Gay And Interracial Marriage

[missionseeker]

[quote name='Jesus_lol' timestamp='1281942170' post='2158053']
Actually at first my desire was to point out that legally there is no comparison between gay marriage and pedo/bestiality. I dont believe there is a valid comparison morally either, but that was beside the point.

There are many reasons why legally bestiality and pedophilia are illegal, besides merely that they are taboo. Pedophilia especially cannot be rationalized to be acceptable. It involves hurting another person, one who is defenseless, physically and emotionally. It cannot possibly be consensual because a child cannot consent to such things.

for fun, I have been experimenting with arguing the pure secular standpoint(which i am not too familiar with, so not very well), because as soon as morality is introduced it becomes a very subjective argument. One that is unavoidable, because to some extent law must reflect morality to function. However, how can a court decide which one of a billion moral "traditions" or "truths" (to account for the many beliefs, many of which can be logically broken down, and differ in outcome based on the entirely subjective assumptions at their base)

Where possible, why not avoid that and deal with pure law?



I also used to be a lot shorter.
[/quote]


People rationalize pedophilia. I would just point out NAMBLA and that there are other groups along similar lines. I mean, no one here would agree that they have a point- but they spring from the International Pedophile and Child Emancipation group. It's got arguments that it's ok. And believe me when I say that there are people who absolutely believe that.

[Socrates]

[quote name='HisChildForever' timestamp='1281939693' post='2158047']
You said that I summed up your argument with my sentence "In this day and age, 'taboo' is subjective". I then went on to explain how it is illogical for you to vehemently oppose bestiality but not homosexual marriage because, according to relativism (as you have taken the secularist standpoint), both can be rationalized to be acceptable. If you acknowledge that homosexual marriage and bestiality are "taboo" and therefore subjective, you cannot objectively assert that homosexual marriage is permissible whereas bestiality is not. Your very argument is subjective.



Is it really rock-solid? After all, homosexuality used to be considered a mental disorder. Just look how the times have changed.
[/quote]
True.

The case against bestiality, and even pedophilia, is not quite so "rock-solid" and clear-cut, once you try to throw notions of traditional sexual morality out the window.

Even hard-core "animal rights" activists such as ethical philosopher Peter Singer ("the father of animal rights" who's a vegetarian and spent much of his career fighting against animal cruelty) have argued that there is nothing wrong with bestiality so long as the animal is a willing participant and is not physically harmed. You really can't prove that it's cruelty, if the animal appears to be a willing and active participant and looks happy and isn't physically harmed. Most "zoophiles" claim their "relationship" is loving and consensual. Trying to prove this one way or the other becomes extremely subjective.
And using the argument that animals can't consent legally is weak, since they can't legally consent to being kept in captivity or killed for food either.

Likewise, without using traditional standards of sexual morality, the line with child-adult sex can become quite blurry. What if a knowledgeable 12-year-old wants to have sex with an adult? It could be argued that laws against this restrict the freedom of the child to engage in the sexual activity of his or her choice.



[quote name='KnightofChrist' timestamp='1281946504' post='2158055']
From a pure secular standpoint Law simply reflects the culture or the rulers of the culture, and thus would be quite subjective and relative. Pedophilia 'can' and has been rationalized to be acceptable. Quite a few cultures in the history of man have legally allowed and encouraged it, even zoophilia/bestiality has in times past been rationalized to be acceptable and well within the law. "Pure Law" is subjective, legally Jews, Blacks, and the unborn have been/are declared legally non-persons. And by "Pure Law" those non-person persons have legally been mass murdered and enslaved.

Law built upon subjective morality and not the Moral Law is subjective law, not [i]pure law[/i], and can be changed to reflect the wishes of the people or the rulers. You cannot rip God out of the equation of right and wrong and then replace Him with "pure law" or science. Such an effort is in vain and quite illogical.
[/quote]
True. There's really no such thing as "pure law" independent of morality. Law must always be based in some "morality" or standards of right and wrong, even if they are very poor standards. Appealing to existing law to prove why things should or shouldn't be legal is circular logic, and is weak, because the law can always be changed (and often has been changed).
Without appealing to higher, universal standards of morality, law becomes nothing more than the subjective, arbitrary will of the ruling class.

Edited August 16, 2010 by Socrates

[HisChildForever]

[quote name='Jesus_lol' timestamp='1281942170' post='2158053']
for fun, I have been experimenting with arguing the pure secular standpoint(which i am not too familiar with, so not very well), because as soon as morality is introduced it becomes a very subjective argument. [/quote]

Rather, as soon as morality is introduced it becomes an objective one. I have never heard one argue that there is objectivity in secularism. It seems to be an oxymoron.

[quote] One that is unavoidable, because to some extent law must reflect morality to function. However, how can a court decide which one of a billion moral "traditions" or "truths" (to account for the many beliefs, many of which can be logically broken down, and differ in outcome based on the entirely subjective assumptions at their base)[/quote]

There is the logical focus on the dignity of the human person, which I explained and which you agreed with.

[quote]Where possible, why not avoid that and deal with pure law?
[/quote]

Without an objective standard of morality, you enter relativism's territory. The objective standard of morality protects the child from pedophilia whereas relativism is not bound to protect the child:

[quote name='Socrates' timestamp='1281983640' post='2158325']
Likewise, without using traditional standards of sexual morality, the line with child-adult sex can become quite blurry. What if a knowledgeable 12-year-old wants to have sex with an adult? It could be argued that laws against this restrict the freedom of the child to engage in the sexual activity of his or her choice.[/quote]

Pay careful attention to what Socrates just pointed out. You may be aware, J_LOL, that in the United States a 12-year-old charged with homicide can be waived to adult court. In some states, the age is lower; in others, the individual is automatically tried in adult court unless, depending on age, a reverse waiver is filed (but that reverse waiver does not have to be approved). If a child or an adolescent can be tried and convicted in adult court for a serious offense, the state has recognized that the child or adolescent was fully aware of the choice he was making and chose to make it. Who are you, then, to say that pedophilia [i]cannot[/i] be rationalized to be acceptable? Who are you to say that it cannot [i]possibly[/i] be consensual based on the age and or rationale of the child? If a 12-year-old can be convicted in adult court of murder, then a 12-year-old can consent to sexual relations with a 25-year-old. Of course I am sure this does not hold true for ALL 12-year-olds i.e. not all have the capability of such decision-making. But I think I made my point.

[Hassan]

Vanity of vanities; all is vanity!

[Jesus_lol]

yes, theoretically laws could be changed, but under existing law, children of a certain age are unable to consent to sexual relationships. So yes, it could be changed, but under existing law it is quite obviously not the equal of consensual gay sex. which was my original statement.

And yes, i should have said "cannot reasonably be rationalized"

[Hassan]

There may be a 12 year old out there who is physiologically, emotionally, and intellectually ready to have sex. Most twelve year olds are not. You make laws that apply to general sets, not unique subsets.

[missionseeker]

[quote name='Jesus_lol' timestamp='1281993001' post='2158440']
yes, theoretically laws could be changed, but under existing law, children of a certain age are unable to consent to sexual relationships. So yes, it could be changed, but under existing law it is quite obviously not the equal of consensual gay sex. which was my original statement.

And yes, i should have said "cannot reasonably be rationalized"
[/quote]


As it is now, the law in most states does not recognize consensual homosexual relationships as marriage. We can change the law, sure, but under existing law, it is not recognized.


If we change the law to accommodate this group of people, why would any other group of people pushing anything from bestiality to incest to pedophilia NOT try and get the law to be changed in their favor after we do?

[Jesus_lol]

[quote name='missionseeker' timestamp='1281994084' post='2158451']
As it is now, the law in most states does not recognize consensual homosexual relationships as marriage. We can change the law, sure, but under existing law, it is not recognized.


If we change the law to accommodate this group of people, why would any other group of people pushing anything from bestiality to incest to pedophilia NOT try and get the law to be changed in their favor after we do?
[/quote]

Why give anyone anything, if it just makes everyone else want some as well?

[missionseeker]

[quote name='Jesus_lol' timestamp='1281994251' post='2158455']
Why give anyone anything, if it just makes everyone else want some as well?
[/quote]


Why make a distinction between anything that anyone wants? If we change the law for one group, why not for the other?


I mean from a purely secular viewpoint, what is the difference?

Edited August 16, 2010 by missionseeker

[Jesus_lol]

[quote name='missionseeker' timestamp='1281994401' post='2158458']
Why make a distinction between anything that anyone wants? If we change the law for one group, why not for the other?


I mean from a purely secular viewpoint, what is the difference?
[/quote]

because it would be different laws. and it would change for everyone, for example allowing gay marriage would let every adult marry who they choose, providing consent is given.


for the same reason that we ended segregation for black people. sure it only really changed life for one group, but thats be cause whites didnt have the problem in the first place.

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='Jesus_lol' timestamp='1281993001' post='2158440']
yes, theoretically laws could be changed, but under existing law, children of a certain age are unable to consent to sexual relationships. So yes, it could be changed, but under existing law it is quite obviously not the equal of consensual gay sex. which was my original statement.

And yes, i should have said "cannot reasonably be rationalized"
[/quote]

Current law is irrelevant if its foundation is not to found in Natural and Moral Law, because it would be nothing more than subjective opinion. In like manner reason based upon subjective morality and not the Natural and Moral Law, is subjective, and will changed from person to person. Subjectively it can indeed be reasonably rationalized. Your current argument 'stands' on sinking sand, you offer no objective reason to argue in favor of sodomitic unions, but argue against incestuous unions or zoophilic unions.

Edited August 16, 2010 by KnightofChrist

[Jesus_lol]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' timestamp='1281998643' post='2158499']
Current law is irrelevant if its foundation is not to found in Natural and Moral Law, because it would be nothing more than subjective opinion. In like manner reason based upon subjective morality and not the Natural and Moral Law, is subjective, and will changed from person to person. Subjectively it can indeed be reasonably rationalized. Your current argument 'stands' on sinking sand, you offer no objective reason to argue in favor of sodomitic unions, but argue against incestuous unions or zoophilic unions.
[/quote]

So basically, your argument is that my argument fails because it is not based on Catholicism? Woop de doo.

[missionseeker]

[quote name='Jesus_lol' timestamp='1282001146' post='2158523']
So basically, your argument is that my argument fails because it is not based on Catholicism? Woop de doo.
[/quote]


I think he's saying that your argument is not based on anything, really.

[Socrates]

[quote name='Jesus_lol' timestamp='1281993001' post='2158440']
yes, theoretically laws could be changed, but under existing law, children of a certain age are unable to consent to sexual relationships. So yes, it could be changed, but under existing law it is quite obviously not the equal of consensual gay sex. which was my original statement.

And yes, i should have said "cannot reasonably be rationalized"
[/quote]
And previously, homosexual sodomy was not considered the equivalent of married heterosexual activity either. Nor is it currently in most states, as regards being able to be legally recognized as a marriage (despite current attempts by federal courts to "reinterpret" the law to force it to be).
Laws change (or, with increasing frequency, are "reinterpreted" by courts to change their meaning) all the time. If public opinion were to change to lower the legal age of consent to 12, or 10, or whatever, there would be nothing objective to prevent the law from being changed.

And bestiality is not even against the law in a number of states (and some countries), so you can't even always appeal to existing law to prove it wrong.

Stating that such things are "obviously" not the equal of consensual homosexual sodomy is not really an argument either. Fifty years ago, most people would have stated that it is obvious that homosexual activity is not the equal of sexual relations between man and woman (and I and many others still consider that obvious, but we are not living in sane times).

I still have not seen a convincing argument for why homosexual sodomitic relations should be regarded as equal to marriage between man and woman.

When you throw out objective standards of sexual morality, everything becomes subjective - and subject to change.

[HisChildForever]

[quote name='Jesus_lol' timestamp='1282001146' post='2158523']
So basically, your argument is that my argument fails because it is not based on Catholicism? Woop de doo.
[/quote]

No, his argument is the exact same as mine. In the secular world, in a word of relativism i.e. subjectivity, anything goes. Since you are arguing the secular standpoint, you cannot argue that homosexual marriage is okay but bestiality is not.