without the blink of an eye. Why should sexual relations with an animal be any different than keeping one as a pet, using it as a slave for manual labour or rearing it inside a cage with the intention of slaughtering and devouring it at a later date?
The direct comparison between gay marriage and bestiality is indeed idiotic, as one involves two consenting parties and the other does not, however this seperate issue is not a simple one nor entirely unrelated when discussing morality.
You say you support incest as long as consent can clearly be established. I admire your judgement and agree for the same reasons that gay marriage should be allowed.
There we have established that backing from legal consensus is irrelevant when discussing morality and considering the topic of this thread that should already be abundantly clear.
The problem with the order of magnitude argument is that it proposes you need only act appropriately when a large enough number of people are concerned, which is a fallacy.
The torture, mistreatment or discrimination of a single individual is unnacceptable and to argue otherwise is frankly, also idiotic.
I know you weren't responding to me, but as I have made like 20 posts, and I understand if you haven't read them all, I just want to mention two things I had said earlier.
1- I compared bestiality to gay marriage just in terms of showing how the definition of marriage is arbitrary. I also, multiple times, compared bestiality to a heterosexual marriage, in terms of defining marriage. I am not, by any means, trying to call them synonymous. 2-"The torture, mistreatment or discrimination of a single individual is unnacceptable and to argue otherwise is frankly, also idiotic." As I agreed to in my first post (last part)
Wow, kind of spooky but on the forum you've made a double post with [/quote] in the wrong place etc, but when I quoted your post (I promise I haven't edited it, and from my first example I don't blame you if you don't believe me lol) it's all there and done correctly O_O
On November 25 2012 11:06 soon.Cloak wrote: 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?
- Because marriage is a human - human law. The concept of marriage is intended to benefit humans. Humans are also the only ones who understand what marriage is. Consent is important. If you want to disagree about the importance of consent in a legal framework, you are not qualified to even use the words ethical and objectivity in the same sentence. - Removing the personhood ideal contradicts the idea of consent, because humans are the only ones who can consent. - You don't. HIV was originally contracted by blood from monkeys. It spread heavily in Africa largely due to the success of anti-prophylactic propaganda(Popey Pope Pope) in Africa. AIDS is easier spread by men (women are most likely to get infected by men and men are more likely to get infected by men).
On November 25 2012 11:06 soon.Cloak wrote: 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.
-Yes I definitely agree on both those points. However I would also like to stress the importance of mitigating the effects of any other familial power roles. I am not currently campaigning actively to end the oppression of people in same family relationships for three reasons: --1. There's little point in it. Society just recently accepted the consensus that incest causes genetic defects. This is unlikely to go away for a generation or two, even though the current scientific consensus differs from majority opinion. Majority opinion is only going to be swayed by time and education. --2. I don't know any people who currently want to marry their kin and are unable to do so. Therefore I have no personal investment --3. I don't have the personal interest to come up with a logical framework for incestuous marriage that produces an ethically neutral or positive result, if such a thing is possible. This can also be attributed to --2.
On November 25 2012 11:06 soon.Cloak wrote: 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.
You talk about the benefits of making incest and bestiality legal, but you don't address the fact that nobody wants to make human-mountain relations legal.
The reason people are less concerned with human - rock formation marriages than with bestiality and incest is because laws on human-mountain relations only affect a fraction of the people that incest and bestiality laws would affect. In case you don't understand, I'm pointing out that there is an order of magnitude in terms of who is actually affected by relationship laws, in terms of population. I.E. Heterosexual is affected far > than Homosexual, which is affected far > than Incest > than Bestiality > than Human-mountain relations > than Artificial intelligence -> solar system relations
Should gay people be concerned about intelligent computers and their erotic galactic desires? The answer is no, in case you're wondering.
To summarize I do not support bestiality, and it is idiotic to compare gay marriage and bestiality. I will put it in the simplest terms I know how: 1. I believe that sex requires consent. This is reflected by legal consensus. 2. I believe that animals are unable to consent. This is reflected by scientific and legal consensus. 3. Thus I believe that sex with animals is equivalent to sex without consent. This is equivalent to rape. 4. Rape is morally wrong in my world view. This is reflected by legal consensus.
I support incest, as long as consent can be clearly established. This means that the unequal power distribution of the family unit should be considered.
I support gay marriage, which affects gay people.
The torture, mistreatment or discrimination of a single individual is unnacceptable and to argue otherwise is frankly, also idiotic.
Humans employ discrimination as a means of selection (perhaps natural selection...?). . You can educate others, and hopefully change the mindset of the public, but you can't get rid of bias. Societal pressures shape our lives; without them, it would be difficult to forge a common identity. Therefore it's fallacious to objectively say that discrimination is wrong.
As to whether something is morally acceptable or unacceptable, that's merely the opinion of a majority.
On November 25 2012 11:06 soon.Cloak wrote: 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?
- Because marriage is a human - human law. The concept of marriage is intended to benefit humans. Humans are also the only ones who understand what marriage is. Consent is important. If you want to disagree about the importance of consent in a legal framework, you are not qualified to even use the words ethical and objectivity in the same sentence. - Removing the personhood ideal contradicts the idea of consent, because humans are the only ones who can consent. - You don't. HIV was originally contracted by blood from monkeys. It spread heavily in Africa largely due to the success of anti-prophylactic propaganda(Popey Pope Pope) in Africa. AIDS is easier spread by men (women are most likely to get infected by men and men are more likely to get infected by men).
On November 25 2012 11:06 soon.Cloak wrote: 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.
-Yes I definitely agree on both those points. However I would also like to stress the importance of mitigating the effects of any other familial power roles. I am not currently campaigning actively to end the oppression of people in same family relationships for three reasons: --1. There's little point in it. Society just recently accepted the consensus that incest causes genetic defects. This is unlikely to go away for a generation or two, even though the current scientific consensus differs from majority opinion. Majority opinion is only going to be swayed by time and education. --2. I don't know any people who currently want to marry their kin and are unable to do so. Therefore I have no personal investment --3. I don't have the personal interest to come up with a logical framework for incestuous marriage that produces an ethically neutral or positive result, if such a thing is possible. This can also be attributed to --2.
On November 25 2012 11:06 soon.Cloak wrote: 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.
You talk about the benefits of making incest and bestiality legal, but you don't address the fact that nobody wants to make human-mountain relations legal.
The reason people are less concerned with human - rock formation marriages than with bestiality and incest is because laws on human-mountain relations only affect a fraction of the people that incest and bestiality laws would affect. In case you don't understand, I'm pointing out that there is an order of magnitude in terms of who is actually affected by relationship laws, in terms of population. I.E. Heterosexual is affected far > than Homosexual, which is affected far > than Incest > than Bestiality > than Human-mountain relations > than Artificial intelligence -> solar system relations
Should gay people be concerned about intelligent computers and their erotic galactic desires? The answer is no, in case you're wondering.
To summarize I do not support bestiality, and it is idiotic to compare gay marriage and bestiality. I will put it in the simplest terms I know how: 1. I believe that sex requires consent. This is reflected by legal consensus. 2. I believe that animals are unable to consent. This is reflected by scientific and legal consensus. 3. Thus I believe that sex with animals is equivalent to sex without consent. This is equivalent to rape. 4. Rape is morally wrong in my world view. This is reflected by legal consensus.
I support incest, as long as consent can be clearly established. This means that the unequal power distribution of the family unit should be considered.
I support gay marriage, which affects gay people.
Animals do not, can not, consent to ownership, slavery and being farmed. We do all of these things because they suit our own purposes without the blink of an eye. Why should sexual relations with an animal be any different than keeping one as a pet, using it as a slave for manual labour or rearing it inside a cage with the intention of slaughtering and devouring it at a later date?
The direct comparison between gay marriage and bestiality is indeed idiotic, as one involves two consenting parties and the other does not, however this seperate issue is not a simple one nor entirely unrelated when discussing morality.
You say you support incest as long as consent can clearly be established. I admire your judgement and agree for the same reasons that gay marriage should be allowed.
There we have established that backing from legal consensus is irrelevant when discussing morality and considering the topic of this thread that should already be abundantly clear.
The problem with the order of magnitude argument is that it proposes you need only act appropriately when a large enough number of people are concerned, which is a fallacy.
The torture, mistreatment or discrimination of a single individual is unnacceptable and to argue otherwise is frankly, also idiotic.
I know you weren't responding to me, but as I have made like 20 posts, and I understand if you haven't read them all, I just want to mention two things I had said earlier.
1- I compared bestiality to gay marriage just in terms of showing how the definition of marriage is arbitrary. I also, multiple times, compared bestiality to a heterosexual marriage, in terms of defining marriage. I am not, by any means, trying to call them synonymous. 2-"The torture, mistreatment or discrimination of a single individual is unnacceptable and to argue otherwise is frankly, also idiotic." As I agreed to in my first post (last part)
On November 45 2099 27:53 soon.Cloak wrote: (On a completely different point, how were you able to quote each of my points individually, while still having the "At ....soon.Cloak said.... tag on top? Did you just copy and paste it? Makes this stuff easier to follow) I like to sleep with a teddy bear at night :3
Yes you can just copy paste it, and also edit if you so desire to change any part of it, as you may observe by the futuristic and personal nature of your post.
On November 25 2012 11:06 soon.Cloak wrote: 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?
- Because marriage is a human - human law. The concept of marriage is intended to benefit humans. Humans are also the only ones who understand what marriage is. Consent is important. If you want to disagree about the importance of consent in a legal framework, you are not qualified to even use the words ethical and objectivity in the same sentence. - Removing the personhood ideal contradicts the idea of consent, because humans are the only ones who can consent. - You don't. HIV was originally contracted by blood from monkeys. It spread heavily in Africa largely due to the success of anti-prophylactic propaganda(Popey Pope Pope) in Africa. AIDS is easier spread by men (women are most likely to get infected by men and men are more likely to get infected by men).
On November 25 2012 11:06 soon.Cloak wrote: 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.
-Yes I definitely agree on both those points. However I would also like to stress the importance of mitigating the effects of any other familial power roles. I am not currently campaigning actively to end the oppression of people in same family relationships for three reasons: --1. There's little point in it. Society just recently accepted the consensus that incest causes genetic defects. This is unlikely to go away for a generation or two, even though the current scientific consensus differs from majority opinion. Majority opinion is only going to be swayed by time and education. --2. I don't know any people who currently want to marry their kin and are unable to do so. Therefore I have no personal investment --3. I don't have the personal interest to come up with a logical framework for incestuous marriage that produces an ethically neutral or positive result, if such a thing is possible. This can also be attributed to --2.
On November 25 2012 11:06 soon.Cloak wrote: 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.
You talk about the benefits of making incest and bestiality legal, but you don't address the fact that nobody wants to make human-mountain relations legal.
The reason people are less concerned with human - rock formation marriages than with bestiality and incest is because laws on human-mountain relations only affect a fraction of the people that incest and bestiality laws would affect. In case you don't understand, I'm pointing out that there is an order of magnitude in terms of who is actually affected by relationship laws, in terms of population. I.E. Heterosexual is affected far > than Homosexual, which is affected far > than Incest > than Bestiality > than Human-mountain relations > than Artificial intelligence -> solar system relations
Should gay people be concerned about intelligent computers and their erotic galactic desires? The answer is no, in case you're wondering.
To summarize I do not support bestiality, and it is idiotic to compare gay marriage and bestiality. I will put it in the simplest terms I know how: 1. I believe that sex requires consent. This is reflected by legal consensus. 2. I believe that animals are unable to consent. This is reflected by scientific and legal consensus. 3. Thus I believe that sex with animals is equivalent to sex without consent. This is equivalent to rape. 4. Rape is morally wrong in my world view. This is reflected by legal consensus.
I support incest, as long as consent can be clearly established. This means that the unequal power distribution of the family unit should be considered.
I support gay marriage, which affects gay people.
Animals do not, can not, consent to ownership, slavery and being farmed. We do all of these things because they suit our own purposes without the blink of an eye. Why should sexual relations with an animal be any different than keeping one as a pet, using it as a slave for manual labour or rearing it inside a cage with the intention of slaughtering and devouring it at a later date?
The direct comparison between gay marriage and bestiality is indeed idiotic, as one involves two consenting parties and the other does not, however this seperate issue is not a simple one nor entirely unrelated when discussing morality.
You say you support incest as long as consent can clearly be established. I admire your judgement and agree for the same reasons that gay marriage should be allowed.
There we have established that backing from legal consensus is irrelevant when discussing morality and considering the topic of this thread that should already be abundantly clear.
The problem with the order of magnitude argument is that it proposes you need only act appropriately when a large enough number of people are concerned, which is a fallacy.
The torture, mistreatment or discrimination of a single individual is unnacceptable and to argue otherwise is frankly, also idiotic.
I know you weren't responding to me, but as I have made like 20 posts, and I understand if you haven't read them all, I just want to mention two things I had said earlier.
1- I compared bestiality to gay marriage just in terms of showing how the definition of marriage is arbitrary. I also, multiple times, compared bestiality to a heterosexual marriage, in terms of defining marriage. I am not, by any means, trying to call them synonymous. 2-"The torture, mistreatment or discrimination of a single individual is unnacceptable and to argue otherwise is frankly, also idiotic." As I agreed to in my first post (last part)
Wow, kind of spooky but on the forum you've made a double post with
in the wrong place etc, but when I quoted your post (I promise I haven't edited it, and from my first example I don't blame you if you don't believe me lol) it's all there and done correctly O_O [/QUOTE]
How did you know about my teddy bear
And the magic of TL/R1CH, pops up when you least expect it :D.
Edit: LOL I think I'm just gonna start dropping [/quote]'s in my posts just to mess with people.
On November 25 2012 11:06 soon.Cloak wrote: 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?
- Because marriage is a human - human law. The concept of marriage is intended to benefit humans. Humans are also the only ones who understand what marriage is. Consent is important. If you want to disagree about the importance of consent in a legal framework, you are not qualified to even use the words ethical and objectivity in the same sentence. - Removing the personhood ideal contradicts the idea of consent, because humans are the only ones who can consent. - You don't. HIV was originally contracted by blood from monkeys. It spread heavily in Africa largely due to the success of anti-prophylactic propaganda(Popey Pope Pope) in Africa. AIDS is easier spread by men (women are most likely to get infected by men and men are more likely to get infected by men).
On November 25 2012 11:06 soon.Cloak wrote: 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.
-Yes I definitely agree on both those points. However I would also like to stress the importance of mitigating the effects of any other familial power roles. I am not currently campaigning actively to end the oppression of people in same family relationships for three reasons: --1. There's little point in it. Society just recently accepted the consensus that incest causes genetic defects. This is unlikely to go away for a generation or two, even though the current scientific consensus differs from majority opinion. Majority opinion is only going to be swayed by time and education. --2. I don't know any people who currently want to marry their kin and are unable to do so. Therefore I have no personal investment --3. I don't have the personal interest to come up with a logical framework for incestuous marriage that produces an ethically neutral or positive result, if such a thing is possible. This can also be attributed to --2.
On November 25 2012 11:06 soon.Cloak wrote: 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.
You talk about the benefits of making incest and bestiality legal, but you don't address the fact that nobody wants to make human-mountain relations legal.
The reason people are less concerned with human - rock formation marriages than with bestiality and incest is because laws on human-mountain relations only affect a fraction of the people that incest and bestiality laws would affect. In case you don't understand, I'm pointing out that there is an order of magnitude in terms of who is actually affected by relationship laws, in terms of population. I.E. Heterosexual is affected far > than Homosexual, which is affected far > than Incest > than Bestiality > than Human-mountain relations > than Artificial intelligence -> solar system relations
Should gay people be concerned about intelligent computers and their erotic galactic desires? The answer is no, in case you're wondering.
To summarize I do not support bestiality, and it is idiotic to compare gay marriage and bestiality. I will put it in the simplest terms I know how: 1. I believe that sex requires consent. This is reflected by legal consensus. 2. I believe that animals are unable to consent. This is reflected by scientific and legal consensus. 3. Thus I believe that sex with animals is equivalent to sex without consent. This is equivalent to rape. 4. Rape is morally wrong in my world view. This is reflected by legal consensus.
I support incest, as long as consent can be clearly established. This means that the unequal power distribution of the family unit should be considered.
I support gay marriage, which affects gay people.
The torture, mistreatment or discrimination of a single individual is unnacceptable and to argue otherwise is frankly, also idiotic.
Humans employ discrimination as a means of selection (perhaps natural selection...?). . You can educate others, and hopefully change the mindset of the public, but you can't get rid of bias. Societal pressures shape our lives; without them, it would be difficult to forge a common identity. Therefore it's fallacious to objectively say that discrimination is wrong.
As to whether something is morally acceptable or unacceptable, that's merely the opinion of a majority.
It's fallacious to *objectively* say anything is wrong, because right and wrong are moral concepts thus inherently subjective.
In terms of legal consensus, your final statement holds true. However, as a simple example, it can clearly be argued that incest is morally acceptable despite the fact that the present day majority may disagree.
I could go back in time to when people thought practices now accepted today were immoral, and that wouldn't change whether they are morally acceptable or not. Either I subjectively deem them to be morally right or morally wrong, the opinion of the temporary majority is irrelevant.
On November 25 2012 13:29 shadymmj wrote: When misinformed, discrimination is probably a bad thing (gays cause AIDS!!! etc.) But when informed, it's probably positive.
On November 25 2012 13:29 shadymmj wrote: When misinformed, discrimination is probably a bad thing (gays cause AIDS!!! etc.) But when informed, it's probably positive.
I see where you are coming from, but I must highlight the difference between discernment and discrimination.
Discernment - The ability to judge well. Discrimination - The unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people or things, esp. on the grounds of race, age, or sex.
Unjust - Not based on or behaving according to what is morally right and fair. Prejudicial - An adverse judgment or opinion formed beforehand or without knowledge or examination of the facts.
Discrimination is, by definition, morally wrong. To argue otherwise is simply a confused position. It is a negative term.
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. Source
Bestiality: Illegal in approximately thirty states. In many of these states, bestiality is a felony. Source
Indecent 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. Source
Now, 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. .
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.
Yes, and if you decide that any word means exactly and only whatever you think it means at any particular time, you can simply declare that you win any argument.
That doesn't mean you actually won of course. You can simply declare that you did and stick fingers into your ears when people say otherwise.
Marriage is, first and foremost, a contract. You can believe that it is whatever you want, but the law says that it is a contract. And since marriage is a legal matter, we'll be dealing with it the way the law says to.
Contracts have a series of laws built around them deciding when they are and are not valid. Contracts made between unwilling parties are not valid; a signature is generally how this is determined, but if duress can later be proven, then the contract is void (ie: you cannot literally have a shotgun wedding).
Of one of the parties cannot sign their name or demonstrate that they understand the contract, then there is no contract. Such a party cannot enter into a legally binding contract. And since, as far as the law is concerned, marriage is a contract, animals cannot enter into marriage.
Marriage must have consent. You can believe otherwise all you like, but that just means that you're denying reality. The law defines what marriage is, and the law says that marriage is a contract. And contracts require consent.
So the question is, who should be allowed to enter into a legally-binding marriage contract? The basic definition of marriage is more or less what we as a society choose for it to be. Not what you want it to be, but what we choose for it to be.
The only reasonable question is this: why should we, as a society, choose to prohibit two persons of the same sex from entering into a marriage contract?
If you want to move it to incest, fine: why should we, as a society, choose to prohibit two persons who are closely related from entering into a marriage contract?
Well, there are significant downsides to incest, particularly parent/child incest. The parent/child relationship has a vast difference in power between the two parties. Children are raised from infancy to obey their parents, on the presumption that their parents are not assholes. Obviously some children adhere to this more than others, but parents have an ability to groom their children with values and beliefs. They can smother a child to the point where they wouldn't even think of disobeying them. It is very possible for a parent to groom a child to the point where they would willing agree to marry the parent when they reach legal age.
In short, it is very difficult to ensure consent in parent/child incest. The amount of coercion, whether subtle or gross, that a parent can inflict on a child, even an older one, is... substantial. Just look at incidents of parent/child incest when the child is below legal marrying age. It's not a happy thing.
And if you can't ensure consent, then you've cast doubt on whether the contract is valid at all. Considering that the downsides of coerced marriage in these cases are severe, it's probably best to ban the practice altogether. There are solid psychological reasons to avoid the whole idea.
So I answered your question by showing that the question of consent in incestuous relationships can be tenuous. So answer mine: why should we, as a society, choose to prohibit two persons of the same sex from entering into a marriage contract? Are you saying that homosexuals are incapable of consent? Are you saying that it would cause some psychological dysfunction to allow it?
On November 25 2012 11:06 soon.Cloak wrote: 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?
- Because marriage is a human - human law. The concept of marriage is intended to benefit humans. Humans are also the only ones who understand what marriage is. Consent is important. If you want to disagree about the importance of consent in a legal framework, you are not qualified to even use the words ethical and objectivity in the same sentence. - Removing the personhood ideal contradicts the idea of consent, because humans are the only ones who can consent. - You don't. HIV was originally contracted by blood from monkeys. It spread heavily in Africa largely due to the success of anti-prophylactic propaganda(Popey Pope Pope) in Africa. AIDS is easier spread by men (women are most likely to get infected by men and men are more likely to get infected by men).
On November 25 2012 11:06 soon.Cloak wrote: 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.
-Yes I definitely agree on both those points. However I would also like to stress the importance of mitigating the effects of any other familial power roles. I am not currently campaigning actively to end the oppression of people in same family relationships for three reasons: --1. There's little point in it. Society just recently accepted the consensus that incest causes genetic defects. This is unlikely to go away for a generation or two, even though the current scientific consensus differs from majority opinion. Majority opinion is only going to be swayed by time and education. --2. I don't know any people who currently want to marry their kin and are unable to do so. Therefore I have no personal investment --3. I don't have the personal interest to come up with a logical framework for incestuous marriage that produces an ethically neutral or positive result, if such a thing is possible. This can also be attributed to --2.
On November 25 2012 11:06 soon.Cloak wrote: 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.
You talk about the benefits of making incest and bestiality legal, but you don't address the fact that nobody wants to make human-mountain relations legal.
The reason people are less concerned with human - rock formation marriages than with bestiality and incest is because laws on human-mountain relations only affect a fraction of the people that incest and bestiality laws would affect. In case you don't understand, I'm pointing out that there is an order of magnitude in terms of who is actually affected by relationship laws, in terms of population. I.E. Heterosexual is affected far > than Homosexual, which is affected far > than Incest > than Bestiality > than Human-mountain relations > than Artificial intelligence -> solar system relations
Should gay people be concerned about intelligent computers and their erotic galactic desires? The answer is no, in case you're wondering.
To summarize I do not support bestiality, and it is idiotic to compare gay marriage and bestiality. I will put it in the simplest terms I know how: 1. I believe that sex requires consent. This is reflected by legal consensus. 2. I believe that animals are unable to consent. This is reflected by scientific and legal consensus. 3. Thus I believe that sex with animals is equivalent to sex without consent. This is equivalent to rape. 4. Rape is morally wrong in my world view. This is reflected by legal consensus.
I support incest, as long as consent can be clearly established. This means that the unequal power distribution of the family unit should be considered.
I support gay marriage, which affects gay people.
Bestiality - You are deciding that marriage is based off of consent of marriage. I say that I love my dog, and my dog loves me, so we should be allowed to get married. You say that the dog is lacking consent, and that marriage is between humans. I say that's your opinion, but it's not any better than mine.
The law says that consent requires a human being. It doesn't matter what you think; a dog cannot give legal consent.
EPT
