The legalization of sexual preference.

[Ionian_Tradition]

In the United states, and abroad, there seems to be a recent push towards the promotion of equal rights to marriage for same sex couples as well as an exerted effort to abolish any previous held biases which might have, in the past, rendered homosexuality a cultural taboo. This issue is pegged as a civil rights issue which has gained a vast cult following which some liken to the civil rights movement of the 1960's. I've heard the arguments in support of marital equality. Contentions which claim that so long as homosexual relationships are not the cause of gratuitous suffering or harm, and are predicated upon a loving relationship shared between consenting adults, then such union should be honored in the eyes of the state. I've noticed however that the same arguments could be made in support of legalizing incestuous and polygamous marriages, yet these types of relationships are not championed by cultural and political activists. They remain, to this day, very much a taboo. But for consistency's sake, why should this be the case I wonder? How can we, with any measure of consistency, legislate marital, or civil, rights to a particular sexual orientation which conforms to our arbitrarily assigned standards of decency while denying the same to other sexual preferences, which also happen to meet these same exact standards of acceptability?

Where do we draw the line of distinction between an acceptable sexual practice and a less than acceptable practice? And what justification do we have for drawing it?

[Moses Yoder]

In today's world good and evil is totally subjective. Essentially the individual decides what is good and what is evil. This would mean that all laws should be eliminated, but we are not yet at that point. Where we are right now is that the majority decides what is right and what is wrong. If any over 50% of people believe same sex marriage is okay, then legally it should be okay. If over 50% believe it is wrong, then it should not be legal.

[playhavock]

If it causes no harm then we must alow it, even if we do not personaly like it.
Even if it causes harm, but that harm is known or minor - then I think we might have to alow it, even in hetrosexual relations some strange sexual activitys might take place that we otherwise object to - the whole suffaction as you have sex deal, for example, is one that can and does lead to death, and should not be done, but people do it. Can this be illegilsed, would making it illegal stop it? We could simply strive to encorage people to not do things that can harm themselfs and edujucate to the facts of the matter.

So to adress the question, I do not think we can draw a line, at all. Ever. What we need to do rather, but what I do not think we will do any time soon, is expand education not just to kids but to adults (for free somehow, or elemente money) and be open and honest about sex. Making it taboo and a mystery helps no one.

In Japan, the age of consent is 14 - that might seem young to those in America, but it makes sence because of the extream education that they have - by that age they understand what sex is all about. Its unlikely that due to there socity that someone older will marry or hook up with someone younger, but it can happen, and it is not anything "bad" for them. The law only interviens if eather person says "no" to the relationship - no meens no.

But, amierca is slow to change. I think that more freedom is a good thing for people and socity as a whole, but I do not think, sadly, that america is mature enough to handle it , thus my idea that we first must get the education going to get people to start thinking for themselfs.

these are my views on that subject.

[Bust Nak]

I draw the line at full consent. Incestuous and polygamous relationship have historically been one sided affairs. Where proper consent can be established, they should be legal.

In today's world good and evil is totally subjective. Essentially the individual decides what is good and what is evil.

Good and evil have always been totally subjective, there had never been a point in time when it wasn't up to the individual to decide what is good and what is evil.

This would mean that all laws should be eliminated, but we are not yet at that point.

This makes no sense, why would that mean that all laws should be eliminated?

Where we are right now is that the majority decides what is right and what is wrong. If any over 50% of people believe same sex marriage is okay, then legally it should be okay. If over 50% believe it is wrong, then it should not be legal.

Are you saying you perfer the medieval age where the kings and popes holding over 50% of the military power gets to decide what is legal and what isn't?

[Moses Yoder]

I draw the line at full consent. Incestuous and polygamous relationship have historically been one sided affairs. Where proper consent can be established, they should be legal..

At what age would you say a person is able to give consent? Three? How do you decide that?

In today's world good and evil is totally subjective. Essentially the individual decides what is good and what is evil.

Good and evil have always been totally subjective, there had never been a point in time when it wasn't up to the individual to decide what is good and what is evil.

Good and evil have never been subjective, and never will be.

This would mean that all laws should be eliminated, but we are not yet at that point.

This makes no sense, why would that mean that all laws should be eliminated?.

How can I decide what is good if the law prevents me from it? If I believe there is nothing worng with getting drunk and driving down the road, that should be my right; I see nothing wrong with it, and good and evil are subjective so I have the right to decide. Instead, some law throws me in prison for it; how can that be right? Someone else made the decision about what is right for me.

Where we are right now is that the majority decides what is right and what is wrong. If any over 50% of people believe same sex marriage is okay, then legally it should be okay. If over 50% believe it is wrong, then it should not be legal.

Are you saying you perfer the medieval age where the kings and popes holding over 50% of the military power gets to decide what is legal and what isn't?

How in the world do you get that from what I said? One person has one vote; that's it. You are saying one person has 50% of the vote; where did I ever say that?

[Divine Insight]

Where do we draw the line of distinction between an acceptable sexual practice and a less than acceptable practice? And what justification do we have for drawing it?

I personally feel that any two human beings who chose to live together should be honored in their choice. And this should include people who are very closely related and polygamy. Providing, of course, that these relationships are indeed consensual and no one is being coerced into anything. Is someone is being coerced into doing something against their will, that is in violation of other laws. So there's no need to even consider that aspect when deciding who should be permitted to marry.

What's wrong with closely related people marrying one another? You've mentioned incest, but incest isn't marriage. Incest really only occurs when procreation takes place between two very closely related individuals. Incest itself could be outlawed on medical grounds, because it's well known that babies produced from incest have a very high probability of having birth defects.

But what do you do if closely related people wish to marry and adopt children? Or perhaps they chose not to have children at all, and even take measure to assure that procreation isn't possible? Do you forbid that marriage simply because incest has a high rate of birth defects? That would no longer be a viable excuse to forbid these people from marrying.

One thing we need to look at long and hard is that many of our "moral values" are extremely antiquated. A mere 100 years we didn't have nearly the technology we have today. Therefore our moral values were focused on ignorance and lack of technology, as well as a deeper scientific understanding of things.

Now that we have a far deeper understanding of things, and the technology to by-pass or prevent things that we could not control in years gone by, we must reassess what we consider to be "moral".

Like I say, if the only reason for forbidding closely related people from marrying was because incest is highly likely to produce a deformed baby, and a modern day couple who is willing to by-pass that problem via the use of modern technology and/or adoption, then why should they be prevented from marrying?

The ancient reasons for why these things were originally taboo would no longer be applicable.

So all this modern technology and intellectual knowledge of how biology actually works has changed. Thus we have good reasons to re-visit what we consider to be taboo.

[Bust Nak]

At what age would you say a person is able to give consent? Three? How do you decide that?

Ideally by evaluating the maturity and mental capability of the person in question, case by case. Failing that, an informed decision of a blanket age limit, based on empirical evidence.

Good and evil have never been subjective, and never will be.

Then your contradict yourself when you said "in today's world good and evil is totally subjective."

How can I decide what is good if the law prevents me from it?

I am unaware of any law that prevents you from deciding what is good. I guess what you are really asking is how can you decide that something illegal is good? By simply disagreeing with the law. It's easy, let me demostrate: I believe the law preventing gay couples from marrying is immoral.

If I believe there is nothing worng with getting drunk and driving down the road, that should be my right; I see nothing wrong with it, and good and evil are subjective so I have the right to decide.

You do have that right to decide it's not wrong to drink and drive. You are lucky that you even have the right to try and get the law changed to match that opinion, many people don't have that.

Instead, some law throws me in prison for it; how can that be right?

There you go, you've just decided it's wrong to throw you in jail for drink driving. You knew how to do it all along. I told you it was easy.

Someone else made the decision about what is right for me.

No, only you can decide what is right for you. Someone else made the decision that throwing you into jail is right for him. More importantly, lots and lots of people agree with him.

And yes, I understand that you don't actually think that it's ok to drink and drive. Do my answers satisfy you that subjectivism doesn't require doing away with laws?

How in the world do you get that from what I said?

Because you were expressing your displeasure at the fact that now a days, what is and isn't legal has became a matter of popular vote.

One person has one vote; that's it.

Yes, that's what we do now a days. Apparently you don't like where we are right now.

You are saying one person has 50% of the vote; where did I ever say that?

That was simply the norm before the arrival of democracy.

[Moses Yoder]

At what age would you say a person is able to give consent? Three? How do you decide that?

Ideally by evaluating the maturity and mental capability of the person in question, case by case. Failing that, an informed decision of a blanket age limit, based on empirical evidence.

Good and evil have never been subjective, and never will be.

Then your contradict yourself when you said "in today's world good and evil is totally subjective."

How can I decide what is good if the law prevents me from it?

I am unaware of any law that prevents you from deciding what is good. I guess what you are really asking is how can you decide that something illegal is good? By simply disagreeing with the law. It's easy, let me demostrate: I believe the law preventing gay couples from marrying is immoral.

If I believe there is nothing worng with getting drunk and driving down the road, that should be my right; I see nothing wrong with it, and good and evil are subjective so I have the right to decide.

You do have that right to decide it's not wrong to drink and drive. You are lucky that you even have the right to try and get the law changed to match that opinion, many people don't have that.

Instead, some law throws me in prison for it; how can that be right?

There you go, you've just decided it's wrong to throw you in jail for drink driving. You knew how to do it all along. I told you it was easy.

Someone else made the decision about what is right for me.

No, only you can decide what is right for you. Someone else made the decision that throwing you into jail is right for him. More importantly, lots and lots of people agree with him.

How in the world do you get that from what I said?

Because you were expressing your displeasure at the fact that now a days, what is and isn't legal has became a matter of popular votes.

One person has one vote; that's it.

Yes, that's what we do now a days. Apparently you don't like where we are right now.

You are saying one person has 50% of the vote; where did I ever say that?

That was simply the norm before the arrival of democracy.

You're right about contradicting myself. I should have said "In todays world morality 'is viewed as' totally subjective."


If I am not allowed to do what I believe to be right, morality is not subjective. If morality were subjective there would be no laws dictating what I will get punished for if I choose to do it.

[Bust Nak]

If I am not allowed to do what I believe to be right, morality is not subjective. If morality were subjective there would be no laws dictating what I will get punished for if I choose to do it.

Are you equating legality with morality? They are ideally closely linked, but clearly they aren't the same thing - what is illegal isn't necessarily immoral, what is legal isn't necessarily moral.

And if you think you aren't equating legality with morality, I simply don't see why you would conclude that anything that one believe to be right, one should be allowed to do.

[Moses Yoder]

If I am not allowed to do what I believe to be right, morality is not subjective. If morality were subjective there would be no laws dictating what I will get punished for if I choose to do it.

Are you equating legality with morality? They are ideally closely linked, but clearly they aren't the same thing - what is illegal isn't necessarily immoral, what is legal isn't necessarily moral.

And if you think you aren't equating legality with morality, I simply don't see why you would conclude that anything that one believe to be right, one should be allowed to do.

I see your point, and am forced to agree with it. I therefore come to the conclusion that there is absolutely nothing wrong with not legally recognizing the marriage of homosexuals. After all, they are perfectly free to choose their morals as they wish; the law is not preventing them from it. In fact, there is no enforceable law against having homosexual relations. So what exactly is the problem? What is all the complaining about? What gives? We have determined that morals are totally subjective, anyone can do anything they please, and the law matters not a whit. We both agree on that.