Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post

Scipio · 01-20-2004, 11:25 PM

Point 4 doesn't follow logically from the others. It kind of stands on its own. When marriage is predicated on a religion, and you have a government that can't discriminate among religions, the government should therefore legally recognize marriages performed in a church between two people of the same sex.

As an aside, I don't think that gay people will desanctify marriage. Straight people screw it up enough on their own, and don't need any help.

As for my exceptions (and note that I said no regulation of CONSENSUAL behavior, and all the exceptions are arguably not consensual):

a. The sexual conduct of minors (however it is defined).

In lots of other areas, we restrict the behavior of minors for various reasons, usually for their own protection. Minors are at a different level of development than adults (or people who are 16 or whatever), and the state is in the right when it protects minors from sexual activity. The reasoning is actually very similar to the following point, and this one probably fits under it.

b. The determination of what consent really is. (For example, states of coercion, intoxication, etc.)

I have little interest in making sex into something sacred, religious, or inviolable, however, people have certain rights to their own bodies that are recognized not only in the realm of sexual activity, but in daily life as well. For example, touching someone without their consent can be considered battery.

A person can lack the mental capacity to consent to having sex with someone. Things like mental retardation, age, chemicals, or physical intimidation count, and the state has a responsibility to identify them.

There are probably other justifiable exceptions that I'm leaving out, but here is one that doesn't work:

The only permissible sexual activity is vaginal intercourse between a man and a woman for the purposes of reproduction. (For whatever reason, be it God, Nature, whatever.)

It stretches the proper role of government to imagine that we ought to have cops running around keeping wives from giving BJs to their husbands (or whatever). Bear in mind here that I'm not talking about what's "morally" right and wrong sexually, but rather about what society and its government ought to allow. Under most circumstances, the government should err on the side of individual freedom when it comes to actions that don't harm anyone.

(hawkman2337 - If we're just going to base policy on the beliefs of what most of "christian" America would want, why not just set up a theocracy? Let the majority rule. It works in Iran, right?)

Sorry for the sarcasm, but I don't take arguments from individual morality and religion seriously. I don't take arguments that begin with "most Americans are Christians" at all.

01-20-2004, 11:25 PM	#32 (permalink)
Scipio Mencken Location: College	Point 4 doesn't follow logically from the others. It kind of stands on its own. When marriage is predicated on a religion, and you have a government that can't discriminate among religions, the government should therefore legally recognize marriages performed in a church between two people of the same sex. As an aside, I don't think that gay people will desanctify marriage. Straight people screw it up enough on their own, and don't need any help. As for my exceptions (and note that I said no regulation of CONSENSUAL behavior, and all the exceptions are arguably not consensual): a. The sexual conduct of minors (however it is defined). In lots of other areas, we restrict the behavior of minors for various reasons, usually for their own protection. Minors are at a different level of development than adults (or people who are 16 or whatever), and the state is in the right when it protects minors from sexual activity. The reasoning is actually very similar to the following point, and this one probably fits under it. b. The determination of what consent really is. (For example, states of coercion, intoxication, etc.) I have little interest in making sex into something sacred, religious, or inviolable, however, people have certain rights to their own bodies that are recognized not only in the realm of sexual activity, but in daily life as well. For example, touching someone without their consent can be considered battery. A person can lack the mental capacity to consent to having sex with someone. Things like mental retardation, age, chemicals, or physical intimidation count, and the state has a responsibility to identify them. There are probably other justifiable exceptions that I'm leaving out, but here is one that doesn't work: The only permissible sexual activity is vaginal intercourse between a man and a woman for the purposes of reproduction. (For whatever reason, be it God, Nature, whatever.) It stretches the proper role of government to imagine that we ought to have cops running around keeping wives from giving BJs to their husbands (or whatever). Bear in mind here that I'm not talking about what's "morally" right and wrong sexually, but rather about what society and its government ought to allow. Under most circumstances, the government should err on the side of individual freedom when it comes to actions that don't harm anyone. (hawkman2337 - If we're just going to base policy on the beliefs of what most of "christian" America would want, why not just set up a theocracy? Let the majority rule. It works in Iran, right?) Sorry for the sarcasm, but I don't take arguments from individual morality and religion seriously. I don't take arguments that begin with "most Americans are Christians" at all. __________________ "Erections lasting more than 4 hours, though rare, require immediate medical attention."