MOTR wrote on Jun 14
th, 2012 at 6:47pm:
longweekend58 wrote on Jun 14
th, 2012 at 9:14am:
MOTR wrote on Jun 14
th, 2012 at 1:28am:
longweekend58 wrote on Jun 13
th, 2012 at 8:06pm:
MOTR wrote on Jun 13
th, 2012 at 7:26pm:
Those claiming some sort of equivalency between pedophilia and homosexuality are as offensive as a those who compare interracial sex to bestiality.
sigh. no one and I repeat NO ONE is comparing the two behaviours. they are comparing the supporting arguments and finding they are almost identical.
THAT IS THE ARGUMENT
It's a long thread, Longy, I might have missed the post, but I have yet to see you make this argument. I've seen you jump to this conclusion, but I've yet to see you make the argument. For the two arguments to be "almost" identical they would have to have "almost" identical premises. It's the implied premise I find offensive.
grandmaster and I have bothe been making the same point: that the arguments used in favour of gay marriage are the same that could be used in support of incest etc. Both of us are saying that the gay marriage arguments presented are so far, unpersuasive. You may beieve in gay marriage and clearly you do, but the arguments for it however are not very convincing beyong 'I support it'. And of course, that is your right. What we are saying is that dont pretend that your position is based on overwhelming argument. it isnt.
Again you are implying some sort of equivalency between homosexuality and incest. One is accepted by mainstream society, the other is not. The argument you are using could be used to outlaw homosexual acts not just marriages. We accepted homosexuality but we don't accept incest, so clearly we are capable of making a legal and moral distinction.
How about you pretend you are sitting a critical reasoning exam and outline your argument.
The reasons outlined in this thread for accepting homosexual/
interracial marriage are;
1) it is discrimination to forbid people equality based on being different.
2) if it doesn't effect you personally, you don't have a right to object
3) if it doesn't hurt anyone and is between legally consenting people there is no grounds to object.
4) ones personal moral opinion is irrelevant. Just because someone disapproves or it violates their personal beliefs, is not justification for outlawing another's personal desires.These have been the 4 reasons presented in this thread.
However, there are other forms of sexual relations that do not violate these 4 rules. For example, two brothers wishing to be married does not violate these 4 rules;
1) it is discrimination to forbid these two brothers equality based on them being different.
2) their relationship doesn't effect me personally.
3) their relationship doesn't hurt anyone and is between legally consenting people.
4) Just because I disapprove and it violates my personal beliefs, that is not justification for outlawing their wish to be married.As yet, no one in this thread has given a suitable reason as to why incest in the above example is morally wrong and should not be accepted, while homosexuality/
interracial attraction is not wrong and should be accepted.
This does not mean that those arguing that homsexuality is wrong are claiming that homosexuality/
interracial relationships = incest. Just because two things are wrong does not make them equally wrong. But if one is to be classed as wrong while the other acceptable, there must be way by which to make that discernment.
However, those arguing for gay/
interracial marriage have so far not been able to outline the criteria that is to be used for claiming that one form of sexual relationship is acceptable while the other is wrong, other than by personal opinion.