Sanctity of Marriage

[Zzyzx]

.
From somewhere on the web

Thirty eight million people registered on an infidelity website, but don't forget it's the gays who are "Ruining the sanctity of marriage"

Surely none of those 38 million who seek adulterous relationships are Christians. Right?

At least, they aren't REAL Christians -- or they aren't from my church / sect. Right?

[enviousintheeverafter]

I have made some suggestions (eg parental oversight), which you have not addressed.

Why would you suppose that parental oversight would reduce/prevent any of the harms of pedophilia? What/how, exactly, is that supposed to help anything?

I'm willing to take this concession from you

You mean, you're willing to give this concession to me. But then, you've conceded the original claim, since-

... to grant that pedophilia, or incest, would have to be restricted in some way to reduce the level of harm in order for the lack of harm argument for SSM to apply in either case is equivalent to conceding that the SSM argument doesn't apply to pedophilia or incest after all

[Paprika]

I have made some suggestions (eg parental oversight), which you have not addressed.

Why would you suppose that parental oversight would reduce/prevent any of the harms of pedophilia? What/how, exactly, is that supposed to help anything?

It prevents or can help minimise egregious abuse: eg if the kid doesn't want to continue but the adult wants to.

I'm willing to take this concession from you

You mean, you're willing to give this concession to me. But then, you've conceded the original claim, since-

... to grant that pedophilia, or incest, would have to be restricted in some way to reduce the level of harm in order for the lack of harm argument for SSM to apply in either case is equivalent to conceding that the SSM argument doesn't apply to pedophilia or incest after all

As long as it applies to some pedophilia or incest the original claim stands; you know very well that we did not have in mind, for example, that the arguments for SSM would logically also condone, for example, incest of the type 'fertile siblings of the same sex knowingly having children' or pedophilia of the type 'forceful non-consensual sex with children'. The original claim was that the condonation of some pedophilia or incest is logically implied, and the implication exists, then the claim is vindicated.

[enviousintheeverafter]

It prevents or can help minimise egregious abuse: eg if the kid doesn't want to continue but the adult wants to.

And what reason is there to think that minimizing "egregious abuse" would negate most of the psychological harms of child/adult sexual relations- that the minimal conditions for long-term psychological harm would not still be met?

As long as it applies to some pedophilia or incest the original claim stands

Well no, the new, qualified claim would stand- but it remains to be shown that it could apply to any pedophilia anyways. We've yet to see any reason to think that the harm of pedophilia could be reduced to a level comparable to SSM under any conditions.

you know very well that we did not have in mind, for example, that the arguments for SSM would logically also condone, for example, incest of the type 'fertile siblings of the same sex knowingly having children' or pedophilia of the type 'forceful non-consensual sex with children'.

No, I don't know that, because this is the first time you've made that qualification.

The original claim was that the condonation of some pedophilia or incest is logically implied, and the implication exists, then the claim is vindicated.

No, there were no qualifications of "some"-

Might this not be a prediction that further changes in our morés are coming upon us: poligamy, polyandry, child love including marriage as used by the pedophile community which seems to be huge, etc?

Logically these should follow from the principles that many have argued for changing the definition of marriage from male-female to include male-male

The original claim has already been abandoned. Which was, of course, inevitable; the original claim wasn't credible.

[Paprika]

No, I don't know that, because this is the first time you've made that qualification.

Quite. And instead of asking what was intended, you assumed an implicit 'all pedophilia/incest/etc etc will be legalised' when what was intended was a pretty obvious implicit 'some'.

If that's going to be all, thank you for conceding.

[enviousintheeverafter]

No, I don't know that, because this is the first time you've made that qualification.

Quite. And instead of asking what was intended, you assumed an implicit 'all pedophilia/incest/etc etc will be legalised' when what was intended was a pretty obvious implicit 'some'.

It was not obvious, and I tend to assume that posters mean what they write. That you did not in this case strikes me as a problem lying on your end, not mine.

If that's going to be all, thank you for conceding.

Conceding what? My original point remains; the argument for SSM does not implicate pedophilia, or incest. Your new, goalpost-shifted claim- that, if there were a way to eliminate the harm of pedophilia (and we have yet to be given any reason to think there is, short of eliminating pedophilia itself), and/or if incestual relationships between consenting adults were to require mandatory permanent contraception, then the SSM argument could apply. But that obviously doesn't contradict my original assertion, and given your/truscott's original stated claim, its clear who has made the concession here (i.e. regardless of these dubious claims about what you actually secretly meant). But thanks for playing; better luck next time.

[Paprika]

No, I don't know that, because this is the first time you've made that qualification.

Quite. And instead of asking what was intended, you assumed an implicit 'all pedophilia/incest/etc etc will be legalised' when what was intended was a pretty obvious implicit 'some'.

It was not obvious, and I tend to assume that posters mean what they write. That you did not in this case strikes me as a problem lying on your end, not mine.

And so I did. I did not write "all incest", for example

If that's going to be all, thank you for conceding.

Conceding what? My original point remains; the argument for SSM does not implicate pedophilia, or incest. Your new, goalpost-shifted claim- that, if there were a way to eliminate the harm of pedophilia (and we have yet to be given any reason to think there is, short of eliminating pedophilia itself), and/or if incestual relationships between consenting adults were to require mandatory permanent contraception, then the SSM argument could apply.

As before, my claim has not shifted, only you claiming it does because you've lost on incest. What was the argument for SSM? That non-harmful behaviours should be allowed. So non-harmful same-sex marriages are allowed (but not marriages to minors). Similarly, non-harmful incest should be allowed.

Good day.

[enviousintheeverafter]

As before, my claim has not shifted, only you claiming it does because you've lost on incest.

Obviously not, since you've conceded that, like pedophilia, the harm argument doesn't apply to incest as such, but only in cases/under the conditions where the harms of incest have been eliminated.

What was the argument for SSM? That non-harmful behaviours should be allowed. So non-harmful same-sex marriages are allowed (but not marriages to minors). Similarly, non-harmful incest should be allowed.

Agreed. As I said, better luck next time.