Gays In Military

[qfnol31]

[quote name='Jesus_lol' timestamp='1338687655' post='2440070']
well im kinda glad i lost track of this thread about 20 pages ago, what are we talking about now? let me guess, just like every "gay" thread we are now on the topic of pedophilia, bestiality, and incest.

I am half tempted to derail every thread about heterosexual marriage or attraction onto those same topics, as you would find that the majority of people involved in pedophilia and other child abuse, bestiality and incest would identify as hetero sexual.

that would be fun times.
[/quote]I think it ended up there as a series of questions about whether all sexual acts are morally licit if legal. Some of the arguments thus far in favor of homosexual unions could be applied to pedophilia, bestiality, and incest. I think that any legitimate defense of homosexuality cannot also work to validate those other three options (or polygamy etc.). All these tangentially related examples do serve a legitimate, necessary, and good purpose.

For example, if someone says that no sexual actions are the business of anyone else, child sex abuse is an example that limits the first claim. In fact, some sexual acts are the business of other people, so what makes homosexuality different? This leads to the claim that all consensual sex is only between two people. That's a necessary distinction for this debate.

Another argument might be that sex only affects the two people involved and it's up to them what to do. If that's the case, then why is incest wrong? There has to be a logic behind the law, otherwise the law is unjust and we have a duty to fight it.


All this is to say that the implications of an argument are fair game. If an argument can be legitimately used to defend another practice you are against, then how is the argument still valid? Or is your other opinion false?

[Kia ora]

[quote]There has to be a logic behind the law[/quote]i'm pretty sure there is a logic, and it's 'whatever we say goes'.

personally, i'm fine with incest and polygamy. obviously not child sex, since there needs to be an (arbitrary) age of consent and most places in the world have decreed that it should be between 14-18. anything below that is off limits.

we shape the law with our opinions. 150 years ago in the confederacy, slavery was a-okay and legal. the weight of opinions has now shifted to saying that should be illegal, if not morally wrong although i don't think the law is really there to enforce morality. the weight of opinions has also shifted to say that homosexual sex should not be criminalised, and now it's gone to homosexual marriage should be okay.

some people are fine with homosexual sex but for some reason (social, religious etc) they draw a line with incest. i think that's dandy. sure, it may be 'illogical' to put an arbitrary line there, but our entire system is illogical. so if you're afraid about slippery slopes and such...you should be, because that's what societies do. we slip and slide every which way.

Edited June 3, 2012 by Kia ora

[Jesus_lol]

obviously the law in the USA favours people who marry their cousins or get it on with their barnyard animals, as it is legal to marry first cousins or to have sex with horses in more states than it is legal to have a gay marriage.

[ardillacid]

[quote name='Jesus_lol' timestamp='1338696558' post='2440144']
obviously the law in the USA favours people who marry their cousins or get it on with their barnyard animals, as it is legal to marry first cousins or to have sex with horses in more states than it is legal to have a gay marriage.
[/quote]I'm not going to ask why you know which states you can have sex with a horse legally.

[kujo]

The difference between gay marriage and the various insidious acts that have been referenced:

2 non-related adult human beings
Free will (see also: consent)

You wanna talk about polygamy? That's for another thread. There's no reason that we can't decide, as a society, that willing adults who are not related can get married. The line is arbitrary now, and we can move it back any arbitrary length we want.

And with that I end my participation in this thread.

[Jesus_lol]

[quote name='ardillacid' timestamp='1338697875' post='2440158']
I'm not going to ask why you know which states you can have sex with a horse legally.
[/quote]

blame facebook.

[Anomaly]

[quote name='kujo' timestamp='1338699788' post='2440171']
The difference between gay marriage and the various insidious acts that have been referenced:

2 non-related adult human beings
Free will (see also: consent)

You wanna talk about polygamy? That's for another thread. There's no reason that we can't decide, as a society, that willing adults who are not related can get married. The line is arbitrary now, and we can move it back any arbitrary length we want.

And with that I end my participation in this thread.
[/quote]The arbitrary arguement. Ther is no arguement against that because it has already been predetermined any proposed justification will be dismissed. A sure way to close your mind with confidence in your conviction. I haz cheez, therefore you argument is invalidz and r- bitarry.

[Ice_nine]

[quote name='kujo' timestamp='1338699788' post='2440171']
2 non-related adult human beings
Free will (see also: consent)

[/quote]

[size=6]BUT WHY?![/size]

[size=4]why non-related[/size]? Don't you understand the question? We know incest is different than gay marriage, and we know how it's different, what we don't know is WHY you so arbitrarily impose "non-related" onto what is an acceptable marriage, and then get your panties up in a bunch when people can't give you a non-religious reason to disallow gay marriage.

Stop acting like it's an unfair question. It is not. AFAIK the only reason you've given as to why incest shouldn't be allowed is because it is illegal.

You say that there shouldn't be arbitrary moral impositions onto the legality of marriage, but you balk at incest. Why is it OK for you to do so?

NO ONE is equating gay-marriage to incest (other than perhaps saying both are immoral, but you see this immorality stems from the same principle: all sexual acts must be marital, open to life, and and act of mutual love). They can explain this premise via theology (which is not allowed to define law says you).

So then you come in with a premise that includes "un-related" adults. But WHERE is that coming from? An inner sense that incest is wrong and a threat to society? Religious influence? WHAT?! Please tell us. Can you really not see this glaring inconsistency?

Edited June 4, 2012 by Ice_nine

[4588686]

[quote name='Ice_nine' timestamp='1338786868' post='2440457']
[size=6]BUT WHY?![/size]

why non-related? Don't you understand the question? We know incest is different than gay marriage, and we know how it's different, what we don't know is WHY you so arbitrarily impose "non-related" onto what is an acceptable marriage, and then get your panties up in a bunch when people can't give you a non-religious reason to disallow gay marriage.

Stop acting like it's an unfair question. It is not. AFAIK the only reason you've given as to why incest shouldn't be allowed is because it is illegal.

You say that there shouldn't be arbitrary moral impositions onto the legality of marriage, but you balk at incest. Why is it OK for you to do so?

NO ONE is equating gay-marriage to incest (other than perhaps saying both are immoral, but you see this immorality stems from the same principle: all sexual acts must be marital, open to life, and and act of mutual love). They can explain this premise via theology (which is not allowed to define law says you).

So then you come in with a premise that includes "un-related" adults. But WHERE is that coming from? An inner sense that incest is wrong and a threat to society? Religious influence? WHAT?! Please tell us. Can you really not see this glaring inconsistency?
[/quote]

Incest is different because there is an arguable legal basis for prohibiting it that goes beyond unfounded religious assertions. The Hapsburg chin is something best avoided. Will permitting marriage between relatives lead to severely inbred families? Probably not. From what I understand it must be a multi-generational pattern. But it's different because there may well be a compelling state interest. And yes, this same logic applies to families (like part of mine) that carry genetic conditions that can lead to sever problems for the children.

I'm not coming down for or against prohibiting incest. Don't know enough about it. But it's not arbitrary to hesitate about incest.

[Groo the Wanderer]

so now yer in favor of eugenics...selective breeding, huh?

[Amory]

[quote name='Jesus_lol' timestamp='1338696558' post='2440144']
obviously the law in the USA favours people who marry their cousins or get it on with their barnyard animals, as it is legal to marry first cousins or to have sex with horses in more states than it is legal to have a gay marriage.
[/quote]

Of course, there is a possibility of procreation (apparently with little risk of genetic problems) between first cousins of the opposite sex. Furthermore, no state, at least since [i]Lawrence v. Texas[/i], criminalizes same-sex intercourse, so I can understand why many don't criminalize bestiality, either.

[Amory]

[quote name='Hasan' timestamp='1338794132' post='2440466']
Incest is different because there is an arguable legal basis for prohibiting it that goes beyond unfounded religious assertions. The Hapsburg chin is something best avoided. Will permitting marriage between relatives lead to severely inbred families? Probably not. From what I understand it must be a multi-generational pattern. But it's different because there may well be a compelling state interest. And yes, this same logic applies to families (like part of mine) that carry genetic conditions that can lead to sever problems for the children.

I'm not coming down for or against prohibiting incest. Don't know enough about it. But it's not arbitrary to hesitate about incest.
[/quote]

And there is no state interest in encouraging families in which children are raised by their two biological parents, or at least by two parents of opposite sexes? Considering that half of humanity is male and the other half female, you'd think that it would be beneficial for children to be exposed to both sexes during daily life as youngsters. It would certainly help them to relate with both sexes, which probably has some strong psychological benefits. That's not even to consider the immense benefits of being raised by the man who begat you and the woman who bore you.

[Papist]

Let's discuss the actual policy.

[color=#0000ff]10 USC § 654 - POLICY CONCERNING HOMOSEXUALITY IN THE ARMED FORCES[/color]

[color=#000000][background=transparent]
[url="http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCODE-2010-title10/pdf/USCODE-2010-title10-subtitleA-partII-chap37-sec654.pdf"][color=#0000ff]http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCODE-2010-title10/pdf/USCODE-2010-title10-subtitleA-partII-chap37-sec654.pdf[/color][/url][/background][/color]

[Ice_nine]

[quote name='Hasan' timestamp='1338794132' post='2440466']
Incest is different because there is an arguable legal basis for prohibiting it that goes beyond unfounded religious assertions. The Hapsburg chin is something best avoided. Will permitting marriage between relatives lead to severely inbred families? Probably not. From what I understand it must be a multi-generational pattern. But it's different because there may well be a compelling state interest. And yes, this same logic applies to families (like part of mine) that carry genetic conditions that can lead to sever problems for the children.

I'm not coming down for or against prohibiting incest. Don't know enough about it. But it's not arbitrary to hesitate about incest.
[/quote]

Fair point. But it's indeed arbitrary until he gives us a reason. For now, he just wants us to accept that incest is clearly wrong (as is rape and pedophilia) but he doesn't illustrate why incest is not compatible with his mantra of "mind your own beaver dam business so long as no one else is getting hurt." I don't think you can empirically demonstrate how incest causes harm anymore than you can prove gay marriage does. For those things you'd have to venture into the wishy-washy social sciences. Unless of course we're talking about the economic burden of having a bunch more in-bred handicaps and retardeds running around, but that falls into utilitarianism no? So I'm still confused as to how Kujo would use this to justify the illegality of incest.

But sad, seems as he has dropped out of the thread.
.

[4588686]

[quote name='Ice_nine' timestamp='1338853604' post='2440888']
Fair point. But it's indeed arbitrary until he gives us a reason. For now, he just wants us to accept that incest is clearly wrong (as is rape and pedophilia) but he doesn't illustrate why incest is not compatible with his mantra of "mind your own beaver dam business so long as no one else is getting hurt." I don't think you can empirically demonstrate how incest causes harm anymore than you can prove gay marriage does. For those things you'd have to venture into the wishy-washy social sciences. Unless of course we're talking about the economic burden of having a bunch more in-bred handicaps and retardeds running around, but that falls into utilitarianism no? So I'm still confused as to how Kujo would use this to justify the illegality of incest.

But sad, seems as he has dropped out of the thread.
.
[/quote]

I agree and I think a lot of advocates are cowardly in not addressing the issues you are raising.

[dairygirl4u2c]

[url="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=miSjHuTpElk"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=miSjHuTpElk[/url]

[MIKolbe]

[quote name='Ice_nine' timestamp='1338786868' post='2440457']
[size=6]BUT WHY?![/size]

why non-related? Don't you understand the question? We know incest is different than gay marriage, and we know how it's different, what we don't know is WHY you so arbitrarily impose "non-related" onto what is an acceptable marriage, and then get your panties up in a bunch when people can't give you a non-religious reason to disallow gay marriage.

Stop acting like it's an unfair question. It is not. AFAIK the only reason you've given as to why incest shouldn't be allowed is because it is illegal.

You say that there shouldn't be arbitrary moral impositions onto the legality of marriage, but you balk at incest. Why is it OK for you to do so?

NO ONE is equating gay-marriage to incest (other than perhaps saying both are immoral, but you see this immorality stems from the same principle: all sexual acts must be marital, open to life, and and act of mutual love). They can explain this premise via theology (which is not allowed to define law says you).

So then you come in with a premise that includes "un-related" adults. But WHERE is that coming from? An inner sense that incest is wrong and a threat to society? Religious influence? WHAT?! Please tell us. Can you really not see this glaring inconsistency?
[/quote]

Also, after Kujo pontificated about 2 consenting adults, I posted an article about a lady who married herself. Why is marriage between 2 people? You give me croutons about it having to be between a man and a woman, and you claim consent. So, if consent is all that is needed, I assume you are razzle dazzle with this woman marrying herself. I am almost positive it was consensual.

If you are razzle dazzle with this, ok...you're consistent...

If you are not razzle dazzle with this, why not? If it has to do with a marriage being between 2 people, I will simply ignore that as a definition of marriage as you ignore the 'male and female' definition of marriage.

[4588686]

[quote name='MIkolbe' timestamp='1339216290' post='2442826']
Also, after Kujo pontificated about 2 consenting adults, I posted an article about a lady who married herself. Why is marriage between 2 people? You give me croutons about it having to be between a man and a woman, and you claim consent. So, if consent is all that is needed, I assume you are razzle dazzle with this woman marrying herself. I am almost positive it was consensual.

If you are razzle dazzle with this, ok...you're consistent...

If you are not razzle dazzle with this, why not? If it has to do with a marriage being between 2 people, I will simply ignore that as a definition of marriage as you ignore the 'male and female' definition of marriage.
[/quote]


u gay

[MIKolbe]

i accept your unconditional surrender.

[PhuturePriest]

Out of all the pages on this thread I land on the 23rd one? Really? I'm scarred for life now!

Edited June 9, 2012 by FuturePriest387