Author:
Wade A. Tisthammer
|
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
Date Posted: 06/30/03 5:38pm
In reply to:
Ben
's message, "Drawing the line based on something besides homophobia" on 06/30/03 4:47pm
>>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…
Ack, I suppose I should have seen this coming. No, I was referring to incestuous sexual relations between consenting adults.
>There is also
>the genetic issue of sex between members of the same
>family.
Ah, but what of a father and son (both consenting adults)? No babies can be produced here.
[skipped a bit]
>>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.
So do you think we should legalize it? You'd get some awfully big confrontation from the public at large.
>Sex with animals is obviously wrong, since
>animals have no way of giving consent.
Well, suppose the animals do give consent (perhaps the animal is genetically engineered with sufficient intellect; I don't think this will happen but I'm bringing this up for sake of argument).
>Maybe that’s why the idea of “irreducible complexity”
>makes so much sense to you.
The concept is easy to understand. You understand it yourself, but irreducible complexity in the biochemical machinery sense is much, much different from what I'm talking about. The issue is thus quite irrelevant.
>>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.”
Well, then why is “hurting someone unnecessarily” wrong? And besides, what if I feel it's the necessary step for me to get candy? Again, the point of irreducibility has to be reached somewhere. The doctrine of nonmaleficence is not, strictly speaking, part of the definition of ethics or morality, even if it is the most straightforward ethical principle that comes to mind. Cultural relativism and ethical subjectivism, for instance, can throw out nonmaleficence in certain situations.
>>>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.
So anything goes as long as its between only consenting adults (this excludes things like having deformed babies etc.)? That's going to be a bit hard to swallow with cases like incest etc.
>Incidentally, what business is it of yours if a
>father, age 52, and his son, age 25, decide to have
>sex in their home?
What business of yours if I steal candy from a baby? You aren't affected! The baby might be, but what business is it of yours if you are not affected? The issue is one of morality, that's the business of all mankind.
>>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.
Do you know what homophobia is? I'm not afraid of homosexuals nor do I hate them etc., but I do have moral disagreements on certain activities.
>>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.”
Hey, don't kill the messenger. I'm just explaining points of view here.
>>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.
Most would disagree with you on that issue. Conservative Christians typically believe you have to have limits, that one shouldn't just legalize all "victimless" crimes.
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
|
Feedback: 