DescentBB

Sergeant Thorne wrote:.. I have a challenge for anyone who's interested: explain why an anti-sodomy law is different from a law prohibiting sex with close relatives or minors.

Most people have accepted the idea of gay sex where as most people have not accepted the idea of inbreeding and pedophilia.
The arguments against one are based in scientific and pschological schools of thought, the arguments against the other (gay sex) are based primarily in religious schools of thought.

General morality has evolved to accept sodomy so the only organized body to oppose it comes from a religious authority and bigoted mindsets. The laws against pedophilia and incest have a secular appeal to them that bigots can stand behind as well...(pun intended).

Sergeant Thorne wrote:So the unanswered question, put more pointedly, is why does society have the right to impose restriction on certain behaviors, and the question that naturally follows in this case would be why does it not have the right to restrict sodomy if it may restrict other aberrant behavior. This is bearing in mind that the relatively recent campaign to characterize homosexuality as a natural and even perfectly healthy part of humanity or nature, present as such throughout history, is as contrived as it is subjective.

The government has the right to restrict your behavior if you're violating someone else's rights. Just by having sex with another consenting adult, you're not violating anyone's rights. If you're engaging in incest, you're violating the rights of your future children. If you're having sex with a minor, since the minor cannot legally consent, you're automatically violating the minor's rights (the argument for sex with animals is analogous).

And what if you are engaging in something that can cause or spread a disease, can society have something to say about that?

Just answer in the general sense.

Can you tell someone not to kiss another person?

Spidey wrote:And what if you are engaging in something that can cause or spread a disease, can society have something to say about that?

Just answer in the general sense.

If the action can cause or sustain an epidemic or, even without reaching epidemic proportions, if you are infecting people in the process of performing employment they can/do.

If you knowingly infect someone with a life threatening disease even in the act of making love you are most likely liable in a civil action even though there is no criminal court jurisdiction over two consenting adults making love.

I think there may have been a few criminal prosecutions where someone who was HIV-positive slept with multiple people without informing them first, though I don't know what the exact charges would have been. Not that this train of thought has much relevance to the topic at hand.

Top Gun wrote:Or to put it another way, you'll conveniently ignore any and all evidence which contradicts your already-established worldview, so there's no real point in anyone trying to convince you otherwise.

That's the closet, TG. The exit is over there *points*.

Jeff250 wrote:The government has the right to restrict your behavior if you're violating someone else's rights. Just by having sex with another consenting adult, you're not violating anyone's rights. If you're engaging in incest, you're violating the rights of your future children. If you're having sex with a minor, since the minor cannot legally consent, you're automatically violating the minor's rights (the argument for sex with animals is analogous).

Hmmm. That sounds a little forced to me. I'll have to think about it. You wouldn't happen to know of any evidence for this line of thinking being the basis for anti-incest laws, would you? Maybe I'll look into some state laws and see what I find.

I don't. But you asked me where does government get the right to outlaw incest, not how have they historically (and perhaps erroneously) justified it.

Sergeant Thorne wrote:

Top Gun wrote:Or to put it another way, you'll conveniently ignore any and all evidence which contradicts your already-established worldview, so there's no real point in anyone trying to convince you otherwise.

That's the closet, TG. The exit is over there *points*.

Guess that's the closest you'll come to a cogent response, huh?

Jeff250 wrote:

Sergeant Thorne wrote:So the unanswered question, put more pointedly, is why does society have the right to impose restriction on certain behaviors, and the question that naturally follows in this case would be why does it not have the right to restrict sodomy if it may restrict other aberrant behavior. This is bearing in mind that the relatively recent campaign to characterize homosexuality as a natural and even perfectly healthy part of humanity or nature, present as such throughout history, is as contrived as it is subjective.

The government has the right to restrict your behavior if you're violating someone else's rights. Just by having sex with another consenting adult, you're not violating anyone's rights. If you're engaging in incest, you're violating the rights of your future children. If you're having sex with a minor, since the minor cannot legally consent, you're automatically violating the minor's rights (the argument for sex with animals is analogous).

What if those having incestuous sex have been or are sterile? Seems to me then your argument loses merit

CUDA wrote:...
What if those having incestuous sex have been or are sterile? Seems to me then your argument loses merit

Or maybe it would be the law that loses its merit at that point.

I suppose the law could argue the restriction still applies because there is always a chance a pregnancy could result.
Or maybe acting out that which is usually illegal is enough since it is considered to be "selling illegal drugs" even if you put baking soda in a baggie and offer it as drugs...

How about two consenting adult brothers or two adult sisters engaging in gay sex? Can they avoid the incest component and merely be involved in sodomy?
I guess I'd have to say yes.

CUDA wrote:What if those having incestuous sex have been or are sterile? Seems to me then your argument loses merit

Good Point

It was absolutely cogent, TG, if a little cryptic and comic. The implication was that you are dismissing the challenge and leaving the discussion improperly without answering it. You chose to insult my character, and so did not use the proper exit. I'm sure you don't think it's worth your time, but you went a little too far.

CUDA wrote:What if those having incestuous sex have been or are sterile? Seems to me then your argument loses merit

I think--probably more-so in the past--that sterility is and should be considered the exception. In your scenario, CUDA, I'd say the problem becomes one of fornication, morally. Those two, together with usual close-knit structure of a family (which makes it improper, in my mind, apart from considerations of incest), are the only reasons not to have sex with a close relation. Otherwise what's the difference?

Sergeant Thorne wrote: In your scenario, CUDA, I'd say the problem becomes one of fornication, morally. Those two, together with usual close-knit structure of a family (which makes it improper, in my mind, apart from considerations of incest), are the only reasons not to have sex with a close relation. Otherwise what's the difference?

but this debate isn't about the morality of the argument, it's about the legality of it.

CUDA wrote:What if those having incestuous sex have been or are sterile? Seems to me then your argument loses merit

I can't think of any legal reason to stop them from getting their freak on. Such a law may be difficult to implement though, especially since sterility is rarely a 0 or 1 thing and can be more of a probabilities game. Would, e.g., a vasectomy be "good enough"? But as Will pointed out, in the case of two brothers, I can't think of any legal reason to stop them.

Jeff250 wrote:

CUDA wrote:What if those having incestuous sex have been or are sterile? Seems to me then your argument loses merit

I can't think of any legal reason to stop them from getting their freak on. Such a law may be difficult to implement though, especially since sterility is rarely a 0 or 1 thing and can be more of a probabilities game. Would, e.g., a vasectomy be "good enough"? But as Will pointed out, in the case of two brothers, I can't think of any legal reason to stop them.

outside of the potential psychological problems that it could cause.

CUDA wrote:but this debate isn't about the morality of the argument, it's about the legality of it.

My mistake. You're right.

Sergeant Thorne wrote:It was absolutely cogent, TG, if a little cryptic and comic. The implication was that you are dismissing the challenge and leaving the discussion improperly without answering it. You chose to insult my character, and so did not use the proper exit. I'm sure you don't think it's worth your time, but you went a little too far.

I didn't go too far; I observed your past patterns of behavior and responded accordingly. We've done this same exact dance at least once in the past, and you've been provided reams of evidence at those times, yet you still keep trying to insinuate the same exact points. If it didn't work in the past, why should I waste my time repeating myself now?

Spidey wrote:And what if you are engaging in something that can cause or spread a disease, can society have something to say about that?

Just answer in the general sense.

You might as well outlaw all sex. Even doing what comes naturally just to procreate can spread all sorts of deadly diseases. I do believe that they're called STD'S, some of which can kill.

By the way, pedophilia can be outlawed because children have no consent in the eyes of the law.

As you go through life, TG, not everyone is going to fit into your neat little ★■◆●ing boxes, and you may mature to the point where you realize that communication and understanding is actually a very complex thing. My not accepting your arguments in the past does not give you cause to claim that I'm dishonest and not worth anyone's time (bonus points for that one) debating. The truth is you don't like me, and that's why you wouldn't take the time, because otherwise the challenge is an opportunity to prove what you believe to be accurate when in the past you have been met with frustration.

Ha, I'm the one that's immature. That's rich.

Okay, let's play it this way. Can you provide an actual legal justification, i.e. not something based on a passage from Leviticus, that states why same-sex couples should not be extended marriage benefits? Keep in mind while you do so the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment, probably one of the single-most important statements in the entire Constitution, and how it applies to the rights of individual citizens. Do you feel that outlawing same-sex marriage passes the strict scrutiny test? What "compelling government interest" is being served by it?

Too easy…marriage is not a government institution, the government only gives any given marriage legal status or not.

If the government is granting rights to one group, then it is also compelled to give those rights to all groups, but that doesn’t mean giving the right to marry, only finding a way to provide those rights.

Marriage as an institution is owned by the society at large, and as such still has the right to make the rules. When society is ready for gay marriage…there will be gay marriage…it’s not up to the government to force anything on society, in a case like this.

Jeff250 wrote:If you're having sex with a minor, since the minor cannot legally consent, you're automatically violating the minor's rights (the argument for sex with animals is analogous).

Hah, but you can strap a thousand pounds on the back of an animal, lead it around in the blazing heat for days without water…but you can’t have sex with it because it can’t give consent…that’s rich.

I’m almost certain the taboo against bestiality has nothing to do with consent, and pretty much to do with being freaky anti-nature.

And it sounds kind of funny coming from someone that doesn’t even believe that animals know they exist.

Top Gun wrote:Ha, I'm the one that's immature. That's rich.

That's kind of an immature statement right there. But you're the one who said "immature". I never said you were immature. Switching statements like that around may work mathematically, but it does not lend itself to understanding the point being made. Calling someone "immature" usually refers more to their maturity level in comparison with their peers. The kind of maturity that I'm talking about is in my experience uncommon--to understand, from experience, the nuances and limitations of communication common to humanity. "Understanding" would probably be a better word, but it is without a doubt the result of maturity.

Top Gun wrote:Okay, let's play it this way. Can you provide an actual legal justification, i.e. not something based on a passage from Leviticus, that states why same-sex couples should not be extended marriage benefits? Keep in mind while you do so the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment, probably one of the single-most important statements in the entire Constitution, and how it applies to the rights of individual citizens. Do you feel that outlawing same-sex marriage passes the strict scrutiny test? What "compelling government interest" is being served by it?

I think you need to re-read my challenge.

Sergeant Thorne wrote:This is bearing in mind that the relatively recent campaign to characterize homosexuality as a natural and even perfectly healthy part of humanity or nature, present as such throughout history, is as contrived as it is subjective.

vision wrote:Bigot. Learn your facts.

Sergeant Thorne wrote:I am not a bigot, and I dare say none of the facts you could bring to the table would actually be found to dispute my statement. That will be my second challenge in this thread.

Spidey wrote:Too easy…marriage is not a government institution, the government only gives any given marriage legal status or not.

If the government is granting rights to one group, then it is also compelled to give those rights to all groups, but that doesn’t mean giving the right to marry, only finding a way to provide those rights.

Marriage as an institution is owned by the society at large, and as such still has the right to make the rules. When society is ready for gay marriage…there will be gay marriage…it’s not up to the government to force anything on society, in a case like this.

The fact that the government gives legal status to marriages means that it's precisely a government institution, at least in the context of this discussion. The concept of marriage has societal and religious aspects to it as well, depending on the culture and time-frame in question, but those are irrelevant when considering its purely-legal benefits. At the present time, there's a group of people that is unable to receive said benefits in most states due to their choice of partners, so I would argue that the 14th Amendment paints a clear picture of what should be done to rectify this.

And yes, it's completely up to the government to force changes on society if said changes correct issues of discrimination...hell, one of the primary functions of any government is protecting the rights of its citizenry. Yesterday was the 45th anniversary of the death of a man who spent his life fighting against this same sort of institutionalized discrimination; it's not exactly something that's very far in our own pasts.

I see things a little differently, but since my DBB noobness has passed, I rarely get too heavily involved in discussions anymore. I will only say this, I see no reason why anyone should not be given full rights under the law, no matter what their sexual preference is, UNLESS, there is a God that holds us accountable, individually and collectively. If there is no God, then why not, but if there is, why provoke Him to anger. People are going to do and be whatever they want to be, but it's when society as a whole casts off restraint that invites danger. Just my 2 cents.

Top Gun wrote: The fact that the government gives legal status to marriages means that it's precisely a government institution, at least in the context of this discussion.

The government gives legal status to my business…does that also mean that my business is a government institution?

The context of this discussion is not relevant.

The Government issue birth certificates, does that mean the Government should have the right to tell parents that they can or cannot have children?

Sergeant Thorne wrote:

Top Gun wrote:Ha, I'm the one that's immature. That's rich.

That's kind of an immature statement right there. But you're the one who said "immature". I never said you were immature. Switching statements like that around may work mathematically, but it does not lend itself to understanding the point being made. Calling someone "immature" usually refers more to their maturity level in comparison with their peers. The kind of maturity that I'm talking about is in my experience uncommon--to understand, from experience, the nuances and limitations of communication common to humanity. "Understanding" would probably be a better word, but it is without a doubt the result of maturity.

This is all a rather-verbose way of saying that you will continue to obfuscate this issue as you see fit, and that you are apparently the sole determinant of what constitutes effective communication. I have no interest in dancing about in linguistic circles of this form. Instead, I'll continue to note that you have yet to provide any sort of well-reasoned defense of your own views, either here or in prior threads on this topic, so there's not really anything on which to engage with you in the first place.

Top Gun wrote:I think you need to re-read my challenge.

I did, and your "challenge" is meaningless. If we are discussing the rights of individuals in a legal context, then what I posted about the 14th Amendment and what it states about said rights is really the only relevant question here. If there are rights being denied, and there is no compelling state interest in doing so via the strict scrutiny test, then the 14th must by definition be applied, and the statutes inhibiting those rights must be struck down. Any moral objections you have to this topic don't matter one jot, because fortunately enough, in this country, a single individual's personal beliefs don't get to infringe upon the rights of the populace.

As far as the text of your challenge itself goes, as I said before, we've already been over why your statement is demonstrably false. Go look at those past discussions if you want a refresher course as to why.

What is this, absurd straw men day?

Spidey wrote:

Top Gun wrote: The fact that the government gives legal status to marriages means that it's precisely a government institution, at least in the context of this discussion.

The government gives legal status to my business…does that also mean that my business is a government institution?

The context of this discussion is not relevant.

In the sense that your business is sanctioned by government, then yes, it is; if your business involved actions contrary to the law, then it would not be allowed to continue. It is not run by the government, but it is certainly approved by it in that sense. And if the context of our discussion isn't relevant, then why the hell are we having a discussion in the first place?

CUDA wrote:The Government issue birth certificates, does that mean the Government should have the right to tell parents that they can or cannot have children?

Last time I checked, one doesn't need a birth certificate to be born (though it may be required for certain benefits throughout life), but one needs a marriage certificate to be married. I really should not have to spell out such a basic difference.

You’re also required to obey the law, so I guess that makes you a government institution.

Spidey wrote:Hah, but you can strap a thousand pounds on the back of an animal, lead it around in the blazing heat for days without water…but you can’t have sex with it because it can’t give consent…that’s rich.

I’m almost certain the taboo against bestiality has nothing to do with consent, and pretty much to do with being freaky anti-nature.

I was addressing ST's question of where the government gets the right to outlaw bestiality, not what (sometimes dubious) motivations people may have historically had for outlawing it.

I don't know that I would use words like consent or rights to describe the situation with animals, but even though you can strap a thousand pounds on the back of an animal, animal abuse exists as a phenomenon, and bestiality is animal abuse, and even if you don't want to say that animal abuse is violating an animal's rights, you're still violating something analogous enough.

Spidey wrote:You’re also required to obey the law, so I guess that makes you a government institution.

You really don't know how to follow a coherent line of discussion, do you?

Top Gun wrote:This is all a rather-verbose way of saying that you will continue to obfuscate this issue as you see fit, and that you are apparently the sole determinant of what constitutes effective communication. I have no interest in dancing about in linguistic circles of this form.

These verbose replies only occur when you try to make out like I'm saying something that I'm not. You're the one obfuscating. Just STFU already. I get it. I'm wrong, and it's not worth your time. Go do something that doesn't bring our your inner passive-aggressive ★■◆● already. Gee whiz.

Top Gun wrote:As far as the text of your challenge itself goes, as I said before, we've already been over why your statement is demonstrably false. Go look at those past discussions if you want a refresher course as to why.

Top Gun, you're an ass while I'm awesome and I want you to go hunt through past discussions for a refresher course as to why.

Top Gun wrote:

Spidey wrote:You’re also required to obey the law, so I guess that makes you a government institution.

You really don't know how to follow a coherent line of discussion, do you?

You just bring out the best in people.

Foil make sure you edit ST's comments please. He called someone an ass and that's against your rulez.

Sergeant Thorne wrote:

Top Gun wrote:This is all a rather-verbose way of saying that you will continue to obfuscate this issue as you see fit, and that you are apparently the sole determinant of what constitutes effective communication. I have no interest in dancing about in linguistic circles of this form.

These verbose replies only occur when you try to make out like I'm saying something that I'm not. You're the one obfuscating. Just STFU already. I get it. I'm wrong, and it's not worth your time. Go do something that doesn't bring our your inner passive-aggressive ★■◆● already. Gee whiz.

You're not even saying anything clearly...all you're doing is making these vague drive-by statements that hint at what you believe while being so nebulous that there's nothing to engage you with. I've already asked you twice about the legal side of this issue, yet you haven't said a word in response. If you actually want to make a real argument out of this, then just nut up and do it already. Maybe if you just lay it out there, then I wouldn't have to attempt to make out what I think you're saying.

CobGobbler wrote:Foil make sure you edit ST's comments please. He called someone an ass and that's against your rulez.

It's all about the smiley's Cob, you no-good, lily-livered, washed-up, worn-down, obscurely-named, son of a... ! (unofficially it must be one smiley per name, and one to every 2 scathing adjectives, rounding up for odd counts)

Actually, I was just saying he was an ass and I was awesome to make a point. Claiming a victory pending your opponent filing through enough old material to confirm it is no way to further a discussion. It's an excellent way to shut one down if your opponent is willing to lend enough credibility to the proposed quest to leave off until they get around to doing it (likely never).

To Top Gun, I made a clear statement about what I believe. Come to find out you have been addressing my first challenge, as a result of taking issue with my second (very confusing), and my one attempt to correct that met with no success. Also there is a difference between clarification and vilification/accusation, and yours was the later. So if we're officially addressing my first challenge again... I'll have to read back. More on that later.

I've removed where this thread went (even further) south.

We discuss a lot of controversial things in the E&C, and sometimes things get heated. Posters here (myself included) can be snarky, sarcastic, or rude, and so we allow a certain amount of latitude when it comes to discussing controversial things. However, when you cross a certain line, then we have to come in and take action. I think most people seem to understand where this line exists. We don't want to moderate--we just want to enjoy the evening like you do.

Leave for a weekend, and I come back to this...

Thanks, Jeff.