Originally posted by Lucid Lunacy
the argument/rebuttal to come after that is polygomy marriage rights and or underage marriage rights etc.
Yep and animals. It's a common rebuttal. So I am confused on whether this is the slippery slope you yourself are concerned about?
well i drew the line on animals because it does not = consenting.
Originally posted by Lucid Lunacy
You do? Take homosexuals completely out of the equation. You're saying that you have been firmly believing heterosexual marriage is morally sound and
so is a 50 year old man marrying a 7 year old? That's what you just said. I am sure you don't really support that, right? So you drew a line there.
Taking homosexuality completely out of the equation we are able to support heterosexual marriage and yet still make a moral distinction that says that
other group (pedo's) should not be granted those rights. Allowing same-sex marriage will not change our ability to make and enforce those
distinctions...
yep thats what i said. one group should have the same rights of another group is the essence of the argument. however i do not personally agree that a
50 year old should marry a 7 year old and that be legal. i know full well that does nothing but harm to the 7year old. i also know that that 7 year
old is not at an age to be consensual.
again the formula im addressing here ... consensual is A HUGE part of the equation.
there is a very subjective argument as to when a human becomes consensual and it differs state to state. in one area it is okay to marry at a certain
age at another area its a different age. if people in a certain area wanted the age to be lower to have a consensual marriage how is this not to be
considered a civil rights issue? a consensual civil rights issue?
and i know u know what CR is but just putting it out there...
Civil and political rights are a class of rights that protect individuals' freedom from unwarranted infringement by governments and private
organizations, and ensure one's ability to participate in the civil and political life of the state without discrimination or repression.
Civil rights include the ensuring of peoples' physical and mental integrity, life and safety; protection from discrimination on grounds such as
physical or mental disability, gender, religion, race, national origin, age, status as a member of the uniformed services, sexual orientation, or
gender identity;[1][2][3] and individual rights such as privacy, the freedoms of thought and conscience, speech and expression, religion, the press,
and movement.
Originally posted by Lucid Lunacy
it's not a slippery slope at all. To think that somehow expanding our moral thinking entails we lose sight of boundaries is just bizarre to me and I
don't see any rational reason to think it will be the case.
im not directly saying that. i may be implying it in a very round about way but thats not what im trying to get at. what im dealing with here is
logic. logic we are using for the rights of same sex marriage.
Originally posted by Lucid Lunacy
Let's say every US state allows same-sex marriages. If a lesbian wife beats her lover to the point of death she would go to prison. Allowing them to
marry did not somehow disrupt the entirety of our moral thinking. That woman crossed an unacceptable moral boundary that was not affected by allowing
them to marry. That violent act is still criminal. That's just an example.
sorry im not quite certain as to why this comment is being made and what its referring to in my questioning. i may need more clarification to
understand the point here.
Originally posted by Lucid Lunacy
These are good questions. But these are not new questions. Questioning the nature of morality is certainly not exclusive to the gay rights movement.
oh of course not. these are not new questions. never thought they were. they are just at the forefront now for me because of this particular
mainstream issue. i have these same questions for older issues too.
Originally posted by Lucid Lunacy
The boundary should be what we a society deems morally correct. That can't be set in stone as the world changes, technology changes. The only thing
we can be certain of is that moral thinking needs to evolve alongside the World. For instance ethics concerning robotic sentience holds no bearing now
but it will in the future. The boundary needs to be continually challenged. What many seem to not understand is that 'awareness' is a crucial
component for this process.
true. very much agree here. so its a subjective boundary than. based on society and culture? now its beginning to make a little sense. its not
objective at all? so civil rights is subjective than?
I'm not wrong. 1-2% of the populaton is gay. The report that you claim says 11% has that number only when it includes experimentations. It
says so right in the report. And having one or two same sex incidents does NOT make a person 'gay'. I'm sorry that YOU can't admit that you are
wrong. The gay population is 1-2%. When bi-sexual is included it's 4%. Falsely hyping the numbers doesn't help your cause.
