Author:
Wade A. Tisthammer
|
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
Date Posted: 06/30/03 4:25pm
In reply to:
Ben
's message, "This is me being really pissed off about gay rights" on 06/26/03 6:54pm
>Okay, so I'm actually happy that gay people are
>allowed to have sex in the privacy of their own homes
>in Texas and other southern states now, but I'm pissed
>at (a) the fact that it took this long for that to
>happen, and (b) the fact that people are speaking out
>against it, as if it's some sort of tragedy.
It's tough to clarify the issue. You have to understand that some people see the act of sexual relations between two people of the same gender to be immoral, just as the see incestuous sexual relations to be immoral, sex with animals to be immoral etc. In explanations of morality, eventually you get to a point of irreducibility. For instance, why is stealing a candy bar from a store wrong? Because it unfairly hurts their business. Why is that wrong? Well...it just is. Why are incestuous sexual relations (as between two brothers) immoral? Well...it just is. The debate can typically go nowhere because of the irreducibility of the situation.
>The old "slippery slope" argument is getting a lot of
>play. If we allow these perverse (i.e., not like me)
>gay people to do whatever they want in their own
>homes, pretty soon _everyone_ will want to do whatever
>they want in their own homes, including having sex
>with animals and making nuclear missles.
Making nuclear missiles seems stretching it, but nonetheless I think the question, “Where do we draw the line?” is a valid one. Should we legalize gay sex but still outlaw gay sex between a father and his son? Why or why not? Just where do we draw the line?
Pre-marital sex is seen as immoral under conservative Christianity, but it is not exactly outlawed. Relative to the issue of homosexuality, we have long since made our “peace” with that issue. Pre-marital sex is quite legal, and nobody is lobbying to change this. But gay sex seems significantly more seriously wrong than pre-marital sex (perhaps the immorality of gay sex is on par with incestuous sex in their eyes), just as first degree murder is seen as more serious than second degree murder (I'm not saying gay sex is as bad as murder, I'm just trying to illustrate the idea of relative seriousness). Where do we draw the line on moral disagreements and the law? If gay sex is legalized, why shouldn't we legalize, for instance, sexual relations between a father and son? What justification should we use? What principles should we base these things on? Just where do we draw the line?
>We call ourselves a "free country," but people can't
>have sex with a consenting partner in their own homes?
Sure they can—just not in ways that would violate laws.
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
|
Feedback: 