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?

[Goat]

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?

According to natural law theory, acceptable sexual practices are those that further the efficient and final causes, while an unacceptable sexual practice is one that frustrates the efficient and final causes.

Since the final cause of sex is procreation, those sexual practices which frustrate that end goal would be unacceptable.

A couple that engaged only in oral sex would be unacceptable, while a couple that engages in oral and vaginal sex could be acceptable. A couple that engaged only in anal sex would be unacceptable, while a couple that engages in anal and vaginal sex could be acceptable. A heterosexual couple that married for the sole reason of not having kids would be unacceptable, while a heterosexual couple that married, but could not have kids could be acceptable.

Whatever path it takes to get there, the ultimate (or final) goal of sex is procreation.

Why do I oppose gay marriage? It frustrates nature's final cause of procreation. (Realizing how controversial my response is, I can't wait to read the responses!)

So, infertile couples are 'right out'?? Why must procreation be the goal? I mean, the bible DID say 'go and multiply over the earth', but we did that, excessively as a matter of fact.

[4gold]

So, infertile couples are 'right out'?? Why must procreation be the goal? I mean, the bible DID say 'go and multiply over the earth', but we did that, excessively as a matter of fact.

No, infertile couples are not out. First of all, I can't tell you the number of times that supposedly "infertile" couples gave birth. But second of all, natural law deals with potency and actuality. All that is required in natural law is the potential to give birth, not the actuality of giving birth.

Also, I noticed you mentioned the Bible, but natural law theory is a secular theory, not based in religion. The potency and actuality was most famously articulated by Aristotle.

[Goat]

So, infertile couples are 'right out'?? Why must procreation be the goal? I mean, the bible DID say 'go and multiply over the earth', but we did that, excessively as a matter of fact.

No, infertile couples are not out. First of all, I can't tell you the number of times that supposedly "infertile" couples gave birth. But second of all, natural law deals with potency and actuality. All that is required in natural law is the potential to give birth, not the actuality of giving birth.

Also, I noticed you mentioned the Bible, but natural law theory is a secular theory, not based in religion. The potency and actuality was most famously articulated by Aristotle.

Well, I am not quite sure what Aristotle meant by 'natural law' is the same as you interpret him as. A lot of what is considered by Aristotle and natural law comes through Aquinas.. and a lot of people don't think he interpreted Aristotle correctly.

I personally reject that concept totally.

[4gold]

Well, I am not quite sure what Aristotle meant by 'natural law' is the same as you interpret him as. A lot of what is considered by Aristotle and natural law comes through Aquinas.. and a lot of people don't think he interpreted Aristotle correctly.

I personally reject that concept totally.

You are correct. My understanding of Aristotle's Natural Law theory comes through Aquinas. Apparently, almost of all Aristotle's original works are missing, so we learn the most about him through others who reference him.

I understand your rejection of natural law completely. I only reject the positive law of natural law theory, but I believe the negative law of natural law theory is still applicable today.

[connermt]

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?

Society evolves. As this happens, their rules of right/wrong and what is/isn't taboo evolve as does religion. Simply because "XYZ" is changing now doesn't automatically all other variations of "XYZ" need to/are going to be addressed at the same time.
Inter-racial marriages were taboo (still are in some places). But because society was dealing with this issue didn't mean it was also dealing with women's right, gay marriage, rich vs. poor, etc.
This also applies to some of the things you asked about.
Societies change over time. What was once OK becomes NOT OK, then OK again, etc.
In addition, it can also vary from one society to another, even at the same time.
Where do we draw the line? Where ever society draws the line at the time.
One thing at a time.