View Single Post
Old 12-06-2003, 03:04 AM   #78
CloseTheBlastDo
Rookie
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 185
Quote:
But the point remains - you can't know, so you err on the side of caution. But the animal was to consent (in some strange way, it's just a thought) it would be just as right as homosexuality.
Hmm - I think you would have been wiser to drop this particular sub-topic, but oh well.

Trying to compare beastiality to homosexuality is simply and utterly perposterous. Please get serious.

To try and tackle the ACTUAL issue you are trying to get at, consenting does not automatically mean right. This has already been pretty well established on both sides of the argument, so I really wish you'd stop trying to milk it for all it's worth, especially in this way.

Incest we've already covered.

A minor CAN consent to under-age sex, but it would still be illegal. Well, while different laws in different countries can take slightly different stances on the details, the 'moral' behind it is clear...
...a minor has reduced rights because they are considered not old enough to make their own informed desicions - and this doesn't just incude sex, it covers many other areas (drinking & smoking, driving a car etc. etc.)

So please drop the 'were trying to say literally ANYTHING concentual is ok'. There are limits - we just need to define them sensibly and (this is the important word) FAIRLY.

Quote:
Morality is internal, yes. But it's based on external truth, or should be.
Morals are how we 'react' to the truth.
So first you have to actually know WHAT the facts are -THEN you can make a sound moral judgement.

...so what are the truths about homosexuality?

I have referenced the brain studies, which have also been referenced by others in this thread. THis evidence clearly indicates that homosexual traits - in the majority of cases - are inborn and not learned.

...dispute the evidence, or accept the fact.

You have only provided ONE actual source of information thus far regarding homosexuality - namely the duration and 'strength' (for want of a better term) of homosexual relationships.

I will not dispute the statistic mentioned - the study seems to be legit from what I can tell, although I've only looked into it briefly.

..but I want to contest how meaningful (if at all) this statistic is to your argument.

To start with, I want to quote from a Christian site teaching about the benefits of fidelity within marriage (the particular section I've marked in bold):

Quote:
Christian teaching about sex outside marriage being off limits is just that sex outside marriage, not just sex before marriage. Christian marriages are not immune from the pressures that other marriages have, Christian marriages breakdown because of adultery. The statistics are horrifying, particularly amongst those involved in positions of leadership in churches.
So -wait a sec -isn't this passage saying that ALL relationships are prone to infidelity? Both homosexual and hetrosexual?!! Ohh wait - not just hetrosexual, but marriages made up of Christians!!. ...and wait - it get's even better. THe statistics are even more shocking for church leaders!!!

..wow - SHOCK HORROR!!
Well, the answer is obvious - make ALL marriages illegal, since it seems there are people from ALL kinds of demographics - and people who should CLEARLY know better - who can't seem to stay faithful..!!

THat doesn't demonstrate the pointlessness of this stance to you...?

..ok, fair enough. How about this...

Your saying that homosexual marriages shoudln't be allowed because a certain study shows that from data collected from certain towns and cities in England and Wales, the reported percentage of 'faithful' homosexual relationships is around 30%

OK - let's forget for a moment that this has any moral impact on whether homosexuals should be allowed to marry, and let's pretend this statistic actually has anything to do with the subject.

So - here's what we'll do. YOU decide what the minimum 'fidelity' percentage should be for ANY demographic. 30% is obviously too low for you, so it must be higher than that. I'll let you decide...

...40%? 50%? 60%? At what percentage does marriage become 'morally justified'? (btw - I'd be interested on which basis you reach the final figure...)

Now - once you have chosen the 'morally correct' percentage, I'll do my own bit of reserch. If I can find a particular demographic which also doesn't fit this criteria, then I'll say that those people shoudln't get married either.

...for example, if I can find a few towns where the HETROSEXUAL population show an fidelity rate BELOW the required boundry, I will say that ALL hetrosexuals should not get married.

...seems fair to me - don't you agree...?

Quote:
Just as I believe that premarital sex is wrong
..fine. You want to make that illegal too...?! In fact, why don't you just write a big list of all the things you don't like, and we'll get them all banned.

..can I make a list too? Cos I'd put boybands right up the top - now THERE is something disgusting and abhorent!
I HATE those f***ers! Get their unlawful arses behind bars I say!! ...for crimes against humanity...

Last edited by CloseTheBlastDo; 12-07-2003 at 04:55 PM.
CloseTheBlastDo is offline   you may: quote & reply,