yguy

So we can look forward to the day when pedophilia is legitimized? If not, why not, since there is nothing in your reasoning that would dictate otherwise?

What do you suppose will prevent that from happening? Society drawing the line at incestuous marriages? If people who favor such marriages say to the homosexuals (who would presumably agree with the consensus view that the line SHOULD be drawn there), "Why do you guys have the right to be legitimized, but we don't", how can you possibly respond without being hypocritical?

yguy

This is only another version of Dr. Rick's latest demonstration - which I've already refuted - of the intellectual bankruptcy of the position of the homosexual rights movement. Do me a flavor, and don't waste my time with any more bilge like this.

Treacle Worshipper

Originally posted by yguy
So we can look forward to the day when pedophilia is legitimized? If not, why not, since there is nothing in your reasoning that would dictate otherwise?

All the forms of marriage which we have so far discussed are based on two or more adults marrying. Adults generally have the capacity to give informed consent. Children do not have the capacity to give informed consent; this is why they are not allowed to vote or sign contracts, and also why they would not be allowed to consent to marriage. Therefore, no paedophilic marriages.

What do you suppose will prevent that from happening? Society drawing the line at incestuous marriages? If people who favor such marriages say to the homosexuals (who would presumably agree with the consensus view that the line SHOULD be drawn there), "Why do you guys have the right to be legitimized, but we don't", how can you possibly respond without being hypocritical?

I thought I covered this in my last post - I have no logical problem with adult incestuous marriage, it has been practised before and might be practiced again. There is no hypocrisy in my particular position.
If society decides otherwise, society will have to come up with a reason not to legitimise it. Possibly the greatly increased risk of birth defects could be one reason not to legalise incestuous marriages, I don't know.
TW

yguy

Advocates for pedophilia have argued that children are capable of giving informed consent, that in fact they often take the dominant role in such relationships. On what basis do we presume to enforce age of consent laws which restrict a child's "right" to sexual expression?

Only true with respect to incest. Presumably there are "marriages" you would find morally repugnant, at which point the same question would arise.

What happened to a woman's "reproductive rights"?

FOIL

Whew! I've just read through this thread, and it's quite a job!

I've been lurking around here for quite a while, but I don't usually post (in fact, I think the last time I posted was at least a year ago...). Anyway, this topic interests me and so I'm delurking.

A question I have: the statistical evidence provided seems rather solid, but its connection to the topic rather weak. What exactly is the causal link between the legitimization of gay marriage and the social problems observed when families break up or when children are raised without necessary support?



FOIL

Treacle Worshipper

Originally posted by yguy
Advocates for pedophilia have argued that children are capable of giving informed consent, that in fact they often take the dominant role in such relationships. On what basis do we presume to enforce age of consent laws which restrict a child's "right" to sexual expression?

On the same basis that we restrict a child's right to vote & to buy a house or fast car, presumably. Equally, on what basis do we force a child to go to school, thereby restricting its "right" to play all day?

(Aside: It depends what you consider paedophilic, as well. Many marriages of 12 & 13 year olds were performed - and consummated - in the Middle Ages. These were not considered paedophilic, obviously. Personally, I don't think anyone should be allowed to marry before the age of 18. (You can marry at 16 in the UK, if you have your parents' consent.))

Only true with respect to incest. Presumably there are "marriages" you would find morally repugnant, at which point the same question would arise.

Consenting adults can do whatever they choose, AFAIAC. That's my baseline for relationship morality.

What happened to a woman's "reproductive rights"?
<shrug> I wasn't arguing the point, I was giving an example of why society might choose to restrict incestuous marriage.
TW

Dr Rick

This is the slippery slope fallacy

This argument implies that should one event occur, so will other harmful events, though there is no evidence provided that one is causally related to the other.

yguy has presented no evidence that allowing gays and lesbians the same legal rights to marry that heterosexual couples now have will lead to pedophilia, incestuous marriages, or the lowering of the age of consent any more than straight marriages do now.

Rick

Philosoft

Don't pat yourself on the back just yet. If I recall, your "refutation" consisted of labeling homosexuality a mere behavior, then claiming that "fact" wasn't enough to justify making homosexuals a protected class. Two problems:

1) Your position presupposes that homosexual behavior is entirely learned or a result of an entirely free-willed decision. You have shown neither of these, and twin studies suggest there is at least some genetic component.

2) Thanks to the Civil Rights Act of 1964, religion is also a protected class. It is possible to make a case, with at least as much empirical foundation as your homosexuality hypothesis, that religion is also a behavior or set-of-behaviors that are under conscious control.

I don't think you have any business asking for favors around here. Smugness is hardly an endearing trait.

yguy

I've never claimed a causal relationship between homosexuality and pedophilia. I claim that the rationalizations for legitimization of pedophilia and the rationalizations for legitimatization of homosexuality come from the same mindset, and that, if you can condone the first, you cannot logically anathemize the second with respect to some objective standard - because justification for the first was essentially consensus-based, having nothing to do with objective morality.

Actually, I've never said that any of that WILL happen, I'm just asking what would logically justify maintaing AOC laws and the like other than consensus.

yguy

A genetic component is irrelevant. We all carry the genetic inclination to do things we shouldn't, whether it's serial murder or trying to shove our religion down someone's throat.

I'm not familiar with the details of the act, but I don't see the relevance. I don't see why religion deserves any special protection beyond the 1st amendment.

That reminds me: this place needs a "smirk" emoticon.