| Author | Thread |
|
|
01/26/2010 04:06:16 PM · #4351 |
Originally posted by Matthew:
Originally posted by frisca:
sorry to do this, but next off-topic post gets this thread locked. |
It is a bit unfair to lock threads like this because they have taken an interesting, not unrelated detour.
It is not like other threads in which someone might be looking for guidance. This is more like the bar conversation threads - just a bit more interesting. |
I understand what you are saying, but its not fair to those wanting to talk about the actual topic. I'd be happy to copy over the last few posts to help with the conversation. |
|
|
|
01/26/2010 04:24:01 PM · #4352 |
This could get things back on track a bit. I was watching The Daily Show last night. I'm not a regular watcher, but Jon Stewart is a funny guy and also quite insightful on many issues. Yesterday he was doing a bit about South Carolina and how they just keep providing fodder for his show and he's really appreciative. Previously he had made some jokes aimed at the anti-gay marriage camp and we could all figure that he is for gay marriage without that anyway. However, one of his South Carolina jokes was about a man who had been arrested twice for having sex with a horse. The same horse. Obviously Jon thought the behavior was bizarre and worthy of ridicule.
My question for the Argument from Liberty crowd (which has been coming up lately again, "what is the harm done in gay marriage?"). Is Jon being fair? What is the harm in having sex with a horse? Is South Carolina being backward for actually having laws on the books that cover this? I just found it interesting that a reasonable guy like Jon might not understand that he has a "line" of proper behavior just like those who disagree with him, it's just that his line is in a different spot. The truth is, once a line is introduced that separates proper behavior from improper behavior (as long as it "doesn't harm anyone") then all bets are off and the placement of that line is arbitrary and up to society to decide. |
|
|
|
01/26/2010 04:30:29 PM · #4353 |
| A horse is not capable of legal consent. That's twice you've tried the same slippery slope fallacy despite being admonished the first time for the poor analogy. |
|
|
|
01/26/2010 04:31:25 PM · #4354 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
The truth is, once a line is introduced that separates proper behavior from improper behavior (as long as it "doesn't harm anyone") then all bets are off and the placement of that line is arbitrary and up to society to decide. |
And your society's decisions are consititutionally based. So... I ask again. What is your consititutionally viable argument for the discrimination of gay people?
Message edited by author 2010-01-26 16:32:37. |
|
|
|
01/26/2010 04:32:21 PM · #4355 |
So Sex With a Horse equals Gay Marriage somehow? Regardless of how lines are drawn, I fail to see the correlation. Really. Now if you want to correlate something with two consenting adults - ANYTHING - fine. But a guy and animals? Not quite same.
Reminds me a bit of the removed post earlier that nearly had me cancel my membership.... PM me if you want the particulars on that one. |
|
|
|
01/26/2010 04:34:59 PM · #4356 |
Consensual sex between adult humans of the same sex has been explicitly ruled "not harmful to anyone" by the SCOTUS, so quit posing questions which associate it with other behaviors. This "slippery slope" has a locked safety-gate at the top ...
The legal/constitutional issue is whether to treat any pairs of adult humans unequally based solely on their gender, not their species.
Message edited by author 2010-01-26 16:36:17. |
|
|
|
01/26/2010 04:36:01 PM · #4357 |
Originally posted by Melethia:
So Sex With a Horse equals Gay Marriage somehow? Regardless of how lines are drawn, I fail to see the correlation. Really. Now if you want to correlate something with two consenting adults - ANYTHING - fine. But a guy and animals? Not quite same.
Reminds me a bit of the removed post earlier that nearly had me cancel my membership.... PM me if you want the particulars on that one. |
Right, society's line is with adult human beings as you mention. We use that same line with other things too, like the right to vote, who pays taxes, etc, etc, but Jason's using a completely different book that doesn't even apply so his line is waaay off the charts.
Message edited by author 2010-01-26 16:37:32. |
|
|
|
01/26/2010 04:41:08 PM · #4358 |
LOL. Quite predictable. Your responses only bolster my argument. How could I even dare make such an association? Sex with horses is on THAT side of the line while gay marriage (or homosexual sex) is on THIS side of the line. All responses admit that a line exists...somewhere.
1) The two consenting adult argument is a red herring unless you are worried about the horse's rights. Am I all good to masturbate? That only has one consenting adult. The guy wasn't trying to marry the horse (as far as I know), he just wanted to have sex with it. What's the harm?
2) My question to Paul is why is the gate locked at the top? Why is the line there? No reason? And why do we find that sex with animals is at the bottom of a slope? It harms nobody so why do we perceive a slope at all?
Message edited by author 2010-01-26 16:42:31. |
|
|
|
01/26/2010 04:55:22 PM · #4359 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
LOL. Quite predictable. Your responses only bolster my argument. How could I even dare make such an association? Sex with horses is on THAT side of the line while gay marriage (or homosexual sex) is on THIS side of the line. All responses admit that a line exists...somewhere.
1) The two consenting adult argument is a red herring unless you are worried about the horse's rights. Am I all good to masturbate? That only has one consenting adult. The guy wasn't trying to marry the horse (as far as I know), he just wanted to have sex with it. What's the harm?
2) My question to Paul is why is the gate locked at the top? Why is the line there? No reason? And why do we find that sex with animals is at the bottom of a slope? It harms nobody so why do we perceive a slope at all? |
You think the horse enjoyed it? You're ignoring the whole mutual consent aspect in your arguement. |
|
|
|
01/26/2010 04:57:19 PM · #4360 |
It's the same line that divides sex from rape: legal consent.
I'm starting to think it would be more efficient to just list a bunch of common fallacies and address your questions by number rather than bothering to explain the flawed logic. :-/ |
|
|
|
01/26/2010 04:58:52 PM · #4361 |
Originally posted by scarbrd:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
LOL. Quite predictable. Your responses only bolster my argument. How could I even dare make such an association? Sex with horses is on THAT side of the line while gay marriage (or homosexual sex) is on THIS side of the line. All responses admit that a line exists...somewhere.
1) The two consenting adult argument is a red herring unless you are worried about the horse's rights. Am I all good to masturbate? That only has one consenting adult. The guy wasn't trying to marry the horse (as far as I know), he just wanted to have sex with it. What's the harm?
2) My question to Paul is why is the gate locked at the top? Why is the line there? No reason? And why do we find that sex with animals is at the bottom of a slope? It harms nobody so why do we perceive a slope at all? |
You think the horse enjoyed it? You're ignoring the whole mutual consent aspect in your arguement. |
I've never been around barnyard sex, but I can't imagine the horse really noticed if you get my drift. Anyway, mutual consent is an important aspect if we are worried about harm being done to one of the entities. We don't like sex with minors because we don't feel the minor is able to give consent AND harm could be done to the minor. In this case we really don't have a lot of worries about the horse. Honestly. We can enslave them. Send them to the glue factory. But we can't diddle them because we're worried about them? That just doesn't seem logical. A horse does not have the right to life and liberty, but he/she certainly has control over his/her orifices.
But I'm guessing the horse consented or the dude would have been in the hospital. You think you can force a horse to have sex with you? But, once again, even if it was a non-consentual relationship, who is being harmed?
If you need another way to see the flawed aspect of this reasoning. Do you guys really think the South Carolina law was put on the books to protect the horse?
Also, let's keep it clear that I'm only speaking to the Argument from Liberty line of thought. The one that says if there is no harm then it should be allowed.
Message edited by author 2010-01-26 17:02:04. |
|
|
|
01/26/2010 05:01:41 PM · #4362 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
We don't like sex with minors because we don't feel the minor is able to give consent AND harm could be done to the minor. ...even if [sex with a horse] was a non-consentual relationship, who is being harmed? |
Try that argument with an adult woman. Gay marriage is not sex with another species, so it's a red herring anyway.
Message edited by author 2010-01-26 17:03:11. |
|
|
|
01/26/2010 05:08:18 PM · #4363 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I've never been around barnyard sex, but I can't imagine the horse really noticed if you get my drift. |
Instead of horse, would you apply the same logic if it were a chicken? |
|
|
|
01/26/2010 05:23:19 PM · #4364 |
Originally posted by scarbrd:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I've never been around barnyard sex, but I can't imagine the horse really noticed if you get my drift. |
Instead of horse, would you apply the same logic if it were a chicken? |
Yes. I'm not concerned with the moral rights of the chicken. (I hope you realize that in reality I find sex with any barnyard animal to be bizarre and perverted.) Let me put it back to you. When you mention the mutual consent, what is your concern? |
|
|
|
01/26/2010 05:24:05 PM · #4365 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
We don't like sex with minors because we don't feel the minor is able to give consent AND harm could be done to the minor. ...even if [sex with a horse] was a non-consentual relationship, who is being harmed? |
Try that argument with an adult woman. Gay marriage is not sex with another species, so it's a red herring anyway. |
Line being drawn. That's all I'm after and the logical ramifications of such as they pertain to the Argument from Liberty crowd. |
|
|
|
01/26/2010 05:37:17 PM · #4366 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
LOL. Quite predictable. Your responses only bolster my argument. |
It should be predictable already. You've raced around your circular arguments about five dozens times already. Can we all just agree that there is a line and move forward? What you fail to grasp or conveniently ignore is in this society we draw lines based on the Constitution, which none of your arguments are founded on. |
|
|
|
01/26/2010 05:44:04 PM · #4367 |
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
LOL. Quite predictable. Your responses only bolster my argument. |
It should be predictable already. You've raced around your circular arguments about five dozens times already. Can we all just agree that there is a line and move forward? What you fail to grasp or conveniently ignore is in this society we draw lines based on the Constitution, which none of your arguments are founded on. |
1) A lot of what I'm talking about concerns morality and not legality. That argument doesn't care about the constitution because few people would argue that the constitution is the source for our morality.
2) I will drop it (with you at least), if I hear you say that if the SCOTUS upholds a ban on gay marriage that this means the constitution does not support gay marriage. It's no fair saying, "dude, it's all about the constitution and then if/when the ruling doesn't go your way say, well, they got it wrong." I'll respect your position if I hear you say that. I've already said the opposite if you are worried about me putting my money where my mouth is. |
|
|
|
01/26/2010 05:49:59 PM · #4368 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
A lot of what I'm talking about concerns morality and not legality. That argument doesn't care about the constitution because few people would argue that the constitution is the source for our morality. |
Gay marriage is not an issue of morality. You can personally think it's immoral all you want, but that alone does not make it illegal for the same reason we're not all required to eat kosher food. |
|
|
|
01/26/2010 05:50:42 PM · #4369 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
A lot of what I'm talking about concerns morality and not legality. That argument doesn't care about the constitution because few people would argue that the constitution is the source for our morality. |
Gay marriage is not an issue of morality. You can personally think it's immoral all you want, but that alone does not make it illegal for the same reason we're not all required to eat kosher food. |
I agree 100%. Morality and legality are two separate issues. But we could talk about the morality of a legal law. That would be a reasonable conversation.
Message edited by author 2010-01-26 17:51:17. |
|
|
|
01/26/2010 05:57:06 PM · #4370 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
What's the harm? |
The harm is in your bigoted (and snarky) implication of a causal relationship between people of the same gender wanting the same right to marry as any other two citizens, and in increase in the instance of bestiality -- an activity which, BTW, seems to have occured since the dawn of history.
I say only that right now there is a "legal" line -- the argument for whether or not human/animal sex is "moral" or not belongs in its own thread and not here. |
|
|
|
01/26/2010 05:58:25 PM · #4371 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Morality and legality are two separate issues. But we could talk about the morality of a legal law. |
Sure, we could... and it would be just as applicable as requiring people to eat kosher or wear veils. |
|
|
|
01/26/2010 06:19:26 PM · #4372 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by scarbrd:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I've never been around barnyard sex, but I can't imagine the horse really noticed if you get my drift. |
Instead of horse, would you apply the same logic if it were a chicken? |
Yes. I'm not concerned with the moral rights of the chicken. (I hope you realize that in reality I find sex with any barnyard animal to be bizarre and perverted.) Let me put it back to you. When you mention the mutual consent, what is your concern? |
Well, one is a public safety concern. Do you want people having sex with animals also having sex with humans and all that goes with that?
|
|
|
|
01/26/2010 06:33:01 PM · #4373 |
Originally posted by scarbrd:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by scarbrd:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I've never been around barnyard sex, but I can't imagine the horse really noticed if you get my drift. |
Instead of horse, would you apply the same logic if it were a chicken? |
Yes. I'm not concerned with the moral rights of the chicken. (I hope you realize that in reality I find sex with any barnyard animal to be bizarre and perverted.) Let me put it back to you. When you mention the mutual consent, what is your concern? |
Well, one is a public safety concern. Do you want people having sex with animals also having sex with humans and all that goes with that? |
I dunno. Do you have any evidence of barnyard to human transmitted STDs? I'm unaware of anything like that. Wait, except HIV was from people having sex with Chimps right? (wrong) |
|
|
|
01/26/2010 06:33:38 PM · #4374 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
What's the harm? |
The harm is in your bigoted (and snarky) implication of a causal relationship between people of the same gender wanting the same right to marry as any other two citizens, and in increase in the instance of bestiality -- an activity which, BTW, seems to have occured since the dawn of history.
I say only that right now there is a "legal" line -- the argument for whether or not human/animal sex is "moral" or not belongs in its own thread and not here. |
Line in the sand duly noted. BTW, just for the record, in no way shape or form am I trying to make the argument that gay marriage is going to lead to more sex with horses. |
|
|
|
01/26/2010 06:42:36 PM · #4375 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
BTW, just for the record, in no way shape or form am I trying to make the argument that gay marriage is going to lead to more sex with horses. |
Then why mention such an irrelevant issue in this thread other than for inflammatory value?
BTW: In the past couple of years, since gay marriage has been legalized in a few places, the overall incidence of violent crime has dropped sharply nationwide. Not that there's any cause/effect relationship you understand ...
Message edited by author 2010-01-26 18:44:42. |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 08/05/2025 06:42:07 AM EDT.
