TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Gay Marrages
Pages (9): « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 »

quote:

Originally posted by DrUg_Tit0 AIDS (not AID's, as S stands for syndrome) is not related to a person's sexual orientation. In the begining phases of the disease spreading, the amount of homosexuals infected with AIDS was very high. This was not, however, because homosexuals are more prone to the disease, but rather because they lived promiscuous lifestyles, with many unprotected sexual partners.

AIDS,Yes.Sorry.

quote:

Again, the two are not related. What was the projected lifespan of an average jew in 1940s? Pretty low, I guess. Does that mean jews are not as healthy as other races? No.

No no, You can't compare those two statistics because nobody is cooking homosexuals in ovens.. That's what the Germans did to the Jews in WWII.

quote:

Now, Nellie, we are on the same side here, but come on, your arguments are often really close minded and fallacious, which really forces me to dispute them rather than to argue your (our?) point of view on this specific matter.

We are on the same side? I didn't realize such.
But,I'm not close minded. I assure you. I just have my facts,I'm presenting them,and people are ignoring them.

But,I really have to cut down on my visits.... I'm already really ill, I had to start a new treatment, so I'm going to be in bed even more now.:/ So,I might not come back to this topic for a while.

*winces

quote:

Originally posted by Orbax *winces

What's wrong?

quote:

Originally posted by WhoaNellie1487 I'm not spewing out Boviene excrement. I gave you what you asked for. I told you the CCD statistics. You already know about AIDS,and HIV. I don't really need to elaborate.

NO, you didnt give me what i asked for... there is no validation.. show me CONCRETE proof of this. You just posting this is useless to me.

quote:

By the way,Come and on are seperate. They aren't one word.. The Statistics state that the average lifespan of a STRAIGHT man is into his 70's. You really need to open you eyes and read it. Yes,I do know hetrosexuals have contracted AIDS,and HIV. But,it all stems from the homosexual lifestyle.If you wish for me to inform you on this. Just say the word. lol again with the personal attacks. You really must be afraid of losing.:/

Are you trying to patronize me by correcting my English???? AHAHA....i was typing fast and forgot to push the space bar between COME and ON...Stop trying to look intelligent, its noticable a mile away.

YOU need to open your eyes and differentiate between an indiscriminating disease and your discrimination of Gay people.

quote:

Originally posted by WhoaNellie1487 What's wrong?

Although I agree with you on stuff about what Marriage ought to be, and on some other issues, they are purely ideological, and in this particular discussion I think it would benefit all of us to speak more on the impact that these things have on society than merely talking about Utopia. It gets kind of redundant when someone says, "well gays shouldnt marry because its wrong" "why" "because it says so in the Bible".

Its called the fallacy of ex cathedra (from the pulpit) and its logically unsupportable. Again, I agree with the Bible, but not everyone considers the Bible to be God's word, or even that God exists.

Like I said, focus more on oberservable effects and probabilities. They make you look less emotionally vested in the subject, and help people focus on what is being said, instead of who is saying it.

Research is a thumbs up.

Cheers

quote:

Originally posted by WhoaNellie1487 Yes,I know about that statistic. But,Marriage is intended for a lifetime together. The vows state this. I've preformed at many weddings. It's a promise before God.It's not something to be slapping around. Marriage is very important,and very serious. I don't think that whatever percentage of marriages that end should be thrown aside lightly. I don't think we should add onto the problem either. If you know what I'm saying. There have also been many marriages that have lasted people,till death do them part. I know homosexuality has been around a long time, The Bible speaks of it. But, Most of what you and I have said are our beliefs,and opinions. I know for a fact though that it's not good for your health..It's been proven in science many times.

I'm talking about secular marriage, which has absolutely nothing to do with god. If you're looking for a debate on marriages sanctioned by religious institutions, look elsewhere.

I still don't really see what this has to do with anything though, are you implying that gay people cannot maintain stable and long lasting relationships?

As for the so called 'proof' that you keep harping on about, for the last time, please provide a source to back up your claims. I feel like a broken record here, for heavens sake, stop making such outlandish claims without backing them up in any shape or form.

quote:

Originally posted by DigiNut I've never brought up the AIDS argument and I don't intend to use it now. What I will say, though, is twofold: 1. Incest may cause "harm", but I think we are all well-aware that the incest laws are based on a religious background, despite whatever health risks may also be involved. The fact that they prevent a bad thing from happening does not change their origin. 2. The ones harmed by incest are the children of said couple. While it's true that incest does confer a specific harm down the road, the harm is to the child which homosexuals can't produce at all. One might venture to say that no child is better than a deformed child, but in either case, it's the children that are integral to the whole issue. Since you stated that incest causes harm, you've already admitted that a married couple is expected to produce children - and since that's what the marital benefits are for, why provide them to gays? While I'm not an expert on bestiality, I would venture to say that since animals have no emotional attachments to mating, they are always "consenting". However, if that explanation is too abstract for you, then let's consider another one: pedophilia. The children are technically "consenting", but the law says they aren't of age to do it - isn't this discrimination too? Should the law be changed to let a 30-year-old man marry a 10-year-old boy (or girl)? And yes, we can all nit-pick at the various differences between homosexuality, pedophilia, incest, bestiality, and so on, but what's more important than the differences are the similarities: They are all abnormal (at least to some extent) sexual behaviours that largely can't be cured by the people performing them (rehabilitation rates for pedophiles are pretty low). If no harm comes as a result, then we should probably let them do their thing, but that does not logically lead to rewriting the marriage laws in order to accomodate their specific desires and confer upon them all the rights that are normally reserved for sexually "normal" couples (i.e. those that have a fighting chance of producing healthy offspring). I am all for civil unions, specifically because it's a "compromise" and does not recognize gays as "equal" to heteros. They aren't equal. They can't produce offspring. That doesn't make their sexual act wrong, and if they want a legally binding contract and a way to express their love and commitment, that's fine - however, they definitely should not receive the benefits that are supposed to be there for the children. Like Orbax said, it's the annoying little brother syndrome that bothers me the most. People take "rights" to an extreme in today's society - since when is marriage a constitutional right?[/COLOR][/FONT]

Yes, I'm aware that the incest laws are basically based on religion, an 'is incest wrong?' debate would be very interesting in my humble opinion.
I agree that the current marital system is flawed, I think that perhaps there should be benefits for people having children, whereas gay couples who don't adopt and heterosexuals who don't want/have children get a different set of benefits more appropriate to there situation.

With the animal point, do they even have the intelligence/self awareness to consent to sex with another species. I've always assumed that the only purpose for animals having sex is to reproduce, therefore I can't see how they would be able to consent to sex with a human. I can't imagine an animal would approach a human for sex either, the human would no doubt effectively rape the animal. The pedophilia issue is an interesting one as well, whilst it is possible to argue that the children 'consent', it's also equally valid to argue that the children are in effect being forced into it. They're physically , mentally and emotionally weaker than an adult who decides he/she wants to 'have their way' with them, and it's no doubt possible to argue that they don't have the maturity level to actually consent at that age, although I know there are a few flaws that particular argument.

As for the reproduction argument, marriage isn't necessarily about reproduction, people who are sterile are still perfectly able to get married, as are people who openly state that they will never, ever have children. If the (secular) marriage laws were re written to expressly state that marriage was designed to give benefits to those who wanted to bear children/reproduce, then very well, just give gays who don't adopt a civil union, along with heterosexual couples who don't (or won't) reproduce.

The main problem I see with lumping all the 'abnormal' sexual behavioral patterns in together is the fact that some clearly cause emotional/mental harm (ie: they involve people/creatures who can't reasonably be expected to knowingly consent to the acts being performed), whilst others such as homosexuality, don't necessarily harm anyone. Two gay men are perfectly able to consent to having sex together/living together as life partners, whereas (in my opinion), a 10 year old girl is not able to do the same with a 40 year old man/woman.

I'd actually like to see the whole concept of marriage looked at again, as I mentioned before, I think civil unions should be there for non child bearing couples (gay and straight), whereas (secular) marriage should be reserved for adopting homosexuals and straight couples with kids.

02.

quote:

Originally posted by Orbax *winces

orbie!!!!!!!

quote:

Originally posted by arctic The pedophilia issue is an interesting one as well, whilst it is possible to argue that the children 'consent', it's also equally valid to argue that the children are in effect being forced into it. They're physically , mentally and emotionally weaker than an adult who decides he/she wants to 'have their way' with them, and it's no doubt possible to argue that they don't have the maturity level to actually consent at that age, although I know there are a few flaws that particular argument. 02.

The only thing I would have to say would be hard to argue is what exactly "mental" and "emotional" strengths are. How would you measure them? Who would make the test. You have to admit that any test is biased. White people answer tests differently than blacks, and once you get outside of America its even worse.

Judgment?? Again, its a totally subjective measurement based on what you think a good idea is.

I guess that would be one of those few flaws hehe.

Also, when you say that compared to bestiality and pedophilia, that homosexuality has no real discernable harm...again, its all just too much push from the gay community "No, we dont want civil unions, we want MARRIAGE! Just like straight couples"

Now that being the argument, you know what, it shouldnt be illegal, but if the churches were doing THEIR jobs, it wouldnt be an issue, the gays wouldnt be able to get married.

So yeah, I say go for it. The state cannot restrict OR ENFORCE the church. I think its lamentable that there are pastors out there willing to marry such a couple.

Whaddya gonna do though? I hate our society today

I always enjoy reading David Brooks' articles and listening to his commentary on McNeil Leher. Nobody can accuse him of being a "pretend" conservative.

quote:

Op-Ed: The Power of Marriage By David Brooks Originally published in the New York Times November 22, 2003 Anybody who has several sexual partners in a year is committing spiritual suicide. He or she is ripping the veil from all that is private and delicate in oneself, and pulverizing it in an assembly line of selfish sensations. But marriage is the opposite. Marriage joins two people in a sacred bond. It demands that they make an exclusive commitment to each other and thereby takes two discrete individuals and turns them into kin. Few of us work as hard at the vocation of marriage as we should. But marriage makes us better than we deserve to be. Even in the chores of daily life, married couples find themselves, over the years, coming closer together, fusing into one flesh. Married people who remain committed to each other find that they reorganize and deepen each other's lives. They may eventually come to the point when they can say to each other: "Love you? I am you." Today marriage is in crisis. Nearly half of all marriages end in divorce. Worse, in some circles, marriage is not even expected. Men and women shack up for a while, produce children and then float off to shack up with someone else. Marriage is in crisis because marriage, which relies on a culture of fidelity, is now asked to survive in a culture of contingency. Today, individual choice is held up as the highest value: choice of lifestyles, choice of identities, choice of cellphone rate plans. Freedom is a wonderful thing, but the culture of contingency means that the marriage bond, which is supposed to be a sacred vow till death do us part, is now more likely to be seen as an easily canceled contract. Men are more likely to want to trade up, when a younger trophy wife comes along. Men and women are quicker to opt out of marriages, even marriages that are not fatally flawed, when their "needs" don't seem to be met at that moment. Still, even in this time of crisis, every human being in the United States has the chance to move from the path of contingency to the path of marital fidelity � except homosexuals. Gays and lesbians are banned from marriage and forbidden to enter into this powerful and ennobling institution. A gay or lesbian couple may love each other as deeply as any two people, but when you meet a member of such a couple at a party, he or she then introduces you to a "partner," a word that reeks of contingency. You would think that faced with this marriage crisis, we conservatives would do everything in our power to move as many people as possible from the path of contingency to the path of fidelity. But instead, many argue that gays must be banished from matrimony because gay marriage would weaken all marriage. A marriage is between a man and a woman, they say. It is women who domesticate men and make marriage work. Well, if women really domesticated men, heterosexual marriage wouldn't be in crisis. In truth, it's moral commitment, renewed every day through faithfulness, that "domesticates" all people. Some conservatives may have latched onto biological determinism (men are savages who need women to tame them) as a convenient way to oppose gay marriage. But in fact we are not animals whose lives are bounded by our flesh and by our gender. We're moral creatures with souls, endowed with the ability to make covenants, such as the one Ruth made with Naomi: "Where you go I will go, and where you stay I will stay. Your people will be my people and your God my God. Where you die I will die, and there I will be buried." The conservative course is not to banish gay people from making such commitments. It is to expect that they make such commitments. We shouldn't just allow gay marriage. We should insist on gay marriage. We should regard it as scandalous that two people could claim to love each other and not want to sanctify their love with marriage and fidelity. When liberals argue for gay marriage, they make it sound like a really good employee benefits plan. Or they frame it as a civil rights issue, like extending the right to vote. Marriage is not voting. It's going to be up to conservatives to make the important, moral case for marriage, including gay marriage. Not making it means drifting further into the culture of contingency, which, when it comes to intimate and sacred relations, is an abomination.

http://www1.law.ucla.edu/~williamsproj/Ideas/power.html

quote:

Originally posted by prolikewhoa orbie!!!!!!!

Sup, babe!

quote:

Originally posted by Orbax Although I agree with you on stuff about what Marriage ought to be, and on some other issues, they are purely ideological, and in this particular discussion I think it would benefit all of us to speak more on the impact that these things have on society than merely talking about Utopia. It gets kind of redundant when someone says, "well gays shouldnt marry because its wrong" "why" "because it says so in the Bible". Its called the fallacy of ex cathedra (from the pulpit) and its logically unsupportable. Again, I agree with the Bible, but not everyone considers the Bible to be God's word, or even that God exists. Like I said, focus more on oberservable effects and probabilities. They make you look less emotionally vested in the subject, and help people focus on what is being said, instead of who is saying it. Research is a thumbs up. Cheers

quote:

Originally posted by Orbax The only thing I would have to say would be hard to argue is what exactly "mental" and "emotional" strengths are. How would you measure them? Who would make the test. You have to admit that any test is biased. White people answer tests differently than blacks, and once you get outside of America its even worse. Judgment?? Again, its a totally subjective measurement based on what you think a good idea is. I guess that would be one of those few flaws hehe. Also, when you say that compared to bestiality and pedophilia, that homosexuality has no real discernable harm...again, its all just too much push from the gay community "No, we dont want civil unions, we want MARRIAGE! Just like straight couples" Now that being the argument, you know what, it shouldnt be illegal, but if the churches were doing THEIR jobs, it wouldnt be an issue, the gays wouldnt be able to get married. So yeah, I say go for it. The state cannot restrict OR ENFORCE the church. I think its lamentable that there are pastors out there willing to marry such a couple. Whaddya gonna do though? I hate our society today

lol yes, they were basically the flaws that I had in mind. You have to admit though, people who are victims of pedophilia are nearly always fucked up for life, there have been a million studies that show that victims are far more likely to turn to hard drugs, to cut themselves, commit suicide etc. I know it's almost impossible to measure/define, pedophilia causes serious harm to the people involved, whereas I don't think homosexuality does.

It seems you're coming at this from a 'harm to society' point of view, whereas I'm looking at it from a 'harm to the individuals' standpoint. I think that marriage in it's current form could accommodate the vast majority homosexuals, although I would like to see a system whereby there are benefits given to people who reproduce/adopt, therefore meaning that most gay couples (ie: ones who do not adopt) could have a civil union or something of the sort, along with hetro couples that don't want kids.
Then again, that's probably not going to happen.

The church point is an interesting one, down here the church objecting wouldn't have much of an effect, a lot of people just get civil celebrants to perform their marriages anyhow, with no church involvement whatsoever. Being an atheist, if I ever get married, I'll no doubt go down the same road as well...

Oh yes, thumbs up to you for not being one of those typical bible bashing American Christians who think that the bible/christian teachings should apply to everyone, including non believers.

I agree that pedophilia messes people up. But then again, OJ did it. Its all about legal system. If this was a debate on what is right and wrong...hehe.

Yeah, I seriously have no problem with people getting unioned by a civil servant (legally of course. Morally, I find it highly disturbing). The thought of my church marrying homosexual couples under God is what bothers me. As long as that is upheld, people can do whatever they want, im not going to change them. Unless of course them "doing whatever they want" includes fucking with me, or someone else. Then they get teh smackdown.

quote:

Originally posted by arctic Yes, I'm aware that the incest laws are basically based on religion, an 'is incest wrong?' debate would be very interesting in my humble opinion. I agree that the current marital system is flawed, I think that perhaps there should be benefits for people having children, whereas gay couples who don't adopt and heterosexuals who don't want/have children get a different set of benefits more appropriate to there situation.

Ah getting into gay adoption are we... now that's a whole other issue in itself. Since gay adoption is essentially forcing that family structure upon the child, I think we'd need to do a very thorough analysis of the effects on the child and on society at large, before attempting to legalize such a thing. Tito's mentioned earlier some of the problems with homophilic societies, including but not limited to the birth rate. Nevertheless, if it could be determined that no negative effects would arise from this (doubtful), then sure, it could happen. For now though, let's just leave adoptions out of this.

quote:

With the animal point, do they even have the intelligence/self awareness to consent to sex with another species. I've always assumed that the only purpose for animals having sex is to reproduce, therefore I can't see how they would be able to consent to sex with a human. I can't imagine an animal would approach a human for sex either, the human would no doubt effectively rape the animal.

Well now I suppose it just depends which perspective you take, doesn't it? It's all well and good to say that they don't have the mental capacity to consent, but it makes equally as much logical sense to say that they don't have the mental capacity to refuse. And in many cases, an absence of refusal is consent. Is it sexual assault to jack off a horse? If I'm not mistaken, this is actually common practice (with race horses or something like that), although I don't remember the details.

quote:

The pedophilia issue is an interesting one as well, whilst it is possible to argue that the children 'consent', it's also equally valid to argue that the children are in effect being forced into it. They're physically , mentally and emotionally weaker than an adult who decides he/she wants to 'have their way' with them, and it's no doubt possible to argue that they don't have the maturity level to actually consent at that age, although I know there are a few flaws that particular argument.

Yes there are a few flaws, and we're both aware of them - their mental and emotional capacity is fairly subjective, as is clearly shown by the distinct variations in age of consent in different countries - for example, the USA says it's 18, but Canada says a mere 14 years of age is old enough. I think in Europe the general consensus is around 15. So let's say a 22-year-old wants to marry a 17-year-old - in many parts of Europe, this could happen, but in the USA, it could not. Who decides what is right? Should the USA change the law to accomodate families that might have come from a European background?

quote:

As for the reproduction argument, marriage isn't necessarily about reproduction, people who are sterile are still perfectly able to get married, as are people who openly state that they will never, ever have children. If the (secular) marriage laws were re written to expressly state that marriage was designed to give benefits to those who wanted to bear children/reproduce, then very well, just give gays who don't adopt a civil union, along with heterosexual couples who don't (or won't) reproduce.

Again I'd like to leave gay adoption out of this for the time being... but in any event, yes, I agree that the marital benefits should really only be conferred upon those who actually have children or intend to have them at some point. However, once again, from a policy standpoint, we can't really do a full-scale investigation on every couple wanting to get married, so we just assume that every couple might have kids. A homosexual couple, however, is pretty much guaranteed not to reproduce, so from a policy standpoint, it doesn't make much sense to give them childcare benefits.

quote:

The main problem I see with lumping all the 'abnormal' sexual behavioral patterns in together is the fact that some clearly cause emotional/mental harm (ie: they involve people/creatures who can't reasonably be expected to knowingly consent to the acts being performed), whilst others such as homosexuality, don't necessarily harm anyone. Two gay men are perfectly able to consent to having sex together/living together as life partners, whereas (in my opinion), a 10 year old girl is not able to do the same with a 40 year old man/woman.

The "consent" issue is no less subjective than the "morality" issue when it comes to homosexuality. While I understand where you're coming from, it doesn't hold water as a logical argument because it essentially depends on one's personal opinion. I don't even think there are laws against bestiality (although someone might feel free to correct me if I'm wrong), so it follows that the state doesn't view this as rape or cruelty. And even if there are laws against it in this country, I know for a fact that there aren't laws against it everywhere.

quote:

I'd actually like to see the whole concept of marriage looked at again, as I mentioned before, I think civil unions should be there for non child bearing couples (gay and straight), whereas (secular) marriage should be reserved for adopting homosexuals and straight couples with kids.

No need to repeat my comment about adoption, but other than that, I'm not disagreeing with you - I simply don't see it happening, though, because it's not efficient for the government to implement. Yes, they should, but they won't. It's a good idea in an idealistic sense, but it's just not practical. What's practical is to keep things just as they are.

That David Brooks article was brilliant. I started off reading it assuming it would have a very different line. What a nice surprise. I'd never thought of homosexual marriage in that light, but it does make sense.

It's not just the tax breaks that are the issue. As it was mentioned before it goes into estates, signing authority, death, etc etc etc. If both people in a relationship are earning a decent amount of money being married WILL NOT give you any tax breaks. Those that post on about these magical tax breaks clearly aren't old enough or making enough money to understand this yet.

Wills are awesome, everyone should have one.

quote:

Originally posted by Orbax Wills are awesome, everyone should have one.

Master of stating the obvious, you are.

I hear there's this sooper dooper thing called a power of attorney form too, so like basically you can sign it and give someone else the authority to do anything you want them to be able to do! Isn't that so radically cool?

<--going to bed, should have gone 20 minutes ago

A lot of younger people don't have anything of that stuff done. So if there's 2 lesbians who're 26yrs old and have been life partners for the last half decade and one dies in a car accident then the other could potentially get nothing because they aren't married. In the perfect world everyone would have a will, and everyone would sign power of attorney forms. This isn't the perfect world, if it were this wouldn't be an issue.

quote:

Originally posted by WhoaNellie1487 No no, You can't compare those two statistics because nobody is cooking homosexuals in ovens.. That's what the Germans did to the Jews in WWII.

It is true that the two statistics are different in form, but they are not different in essence. The jew statistic is only a more obvious example of the error in judgement that you made. If two things are related, it doesn't mean one causes the other. I have stated the reasons why the general life expectancy of a homosexual may be shorter than that of a heterosexual even though homosexuality itself does not cause any health problems.

quote:

We are on the same side? I didn't realize such.

Although are reasons are totally different, we are both against gay marriages if you haven't realized it yet.

quote:

But,I'm not close minded. I assure you. I just have my facts,I'm presenting them,and people are ignoring them.

They are ignoring them because of three reasons.

1) You don't offer any sources as a backup, so they are rather questionable.

2) You base your logic on the bible, which makes no sense to non-christians.

3) You draw wrong conclusions from the already uncertain "facts" you posted.

quote:

But,I really have to cut down on my visits.... I'm already really ill, I had to start a new treatment, so I'm going to be in bed even more now.:/ So,I might not come back to this topic for a while.

Oh well, get well soon.

PS, Diginut, stop being my alter-ego, damn it, whenever I want to post something I see you already posted that very same thing!

quote:

Originally posted by DigiNut Ah getting into gay adoption are we... now that's a whole other issue in itself. Since gay adoption is essentially forcing that family structure upon the child, I think we'd need to do a very thorough analysis of the effects on the child and on society at large, before attempting to legalize such a thing. Tito's mentioned earlier some of the problems with homophilic societies, including but not limited to the birth rate. Nevertheless, if it could be determined that no negative effects would arise from this (doubtful), then sure, it could happen. For now though, let's just leave adoptions out of this.

After thinking about it, I do agree that some research/more discussion does need to take place before gay adoption can be reasonably considered (I have seen news stories about gay people adopting, it is already happening in some areas).

quote:

Well now I suppose it just depends which perspective you take, doesn't it? It's all well and good to say that they don't have the mental capacity to consent, but it makes equally as much logical sense to say that they don't have the mental capacity to refuse. And in many cases, an absence of refusal is consent. Is it sexual assault to jack off a horse? If I'm not mistaken, this is actually common practice (with race horses or something like that), although I don't remember the details.

As I said earlier, it is a very interesting area. If they can't necessarily agree, then in my opinion that also means that they can't agree either. I suppose the only way to test it is to hook various animals up to a brain monitor and get someone to 'have their way' with them to see if they object, although I can't imagine this happening to be honest.

I also feel like being a picky bastard here, so here goes.
Don't male horses have their, well, genitalia removed though?
As far as I know all horses are de-sexed before being allowed to race, as if they're concerned about the Phillies, they often refuse to run.

quote:

Yes there are a few flaws, and we're both aware of them - their mental and emotional capacity is fairly subjective, as is clearly shown by the distinct variations in age of consent in different countries - for example, the USA says it's 18, but Canada says a mere 14 years of age is old enough. I think in Europe the general consensus is around 15. So let's say a 22-year-old wants to marry a 17-year-old - in many parts of Europe, this could happen, but in the USA, it could not. Who decides what is right? Should the USA change the law to accommodate families that might have come from a European background?

I don't know anything about psychology (Although the old man has PHD on it, I might ask him about this, come to think of it), but I would imagine that there would be some way to measure the mental capacity/maturity of a child to see if they are indeed ready for sex.

Having said that, It would be a little pointless, laws are there to be broken, and I've never seen age of consent laws actually working. If a 16 year old wants to have sex in America, then I doubt anyone could stop him/her (At least, I hope that's the case, it means that if I suddenly decide to pack my bags and head for the US I can get some action).
From what I understand, the uniform age of consent down here is 16, although it's never really been a political issue down here, like religion, it just simply doesn't rate a mention. Almost as if nobody cares.
As for the US/Europe point, I agree that if a European decides to move to the US, then yes, they should abide by the laws of the US. If they don't like them, they can either ignore them (Which puts them at risk of prosecution), try to get them changed, or simply move back to Europe.

quote:

Again I'd like to leave gay adoption out of this for the time being... but in any event, yes, I agree that the marital benefits should really only be conferred upon those who actually have children or intend to have them at some point. However, once again, from a policy standpoint, we can't really do a full-scale investigation on every couple wanting to get married, so we just assume that every couple might have kids. A homosexual couple, however, is pretty much guaranteed not to reproduce, so from a policy standpoint, it doesn't make much sense to give them childcare benefits.

Agreed, idealistically gays could just be given civil unions, and if they decide to adopt, they could apply to have childcare/traditional marriage benefits added on to that.

quote:

The "consent" issue is no less subjective than the "morality" issue when it comes to homosexuality. While I understand where you're coming from, it doesn't hold water as a logical argument because it essentially depends on one's personal opinion. I don't even think there are laws against bestiality (although someone might feel free to correct me if I'm wrong), so it follows that the state doesn't view this as rape or cruelty. And even if there are laws against it in this country, I know for a fact that there aren't laws against it everywhere.

Yeah, I do understand that morality is essentially subjective, as there a no moral absolutes. However, if someone/something clearly does not consent/agree to having sex, then I think that can be classed as rape. eg, if someone wants to ave sex with an animal, and the animal physically struggles, then yes, I think that they are not consenting to it. Once again, it would be an interesting topic to cover, but it's taking us off track.

quote:

No need to repeat my comment about adoption, but other than that, I'm not disagreeing with you - I simply don't see it happening, though, because it's not efficient for the government to implement. Yes, they should, but they won't. It's a good idea in an idealistic sense, but it's just not practical. What's practical is to keep things just as they are.

I am a tad idealistic at times, I recognize that, I suppose it's something that I'll have to learn to avoid as I get older. I pretty much agree with everything else I've seen you 'say'/post on ta, so hey, you mustn't be such a bad guy after all.

Nice double post Arctic.

quote:

Originally posted by arctic As I said earlier, it is a very interesting area. If they can't necessarily agree, then in my opinion that also means that they can't agree either. I suppose the only way to test it is to hook various animals up to a brain monitor and get someone to 'have their way' with them to see if they object, although I can't imagine this happening to be honest.

I assume you meant to say that if they can't necessarily disagree, then it means they can't agree either. However, the entire concept of "agreement" depends on a kind of sentience that the animals don't have. What you're saying is really no better than the implication that guys who masturbate with the vacuum cleaner are raping it. But honestly, if you're really going to get picky then I'll say this: when an un-spayed or un-neutered dog routinely humps your leg, it looks like consent to me.

And again, I'm not even sure if there are really laws against this. I find it morally reprehensible but I don't think it's illegal. However, if you put a white dress on a racoon and told everyone that you were making it your bride, most people would probably laugh in your face. This isn't about sex, which was never the issue, it's about marriage.

quote:

I also feel like being a picky bastard here, so here goes. Don't male horses have their, well, genitalia removed though? As far as I know all horses are de-sexed before being allowed to race, as if they're concerned about the Phillies, they often refuse to run.

This is slightly off-topic, but let me ask you, which do you think is worse treatment to an animal, screwing it or cutting off its genitalia?

In any event, they may well do this, I'm really not an authority. I do know that what I said earlier is common practice though - I'm not sure in which instances, but if I had to guess, I'd say it's done by owners who don't want to be so cruel as to castrate them.

quote:

I don't know anything about psychology (Although the old man has PHD on it, I might ask him about this, come to think of it. ), but I would imagine that there would be some way to measure the mental capacity/maturity of a child to see if they are indeed ready for sex.

And yet this is not done - why? Because it doesn't make sense, from a policy standpoint. It's not practical. Theoretically, a 12-year-old could have the physical capacity to reproduce and the mental capacity to consent to sex and care for a child, but generally we assume that's not the case, so we simply rule against it in law. Or rather, we don't literally rule against it, we simply don't hand them out the privilege of getting married.

quote:

Having said that, It would be a little pointless, laws are there to be broken, and I've never seen age of consent laws actually working. If a 16 year old wants to have sex in America, then I doubt anyone could stop him/her (At least, I hope that's the case, it means that if I suddenly decide to pack my bags and head for the US I can get some action). From what I understand, the uniform age of consent down here is 16, although it's never really been a political issue down here, like religion, it just simply doesn't rate a mention. Almost as if nobody cares. As for the US/Europe point, I agree that if a European decides to move to the US, then yes, they should abide by the laws of the US. If they don't like them, they can either ignore them (Which puts them at risk of prosecution), try to get them changed, or simply move back to Europe.

You're sort of missing the point; it's not about the sex, it's about the marriage. The age of consent is 14 but the age of marriage is still 18, I think. What I'm trying to say is, just because it's okay for them to have sex, does not automatically mean they should be allowed to get married. A 14-year-old is not likely to be able to care for children, and if you have any doubts about that, just watch Jerry Springer sometime.

To recap: just because as a society we're happy with two people fucking each other's brains out, does not mean we're going to bend over backwards to accomodate them in every legal aspect.

quote:

Agreed, idealistically gays could just be given civil unions, and if they decide to adopt, they could apply to have childcare/traditional marriage benefits added on to that.

Makes sense to me! IF adoption sems like a socially feasible thing to do, after a little bit of unbiased research is done (this means not done by churches OR bleeding-heart liberals).

Oh and Tito:

quote:

Originally posted by DigiNut Nice double post Arctic.

Double post, what double post? Please tell me you aren't seeing things!

quote:

I assume you meant to say that if they can't necessarily disagree, then it means they can't agree either. However, the entire concept of "agreement" depends on a kind of sentience that the animals don't have. What you're saying is really no better than the implication that guys who masturbate with the vacuum cleaner are raping it. But honestly, if you're really going to get picky then I'll say this: when an un-spayed or un-neutered dog routinely humps your leg, it looks like consent to me. And again, I'm not even sure if there are really laws against this. I find it morally reprehensible but I don't think it's illegal. However, if you put a white dress on a racoon and told everyone that you were making it your bride, most people would probably laugh in your face. This isn't about sex, which was never the issue, it's about marriage.

Yes, I did. Still, a vacuum cleaner isn't living and can't feel anything/has no awareness of what's going on. Bah, I say we open up a separate thread if we're going to harp on about it. As for the raccoon point, is a raccoon human? I think that's a key distinction that needs to be made myself, I see a clear difference between different types of 'abnormal' sexual behavior myself, but hey, that's just me.

quote:

This is slightly off-topic, but let me ask you, which do you think is worse treatment to an animal, screwing it or cutting off its genitalia?

Hmm, I disagree with cutting off it's genitalia, and since I'm not an expert on animal psychology/brain functions, I'm not going to comment on the latter.

quote:

In any event, they may well do this, I'm really not an authority. I do know that what I said earlier is common practice though - I'm not sure in which instances, but if I had to guess, I'd say it's done by owners who don't want to be so cruel as to castrate them.

From what I understood it (castration) was common practice, or at least that's what the commentators at the Melbourne cup (Biggest horse race in the southern Hemisphere, or so I am led to believe) regularly say.

I'm not going to disagree with the rest of your post, I understand the point on not bending over backwards, that's why I've come to agree that a civil union isn't necessarily such a bad compromise, although the marriage being reserved for people who want kids/homosexuals who adopt (if that's proved to be ok for the child) being my first preference. I was extremely sleepy when I wrote my last reply, so if I was confusing sex/marriage, then that explains it.

I think all sex is wrong and that only by aliens using technology should we divide ourselves into clones and then kill ourselves to let our new selves continue on in our stead. The AOISPAD statistics show that 99% of all alien cloning are benefical to society. You can do a search on it.

quote:

Originally posted by Orbax I think all sex is wrong and that only by aliens using technology should we divide ourselves into clones and then kill ourselves to let our new selves continue on in our stead. The AOISPAD statistics show that 99% of all alien cloning are benefical to society. You can do a search on it.

On that note, I vote that we end this thread once and for all.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.