| Subject: Drawing the line based on something besides homophobia |
Author:
Ben
|
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
Date Posted: 06/30/03 4:47pm
In reply to:
Wade A. Tisthammer
's message, "Questionable Morality and Drawing the Line" on 06/30/03 4:10pm
>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.
You have muddied up a fairly simple issue. The issue is one of consent. If two beings want to do something with their bodies that isn’t hurting anyone else, they should have the right to. In incestuous relationships, the problem is often one of consent… someone older taking advantage of someone younger who can’t really decide for him or herself. There is also the genetic issue of sex between members of the same family. Sex with animals is obviously wrong, since animals have no way of giving consent.
> In
>explanations of morality, eventually you get to a
>point of irreducibility.
I find that you get to this “point of irreducibility” a long time before I do. You give up awfully easily. Maybe that’s why the idea of “irreducible complexity” makes so much sense to you.
> 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.
Well, because part of the definition of “moral” is “hurting someone else unnecessarily.” It’s not something that “just is.” It’s simply part of the definition we’ve come up with for what is right and what is wrong. It makes sense to most people. There isn’t some universal moral code written out in the stars that says stealing is wrong. And, I’d argue, there might be some cases where stealing could be justified. Ethical and moral issues are always dependent on the situation, which is why a code that says “Thou shalt not steal” isn’t very useful.
> Why are incestuous sexual
>relations (as between two brothers) immoral?
>Well...it just is.
Is it? What if these two brothers are both in their twenties? There is no chance of any genetic problem since they can’t procreate… they can both consent to this… I don’t see a moral issue here.
> The debate can typically go
>nowhere because of the irreducibility of the situation.
So I hear.
>>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?
Again, we draw the line at consent, and, in some cases, genetic incompatibility. I don’t think it should be illegal for a father to have sex with his son if the son is old enough to consent (i.e., 18 years old or older). But no one should be allowed to have sex with someone who is too young to consent to a sexual act (in my opinion, this should be treated on a situational basis too… in other words, I think some 18-year olds aren’t ready to make sexual decisions, and perhaps some 16-year olds are… it should be taken on a case-by-case basis, but I think as a general rule, 18 is a pretty good place to draw the line).
Incidentally, what business is it of yours if a father, age 52, and his son, age 25, decide to have sex in their home? Who are they hurting? How can you legislate their sex lives?
>Pre-marital sex is seen as immoral under conservative
>Christianity, but it is not exactly outlawed.
Great point! It’s funny how although premarital sex is considered wrong, no one is trying to make it illegal, yet gay sex is such a huge issue. Perhaps homophobia is the real culprit here, and not immorality.
>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),
lol. Please explain what makes gay sex “significantly more seriously wrong.” To me, sex across genders has more potential for harm, since it can produce another, often unwanted, life form. Besides being afraid of what you don’t understand, what makes you think gay sex is more wrong than premarital sex (which, by the way, I have no problem with among consenting adults either).
>If gay sex
>is legalized, why shouldn't we legalize, for instance,
>sexual relations between a father and son?
If they’re both of consenting age, we have no right to make laws that govern their behavior.
> What
>justification should we use? What principles should
>we base these things on? Just where do we draw
>the line?
I think I’ve explained my stance on this pretty well. If not, feel free to ask for clarification. Now I have to turn the questions back to you… what objective reasons do you have for the apparently arbitrary distinctions you are using to judge what’s moral and what’s immoral?
>>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.
That’s an amusing answer. It obviously begs the question, since the very issue is what should be legal and what shouldn’t.
Ben
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
| |
Feedback: 