Quote:
Originally posted by 4thTimeLucky
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)
|
Women do not have prostate glands, men do; ergo male/male anal sex is natural, male/female is not
(I'm just being flippant)
Quote:
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?
|
Very good point. Hmm... It's a bit of a special case, since there is a potential suggestion of undue influence before consent can be given (particularly in the parent/child scenario).
Taking aside the very strong genetic reasons for not permitting such unions to produce children, it's hard to reject such things.
I have to say I can't think of a reason why not, so I will say yes to permitting such unions.
However, there is a requirement that no issue come of such marriages.
I think I should point out once again that reason is not the basis simplicitor for my opinions. I also take into account the thoughts of the majority. (what a buy out! - I hear you say)
In this case, I have no personal opinion on the matter, and so I will permit societal standards to form my thoughts and oppose legal recognition of that form of union.
But it is important to note that we have strayed significantly from the point. The question is legal recognition of relationships (marriages) of homosexuals. This practice is (in Europe for the most part anyway) not itself illegal. Incest, Paedophilia and Bestiality are illegal in of themselves.
So, the problem becomes, *if* incest were legal, should we permit marriages of incestuous couples? I guess so, but that requires many intermediate steps.
Have I dodged the question? I'm not sure.