>You're right, it's not a slippery slope. It's a gate we've opened and said that whatever your sexual compulsion is, no one else has a right to tell you that it's wrong. That is a very dangerous gate to open and you don't get to close it after gay "marriage" is approved - others will want the freedom as well.
Call it what you will, a gate or a slope: we are describing the same phenomenon: "Things will get worse now that we have allowed this one thing." Answer me this: why is it [a] dangerous [gate] for two people of the same sex to commit to one another (mainly financially) under the eyes of the government? "Others" might want the freedom, but social mores at large will dictate what becomes legal practice and what doesn't. (P.S.: You've yet to explicitly define "others". What exactly do you have in mind?) As I've stated above, the ability to consent is what separates out what should remain illegal and what should not remain illegal.
>And to play devil's advocate (and that language is intentional) who are you to say that a child or an animal can't consent to a sexual relationship or marriage with another child or an adult? How closed-minded of you.
Bitter and unfortunate irony aside, "consent" isn't some ill-defined term that I'm pulling out of left field. College campuses across the United States are developing programs for 18-year old freshmen so that they understand what consent entails, so as to encourage the formation of psychologically, socially and physically healthy (sexual) relationships. For the most part, these programs are geared towards alcohol awareness and the new found freedom of dorm life, but the concepts remain the same. Can a child fully understand the implications of "touch me here"? Can an animal? Can a person blowing a 0.30 BAC? Also, I am not deciding that a child can't consent, I am merely describing social issues that are studied by people who know more than I do.
> We are already giving children under 18 the right to access birth control (without their parent's consent) and the freedom to decide that they are not the gender that they were "assigned" - so why can't they decide who to "love"?
Oh the humanity! Birth control for post-pubescent girls! Birth control and gender assignment are issues of a different nature than gay marriage or pedophilia. Firstly, birth control has medically useful applications outside of pregnancy prevention. Regardless, both birth control and gender assignment are things that only impact the "self", so the comparison falls flat. What does birth control have to do with harm or damage to anyone else? What can gender reassignment do to harm anyone besides the individual in question? It is a well-known phenomenon that victims of child abuse and sexual abuse have issues that last into adulthood. [1] Neither birth control nor gender reassignment surgery promote poor mental or physical health.
> And who are you to say an animal doesn't have the same rights, feelings, and ability to give consent as a human? I think PETA and many others would actively disagree.
I don't have a quote from PETA (I will leave it up to you to flesh out that argument, and find evidence that they actively support sexual relations between man and animal.), but I have found a quote from another ethical promotion society. "As animals do not have the same capacity for thinking as humans, they are unable to give full consent. The HSUS takes the position that all sexual activity between humans and animals is abusive, whether it involves physical injury or not." [2]
> If you pay attention, I haven't mentioned religion. What I've mentioned is the reasoning and appeal you gave for allowing what is "natural". Who decides what is "natural" and acceptable for human beings? The animal kingdom? You personally? These are not troll questions, these are important questions and it matters gravely how we answer them.
Whether or not you've explicitly mentioned religion, reading between the lines of your post suggests that your version of "natural" is based on what comes from the Abrahamic religions. What is "artificial" about letting people feel more comfortable in their body? (Gender reassignment) My personal definition of "right" (and to a lesser extent, "natural") revolves around minimizing harm (physical, emotional, social) done to others. Without getting into an argument about natural rights and the purpose of government... The government disallowing two consenting adults of the same gender from sharing certain financial rights promotes undue harm and hardship. Why should they suffer because they are attracted to the same gender rather than the other? Conversely, the government disallowing an adult from having a sexual relationship with a minor prevents undue harm to a defenseless child.
I don't get to decide what is ultimately right, so the above postulation is just one of many that gets thrown in to the pot of "democracy". Independent of who gets to decide for society, what matters in this forum is strength of argument and logic. Frankly, you've haven't made an argument (that I can see) as to why allowing gay marriage will inevitably lead to the legalization of pedophilia/bestiality/taboo de jour. With that, I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt in taking your implication at face value: that gay marriage, in and of itself isn't bad, but since gay marriage might lead to "bad" things, it becomes a "bad" thing too. (Which I believe is specious at best.)
>Neither birth control nor gender reassignment surgery promote poor mental or physical health.
I'd argue this study [0] shows that gender reassignment surgeries increase risk of suicide compared to transexuals pre-surgery with a strong confidence rate. Whether this is due to the surgery or due to increased harassment for their transexuality post-surgery is to be debated (doesn't seem to be mentioned)
There are further studies that show that reassignment does not typically improve one's self-image or happiness. In fact, the countless amount of data has led me to not go through with GR as it seems both expensive and studies show it doesn't really help one become happier with themselves: it can make it worse.
Note that the study was conducted in Sweden - the social stigma is far less than here in America.
> I am not deciding that a child can't consent, I am merely describing social issues that are studied by people who know more than I do.
So the people "who know more than you do" get to decide if a child can consent to have sex with an adult? And what if they change their mind, does that then make it acceptable and healthy?
My point is that when we say that there is no objective standard of right and wrong then we don't get to arbitrarily stop the sexual "civil rights" train after we get what we individually want or what we find acceptable.
There are plenty more people who have not yet been granted the freedom to express their desires by marrying the individual(s) they "love". And who are you to say that their desires aren't valid and healthy? And by what standard?
I don't think the issues are that closely related.
You don't have to be married to have sex, and practicing pedophilia is already illegal.
Pedophilia is categorically different from homosexuality. Children don't generally seek out sexual relationships with adults, making it intrinsically one-sided, and it involves other inherent asymmetries of experience and personal liberty. It's illegal for much the same reason that children can't sign legally binding contracts with adults. (Which also, by the way, makes pedo-marriages illegal as marriage is a contract.)
The zoophilia thing is kind of a red herring for its sheer bizarreness. I mean it does exist, but so do people want to have sex with cheese. Do we deny rights to a huge number of voluntary loving relationships because of bizarre edge cases that occur in minute fractions of the population?
Slippery slope arguments are not always invalid, but they only apply when the slope is actually slippery.
This isn't "moral anarchy." It's a debate between two theories of morality: religious-traditionalist vs. utilitarian-humanist. Both are theories in that they take coherent positions. Neither position is anarchy. If you want to debate, why not debate the real metaphysical and epistemological issues instead of these surface proxy ones?
Now you seem to be arguing about the integrity of the entire fields of psychology and sociology? When I say those "who know more than I do," I am simply deferring to scientists that have studied observable phenomenon and concluded certain things. Science is an ever-evolving field: if scientific consensus was reached that gay marriages, say, encouraged criminal behavior as an adult, then I would reconsider my beliefs.
You are right that we don't get to stop the "civil rights train" (S.B.: what a horrible phrase) when one of us individually gets what we want, but we also don't get to stop the "science train" from telling us cold hard facts about life. (Get over it: gay people can love and raise kids just as well as a heterosexual couple. [1])
What "plenty more people" do you have in mind? Then, tell me how those cases aren't covered by my discussion of consent and we might get somewhere. Those "other people's" freedom to express their desires ends where the harm of another begins.
> Now you seem to be arguing about the integrity of the entire fields of psychology and sociology?
Yes, I am. Because opinions change, scientific or otherwise. Recently opinions changed from calling homosexual marriage an absurdity to a civil right. They also changed from saying that a parent should teach their child about what it means to be male or female into saying that a child can choose his own gender.
> What "plenty more people" do you have in mind? ... tell me how those cases aren't covered by my discussion of consent and we might get somewhere.
Polygamy/Polyandry:
Three consenting adults all love each other and are currently being denied the right to be married. Why should they be deprived of this "basic civil right"?
And if a person loves 20 other people and wants to marry them, then why should they be deprived? Because you don't personally feel that way? Because it's too much paperwork?
Pedophillia:
We are now told that young children have enough understanding and mental faculty to decide that they should be assigned to a different gender and that they should have the ability to control their own sexuality by obtaining birth control with only their individual consent (not their parent's).
If we have come to say that a child can consent and be in control of their own sexuality, then how can we say who they are allowed to have sex with or marry? And by what standard?
If a child is convinced that they are in a mutually consensual, loving relationship with an adult, what right do we have to violate that child's consent?
Zoophillia:
PETA has already shamefully attempted to exploit the pain and persecution of Black Americans (just as the homosexual movement has done) in order to try and say that animal freedom and rights are equivalent to human rights.[1] If animals can feel and think and be happy and give signs of cooperation and acceptance, then who are we to deny their freedom? If an animal wants to marry a human, then how can we deny the two individuals this basic right?
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8PZBV8O5pfI
And feel free to add on any other combination that an individual decides is their civil right. Because as long as it doesn't harm anyone else, who are we to stand in the way of love? Right?
> Recently opinions changed from calling homosexual marriage an absurdity to a civil right. They also changed from saying that a parent should teach their child about what it means to be male or female into saying that a child can choose his own gender.
You fail to make a convincing argument why this is a bad thing and not a good thing. As you've written it, it's descriptive and not prescriptive. The way I see it, these are great things. Tell me why they are bad things.
> Polygamy/Polyandry: Three consenting adults all love each other and are currently being denied the right to be married. Why should they be deprived of this "basic civil right"
You're trying to paint this argument as a spectrum, and attempting to make it seem like "gay marriage" is violet and "polygamy" is indigo. Polygamy has material differences from gay marriage between two adults, that the government will likely not budge on: namely, two vs. multiple. I don't personally care if twenty people get married to or have sex with one another, and many cultures don't care either. Yet again, my opinion is only one in the melting pot. If it's legalized, what's the harm? You've yet to successfully opine as to what harm will come about if polygamy/polyandry is legalized.
> Pedophillia: We are now told that young children have enough understanding and mental faculty to decide that they should be assigned to a different gender and that they should have the ability to control their own sexuality by obtaining birth control with only their individual consent (not their parent's).
Yet again, you're ignoring the point that deciding what one's own gender identity is, is completely distinct from being sexually involved with an adult third party. This is a clear line, and is well defined legally. Consent isn't the slippery slope that you're making it out to be. A child can't create legally binding contracts in the eyes of the US government. What obligation (and to whom) is engendered by deciding that one wants to switch genders? The standard describing who a child can have sex with is based on existing statute, that modern/current science has revealed to be a pretty good way to continue doing things. That is, "don't let an adult have sex with kids below (age of consent)." The notion of an age of consent is a hot topic for a good reason: age is truly but a number, but science and psychology suggest that very young children shouldn't have sex with people over a decade older than them.
> Zoophillia: PETA has already shamefully attempted to exploit the pain and persecution of Black Americans (just as the homosexual movement has done) in order to try and say that animal freedom and rights are equivalent to human rights.[1] If animals can feel and think and be happy and give signs of cooperation and acceptance, then who are we to deny their freedom? If an animal wants to marry a human, then how can we deny the two individuals this basic right? [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8PZBV8O5pfI
How has the "homosexual movement" exploited the pain of Black Americans? I wouldn't call it exploitation, I'd call it liberation. Using your logic, we shouldn't have freed slaves either, because the "gays" will soon be able to marry, right?
PETA making the argument that animals are like slaves is a silly one. People with darker skin tone are still people. Animals are not people. People who like members of the same sex are still people. This is simple logic. Genetic makeup is the criteria here, much like age and number are the significant criteria for your previous two examples.
> And feel free to add on any other combination that an individual decides is their civil right. Because as long as it doesn't harm anyone else, who are we to stand in the way of love? Right?
Your bitterness is absurd. Polygamy/polyandry may or may not harm others. Pedophilia and zoophilia do harm others who don't have a voice, hence the clear divide between those two and a type of legal relationship between consenting adults. Have a good day... my patience for ignorance is wearing thin so my input ends here. Thanks for the semi-sincere arguments.
Call it what you will, a gate or a slope: we are describing the same phenomenon: "Things will get worse now that we have allowed this one thing." Answer me this: why is it [a] dangerous [gate] for two people of the same sex to commit to one another (mainly financially) under the eyes of the government? "Others" might want the freedom, but social mores at large will dictate what becomes legal practice and what doesn't. (P.S.: You've yet to explicitly define "others". What exactly do you have in mind?) As I've stated above, the ability to consent is what separates out what should remain illegal and what should not remain illegal.
>And to play devil's advocate (and that language is intentional) who are you to say that a child or an animal can't consent to a sexual relationship or marriage with another child or an adult? How closed-minded of you.
Bitter and unfortunate irony aside, "consent" isn't some ill-defined term that I'm pulling out of left field. College campuses across the United States are developing programs for 18-year old freshmen so that they understand what consent entails, so as to encourage the formation of psychologically, socially and physically healthy (sexual) relationships. For the most part, these programs are geared towards alcohol awareness and the new found freedom of dorm life, but the concepts remain the same. Can a child fully understand the implications of "touch me here"? Can an animal? Can a person blowing a 0.30 BAC? Also, I am not deciding that a child can't consent, I am merely describing social issues that are studied by people who know more than I do.
> We are already giving children under 18 the right to access birth control (without their parent's consent) and the freedom to decide that they are not the gender that they were "assigned" - so why can't they decide who to "love"?
Oh the humanity! Birth control for post-pubescent girls! Birth control and gender assignment are issues of a different nature than gay marriage or pedophilia. Firstly, birth control has medically useful applications outside of pregnancy prevention. Regardless, both birth control and gender assignment are things that only impact the "self", so the comparison falls flat. What does birth control have to do with harm or damage to anyone else? What can gender reassignment do to harm anyone besides the individual in question? It is a well-known phenomenon that victims of child abuse and sexual abuse have issues that last into adulthood. [1] Neither birth control nor gender reassignment surgery promote poor mental or physical health.
> And who are you to say an animal doesn't have the same rights, feelings, and ability to give consent as a human? I think PETA and many others would actively disagree.
I don't have a quote from PETA (I will leave it up to you to flesh out that argument, and find evidence that they actively support sexual relations between man and animal.), but I have found a quote from another ethical promotion society. "As animals do not have the same capacity for thinking as humans, they are unable to give full consent. The HSUS takes the position that all sexual activity between humans and animals is abusive, whether it involves physical injury or not." [2]
> If you pay attention, I haven't mentioned religion. What I've mentioned is the reasoning and appeal you gave for allowing what is "natural". Who decides what is "natural" and acceptable for human beings? The animal kingdom? You personally? These are not troll questions, these are important questions and it matters gravely how we answer them.
Whether or not you've explicitly mentioned religion, reading between the lines of your post suggests that your version of "natural" is based on what comes from the Abrahamic religions. What is "artificial" about letting people feel more comfortable in their body? (Gender reassignment) My personal definition of "right" (and to a lesser extent, "natural") revolves around minimizing harm (physical, emotional, social) done to others. Without getting into an argument about natural rights and the purpose of government... The government disallowing two consenting adults of the same gender from sharing certain financial rights promotes undue harm and hardship. Why should they suffer because they are attracted to the same gender rather than the other? Conversely, the government disallowing an adult from having a sexual relationship with a minor prevents undue harm to a defenseless child.
I don't get to decide what is ultimately right, so the above postulation is just one of many that gets thrown in to the pot of "democracy". Independent of who gets to decide for society, what matters in this forum is strength of argument and logic. Frankly, you've haven't made an argument (that I can see) as to why allowing gay marriage will inevitably lead to the legalization of pedophilia/bestiality/taboo de jour. With that, I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt in taking your implication at face value: that gay marriage, in and of itself isn't bad, but since gay marriage might lead to "bad" things, it becomes a "bad" thing too. (Which I believe is specious at best.)
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_abuse#Psychological [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoophilia#Arguments_against_zo...