Originally posted by Dace AceI, in fact, said it shouldn't. But the question is: can you articulate a reason why it shouldn't?
Mom & dad in their 50's, son & daughter in their 20's, all adults, all consent to sex with each other. It should be allowed & legal, correct?
Or are you just reacting based on your gut.
Gut reactions are not standards for law.
Furthermore, the reasons I have for judging these things impermissible have no bearing on whether
or not homoerotic activity should or should not be permissible, and especially why those who
wish to have State-sponsored benefits should be denied them.
And so, I return: can you articulate a coherent reason why same-sex couples should be denied
these benefits?
Nemesio
Originally posted by NemesioIt is against the law.
I, in fact, said it shouldn't. But the question is: can [b]you articulate a reason why it shouldn't?
Or are you just reacting based on your gut.
Gut reactions are not standards for law.
Furthermore, the reasons I have for judging these things impermissible have no bearing on whether
or not homoerotic activity should or should not be per ...[text shortened]... ate a coherent reason why same-sex couples should be denied
these benefits?
Nemesio[/b]
Originally posted by NemesioOK remove gut reactions.
I, in fact, said it shouldn't. But the question is: can [b]you articulate a reason why it shouldn't?
Or are you just reacting based on your gut.
Gut reactions are not standards for law.
Furthermore, the reasons I have for judging these things impermissible have no bearing on whether
or not homoerotic activity should or should not be per ...[text shortened]... ate a coherent reason why same-sex couples should be denied
these benefits?
Nemesio[/b]
Nature - your body was not designed for sex in the homosexual manner.
Religion - the norm in the US, the majority = the norm, believes in the Bible and it say homosexuality is a no-no.
Law - says its a no-no.
Originally posted by NemesioOff the top of my head, how about because it might lead to an incestuous pregnancy, i.e. inbreeding, which is reportedly bad for the gene pool, and therefore detrimental to society?
So? It was legal in California. You opposed it then. It's legal in Vermont and Massachusetts. You
oppose it there.
What reason should it be illegal?
Nemesio
Originally posted by Dace Ace
Nature - your body was not designed for sex in the homosexual manner.
Your body was not designed for wearing clothing. Your biology was not designed for monogamy.
Your wife's mouth was not designed for oral stimulation.
So what?
There are billions of things that we do on a day-to-day basis that our bodies were not designed
for.
Religion - the norm in the US, the majority = the norm, believes in the Bible and it say homosexuality is a no-no.
In America, we don't impose our religious beliefs on others. That's fundamental to what it means
to be an American, given that we formed in response to religious oppression.
Law - says its a no-no.
Again: so what? The law in California was that it was permissible, but you still opposed it. The
laws in Vermont and Massachusetts are that it is permissible, and you still oppose it.
Your 'nature' standard is applied only in one place: granting same-sex couples civil privileges.
Your 'religious' justification has no place in the American legal system (that is, if you actually
care about what it means to be an American). Your 'law' standard is only applied in those States
in which you agree with the law.
Your inconsistency in the application of your standards itself invalidates your claim that it is a
just practice.
Nemesio
Originally posted by SleepyguyMy response was to the issue of same-sex unions, not incestuous ones.
Off the top of my head, how about because it might lead to an incestuous pregnancy, i.e. inbreeding, which is reportedly bad for the gene pool, and therefore detrimental to society?
But let's make his question even more problematic.
Let's say a 50-year old mom and dad and their 20-ish-year old son and daughter decide to have
an orgy. They have taken all the medical precautions available to prevent conception, including
the use of sterilization in the older couple (vasectomy/tubal ligation) and the use of condoms and
diaphragms in the younger children. The likelihood of pregnancy is effectively negligible. Furthermore,
to avoid social stigma, they pledge never to tell anyone about such orgies and they are otherwise
fully honest people.
Can you offer a reason other than your gut that such behavior ought to be impermissible?
Does this reason have any bearing on whether same-sex couples ought to be given civil liberites
or not?
Nemesio
Originally posted by Nemesio
Can you offer a reason other than your gut that such behavior ought to be impermissible?
Well other than incest being bad for the gene pool, and the sheer impracticality of legislating to outlaw incest while still allowing it between sterilized family members, nothing leaps to mind. I do believe that allowing this behavior is detrimental to society, but as in the the case of gay marriage, I'm finding it difficult to articulate why. A weak position, yes I'm aware.
Does this reason have any bearing on whether same-sex couples ought to be given civil liberites or not?
I don't see it. Why not give us your thoughts on the matter professor?
Originally posted by SleepyguyIt's always advisable to start with some concrete particulars before wracking your brains with ethical considerations.
I'd guess they are very few. Is that your point?
Just imagine, if the incidence of consensual incest amounts to zero, you're worrying about a problem that doesn't exist.