*I would just like to make it clear that I am acting as devil's advocate here, because the anti-gay-marriage arguments that are being posted seem to revolve around the blunt claim "its against nature" and the fact that anuses are not designed to receive penises. I find this particularly weak (especially given the fact that nature seems to have created the male body such that anal sex is peleasurable to it, whereas women - due to the position of the prostate I think - do not find it as pleasurable) and am trying to come up with some stronger arguments, because I think everyone has the right to a good defence*
That being said,
Quote:
Originally posted by manalone
Indeed. I suppose it comes down to consent. If I may draw your argument about paedophilia out, animals are similarly incapable of granting consent. It therefore becomes the following triad:
1) sodomy (consent required)
2) bestiality (no consent possible)
3) paedophilia (no consent possible)
On that basis I draw from the bible, based on other sexual practices which have become more acceptable since the writing of the document (ie oral sex and masturbation and most importantly adultery), that sexual morality has been reduced primarily to an issue of consent in modern times.
|
I was stupid.
I missed the fourth big biblical ban on sex: Incest.
Incestuous marriage is still illegal today.
So we have....
1) sodomy (consentual)
2) incest (consentual)
3) rape (non-consentual)
4) bestiality (non-consentual)
5) paedophilia (non-consentual)
So
manalone and all those who are in favour of homosexual marriage. You say that the new moral guidelines about sex and marriage are draw along the lines of consent, so...
Should a brother and sister who love each other (and have no plans to have natural children - just as two men have no plans to have natural children) be allowed to marry?
Should a mother and son (who is smart, of legal age and in romantic love) be allowed to marry?
If they should.... well all credit to you for sticking to your libertarian guns. I just hope you are genuinely comfortable with your conclusions and not just saying 'yes' because you feel you have to.
If they should not... why does the consent and freedom argument only apply to homosexuals and not members of the same family?