| Subject: Sodomy? |
Author:
Duane
|
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
Date Posted: 02/11/04 10:41am
In reply to:
Wade A. Tisthammer
's message, "Questionable Morality and Drawing the Line" on 06/30/03 4:25pm
Wade:
>It's tough to clarify the issue.
No, it's not. Stay with me, though.
>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.
Good for them. I see the worship of any deity as immoral. I see watching television as immoral. I see the modern practice of clinical medicine immoral. Does that make it less O.K. for you, or anyone else to do these things?
>In explanations of morality, eventually you get to a
>point of irreducibility.
No you don't.
>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.
No, it's wrong because we, as a (large) group of humans, have decided it's wrong. Why have we decided it's wrong? Because we've decided that each individual ought to be able to possess his or her own property without fear of someone bigger, stronger, more powerful, or just plain sneakier, taking it away. Why did we decide that the above ought to be? Because I like to "own" my own possessions. The point is that "morality" can be reduced to what "I", i.e., all of us, desire.
>Why are incestuous sexual
>relations (as between two brothers) immoral?
>Well...it just is.
It certainly is not immoral. It may be creepy, but how does it impinge upon your rights if two male siblings, right now, as I type, are having sex?
Incidentally, incest is generally considered "wrong" because of the perils of genetic homogeneity, not because of any abstract human concept of "right" and "wrong."
>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?
There is already a clear line. Volition. You're attempting to confuse the issue at hand with inflammatory rhetoric, e.g., sex between consenting individuals with sex among potentially non-consenting individuals, i.e., rape.
If individual A and individual B mutually consent to participate in act X that fulfills the following conditions:
1) you are unaware of that specific, singular act's commission,
and
2) the commission of the act does not affect your life in any direct, material way,
how can you possibly have any objection to the commission of that act?
>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),
Again, the "wrongness" of incest has to do the the creative potential of man-woman sexual relations, and the genetic ramifications thereof.
Your attempt to liken private intimate relations between two consenting adult individuals with the aforementioned "wrongness" of incest is clearly based on your own personal concept of "wrong." The issue here is a universal concept of "wrong," not your own idiosyncratic judgements.
>If gay sex
>is legalized, why shouldn't we legalize, for instance,
>sexual relations between a father and son?
If withdrawing money from your own bank account is legalized, why shouldn't we legalize, for instance, withdrawing money from someone else's bank account?
(hint: Volition)
Please, someone else tell me that you see the absurdity in the above argument(s).
>>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.
In case we're losing perspective, the laws that forbid homosexual sex forbid blowjobs. They forbid anal sex. In fact, "sodomy" laws forbid any genital manipulation that might not possibly result in the impregnation of a female.
Hmm. Can we draw a conclusion about the intent of these laws from their implied purpose?
If you are opposed to homosexual sexual relations, then you must be opposed to oral and anal sex between members of the opposite sex, in order to be biblically and legislatively consistent. You cannot draw a line in the middle of "sodomy" and expect those who don't agree with the concept to begin with, to accept your completely arbitrary and capricious distinctions.
Duane
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
| |
